North & South

79cortinaz · 06-07-2005 5:21pm

earthman, i wasnt trying to attack murphaph , i was asking a question.
murphaph claims he knows his country Ireland, not much about that british place called northern ireland, as it isnt his country - ie it isnt part of ireland.

I was asking how he could class himself as being Irish if he believed that. It was a legitimate question, not an attack.

06-07-2005 5:23pm

I know you werent-thats why you are not banned.
However familiarise yourself with the posting guidelines which is what I'm suggesting

79cortinaz · 06-07-2005 5:32pm

murphaph wrote:

Omagh is a town on the island of Ireland, it is not a town in Ireland. It is a town in Northern Ireland. I fully accept that you are Irish at the same time.

so basically theres two irelands - one is the island of ireland and the other is called Ireland. Glad we cleared that up

I hate to break it to you, but most people down south have moved on since the 1970's.

sorry, but whats the 70s got to do with anything? A lot of things happened in the 80s, 90s and 00s too.

I'm obviously not alone here-there are plenty of northerners on boards who realise it's high time to move on up there too.

Move on? So again, theres no problems in the north, its just all in peoples minds? I find that line of debate very very shakey and unrealistic.

The peace process and ceasefires have offered a temporary stoppage from violence and people are now (it seems) taking that for granted

murphaph · 06-07-2005 5:34pm

79cortinaz wrote:

murphaph claims he knows his country Ireland, not much about that british place called northern ireland, as it isnt his country - ie it isnt part of ireland.

That's not waht I said. I said;

I have less knowledge of it's [Northern Ireland's] current affairs

That doesn't amount to 'not much'. It's just less than I know about the current affairs of Ireland.

79cortinaz wrote:

I was asking how he could class himself as being Irish if he believed that.

My passport says I'm Irish. I'm a world citizen, but that sh!t doesn't wash with the INS at Dublin Airport so I have to tell them I'm Irish and use an Irish passport. I'm not a proud Irishman or anything like it. I think the big picture is more important than silly nationalistic labels we all put on each other.

murphaph · 06-07-2005 5:42pm

79cortinaz wrote:

so basically theres two irelands - one is the island of ireland and the other is called Ireland.

Yes. See here

79cortinaz wrote:

sorry, but whats the 70s got to do with anything? A lot of things happened in the 80s, 90s and 00s too.

Fair enough, but the inequalities that NICRA campaigned about in the late 1960's, early 1970's are long gone.

79cortinaz wrote:

Move on? So again, theres no problems in the north, its just all in peoples minds? I find that line of debate very very shakey and unrealistic.

What's the alternative to moving on then?

79cortinaz wrote:

The peace process and ceasefires have offered a temporary stoppage from violence and people are now (it seems) taking that for granted

That's because the situation is normalised and people expect that now. They no longer accept that violence is the way to solve disputes.

bonkey · 06-07-2005 5:51pm

79cortinaz wrote:

I was asking how he could class himself as being Irish if he believed that. It was a legitimate question, not an attack.

Last time I checked, there was no requirement to want a united island to be able to call yourself Irish.

jc

Macmorris · 06-07-2005 6:10pm

murphaph wrote:

Yes. See here

It confirms what I had suspected about the use of the name 'Ireland' in reference to the southern state.

The use of this title coincided with a new constitutional provision, in Article 2, that claimed the whole island of Ireland as part of a single "national territory". This territorial claim was changed by an amendment adopted in 1998, but the state's official title remained unchanged; some have proposed that the official name of the state be changed to reflect this change in legal stance.

The use of the name 'Ireland' was contingent on the claim, in articles 2 and 3 of the constitution, that the national territory of the free state constituted the entire island of Ireland. When it was clarified back in 1998 that this was not the case, the official name of the state should have changed to reflect the official change in national territory.

It sounds odd talking about 'Ireland' and 'Northern Ireland', in the sense of them being different political entities. 'Ireland' has always meant the island of Ireland. Neither of the two states on the island therefore should be allowed to claim a monopoly on the term.

It might sound pedantic, but I think it would clear up a lot of confusion if people used precise, unambiguous terms. What's wrong with just saying 'Republic of Ireland' and 'Northern Ireland?

catholicireland · 06-07-2005 6:20pm

Last time I checked, there was no requirement to want a united island to be able to call yourself Irish

Of course not!
But why wouldnt you want the re-unification of this country?

murphaph · 06-07-2005 6:40pm

catholicireland wrote:

Of course not!
But why wouldnt you want the re-unification of this country?

Maybe because it would be against the will of the vast majority of the population of Northern Ireland. :rolleyes:

MrPudding · 06-07-2005 6:54pm

catholicireland wrote:

Of course not!
But why wouldnt you want the re-unification of this country?

MrPudding wrote:

Not if the people in the North have any sense.

Things are currently reasonably OK. Standards of living are OK and services aren't bad. Not the best government in the world but certainly far from the worst.

