How long before Irish reunification?

FrancieBrady

facehugger99 wrote: »

Francie will try to present the face of 'reasonable-nationalist' to the world but there are a number of times, even just on this thread, when the mask slips and some very disturbing language is used.

He has previous for suggesting the repatriation of Protestants from NI, the labeling those who disagree with his nationalist agenda as "useless to society" and now attempting to deny unionists the right to identify as British.

It's a worrying but very consistent trend.

As I have previously said - the irony is that those who most vehemently push a unification agenda, are also those least well equipped to compromise on thier fanatical, pan-nationalist beliefs

Challenge for you Facehugger:

Show me a single post...not your interpretation of it..show me the ACTUAL post where I suggested the 'repatriation of Protestants from NI'?

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

No.
But people identify in many different ways and can still be seen as basically the same.
Gay, Hetro, Lesbian, British, Irish, Cavan, Monaghan, left wing, right wing, Unionist, Nationalist, Fine Gael, Labour, male, female, tranvestitite, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Islamic etc etc etc etc.

There is nothing stopping them all living in a country together and being called Irish or the 'same people'.
Because all of the above live in southern Ireland, as it is.

That is a lovely sentiment. So if we are all the same then why do we need a United Ireland?

Your views are extreme and not held by most right-thinking people. You want to lay claim on the people of NI as they are all 'Irish' in your eyes, so there is no need for them to fear a UI.

You should bring that little speech to the Shankill Road, and wrap a tri-color yourself while you are at it. See how far you get.

Meanwhile, in the real world, we know that there are differences between those who identify as Unionist and the rest.

To be honest, you sound like a little Irelander, a mirror image of a Brexiter selling silly ideas and notions in the hope the gullible buy into it. No one is buying to be honest. It's good you spend all your waking hours posting here, you do less harm in the real world.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

That is a lovely sentiment. So if we are all the same then why do we need a United Ireland?

How trite and insubstantial an answer that is. We need a UI to solve the problem presented by a partition that never worked, at tremendous and tragic economic but mostly social cost to us all.

Your views are extreme and not held by most right-thinking people. You want to lay claim on the people of NI as they are all 'Irish' in your eyes, so there is no need for them to fear a UI.

I don't lay 'claim' on anybody. More trite nonsense to be honest.

You should bring that little speech to the Shankill Road, and wrap a tri-color yourself while you are at it. See how far you get.

Meanwhile, in the real world, we know that there are differences between those who identify as Unionist and the rest.

To be honest, you sound like a little Irelander, a mirror image of a Brexiter selling silly ideas and notions in the hope the gullible buy into it. No one is buying to be honest. It's good you spend all your waking hours posting here, you do less harm in the real world.

Surely given the 100 years of it's history, the 'silly idea' was partition? Do you need evidence to show that?

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

How trite and insubstantial an answer that is. We need a UI to solve the problem presented by a partition that never worked, at tremendous and tragic economic but mostly social cost to us all.

But if we're all the same, why was partition created. Why did we not partition Munster instead?

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Surely given the 100 years of it's history, the 'silly idea' was partition? Do you need evidence to show that?

There could have been worse trouble if a United Ireland and Magdalene sundries and the backwardness of the Irish state of the early / mid 20th century was forced on the people of N Ireland.

Interesting question though. If there had been a 32 county Ireland and the Allies could not use the port of L'Derry / Derry during the war, or the shipyard in Belfast (employing 30,000?), or Lough Erne as a base for flying boats etc, could the war have ended differently? Churchill said after the war that the thing that scared him most during the war was the u boat menace in the Atlantic. Could the battle of the Atlantic - and hence the war- have turned out differently if the UK had not N Ireland then?

While partition was bad for the economy of ireland (until we joined the Eec at any rate ), maybe it would have been even worse for the western world if the Allies had not the use of N Ireland during the war?

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

But if we're all the same, why was partition created.

You tell me.

Partition didn't cure the problem, 'Irish people wanting to be part of a foreign entity'. It intensified the problem, until it went up in flames.

