How long before Irish reunification?

FrancieBrady

Fionn1952 wrote: »

My birthplace, as you can well read, is one of the factors in what makes me Irish. Despite your attempts to grossly simplify that down, you MAY have noticed that there was a little dispute around that particular part of Ulster.

Someone born in the UK, to British parents, brought up with British culture....I'd call them British.

I would call them British because that is how they identify. I'd call you Irish as that is how you identify. But both of you were wholly and certainly born in Ireland.

Fionn1952

15-20 years

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Fionn1952 wrote: »

My birthplace, as you can well read, is one of the factors in what makes me Irish. Despite your attempts to grossly simplify that down, you MAY have noticed that there was a little dispute around that particular part of Ulster.

Someone born in the UK, to British parents, brought up with British culture....I'd call them British.

I would call them British because that is how they identify. I'd call you Irish as that is how you identify. But both of you were wholly and certainly born in Ireland.

Likewise (Christ, I can't believe I'm arguing on this side!) both of us were wholly and certainly born in the United Kingdom.

RobMc59

10-15 years

Fionn1952 wrote: »

"Many of us have a mixture of both at some point in our past. Which of those we identify with, which of those we are raised in culturally and which of those we choose to raise our children in are our own affair, on a personal and familial level."

Already covered in my post, Rob. Your, 'gotcha' moment falls sadly flat.

Was`nt trying to trip you up-I`m interested in this discussion and agree people can make their own mind up where they identify with.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Now it's 'dogma' to have the temerity to suggest that those born on an island are distinct in name from those born on the next island. It's just geography blanch.

Is it that you think I might be suggesting we are better than the British? I am not doing that either so relax your wee self there.

I will guarantee you this, if we had a competition asking the other people of the world what they called the people of the island of Ireland, I would win hands down.

Yes, it is dogma, sectarian racist bigoted dogma.

Get over yourself, the random irrational conclusions you draw from other people's posts only expose the shallowness of your thinking. I never said anything about one group being better than the other.

It doesn't matter what you think what people of the world would call people of the island of Ireland, it matters what the people who are born there know, and many of them know they are British. Despite your best efforts to relocate them, they are still here on this island, and you will need to learn to accept that and accept their culture. A united Ireland will not be Irish alone, it will be a combination of British and Irish, that is what you have never really understood. "Ireland for the Irish" is as racist a statement as there has been up there with the Fatherland and the Israeli homeland.

By the way, it has been my experience that most people of the world think we are British. I can't count the number of times that I have had to explain that Ireland is not British. You might need to get out more to realise that Ireland is pretty insignificant in the grand scheme of things.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Identity can be changed, either way, because it is something you choose.
Your place of birth can't

Yes, but your place of birth means nothing to your identity. If you were born on a plane above the Atlantic, does that mean you are stateless? Being born in Israel does not make you Israeli, neither does being born on this island make you Irish.

Imagine a French tourist who gives birth prematurely in Belfast and brings the baby home two days later, and the child grows up French and never leaves France. According to you, that child is Irish, which is complete rubbish.

Jump_In_Jack

10-15 years

blanch152 wrote: »

Yes, but your place of birth means nothing to your identity. If you were born on a plane above the Atlantic, does that mean you are stateless? Being born in Israel does not make you Israeli, neither does being born on this island make you Irish.

Imagine a French tourist who gives birth prematurely in Belfast and brings the baby home two days later, and the child grows up French and never leaves France. According to you, that child is Irish, which is complete rubbish.

Can you deny that that child is Irish-born?

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Yes, but your place of birth means nothing to your identity.

I never said it did.

You are so anxious to make this out as some republican plot you have tripped yourself up. The word 'Irish' scares you as much as it does some insecure unionist fulminating over a manhole with a cupla focla Gaelige on it.


Pathetic.

Jump_In_Jack

10-15 years

blanch152 wrote: »

Yes, it is dogma, sectarian racist bigoted dogma.

Get over yourself, the random irrational conclusions you draw from other people's posts only expose the shallowness of your thinking. I never said anything about one group being better than the other.

It doesn't matter what you think what people of the world would call people of the island of Ireland, it matters what the people who are born there know, and many of them know they are British. Despite your best efforts to relocate them, they are still here on this island, and you will need to learn to accept that and accept their culture. A united Ireland will not be Irish alone, it will be a combination of British and Irish, that is what you have never really understood. "Ireland for the Irish" is as racist a statement as there has been up there with the Fatherland and the Israeli homeland.