Or you could be ruled by a government that can't build a swimming pool, takes 15+ years to build a 40km road.

Add to this:
You will have to pay for your children to see a doctor, dentist, visit A&E or get drugs.

You will have to pay for yourself to see the doctor or go to A&E.

Pay more for cars.

Pay more for booze.

Pay more for groceries.

Just generally pay more.

Have to come up with an extra 6% deposit for your first house.

Have to pay stamp duty for you first house & higher rates for subsequent house purchases.

I am sure there is more. Things like having to watch a government that seems to be run by unions making decision that seems to be mental.

MrP

MrPudding wrote:

For me standard of living is based not just on how much I get paid but how much I have to pay. When you look at how much we have to pay down here for:
Rent

Mortgage (if you are lucky enough to be able to get one)

Childcare

Medical bills. This included paying for kids to see doctors, dentists and get drugs, cost which do not exist in the north.

Cost of entertainment

Costs in general.

When this is taken into consideration the standard of living in the North is better. Where it does fall behind, for me, is the number of quality IT jobs up there. The rate of pay are comparable, there just isn't the quantity (also they mostly look for degrees which I do not have:mad: )

MrP

oscarBravo · 07-07-2005 1:52am

79cortinaz wrote:

I give up on you to be honest. Obviously the north in your world is rosy, nice, polite and fair. everythings dandy up there, eh? Why bother with this dicussion if thats the attitude?

It seems to me that you haven't expressed your position clearly. I've pointed out some obvious contradictions. Instead of running away, why not answer the questions?

79cortinaz wrote:

I suppose so if you get the **** kicked out of you by the st paddys day marchers and given lots of verbal and physical abuse. otherwise, no, it wouldnt be the same.

Maybe I've got an over-active sense of self-preservation, but if I thought the consequence of crossing the road during an OO march would be to get violently attacked, I'd wait until the march had passed before crossing. Feel free to explain to me why I'm wrong about this.

79cortinaz · 07-07-2005 10:08am

the point is, why should you get violently attacked when trying to cross the road during an OO march? Wheres democracy there then?

It seems to me that you haven't expressed your position clearly. I've pointed out some obvious contradictions. Instead of running away, why not answer the questions?

I thought you were talking around the issue, not pointing out contradictions. To answer the question you put, one would need to know why some people get harrassed by the RUC and others dont (i think you were referring to getting harrassed due to ones religion) - and I dont know the answer to that so I cant answer you.

Last time I checked, there was no requirement to want a united island to be able to call yourself Irish

No one said you did. I was asking if a person thought only 26 counties were in ireland and the other 6 werent in ireland, how could one call oneself Irish.

This conversation is going nowhere

79cortinaz · 07-07-2005 10:13am

murphaph wrote:

Fair enough, but the inequalities that NICRA campaigned about in the late 1960's, early 1970's are long gone.

true, but the problems in the north have grown since then and havent gone away

murphaph wrote:

What's the alternative to moving on then?

tackling the current issues of discontent on both sides. everything from getting rid of the IRA, to getting a more just police force. Ignoring these things isnt 'moving on' .. its just ignoring things.

murphaph wrote:

That's because the situation is normalised and people expect that now. They no longer accept that violence is the way to solve disputes.

Who is 'they' and when did anyone ever gladly accept violence as a way to solve disputes? The situation in the north isnt and has never been 'normal'. Its currently in a state of waiting on what happens next. Taking the Peace Process for granted before anything is agreed politically is folly in my opinion.

murphaph · 07-07-2005 11:30am

79cortinaz wrote:

true, but the problems in the north have grown since then and havent gone away

We've all got problems, down south too, and in England, and Germany. Perhaps some northerners need to lose the victim complex.

79cortinaz wrote:

tackling the current issues of discontent on both sides. everything from getting rid of the IRA, to getting a more just police force. Ignoring these things isnt 'moving on' .. its just ignoring things.

Well, the PSNI has positive discrimintion in their hiring policies. They must hire 50% Catholic and 50% 'other religions'. They regularly advertise in the south for new recruits and the pay is better than the Gardai by quite a bit so a lot of people apply from the south. The Police Ombudsman's office has been established. In short, most of the Patten Commission's report on policing in Northern Irelandhas been implimented, so that leaves us with the IRA. What have they done to instill confidence in the community that they're shutting up shop? (Hint*: Answer is fcuk all)

79cortinaz wrote:

Who is 'they' and when did anyone ever gladly accept violence as a way to solve disputes? The situation in the north isnt and has never been 'normal'. Its currently in a state of waiting on what happens next. Taking the Peace Process for granted before anything is agreed politically is folly in my opinion.

'They' are the people. They are the ones who sheltered the terrorists and gave them support in their actions for 30 years. They now realise they prefer it without the nonsense and child murders etc. and have had enough. What makes the situation in Belfast today any different from the situation in Glasgow right now?

79cortinaz · 07-07-2005 1:14pm

again, i fundamentily disagree with nearly everything you say.

