Northern Ireland- a failure 99 years on?

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

So Francie. Maybe you will tell me the difference, in a divided society with contested nationality's, of some one putting up the flag of the country or a sign with the ancient language of the country on it. When both are seen as sensitive and both have been used to mark territory and wind up the other community. Both are legitimate expressions of identity and in a society that is not divided would be fine.
I know you get it so I’m actually not interested in playing this silly game any longer where some posters are pretending
Nationalist cultural expression = benign
Unionist cultural expression = offensive

It actually just demonstrates the arrogance and prejudice of some sections of the nationalist community

I think belligerent unionism needs to do a course on what 'cultural expression' is.

It is not...repeat not, taunting the other community with flags downcow or parades or about things that decimated them in the past, like famines. That is cultural 'supremacy' and 'triumphalism'.
And nationalists do that as well and it is wrong.

Dual language signage is an expression of all our cultural heritage. It is benign and not intended to offend.

BonnieSituation

downcow wrote: »

Not at all. I couldn’t care less what you write on your signs. I was simply asking why Roi put Derry on their road signs and uk put the official name.
Bonnie want evidence of ROI taking sides in ni issues. Then she said she needed something current. So I gave her this example.
I actually have a wee smile to myself when I see ROI demonstrating so publicly that the can’t tolerate any reference to uk.
It’s all a help in keeping northerners reminded that their would be no equality in a UI.

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Please point exactly to the post where I sought "evidence of the ROI taking sides in NI issues".

Thank you.

---

@Downcow, I'm still waiting on you to point out this post please.

Edgware

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I think belligerent unionism needs to do a course on what 'cultural expression' is.

It is not...repeat not, taunting the other community with flags downcow or parades or about things that decimated them in the past, like famines. That is cultural 'supremacy' and 'triumphalism'.
And nationalists do that as well and it is wrong.

Dual language signage is an expression of all our cultural heritage. It is benign and not intended to offend.

And you know this because?

Gob****es wanting signs in Irish and if asked to try and learn the language all we hear is whinging about " ramming Irish down my throat"

FrancieBrady

Edgware wrote: »

And you know this because?

Gob****es wanting signs in Irish and if asked to try and learn the language all we hear is whinging about " ramming Irish down my throat"

eh?

BonnieSituation

downcow wrote: »

Not at all. I couldn’t care less what you write on your signs. I was simply asking why Roi put Derry on their road signs and uk put the official name.
Bonnie want evidence of ROI taking sides in ni issues. Then she said she needed something current. So I gave her this example.
I actually have a wee smile to myself when I see ROI demonstrating so publicly that the can’t tolerate any reference to uk.
It’s all a help in keeping northerners reminded that their would be no equality in a UI.

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Please point exactly to the post where I sought "evidence of the ROI taking sides in NI issues".

Thank you.

I know it's tough for you Downcow, but please point out these posts.

BonnieSituation

Also, can our resident unionists answer how Northern Ireland has been a success?

Granadino

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Also, can our resident unionists answer how Northern Ireland has been a success?

It's still British. Fleg. That's the success for a lot of hardcore unionists/loyalists I would guess. As we can see with Brexit, to hell with everything else.
When you see what that buffoon Sammy Wilson was rattling on about yesterday about NI companies being in a "straight jacket of the EU", when they could have the best of both worlds... :rolleyes:

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It doesn't.

I wnt a normal society, that is why you were asked to fly it normally, like elsewhere in your union. But the auld exceptionalism took hold again. You only want to be like the rest of the union when it suits your bigoted, religiously and culturally suprematist ways.

In fairness Francie, you are on record stating that people who wear a Poppy should have to remove them if asked, as if one was living in some fascist state. Now that is also a cultural supremacist way of thinking.

Indeed you go further, denying, as per the GFA the right of people in the North to identify themselves as either Irish or British.

Finally, you are unequivocal about the war of independence that should have gone one and on and on until there was no partition.
In other words, Unionist supremacy bad, Irish Republican supremacy good.

People in glasshouse etc...

jm08

downcow wrote: »

As my last post. I was just educating you ðŸ‘

How do you think this signage thing should operate then?


Just to summarise what has happened in the Mourne Council Area. The area was extended a couple of years ago. A new corporate identity was introduced which included new signage. Eight of the 41 Councillors are Unionist. The new bilingual identity adopted and approved by the elected Councillors (presumably 30+ votes to 8. About 8 or 10 new Area Signs were put up on the periphery of the Council's area (along roads) which are shared space.



