How long before Irish reunification?

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Nobody said anything about the reticence to join the GAA from people who look down on it...that is a problem for those who cannot walk past a sign with Irish on it without doing criminal damage. Those whose sense of identity is under siege in their own heads.

You said it was a cold house...nobody would be turned away by the GAA...except in some small clubs were cross community relations are not good. You only need to see what happened when Arlene finally braved an Ulster final, she had a lovely day among decent people. And it was no big deal, except among her own.

“Nobody would be turned away”. Do you know how sad a comment that is. It’s actually pathetic.

Junkyard Tom

30-40 years

It's lamenting over a loss of feeling that you've it better than your neighbours. It didn't matter that your Protestant arse was hanging out of your trousers, at least you weren't one of those poor Catholic bastards who you got to feel superior to every summer.

downcow

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

There is - it's your sense of entitlement to your own wee rotten sectarian statelet that had to be, bit-by-bit, dismantled. No more marching where you're not wanted, no more dominance of the institutions that were formerly for Protestants, lots of bitter tears about GAA jerseys in QUB, more tears over the Irish language and so on, and so on.

The northeast of Ireland is not 'our wee [Protestant] country' any more and never will be again - partition or not.

Francie, take note of the transformation that junkyard is affirming. These are the sort of changes required in the gaa if they want to become as inclusive as other institutions in ni.
If only the gaa sectarianism was a thing of the past as well

downcow

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

It's lamenting over a loss of feeling that you've it better than your neighbours. It didn't matter that your Protestant arse was hanging out of your trousers, at least you weren't one of those poor Catholic bastards who you got to feel superior to every summer.

And we were all very envious of the free state where everyone was equal, fairly treated, and no dominance.
Think about what you are saying junkyard.

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

You have been working hard to rescue fionn I don’t expect you to answer the (any) question but I thought fionn would.
Did you get anywhere on the gaa questions (or not)

There you go again.
I answered all your questions, if I missed any...ask again.

I notice your habits now...when YOU don't want to address a question you accuse others.

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

“Nobody would be turned away”. Do you know how sad a comment that is. It’s actually pathetic.

You won't be allowed in any club if you want to be a bigot. The GAA is no different. Did you want your OO on the field at an Ulster Final or something? That ain't gonna happen because of what the OO espouses.
Otherwise anyone is welcome. Enjoy the games and the culture if you want to. If you can't enjoy it, stay away.

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You won't be allowed in any club if you want to be a bigot. The GAA is no different. Did you want your OO on the field at an Ulster Final or something? That ain't gonna happen because of what the OO espouses.
Otherwise anyone is welcome. Enjoy the games and the culture if you want to. If you can't enjoy it, stay away.

That is exactly the attitude we have fought against with a small minority of ni football supporters. If the don’t like the anthem they can stay away. If they don’t like sectarian singing they can stay away. If they can’t enjoy it stay away

downcow

downcow wrote: »

Francie, could you name an area that there is not a problem in? this would be news to me.

and I guess if it is as open and welcoming as you say it is then county teams will reflect roughly the makeup of the county, community background, ethnicity , etc. I think that would be the test. And since you often point to the cold house that the ruc was I'm sure you will be able to evidence much better ratios in GAA.
Or could it be you are blinded to the problem by bigotry and defending the indefensible

Francie you wanted to know what you hadn’t answered tonight. I think there is four questions in this post alone and you didn’t answer one

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

Francie you wanted to know what you hadn’t answered tonight. I think there is four questions in this post alone and you didn’t answer one

I answered you. If there is reticence (which there is, you have admitted it) to join the organisation in sufficient numbers then it won't reflect in county teams.
I know several of the Monaghan team are protestants only because they are the same church as my partner and children. How many more are I wouldn't know because what religion somebody is playing GAA doesn't concern or bother me.
I know of no obstacles to a protestant or unionist playing the games anywhere on this island. Didn't the RUC even have a team? Yes there are post conflict issues with some 'clubs'. But I think the GAA works hard at being inclusive of all.

There were 2 questions there by the way.

Fionn1952

15-20 years

downcow wrote: »

I find you b&w approach to defining peaceful and violent non-sensical but I’m struggling to help you. Let me try again.
If you were in a predominately Protestant bar and a few local hoods heard you were in and got the DJ to play Simply the Best and sang the UDA lines etc Would that be peaceful or non-peaceful?
Or if the local ira band parades through my predominately nationalist town and played tunes about the killing of British soldiers would that be peaceful or non- peaceful?
If someone paints ‘brits out’ on a wall in my town is that peaceful or non-peaceful?

You call it black and white....I call it sticking to dictionary definitions. No equivocation.

The first two examples are unpleasant, but don't involve damage to person or possessions, so they're non violent. The latter involves criminal damage, so it is violent.

I don't need to come up with new rules for every example Downcow- I stick with letting words mean what they mean instead of angling constantly.


As to your later comment, deepest apologies I didn't reply sooner, I was spending some offline time with my family, making a nice meal and some very nice Old Fashioned cocktails to enjoy our Saturday evening.

downcow

Fionn1952 wrote: »

You call it black and white....I call it sticking to dictionary definitions. No equivocation.

The first two examples are unpleasant, but don't involve damage to person or possessions, so they're non violent. The latter involves criminal damage, so it is violent.

I don't need to come up with new rules for every example Downcow- I stick with letting words mean what they mean instead of angling constantly.


As to your later comment, deepest apologies I didn't reply sooner, I was spending some offline time with my family, making a nice meal and some very nice Old Fashioned cocktails to enjoy our Saturday evening.

You avoided the question again. Are the first to examples ‘peaceful’ or not??

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I answered you. If there is reticence (which there is, you have admitted it) to join the organisation in sufficient numbers then it won't reflect in county teams.
I know several of the Monaghan team are protestants only because they are the same church as my partner and children. How many more are I wouldn't know because what religion somebody is playing GAA doesn't concern or bother me.
I know of no obstacles to a protestant or unionist playing the games anywhere on this island. Didn't the RUC even have a team? Yes there are post conflict issues with some 'clubs'. But I think the GAA works hard at being inclusive of all.

There were 2 questions there by the way.

Francie I give up.
If catholics don’t get involved in ruc, udr, etc then it is the Protestants fault. If Protestants don’t get involved in the gaa the (yes) it’s Protestants fault.

There is nothing worse in conflict resolution as people who believe the other side are all wrong and they see all right.
It is really just very sad. I hope you are more astute than you express on here.

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

You avoided the question again. Are the first to examples ‘peaceful’ or not??

Again with the dilution of what you said. YOU said you could not garuntee that you would remain peaceful. YOU laughed at the idea of WWW 111 if the AGS went into Belfast.

Stop trying to slither away from that.

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

Francie I give up.
If catholics don’t get involved in ruc, udr, etc then it is the Protestants fault. If Protestants don’t get involved in the gaa the (yes) it’s Protestants fault.

There is nothing worse in conflict resolution as people who believe the other side are all wrong and they see all right.
It is really just very sad. I hope you are more astute than you express on here.

The GAA was never an armed security force downcow. STOP please, you are embarrassing all the people you represent.

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Again with the dilution of what you said. YOU said you could not garuntee that you would remain peaceful. YOU laughed at the idea of WWW 111 if the AGS went into Belfast.

Stop trying to slither away from that.

I don’t know why I put the energy into asking you questions. You simply never answer the question you are asked.
That proves a lot.

Fionn1952

15-20 years

downcow wrote: »

You avoided the question again. Are the first to examples ‘peaceful’ or not??

Literally answered above. They are unpleasant and antagonistic, but without the situations highlighted above, they are not inherently peaceful. Perfectly plausible for something to be peaceful but still unpleasant.

Peaceful and pleasant are not synonyms.

Try a dictionary instead of asking me to define your b*ll**** situations.

BonnieSituation

20-30 years

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The GAA was never an armed security force downcow. STOP please, you are embarrassing all the people you represent.

He represents nobody except the paranoid and bigoted. Thankfully they are decline.

Still waiting to find out about the Irish government apparently setting out to destroy orange culture?

I'm sure he'll find it soon after he goes through another round of whataboutery.

downcow

Fionn1952 wrote: »

Literally answered above. They are unpleasant and antagonistic, but without the situations highlighted above, they are not inherently peaceful. Perfectly plausible for something to be peaceful but still unpleasant.

Peaceful and pleasant are not synonyms.

Try a dictionary instead of asking me to define your b*ll**** situations.

So we got there eventually. You are no accepting that something can not be a peaceful act but yet also not be a violent act.
So maybe that apology might be forthcoming now.

downcow

BonnieSituation wrote: »

He represents nobody except the paranoid and bigoted. Thankfully they are decline.

Still waiting to find out about the Irish government apparently setting out to destroy orange culture?

I'm sure he'll find it soon after he goes through another round of whataboutery.

Bonnie you asked for an example of when Irish government ever prevented loyalist culture (not verbatim) I give you one and asked you if you wanted more.

downcow

downcow wrote: »

You’re right bonnie. It doesn’t take a long answer.
There you go https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2006/feb/26/northernireland.ireland

....and just to save you reading it all, “....Irish police ordered loyalist marchers and their three bands onto buses and made them drive over to the Dail.”

If you want any more examples just let me know

There you go again bonnie

BonnieSituation

20-30 years

Right on cue.

You're a disaster.

BonnieSituation

20-30 years

downcow wrote: »

Bonnie you asked for an example of when Irish government ever prevented loyalist culture (not verbatim) I give you one and asked you if you wanted more.

Not verbatim? There's a quote function which you should utilise to avoid confusion.

We'll try it again shall we...

BonnieSituation

20-30 years

You stated in a previous post: "When this new ROI government would curtail our cultural expression..."




My questions were as follows and still remain unanswered:

Why would the government of Ireland curtail your rights?

What indication have you received that this might happen?



---

To clarify the above I posited the following, lest
lest there be some wiggle room to whataboutery:

Can you answer this?

Regardless of any individuals' distaste at Unionist or Nationalist cultural expression and the demonstration of same, please tell me where you got the idea that Unionist culture would be downtrodden by the State in a UI?

You didn't just make that up surely?

Any indication that the current Government of Ireland has demonstrated a willingness to assist the cultural destruction of Irish Unionists will do.

---

I don't know what you read in that article nor how you interpret certain words in the English language, but i saw no evidence of an "ROI government curtailing your cultural expression".

I might have missed it. But maybe you have other evidence to back up your statement.

So yeah, why would the government of Ireland curtail your rights?

What indication have you received that this might happen?

FrancieBrady

BonnieSituation wrote: »

You stated in a previous post: "When this new ROI government would curtail our cultural expression..."




My questions were as follows and still remain unanswered:

Why would the government of Ireland curtail your rights?

What indication have you received that this might happen?



---

To clarify the above I posited the following, lest
lest there be some wiggle room to whataboutery:

Can you answer this?

Regardless of any individuals' distaste at Unionist or Nationalist cultural expression and the demonstration of same, please tell me where you got the idea that Unionist culture would be downtrodden by the State in a UI?

You didn't just make that up surely?

Any indication that the current Government of Ireland has demonstrated a willingness to assist the cultural destruction of Irish Unionists will do.

---

I don't know what you read in that article nor how you interpret certain words in the English language, but i saw no evidence of an "ROI government curtailing your cultural expression".

I might have missed it. But maybe you have other evidence to back up your statement.

So yeah, why would the government of Ireland curtail your rights?

What indication have you received that this might happen?