Patton has not been half near impliomented, the unionists are trying to get rid of the 50/50 rule (as is the PSNI who are ignoring it anyway), the IRA and the republican movement have moved a great distance towards peace, compared to the amount of movement from the BG and the unionist camps, northerners DONT have a victim complex (though it would probably makes you feel better to think they have) and though you last point is very correct, its also a very simplified answer as you are ignoring why the violence has ever happened in the first place

murphaph · 07-07-2005 2:07pm

79cortinaz wrote:

Patton has not been half near impliomented

Which parts remain to be implemented or started upon then?

79cortinaz wrote:

the unionists are trying to get rid of the 50/50 rule

If that's true, so what-they're trying but failing to get rid of it. So long as the rule is kept only until there is a reasonable balance. Ultimately policies like this shouldn't be necessarry.

79cortinaz wrote:

(as is the PSNI who are ignoring it anyway)

Back this up or retract it.

79cortinaz wrote:

the IRA and the republican movement have moved a great distance towards peace

I didn't ask you about the 'republican movement'. I asked you what have the IRA done?

79cortinaz wrote:

compared to the amount of movement from the BG and the unionist camps

The British government has a duty of care to the whole of the community in NI. They, quite understandably will not leave the people without protection so long as an illegal paramilitary organisation exists, and holds on to the vast bulk of it's arms. The Ulster Unonist Party has been almost completely destroyed because they took a huge chance on SF and SF/IRA failed to deliver decommisioning-ergo Trimble loses out, big time meanwhile Adams et al still collect the Queen's paycheck from Westminster, whilst not even representing their constituents i a parliament to which they've been elected.

79cortinaz wrote:

northerners DONT have a victim complex (though it would probably makes you feel better to think they have)

I said some northerners. Are you telling me that absolutely no northerners have a victim complex?

79cortinaz wrote:

and though you last point is very correct, its also a very simplified answer as you are ignoring why the violence has ever happened in the first place

We know why-Catholics were mistreated and discriminated against in a Unionist dominated local government at Stormont. This came to a head. Direct rule was imposed when the British Government realised what a mess the Unionists had made of NI. Since that time the lot of Catholics has been changed and everybody gets the vote, with equal access to social housing etc. The reasons that existed (though they don't explain some of the 'targets' like little kids and mothers of families) are gone. Any residual issues are nowhere near the scale of the mistreatment that occured up until direct rule was imposed and they can easily be dealt with through dialogue. The IRA et al have no place in civilised society.

79cortinaz · 07-07-2005 2:32pm

murphaph wrote:

Which parts remain to be implemented or started upon then?

I dont know if you;ve noticed that the RUC /PSNI structure is the same. the RUC hasnt been reformed, outside of its uniform and badge, and remember the debate that caused?

If that's true, so what-they're trying but failing to get rid of it. So long as the rule is kept only until there is a reasonable balance. Ultimately policies like this shouldn't be necessarry.

Are they failing? Policies like that of course shouldnt be necessary, but thatnks to the british government and the 92% loyalist RUC force, it is necessary. still, nationalists wont even give information to the RUC/PSNI until its reformed properly, never mind join it.

Back this up or retract it.

By the way, a lot of these things cant be 'backed up with straight out info on it. Ive read a lot on the north and watched whats been happening and Ive read between the lines to make my own views. Im not going to spend the hours to find the information for you. If you dont believe me, fair enough.

I didn't ask you about the 'republican movement'. I asked you what have the IRA done?

The IRA is part of the republican movement

The British government has a duty of care to the whole of the community in NI. They, quite understandably will not leave the people without protection so long as an illegal paramilitary organisation exists, and holds on to the vast bulk of it's arms. The Ulster Unonist Party has been almost completely destroyed because they took a huge chance on SF and SF/IRA failed to deliver decommisioning-ergo Trimble loses out, big time meanwhile Adams et al still collect the Queen's paycheck from Westminster, whilst not even representing their constituents i a parliament to which they've been elected.

Pity no-ones asking about the unionist paramiltary groupings and how they arent helping. the BG are trying to protect people yet have and proabably still use loyalist death squads for their dirty work? thats 'protection' is it?.

"SF/IRA failed to deliver decommisioning-ergo Trimble loses out"

Back this up or retract it. History has shown Trimble backed out of that one a year or so back when he was to make an announcement about power sharing and Paisley backed out when he started making stupid demands last Christmas.

I said some northerners. Are you telling me that absolutely no northerners have a victim complex?

I have no idea, but I certainly dont know any.

We know why-Catholics were mistreated and discriminated against in a Unionist dominated local government at Stormont. This came to a head. Direct rule was imposed when the British Government realised what a mess the Unionists had made of NI. Since that time the lot of Catholics has been changed and everybody gets the vote, with equal access to social housing etc. The reasons that existed (though they don't explain some of the 'targets' like little kids and mothers of families) are gone. Any residual issues are nowhere near the scale of the mistreatment that occured up until direct rule was imposed and they can easily be dealt with through dialogue. The IRA et al have no place in civilised society.

