Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
How long before Irish reunification? (Part 2) Threadbans in OP
Options
Comments
-
FrancieBrady wrote: »No they didn't make an exception for her alone. The ruling says ALL those born in the north have EU citizenship under the EU Settlement Scheme when it comes to immigration/residency of a spouse. The British changed their imigration law for all born in NI not JUST for De Sousa.
A cop out and not the end of that I would imagine.
The British changed nothing ! Their stance on the status of people in Northern Ireland has always been consistent .
They also disregarded the GFA on this . Moreover , GFA only says Irish citizenship is optional. Nothing in GFA , in the eyes of British law ever said , “Irish only” . It was additional to British citizenship but it NEVER took precedent . Never Irish Citizenship is optional only . British citizenship is the default citizenship in the eyes of British law and thus International law. They never actually revoked their British citizenship
Just a case of Irish Nationalists and Irish Republicans over selling GFA as more than it really is . Jesus , there appears to be bad faith on the Brits part but it was plain to see and it was crystal clear from the British stance when they had a similar case before the European Court in 2010 (I was surprised it took so long for a NI based case to come up in light of McCarthy 2010)
All those born in the North have Eu citizenship . Yes, and as of that judgment , that EU citizenship was BRITISH .
The case was based on interpretation of EU law not British law . As per EU law , she was British , and as she never left the territory of the U.K. , EU law couldn’t apply
“Eu settlement scheme “ what in gods name are you waffling about ? Clueless . Nonsense . No such thing . Concept of Eu citizenship has been around since 1993 . Eu free movement has been around since the start of the EEC (as you know) . You have to physically leave the home territory (here, being the U.K.)0 -
-
Sure Randy.Randy Archer wrote: »The British changed nothing ! Their stance on the status of people in Northern Ireland has always been consistent .
They also disregarded the GFA on this . Moreover , GFA only says Irish citizenship is optional. Nothing in GFA , in the eyes of British law ever said , “Irish only” . It was additional to British citizenship but it NEVER took precedent . Never Irish Citizenship is optional only . British citizenship is the default citizenship in the eyes of British law and thus International law. They never actually revoked their British citizenship
Just a case of Irish Nationalists and Irish Republicans over selling GFA as more than it really is . Jesus , there appears to be bad faith on the Brits part but it was plain to see and it was crystal clear from the British stance when they had a similar case before the European Court in 2010 (I was surprised it took so long for a NI based case to come up in light of McCarthy 2010)
All those born in the North have Eu citizenship . Yes, and as of that judgment , that EU citizenship was BRITISH .
The case was based on interpretation of EU law not British law . As per EU law , she was British , and as she never left the territory of the U.K. , EU law couldn’t apply
“Eu settlement scheme “ what in gods name are you waffling about ? Clueless . Nonsense . No such thing . Concept of Eu citizenship has been around since 1993 . Eu free movement has been around since the start of the EEC (as you know) . You have to physically leave the home territory (here, being the U.K.)
https://www.derryjournal.com/news/emma-desouza-secures-landmark-concession-british-government-over-immigration-laws-28535370 -
Randy Archer wrote: »Who the hell do you think you are ? Shinners , the majority of whom offer nothing to the economy but take take take and whine . Tax payers , proper tax payers most certainly do have a right and a say , far more than the lunatic Shinners who base all arguments on warm fuzzy feelings Rather than reality
Wake up ! Shinners have been excellent with spinning what GFA really means . GFA really meant the SURRENDER by Republicans of armed force resistance and the recognition of the Status Quo in the North . They were successful in spinning failure into a success story , whereas DUP and Unionists spun what was a success for them into a failure and end of their ways
Don’t lie , you Shinners have always been about breeding them out as the way to achieve UI
When you refer to 'Shinners' do you mean people who are members of Sinn Fein, or do you mean anyone who votes for them?
Fair play to you for articulating exactly what a mess Northern Ireland is. Since the first 50 years of Unionist government was an absolute diasaster that lead to the mess we now have, Direct Rule by the British Government turned it into a militarised zone that required the deployment of 25,000 British Army troops, and the most recent attempt is completely dysfunctional, it might be time to try something different.0 -
Randy Archer wrote: »The British changed nothing ! Their stance on the status of people in Northern Ireland has always been consistent .