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You tell me.

Partition didn't cure the problem, 'Irish people wanting to be part of a foreign entity'. It intensified the problem, until it went up in flames.

Well, so goes your theory of us all being exactly the same.

I guess the partitioning of Ulster was random. We are lucky it wasn't Munster so. :pac:

facehugger99

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Challenge for you Facehugger:

Show me a single post...not your interpretation of it..show me the ACTUAL post where I suggested the 'repatriation of Protestants from NI'?

I'm quite happy to continue with my interpretation of your posts, just as other readers will form their own interpretations.

You have ultra-nationalist views, you are an apologist for IRA-terrorism and you have consistently labeled those (partitionist, belligerent unionist, etc) who have pointed out the myriad of issues with unification.

You are a case-study for all that is problematic with current nationalist thinking on the concept of unification. Your post-count on this and other threads on NI and Nationalist issues displays a near obsession, that can't be healthy in any adult.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

Well, so goes your theory of us all being exactly the same.

I guess the partitioning of Ulster was random. We are lucky it wasn't Munster so. :pac:

One wonders what would happen if Cork was actually allowed or abetted in setting up their own republic in Munster?

A 'responsible' government would not allow it.

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

One wonders what would happen if Cork was actually allowed or abetted in setting up their own republic in Munster?

A 'responsible' government would not allow it.

Yes, because the whole of the island wanted Home Rule didn't they? :pac::pac:

Keep tap dancing Francie.

FrancieBrady

facehugger99 wrote: »

I'm quite happy to continue with my interpretation of your posts, just as other readers will form their own interpretations.

As good a euphemism for lying as one could get. You are lying about me suggesting anywhere that protestants should be repatriated. Of course you can't link to a post where I say that.

The rest of your post is just your usual 'attack the poster' bile, with little of any substance to respond to.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

Yes, because the whole of the island wanted Home Rule didn't they? :pac::pac:

Keep tap dancing Francie.

Which has what to do with what we are talking about?

The whole of the island didn't want SSM or abortion rights, or to join the EEC etc...are we not all Irish as a result? Is janfebmar not Irish because she regrets the British leaving?

Try and stay within the bounds of rational debate here.

James Brown

10-15 years

facehugger99 wrote: »

I'm quite happy to continue with my interpretation of your posts, just as other readers will form their own interpretations.

You have ultra-nationalist views, you are an apologist for IRA-terrorism and you have consistently labeled those (partitionist, belligerent unionist, etc) who have pointed out the myriad of issues with unification.

You are a case-study for all that is problematic with current nationalist thinking on the concept of unification. Your post-count on this and other threads on NI and Nationalist issues displays a near obsession, that can't be healthy in any adult.

This reader sees you as a twister. You infer your own conclusions and cite them as though they were the thoughts of others. You seem to think that if you do it often enough and long enough it'll become true. Seems to me you often run out of road so resort to this tactic. Nobody is buying it by the way.

FrancieBrady

Matt Barrett wrote: »

This reader sees you as a twister. You infer your own conclusions and cite them as though they were the thoughts of others. You seem to think that if you do it often enough and long enough it'll become true. Seems to me you often run out of road so resort to this tactic. Nobody is buying it by the way.

He knows it is an out and out lie, as he cannot link to where I said anything about 'repatriating protestants'.

Not only do we know how desperate he is, he knows himself.

James Brown

10-15 years

FrancieBrady wrote: »

He knows it is an out and out lie, as he cannot link to where I said anything about 'repatriating protestants'.

Not only do we know how desperate he is, he knows himself.

This kicked off a few weeks ago. Sad he's still clinging to it.

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

He knows it is an out and out lie, as he cannot link to where I said anything about 'repatriating protestants'.

Not only do we know how desperate he is, he knows himself.

He is not the only one who remembers you waffling about repatriating people in the event of a "United Ireland". It was unionists you were talking about, Francie, you did say in your utopia of a United Ireland you would give resettlement Grants to unionists if they got out of the country. You were saying it would be unfair if Arlene could and would leave and others who wanted to leave could not, so you would help resettle them out of the country, bless you.

