How long before Irish reunification? (Part 2) Threadbans in OP

FrancieBrady

RobMc59 wrote: »

You obviously haven't read the link.Every British person knows the circumstances of Dunkirk,that the British expeditionary force along with allies was pushed back(forced to retreat)against overwhelming odds.
As I've said previously I've spoken to Irish soldiers who were there and said it was hell on the beaches.

I wasn't the one who weighed in to tell another poster to 'get their facts right' when they called it a retreat and then described the evacuation that happened after as if that was all that happened.

And I am sure it is 'hell' when you are getting beat, whether you are British, Irish or anything else for that matter.

RobMc59

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I wasn't the one who weighed in to tell another poster to 'get their facts right' when they called it a retreat and then described the evacuation that happened after as if that was all that happened.

And I am sure it is 'hell' when you are getting beat, whether you are British, Irish or anything else for that matter.

You really need to brush up on your history francie if you want to discuss it-and I've said every British person knows the circumstances of Dunkirk .Until Germany bit off more than it could chew by attacking Russia thus opening another front it was pretty much untouchable as a war machine.

FrancieBrady

RobMc59 wrote: »

You really need to brush up on your history francie

I knew about the evacuation and I also knew about the retreat before it. Again...I wasn't the one telling another poster 'to get their facts right'.

Perhaps you mean brush up on British centric history?

BloodyBill

Fr D Maugire wrote: »

So all those countries were founded by Ireland?? I guess you learn something new every day. Australia was founded as a penal colony by the British, so the reason for so many Irish arriving there is obvious. The major influx of Irish to the US/Canada only really occured in the 19th century due to the famine here. Before that though, Irish emigrated to the New World to escape the ravages of the penal laws in Ireland and that includes Presbyterians, a reason why quite a few US Presidents have Ulster Scots backgrounds.

There is little doubt that Irish people emigrated and helped develop those colonies, but it was more out of being treated like **** in Ireland by the Unionist/British Government than any desire to go and conquer those lands. For example two of the Young Ireland Rebellion leaders leaders John Mitchell (Presbyterian) and Thomas Francis Meagher(Catholic) were sent to the penal colony of Australia, escaped and headed for the US, separately. They then ended up on opposite sides in the US Civil War. Those were people who were inspired by the French Revolution who had a vision for Ireland of a shared country for Protestant and Catholic alike, yet look where they ended up.

Due to the persecution, famine and subsequent lack of opportunities, it is no surprise that the British Civil Service provided opportunities for Irish in the late 19th century. After all we were part of Britain. As for the likes of Wellington etc, they were very much the Anglo Irish set who spent so much of their time persecuting the Catholics in Ireland. They were hardly reflective of the majority population of Ireland.

Your grasp of history seems very specious.

You're grasp of history is tenuous. The Scots Irish were one of the main colonists of America in the 17th century. And plenty of catholics went before 1840 aswell . They went the same reasons the English went . Canada was settled by tonnes of Irish Protestants and many Catholics.Wellington was a champion of catholics in parliament , he certainly wasnt persecuting Catholics. If he was you ll have to enlighten me.
Why do the likes of NZ and Australia have such benign view of the UK..They both voted to keep the Union Flag as part of their flag as it represents the 4 nations of Britain. Wouldnt you think they'd throw off the manacles of the Queen.?
Look Irish history was troubled but to gloss over our active involvement as a people in the worlds biggest Empire is ludicrous. We gotta own it and discuss its Pros and cons .
We cant be blind or dismissive to the thousands of Irish who just got a civil service/ army job because they wanted to. Like every other part of the UK. The fact of the matter is the English themselves immigrated more than anyone else. In your mind they were in charge of Britain and living high on the pigs back so why did so many go colonise. It's because it was a way up for everyone in the UK. If we were never part of britain we would have colonised some place . It just so happens the places we helped colonise turn out to be the Worlds best countries today. Why is that? It's because on the whole the UK was the best thing that ever happened those places..unless you were indigenous. The locals lost out allright..

BonnieSituation

jh79 wrote: »

Or in other words increased national debt and interest repayments.