What do you think should have been done. Should Unionists have a veto on signage rather than a voting system?

BonnieSituation

jm08 wrote: »

How do you think this signage thing should operate then?


Just to summarise what has happened in the Mourne Council Area. The area was extended a couple of years ago. A new corporate identity was introduced which included new signage. Eight of the 41 Councillors are Unionist. The new bilingual identity adopted and approved by the elected Councillors (presumably 30+ votes to 8. About 8 or 10 new Area Signs were put up on the periphery of the Council's area (along roads) which are shared space.



What do you think should have been done. Should Unionists have a veto on signage rather than a voting system?

Should have a veto on both. /s

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

In fairness Francie, you are on record stating that people who wear a Poppy should have to remove them if asked, as if one was living in some fascist state. Now that is also a cultural supremacist way of thinking.

Wrong...I only ever said they should be asked to remove them when they are being worn to taunt.

Indeed you go further, denying, as per the GFA the right of people in the North to identify themselves as either Irish or British.

Wrong again...I don't care what you 'identify' as, knock yourself out on that one.

Finally, you are unequivocal about the war of independence that should have gone one and on and on until there was no partition.
In other words, Unionist supremacy bad, Irish Republican supremacy good.

People in glasshouse etc...

You will need to quote the line where I said that

indioblack

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Wrong...I only ever said they should be asked to remove them when they are being worn to taunt

Sounds like a sketch from Monty Python.

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Wrong...I only ever said they should be asked to remove them when they are being worn to taunt.

No, you also said that if they did not remove a poppy, then they should be forced to remove it.

Wrong again...I don't care what you 'identify' as, knock yourself out on that one.

Oh, you died on that hill Francie. Refusing point blank to call people from the Unionist side British, as per the wishes of the GFA.

You will need to quote the line where I said that

Oh I will.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

We should not have abandoned Irish men and women to their fate. Whatever that took.

"Whatever that took"

In other words, never stop fighting until we get rid of partition, but now.... you are a fan of the GFA... after the PIRA thought the same thing in 1969, it took the 'what that took' approach yet, laid down its arms and accepted Westminister rule in the North.....

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

No, you also said that if they did not remove a poppy, then they should be forced to remove it.

If they were wearing it to taunt, i.e. in or around people who were victims of the British Army. If somebody was wearing an Easter Lily to do the same then the same action should be taken. Not very hard to understand, easy to misrepresent though as you have demonstrated,

Oh, you died on that hill Francie. Refusing point blank to call people from the Unionist side British, as per the wishes of the GFA.

Once somebody has identified themselves as British then no problem whatsoever stating that and have no issue either with them being as British as they want to be.
As I said again and again in that debate...if you are born here then you are Irish until you idnetify otherwise...identity is a choice you make.

Oh I will.




"Whatever that took"

In other words, never stop fighting until we get rid of partition, but now.... you are a fan of the GFA... after the PIRA thought the same thing in 1969, it took the 'what that took' approach yet, laid down its arms and accepted Westminister rule in the North.....

Or refuse to sign the treaty even though you have been threatened with war?

I stress again Mark...I am happy the IRA have ceased to operate, I think signing up to the GFA took tremendous courage and guts.

You don't, you seem to have wanted a stalemate to have continued. Sad.

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

As I said again and again in that debate...if you are born here then you are Irish until you idnetify otherwise...identity is a choice you make.

Again, that is not your choice to make or bestow identity on to someone. You are not the arbitrator of who gets what default identity Francie, just because they are born on a certain rock.

Now, you can get all "Irish Supremacist" about it and die on that hill but its just not a good look.

Or refuse to sign the treaty even though you have been threatened with war?

We were already at war, and at a certain stalemate. The Irish people got what they wanted and voted to accept the Treaty through the Dail.
I know you hate demoraccy when it goes against your way, but that is how it goes.

Now, we could have called the bluff and we would still be here 100 years later debating was it a good move which led to tens of thousands of more people dying to end up in pretty much the same scenario.

Ill say it again, Partision was INEVITABLE!
There is simply no rational or logical scenario where we could have avoided it bar something catastrophic like Genocide or Ethnic Cleansing happening.

I stress again Mark...I am happy the IRA have ceased to operate

So you are happy that they accepted partition then? Yet, unhappy that in 1920 we didn't do 'whatever it took'..
Yes, I am confused!

