How long before Irish reunification?

Hamsterchops

timhenn wrote: »

A colonial mentality is the internalised attitude of ethnic or cultural inferiority felt by people as a result of colonisation, i.e. them being colonised by another group. It corresponds with the belief that the cultural values of the coloniser are inherently superior to one's own.

I guess you mean that he majority of the NI population are the colonisers?
Is that what you mean?

timhenn

10-15 years

Hamsterchops wrote: »

I guess you mean that he majority of the NI population are the colonisers?
Is that what you mean?

No.

Hamsterchops

timhenn wrote: »

No.

Well they did come across the water from next door, so doesn't that make them the colonisers?

Like it wasn't the Germans.

timhenn

10-15 years

Hamsterchops wrote: »

Well they did come across the water from next door, so doesn't that make them the colonisers?

Like it wasn't the Germans.

What are you talking about?

BonnieSituation

20-30 years

Hamsterchops wrote: »

Well they did come across the water from next door, so doesn't that make them the colonisers?

Like it wasn't the Germans.

It's probably best you further inform yourself before you continue on this rampage of nonsense.

Hamsterchops

15-20 years

Hamsterchops wrote: »

Well they did come across the water from next door, so doesn't that make them the colonisers?

Like it wasn't the Germans.

What has germany got to do with irish reunification

They have to best of my knowledge not colonised ireland ever??

Hamsterchops

Deleted User wrote: »

What has germany got to do with irish reunification

They have to best of my knowledge not colonised ireland ever??

Exactly, that's whu I said that they came from next door, but 'Timhenn' said NO :cool:

timhenn

10-15 years

Hamsterchops wrote: »

Exactly, that's whu I said that they came from next door, but 'Timhenn' said NO :cool:

Please take people's advice. Do some reading on the topic and better inform yourself.

Hamsterchops

timhenn wrote: »

Please take people's advice. Do some reading on the topic and better inform yourself.

Seriously, if you read the last few posts from #6392 onwards then what the hell is going on?

Surely the NI colonisers Timhenn speaks of are the Unionist population up North (they came over from Britain - built a colony in the Northern part of this island).

I was of course joking about the Germans, but if the colonisers are not from next door (Britain) then where the hell did they come from?

Would be nice if Timhenn cane back to explain what he meant in post #6389

Hamsterchops

15-20 years

Hamsterchops wrote: »

Exactly, that's whu I said that they came from next door, but 'Timhenn' said NO :cool:

Why are you rabbiting on about germany then

Theres no logic to your posts?

Hamsterchops

I'll get my coat . . .
Chao.

Junkyard Tom

30-40 years

downcow wrote: »

I am very interested junkyard in what you mean by “innocent catholics”

Catholics who had no part in the PIRA campaign like the 1000 that were murdered by unionists (or Protestants mistaken for Catholics)

Do you think all Catholics were legitimate targets for murder by unionist killers?

and who you believe are the guilty catholics?

IRA men/women, active Republicans. I guess the unionist killers would have loved to have gotten Ivor Bell too who was a Protestant Provo who was expelled for opposing the IRA's political strategy.

downcow

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Catholics who had no part in the PIRA campaign like the 1000 that were murdered by unionists (or Protestants mistaken for Catholics)

Do you think all Catholics were legitimate targets for murder by unionist killers?



IRA men/women, active Republicans. I guess the unionist killers would have loved to have gotten Ivor Bell too who was a Protestant Provo who was expelled for opposing the IRA's political strategy.

We are agreeing a lot recently junkyard. There was nothing offensive intended in my question and I am pleasantly surprised by your answer. I misread you.

I am pleased you regard the IRA as guilty. In the same way I regard the UFF as guilty.

And no I absolutely never regarded innocent catholics as legitimate targets.

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

I am pleased you regard the IRA as guilty. In the same way I regard the UFF as guilty.

Of course they are 'guilty' of being involved but they are not the only ones 'guilty' or responsible for what happened on this island.

Maybe if you gave some thought/took some responsibility for why these groups needed to exist or came into being in the first place we might 'move on' and get closer to fixing the 'island'.

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Of course they are 'guilty' of being involved but they are not the only ones 'guilty' or responsible for what happened on this island.

Maybe if you gave some thought/took some responsibility for why these groups needed to exist or came into being in the first place we might 'move on' and get closer to fixing the 'island'.

