How long before Irish reunification?

jm08

15-20 years

jm08 wrote: »

According to wiki, 250,000 presbyterians on island of Ireland. Paisley founded the Free Presbyterians of Ulster in 1951 and had 10,000 or so followers. He preached hate against roman catholics, opposed civil rights for catholics organised the loyalist protests (strike) because they opposed the Sunningdale Agreement (which you may recall Seamus Mallon referring to the GFA as the Sunningdale Agreement for Slow Learners). Sunningdale was in 1974, long before any IRA bombing campaign.

Its quite remarkable success of propaganda that IRA get blamed for collasping the 85 anglo-irish agreement,

When it was loyalists lead the protests and crashed the econmy throùgh general strike

Sinbad_NI

FrancieBrady wrote: »

1997 SF were eating into the SDLP vote..2 MPS to the SDLP's 3.

SDLP still had 3 in 2001 to SF's 3.

SDLP gained 3 seats in the Assembly elections in the year of the GFA while SF only gained 1.

Local elections show the same 'steady growth' as SF concentrated on the ballot box more.

Point being, there was no significant bounce from the ceasefire/GFA, just more steady growth.

The GFA got them a good start though (SF), that was more my point.

Interesting how SF increase has been mirrored by DUP growth. Middle ground is squeezed, and virtually gone now.

FrancieBrady

Deleted User wrote: »

Its quite remarkable success of propaganda that IRA get blamed for collasping the 85 anglo-irish agreement,

When it was loyalists lead the protests and crashed the econmy throùgh general strike

Downcow and others can pretend, but it is in those protests that you can see the 'general' Unionist condition. It was vitriolic and violent across the board.
But it didn't collapse and paved the way to the GFA. Unionism's veto in the HoC was removed and they knew what it meant.

jm08

20-30 years

downcow wrote: »

Eire4 if that is directed at me then you misread me. Catholics were horrendously discriminated against at various points in the history of ireland. It was wrong, disgusting and very sad.
Presbyterians were discriminated equally (or many would argue, even more so) at various points in Irish history - do you agree?
Anglicans were seriously discriminated in border areas in the very recent history - do you agree?
We need to acknowledge the great hurt caused to each other and find a way to move forward

And all this could have been avoided if Paisley and his motley crew had supported the Sunningdale Agreement. They would not support powersharing with the four SDLP reps. - John Hume, Austin Curry, Gerry Fitt, Paddy Devlin. Presbyterians were discriminated terribly through history (and suffered just as badly as the catholics during the Famine), but they sure took that out on the catholic community and not their oppressors.

I guess what Sunningdale told the nationalist/catholic community is that civil rights and equality were never going to be achieved by peaceful means and that is why there was a 30 year conflict in Northern Ireland.

downcow

jm08 wrote: »

According to wiki, 250,000 presbyterians on island of Ireland. Paisley founded the Free Presbyterians of Ulster in 1951 and had 10,000 or so followers. He preached hate against roman catholics, opposed civil rights for catholics organised the loyalist protests (strike) because they opposed the Sunningdale Agreement (which you may recall Seamus Mallon referring to the GFA as the Sunningdale Agreement for Slow Learners). Sunningdale was in 1974, long before any IRA bombing campaign.

No idea what you are talking bout here. The ira had bombed practically every Protestant business and home in my town by 1974. The ethnic cleansing was well under way by ‘74

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Downcow and others can pretend, but it is in those protests that you can see the 'general' Unionist condition. It was vitriolic and violent across the board.
But it didn't collapse and paved the way to the GFA. Unionism's veto in the HoC was removed and they knew what it meant.

What veto in HoC are you talking about Francie. More nonsense

Drifter50

Sinbad_NI wrote: »

In the early days for Paisley yes ok.
But they were still behind the UUP.

DUP really only trumped UUP after Trimble made the step to speak with the Provos before decommissioning. That plus the kneejerk reaction as unionists saw SF gaining over SDLP.

Those 2 things combined created drove unionists to move from UUP to DUP. And ultimately killed the UUP.

Fair comment, I reckon Trimble leading the UUP into the GFA spelt the end for the party. Its now marginalised and while at least allegedly more centrist in outlook does not have any real support anymore. Dare I say what some are saying throughout Unionism but it might help them to have an alliance with FG but I can`t see it happening.

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

What veto in HoC are you talking about Francie. More nonsense

The fundamental change that has taken place as a result of the Anglo-Irish Agreement is a change that is deeply and fully understood by every Unionist. What it means is that their exclusive hold on power has gone and is not coming back. The power of veto on British policy which they have always had, and which goes to the heart of our problem here, has gone and is not coming back. The loss is uncomfortable for their leaders, for while they held that privileged position they never had to be politicians or exercise the art of politics, which is the art of representing one’s own view while treating others with fairness.