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

Again, that is not your choice to make or bestow identity on to someone. You are not the arbitrator of who gets what default identity Francie, just because they are born on a certain rock.

I bestow nothing on anybody. But unless they tatoo it on their forehead they have to tell you what their 'identity' is.

Get it Mark...not a hard concept to grasp either.

We were already at war, and at a certain stalemate. The Irish people got what they wanted and voted to accept the Treaty through the Dail.
I know you hate demoraccy when it goes against your way, but that is how it goes.

Now, we could have called the bluff and we would still be here 100 years later debating was it a good move which led to tens of thousands of more people dying to end up in pretty much the same scenario.

Ill say it again, Partision was INEVITABLE!
There is simply no rational or logical scenario where we could have avoided it bar something catastrophic like Genocide or Ethnic Cleansing happening.



So you are happy that they accepted partition then? Yet, unhappy that in 1920 we didn't do 'whatever it took'..
Yes, I am confused!

I don't have any problem with the democracy of the decision...I have an issue with it being the wrong decision.

Electing Hitler was a democratic decision...was it the right one though?

Zebra3

markodaly wrote: »

We were already at war, and at a certain stalemate. The Irish people got what they wanted and voted to accept the Treaty through the Dail.

I know you hate demoraccy when it goes against your way, but that is how it goes.

Voting under what was basically the threat of war crimes is not democracy.

If the Dublin government announced plans to carpet bomb loyalist areas if they didn't vote for a united Ireland, would you accept that as a democratic vote?

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I bestow nothing on anybody. But unless they tatoo it on their forehead they have to tell you what their 'identity' is.

Their identity is theirs to decide once old enough to decide. They do not need some guy with a keyboard telling what they are before this time or date.
Quite simple really. Dont label people you don't know into a box to fit some weird political fetish.

I don't have any problem with the democracy of the decision...I have an issue with it being the wrong decision.

OMG. The classic oxymoran right here. We should put this into the dictionary as an example.
You are for democracy but against it when the decision is 'wrong'.. ROFL!! :D
I am so glad you get to speak for the rest of Ireland! Your opinion reigns supreme I guess.

Electing Hitler was a democratic decision...was it the right one though?

And.... we are back with the whataboutery and Godwin talk.

What it was Francie, that the Dail accepting the Treaty was a democratic decision. Now we didn't turn into a fascist state afterwords, so talk about Hitler is stupid to say the least.

The people who signed the treaty knew that the North was not worth it nor winnable.
Hell, even when Anti-Treaty Dev got to power with his cronies ala FF, he did the sum of '**** all' to go after the North, apart from lay claim to it on a piece of paper.

Even he knew, years later that Partition was inevitable at the time.
We know it now in 2020, because its self evident because.... Ireland is STILL paritioned.
Self-evident, Francie... self evident.

markodaly

Zebra3 wrote: »

Voting under what was basically the threat of war crimes is not democracy.

If the Dublin government announced plans to carpet bomb loyalist areas if they didn't vote for a united Ireland, would you accept that as a democratic vote?

Revisionist nonsense to be fair. There was no threat to 'carpet bomb' Dublin so one can leave that at the door immediately.

Simply put, the Irish people had enough of war,and wanted it to stop and we got the Free State in return. People still bang on about it, 100 years later as if its a sell out, but as we saw with the failed PIRA/SF campaign of the troubles more war in the 1920's with the British or Unionists would not have achieved anything.

As I said, Partition was inevitable.
Its 100% self evident in 2020.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

Their identity is theirs to decide once old enough to decide. They do not need some guy with a keyboard telling what they are before this time or date.
Quite simple really. Dont label people you don't know into a box to fit some weird political fetish.

Which bit of 'I have no issue what anyone identifies as' are you struggling with?
If you are born on an island called Ireland you are off that island = Irish just as if you are born in England you are English.
You can identify as a bucket for all I care.

OMG. The classic oxymoran right here. We should put this into the dictionary as an example.
You are for democracy but against it when the decision is 'wrong'.. ROFL!! :D
I am so glad you get to speak for the rest of Ireland! Your opinion reigns supreme I guess.



And.... we are back with the whataboutery and Godwin talk.

What it was Francie, that the Dail accepting the Treaty was a democratic decision. Now we didn't turn into a fascist state afterwords, so talk about Hitler is stupid to say the least.

The people who signed the treaty knew that the North was not worth it nor winnable.
Hell, even when Anti-Treaty Dev got to power with his cronies ala FF, he did the sum of '**** all' to go after the North, apart from lay claim to it on a piece of paper.