Meh. Society cost money. A peaceful productive society contributes more than it costs.

Is zero national debt your ultimate goal?

BonnieSituation

jh79 wrote: »

We already have peace and there are other nations fighting for money from the same pot. Backstop in the Irish Sea will move focus away from Ireland.

Grand. So campaign for a no vote in the event of a border poll.

Who are you trying to convince here? Beligerent unionists still "other" their Nationalist neighbours. That's not peace.

BonnieSituation

BloodyBill wrote: »

You're grasp of history is tenuous. The Scots Irish were one of the main colonists of America in the 17th century. And plenty of catholics went before 1840 aswell . They went the same reasons the English went . Canada was settled by tonnes of Irish Protestants and many Catholics.Wellington was a champion of catholics in parliament , he certainly wasnt persecuting Catholics. If he was you ll have to enlighten me.
Why do the likes of NZ and Australia have such benign view of the UK..They both voted to keep the Union Flag as part of their flag as it represents the 4 nations of Britain. Wouldnt you think they'd throw off the manacles of the Queen.?
Look Irish history was troubled but to gloss over our active involvement as a people in the worlds biggest Empire is ludicrous. We gotta own it and discuss its Pros and cons .
We cant be blind or dismissive to the thousands of Irish who just got a civil service/ army job because they wanted to. Like every other part of the UK. The fact of the matter is the English themselves immigrated more than anyone else. In your mind they were in charge of Britain and living high on the pigs back so why did so many go colonise. It's because it was a way up for everyone in the UK. If we were never part of britain we would have colonised some place . It just so happens the places we helped colonise turn out to be the Worlds best countries today. Why is that? It's because on the whole the UK was the best thing that ever happened those places..unless you were indigenous. The locals lost out allright..

But besides all the pillaging and rape and murder and disease, what have the British ever done for us?

Fr D Maugire

BloodyBill wrote: »

You're grasp of history is tenuous. The Scots Irish were one of the main colonists of America in the 17th century. And plenty of catholics went before 1840 aswell . They went the same reasons the English went . Canada was settled by tonnes of Irish Protestants and many Catholics.Wellington was a champion of catholics in parliament , he certainly wasnt persecuting Catholics. If he was you ll have to enlighten me.
Why do the likes of NZ and Australia have such benign view of the UK..They both voted to keep the Union Flag as part of their flag as it represents the 4 nations of Britain. Wouldnt you think they'd throw off the manacles of the Queen.?
Look Irish history was troubled but to gloss over our active involvement as a people in the worlds biggest Empire is ludicrous. We gotta own it and discuss its Pros and cons .
We cant be blind or dismissive to the thousands of Irish who just got a civil service/ army job because they wanted to. Like every other part of the UK. The fact of the matter is the English themselves immigrated more than anyone else. In your mind they were in charge of Britain and living high on the pigs back so why did so many go colonise. It's because it was a way up for everyone in the UK. If we were never part of britain we would have colonised some place . It just so happens the places we helped colonise turn out to be the Worlds best countries today. Why is that? It's because on the whole the UK was the best thing that ever happened those places..unless you were indigenous. The locals lost out allright..

Exactly, the Scots-Irish, the same people that colonised Ireland. Many of them had been in Ireland for less than 100 years so to describe them as Irish is stretching it a bit. Even now they see themselves as more British than Irish. As I pointed out, many of them left to escape religious persecution in Ireland, which you seemingly choose to ignore. There was very little Catholic immigration to the original 13 colonies other than as indentured servants or to penal colonies. The major period of Irish Catholic emmigration to the US and other far flung places was during the 19th century, primarily around the time of the famine when most of those colonies were well established.

I already agreed that people from Ireland helped develop these colonies, but to suggest that Irish people founded any of them is false.

Wellington belonged to the same Protestant Ascendancy that introduced the penal laws against the Catholics, like most of that grouping and todays Unionists, he saw himself as British first and foremost. What was his famous quip about his birthplace "being born in a stable does not automatically make one a horse".