They also disregarded the GFA on this . Moreover , GFA only says Irish citizenship is optional. Nothing in GFA , in the eyes of British law ever said , “Irish only” . It was additional to British citizenship but it NEVER took precedent . Never Irish Citizenship is optional only . British citizenship is the default citizenship in the eyes of British law and thus International law. They never actually revoked their British citizenship
Just a case of Irish Nationalists and Irish Republicans over selling GFA as more than it really is . Jesus , there appears to be bad faith on the Brits part but it was plain to see and it was crystal clear from the British stance when they had a similar case before the European Court in 2010 (I was surprised it took so long for a NI based case to come up in light of McCarthy 2010)
All those born in the North have Eu citizenship . Yes, and as of that judgment , that EU citizenship was BRITISH .
The case was based on interpretation of EU law not British law . As per EU law , she was British , and as she never left the territory of the U.K. , EU law couldn’t apply
“Eu settlement scheme “ what in gods name are you waffling about ? Clueless . Nonsense . No such thing . Concept of Eu citizenship has been around since 1993 . Eu free movement has been around since the start of the EEC (as you know) . You have to physically leave the home territory (here, being the U.K.)
From the horses mouth here. Basically what has happened is that the British Government didn't enact legislation to legalise the provisions of the GFA and are now just digging a hole for themselves rather than admit that they got this wrong. Even Leo has a go at them for it.Taoiseach Leo Varadkar has stated that UK nationality law is “out of step” with the Good Friday Agreement.
This article explains it all very well. Perhaps you might educate yourself with it.
https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/emma-de-souza-my-fight-for-the-right-to-not-be-british-isn-t-over-1.42698860 -
Advertisement
-
-
A black suit, white shirt and black tie is what I saw on the VAST majority of men in the crowd at Bobby's funeral, Downcow.
Are you suggesting something else?
Just this
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/opinion/storey-funeral-highlights-fundamental-problems-with-sinn-f%25C3%25A9in-1.4298524%3fmode=amp0 -
Randy Archer wrote: »The British changed nothing ! Their stance on the status of people in Northern Ireland has always been consistent .
They also disregarded the GFA on this . Moreover , GFA only says Irish citizenship is optional. Nothing in GFA , in the eyes of British law ever said , “Irish only” . It was additional to British citizenship but it NEVER took precedent . Never Irish Citizenship is optional only . British citizenship is the default citizenship in the eyes of British law and thus International law. They never actually revoked their British citizenship
Just a case of Irish Nationalists and Irish Republicans over selling GFA as more than it really is . Jesus , there appears to be bad faith on the Brits part but it was plain to see and it was crystal clear from the British stance when they had a similar case before the European Court in 2010 (I was surprised it took so long for a NI based case to come up in light of McCarthy 2010)
All those born in the North have Eu citizenship . Yes, and as of that judgment , that EU citizenship was BRITISH .
The case was based on interpretation of EU law not British law . As per EU law , she was British , and as she never left the territory of the U.K. , EU law couldn’t apply
“Eu settlement scheme “ what in gods name are you waffling about ? Clueless . Nonsense . No such thing . Concept of Eu citizenship has been around since 1993 . Eu free movement has been around since the start of the EEC (as you know) . You have to physically leave the home territory (here, being the U.K.)
