Partition works - lets keep it that way.

mycroft

Flex wrote:

You think everyone voting for the constitutional amendment were voting to give up NI? I dare say most people were voting to supprt the GFA, wouldnt you?

Well seeing as there was a very specific point which stated we were giving up the clause in our constitution which laid claim to the entire Island of Ireland, and we voted for it, overwhelmingly, I think your interpretation of what they were voting for is fundamentally flawed. Because, and this is pretty basic, an intergal part of the GFA was the state of ireland changing our constitution to relinquese our demand that we have the right to NI. And we voted overwhelmingly for this.

You "dare say' what you like, you've got not a shred of evidence to support it though.

And those surveys were takin shortly after the referendum whihc i think would supprt that opinion.

And again "you think". A survey taken at a feel good time, and the exact wording of the question. how loaded was it for example?

If it was "do you want to see a peaceful renunification of Ireland?"

Or "Would you be willing to have a significant increase in tax, and irish troops being sent to enforce order, to assure reunification?"

because i'll bet you anything you'll see a massive difference in the number who answer positively to these questions. Therefore an opinion poll is irrelevant because the very way the question is worded can affect it's outcome. Not to mention the weighting of the survey (where it was taken, and when)

Also, it had the support of Fianna Fail, Fine Gael, Sinn Fein and the SDLP (AFAIK), and as far as I know theyre in favor of a UI.

Yeah and most parties on this planet will say they in favour of world peace, and an end to war. Just because a party claims they're infavour of something doesn't mean they're doing anything working towards it.

Also the new article 3 states that "It is the firm will of the Irish nation...to unite all the people" of Ireland. Surely if we voting overwhelmingly to give up NI, there would be no need for such an article to appear in the nations constitution. Its still a claim, but its now a 'friendlier' claim.

And again, the pandering middle ground aside, it's a bone for the pro unity movement. The demand has been replaced with a wishy washy day dream ideal. And only scant objected. Which is the point, you're arguing that wishy washy vague sentiments are a ringing demand for unification, they're not, they're just that, people would like to see Ireland unified but damned if they want billions to be sucked into the provience, and irish soldiers dying to create it.

Id say most people realise what a united Ireland could potentially bring.

And again "you'd say" you've got a poll you've no evidence exists, with a weighing, bias, and population sample you can't or won't prove, and you expect us to trust what "you'd say" "most people realise" "could potentially bring"

Hell illuminate me, tell me, what you think, a united ireland, could "potentialy bring"

mike65

I think that the English should be ashamed of their history, really, because they've ruined anything good and replaced it with materialistic crap.

The English they're crap, so
they are.

Mike.

mycroft

DaveMcG wrote:

They deserve it too, but I think it's a bit too late for that. They've been almost completely destroyed at this stage. The least the American government could do is be a bit more generous with reservations, etc.

So it's time frame. The Ulster Plantation occured before the colonisation of NZ, and Australia and the majority of the US indian land grab. Why's it too late there, and not here?

Do I have to say "in my opinion" every time I make a point? You can take it for granted that it's my opinion and not yours, ok?

Cute avoid the point. Why should this land grab from our ancestors be remedied and not others?

Yes, my generation seems to be increasingly Republican, so if they pass those sentiments on to their kids (as often happens), and they pass them on, etc., then there'll "probably" be a Republican majority soon enough.

I'm sorry, did your generation petrol bomb the British embassy during a protest aganist the death of bobby sands? Er no. I'd suggest that republicanism is on a slight feel good rise. And in general they lack the popular support they had during the 80s and 90s, SF's popularity down south is on a similar level to the PDs, I sincerely doubt you'd claim that Mc Dowells popularity is an example of the popular rising of right wing politics.

Increasing Republicanism.

Wheres your proof, again, Mary Harney walked out of Paddy powers 500quid richer because of the rise in her parties support. No one is wandering around suggesting the similarity of the greens is evidence of increased bicycle sales. You've not got a shred of evidence to support the above.

Then don't comment on it...

That smiley, really seems apt for you.

Oh well, that's just the main argument against a union that I've heard.

And again you heard, where? and why?

I never said that 80% of the population agree with me Didn't I just acknowledge earlier that the majority of the Republic don't want the North? And you quoted it?

No you used the statistics from your "opinion poll" that 80% of people support your assertion, now you're backpeddling, er, frantically

There would be no reason to blow people up today were it not for the murdering and stealing of yesterday. I don't support any organisations such as the IRA; all they do is hinder the cause.

Yes yes yes, the "not that I support the IRA, but....." I'm a little unclear how Omagh or Warrington or Eniiskillen solved the "murdering and stealing of yesterday" or alernatively quit living in the past. So if I have have your logic completely clear you're justifying the "reason to blow people up today were it not for the murdering and stealing of yesterday." and then "claiming you don't support the IRA. Lovely double think.

