How long before Irish reunification?

eagle eye

Ulster Says No. It will never happen

FrancieBrady wrote:

Completely disingenuous and dishonest posting there.

You are the childish one in here and the dishonest one.. Again picking pieces out of posts. Will you ever grow up lad.
I'll be here to point out every time you do that from now on.

eagle eye

Ulster Says No. It will never happen

FrancieBrady wrote:

Well show us your data to back up your contention that 'most' people did what you did...completely misunderstanding what they were signing up to. Otherwise it is just an excuse for your own mistake.

You must have missedv that I didn't vote. I was living in the US at the time.

All my conversations with people were just saying about how it's the end of the troubles. The odd one, maybe 1 in 20, could be less than that, talked about the possibility of a UI.

munsterlegend

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Well show us your data to back up your contention that 'most' people did what you did...completely misunderstanding what they were signing up to.
Otherwise it is just an excuse for your own mistake.

There isn’t any data so he just throws the toys out of the pram.

FrancieBrady

eagle eye wrote: »

You are the childish one in here and the dishonest one.. Again picking pieces out of posts. Will you ever grow up lad.
I'll be here to point out every time you do that from now on.

Pieces?

I agree with Eagle Eye. I don't want a border poll or a UI.

That is a full and complete statement of a position. Just as 'the past is the past and should stay in the past'. Or whatever it was precisely that you said.

Keep up the name calling, both of you haven't a leg to stand on here. Don't say stuff of you don't mean it.

You make statements on behalf of 'most' people in Ireland too. That's a whole other story of dishonesty and did-ingenuousness.

You clearly don't like being called out.

FrancieBrady

eagle eye wrote: »

You must have missedv that I didn't vote. I was living in the US at the time.

All my conversations with people were just saying about how it's the end of the troubles. The odd one, maybe 1 in 20, could be less than that, talked about the possibility of a UI.

You weren't even in the country but you know what 'most' people were thinking? It gets better and better.

eagle eye

Ulster Says No. It will never happen

FrancieBrady wrote:

You make statements on behalf of 'most' people in Ireland too. That's a whole other story of dishonesty and did-ingenuousness.

Again more lies and childishness.

eagle eye

Ulster Says No. It will never happen

FrancieBrady wrote:

You weren't even in the country but you know what 'most' people were thinking? It gets better and better.

You obviously never heard of the phone?

munsterlegend

eagle eye wrote: »

You obviously never heard of the phone?

Did a poll did we? How scientific!

FrancieBrady

eagle eye wrote: »

Again more lies and childishness.

You said it. Own it.

eagle eye wrote:

I've told you the truth about the GFA which is that most people were for it based on the short term approach of ending the troubles. It was either agree to it or go back to the troubles.

And stop the name calling please. If you wish to withdraw the statement, be man/woman enough to do so, if you don't and can't back it up with data, don't be throwing the toys out because people call you on it.

eagle eye

Ulster Says No. It will never happen

FrancieBrady wrote:

And stop the name calling please. If you wish to withdraw the statement, be ma/woman enough to do so, if you don't and can't back it up with data, don't be throwing the toys out because people call you on it.

It's you that needs to withdraw. Withdraw your lies and apologise. Withdraw from the thread and go grow up.

FrancieBrady

eagle eye wrote: »

It's you that needs to withdraw. Withdraw your lies and apologise. Withdraw from the thread and go grow up.

You are calling me a liar when I quoted the post in which you said it?????

Dear oh.

downcow

jm08 wrote: »

I'd say that you have a very limited understanding of what happened in the troubles and how catholics/nationalists were treated in the Northern Ireland state.

Unionists have a huge difficulty with accepting pariety of esteem which is one of the main pillars of the GFA. Natonalists accepted the GFA because they were given the hope that they could have a vote on a UI.

And some people want to deny them that? Its only a vote, not a UI. The democratic wish of the people will be accepted.

Catholics always had the same opportunity as Protestants. And for the last 50 years plus it has been one person one vote. Parties stood on a very clear platform of a united Ireland and they could never achieve majority. So let's not pretend there was some great United Ireland majority whose vote was suppressed

downcow

eagle eye wrote: »

It's you that needs to withdraw. Withdraw your lies and apologise. Withdraw from the thread and go grow up.

He is a lost cause. No logic, no fairness and certainly no sense. This thread becomes a much more reasonable debate when you hit the 'ignore' button on our friend.
I tried, my goodness I tried! But he wore me down

jm08

20-30 years

downcow wrote: »

Catholics always had the same opportunity as Protestants. And for the last 50 years plus it has been one person one vote. Parties stood on a very clear platform of a united Ireland and they could never achieve majority. So let's not pretend there was some great United Ireland majority whose vote was suppressed

If that is the case then, what was unionists objection to the Sunningdale Agreement, which would have brought the SDLP into a power sharing Goverment in NI or the Anglo Irish Agreement?


