How long before Irish reunification?

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

While Nationalist ans Catholics had a jolly old time of it?
You often complain about people dragging up historical augments and here you are being a hypocrite again, not to mention a revisionist one.

The current status quo is only 'constitutional' because it's built on a bloody crooked foundation.

We have had relative peace for the last 25 years. Nobody has been able to explain yet how any constitutional change will improve the current situation.

James Brown

10-15 years

blanch152 wrote: »

We have had relative peace for the last 25 years. Nobody has been able to explain yet how any constitutional change will improve the current situation.

What led to the peace? Would it be an acknowledgement of the nationalist community and equality for Catholics, with recognition given to the possibility of a referendum on a united Ireland?

Let's not wallpaper over your one sided re-telling of the history that brought us to this peace.

_blaaz

10-15 years

blanch152 wrote: »

Well, you should try and view everyone in a positive light.

Those who are in favour of maintaining the current constitutional status quo remember the 1970s and 1980s when daily IRA atrocities brought this nation's name into the dirt.

You really shouldnt throw stones ....that passage deosnt view the IRA in a positive light....or is it just militant irish republicans that arent to be viewed in a positive light??

Odhinn

blanch152 wrote: »

Well, you should try and view everyone in a positive light.

Those who are in favour of maintaining the current constitutional status quo remember the 1970s and 1980s when daily IRA atrocities brought this nation's name into the dirt. They have seen the peace of the last 25 years and the stability that the GFA has brought. They want to see this positive change continue.

Those who agitate for a border poll when there is no sign that it will be passed are the negative ones, trying to upset the current balance.

Jaysus forbid they resist the oppression of a sectarian statelet that battered peaceful protests off the street.

FrancieBrady

Matt Barrett wrote: »

What led to the peace? Would it be an acknowledgement of the nationalist community and equality for Catholics, with recognition given to the possibility of a referendum on a united Ireland?

Let's not wallpaper over your one sided re-telling of the history that brought us to this peace.

What led to the peace was the Irish desire to create an equal and inclusive normal society.

They won that to an extent and they look to us in the south and see what they can be. A society with all the problems and issues that everybody else has but is devoid of religious bigotry and a desire to discriminate and which refuse to gove any one a platform to do that. Proper civil and religious liberties.

FrancieBrady

I was kinda looking forward to Gove getting the northern Ireland job. Wonder who is cramming on their history tonight.

https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1153779352531869696

@Steven_Swinford

20-30 years

@Steven_Swinford
You can read more in tomorrow’s Times:

* Priti Patel back among top jobs, tipped for Home Sec

Start as you mean to go on, Boris. There's only one person you could possibly appoint as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland:

Tory MP suggests using possible 'no-deal' food shortages to force Ireland to drop the backstop

RobMc59

10-15 years

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Matt Barrett wrote: »

What led to the peace? Would it be an acknowledgement of the nationalist community and equality for Catholics, with recognition given to the possibility of a referendum on a united Ireland?

Let's not wallpaper over your one sided re-telling of the history that brought us to this peace.

What led to the peace was the Irish desire to create an equal and inclusive normal society.

They won that to an extent and they look to us in the south and see what they can be. A society with all the problems and issues that everybody else has but is devoid of religious bigotry and a desire to discriminate and which refuse to gove any one a platform to do that. Proper civil and religious liberties.

The Unionists in NI are a canny bunch and won't be taken in by extremist republican fantasies which are nothing more than a load of old codswallop!...
https://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/how-protestants-were-all-but-ethnically-cleansed-in-south-1-7885130

FrancieBrady

RobMc59 wrote: »

The Unionists in NI are a canny bunch and won't be taken in by extremist republican fantasies which are nothing more than a load of old codswallop!...
https://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/how-protestants-were-all-but-ethnically-cleansed-in-south-1-7885130

A UI is an extremist republican fantasy? I wonder how Leo, and most the Irish governement would feel about being called 'extremist republicans'


The title of that article...so funny too...'all but ethnic cleansing'???? Talk about playing the victim. :rolleyes:

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

A UI is an extremist republican fantasy? I wonder how Leo, and most the Irish governement would feel about being called 'extremist republicans'


The title of that article...so funny too...'all but ethnic cleansing'???? Talk about playing the victim. :rolleyes:

You are the one Francie who condoned the IRA and talked about encouraging the minority to pack up their tents and go ( or similar words). In the 20th century the minority in the 26 counties declined, while in Northern Ireland the minority increased.