For traditional Unionism in Northern Ireland, other points of view have never actually existed. To this day, as they boast about the proposals which they have placed before the British Government about the future of Northern Ireland – the future of us all – the insult which their behaviour represents doesn’t seem to have occurred to them. Not only have they not presented these proposals to those of us who represent other views – views which must be accommodated if we are to have a future: they haven’t even published them for the information of their own followers. They are still oligarchs. The faithful will line up when the drums beat. The other points of view, to which lip-service is publicly paid, don’t really count.

https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v11/n03/john-hume/john-hume-on-the-end-of-the-unionist-veto-in-ulster?referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F

For constitutional nationalists North and South the perception that unionists had a veto over any substantial British government proposal for political matters even within Northern Ireland had been, since the Wilson government capitulated to the loyalist workers’ strike against the Sunningdale Agreement eight years previously, an enormous and depressing stumbling block to any kind of political progress. The existence of the “veto” had been for years exploited politically by the Provisional IRA as proof that only their violence and not the political efforts of the SDLP and Dublin could wring concessions from Britain: this proposition was widely believed in even by thousands of Northern nationalists who themselves passionately opposed the use of violence. The power of this “veto” was also profoundly relied upon by both moderate and hard-line unionists as it reinforced their conviction that no significant concessions need ever be made to the other tribe. Belief in the reality of the “veto” permeated policy in the Northern Ireland Office and was reflected in the wholly inadequate “initiatives” of every secretary of state from Merlyn Rees and Roy Mason to Jim Prior’s “rolling devolution” local government project.

The Anglo Irish Agreement demolished this Unionist “veto” once and for all and created a different landscape. Unionist trust in the most palpably “loyal” of British prime ministers, and thus in any possible Conservative or Labour alternative, was at an end.

https://www.drb.ie/essays/edging-towards-peace

ittakestwo

20-30 years

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Very simple...because of their lineage and superiority complex.

The native Irish were so demeaned, ridiculed and likened to monkeys at times by British (mainly English) society that Unionists thought themselves above that and even though Britain saw them as Irish too they threatened insurrection (Carson, Bonar Law and Craig etc) if the British abandoned them, which Britain was fully intent on doing.
A weak British government dependent on Unionist support acquiesced. And 100 years later it has finally dawned on many Unionists what republicans always knew. The British then and now did not care about Ireland once they were getting nothing from it.
When it becomes too much trouble they withdraw. Then (from the south) as now again. The GFA being a tacit withdrawal.

Would unionists not be the ancestry of the British who were given land in the Ulster plantation?

For service British solicitors had done to the crown they were rewarded with land in Ulster instead of money as the crown did not have much money at the time.

ittakestwo

20-30 years

downcow wrote: »

Individualism and diversity is in the very dna of Ulster Scots Presbyterian roots.
I think unionists would describe themselves in various ways and some would be very comfortable with the term irish. My go to term would be Notthern Irish the British. It the very reason the term PUL is used. I was in the very diverse room that came up with the term because in the room could not get an umbrella word to describe themselves and their outlook.

If there is a UI how will you identify. Still as Northan Irish and British tho northan Ireland wont exist?

Sinbad_NI

ittakestwo wrote: »

If there is a UI how will you identify. Still as Northan Irish and British tho northan Ireland wont exist?

Don't think anyone will change their mindset overnight.

Be interesting to see, let's say 5 to 10 years after UI.

I'm sure the generation(s) after will be different. Everyone has had their own life experiences to build and reflect on.

jm08

20-30 years

downcow wrote: »

No idea what you are talking bout here. The ira had bombed practically every Protestant business and home in my town by 1974. The ethnic cleansing was well under way by ‘74

I think you will have to do a bit better than just claim ethnic cleansing prior to 1974. In the history of the IRA, even the British Army were stating that the IRA in the 70s were in 'insurgency' mode. A British Army report of the time says that trouble was confined to Belfast and Derry mainly. Internment was introduced in 1971 which meant that anyone suspected of IRA membership were in prison. A quick look through CAIN which chronicles the troubles does not mention unionist ethnic cleansing.



You will need to produce some evidence of this happening in your town rather than a glib claim of ethnic cleansing at any stage in Northern Ireland.