By the way, it has been my experience that most people of the world think we are British. I can't count the number of times that I have had to explain that Ireland is not British. You might need to get out more to realise that Ireland is pretty insignificant in the grand scheme of things.

Everything you’re spouting is bigoted, sectarian, dogmatic and racist yourself.

RobMc59

20-30 years

RobMc59 wrote: »

I could have sworn you said your grandfather was an Ulster unionist which must surely mean you possibility have a fair bit of Ulster Scot/British in your DNA?

Ah, so if he has "British" DNA, he can't be Irish? I thought that ethnically based conceptions of nationhood went out of vogue, at the latest, when the Balkans erupted? Excluding people from Irishness because of their "blood" is a very alien concept to the same Irish nationalist tradition which has for many centuries and at various times placed Tomás an tSíoda, Sarsfield, Grattan, Tone, Parnell, Plunkett, Pearse, de Valera (by far the most popular Irish politician of the 20th century), Lemass and so many others in high esteem. Personally, I'd have more time for accommodating the Dubhghlas de Híde, Coslett Ó Cuinn, Eleanor Knott, Stephen Rea and James Nesbitt types of the Irish Protestant tradition than I'd have for accommodating the anglocentric Roman Catholic nationalism of the John Bruton/Avril Doyle/Brian Hayes/Alban Maginness types.

Perhaps you shouldn't be projecting Little Englander race-based conceptions of nationality upon the Irish? Thanks.

janfebmar

Deleted User wrote: »

Ah, so if he has "British" DNA, he can't be Irish? I thought that ethnically based conceptions of nationhood went out of vogue, at the latest, when the Balkans erupted? Excluding people from Irishness because of their "blood" is a very alien concept to the same Irish nationalist tradition which has for many centuries and at various times placed Tomás an tSíoda, Sarsfield, Grattan, Tone, Parnell, Plunkett, Pearse, de Valera (by far the most popular Irish politician of the 20th century), Lemass and so many others....

Hold on, DeValera the most popular Irish politician of the 20th century? Do you not remember what he done to the likes of McGrath and Harte, Richard Goss, George Plant, Maurice O'Neill, Charles Kerins....they were all IRA men he captured and executed by firing squad and hanging in jails here in the free state.
Oh the power to propaganda to make gullible republicans despise Mrs Thatcher, yet adore DeValera lol.

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

Hold on, DeValera the most popular Irish politician of the 20th century? Do you not remember what he done to the likes of McGrath and Harte, Richard Goss, George Plant, Maurice O'Neill, Charles Kerins....they were all IRA men he captured and executed by firing squad and hanging in jails here in the free state.
Oh the power to propaganda to make gullible republicans despise Mrs Thatcher, yet adore DeValera lol.

Who mentioned Thatcher and who mentioned that they 'adored' DeYalera.

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Who mentioned Thatcher and who mentioned that they 'adored' DeYalera.

Fauranach stated DeValera was "by far the most popular Irish politician of the 20th century". Given there were tens of thousands on politicians throughout the 20th century on the island of Ireland, if there was one who was "by far the most popular Irish politician of the 20th century", he must have been adored by many?

Mrs T was pretty popular too, she got elected for 3 terms but she never executed captured IRA men in prison, unlike DeValers.

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

Fauranach stated DeValera was "by far the most popular Irish politician of the 20th century". Given there were tens of thousands on politicians throughout the 20th century on the island of Ireland, if there was one who was "by far the most popular Irish politician of the 20th century", he must have been adored by many?

Mrs T was pretty popular too, she got elected for 3 terms but she never executed captured IRA men in prison, unlike DeValers.

What has airing you familiar bugbears, got to do with the point he made though?

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What has airing you familiar bugbears, got to do with the point he made though?

He is incorrect, same as you, if he thinks DeValera was "by far the most popular Irish politician of the 20th century".

janfebmar

20-30 years

janfebmar wrote: »

Hold on, DeValera the most popular Irish politician of the 20th century? Do you not remember what he done

Fortunately, I don't remember what he "done", as you instructively put it. I do, however, recall his unsurpassed record in elections - tests of popularity, by the way - and that in 1938, for instance, his party won a majority of the vote rather than merely a majority of the seats. To most people aware of how pr-stv electoral systems work, that was a European first.