If you accept your premise that they needed to exist the you accept the murders they committed needed to happen.
They hijacked a movement that was sorting out discrimination in many countries at the time. They slowed down that transformation just by their very existence.
Why did the black community in USA not create an IRA
Why don't the travelling community in ROI not create an IRA now
Why did the gay community in Ireland not create an IRA
.....I could go on and on with groups that were far more discriminated against than either the catholics in the north or the Protestants in ROI.

There was no need for the murder, torture, intimidation, rape, child abuse, robbery, smuggling, leaders with holiday homes, etc, etc, that the IRA were guilty of.

Or which of the above list would you say was necessary?

Runaways

10-15 years

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What has germany got to do with irish reunification

They’ll probably be paying the bulk of the cost of it as they do most things as EUs biggest contributor

timhenn

10-15 years

downcow wrote: »

If you accept your premise that they needed to exist the you accept the murders they committed needed to happen.
They hijacked a movement that was sorting out discrimination in many countries at the time. They slowed down that transformation just by their very existence.
Why did the black community in USA not create an IRA
Why don't the travelling community in ROI not create an IRA now
Why did the gay community in Ireland not create an IRA
.....I could go on and on with groups that were far more discriminated against than either the catholics in the north or the Protestants in ROI.

There was no need for the murder, torture, intimidation, rape, child abuse, robbery, smuggling, leaders with holiday homes, etc, etc, that the IRA were guilty of.

Or which of the above list would you say was necessary?

Any update on your research into what the CAIN website got wrong according to you? How many of the over 1,000 innocents killed by the british side were not actually innocent?

Just on your post there:
Did the US government team up with anti black mobs to harrass and murder huge numbers of the black community in an effort to deny them their rights in the 60's and 70's?
Did the Irish state team up with mobs to kill over 1,000 innocent travellers?
Were innoicent gay people gunned down on the streets?

Then your list "murder, torture, intimidation, rape, child abuse, robbery, smuggling, leaders with holiday homes, etc, etc I assume you're referring to the british armed forces?

maccored

30-40 years

downcow wrote: »

If you accept your premise that they needed to exist the you accept the murders they committed needed to happen.
They hijacked a movement that was sorting out discrimination in many countries at the time. They slowed down that transformation just by their very existence.
Why did the black community in USA not create an IRA
Why don't the travelling community in ROI not create an IRA now
Why did the gay community in Ireland not create an IRA
.....I could go on and on with groups that were far more discriminated against than either the catholics in the north or the Protestants in ROI.

There was no need for the murder, torture, intimidation, rape, child abuse, robbery, smuggling, leaders with holiday homes, etc, etc, that the IRA were guilty of.

Or which of the above list would you say was necessary?

cop on and stop minimising things. The black community in the US did use force btw

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

If you accept your premise that they needed to exist the you accept the murders they committed needed to happen.
They hijacked a movement that was sorting out discrimination in many countries at the time. They slowed down that transformation just by their very existence.
Why did the black community in USA not create an IRA
Why don't the travelling community in ROI not create an IRA now
Why did the gay community in Ireland not create an IRA
.....I could go on and on with groups that were far more discriminated against than either the catholics in the north or the Protestants in ROI.

There was no need for the murder, torture, intimidation, rape, child abuse, robbery, smuggling, leaders with holiday homes, etc, etc, that the IRA were guilty of.

Or which of the above list would you say was necessary?

IT WAS ALL WRONG downcow...what part of that do you not get?

Do you think the people who were involved in the conflict would have done what they did in a normal society?
I don't think the IRA, the UVF, UFF etc would have existed had those responsible and with the power, created a fair and democratic society.
A society that was not disrupted by colonisation and then partition?

Do you accept responsibility on behalf of Unionism for creating a 'system' that was in Ian Paisley's words 'totally wrong'?

Do you accept responsibility for not correcting that system and having to be dragged kicking and screaming to allow rights that every other person on these islands has?

A lot of questions there for you.

ec18

Irish reunification is a long process, that no one fully understands what the implications of it are. I'm not so sure there could ever be a majority for it. As the republicans and unionists of the troubles era get older and pass on, there is a new generation growing up that only knows peace as part of the UK. Would they be content to give up what they have as part of the UK such as the NHS? who knows it's something that needs to be thoughtfully worked through with all sides and is not something that will be resolved by Sinn Fein calling for a border poll and the other side saying no.

The idea of a type of a citizens assembly with people north and south is something that could be looked at right away to see what shape a united Ireland would take, for instance would citizens of the republic be interested? if it meant significant changes? getting rid of the tri colour? a new national anthem?