Violence has no place anywhere. Obvioulsy you're 'et al' includes the PSNI and the Amry too, plus the unionist paramilitaries?

"Any residual issues are nowhere near the scale of the mistreatment that occured up until direct rule was imposed and they can easily be dealt with through dialogue." -

dialogue? with people who wont discuss issues with nationalists? Again I think you are underestimating the problems.

murphaph · 07-07-2005 3:06pm

79cortinaz wrote:

I dont know if you;ve noticed that the RUC /PSNI structure is the same. the RUC hasnt been reformed, outside of its uniform and badge, and remember the debate that caused?

What structural changes do you want? I assume you don't mind it having Inspectors and constables, like any other police force.

79cortinaz wrote:

Are they failing? Policies like that of course shouldnt be necessary, but thatnks to the british government and the 92% loyalist RUC force, it is necessary. still, nationalists wont even give information to the RUC/PSNI until its reformed properly, never mind join it.

It is necessary and it's in place because it's necessary until a better balance of representation is achieved. If people bluntly refuse to join then how can you get the reform you so desire? I believe some nationalists have and do join it, perhaps not you, but certainly some nationalists are members of the PSNI.

79cortinaz wrote:

By the way, a lot of these things cant be 'backed up with straight out info on it. Ive read a lot on the north and watched whats been happening and Ive read between the lines to make my own views. Im not going to spend the hours to find the information for you. If you dont believe me, fair enough.

I don't believe a lot of what you're saying. I believe you think it's all true but I don't believe it to be.

79cortinaz wrote:

The IRA is part of the republican movement

Again, I didn't ask about the 'republican movement'. I asked what have the IRA done to decommission?

79cortinaz wrote:

Pity no-ones asking about the unionist paramiltary groupings and how they arent helping.

I'm sure they aren't helping. They're scum just like the IRA IMV.

79cortinaz wrote:

the BG are trying to protect people yet have and proabably still use loyalist death squads for their dirty work? thats 'protection' is it?.

Slight hint of speculation there!

79cortinaz wrote:

Back this up or retract it. History has shown Trimble backed out of that one a year or so back when he was to make an announcement about power sharing and Paisley backed out when he started making stupid demands last Christmas.

If the IRA had decommissioned then Trimble would have still been on the scene. SF have delayed and delayed on decommissioning. Why are the IRA still here again?

79cortinaz wrote:

I have no idea, but I certainly dont know any.

Ah, you don't personally know the entire 1.5 million people in NI presumably so your earlier sweeping statement that "northerners DON'T have a victim complex" was just made up then.

79cortinaz wrote:

Violence has no place anywhere. Obvioulsy you're 'et al' includes the PSNI and the Amry too, plus the unionist paramilitaries?

Nope, it includes the illegal paramilitaries only. Every civilised country has a poice force and an army.

79cortinaz wrote:

dialogue? with people who wont discuss issues with nationalists? Again I think you are underestimating the problems.

I believe all the unionist and alliance parties happily talk with the SDLP, who are nationalists, no?

MT · 07-07-2005 4:07pm

I notice that someone dragged up the ‘Protestant state for a Protestant people’ quote. If you’re referring to the remark by Basil Brooke, this is a personal bug bear of mine. Certainly, condemn the man for his bigotry – there’s ample evidence – but this quote is always used out of context in this regard. Brooke as NI PM made this remark in response to references to Catholicism in the South’s 1937 constitution, the influence of Archbishop McQuaid over De Valera’s social policies and most of all as a rejoinder to the Taoiseach’s line about a Catholic Ireland for a Catholic nation.

So unless you’re going to level the charge that De Valera was also a religious bigot and that his comment proved that Catholic supremacy reigned in the South then the use of the Brooke quote to damn NI is somewhat hypocritical. By all means criticise the North for its failings, and those of Brooke, but don’t mislead by presenting what was an aggressive response to an equally bigoted statement as some sort of calmly reasoned declaration of policy.

MT · 07-07-2005 4:17pm

Bobby Storey wrote:

Well,well, well, what have we here? Could it possibly be people from the South of Ireland showing their crass ignorance of events in the North? Of course it must be as we have MT spewing forth his bile, bigotry and hatred of Northerners while accusing us of, well bigotry and hatred, hypocrisy me thinks. Then we have this other moron Rsynnott telling us that all victims of British/Unionist death squads were not completely innocent, wow such insight. Maybe you should tell this to the families of the 33 people the British Army slaughtered in the Dublin/Monaghan bombings in the 70's? Of course you don't want us unless its summertime and we are arriving laden with cash, then there is a great big Cead Mile failte, isn't there? Just ask anyone in Donegal, our cash employs most of the county. I'm just wondering if the shoe should not be on the other foot, I mean after all didn't Jack Lynch and that cowardly organisation called laughably the Irish Army, leave catholics to be slaughtered a lá Bosnian style massacres in 1969?