What about all those colonies in Africa that Britain had, are they among the best in the world or India/Bangladesh/Pakistan. What about the mess the British and French left in the Middle-East. Israel, created and then kicked over a hornets nest, before quickly running away.

BonnieSituation

Well, it was O'Connell that said it about him, but it wasn't untrue.

jm08

RobMc59 wrote: »

Get your facts right-the evacuation of 198,000 British troops and 140,000 French and Belgium troops from the German Blitzkrieg meant all those soldiers were saved from god knows what-and apart from the British who else were there to help France and the rest of Europe?

Yep, the arrangement was that British soldiers were saved first of all. You have not even acknowledged the 40,000 french troops that stayed behind to the delay the Germans and were captured and ended up in POW camps. Is that why British people refer to them as ''Surrender Monkeys''?

In France, the unilateral British decision to evacuate through Dunkirk rather than counter-attack to the south, and the perceived preference of the Royal Navy for evacuating British forces at the expense of the French, led to some bitter resentment. According to Churchill, French Admiral François Darlan originally ordered that the British forces should receive preference, but on 31 May, he intervened at a meeting in Paris to order that the evacuation should proceed on equal terms and that the British would form the rearguard.[126] In fact, the 35,000 men who finally surrendered after covering the final evacuations were mostly French soldiers of 2nd Light Mechanized Division and the 68th Infantry Division.[127][128] Their resistance allowed the evacuation effort to be extended to 4 June, on which date another 26,175 Frenchmen were transported to England.[68]

jm08

BloodyBill wrote: »

You're grasp of history is tenuous. The Scots Irish were one of the main colonists of America in the 17th century. And plenty of catholics went before 1840 aswell . They went the same reasons the English went . Canada was settled by tonnes of Irish Protestants and many Catholics.Wellington was a champion of catholics in parliament , he certainly wasnt persecuting Catholics. If he was you ll have to enlighten me.

Presbyterians emigrated to the States because they were persecuted as well. Are you now giving Wellington the credit for Catholic Emancipation in 1829 just because he was Prime Minister? Nothing to do with Daniel O'Connell (who was probably one of the world's outstanding Parliamentarians) with his contribution to abolition of slavery, Jewish rights and catholic emancipation.


There are plenty of people with Irish heritage that have made huge contributions around the world that are acknowledged. You mentioned Gleeson who founded Clare in South Australia. Adelaide/South Australia is the only part of Australia that wasn't a penal colony and is actually quite refined. I visited Clare some time ago and they are extremely proud of their Irish connection there and from what I recall, he was extremely popular in the community but he eventually became bankrupt.

Why do the likes of NZ and Australia have such benign view of the UK..They both voted to keep the Union Flag as part of their flag as it represents the 4 nations of Britain. Wouldnt you think they'd throw off the manacles of the Queen.?

Distance is fairly handy. They didn't have to fight for their independence.

Look Irish history was troubled but to gloss over our active involvement as a people in the worlds biggest Empire is ludicrous. We gotta own it and discuss its Pros and cons .

Is it ok to be proud of the good things that were done (such as O'Connell's contribution to the abolition of slavery and religious freedom) and dislike what some others did? You seem to want to gloss over the contribution that someone like Henry Ford made or even look at the contribution of Admiral Brown in Argentina (where he is appreciated even though he is Irish), or indeed to some American politicians of today who are proud of their Irish roots (such as former Speaker of the House, the Republican Paul Ryan whose family emigrated to the US during the famine) down to most recent immigrants like Richard Neal, who was brought up by his grandmother who was from Fermanagh, not to forget the Kennedys.

We cant be blind or dismissive to the thousands of Irish who just got a civil service/ army job because they wanted to. Like every other part of the UK. The fact of the matter is the English themselves immigrated more than anyone else. In your mind they were in charge of Britain and living high on the pigs back so why did so many go colonise. It's because it was a way up for everyone in the UK. If we were never part of britain we would have colonised some place . It just so happens the places we helped colonise turn out to be the Worlds best countries today. Why is that? It's because on the whole the UK was the best thing that ever happened those places..unless you were indigenous. The locals lost out allright..