Given that he served as taoiseach for 21 years and president for 14 additional years, as well as founder and leader of the most electorally popular Irish political party of the 20th century - that's Fianna Fáil, by the way - it doesn't really matter what silly denials you make about the man's popularity.

blanch152

Jump_In_Jack wrote: »

Can you deny that that child is Irish-born?

Yes. If they are born in Belfast, they are British, they can choose to get an Irish passport, but if they leave with their mother when two days old, do you really expect that they will identify as Irish and claim an Irish passport?

blanch152

Jump_In_Jack wrote: »

Everything you’re spouting is bigoted, sectarian, dogmatic and racist yourself.

How so?

I believe that national identity is fluid, based on ancestry, culture and heritage, and not geography, allowing everybody to choose what they identify as.

How is that in any way sectarian, dogmatic and racist?

cj maxx

blanch152 wrote: »

Yes. If they are born in Belfast, they are British, they can choose to get an Irish passport, but if they leave with their mother when two days old, do you really expect that they will identify as Irish and claim an Irish passport?

No if born In Belfast they're Irish. If born on the island of Great Britain they're British

janfebmar

Deleted User wrote: »

Fortunately, I don't remember what he done.

Maybe you remember what Dev did so. He executed by firing squad and hanging captured IRA prisoners in Irish jails. Even Mrs Thatcher did not do that. Strong Republicans like Tim Pat Coogan said Dev was responsible for an era of cultural and economic stagnation and backwardness in Irish history. No not forget the massive emigration to England and America and elsewhere then, nearly nobody was left in the country. He made it a cold country for minorities, did not let in any Jewish refugees in any numbers, said if he had one job to give and 2 applicants, a protestant and a catholic, he would always give the job to the catholic. And some other politicians on the Island of Ireland got a higher % poll than he did.

walshb

cjmc wrote: »

No if born In Belfast they're Irish. If born on the island of Great Britain they're British

Born up North allows the person to decide what nationality they are....

An orange loyalist Unionist born in Belfast, for example, will likely claim to be a British national/subject.

Even if said person was born down South they would still likely identify as British, but they would be Irish via their nationality/place of birth.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

How so?

I believe that national identity is fluid, based on ancestry, culture and heritage, and not geography, allowing everybody to choose what they identify as.

No job in the immigration service for you so!

droidman123

I have just read that britains foreign secretary dominic raab has never read the G.F.A. this cant possibly be true.....can it?

Ash.J.Williams

Deleted User wrote: »

Fortunately, I don't remember what he "done", as you instructively put it. I do, however, recall his unsurpassed record in elections - tests of popularity, by the way - and that in 1938, for instance, his party won a majority of the vote rather than merely a majority of the seats. To most people aware of how pr-stv electoral systems work, that was a European first.

Given that he served as taoiseach for 21 years and president for 14 additional years, as well as founder and leader of the most electorally popular Irish political party of the 20th century - that's Fianna Fáil, by the way - it doesn't really matter what silly denials you make about the man's popularity.

That's like N Korea popular

IAMAMORON

droidman123 wrote: »

I have just read that britains foreign secretary dominic raab has never read the G.F.A. this cant possibly be true.....can it?

Where did you read this for starters? Paper never refused ink.

Given what you read is true, it is not all that surprising. He was not involved in politics at the time it was signed, he was a corporate solicitor as far as I understand. He started working for the British foreign office at the turn of the millennium. The GFA was done and dusted at that point, he was mainly involved in EU policy in the The Hague at that point. War crime etc. He was basically a private solicitor working for the EU and the UK government, probably making a nice few quid.

Once signed the GFA may not have been relevant and he probably was too busy doing relevant stuff ever since.

Just one question for you Droidman, are you trying to insinuate that he is a bit of a chunt because he is now the British Foreign Secretary and he hasn't read it yet? If you are I thing your being a bit pedantic and lame, the fact remains that he can't read every bit of legislation that exists, it is simply impossible.

So in full answer to your question it is very possible he has not read it yet. What you are underestimating is the fact that there would be an entire team of British civil servants in Whitehall who are experts on its' every page, he is now their boss, all he does is ask them for advice on the document when required.

FrancieBrady

IAMAMORON wrote: »

Where did you read this for starters? Paper never refused ink.