So I don't think that a united Ireland is feasible in the next decade or so (or possible ever) but there is no harm in beginning the discussion on what shape 'Ireland' might look like

timhenn

10-15 years

ec18 wrote: »

Irish reunification is a long process, that no one fully understands what the implications of it are. I'm not so sure there could ever be a majority for it. As the republicans and unionists of the troubles era get older and pass on, there is a new generation growing up that only knows peace as part of the UK. Would they be content to give up what they have as part of the UK such as the NHS? who knows it's something that needs to be thoughtfully worked through with all sides and is not something that will be resolved by Sinn Fein calling for a border poll and the other side saying no.

The idea of a type of a citizens assembly with people north and south is something that could be looked at right away to see what shape a united Ireland would take, for instance would citizens of the republic be interested? if it meant significant changes? getting rid of the tri colour? a new national anthem?

So I don't think that a united Ireland is feasible in the next decade or so (or possible ever) but there is no harm in beginning the discussion on what shape 'Ireland' might look like

No one fully understands the implications of you say but then go on to try to point out negative implacations.

jh79

ec18 wrote: »

Irish reunification is a long process, that no one fully understands what the implications of it are. I'm not so sure there could ever be a majority for it. As the republicans and unionists of the troubles era get older and pass on, there is a new generation growing up that only knows peace as part of the UK. Would they be content to give up what they have as part of the UK such as the NHS? who knows it's something that needs to be thoughtfully worked through with all sides and is not something that will be resolved by Sinn Fein calling for a border poll and the other side saying no.

The idea of a type of a citizens assembly with people north and south is something that could be looked at right away to see what shape a united Ireland would take, for instance would citizens of the republic be interested? if it meant significant changes? getting rid of the tri colour? a new national anthem?

So I don't think that a united Ireland is feasible in the next decade or so (or possible ever) but there is no harm in beginning the discussion on what shape 'Ireland' might look like

I don't think there will even be discussions on a UI down south until COVID-19 is over and we have recovered from the financial impact of the virus.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

I don't think there will even be discussions on a UI down south until COVID-19 is over and we have recovered from the financial impact of the virus.

COVID 19 is just one more reason (Brexit being another recent and profound one) why we need a single island sovereign entity, capable of protecting itself.

RobMc59

10-15 years

timhenn wrote: »

No one fully understands the implications of you say but then go on to try to point out negative implacations.

That's a bit rich coming from you tim.

Hamsterchops

FrancieBrady wrote: »

COVID 19 is just one more reason (Brexit being another recent and profound one) why we need a single island sovereign entity, capable of protecting itself.

... while Nicola Sturgeon is currently arguing for the exact opposite on the neighbouring island. "Why have one nation on the same island"?

Great Britain, One Island two Nations = Not yet.

FrancieBrady

Hamsterchops wrote: »

... while Nicola Sturgeon is currently arguing for the exact opposite on the neighbouring island. "Why have one nation on the same island"?

Great Britain, One Island two Nations = Not yet.

Nicola Sturgeon is free to do what she wants. I can't blame her for wanting to get away from the toxic mess that is the English elite at the moment to be honest.

timhenn

10-15 years

RobMc59 wrote: »

That's a bit rich coming from you tim.

Explain yourself man.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

COVID 19 is just one more reason (Brexit being another recent and profound one) why we need a single island sovereign entity, capable of protecting itself.

It's a pipe dream without the money to support it.

If the British went the way of Trump and re-opened the UK would you support a temporary hard border to protect the Republic? Sure Belgium closed their borders with one of their neighbors last week, first time since WW2.

jh79

15-20 years

jh79 wrote: »

It's a pipe dream without the money to support it.

If the British went the way of Trump and re-opened the UK would you support a temporary hard border to protect the Republic? Sure Belgium closed their borders with one of their neighbors last week, first time since WW2.

Be pretty hard to justify closing the border to the million or so people living there with irish passports

Nor the hundreds who commute from newry to dublin to work everyday




Whatever it is,however its funded,the way the english have carried on as regards coronavirus has just highlighted the need for reunification,

7 dead in the north,9 in the republic...the english arent fit to rule themselves,no mind part of our country

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

It's a pipe dream without the money to support it.

If the British went the way of Trump and re-opened the UK would you support a temporary hard border to protect the Republic? Sure Belgium closed their borders with one of their neighbors last week, first time since WW2.

Northern Ireland as we have seen from brexit is now a threat to Britain, in the sense that it restricts them in what they want to do.

They could be 3 years into Brexit at this stage had it not been for the mistake of partition.

I will never support a hard border, (just like I never supported the IRA) BUT I can see why, and understand why, we may have no other choice.