We are one of the few countries in the world who hasn't invaded anyone. We did colonise the US, just as emigrants though and built up the country rather than extracting all these countries natural resources with no benefit to the indiginous population and while there were plenty of Irish people who benefited from the British Empire by working for it, the country Ireland didn't benefit in the same way as England in particular did.

jh79

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Grand. So campaign for a no vote in the event of a border poll.

Who are you trying to convince here? Beligerent unionists still "other" their Nationalist neighbours. That's not peace.

I"ve already said i'll be voting no if it will cost me money. SF/IRA had a tactic of ruining the economy in the North so they can fix it as far as i am concerned.

jh79

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Meh. Society cost money. A peaceful productive society contributes more than it costs.

Is zero national debt your ultimate goal?

We already have a peaceful society and as long as SF MLA's , associated community workers and SPADs get the Queens Schilling it will stay that way.

mehico

jh79 wrote: »

I"ve already said i'll be voting no if it will cost me money. SF/IRA had a tactic of ruining the economy in the North so they can fix it as far as i am concerned.

Would you vote yes if it makes you money?

jh79

mehico wrote: »

Would you vote yes if it makes you money?

I don't mean it in such absolute terms. As long as my quality if life isn't affected too much i'd vote yes. Based on current economics it would mean a no. Conor Muprhy needs to get busy fixing NI economy to get my vote.

mehico

jh79 wrote: »

I don't mean it in such absolute terms. As long as my quality if life isn't affected too much i'd vote yes. Based on current economics it would mean a no. Conor Muprhy needs to get busy fixing NI economy to get my vote.

That's fair but I think there are possible economic benefits to a single island economy if it were to happen.

BonnieSituation

jh79 wrote: »

I"ve already said i'll be voting no if it will cost me money. SF/IRA had a tactic of ruining the economy in the North so they can fix it as far as i am concerned.

Grand. So you see no positives possible outside of anything transactional?

BonnieSituation

jh79 wrote: »

We already have a peaceful society and as long as SF MLA's , associated community workers and SPADs get the Queens Schilling it will stay that way.

What's your obsession over the currency by which they get paid? Do you think it's abhorrent that they get paid at all?

Odd for someone who sees the end of partition on a purely negatively financial basis. You'd think you'd be for them squeezing as much cash out of the system as possible.

BloodyBill

If the majority of Protestants in Northern Ireland voted for unification, I'd vote yes. Until then I'd vote no.
I think the real interesting idea is the Northern Ireland striking out on it's own and leaving the baggage all behind. I think that's the way it ll eventually go,probably end up in the EU like similar sized countries like Montenegro and Estonia.

BonnieSituation

BloodyBill wrote: »

If the majority of Protestants in Northern Ireland voted for unification, I'd vote yes. Until then I'd vote no.
I think the real interesting idea is the Northern Ireland striking out on it's own and leaving the baggage all behind. I think that's the way it ll eventually go,probably end up in the EU like similar sized countries like Montenegro and Estonia.

What?

So if the North vote yes you'd still potentially vote no based on the demographic makeup of that yes vote. So an anti-democratic Partitionist is in our midst!

So is a Protestant vote worth more than a Catholic vote?

---

Who is it interesting for that NI be independent bar Partitionists like yourself who don't agree with democracy?

No one at all wants an independent NI. Why would Nationalists want to be part of something like that?

Is 100 years of being othered by your neighbours not enough, now you're giving up your aspiration for a UI to satisfy the likes of jh79 and BloodyBill?

Yeah, I digress, it's not part of the GFA. So it ain't happening.

Yeah_Right

BonnieSituation wrote: »

What?

So if the North vote yes you'd still potentially vote no based on the demographic makeup of that yes vote. So an anti-democratic Partitionist is in our midst!
.

This is too funny. Someone says they would cast a vote but because they would vote against what you want, they're anti-democratic. Too funny.

jh79

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Grand. So you see no positives possible outside of anything transactional?