I don't support or condone any violent forms of revolution in Ireland, today; and I especially don't condone any violence against innocent citizens. That's if you're trying to suggest that I'm about to strap a bomb to my body and hop on the LUAS.

Wearily, I'm merely pointing out that the stuff you deem as more important are usually the justification used by people who do the above.

Wow, smart one. How about you just address my points like an adult and stop taking pathetic jabs at me? Thanks

How about you educate yourself in the areas of your admitted ignorance before "weighing in" with your opinion.

Flex wrote:

Actually, Fermangh and Tyrone had nationalist majoritys, and unionists (prior to knowing that a Home Rule parliament was going to be established in Belfast) had insisted that Donegal, Cavan and Monaghan be included in the new NI. They changed their mind primarily because a 9 county Ulster would have a 50-50 religious divide, whereas a 6 county one would have a 66-34 divide

gosh thank you for the reminder of my leaving cert history. Partition was never going to make all of the people everywhere happy, fact, bitching about the way things were done then is just monsterously tedious.

A Dub in Glasgo

mycroft wrote:

Sorry if I have this clear, NI was set up to include counties that had a unionist majority, and you're bitching that it didn't include counties with a majority of people who didn't want to be a part of it. Which if they did you'd now be bitching about the fact they created the "9 counties" even though three of them "had nationalist majorities"

Can't f*cking win with you can they dub?

Re read what I have posted. I am highlighting the fact that NI was created to ensure a Unionist majority therefore talk of democracy is laughable really. I then highlighted the fact that Ulster (which a lot of people over here and in NI seem to think is NI) was partioned because it had a Nationalist majority.

As for the f*cking win, well it depends on what your goal is.

rsynnott

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Re read what I have posted. I am highlighting the fact that NI was created to ensure a Unionist majority therefore talk of democracy is laughable really.

So, places with a majority of a cultural group can't be democratic? What are you talking about? (You realise unionists are HUMANS, right?)

A Dub in Glasgo

rsynnott wrote:

So, places with a majority of a cultural group can't be democratic?

If the minority of people in a country can dictate that the country is partioned then it is not democratic. To then create a state which ensures that the minority are the majority is not democratic.

What are you talking about?

It is very clear

(You realise unionists are HUMANS, right?)

Yes. They are a minority in Ireland who did not accept democracy in Ireland and created their own little state with discrimination and denial of civil rights of the minority to boot.

rsynnott

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

If the minority of people in a country can dictate that the country is partioned then it is not democratic. To then create a state which ensures that the minority are the majority is not democratic.

The people of NI didn't partition the country, the UK did. 80 years ago. Everyone involved is dead.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Yes. They are a minority in Ireland who did not accept democracy in Ireland and created their own little state with discrimination and denial of civil rights of the minority to boot.

See above.

Flex

mycroft wrote:

Flex wrote:

Well seeing as there was a very specific point which stated we were giving up the clause in our constitution which laid claim to the entire Island of Ireland, and we voted for it, overwhelmingly, I think your interpretation of what they were voting for is fundamentally flawed. Because, and this is pretty basic, an intergal part of the GFA was the state of ireland changing our constitution to relinquese our demand that we have the right to NI. And we voted overwhelmingly for this.

You "dare say' what you like, you've got not a shred of evidence to support it though.

The state of ireland reliquished our 'demand' saying that NI was already ours, not 'that we had the right to NI'. The new article seems to fit your description of 'we have a right to it'. Whether you like it or not (obviously not), most people were voting for the GFA, not giving up the north forever, however i have no doubt there are/were people like you.Hence, i said 'most people'. and i would type 'i dare say' because i dont speak for everyone ,however, you seem to be able to speak for the 94.4% of the electorate who voted in favor that day. My apologies.

And again "you think". A survey taken at a feel good time, and the exact wording of the question. how loaded was it for example?

If it was "do you want to see a peaceful renunification of Ireland?"

Or "Would you be willing to have a significant increase in tax, and irish troops being sent to enforce order, to assure reunification?"

the question was "What should the long term objective for Northern Ireland be?", then it gave 4 options, unite with the south, stay in the uk, independence, dual sovereignty.

because i'll bet you anything you'll see a massive difference in the number who answer positively to these questions. Therefore an opinion poll is irrelevant because the very way the question is worded can affect it's outcome. Not to mention the weighting of the survey (where it was taken, and when)

yes, i agree that opinion polls are largely irrelevant. just like the opinion polls about catholics being unionists. but they usually get used by pro partitionists, so ill use results from surveys which would favor nationalism.

Yeah and most parties on this planet will say they in favour of world peace, and an end to war. Just because a party claims they're infavour of something doesn't mean they're doing anything working towards it.