FrancieBrady

Two out and out liars at work here. One of them janfebmar lying across two threads about this.

Here is what I said for the honest debaters, here.

franciebrady wrote:

So you would advocate leaving the 18% who say they 'couldn't live with a UI' where they are Rob?

Is that fair or even humane? I would not like to be responsible for that so would be in favour of relocation grants, As long as they were available to citizens of Ireland who couldn't bring themselves to live in a united Ireland it couldn't be called ethnic cleansing and nobody would be forced to apply.

RobMc59

10-15 years

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Challenge for you Facehugger:

Show me a single post...not your interpretation of it..show me the ACTUAL post where I suggested the 'repatriation of Protestants from NI'?

He won`t be able to show a single post by you referring to any repatriation as all the posts appeared to have been deleted.

Edit:I believe the posts were deleted by mods as the thread was getting heated at the time.

Junkyard Tom

30-40 years

mariaalice wrote: »

For some nationalists, they don't care if reunification make them poorer or the economy of NI worse( it might not but who knows ) It a visceral cultural thing for nationalists.

This shows how little you understand the northeast; if anything it's the opposite. Brexit is being pushed for despite the potential economic disaster it may precede because 'fuck them'uns, fleg, union'.

It's nationalists who work in the Civil Service and those reliant on the NHS/Welfare state who are the ones who'll think carefully about their future in a UI and I, personally, can't see them voting for a UI in the short to medium term.

janfebmar

Here is post no 1620 from this thread:

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'.

The "relocation grants" proposed above by Francie would apply to "partitionists and Unionists" in Francies own words, people like Arlene but not as well off as her with her politicians salary / pension. I seem to remember protestants being mentioned in a post but that was probably deleted as the debate got a bit heated.

Francie has proposed "relocation grants" in the event of a U.I. so I would like to ask Francie if his proposal would work on a points system, or has he thought it through. A number of interesting points are raised by Francies proposal:
(A) Would relocation be voluntary or compulsory? It is not clear from the statement above. Nobody "would be forced to apply" but perhaps if they were "of no use to the state / of benefit to nobody " (some Republicans used words like that earlier in the thread) they could be deported?
(B) Would the amount of the relocation grant be dependent on the religion of the grantee, or if they were members of the O.O.? Francie is particularly keen to rid the island of certain types eg OO members or fellow travellers of Arlene, so perhaps in Francies proposal grants could be made easier or quicker for such people?
(C) Would Francies proposed "Relocation Grants" be made extra generous for those who say co-operated with Land Reform ....in other words, perhaps volunteered to give stolen land ( eg farm land stolen from its rightful owners a few hundred years ago) back to the new state, without having to have the land or property compulsory purchased by the new state? After all, it would be important in the new state to resettle people and spread them away from their colonial type ghettoes,, to lessen the chances of them having illegial bonfires or parades or secret OO meetings, all of which would be rightfully banned according to Francie.

It is an interesting proposal Francie. Even Mugabe did not think of that one, although Mugabe did have a land programme which saw upwards of 80,000 families resettled. Very clever. The nearest I can think of in terms of resettling an ethnic community out of the state was the Nazi government in Germany, who had a plan to relocate the Jewish population of Europe to the island of Madagascar, early in the war. Google it and see. Quote:
" The idea, put forth by Franz Rademacher, head of the Jewish Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, was to hand over Madagascar, then a French colony, to Germany as part of the French surrender terms. The project was approved by Adolf Hitler. On Aug. 15, 1940, he ordered Adolf Eichmann to start the resettlement of a million Jews per year for four years to Madagascar as a police state under the SS. The project was eventually shelved as the Nazis opted for the systematic genocide of the Jewish population instead."

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

Here is post no 1620 from this thread:

Instead of your snide lying about what I said. Why don't you answer the question asked.

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 made the reasonable proposal that those 'who wanted to leave' could apply for a relocation grant.

What do you propose?