BonnieSituation

20-30 years

Drifter50 wrote: »

Fair comment, I reckon Trimble leading the UUP into the GFA spelt the end for the party. Its now marginalised and while at least allegedly more centrist in outlook does not have any real support anymore. Dare I say what some are saying throughout Unionism but it might help them to have an alliance with FG but I can`t see it happening.

When you have people like Swann and Aiken parroting the "No never" stance of the DUP then what hope had they.

Not that Nesbitt was perfect (especially his tone deaf response to flegs in the beginning), but his attempts to modernise the party were met with road blocks every step of the way.

I would love to see him join Alliance.

RobMc59

10-15 years

jm08 wrote: »

I think you will have to do a bit better than just claim ethnic cleansing prior to 1974. In the history of the IRA, even the British Army were stating that the IRA in the 70s were in 'insurgency' mode. A British Army report of the time says that trouble was confined to Belfast and Derry mainly. Internment was introduced in 1971 which meant that anyone suspected of IRA membership were in prison. A quick look through CAIN which chronicles the troubles does not mention unionist ethnic cleansing.



You will need to produce some evidence of this happening in your town rather than a glib claim of ethnic cleansing at any stage in Northern Ireland.

Insidious intimidation and similar tactics would be just as effective and probably would`nt have been reported or acted upon.

jm08

20-30 years

RobMc59 wrote: »

Insidious intimidation and similar tactics would be just as effective and probably would`nt have been reported or acted upon.

Thats not ethnic cleaning though.


ethnic cleansing

1. the mass expulsion or killing of members of one ethnic or religious group in an area by those of another.
   
   
   
   
   

The closest to ethnic cleaning was Bloody Sunday / Battle of the Bogside when thousands of catholics moved south of the border to refugee camps. Blaming ethnic cleaning of protestants by the IRA for the collapse of Sunningdale is just not true. Sunningdale collapsed because of the loyalist general strike led by Ian Paisley and a few others. Thats when nationalists started supporting the IRA because they realised that unionists were never going to give them equal rights without a fight.

downcow

ittakestwo wrote: »

If there is a UI how will you identify. Still as Northan Irish and British tho northan Ireland wont exist?

Yip.
I have friends in Catalonia and try telling them that they are Spanish

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

Yip.
I have friends in Catalonia and try telling them that they are Spanish

Nobody will be trying to get you identify as anything else other than what you want to.

downcow

jm08 wrote: »

I think you will have to do a bit better than just claim ethnic cleansing prior to 1974. In the history of the IRA, even the British Army were stating that the IRA in the 70s were in 'insurgency' mode. A British Army report of the time says that trouble was confined to Belfast and Derry mainly. Internment was introduced in 1971 which meant that anyone suspected of IRA membership were in prison. A quick look through CAIN which chronicles the troubles does not mention unionist ethnic cleansing.



You will need to produce some evidence of this happening in your town rather than a glib claim of ethnic cleansing at any stage in Northern Ireland.

Before I go to the trouble of posting it. If I was to give you a list of 50+ incidents incl bombings and shootings by the ira, in a small town less than 2,000 population. Which was 70+% catholic and yet 95+% of the ira attacks, Protestant businesses and homes were the targets. These will all have taken place in period 72-74 And if by the 90s the town is 95+% catholic and today attacks continue against the remaining few Protestants.
Would you admit you were wrong???
If not then tell me what else you would need to evidence it so as I leave you in no doubt ?

jm08

20-30 years

downcow wrote: »

Before I go to the trouble of posting it. If I was to give you a list of 50+ incidents incl bombings and shootings by the ira, in a small town less than 2,000 population. Which was 70+% catholic and yet 95+% of the ira attacks, Protestant businesses and homes were the targets. These will all have taken place in period 72-74 And if by the 90s the town is 95+% catholic and today attacks continue against the remaining few Protestants.
Would you admit you were wrong???
If not then tell me what else you would need to evidence it so as I leave you in no doubt ?

If you say the town, I'll do the research myself. And up to Dec. '73 which is when Sunningdale was on the table.


In January 1974, the UUP withdrew support for Sunningdale and Harry West who was anti-Sunningdale became leader of the UUP.



The Loyalist general strike took place in May 1974. Dublin and Monaghan were bombed, killing 34 people at this stage. There were no warnings either!

downcow

jm08 wrote: »

If you say the town, I'll do the research myself. And up to Dec. '73 which is when Sunningdale was on the table.


In January 1974, the UUP withdrew support for Sunningdale and Harry West who was anti-Sunningdale became leader of the UUP.



The Loyalist general strike took place in May 1974. Dublin and Monaghan were bombed, killing 34 people at this stage. There were no warnings either!