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

You are the one Francie who condoned the IRA and talked about encouraging the minority to pack up their tents and go ( or similar words). In the 20th century the minority in the 26 counties declined, while in Northern Ireland the minority increased.

Telling lies diminishes your argument janfebmar.

What I proposed was the 'choice' of help for those less fortunate than Arlene Foster, who have said they 'could not live with a UI and would leave'. I don't need to 'encourage' the likes of Arlene...she has already made her decision.

Unlike you, I have the humanity not to want to force people to do something they cannot stomach.

And again, I never condoned any of the violence in Ireland. It was ALL wrong from the beginning.

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Telling lies diminishes your argument janfebmar.

What I proposed was the 'choice' of help for those less fortunate than Arlene Foster, who have said they 'could not live with a UI and would leave'. I don't need to 'encourage' the likes of Arlene...she has already made her decision.

Unlike you, I have the humanity not to want to force people to do something they cannot stomach.

And again, I never condoned any of the violence in Ireland. It was ALL wrong from the beginning.

You do not condone the violence because your beloved pira never used violence. That was what the British and loyalists used. And no, you do not need to encourage the likes of Arlene to leave, but yet you condoned the pira campaign which attempted to murder her father, and which attacked a school bus full of protestant kids which included a young Arlene. Ever wonder why she probably does not like Republicans, especially when they still defend those actions

_blaaz

10-15 years

janfebmar wrote: »

You do not condone the violence because your beloved pira never used violence

Youve really jumped off far end now

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

You do not condone the violence because your beloved pira never used violence. That was what the British and loyalists used. And no, you do not need to encourage the likes of Arlene to leave, but yet you condoned the pira campaign which attempted to murder her father, and which attacked a school bus full of protestant kids which included a young Arlene. Ever wonder why she probably does not like Republicans, especially when they still defend those actions

You are now doing the internet equivalent of spitting out lies.

Arlene has stated quite publicly that if there was a UI she would move.
I won't mention what I think of her abandoning those less fortunate with the same opinion. That speaks for itself of her sense of responsibility as a public representative. But I for one would not FORCE anyone to stay because of their means.

What would you do for them (18% say in one survey that they couldn't live with a UI) or about their predicament?
If you are not willing to help them then you are effectively forcing them to stay.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You are now doing the internet equivalent of spitting out lies.

Arlene has stated quite publicly that if there was a UI she would move.
I won't mention what I think of her abandoning those less fortunate with the same opinion. That speaks for itself of her sense of responsibility as a public representative. But I for one would not FORCE anyone to stay because of their means.

What would you do for them (18% say in one survey that they couldn't live with a UI) or about their predicament?
If you are not willing to help them then you are effectively forcing them to stay.

You really don't get it. It is the attitude of "they can move if they don't like it" which is offensive.

Imagine if there was a referendum on traveller accommodation and tomorrow someone said that they were closing all traveller settlements and offering them houses instead, and said that they could move if they didn't like it. That is the equivalent of your sentiment.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

You really don't get it. It is the attitude of which is offensive.

I didn't say "they can move if they don't like it" or anything like it? Please show where I did or stop the lies.
I responded to a survey where people said 'they would not be able to live in a UI.

Please don't tarnish your reputation by allying yourself to jamfebmar any further blanch.

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I didn't say "they can move if they don't like it" or anything like it? .

You said they can up tents and you would expect some to do so in the event of a u. I.

RobMc59

10-15 years

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I didn't say "they can move if they don't like it" or anything like it? Please show where I did or stop the lies.
I responded to a survey where people said 'they would not be able to live in a UI.

Please don't tarnish your reputation by allying yourself to jamfebmar any further blanch.