You're mistaken on the end point of the case, Randy. Look closer to May this year for the latest.0 -
FrancieBrady wrote: »
Well done on not being able to understand what was said !!! Here’s a tip, invest time in reading the actual Court transcript not not taking your interpretation from a bunch of journalist with zero legal qualifications
The Court hearing rules against her . She appealed to the court of appeal . However, the government have since intervened when a new administrative scheme , which doesn’t over rule the finding of previous court case
At the time (2017) she did not revoke her British Citizenship , and thus , she lost her case . She was deemed British - she never left the territory of the U.K. (relevant for EU law) nor did she revoke her British citizenship , so how were the U.K. to know what her primary citizenship was ? Remember , the default is that they are Brits
The judgment was delivered in or around January 2020
The article that you refer to refers to POST court case and Government decision in response to the court finding (which sided with them) and the political up roar During a time when Britain is negotiating strategy for leaving the EU
It doesn’t in any way change the result of the court case for future cases
The article points out that It simply gave her a chance to actually make a new application with different rules applied and still allows the British to maintain their legal position British citizenship that was confirmed by the court case and hasn’t been over ruled . She has to , make a new application which may (or may not depending on her economic situation ) now favour her
The new government position does NOT over rule the court decision at all . They are British citizens by default - it remains to be seen what happens for other people In her shoes post July 2021
Recent Brexit political developments which was not there when the case started in 2017ish puts her in a different position . The case ain’t over , either , least for new applicants post August 2021 (for other people)
It remains to been seen what happens for OTHERS after Brexit with those who refuse to see themselves as British and EU law won’t / may not apply (- we don’t know what happens with how the Brits treat all Eu citizens after October 2020 . What happens with new cases similar to De Sousa - where they can only rely on British immigration law rather than EU immigration law and they want to claim to be Irish
the main case itself was appealed to the court of appeal (but Now moot if they get status under the new administration scheme - she dropped the appeal , but it would have been interesting what would have happened if she was allowed to pursue that appeal - but “I’m alright jack “ )
NOTHING In this recent development changes the British position at all - the position remains that if one is born in NI , they are British under British law , by default, even if they hold Irish citizenship . The news scheme that they brought in is open for only a limited time (till July 2021)
Nice try . Best you read from other news agencies regarding this development too , not some Shinner paper that gets things arseways !
Even De Sousa acknowledges that the principals haven’t been addressed . She should be okay, but others might not . The court decision stands . The Brits are still getting away with disregarding the principals that the Republicans believe to exist0 -
You're mistaken on the end point of the case, Randy. Look closer to May this year for the latest.
What happens in May does not remotely change the Constitutional position of how British law sees the status of people of the North
What happened in May does not and did not over rule the court decision . ! It doesn’t change the situation for future applicants like De Sousa , after July 2021
It’s an administrative scheme , with new rules without surrendering their (British government ) position . The Brits acted to try to and put a halt to De Sousa’s subsequent appeal which no one knows how it could go . De Sousa might have even taken it to Europe , which no government ever wants as they have little control over the outcome
Even De Sousa acknowledges that it remains to be seen as to what happens in the future . As she got a deal which may eventually get her hubby status , she had to drop the appeal . In an ideal world she would have kept the appeal open
The recent May development , in the words of De Sousa (and she’s spot on ) said regarding the immigration rules “do not fully address all the underlying issues ...”
The inconsistencies between what GFA says and the British approach , remains . They just put a big plaster over a cut with this administration scheme . The matter is kicked down the road (not being critical of De Sousa btw, she had no choice but to stop her forthcoming appeal) The **** will hit the fan for others post July 20210 -
Advertisement
-
Randy Archer wrote: »Well done on not being able to understand what was said !!! Here’s a tip, invest time in reading the actual Court transcript not not taking your interpretation from a bunch of journalist with zero legal qualifications
The Court hearing rules against her . She appealed to the court of appeal . However, the government have since intervened when a new administrative scheme , which doesn’t over rule the finding of previous court case
At the time (2017) she did not revoke her British Citizenship , and thus , she lost her case . She was deemed British - she never left the territory of the U.K. (relevant for EU law) nor did she revoke her British citizenship , so how were the U.K. to know what her primary citizenship was ? Remember , the default is that they are Brits
The judgment was delivered in or around January 2020
The article that you refer to refers to POST court case and Government decision in response to the court finding (which sided with them) and the political up roar During a time when Britain is negotiating strategy for leaving the EU
It doesn’t in any way change the result of the court case for future cases
The article points out that It simply gave her a chance to actually make a new application with different rules applied and still allows the British to maintain their legal position British citizenship that was confirmed by the court case and hasn’t been over ruled . She has to , make a new application which may (or may not depending on her economic situation ) now favour her
The new government position does NOT over rule the court decision at all . They are British citizens by default - it remains to be seen what happens for other people In her shoes post July 2021
Recent Brexit political developments which was not there when the case started in 2017ish puts her in a different position . The case ain’t over , either , least for new applicants post August 2021 (for other people)
It remains to been seen what happens for OTHERS after Brexit with those who refuse to see themselves as British and EU law won’t / may not apply (- we don’t know what happens with how the Brits treat all Eu citizens after October 2020 . What happens with new cases similar to De Sousa - where they can only rely on British immigration law rather than EU immigration law and they want to claim to be Irish
the main case itself was appealed to the court of appeal (but Now moot if they get status under the new administration scheme - she dropped the appeal , but it would have been interesting what would have happened if she was allowed to pursue that appeal - but “I’m alright jack “ )
NOTHING In this recent development changes the British position at all - the position remains that if one is born in NI , they are British under British law , by default, even if they hold Irish citizenship . The news scheme that they brought in is open for only a limited time (till July 2021)
Nice try . Best you read from other news agencies regarding this development too , not some Shinner paper that gets things arseways !