Just in case anyone on this thread is wondering, I myself am a Northerner. One living in the North too, I should add. I don’t contribute to these threads as some detached and ill-informed outsider but with the all too real first hand experience of just how warped and dysfunctional Northern society is. And in that respect, I have no difficulty in singling out both sides for blame where they deserve it. Unlike a number here from a Republican/Nationalist background in the North or those of a Unionist persuasion on other sites, I’ve found that it’s only by stepping back from both sectarian traditions that you can gain a sense of how truly deranged each is. So many who remain locked in the poisonous hatreds and tales of current or impending victimhood – maintained with near religious fervour by both tribes – fail to see just how far detached from reality their perceptions have veered. I make no apology for stating that most Northerners locked in the disputes and history of the place seem to have developed the political equivalent of a sort of psychological disorder.

And in this vein I’ve predictably been attacked by one apparently Republican Northerner on this thread with the good old victim card. Yes, it seems I’m really an uncaring southerner responsible for the most grave of betrayals. Indeed, it’s fascinating how quickly tribal Northerners can play the victim/oppression card to brow beat those with differing view points. Another insight this thread reveals is how the people of the Irish Republic are actually viewed by a number of Northern Republicans. When provoked the emollient smiles and paly gestures of front men such as Gerry Adams and Martin McGuiness evaporate in an instant. No, it becomes clear that these fanatics that have helped fúck up their own society beyond redemption seem to believe a large share of the blame lies with you – yes, that’s right, the people who’ve made a democracy and stable society work. Yes, according to the bar talk in your average Republican drinking den, you’re all just a good for nothing bunch a treacherous Brit lovin’ cowards. Don’t believe me? Well, just dare to question Republican orthodoxy in their presence and that’s more or less what you’ll be told.

It has long been my view that the people in the North that most hate the Republic aren’t actually Unionists. No, it’s the other side that really despises you. In many ways they see themselves as the true Irish – continuing the true struggle while you’ve sold out to such iniquities as stable governance, socio-economic politics, ethnic diversity and the every day concerns of a liberal democracy. I mean, how dare southerners put the Irish history of victimhood and war against the Brits to one side choosing instead to focus on managing their own affairs, market economics and responsibly attempting to govern for the greater good. Are they deluded? Why, they’ve turned themselves into fúcking Englishmen, the bastards. Don’t they know what it really means to be Irish? The oppression, the victimhood, the never ending struggle against all and everything that justifies any means for an unobtainable utopian end.

Republicans may see Unionists as the hated foe but southerners, why, they’re seen as scum who’ve sold out the cause. That’s what I’d bear in mind next time Gerry Adams pontificates on how your governments making a mess of the economy. As if he’d give a damn if you were all beggared tomorrow.

murphaph · 07-07-2005 5:40pm

Oh MT, where have you been?
I was just about to give up on this thread!

79cortinaz · 07-07-2005 5:47pm

murphaph - im seriously stepping away from this conversation as I cant answer your questions, since i find them hard to relate to reality, plus you obviously dont believe anything i say anyway so whats the point. Im from the north, lived there a long time and I believe what I believe - I cant help it if you find my reasoning suspicious.

I will leave you with your question:

"I asked what have the IRA done to decommission? "

.. and advise you to google the three largest decomissioning acts of the Peace process, and who it was that done the decommissioning. Im afriad I cant debate this subject at this rate as the conversation is going nowhere.

Macmorris · 07-07-2005 6:03pm

MT wrote:

I notice that someone dragged up the ‘Protestant state for a Protestant people’ quote. If you’re referring to the remark by Basil Brooke, this is a personal bug bear of mine.

Brooke as NI PM made this remark in response to references to Catholicism in the South’s 1937 constitution,

Was it not James Craig who said that originally? Basil Brooke probably said it as well, but I was sure it was James Craig who originally made the comment in a Stormont speech. I did a search on the quote in google and athough, in one or two cases, the origin of the phrase is contested, most people attribute it to Craig. For example this, site quotes him as saying:

Craigavon wrote:

"I have always said that I am an Orangeman first, and a politician and a member of this parliament afterwards...all I boast is that we have a Protestant parliament for a Protestant people"

From what I've seen, it seems that the phrase 'protestant parliament for a protestant people' was used by more than one unionist in the north. According to this, the phrase was well enough known about that it featured in debates in Dail Eireann in 1936, a year before the southern constitution was passed.

....go hat in hand to people who boast openly in their Parliament that it is a Protestant Parliament for a Protestant people, and put a hallmark of sectarianism on what should be a fair and just Legislature.

Macmorris · 07-07-2005 6:09pm

MT wrote:

Just in case anyone on this thread is wondering, I myself am a Northerner. One living in the North too, I should add. I don’t contribute to these threads as some detached and ill-informed outsider but with the all too real first hand experience of just how warped and dysfunctional Northern society is.