Even he knew, years later that Partition was inevitable at the time.
We know it now in 2020, because its self evident because.... Ireland is STILL paritioned.
Self-evident, Francie... self evident.

Is somebody who thinks the GFA was wrong undemocratic?
Is somebody who thinks abortion is wrong undemocratic to think the result of the referendum was wrong?

You can think a democratic decision was wrong.

Do I need to go any further to highlight how idiotic your objection is here?

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

Revisionist nonsense to be fair. There was no threat to 'carpet bomb' Dublin so one can leave that at the door immediately.

Simply put, the Irish people had enough of war,and wanted it to stop and we got the Free State in return. People still bang on about it, 100 years later as if its a sell out, but as we saw with the failed PIRA/SF campaign of the troubles more war in the 1920's with the British or Unionists would not have achieved anything.

As I said, Partition was inevitable.
Its 100% self evident in 2020.

Serious question...do you actually know the history of what happened? Your knowledge of the period has been found out a few times now.

Why are you ignoring the threat of 'immediate and terrible war' made to the negotiators?

Threatening to carpet bomb somewhere is a perfect example of immediate and terrible war.

Capt'n Midnight

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Threatening to carpet bomb somewhere is a perfect example of immediate and terrible war.

wut ?

The Irish Air Corps even if the RAF didn't show up and there were no MPADS or people taking pot shots or whatnot it would take bleedin' ages to do any carpet bombing given the lack of bombers and bombs and consequent lack of training. Yes you could fit bomb racks on the aircraft and put out a tender and do the training and then there'd be the problem that the aircraft can't actually take much of a payload. So you'd have to pay loads of overtime for all those sorties. And who's going to sign off on that ???
And lots more maintenance and the fuel costs.


In NI today the two tribes are in the minority. Arguing over rights and wrongs won't put bread on the table. Most people want to move on from that.

Within the UK I can't see much of a future just a continued dependence on table scraps from Westminster, and they will have real economic problems in a few short months time.


NI has finally succeeded as a grand wee country socially , if you could get rid of the Neanderthals that is, but not economically.


'Loyal to the crown, but more loyal to the half-crown' could be the deciding factor.

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If you are born on an island called Ireland you are off that island = Irish just as if you are born in England you are English.

No, that is not how it works. You are engaging in a White Irish Supremicst thinking with this claptrap. Just because one is born on a a piece of rock does not bestow identity or nationality.

Ronan o'Gara and Saorie Ronan are self identified as Irish even though they were both born in the USA.
Jamie Heaslip was born in Israel, yet he is not Israeli but he is Irish because he self identifies as Irish.
Someone born in the North is not automatically 'Irish' as you claim.
It is not your call nor is it in your power to make this call.

What is more, there is zero/nothing in the GFA that states what you think. In other words, you are wrong.

Is somebody who thinks the GFA was wrong undemocratic?
Is somebody who thinks abortion is wrong undemocratic to think the result of the referendum was wrong?

You can think a democratic decision was wrong.

Do accept the democratic vote in the Dail in regards the treaty.
The key word is accepting.
One can disagree with the outcome, but if one is a true democratic and republican, then one has to cede to the will of the people and accept democratic outcomes.

THAT is the difference. You do not or would not have accepted the Treaty, thus the difference.

Do I need to go any further to highlight how idiotic your objection is here?

Do I need to go on and keep reminding you how Partition was inevitable?

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Serious question...do you actually know the history of what happened? Your knowledge of the period has been found out a few times now.

Found out? Give me a concrete example please!
One of your friends on this thread thought that the Free State stayed in the Union until the 1940's!! I corrected them on that huge blunder!

My history and knowledge of it is up there and certainly is more than a few rebel songs and whatnot that passes for history among many.

Why are you ignoring the threat of 'immediate and terrible war' made to the negotiators?

I am not. It was the logical outcome of failed negotiations and rejection of the treaty. More war...

We have the hindsight of your type of thinking with 35 years of conflict in the North, even though the PIRA were talking to the British Government secretly for most of it, yet the PIRA foolishly kept on beating a dead horse, knowing they would never win.

Signing and accepting the Treaty was the right call. You disagree, therefore you are not a democrat. Simple really.

Threatening to carpet bomb somewhere is a perfect example of immediate and terrible war.

Again, the revisionism. There was no threat to carpet bomb in the negotiations.