Even De Sousa acknowledges that the principals haven’t been addressed . She should be okay, but others might not . The court decision stands . The Brits are still getting away with disregarding the principals that the Republicans believe to exist
I think you may be arguing with yourself. Well, that is my take on the above and to be honest I am not putting myself through reading that again to check.
The poster JH claimed that the British made an 'exception for Ms De Souza'.
They didn't and I linked to a report of the judgment to show that they didn't make an exception for her.0 -
FrancieBrady wrote: »I think you may be arguing with yourself. Well, that is my take on the above and to be honest I am not putting myself through reading that again to check.
The poster JH claimed that the British made an 'exception for Ms De Souza'.
They didn't and I linked to a report of the judgment to show that they didn't make an exception for her.
Yeah, i thought it was just an exception for her but it is an exception for all for a certain period of time. The other poster is correct though, identifying as Irish is meaningless in a legal sense. The people of NI are born British from a legal perspective and that hasn't changed.0 -
When you refer to 'Shinners' do you mean people who are members of Sinn Fein, or do you mean anyone who votes for them?
Fair play to you for articulating exactly what a mess Northern Ireland is. Since the first 50 years of Unionist government was an absolute diasaster that lead to the mess we now have, Direct Rule by the British Government turned it into a militarised zone that required the deployment of 25,000 British Army troops, and the most recent attempt is completely dysfunctional, it might be time to try something different.
Shinners and the IRA have done absolutely every thing to try and destroy the North from ever even having a chance .
Spare us the guff about 50 years. NI relatively quietened down in the 30s and everyone was in the same boat during WW2 , loads of catholic’s in H & W whole Johnny unionist (not as many as Ww1 mind you ) was off fighting . The IRA resurrected the hatred and paranoia in the 1950s with their laughable border campaign . Whatever legitimate excuses there were in the 1960 and 1970s the IRA have zero justification for their existence post 1980. Zero . They inflicted so much damage to the people that they claimed to represent
Northern Ireland is a mess because of the IRA . John Hume should have been allowed to work without the crap that Jarry n the boys got up to . And sure hey, when they weren’t shorting Peelers they were knee capping their own
What we have now ? Eh Shinners selfishly playing games over a poxy language act that they barely can speak , and keeping Stormont closed for years . Shinners still attending and organising funerals of IRA MEN . On your bike
No whataboutery will sell that to the rest of the South
The IRA were the reason for the military remaining in the North ! They made no bones about declaring war on the North and it’s Institutions . Hell, they even refused to recognise the South0 -
Yeah, i thought it was just an exception for her but it is an exception for all for a certain period of time. The other poster is correct though, identifying as Irish is meaningless in a legal sense. The people of NI are born British from a legal perspective and that hasn't changed.
As I said...I didn't reference that at all. Randy saw fit to write a rant about something not being discussed.0 -
Randy Archer wrote: »Shinners and the IRA have done absolutely every thing to try and destroy the North from ever even having a chance .
Spare us the guff about 50 years. NI relatively quietened down in the 30s and everyone was in the same boat during WW2 , loads of catholic’s in H & W whole Johnny unionist (not as many as Ww1 mind you ) was off fighting . The IRA resurrected the hatred and paranoia in the 1950s with their laughable border campaign . Whatever legitimate excuses there were in the 1960 and 1970s the IRA have zero justification for their existence post 1980. Zero . They inflicted so much damage to the people that they claimed to represent
Northern Ireland is a mess because of the IRA . John Hume should have been allowed to work without the crap that Jarry n the boys got up to . And sure hey, when they weren’t shorting Peelers they were knee capping their own
What we have now ? Eh Shinners selfishly playing games over a poxy language act that they barely can speak , and keeping Stormont closed for years . Shinners still attending and organising funerals of IRA MEN . On your bike
No whataboutery will sell that to the rest of the South
The IRA were the reason for the military remaining in the North ! They made no bones about declaring war on the North and it’s Institutions . Hell, they even refused to recognise the South
As opposed to the whataboutery above?0 -
Randy Archer wrote: »Shinners and the IRA have done absolutely every thing to try and destroy the North from ever even having a chance .