Oh, i see. All of the nationalist/republican parties throughout the entire island (and indeed the VAST VAST majority of the nationalist electorate north and south) decided to relinquish their desires for a UI at the exact same time as each other, while all at the same time pretending to still favor a UI, and to this day still keeping up the charade. Thank you for that.

And again, the pandering middle ground aside, it's a bone for the pro unity movement. The demand has been replaced with a wishy washy day dream ideal. And only scant objected. Which is the point, you're arguing that wishy washy vague sentiments are a ringing demand for unification, they're not, they're just that, people would like to see Ireland unified but damned if they want billions to be sucked into the provience, and irish soldiers dying to create it.

I didnt realise the constitution of this nation was a place for 'wishy washy vague sentiments', i thought (foolishly obviously) it was the backbone of a government and the nation.i thought 'a constitution provides the basic law of a body politic. The constitution defines the government, describes how it is organized and how the people who make it up are to be chosen and specifies what powers the government can and can not exercise'. now i know better, its a book of ''wishy washy vague sentiments''. thank you.

Hell illuminate me, tell me, what you think, a united ireland, could "potentialy bring"

worst thing i could imagine would be a civil war,and then the strain on the economy to support those counties. i have no illusions about the negative consequences a united ireland could potentially bring.

Flex

mycroft wrote:

gosh thank you for the reminder of my leaving cert history.

youre welcome.

TomF

I'd say reunification will happen eventually, and maybe not too far in the distant future. It will hurt in the 6 counties to lose all the U.K. perks, but maybe U.S. investment along the lines of what has flowed into the Republic will compensate.

I can imagine a complicated integration of the 6 counties into the E.U.

It seems to me that many of the engineering-based organisations in the Republic are traditionally run by Northerners anyway, or at least were until recently. I am thinking of ESB and Eircom.

If there is reunification, I wonder if there will be a massive infusion of honest new and used car dealers into the Republic?

In the Dail, I would love to see Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness being counterfoils to Bertie, The Stache, Pass Rabbiss, Trevor Sergeant, Joe Higgins and Michael D. The theatre would be terrific. And until reunification is complete, imagine the money flowing into the Donegal Republican Riviera from polititians holding simultaneously seats in the Northern Ireland Assembly, The British Parliament and the Dail.

mycroft

Flex wrote:

The state of ireland reliquished our 'demand' saying that NI was already ours, not 'that we had the right to NI'. The new article seems to fit your description of 'we have a right to it'. Whether you like it or not (obviously not), most people were voting for the GFA, not giving up the north forever, however i have no doubt there are/were people like you.Hence, i said 'most people'. and i would type 'i dare say' because i dont speak for everyone ,however, you seem to be able to speak for the 94.4% of the electorate who voted in favor that day. My apologies.

No you're the one assuming, and offering an interpretation of what we were voting for, I'm reminding you that what the wording of the GFA was and it runs contray to your opinion to the state of mind of the population of this country.

the question was "What should the long term objective for Northern Ireland be?", then it gave 4 options, unite with the south, stay in the uk, independence, dual sovereignty.

Yes, but it doens't ask what you'd will be willing to endure, or how exactly they'd like to see it develop.

yes, i agree that opinion polls are largely irrelevant..

Great so don't raise opinion polls to support your assertions.

Oh, i see. All of the nationalist/republican parties throughout the entire island (and indeed the VAST VAST majority of the nationalist electorate north and south) decided to relinquish their desires for a UI at the exact same time as each other, while all at the same time pretending to still favor a UI, and to this day still keeping up the charade. Thank you for that.

No I'm saying, most of the parts have a more pragmatic attitude to the north than you claim.

I didnt realise the constitution of this nation was a place for 'wishy washy vague sentiments', i thought (foolishly obviously) it was the backbone of a government and the nation.i thought 'a constitution provides the basic law of a body politic. The constitution defines the government, describes how it is organized and how the people who make it up are to be chosen and specifies what powers the government can and can not exercise'. now i know better, its a book of ''wishy washy vague sentiments''. thank you.

A) I was refering to your opinion poll, not the constitution. Sorry I'll speak slowly so you can keep up.

worst thing i could imagine would be a civil war,and then the strain on the economy to support those counties. i have no illusions about the negative consequences a united ireland could potentially bring.

But you still think we want it.

A Dub in glasgo wrote:

Re read what I have posted. I am highlighting the fact that NI was created to ensure a Unionist majority therefore talk of democracy is laughable really. I then highlighted the fact that Ulster (which a lot of people over here and in NI seem to think is NI) was partioned because it had a Nationalist majority.