If catholics always had the same opportunities as protestants, how come there were so few catholics working in places like Haarland and Wolff?

BonnieSituation

20-30 years

downcow wrote: »

Catholics always had the same opportunity as Protestants. And for the last 50 years plus it has been one person one vote. Parties stood on a very clear platform of a united Ireland and they could never achieve majority. So let's not pretend there was some great United Ireland majority whose vote was suppressed

Wow.

jm08

20-30 years

This is a quote from an essay by Michael Lillis, who was Head of the Irish delegation for the Anglo-Irish Agreement. The ''he'' referred to here is Garret FitzGerald, who was the Taoiseach then.

Unlike successive Irish governments from 1922 to 1969 which had systematically ignored them, he was concerned more with righting the injustices that the unionists, with the unspoken support of London, systematically visited on the Catholic nationalist minority rather than on bombastic anti-partitionist rhetoric. He also argued for the creation of a new legal and social framework in the South which would make our society less alien to Northern Unionists. In the negotiation of the Sunningdale Agreement of 1974 he was the most active participant, shuttling tirelessly between the different parties and encouraging dialogue and compromise. When the Wilson government failed to instruct the British army to confront the loyalist strike, thus betraying and bringing down the power-sharing structures of the agreement itself, the so-called unionist veto of any type of proposal whatever, even without an “Irish dimension”, was fatally and shamefully reinforced. The Provisional IRA’s argument that the British would never listen to anything except violence seemed validated and they were undoubtedly further encouraged in prosecuting their vicious “long war”. Eight years would pass before there was another Irish-British effort to move towards a solution, eight years dominated by hunger strikes, killings by IRA and loyalist terrorists, unionist intransigence, paralysis in London and intermittent despair or jingoism in Dublin.

https://www.drb.ie/essays/the-good-statesman

Incidentally, Michael Lillis was interviewed on the ''Irishman Abroad'' podcast, where he gives a lot of background colour of his time in the Dept. of Foreign Affairs which was prior to his aviation career.

https://soundcloud.com/an-irishman-abroad/michael-lillis-episode-339

munsterlegend

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Wow.

He’ll be saying Jews were welcome in nazi Germany next.

FrancieBrady

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Wow.

Went to the same school as Maryishere.

BonnieSituation

20-30 years

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Went to the same school as Maryishere.

Daddy is obviously from the Laggan Valley.

Junkyard Tom

30-40 years

A relative of mine couldn't handle the sectarianism-induced stress he suffered in a job he was in (PUL stronghold) and left for another - this would have been before the rigorous anti-discrimination laws were brought in, if that showed up in statistics at all it would just be a Catholic quitting his job and nothing else.

The success of the UWC strike was specifically as a result of sectarian patterns of recruitment. The workforce in the power industry was overwhelmingly Protestant which was absolutely crucial to the strike. The fact that they were able to pull out Ballylumford, Kilroot and then Coolkeeragh - the major power installations in the North - was absolutely crucial to them.

cain.ulster.ac.uk

Take Coolkeeragh there, despite being in a majority Catholic part of the north they were able to shut down a key installation because it was a PUL workforce.

downcow

Yeah_Right wrote: »

Its 20 odd years since I looked at it but from memory (and very simply) they negotiated and both sides made compromises. The UK gave up their claim to the island of Ireland and Ireland gave up their claim to the north. The political wings of the terrorist organisations got a seat at the table and were allowed to be involved in governing (and what a great job they've done :rolleyes:). Rights were guaranteed and terrorists were let out of prison. There was an agreement that some time in the future the people who live in the 2 countries would get to decide their future at the ballot box without having to worry about some prick shooting them or blowing them up.

I think that because there was such huge public support for the GFA on both sides, the terrorists finally realised the game was over. They could no longer spout their crap about fighting for the people when the vast majority of people clearly said they should stop.

Pretty good summary

downcow

jm08 wrote: »

If that is the case then, what was unionists objection to the Sunningdale Agreement, which would have brought the SDLP into a power sharing Goverment in NI or the Anglo Irish Agreement?


If catholics always had the same opportunities as protestants, how come there were so few catholics working in places like Haarland and Wolff?

Apologies. Genuine mistake by me. I meant to type that catholics had the same opportunity to VOTE as Protestants. I clearly accept that catholics were deprived of opportunities to work in ni up to 70s

downcow

I got slatted by two or three notorious posters on here for drawing attention to the sectarian nature of the ira campaign. I was just sent this article which really sums up what was happening, very sanitised and written by an academic. He’s got a good take on it his only error is that he specifically examined the border and implies that this was unique to that area. I live 30 miles from the border and this is exactly what was happening in my town. It’s only a coupe of paragraphs worth a read. He also touches on the other area of denial on here ie the Irish states contribution.
https://m.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/jim-cusack-ira-engaged-in-ethnic-cleansing-of-protestants-along-border-29150363.html

greeno

10-15 years

downcow wrote: »