Spare us the guff about 50 years. NI relatively quietened down in the 30s and everyone was in the same boat during WW2 , loads of catholic’s in H & W whole Johnny unionist (not as many as Ww1 mind you ) was off fighting . The IRA resurrected the hatred and paranoia in the 1950s with their laughable border campaign . Whatever legitimate excuses there were in the 1960 and 1970s the IRA have zero justification for their existence post 1980. Zero . They inflicted so much damage to the people that they claimed to represent
Northern Ireland is a mess because of the IRA . John Hume should have been allowed to work without the crap that Jarry n the boys got up to . And sure hey, when they weren’t shorting Peelers they were knee capping their own
What we have now ? Eh Shinners selfishly playing games over a poxy language act that they barely can speak , and keeping Stormont closed for years . Shinners still attending and organising funerals of IRA MEN . On your bike
No whataboutery will sell that to the rest of the South
The IRA were the reason for the military remaining in the North ! They made no bones about declaring war on the North and it’s Institutions . Hell, they even refused to recognise the South
The guy ranting about everybody else's grasp of history manages a post that talks about this island as if the nasty IRA existed in a vacuum.
Brilliant stuff.0 -
FrancieBrady wrote: »I think you may be arguing with yourself. Well, that is my take on the above and to be honest I am not putting myself through reading that again to check.
The poster JH claimed that the British made an 'exception for Ms De Souza'.
They didn't and I linked to a report of the judgment to show that they didn't make an exception for her.
You are wrong and you are doubting yourself now - hence why you want to drop this . You don’t even know what a court report is for god sake .
Your take is wrong and you don’t understand what was said , so drop out of this matter , you ain’t qualified to comment
You put up a post about the out of court agreement (the court still favoured the British government ) which doesn’t rebut what I said . You did it believing wrongly, that you could rebut what I said . You fail to understand what this agreement really does in the long run . Sure De Sousa might get her hubby to stay (all good) but the legal problem remains . The Brits can’t be trusted really .
You did NOT link a report to the judgment by the way !! That is NOT the court report or a copy of the judgment . You even know what a court report is ? Newspapers ain’t the court report or transcript . The reports you attached doesn’t deal with what happened IN COURT
Your latest article from the Derry paper concerns post court arrangement. After the government were successful , but now facing a fresh appeal to the superior courts by De Sousa , and faces serious political pressure from Ireland and Europe , both of whom have Britain by the balls during Brexit negotiations
Is it an exception ? It is really, it’s a climb down despite the courts ruling in favour of the government (for now) Others will avail of this new administration scheme. It doesn’t in any way mean that the British are conceding to their attitudes . The “exception” is a time limited one . It also doesn’t apply to Italians etc born in NI but always say themselves at Italian etc
It’s no different to the response of the Irish government with the Loebe case in 2003 - ie parents of Irish citizen children, who only entered less than 2 years before the birth - COULD LAWFULLY BE REMOVED from the country .government won their case
What did McDowell as Justice Minister do ? Deport them ? Nope . He Gave those effected by the ruling , all 20,000 odd individuals , a chance to re apply for residency on foot of the child’s birth , it was called the IBC 05 scheme - government didn’t want the political headaches , costs and accusations of racism , despite the law siding with them -
good luck to Ms De Souza by the way , but anyone who knew the legal issues involved knew that she would lose in the U.K. courts
It is put to you that the British simply kicked the can down the road in light of new situation ie recent Brexit discussions and the danger that De Souza might win in the courts eventually , be it in the court of appeal, Supreme Court or European Court (Who would have to go against their previous caselaw on this matter and could well do so even if it goes against logic - Europe aren’t retrained to precedent like Common law jurisdictions )
It’s no different to you having a strong personal injury case against a county council, and at the very last minute , on the steps of the court house, the lawyers for the Co Co want to settle but without actually admitting wrong because they don’t want the court to decide it - and you are inclined to settle because you get what you want regardless of the label and there’s a risk you lose all of the court do decide it - here, de Sousa has a decent appeal to lodge which was causing serious headaches for the government regardless of the government win or lose (if the government won, the Ra and Sf would be up in arms , and rather justifiably and it would expose the bad faith of the Brits towards GFA )
If bothered to read the reports you’d see Ms De Souza has said the same thing. Naturally, she wants to end the matter as there are serious financial risks if he was to lose the next appeal , it deep down had she got a chance to continue her appeal she would , in order to end the clear inconsistency of the British approach towards GFA once and for all .(for her hubby got status under any scheme , the matter is now moot and an appeal court would refuse to hear the case , even if there’s merit - and there’s merit )0 -
FrancieBrady wrote: »The guy ranting about everybody else's grasp of history manages a post that talks about this island as if the nasty IRA existed in a vacuum.