It was a simple question. You are doing a Francie and ducking it.

jm08

20-30 years

downcow wrote: »

It was a simple question. You are doing a Francie and ducking it.

No, you are ducking my point that if unionists had agreed to Sunningdale (powersharing with the SDLP) there would have been a lot of lives saved. There is as much blood on unionist hands are there is on the IRA.


The reason why nationalists supported Sinn Fein is because they experienced unionists rejecting civil rights when sought peacefully.



Why did unionists reject Sunningdale?

downcow

jm08 wrote: »

No, you are ducking my point that if unionists had agreed to Sunningdale (powersharing with the SDLP) there would have been a lot of lives saved. There is as much blood on unionist hands are there is on the IRA.


The reason why nationalists supported Sinn Fein is because they experienced unionists rejecting civil rights when sought peacefully.



Why did unionists reject Sunningdale?

That’s Francie a tactic. Ask another question when you don’t want to answer mine. It was a very simple yes, no, question. And you are writing paragraphs to avoid it. Lol

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

That’s Francie a tactic. Ask another question when you don’t want to answer mine. It was a very simple yes, no, question. And you are writing paragraphs to avoid it. Lol

I'll say it again, you are the most disingenuous poster here.


The story of Castlewellan or wherever it is you are from is the same across the north. All you want to do is play the victim and post the lists from one side.

That is called victim exploitation. Nobody wants to be involved in that.

FrancieBrady

15-20 years

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I'll say it again, you are the most disingenuous poster here.


The story of Castlewellan or wherever it is you are from is the same across the north. All you want to do is play the victim and post the lists from one side.

That is called victim exploitation. Nobody wants to be involved in that.

Indeed perhaps downcow can explain the actions surronding the particularly vicious murder of james morgan?

And why some those known to participated were putting up posters for the DUP at last election?

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I'll say it again, you are the most disingenuous poster here.


The story of Castlewellan or wherever it is you are from is the same across the north. All you want to do is play the victim and post the lists from one side.

That is called victim exploitation. Nobody wants to be involved in that.

You see this is the problem Francie. It wasn’t the same across the north on both sides. I can give you a long list of towns and villages that Protestants were driven out off. Can you give me a dozen towns that the catholics were driven out off.
You see you paint the brits as the bad boys for centuries but you can’t face up to the badness of the ira

Now jmo8, any chance of answering that simple question?

jm08

20-30 years

downcow wrote: »

That’s Francie a tactic. Ask another question when you don’t want to answer mine. It was a very simple yes, no, question. And you are writing paragraphs to avoid it. Lol

Its not simple, so yes/no is pointless.



What is simple is that you can't admit that 30 years of bloodshed could have been avoided if back in 1973 unionists/loyalists had agreed to powersharing with the SDLP.

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

You see this is the problem Francie. It wasn’t the same across the north on both sides. I can give you a long list of towns and villages that Protestants were driven out off. Can you give me a dozen towns that the catholics were driven out off.
You see you paint the brits as the bad boys for centuries but you can’t face up to the badness of the ira

Now jmo8, any chance of answering that simple question?

Everything the IRA did was bad downcow. Everything the Loyalists did was equally bad.

None of the above would have happened had the British behaved responsibly from the start.

That is what you cannot face up to. It was always going to go up in flames when Unionists set up a bigoted sectarian oppressive state and they were never going to let that go...they are still clinging on to what's left of it. And governments stood by and let it happen.

BonnieSituation

20-30 years

downcow wrote: »

You see this is the problem Francie. It wasn’t the same across the north on both sides. I can give you a long list of towns and villages that Protestants were driven out off. Can you give me a dozen towns that the catholics were driven out off.
You see you paint the brits as the bad boys for centuries but you can’t face up to the badness of the ira

Now jmo8, any chance of answering that simple question?

You're outrageous.

@RobMc59, it would suit you better to educate yourself about these issues than blindly going around thanking posts from the most disingenuous poster on boards this side of the Trump thread.

RobMc59

10-15 years

BonnieSituation wrote: »

You're outrageous.

@RobMc59, it would suit you better to educate yourself about these issues than blindly going around thanking posts from the most disingenuous poster on boards this side of the Trump thread.

I'm not going to report you bonnie but I've seen people warned for trying to tell people who they can and can't agree with.

downcow

jm08 wrote: »

Its not simple, so yes/no is pointless.



What is simple is that you can't admit that 30 years of bloodshed could have been avoided if back in 1973 unionists/loyalists had agreed to powersharing with the SDLP.

So at what point should it have stopped?