The problem here, (and it has always been a problem) is that belligerent Unionism/Loyalism thinks that 'provocation' and 'intimidation' is a 'cultural expression'.
There is no desire in the moderate Unionist community to do that. Having gotten rid of the provocative marches we can see that Unionism is free to have it's cultural expressions/celebrations.
Nationalism has a share of the blame in reacting to the provocation and provoking itself, but to a much lesser degree. Just look to the bill every year for securing Unionism's 'cultural expressions'.

Fionn1952

15-20 years

downcow wrote: »

So we got there eventually. You are no accepting that something can not be a peaceful act but yet also not be a violent act.
So maybe that apology might be forthcoming now.

Nope, just a typo in my reply. Should have read, 'not inherently non-peaceful', which should've been obvious given the context. You will certainly get an apology for my typo, though not for my accurately pointing out your support for violence.

downcow

BonnieSituation wrote: »

You stated in a previous post: "When this new ROI government would curtail our cultural expression..."




My questions were as follows and still remain unanswered:

Why would the government of Ireland curtail your rights?

What indication have you received that this might happen?



---

To clarify the above I posited the following, lest
lest there be some wiggle room to whataboutery:

Can you answer this?

Regardless of any individuals' distaste at Unionist or Nationalist cultural expression and the demonstration of same, please tell me where you got the idea that Unionist culture would be downtrodden by the State in a UI?

You didn't just make that up surely?

Any indication that the current Government of Ireland has demonstrated a willingness to assist the cultural destruction of Irish Unionists will do.

---

I don't know what you read in that article nor how you interpret certain words in the English language, but i saw no evidence of an "ROI government curtailing your cultural expression".

I might have missed it. But maybe you have other evidence to back up your statement.

So yeah, why would the government of Ireland curtail your rights?

What indication have you received that this might happen?

Bonnie this is all getting a little frayed. I assure I made a genuine attempt to answer you.
I included the phrase ‘not verbatim’ as I had no desire to go hunting through the thread for my post and I expected you to feel accused of something again if I didn’t quote exactly. That’s all - nothing more sinister, I promise you.

You asked for a example of when an Irish government curtailed cultural expression. I went straight to one that stands out in my head and posted you a link.
This is a very clear example when the guards, who I regard as working for the Irish government, prevented loyalists completing their legal procession through either an unwillingness or inability to stand up to a small crowd of republican hoods acting illegally. I honesty can’t see why that does not meet the criteria of your request.
....and I did ask if you wanted further examples. I have no particular ones in mind but I am confident there are endless examples of Roi governments siding with the republican community up north and I can’t think of one example where they sided with the unionist community against nationalists.

I always try to answer with integrity and honesty.
If it helps you calm down let’s deal with my ‘peaceful’ comment. It was during a long discussion of many many comments. If I had it to do again I would not choose that phrase because of how it has been latched on to and interpreted.
I do know from experience living here that when things kick off it has the capacity to drag almost everyone into one or other camp (drumcree was a classic example - I am still shocked at how it left basically zero middle ground). So I was being real. I am not about to go out and shoot someone, but if we are taken over by the Irish state it is inevitable that it will head of on a similar trajectory as drumcree, the hunger strikes, etc.
So whilst I would not chose that phrase again, due to how it was interpreted , it still makes sense to me. If the new Irish government put up an Irish sign on my street, would I remove it? probably yes. would that be peaceful? probably not, would it be a violent action? that’s probably down to interpretation.
There would be no way that most unionists could avoid seeing this new ROI government as an occupying force. And the suggestion of how the local unionist community would react to being policed by the guards, was not a threat, just a statement of reality. They would be seen exactly the same as republicans see the British army and you see how raw that still is by Michelle’s comments.

Hope that provides some clarity and answers and removes some of you heat.