Brilliant stuff.
No one said or implied the IRA existed in a vacuum . ! That’s on you, typical whataboutry guff from the uneducated
Run along because you and Your pals prefer to report people for being mean (or telling home truths ) to silence them
It was pointed out that things quietened down in the 1930s , until the IRA started kicking up in the 1950s . Of course the majority natives are going to defend their country . It was pointed out to you that by the 1980s there was zero justification for the existence and the acts of the IRA and no whataboutery is going to dismiss that . The IRA instigated everything at that point as they told the world that they would prevent NI from working
Sit down and shut up. Mushrooms needs picking0 -
Randy Archer wrote: »You are wrong and you are doubting yourself now - hence why you want to drop this . You don’t even know what a court report is for god sake .
I just posted one in another thread this AM, so WRONG again Randy.
Which MIGHT BE WHY I said that in the original post? That it is not over?
You put up a post about the out of court agreement (the court still favoured the British government ) which doesn’t rebut what I said . You did it believing wrongly, that you could rebut what I said . You fail to understand what this agreement really does in the long run . Sure De Sousa might get her hubby to stay (all good) but the legal problem remains . The Brits can’t be trusted really .
As you seem to want to continue arguing with yourself in the rest of the post I will ignore.0 -
Randy Archer wrote: »No one said or implied the IRA existed in a vacuum . ! That’s on you, typical whataboutry guff from the uneducated
Run along because you and Your pals prefer to report people for being mean (or telling home truths ) to silence them
It was pointed out that things quietened down in the 1930s , until the IRA started kicking up in the 1950s . Of course the majority natives are going to defend their country . It was pointed out to you that by the 1980s there was zero justification for the existence and the acts of the IRA and no whataboutery is going to dismiss that . The IRA instigated everything at that point as they told the world that they would prevent NI from working
Sit down and shut up. Mushrooms needs picking
There was 'zero justification' in your world Randy, is what you really mean.
Or look at it another way, that is your opinion.
So NO, I won't sit down and I won't shut up. Your bully boy tactics don't work on me.
And I never reported you, why would I? You are like Paisley was to the Nationalist campaign...manna from heaven, the world could see what they were up against..so they were happy to say, 'shout away Ian'.0 -
Advertisement
-
FrancieBrady wrote: »There was 'zero justification' in your world Randy, is what you really mean.
Or look at it another way, that is your opinion.
So NO, I won't sit down and I won't shut up. Your bully boy tactics don't work on me.
And I never reported you, why would I? You are like Paisley was to the Nationalist campaign...manna from heaven, the world could see what they were up against..so they were happy to say, 'shout away Ian'.
There was zero justification in the eyes of the vast majority of people on this island and the world . Scum and sectarian bigots are the only ones who act as apologists . This is why your kind should always be picked out and removed from taking part in society .
What was the justification for killing a Royal in the South ? What was the justification for bombs going off in broad day light in busy streets of Britain ? What was the justification of planting bombs that killed old people at a war remembrance ? What the justification for kidnapping business men and a horse or robbing banks which lead to deaths of Gardai ? What was the justification for punishment beatings of catholics who didn’t agree with the IRA ? What was the justification for holding businesses to ransom for protection ? What was the justification of killing innocent Protestants during retaliation attacks ? Not man enough to go after UDA and co ?
Nothing stopped SF from going down the political route like Hume , could have saved Jarry and the bhoys wasting 10 years
People like you who justify murder are scum . Worse than deluded . You justify murder by a group who never had a mandate of the majority of people of this country . People of your Ilk should remain blackballed from society until ye grow up .