Excluding financial aspects not really. Your just switching the pissed off minority,

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

I don't mean it in such absolute terms. As long as my quality if life isn't affected too much i'd vote yes. Based on current economics it would mean a no. Conor Muprhy needs to get busy fixing NI economy to get my vote.

The partitionist mantra - 'I'm alright jack, to hell with the rest of you'.

Thankfully for many the jingle in their pockets wasn't enough. Because of them you have the prosperity to make your selfish decisions.

jh79

BonnieSituation wrote: »

What's your obsession over the currency by which they get paid? Do you think it's abhorrent that they get paid at all?

Odd for someone who sees the end of partition on a phttps://b-static.net/vbulletin/images/icons/icon10.pngurely negatively financial basis. You'd think you'd be for them squeezing as much cash out of the system as possible.

Partition is a term that gets bandied about here a lot, the irony being that SF are a partitionist party. I don't think it's abhorrent that they get paid. They work for their country and deserves a fair wage for that work no different than those in Irish public service.

The more SF rely on Westminister to support NI the more expensive prospect an UI becomes. Turning NI in to an economic mess was a terror tactic of SF/IRA. The onus is on them to fix it

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The partitionist mantra - 'I'm alright jack, to hell with the rest of you'.

Thankfully for many the jingle in their pockets wasn't enough. Because of them you have the prosperity to make your selfish decisions.

IRA tried and succeeded in ruining NI's economy. Up to SF to fix it.

BonnieSituation

Yeah_Right wrote: »

This is too funny. Someone says they would cast a vote but because they would vote against what you want, they're anti-democratic. Too funny.

How did you work that out?

He's valuing Protestant votes over Catholic votes. That's profoundly undemocratic.

I'm not denying his right to do so. But I'm challenging him on his statement. He can do what he wants with his vote.

You might need to read my post again and maybe quoting the whole thing would help clarity for those reading after you.

BonnieSituation

jh79 wrote: »

Partition is a term that gets bandied about here a lot, the irony being that SF are a partitionist party. I don't think it's abhorrent that they get paid. They work for their country and deserves a fair wage for that work no different than those in Irish public service.

The more SF rely on Westminister to support NI the more expensive prospect an UI becomes. Turning NI in to an economic mess was a terror tactic of SF/IRA. The onus is on them to fix it

So working peacefully within the system we have and trying to end partition is being Partitionist?

That makes all of our mainstream parties Partitionist then?

Jesus, why can't you just own what you are. Here we have you, Downcow and eagle eye trying to redefine what words mean because it doesn't sit right with you. It's just plain weird.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

IRA tried and succeeded in ruining NI's economy. Up to SF to fix it.

Northern Ireland's economy was in decline and in trouble long before the IRA got up to speed. Interesting that it grew faster than the economy of Britain s as a result of the Celtic Tiger here. Which shows just how closely linked the two jurisdictions have become. And also that a whole island approach is the beneficial one.
Proof of that pudding is seeing how they get on now Brexit is here.

jh79

BonnieSituation wrote: »

So working peacefully within the system we have and trying to end partition is being Partitionist?

That makes all of our mainstream parties Partitionist then?

Jesus, why can't you just own what you are. Here we have you, Downcow and eagle eye trying to redefine what words mean because it doesn't sit right with you. It's just plain weird.

It's a stupid term but SF easily fit its definition.

In Ireland, partitionism (Irish: críochdheighiltíocht) refers to views on Irish politics, culture, geography, or history that treat Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland as distinct.

Take the recent attempt to add an amendment to the NI abortion bill completely at odds to policy in the Republic.

And a lazy link to an journal article here;

https://www.thejournal.ie/readme/sinn-fein-split-in-party-policy-549683-Aug2012/

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Northern Ireland's economy was in decline and in trouble long before the IRA got up to speed. Interesting that it grew faster than the economy of Britain s as a result of the Celtic Tiger here. Which shows just how closely linked the two jurisdictions have become. And also that a whole island approach is the beneficial one.
Proof of that pudding is seeing how they get on now Brexit is here.

A whole Island approach has the potential to be beneficial under the correct circumstances ie proper funding. A badly manages UI has the potential to ruin a 32 county economy too.