Spleodar

My view of it is that both the Republic and Northern Ireland would have functioned FAR better had they never been partitioned in the first place. If you consider the two entities' history over the 20th century, Northern Ireland went off into a spiral of sectarianism and all of the problems that that brought, and the Republic spent a long time pretty much captured by very conservative catholic influences, well up until the 1990s.

It also damaged economic links and isolated integrated parts of the island.

Had partition never happened, I would suspect the two groupings would have balanced each other out. The influence of the Catholic Church would have been tempered in the south and likewise in the North there would have probably been less tendency for extremists to have risen to power and the troubles would simply never have happened.

I would suspect that you'd have had a totally different sense of identity evolve and probably a more prosperous and stable island in general.

It's not really that Northern Ireland has been a failure, rather that the whole concept of partitioning Ireland was a failure and caused immense damage and distortions.

Putting that right again is going to take a very long time and it's a shame that the whole Brexit process may now cause more headaches either by forcing circumstances towards highlighting partition or creating tensions in Northern Ireland again.

Zebra3

markodaly wrote: »

Revisionist nonsense to be fair. There was no threat to 'carpet bomb' Dublin so one can leave that at the door immediately.

Simply put, the Irish people had enough of war,and wanted it to stop and we got the Free State in return. People still bang on about it, 100 years later as if its a sell out, but as we saw with the failed PIRA/SF campaign of the troubles more war in the 1920's with the British or Unionists would not have achieved anything.

As I said, Partition was inevitable.
Its 100% self evident in 2020.

You are making stuff up to divert from your failure to answer my point.

I never claimed there was a threat to carpet bomb Dublin, I used it as a modern day example of how threats can undermine a democratic vote.

So do you see a vote taking place under the threat of violence as being democratic or not? It's a fairly simple question.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

Found out? Give me a concrete example please!
One of your friends on this thread thought that the Free State stayed in the Union until the 1940's!! I corrected them on that huge blunder!

My history and knowledge of it is up there and certainly is more than a few rebel songs and whatnot that passes for history among many.

You ignore facts that don't suit your narrative. I think you didn't know about the threat from Britain if the treaty was not signed tbh.
You also don't seem to know that Unionists set about changing the voting system after partition or that many unionists (the COI for one) laid out exactly what would happen if partition went ahead.

I am not. It was the logical outcome of failed negotiations and rejection of the treaty. More war...

We have the hindsight of your type of thinking with 35 years of conflict in the North, even though the PIRA were talking to the British Government secretly for most of it, yet the PIRA foolishly kept on beating a dead horse, knowing they would never win.

Signing and accepting the Treaty was the right call. You disagree, therefore you are not a democrat. Simple really.



Again, the revisionism. There was no threat to carpet bomb in the negotiations.

Logical outcome is 'war'?

Not necessarily IMO.

And this 'you are not a democrat' ****e again.

Are those who thought the Brexit vote was wrong undemocratic? (You can't use your outdated and edgy 'Godwin theory' on that, so could you answer the question this time?)

jm08

markodaly wrote: »

What it was Francie, that the Dail accepting the Treaty was a democratic decision. Now we didn't turn into a fascist state afterwords, so talk about Hitler is stupid to say the least.

Ireland was heading towards fascism if the Blueshirts were not kicked out by Fianna Fail. One great achievement of Dev is that while fascism was all the rage in Europe, he didn't go down that route.

markodaly

Zebra3 wrote: »

I never claimed there was a threat to carpet bomb Dublin, I used it as a modern day example of how threats can undermine a democratic vote.

So you wanted to up the emotional language then to try and (badly at that) hammer home some point?

Why not go all in and say the Brits threatened to nuke Dublin? For effect, like!

So do you see a vote taking place under the threat of violence as being democratic or not? It's a fairly simple question.

Em, wasn't it the same the other way around?
The IRA, Collins and Co. could have just as easily told the British they were prepared to go on fighting for the next 100 years until they got what they wanted. Both sides knew the consequences of failure of the negotiations and thankfully they signed a treaty, which was democraticly passed by a majority democratic vote in the Dail.

Those who didn't like the result went on to be traitors, just like those Condferates in the US.

markodaly

jm08 wrote: »

Ireland was heading towards fascism if the Blueshirts were not kicked out by Fianna Fail. One great achievement of Dev is that while fascism was all the rage in Europe, he didn't go down that route.

First you faux-pas about the Irish blue-state being in the United Kingdom, now this?

Seriously??
Honestly, you have lots of things about Irish history wrong and back to front.