The IRA did more harm to ordinary catholics than anyone else0 -
FrancieBrady wrote: »There was 'zero justification' in your world Randy, is what you really mean.
Or look at it another way, that is your opinion.
So NO, I won't sit down and I won't shut up. Your bully boy tactics don't work on me.
And I never reported you, why would I? You are like Paisley was to the Nationalist campaign...manna from heaven, the world could see what they were up against..so they were happy to say, 'shout away Ian'.
You will sit down and shut up ! You are a no body in the real world and you will remain a no body here . You haven’t a clue as to what you are talking about most of the time and then play dumb when your posts are successfully picked apart by others
You reported me several times , you and blaaz , I have it from the mods as to who did it
Paisley ? You wish . What I say is factual and what is shared by Southerners . What would you know, you are just a mushroom picker from Monaghan0 -
Mod: Tone down the agressiveness or there will be threadbans.0
-
Randy Archer wrote: »You will sit down and shut up ! You are a no body in the real world and you will remain a no body here . You haven’t a clue as to what you are talking about most of the time and then play dumb when your posts are successfully picked apart by others
You reported me several times , you and blaaz , I have it from the mods as to who did it
Paisley ? You wish . What I say is factual and what is shared by Southerners . What would you know, you are just a mushroom picker from Monaghan
Hold up....what mod said i reported yous
I never did?0 -
Randy Archer wrote: »There was zero justification in the eyes of the vast majority of people on this island and the world . Scum and sectarian bigots are the only ones who act as apologists . This is why your kind should always be picked out and removed from taking part in society .
What was the justification for killing a Royal in the South ? What was the justification for bombs going off in broad day light in busy streets of Britain ? What was the justification of planting bombs that killed old people at a war remembrance ? What the justification for kidnapping business men and a horse or robbing banks which lead to deaths of Gardai ? What was the justification for punishment beatings of catholics who didn’t agree with the IRA ? What was the justification for holding businesses to ransom for protection ? What was the justification of killing innocent Protestants during retaliation attacks ? Not man enough to go after UDA and co ?
Nothing stopped SF from going down the political route like Hume , could have saved Jarry and the bhoys wasting 10 years
People like you who justify murder are scum . Worse than deluded . You justify murder by a group who never had a mandate of the majority of people of this country . People of your Ilk should remain blackballed from society until ye grow up .
The IRA did more harm to ordinary catholics than anyone else
Two points:
There was NO justification for any of it from the get go. The 'get go' being the sectarian bigoted artificial state and the attempts to maintain it and shore it up.
John Hume was unsuccessful in changing that sectarian bigoted state. His many attempts and the SDLP's failed attempts or acquiescence prove that. It was clear to any responsible government what was going to happen but the British one spent 30 or more years trying to maintain Unionist supremacy, failed and gave up. We now have the GFA - equality and parity of esteem as a result.
P.S. To underline the complete irrelevance of the 'mandate' question maybe you could show us some examples where revolutionary/independence groups first sought and received a 'mandate' from the people? Maybe start with our own independence movement.0 -
Randy Archer wrote: »Northern Ireland is a mess because of the IRA
Cry me a river. The conflict ended in 1998. That's 22 years ago. Japan, Germany, and Britain, were flattened in WWII and within fewer that 20 years they had rebuilt and were, in every way, better off then they'd ever been before the war.
You can't blame the IRA forever. Big boy pants time now.0 -
Junkyard Tom wrote: »Cry me a river. The conflict ended in 1998. That's 22 years ago. Japan, Germany, and Britain, were flattened in WWII and within fewer that 20 years they had rebuilt and were, in every way, better off then they'd ever been before the war.
You can't blame the IRA forever. Big boy pants time now.
The conflict is ongoing0 -
-
Those of you who wanted the Irish Sea closed to protect the island from England’s covid struggles. Do you think we should close the border now to protect NI from ROIs current covid problems?0
-
Advertisement
-
Those of you who wanted the Irish Sea closed to protect the island from England’s covid struggles. Do you think we should close the border now to protect NI from ROIs current covid problems?
Britain's incompetent handling of CV19 is a much greater risk to Ireland than Ireland is to itself. Any rational person would surely see the benefits of having one authority in Ireland who could close the airports/ports and lock Ireland down like they did in NZ.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement