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

BonnieSituation

Sinzo wrote: »

Not really. Ireland was never really United.. there was always in fighting and numerous concurrent claims to be the king . The north doesn't want us and we don't want the north. Lets just be good friends...

Do we not?

Sinzo

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Do we not?

Well. I do apologise. I can't speak for all. I will rephrase ... I personally do not want reunification
- it is my belief that:
The North does not want to
The majority in the south do not want it especially when it will cost each and everyone of us a lot of money and there is a large minority of die hard unionists living there. Besides northern and southern Irish people have developed their own unique characters.
Mutual friendship seems to be the pregmferable option to me personally.

beggars_bush

100+ years

munsterlegend

Sinzo wrote: »

Well. I do apologise. I can't speak for all. I will rephrase ... I personally do not want reunification
- it is my belief that:
The North does not want to
The majority in the south do not want it

Opinion polls in the south indicate otherwise.

Anyway you can’t just ask a question whether you want unity without setting out exactly what that will mean both north and south. There would be changes in the south which people may have difficulty with as with up north.

What we do know is that the British govt have no interest in staying in the north and want to get out as easy as possible and the Irish govt have shown little interest in unity at this time. When the Irish govt come on board with a plan I am sure we would see movement in Westminster towards a border poll.

Sinzo

munsterlegend wrote: »

Opinion polls in the south indicate otherwise.

Anyway you can’t just ask a question whether you want unity without setting out exactly what that will mean both north and south. There would be changes in the south which people may have difficulty with as with up north.

What we do know is that the British govt have no interest in staying in the north and want to get out as easy as possible and the Irish govt have shown little interest in unity at this time. When the Irish govt come on board with a plan I am sure we would see movement in Westminster towards a border poll.

Yes. Agreed.
BUT
My point is.. imo we should not have reunification. It would cost us a fortune..
When most in the south realise the cost and couple it with an angry minority in the north then I do not believe that there will be, as Guns and Rose's once sang, such an appetite for destruction..

Brendan Bendar

Sinzo wrote: »

Yes. Agreed. My point is.. imo we should not have reunification. It would cost us a fortune.. when most in the south realise the cost and couple it with an angry minority in the north then I do not believe that there will be such an appetite for destruction..

Yes, the sensible ones can see that S, only the cave dwellers and hill men think this is a good outlook.

And of course the laundrettes, good money washing diesel and white shirts.

Brendan Bendar

Fionn1952 wrote: »

I've worn black and white to every single funeral I've been to in my life, Downcow.

I also must have a word with the father of a very close friend of mine who passed away. Despite being a very senior retired member of the RUC, he also wore black and white to his daughter's funeral.

Hmmmmm.......doubt if everyone left their jackets in the motor, did they.

Uhmmmm....maybe the suits came with no jacket .

Big Pearse got one with a jacket in fairness, made to measure I’d say.

Sinzo

beggars_bush wrote: »

100+ years

Yes. 100 of the most transformative years in humankind's history at that.

downcow

Fionn1952 wrote: »

Are you referring to the people in white shirts and black ties, Dowcow?


Brief aside, what did you wear to the last funeral you attended?

I think you know I am referring to the reported 1,800 people all dressed the same who were reportedly invited to be there by Sinn Fein.
I am confident that posters on here don’t normally see such an organisation in attendance in such fashion and a funeral. And know yet has confirmed who they are?

Brendan Bendar

downcow wrote: »

I think you know I am referring to the reported 1,800 people all dressed the same who were reportedly invited to be there by Sinn Fein.
I am confident that posters on here don’t normally see such an organisation in attendance in such fashion and a funeral. And know yet has confirmed who they are?

The auld ‘dancing on the head of a pin tactic’ in full flow here D.

downcow

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

The auld ‘dancing on the head of a pin tactic’ in full flow here D.

Yip

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

I think you know I am referring to the reported 1,800 people all dressed the same who were reportedly invited to be there by Sinn Fein.
I am confident that posters on here don’t normally see such an organisation in attendance in such fashion and a funeral. And know yet has confirmed who they are?

It was the 'RA downcow, they are in uniform and openly parading around Belfast.

1800 strong in Belfast, the biggest they have ever been. And the British and the IMC are doing sweet FA about it.

Is that the answer you are looking for?

Or maybe they were members of SF who wanted to show they were members paying tribute to somebody and also according to the BT acting as stewards/marshals?

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It was the 'RA downcow, they are in uniform and openly parading around Belfast.

1800 strong in Belfast, the biggest they have ever been. And the British and the IMC are doing sweet FA about it.

Is that the answer you are looking for?

Or maybe they were members of SF who wanted to show they were members paying tribute to somebody and also according to the BT acting as stewards/marshals?

Francie. What I wanted was a few questions answered. That’s all
Who were they (not, maybe they were)
What would you think if a UDA commander funeral had a similar show - who would you think they might be in that case?
Do you realise that a very large number of unionists will be uncomfortable about their presence in uniform and organised. To the extent that it will give credibility to the claims of jim Allister, Jamie Bryson, etc?

And they were from all over ni not just Belfast. I know for a fact some travelled from the north west

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

Francie. What I wanted was a few questions answered. That’s all
Who were they (not, maybe they were)
What would you think if a UDA commander funeral had a similar show - who would you think they might be in that case?
Do you realise that a very large number of unionists will be uncomfortable about their presence in uniform and organised. To the extent that it will give credibility to the claims of jim Allister, Jamie Bryson, etc?

And they were from all over ni not just Belfast. I know for a fact some travelled from the north west

downcow says this will 'give credibility' to Jim and Jamie...you've been toeing the Jim and Jamie line since you joined the forum for god's sake!

gormdubhgorm

Fionn1952 wrote: »

A common misconception, usually very vocally shouted by the most hardline of Unionists grossly attempting to compare modern systems of government to ancient ones.

Ireland was united under a High King several times in its history, though the more feudal system of government at the time does make it difficult to compare to modern ideas of unification.

Attempts to argue that the idea of one, 'Ireland' or Irish people being a post-colonial invention are questionable and dishonest at best.

It is not a common misconception, it is more of an uncomfortable truth that Republicans ignore.
The High King of Ireland was essentially ceremonial. After the time of Brian Boru, the annalists started to refer to high kings either 'with opposition' or 'without opposition.' A high king 'with opposition' was one who had quelled a majority, but not all, of the minor kings. There were few high kings 'without opposition.'

It was the British who really United Ireland a land made up of a loose collection of clans. Clans who were at war with each other constantly at least in low level conflict. It was the British in one form or another who slowly Unite Ireland. The clan system was ended in the 16th century when Britain introduced common law and so on. And it was a minority in Ireland who lit the spark and gave a 'blood sacrifice' to end up splitting Ireland in two while desiring a 'free' and United Ireland.

There is the old Republican myth is that there is an 'Irish race' a common ethnicity. When really Irish people are mongrels a mixture of all sorts - Celtic - Vikings - Normans - Anglo-Irish - Planters. But this does not suit the Republican narrative. Which had an obsession with racial purity and the pre-eminence of a mythical Gaelic race.

You only have to look at 'the meeting of 'the Irish race' in The Tailteann Games, 1924-1936:

https://www.theirishstory.com/2011/02/23/the-tailteann-games-1924-1936/#.XwGueyj0kYw

Or the 'Irish Race Congress' from the 1922:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/30007220?seq=1

https://www.historyireland.com/20th-century-contemporary-history/the-irish-race-congress-21-28-january-1922/

Again, this is what amuses me about most Republicans. They only wish to create a narrative of ancient Ireland, which is based on a very narrow modern political prism.
Avoiding uncomfortable truths that do not suit the narrative.

It is ironic that it was only ever Britain that United Ireland politically. Ireland used to be only United on its own loosely 'culturally' long ago. But as I have already stated. I believe Ireland is now culturally United only this time with Britain. Language, sport and pop culture etc. United Kingdom in all but name in a practical sense.

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

downcow says this will 'give credibility' to Jim and Jamie...you've been toeing the Jim and Jamie line since you joined the forum for god's sake!

It is very evident when Francie is uncomfortable with a question. He ignores the question and attacks the questioner .
All too predictable

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

It is very evident when Francie is uncomfortable with a question. He ignores the question and attacks the questioner .
All too predictable

What?

I gave you a selection of answers of 'who they were'.

You pick the one you want.

BonnieSituation

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

It is not a common misconception, it is more of an uncomfortable truth that Republicans ignore.
The High King of Ireland was essentially ceremonial. After the time of Brian Boru, the annalists started to refer to high kings either 'with opposition' or 'without opposition.' A high king 'with opposition' was one who had quelled a majority, but not all, of the minor kings. There were few high kings 'without opposition.'

It was the British who really United Ireland a land made up of a loose collection of clans. Clans who were at war with each other constantly at least in low level conflict. It was the British in one form or another who slowly Unite Ireland. The clan system was ended in the 16th century when Britain introduced common law and so on. And it was a minority in Ireland who lit the spark and gave a 'blood sacrifice' to end up splitting Ireland in two while desiring a 'free' and United Ireland.

There is the old Republican myth is that there is an 'Irish race' a common ethnicity. When really Irish people are mongrels a mixture of all sorts - Celtic - Vikings - Normans - Anglo-Irish - Planters. But this does not suit the Republican narrative. Which had an obsession with racial purity and the pre-eminence of a mythical Gaelic race.

You only have to look at 'the meeting of 'the Irish race' in The Tailteann Games, 1924-1936:

https://www.theirishstory.com/2011/02/23/the-tailteann-games-1924-1936/#.XwGueyj0kYw

Or the 'Irish Race Congress' from the 1922:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/30007220?seq=1

https://www.historyireland.com/20th-century-contemporary-history/the-irish-race-congress-21-28-january-1922/

Again, this is what amuses me about most Republicans. They only wish to create a narrative of ancient Ireland, which is based on a very narrow modern political prism.
Avoiding uncomfortable truths that do not suit the narrative.

It is ironic that it was only ever Britain that United Ireland politically. Ireland used to be only United on its own loosely 'culturally' long ago. But as I have already stated. I believe Ireland is now culturally United only this time with Britain. Language, sport and pop culture etc. United Kingdom in all but name in a practical sense.

It amuses me that you value Northern unionists aspirations and rights more than northern Nationalists'

It's almost like they don't exist. It's a Jack Lynch level of ignorance and naivety.

BonnieSituation

Sinzo wrote: »

Well. I do apologise. I can't speak for all. I will rephrase ... I personally do not want reunification
- it is my belief that:
The North does not want to
The majority in the south do not want it especially when it will cost each and everyone of us a lot of money and there is a large minority of die hard unionists living there. Besides northern and southern Irish people have developed their own unique characters.
Mutual friendship seems to be the pregmferable option to me personally.

Mutual friendship? Is it preferable to ya?

Tell me all about this homogenous blob of "Northern people"?

Essentially you don't want your pocket touched. And that's fine, but you're no different than all the other Partitionists on this thread who dance on pins looking to assuage their own guilt on the matter and blame Nationalism for all the ills of Ulster.

You clearly are against the GFA then if I'm to read what we have above. If you feel so strongly about keeping the status quo and Partition in place then it's best you campaign for a NO vote in any ensuing border poll. That's your only job.

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What?

I gave you a selection of answers of 'who they were'.

You pick the one you want.

I’ll try that tactic next time you ask me a question.

Quite interesting to see the photos circulating of the guns over the coffin. And low and behold the gunmen are wearing EXACTLY the same gear!
What do you really expect any unionist to think?

Brendan Bendar

downcow wrote: »

I’ll try that tactic next time you ask me a question.

Quite interesting to see the photos circulating of the guns over the coffin. And low and behold the gunmen are wearing EXACTLY the same gear!
What do you really expect any unionist to think?

D. It’s perfectly evident that these lads think the folk subscribing here are ‘challenged’.

I mean there was a argument that everyone goes to a funeral dressed in “ black and white”

I have never been to a funeral with all lads in white shirtsleeves and black ties!

And these lads would have you think that this was “ normal”

This is what one is up against, I’m afraid.

jm08

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

It is not a common misconception, it is more of an uncomfortable truth that Republicans ignore.
The High King of Ireland was essentially ceremonial. After the time of Brian Boru, the annalists started to refer to high kings either 'with opposition' or 'without opposition.' A high king 'with opposition' was one who had quelled a majority, but not all, of the minor kings. There were few high kings 'without opposition.'

It was the British who really United Ireland a land made up of a loose collection of clans. Clans who were at war with each other constantly at least in low level conflict. It was the British in one form or another who slowly Unite Ireland. The clan system was ended in the 16th century when Britain introduced common law and so on. And it was a minority in Ireland who lit the spark and gave a 'blood sacrifice' to end up splitting Ireland in two while desiring a 'free' and United Ireland.

There is the old Republican myth is that there is an 'Irish race' a common ethnicity. When really Irish people are mongrels a mixture of all sorts - Celtic - Vikings - Normans - Anglo-Irish - Planters. But this does not suit the Republican narrative. Which had an obsession with racial purity and the pre-eminence of a mythical Gaelic race.

You only have to look at 'the meeting of 'the Irish race' in The Tailteann Games, 1924-1936:

https://www.theirishstory.com/2011/02/23/the-tailteann-games-1924-1936/#.XwGueyj0kYw

Or the 'Irish Race Congress' from the 1922:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/30007220?seq=1

https://www.historyireland.com/20th-century-contemporary-history/the-irish-race-congress-21-28-january-1922/

Again, this is what amuses me about most Republicans. They only wish to create a narrative of ancient Ireland, which is based on a very narrow modern political prism.
Avoiding uncomfortable truths that do not suit the narrative.

It is ironic that it was only ever Britain that United Ireland politically. Ireland used to be only United on its own loosely 'culturally' long ago. But as I have already stated. I believe Ireland is now culturally United only this time with Britain. Language, sport and pop culture etc. United Kingdom in all but name in a practical sense.

From what you have written there, I don't think you have read that paper on the 'Irish Race Conference' (which was basically a call out to the Irish Diaspora to support Ireland in its quest for freedom and very similar to Irish Government policy now of trying to keep close ties with people of Irish heritage all around the world).


I really don't understand your point about culture. Are Brazilians less Brazilian because their national sport is soccer and their main language is Portuguese, or is Pakistan/India less Indian because their national sport is cricket? It could be argued that the better bits of British culture have a heavy influence of people of Irish descent - i.e., the Beatles - Lennon & McCarthy, Ed Sheeran, Oasis etc. Even Wayne Rooney's granny sound like she is from the Liberties in Dublin even though I doubt she has ever even been in Ireland.

downcow

BonnieSituation wrote: »

It amuses me that you value Northern unionists aspirations and rights more than northern Nationalists'

It's almost like they don't exist. It's a Jack Lynch level of ignorance and naivety.

I was amused again last night. I was talking to a couple of South American’s stranded here due to lockdown. Chatting about their future they said ‘like most South Americans’ they would love to move to the UK as that as seen as no1 country to emigrate to, but it is too difficult to get into so they will probably end up in Canada.
Interesting that posters on here think ni people are going to rush to exit the country that the rest of the world want to reside in - and I have heard same story recently from Africans re wanting to live in uk but will settle for USA

jm08

downcow wrote: »

I was amused again last night. I was talking to a couple of South American’s stranded here due to lockdown. Chatting about their future they said ‘like most South Americans’ they would love to move to the UK as that as seen as no1 country to emigrate to, but it is too difficult to get into so they will probably end up in Canada.
Interesting that posters on here think ni people are going to rush to exit the country that the rest of the world want to reside in - and I have heard same story recently from Africans re wanting to live in uk but will settle for USA

Did they want to move to Northern Ireland or to GB?

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

I’ll try that tactic next time you ask me a question.

Quite interesting to see the photos circulating of the guns over the coffin. And low and behold the gunmen are wearing EXACTLY the same gear!
What do you really expect any unionist to think?

What tactic?

You clearly believe the IRA still exist. That was one of the choices I gave you.

I don't believe they still exist. SF were burying a former member of the IRA though as well as somebody who apparently contributed a lot more to his community as evidenced by the turnout.

Sinzo

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Mutual friendship? Is it preferable to ya?

Tell me all about this homogenous blob of "Northern people"?

Essentially you don't want your pocket touched. And that's fine, but you're no different than all the other Partitionists on this thread who dance on pins looking to assuage their own guilt on the matter and blame Nationalism for all the ills of Ulster.

You clearly are against the GFA then if I'm to read what we have above. If you feel so strongly about keeping the status quo and Partition in place then it's best you campaign for a NO vote in any ensuing border poll. That's your only job.

Well thanks for your imprimatur Bonnie. How gracious of you to allow me to Express my opinion.

I will exercise my right to vote No when the time comes... for the better good of people on both sides of the border...

BonnieSituation

Sinzo wrote: »

Well thanks for your imprimatur Bonnie. How gracious of you to allow me to Express my opinion.

I will exercise my right to vote No when the time comes... for the better good of people on both sides of the border...

Wow. You really do have notions.

BonnieSituation

downcow wrote: »

I was amused again last night. I was talking to a couple of South American’s stranded here due to lockdown. Chatting about their future they said ‘like most South Americans’ they would love to move to the UK as that as seen as no1 country to emigrate to, but it is too difficult to get into so they will probably end up in Canada.
Interesting that posters on here think ni people are going to rush to exit the country that the rest of the world want to reside in - and I have heard same story recently from Africans re wanting to live in uk but will settle for USA

South Americans?
Eh, Colombian? Venezuelan? Surinamese? Uruguayan? Chilean?

I mean if you are gonna talk nonsense, at least try make it more believable.

And honestly, as someone who has lived in Canada I can tell you something for certain, from a quality of life aspect, Britain comes no where near it. There's no choice to make.

BonnieSituation

jm08 wrote: »

Did they want to move to Northern Ireland or to GB?

Their dream was to set up in Carrickfergus no doubt. Nothing like a South American Catholic influx for the locals to bandy around.

Yeah_Right

Sinzo wrote: »

Well thanks for your imprimatur Bonnie. How gracious of you to allow me to Express my opinion.

I will exercise my right to vote No when the time comes... for the better good of people on both sides of the border...

According to some SF supporters on here, that means that you are anti-democratic. As far as they are concerned, democracy means everyone voting for what SF want.