If you're a northerner, how come you're so concerned about the south? Surely if the north is such a dysfunctional, backward place, and the south in comparison is a stable, liberal, ethnically-diverse democracy, why are you arguing in favour of partition, rather than against it? If I was you I'd be wanting to join up with the south. It's not like it'll do you any harm. Whatever happens to the south, the effect on the north shouldn't be too negative.

It appears, from the amount of effort you put into your arguments, that you're really a unionist posing as an objective, disinterested moderate. By exaggerating the dysfunctionality of the north, while at the same time flattering the smug southerners on their success, you seem to be trying to strengthen partitionist feeling in the south, not out of concern for southerners, but in order to advance your own northern unionist agenda.

bonkey · 07-07-2005 6:12pm

79cortinaz wrote:

I will leave you with your question:

"I asked what have the IRA done to decommission? "

.. and advise you to google the three largest decomissioning acts of the Peace process, and who it was that done the decommissioning.

I'm afraid google won't show me any figures relating to what sort of quantity or percentage of the IRA arms have been decomissioned.

So from what I can tell, the question is still valid. What have they done? They've done something, but we've no way of knowing just what that something is. We've also no guarantees that they have foresworn re-equipping themselves.

As for the acts being "the three largest", I think you'll find that they qualify as that purely on the basis that they're the only three. That had a certain significance for a while, but there's only so long you can sing the old "well, none of the other, smaller, less-problematic-in-the-overall-scheme-of-things groups have done anything, whereas as we've done something unquantifiable with no guarantees that we're not undoing it and then some behind the scenes as well" song and make people believe its significant.

jc

murphaph · 07-07-2005 6:37pm

bonkey wrote:

I'm afraid google won't show me any figures relating to what sort of quantity or percentage of the IRA arms have been decomissioned.

So from what I can tell, the question is still valid. What have they done? They've done something, but we've no way of knowing just what that something is. We've also no guarantees that they have foresworn re-equipping themselves.

As for the acts being "the three largest", I think you'll find that they qualify as that purely on the basis that they're the only three. That had a certain significance for a while, but there's only so long you can sing the old "well, none of the other, smaller, less-problematic-in-the-overall-scheme-of-things groups have done anything, whereas as we've done something unquantifiable with no guarantees that we're not undoing it and then some behind the scenes as well" song and make people believe its significant.

jc

Ditto.

Macmorris wrote:

you're really a unionist posing as an objective, disinterested moderate

Oooh, paranoia city there! You lads are gas. :rolleyes:
Just because he has a different viewpoint from you! I can see it mulling over in your head now "does not compute-does not compute, must be imposter" and so on....

79cortinaz wrote:

im seriously stepping away from this conversation as I cant answer your questions

You want to run away from rational debate and tell me to google it because you have no facts? go right ahead

MT · 07-07-2005 7:50pm

murphap wrote:

Oh MT, where have you been?
I was just about to give up on this thread!

I just find it remarkable how so many otherwise quite rational people can become hooked on the one-sided tales of woe and persecution that both Northern tribes can spew by the thousand. And this is in large part what I’ve been arguing against – Northernisation. Not only is importing the culture of Northern politics into the Republic a danger but also the detachment that’s bread from the attempt to achieve the unobtainable. By forever seeking the utopian 32 county Republic, valuable time and talent is wasted in the search for what will in all likely hood remain an abstract concept. Furthermore, there’s the disillusion fostered by any deep and long running obsession with what seems by comparison a mundane and disappointing reality. I’ve proffered that such an obsession with the ideal of a united Ireland may well have contributed to the contempt with which Charles Haughey treated the institutions of the Irish Republic. It may only be speculation but I’d go as far to say that the desire for a united Ireland is a far greater corrupting influence in Irish politics than might seem obvious from a casual glance. Here are some of my thoughts:

It creates the impression that the Irish Republic is merely a stop gap measure or even the unwanted outcome of a loathsome compromise. Depending on the strength to which these feelings might be held, some may well feel little or no respect for its institutions. Their patriotism being reserved instead for an abstraction that is the 32 county Ireland. Surely a disastrous mindset in any politician with an already questionable character.

Has this feeling of detachment from the Irish Republic or even disillusion at not obtaining the all-Ireland goal helped to stymie the development of a national political culture? The form political debate tends to take in other mature democracies but seems almost absent at times in Ireland. Has the lack of a united Ireland pushed people to decide that the state as it exists holds little interest for them? Has such dissatisfaction with the Irish Republic encouraged the clientelism and parish pump politics that so often stifles national or ideological debate. I witnessed the sort of detachment that might foster the selfish client/fixer relationship that undermines political debate in Ireland when a Republican on these boards claimed he couldn’t care less about jobs, education, health etc. All that mattered was getting a united Ireland.

Then there’s the time and effort that such debates on this illusive goal consume. Vital time and energy wasted in my opinion. I’ve always believed that this near obsessive desire to obtain the North, to discuss its problem ad infinitum, to rail against the Brits for their involvement there, etc. has helped to sideline the other essential ingredient of politics the world over – an ingredient which seems to be forever pushed to the fringes in Ireland while the North is discussed without end. That’s socio-economic politics. The topics at the very heart of most other democracies are often easily shoved aside in Ireland. It has been claimed that the reason the last Rainbow government was turfed out was not due to it’s record on the economy, health, education etc. No, it seemed that John Bruton’s apparently inadequate dealings with the North and the Brits that cost his government electoral defeat. Indeed, Republicans up here still mock him as John Unionist. It may only be apocryphal, but if the Irish electorate were influenced more at the polls by a desire to ‘get the North’ than by how well a coalition had performed in governing the country, what does that say about the state of Irish democracy.

Which is more important to the Irish electorate: a government that governs well or a government that gets the North?

On this subject of territorial disenchantment, I’ve often wondered whether a failure to ‘get the North’ and the consequent detachment engendered with the Irish Republic has allowed such an enthusiasm for European integration and even federalism to take hold in Ireland. Quite aside from the positive effects the EU has had on Ireland, one of the main factors I felt that has allowed Irish people to be so relaxed at handing power to Brussels over the country’s institutions is the very view they take of those institutions. Unlike, say the British, who’ve always shown an immense attachment to their separate laws, political system and currency, Irish people seem to have a remarkably weaker commitment. I’ve no doubt this has been caused by a variety of reasons but possibly foremost amongst them is a detachment from institutions of the Irish Republic engendered by quest for a 32 county state. Don’t forget that until fairly recently Republicans were quite proud of their opposition to the Dail’s legitimacy. They decried it instead as a partitionist’s talking shop. I’d dare say this attitude had and most likely still has much deeper routes in Irish society. It’s much easier to surrender control over areas of sovereignty if you’ve always viewed Irish self-determination as not really complete, just a bit of the cake. A thing easily dismissed as somehow unfulfilling.

The other harmful aspect of a quest for a united Ireland is the promotion it gives to ethnic nationalism at the expense of the immeasurably more productive constitutional variety. Although this is probably a vast and wide-ranging subject, the ethnic variety focuses on race as a nation’s defining characteristic – all too prevalent in German and Italian nationalism and of course Irish Republicanism. By choosing to mould the ideals of an Irish state out of the Gaelic romanticism of the 19th century, Republicans made a profound break with the more civic minded ideals of United Irishmen in 1798 and the American and French revolutions before it. Deciding upon an Ireland that would be known first for its Gaelic ethnicity and language, it’s Catholicism and ancient Celtic mythology the revivalists, and later Republicans that followed in their path, set Ireland on a racial course contrasting with the civic political culture of a nation like Canada.

This ethnic nationalism went hand in hand with the need for the entire island of Gaels to be unified and the implants in the Northeast to be expelled. And its impact on governance, aside from promoting an incessant quest for ethnic and geographic totality, has been to diminish the contribution of Ireland’s institutions to what it is to be Irish. Like Italy, and in sharp contrast to Canada, the US or even Britain, modern Ireland with its roots still in the Gaelic revival of the 19th century, is still very much a nation of the blood. This idea of Irish by the blood or family history I believe has helped subordinate the key tenet of civic nationalism – ethnicity is not what matters but the institutions and laws that bind the citizens of the nation together. I wonder if this diminution of civic nationalism in favour of the ethnic kind has again created an unusual void in Ireland were more constitutionally minded nations place intense pride in their institutional structures.

It’s a stretch but did a strong sense of ethnic nationalism allow Charles Haughey to attempt to bargain away the country’s ports in exchange for a British hand over of the North. In contrast to a robustly civic nation where ports would be viewed as vital portals for trade and investment, did Haughey’s ethnic nationalism enable him to offer up such vital state assets to gain unity with the blood Irish across the island. I mean who needs ports, a currency, a central bank or maybe even a legislator if racial unity on the island can be achieved.

It’s been said that the reason corruption, family dynasties and clientelism has bedevilled Irish politics is because of the country’s weak civic nature and inadequate civil society. Has the quest for another distant all-island nation in combination with the ethnic romanticism of the Gaelic revival undermined a civic and constitutional political culture in the Irish Republic?

I believe that the quest for a united Ireland has and continues to undermine good governance in the Irish Republic. And this post hasn't even covered the likely disastrous consequences of incorporating as deranged a tribal society as the North’s into the Republic’s democracy!!

Flex · 07-07-2005 10:08pm

MT, im the one who made the "Protestant state for Protestant people" quote. But if you actually read my whole post youd have seen i wasn't bringing up Brooke (who wasn't PM of NI in 1937 ). Besides, he made plenty of other sectarian comments, which i dont even need to quote.

Flex wrote:

I think that after the Catholic population overtakes the protestant population the "Protestant state for Protestant people" will be no more, then protestants will be able to see that living in a "state" where there is a majority of Catholics wont result in death and destruction and the apocalypse for them.