Hubertj

So IF we ever get to a stage where there will be a “United Ireland”how long would it take? We would need to consider things like educating them properly, not being a drain on our economy, obeying the law. It will probably take 20 years before they would be suitable to integrate with us.

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The problem here, (and it has always been a problem) is that belligerent Unionism/Loyalism thinks that 'provocation' and 'intimidation' is a 'cultural expression'.
There is no desire in the moderate Unionist community to do that. Having gotten rid of the provocative marches we can see that Unionism is free to have it's cultural expressions/celebrations.
Nationalism has a share of the blame in reacting to the provocation and provoking itself, but to a much lesser degree. Just look to the bill every year for securing Unionism's 'cultural expressions'.

I genuinely appreciate you placing some responsibility on the nationalist community for the difficulties around parading. Of course I would point to the publicly unmasked SF/IRA strategy to agitate communities around attacking unionist cultural expression. But I would also say that some unionist had a share in responsibility for these difficulties

The security bill is to police republican intolerance of unionist culture. Remove the intolerance of diversity and the police bill disappears

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

Bonnie this is all getting a little frayed. I assure I made a genuine attempt to answer you.
I included the phrase ‘not verbatim’ as I had no desire to go hunting through the thread for my post and I expected you to feel accused of something again if I didn’t quote exactly. That’s all - nothing more sinister, I promise you.

You asked for a example of when an Irish government curtailed cultural expression. I went straight to one that stands out in my head and posted you a link.
This is a very clear example when the guards, who I regard as working for the Irish government, prevented loyalists completing their legal procession through either an unwillingness or inability to stand up to a small crowd of republican hoods acting illegally. I honesty can’t see why that does not meet the criteria of your request.
....and I did ask if you wanted further examples. I have no particular ones in mind but I am confident there are endless examples of Roi governments siding with the republican community up north and I can’t think of one example where they sided with the unionist community against nationalists.

I always try to answer with integrity and honesty.
If it helps you calm down let’s deal with my ‘peaceful’ comment. It was during a long discussion of many many comments. If I had it to do again I would not choose that phrase because of how it has been latched on to and interpreted.
I do know from experience living here that when things kick off it has the capacity to drag almost everyone into one or other camp (drumcree was a classic example - I am still shocked at how it left basically zero middle ground). So I was being real. I am not about to go out and shoot someone, but if we are taken over by the Irish state it is inevitable that it will head of on a similar trajectory as drumcree, the hunger strikes, etc.
So whilst I would not chose that phrase again, due to how it was interpreted , it still makes sense to me. If the new Irish government put up an Irish sign on my street, would I remove it? probably yes. would that be peaceful? probably not, would it be a violent action? that’s probably down to interpretation.
There would be no way that most unionists could avoid seeing this new ROI government as an occupying force. And the suggestion of how the local unionist community would react to being policed by the guards, was not a threat, just a statement of reality. They would be seen exactly the same as republicans see the British army and you see how raw that still is by Michelle’s comments.

Hope that provides some clarity and answers and removes some of you heat.

Which puts you firmly in an anti-GFA position.
And it is my belief that only a few Unionists are anti-democratic. The vast majority will accept the will of the people and just get on with life. They may not like it but that will be the height of it.

At no point will confrontational, provocative marching be allowed. Frazer was provoking long before that march came to Dublin. He wanted the reaction he got to serve his victimhood - which is remarkably similar to yours.

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

I genuinely appreciate you placing some responsibility on the nationalist community for the difficulties around parading. Of course I would point to the publicly unmasked SF/IRA strategy to agitate communities around attacking unionist cultural expression. But I would also say that some unionist had a share in responsibility for these difficulties

The security bill is to police republican intolerance of unionist culture. Remove the intolerance of diversity and the police bill disappears

The unique bubble you live in again.

It cost nearly 200,000 just to remove two bonfires that threatened the security of houses and businesses near them a few years ago...nothing whatsoever to do with 'republican intolerance'.

Bizarre that you are blaming republicans for your own community's behaviours.