Apologies. Genuine mistake by me. I meant to type that catholics had the same opportunity to VOTE as Protestants. I clearly accept that catholics were deprived of opportunities to work in ni up to 70s

Catholics may have got their token vote in the 70s but the opportunity to have equal rights to jobs and even education came much later in the day. Even today education in NI is pretty much segregated on religious grounds with the main colleges mimicking this. An act was signed but prejudice was still rife. It wasn’t until the 1989 fair employment act that any sort of leveling of the workforce started to take place.

greeno

10-15 years

downcow wrote: »

I got slatted by two or three notorious posters on here for drawing attention to the sectarian nature of the ira campaign. I was just sent this article which really sums up what was happening, very sanitised and written by an academic. He’s got a good take on it his only error is that he specifically examined the border and implies that this was unique to that area. I live 30 miles from the border and this is exactly what was happening in my town. It’s only a coupe of paragraphs worth a read. He also touches on the other area of denial on here ie the Irish states contribution.
https://m.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/jim-cusack-ira-engaged-in-ethnic-cleansing-of-protestants-along-border-29150363.html

Jim Cusack, he’s been spouting the same anti catholic drivel for years. I think people stopped reading or listening to this propaganda merchant long ago.

downcow

greeno wrote: »

Catholics may have got their token vote in the 70s but the opportunity to have equal rights to jobs and even education came much later in the day. Even today education in NI is pretty much segregated on religious grounds with the main colleges mimicking this. An act was signed but prejudice was still rife. It wasn’t until the 1989 fair employment act that any sort of leveling of the workforce started to take place.

Now don’t be at that old one again that catholics didn’t get voting until 1970s. Can you show me somewhere where catholics were specifically deprived from voting? Yes of course there was gerrymandering and the majority tried to set things up in their favour but working class Protestants suffered the exact same voting issues as catholics, and middle class catholics had exactly the same benefits voting as middle class Protestants.
At least that is my understanding even though many like to claim catholics didn’t have a vote.
If I am wrong then I will have learnt something today.

....and of course it’s great to ignore the big employers like beleek pottery who wouldn’t have a prod about the place

downcow

greeno wrote: »

Jim Cusack, he’s been spouting the same anti catholic drivel for years. I think people stopped reading or listening to this propaganda merchant long ago.

No point in shooting the messenger.
Professor Henry Patterson And the head of the civil service were the people outlining the ira sectarianism, not Jim Cusack. I guess you’ll need to discredit them as well?

downcow

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

The COVID19 hospital death figures in the north are close to twice those of the south. Only for SF and Dublin those numbers might have been worse, I'm sure you'll agree.

Or is the clip I linked you to a SF/ITV conspiracy to make Unionists/Britain look bad?

I think you points scoring around covid deaths might be falling through
https://factcheckni.org/fact-checks/are-covid-19-deaths-in-northern-ireland-50-higher-than-ireland/
....and if I recall you said 100% higher

Junkyard Tom

30-40 years

downcow wrote: »

I think you points scoring around covid deaths might be falling through
https://factcheckni.org/fact-checks/are-covid-19-deaths-in-northern-ireland-50-higher-than-ireland/
....and if I recall you said 100% higher

I mean't to come back and correct that actually but forgot. Also unsubstantiated doesn't mean 'false'. The closest way of comparing rates of mortality will probably be excess deaths and even that will be contentious.

Excess deaths sort of reduces the suffering of those who die from CV19 (and their loved-ones) to a number so seems inhumane too.

Whatever happens I think the rate of deaths in care homes will be equally terrible all round and that is a failure to protect the vulnerable which we should be ashamed of.

FrancieBrady

greeno wrote: »

Jim Cusack, he’s been spouting the same anti catholic drivel for years. I think people stopped reading or listening to this propaganda merchant long ago.

Prof Henry Patterson was a peculiar character too. In many ways a bit like our friend downcow. He spent a great deal of time shouting 'ethnic cleansing' never once accepting that IF the IRA had indulged in ethnic cleansing of border areas then they were pathetically bad at it. The person I know of in that article from Roslea was warned on several occasions to stop supplying security forces which, while brutal and terrible, was a punishable offence no matter what religion you were.
But perhaps the funniest aspect of Patterson was his critiques of other historians who didn't agree with him. Here are parts of his rather 'bitchy' review of Dermot Ferriter's book on the same subject - the border:

Diarmaid Ferriter is Ireland’s foremost celebrity academic and probably its best known historian.

Relatively young he has published a number of books on twentieth century Irish history including his much cited The Transformation of Ireland 1900-2000 .

The new book has been produced in relatively short order

In the British reviews the favourable notices seem at times in inverse proportion to the historical knowledge of the reviewer.

Say what you want about Ferriter, but having to stoop to calling him a 'young, celebrity historian rushing out books with no knowledge of history just because he doesn't share your own view tells you exactly what kind of person you are dealing with.
Any wonder that Patterson has failed to convince.