The majority of Irish people find this "they can move if they want to"suggestion by extremist republicans abhorrent , your almost ecstatic description of how you would like to see it implemented is a real eye opener.

suicide_circus

LoughNeagh2017

The story ended in 1603, things were over when the plantation started, even if we had reunification we would still have to live among Ulster-Scots, thinking about Ulster history is one of the things that make my depression worse so I like to ignore it. Unionists are naturally arrogant bullies and they would never let reunification happen as they couldn't let Catholics get the upper hand, I already told my sister I won't be attending her childrens wedding if they marry a unionist or non Irish-catholic in general.

blanch152

LoughNeagh2017 wrote: »

The story ended in 1603, things were over when the plantation started, even if we had reunification we would still have to live among Ulster-Scots, thinking about Ulster history is one of the things that make my depression worse so I like to ignore it. Unionists are naturally arrogant bullies and they would never let reunification happen as they couldn't let Catholics get the upper hand, I already told my sister I won't be attending her childrens wedding if they marry a unionist or non Irish-catholic in general.

That is pretty much the dictionary definition of bigotry and sectarianism.

LoughNeagh2017

blanch152 wrote: »

That is pretty much the dictionary definition of bigotry and sectarianism.

Our state was built on sectarianism, my great granny disowned daughter for marrying unionist. I also heard a recent story about someone who my mother knows, he was kicked out of house for dating a Donegal girl.

RobMc59

20-30 years

RobMc59 wrote: »

The Unionists in NI are a canny bunch and won't be taken in by extremist republican fantasies which are nothing more than a load of old codswallop!...
https://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/how-protestants-were-all-but-ethnically-cleansed-in-south-1-7885130

Hmmm. You're citing an article by the long-discredited Robin Bury and his equally discredited Unionist Reform movement and expecting to be treated seriously?

Fionn1952

15-20 years

LoughNeagh2017 wrote: »

Unionists are naturally arrogant bullies and they would never let reunification happen as they couldn't let Catholics get the upper hand, I already told my sister I won't be attending her childrens wedding if they marry a unionist or non Irish-catholic in general.

I hate to agree so strongly with Blanch, but Christ, I hope you're approaching or have already reached pension age. The sooner this sort of attitude can die out on both sides, the sooner we can get on with some semblance of normality.

Genuinely I can't think of much that's more damaging towards the pursuit of Irish unification than attitudes like this.

Odhinn

LoughNeagh2017 wrote: »

Our state was built on sectarianism, my great granny disowned daughter for marrying unionist. I also heard a recent story about someone who my mother knows, he was kicked out of house for dating a Donegal girl.

....primitive nonsense best consigned to the bin.

FrancieBrady

Deleted User wrote: »

Hmmm. You're citing an article by the long-discredited Robin Bury and his equally discredited Unionist Reform movement and expecting to be treated seriously?

The headline reminds me of a bit of infamous graffiti around here 'Guard X is a half murderer'

FrancieBrady

Odhinn wrote: »

....primitive nonsense best consigned to the bin.

Best not to give it any oxygen.

eagle eye

Ulster Says No. It will never happen

FrancieBrady wrote:

Unlike you, I have the humanity not to want to force people to do something they cannot stomach.

So I they don't want a United Ireland then that's fine by you and there'll be no UI?

FrancieBrady

eagle eye wrote: »

So I they don't want a United Ireland then that's fine by you and there'll be no UI?

If they don't want a UI but the majority do, 18% said they 'could not live with it'.

I was interested in what partitionists and Unionists who would abide democratically by a majority decision, would do about those who 'couldn't live with it'.

I proposed making available 'relocation grants' for those people who couldn't afford what Arlene Foster said she would do, which is to 'leave'.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If they don't want a UI but the majority do, 18% said they 'could not live with it'.

I was interested in what partitionists and Unionists who would abide democratically by a majority decision, would do about those who 'couldn't live with it'.

I proposed making available 'relocation grants' for those people who couldn't afford what Arlene Foster said she would do, which is to 'leave'.

Zimbabwe made relocation grants available to white farmers who couldn't live with Rhodesian independence. That worked well.