As for the other post you made about how its republicans who hate the Irish and Ireland, I couldnt disagree more. Iv been up north plenty of times and i find i get a friendlier reception by virtue of the fact Im a "southy", never gotten any abuse of nationalists, or any kind of feeling that I was being bad mouthed behind my back. Gotten plenty off unionists though.

Anyway, Im a republican and want a UI, but i certainly dont regard Ireland as a stop gap. And i dont want a UI because of 'Gaelic romanticism', do you know how many people are fluent in Gaeilge? Simply put, I regard all of Ireland as my homeland, I wont accept being classed a foreigner by British people while im in Ireland.And most people would think like this too, which you pointed out by making reference to the fact the last rainbow government was put out of power because of its approach to the north. Im sure most of the poster's wont understand this thinking, but quite frankly i dont understand yours; i dont understand how comfortable people are with being southern Irish, or how pro unionist people are, or the extent to which you're willing to ignore the history of the north east and how the Irish were treated there for so long and then just tune in as soon as the IRA starts bombing places while practically ignoring the reasons why nationalists came regard the IRA as their defenders and why so many nationalists supported them despite the fact they were commiting crimes; and how easily they can simply distance themselves from the north east.

I am concerned with the running of Ireland for now in terms of health and education, but working towards a UI should be one of the main objectives. It is an emotional attachment, but emotions are what make us human. Emotions, feelings, desires, sense of... are what drive us and make us who we are. I cant turn off my emotions or turn them down a bit, maybe theres a book i can buy?, but i wouldnt want to; Ireland is my homeland, and I love this great little little island from the cities to the countryside, and all of its natural beauty from the burren to the giants causeway.

Anyway, thats my .02. Now let the flaming begin.

FTA69 · 11-07-2005 8:39pm

I have family in Portadown. THey actually live on the Gervaghy (SP?) Road. They do not get harrassed.

Garvaghy. And I wonder how they feel about the police bludgeoning protestors from that area in order to force down a sectarian march and Loyalist paramilitaries? A man from my area was also shot in the face during that particular episode, from a distance of about 15 feet with a plastic bullet. A weapon for use on the legs at a long distance. A weapon that police force continues to use indiscriminately.

I have plenty of friend in other areas of Belfast, they also do not get harrassed.

Fair enough, but there is no doubting the history of oppression in areas such as Ballymurphy, Turf Lodge etc, especially regarding collusion.

My sister live in various areas of Derry over a number of years. I do not know Derry well but she described several of the houses she lived in as being in "well dodgy" areas. She never got harrassed.

Define "dodgy". Again, people in the Bogside etc are well aware of police oppression, especially regarding the raids they had a few months ago in which people were intimidated and abused.

Here we come to the nub of it. So you are saying you are not civil to them? If you aren't then can you reasonably expect them to be civil to you? Could you perhaps give us an idea of a typical conversation between you and the evil RUC/PSNI? There has to be a reason why some Catholics are harrassed and some aren't.

Some Catholics (and Protestants) are harassed because they are Republicans. I'm sure I don't have to detail the historic enmity between the two. I tend to ignore the police when they talk to me but the one "conversation" I had with the PSNI involved one of them calling me a "fenian bastard" and telling me "f*ck off back to my own country". As I said before, why should Nationalists be civil to a force that colludes with death squads in the murder of their relatives and friends?

At some point people have to let go of the past. I know it was bad. I know Catholic were horribly abused but it is in the past. If people do not move on it will never end.

I'd like to move on as well, but that is impossible until police reform is fully implemented.

oscarBravo · 11-07-2005 9:01pm

FTA69 wrote:

Some Catholics (and Protestants) are harassed because they are Republicans.

I've asked 79cortinaz this, and didn't get a straight answer: how do PSNI officers identify Republicans and/or Catholics in order to harass them?

FTA69 wrote:

I tend to ignore the police when they talk to me...

Well, there's one sure-fire way to piss a police officer off. How do you expect to be treated civilly by the police when you ignore them? It's not exactly polite.

This goes back to my own experience with the RUC (haven't had any dealings with the PSNI) which were never anything but courteous - an experience reflected over and over again by other posters on this board.

FTA69 wrote:

but the one "conversation" I had with the PSNI involved one of them calling me a "fenian bastard" and telling me "f*ck off back to my own country".

I'd dearly love to hear the other side of that conversation. But what am I saying? Obviously you didn't need to open your mouth. While you were ignoring him, his built-in Republican detector probed your mind and told him your nationality and political beliefs. Right?

FTA69 wrote:

As I said before, why should Nationalists be civil to a force that colludes with death squads in the murder of their relatives and friends?

Pragmatism?

FTA69 wrote:

I'd like to move on as well, but that is impossible until police reform is fully implemented.

...which will be hastened, no doubt, by helpful visitors from Free West Waterford doing their bit for peace, stability and inter-community relations in the North.

North & South

Comments