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

He knows it is an out and out lie, as he cannot link to where I said anything about 'repatriating protestants'.

I linked to your proposal for "Relocation grants" for "partitionists and Unionists", people of Arlenes type.

Perhaps you could answer the questions 2 posts ago?

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

I linked to your proposal for "Relocation grants" for "partitionists and Unionists",

I doubt people who want a UI would 'not be able to live with one'.

Arlene has publicly stated she would abandon her constituents if a UI came about. A bizarrely callous thing for any elected representative to say and plan to do. But I don't vote for her, so that is a matter for her own voters.

Perhaps you could answer the questions 2 posts ago?

You first, I did ask the question first, way back in post 1620.

What would you propose to do for people who 'could not live' with a UI?

dd973

20-30 years

markodaly wrote: »

If it were oh so simple. Carson and Paisley were Ulstermen and Unionists. That is a very different thing to an Irish Nationalist. Are you saying that these two things are exactly the same?

Not being pedantic but wasn't Carson a Dublin solicitor who attended Trinity the same time as Wilde? From what I've read about him he pretty much self-identified as Irish, played Hurling in his youth and regretted the polarisation of people's on the island following partition. He was someone who didn't see Britishness and Irishness as mutually exclusive and opposed Home Rule largely on economic grounds, not quite the Orangeist figure his statue outside Stormont and popular image suggests.

facehugger99

dd973 wrote: »

From what I've read about him he pretty much self-identified as Irish,

I'm afraid in the Brave New Ireland Francie has planned, you won't be allowed to self-identify.

You need to apply to Francie for classification.

janfebmar

facehugger99 wrote: »

I'm afraid in the Brave New Ireland Francie has planned, you won't be allowed to self-identify.

You need to apply to Francie for classification.

Seeing as Francie has proposed " relocation grants", perhaps if he could clarify or confirm if the funding of those Grant's would come from the confiscation of lands stolen when the colonisers arrived?

Perhaps Francie could also confirm if re-education of those who inflicted pain and hardship on the Irish people for centuries could be part of his plan...perhaps camps set up to prepare and relocate the colonisers before resettlement abroad, teach them a bit of true Irish history, language and culture etc?

Maybe in Francies brave new world work parties from such camps could help undo some of the damage caused during the "occupation", and could re-paint kerb stones, re-name roads after true Patriots like Sands etc

facehugger99

20-30 years

facehugger99 wrote: »

I'm afraid in the Brave New Ireland Francie has planned, you won't be allowed to self-identify.

You need to apply to Francie for classification.

Your personal attacks on that poster are more than obsessive at this stage.

blinding

10-15 years

RobMc59 wrote: »

Lol-good luck with that..

Virtually impossible to get Ulster Orange Juice these days .:cool:

mariaalice

dd973 wrote: »

Not being pedantic but wasn't Carson a Dublin solicitor who attended Trinity the same time as Wilde? From what I've read about him he pretty much self-identified as Irish, played Hurling in his youth and regretted the polarisation of people's on the island following partition. He was someone who didn't see Britishness and Irishness as mutually exclusive and opposed Home Rule largely on economic grounds, not quite the Orangeist figure his statue outside Stormont and popular image suggests.

In a way that sums up a lot of the issues, there is not interest in facts just myth on both sides.

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

Seeing as Francie has proposed " relocation grants", perhaps if he could clarify or confirm if the funding of those Grant's would come from the confiscation of lands stolen when the colonisers arrived?

Perhaps Francie could also confirm if re-education of those who inflicted pain and hardship on the Irish people for centuries could be part of his plan...perhaps camps set up to prepare and relocate the colonisers before resettlement abroad, teach them a bit of true Irish history, language and culture etc?

Maybe in Francies brave new world work parties from such camps could help undo some of the damage caused during the "occupation", and could re-paint kerb stones, re-name roads after true Patriots like Sands etc

Stop the desperation lies janfebmar. You have a question waiting.


You first, I did ask the question first, way back in post 1620.

What would you propose to do for people who 'could not live' with a UI?