Given what you read is true, it is not all that surprising. He was not involved in politics at the time it was signed, he was a corporate solicitor as far as I understand. He started working for the British foreign office at the turn of the millennium. The GFA was done and dusted at that point, he was mainly involved in EU policy in the The Hague at that point. War crime etc. He was basically a private solicitor working for the EU and the UK government, probably making a nice few quid.

Once signed the GFA may not have been relevant and he probably was too busy doing relevant stuff ever since.

Just one question for you Droidman, are you trying to insinuate that he is a bit of a chunt because he is now the British Foreign Secretary and he hasn't read it yet? If you are I thing your being a bit pedantic and lame, the fact remains that he can't read every bit of legislation that exists, it is simply impossible.

So in full answer to your question it is very possible he has not read it yet. What you are underestimating is the fact that there would be an entire team of British civil servants in Whitehall who are experts on its' every page, he is now their boss, all he does is ask them for advice on the document when required.

He was The Brexit secretary at the time and admitted to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee that he hadn't read a 39 page document that was front and centre of his brief at the time.

Also famous in the same role for saying that he hadn't 'quite understood the imprtance of Dover-Calais route to Britain'.

Would you vote 'confidence' in him? He didn't last long in the job btw.

https://www.joe.ie/news/former-brexit-secretary-dominic-raab-admits-never-read-good-friday-agreement-657014
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-latest-dominic-raab-trade-eu-france-calais-dover-economy-finance-deal-a8624036.html

droidman123

IAMAMORON wrote: »

Where did you read this for starters? Paper never refused ink.

Given what you read is true, it is not all that surprising. He was not involved in politics at the time it was signed, he was a corporate solicitor as far as I understand. He started working for the British foreign office at the turn of the millennium. The GFA was done and dusted at that point, he was mainly involved in EU policy in the The Hague at that point. War crime etc. He was basically a private solicitor working for the EU and the UK government, probably making a nice few quid.

Once signed the GFA may not have been relevant and he probably was too busy doing relevant stuff ever since.

Just one question for you Droidman, are you trying to insinuate that he is a bit of a chunt because he is now the British Foreign Secretary and he hasn't read it yet? If you are I thing your being a bit pedantic and lame, the fact remains that he can't read every bit of legislation that exists, it is simply impossible.

So in full answer to your question it is very possible he has not read it yet. What you are underestimating is the fact that there would be an entire team of British civil servants in Whitehall who are experts on its' every page, he is now their boss, all he does is ask them for advice on the document when required.

It doesnt matter if he was a road sweeper at the time the gfa was signed,fact of the matter is that he is now the british foreign secretary and the the gfa is of huge significance at this particular time

Ash.J.Williams

IAMAMORON wrote: »

Where did you read this for starters? Paper never refused ink.

Given what you read is true, it is not all that surprising. He was not involved in politics at the time it was signed, he was a corporate solicitor as far as I understand. He started working for the British foreign office at the turn of the millennium. The GFA was done and dusted at that point, he was mainly involved in EU policy in the The Hague at that point. War crime etc. He was basically a private solicitor working for the EU and the UK government, probably making a nice few quid.

Once signed the GFA may not have been relevant and he probably was too busy doing relevant stuff ever since.

Just one question for you Droidman, are you trying to insinuate that he is a bit of a chunt because he is now the British Foreign Secretary and he hasn't read it yet? If you are I thing your being a bit pedantic and lame, the fact remains that he can't read every bit of legislation that exists, it is simply impossible.

So in full answer to your question it is very possible he has not read it yet. What you are underestimating is the fact that there would be an entire team of British civil servants in Whitehall who are experts on its' every page, he is now their boss, all he does is ask them for advice on the document when required.

what an arseholey post!

FrancieBrady

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

what an arseholey post!

He/She is also avoiding dealing with the fact that nobody in the UK (civil servants included) seems to have read and understood the GFA before not just the referendum, even before triggering Art. 50.

They're reading it now, you can bet!

droidman123

droidman123 wrote: »

I have just read that britains foreign secretary dominic raab has never read the G.F.A. this cant possibly be true.....can it?

Not having read the GFA does not preclude someone from being an "Expert" on it. Just read boards for plenty of examples.

IAMAMORON

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

what an arseholey post!

You probably haven't even read it yourself. My post that is, not the GFA, I know you couldn't read it if you tried.