So what it should have been created with a nationalist majority. Seriously NI was created to include the counties with majority of the people who wanted it, bitching about that fact that its not "democratic", is just barmy.

A Dub in Glasgo

mycroft wrote:

So what it should have been created with a nationalist majority. Seriously NI was created to include the counties with majority of the people who wanted it, bitching about that fact that its not "democratic", is just barmy.

I think you will find the some of the border counties in NI did not have a majority of people who wanted to be in NI. What about some of the towns and cities within some of the other counties? Are you suggesting it was democratic? It was an inherent in built majority for Unionism.

I have highlighted the fact that the creation and subsequent abuse of power in NI was not democratic. Some folk would like to hide their head in the sand though.

A Dub in Glasgo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

I have highlighted the fact that the creation and subsequent abuse of power in NI was not democratic. Some folk would like to hide their head in the sand though.

I suppose all these things depend on whatever political perspective you look at them.A lot of it stems out of extreme paranoia and inward lookingness.Give the power to the paranoids and well...
Heres an obvious opposite perspective to yours where the view is the paranoids are the catholics and they got the power and created a catholic state.

We've moved on mostly in the south,but that hasn't happened in the paranoid cauldoron that is NI yet...
A couple of decades of relative peace might help.

murphaph

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Democracy and NI? Funniest thing ever

Indeed, the land where due process for suspected competitors (I mean, drug dealers) is replaced with swift knee-cappings and such like!

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Why do you think that the people who are handing over their hard earned cash to prop up NI should not be given a voice?

Well, the same logic could be applied to any underperforming region of the UK. Should southerners be allowed a vote on whether or not they want the north of England and Scotland to leave the UK? Plenty of employment blackspots in these regions, fewer in the prosperous south who therefore subsidise (prop-up) these regions. There is hardly a precedent in the world for one part of a nation being given the vote to remove another part of that nation from that nation. It's the wish of the Liga Nord but it's not a realistic proposition, even in Italy.

Just to humour you though. Say we give GB the vote and they vote to sever the union, NI still has to do likewise of course to make it so (forgetting about a UI for a moment, as NI leaving the union is all GB would be allowed vote upon), but what if GB voted not to sever the union, would you accept that the union must remain, given their will was shown by way of a referendum which you suggest giving them? If not then the referendum is pointless because you will only accept your 'right' answer, which is not democracy and hence referenda are pointless.

rsynnott

Flex wrote:

worst thing i could imagine would be a civil war,and then the strain on the economy to support those counties. i have no illusions about the negative consequences a united ireland could potentially bring.

Civil war? CIVIL WAR? You think it could cause a ****ing CIVIL WAR and you STILL want it? What?

murphaph

rsynnott wrote:

Civil war? CIVIL WAR? You think it could cause a ****ing CIVIL WAR and you STILL want it? What?

It's only a civil war rsynnott, calm down-loads of countries have them, not that many people might die! :rolleyes:

Macmorris

murphaph wrote:

It's only a civil war rsynnott, calm down-loads of countries have them, not that many people might die! :rolleyes:

I don't believe there will be a civil war if Ireland is united. If it turned out that most people in the north voted to join up with the south, I think most unionists would realise the futility of trying to oppose it by force. They know that a united Ireland is going to happen eventually, so they'll probably just learn to accept it like the peaceful democrats that they are always claiming to be. They would understand that, unlike the current set-up, in a united Ireland there would be a sense of constitutional finality and irrevocability that doesn't exist now.

And anyway, I don't think that it's only southerners who would want to avoid a civil war. Northerner Unionists wouldn't want to be in a civil war any more than people in the republic. If Ireland was ever united, protestants in the north would have a simple choice, they could either accept the democratic will of the people of the north, and abide by their decision peacefully, or they can take the violent route in the knowledge that the odds are against them. Do you honestly think they would have the heart for a long drawn out war knowing that they would stand very little chance of success?

Northern protestants are much more intelligent and sensible than southerners would like to think. People in the south seem to have an image of northern protestants as mindless fanatics who will go to any lengths to defend the union. Although that might have been the case at certain periods in the past, I think most unionists today don't have the kind of emotional attachment to the union with Britain that they had in the past, particularly now that the EU and the celtic tiger have levelled out many of the differences between the north and south. Rootless cosmopolitanism and consumerism has had the same effect on the northerners and their political loyalties, as it has had on the southerners.

rsynnott

Macmorris wrote:

I don't believe there will be a civil war if Ireland is united. If it turned out that most people in the north voted to join up with the south, I think most unionists would realise the futility of trying to oppose it by force.
.

This would be in much the same way that they currently realise the futility of opposing it by force, and that SFIRA realises the futility of opposing it by force, yes?

Macmorris

rsynnott wrote:

This would be in much the same way that they currently realise the futility of opposing it by force,

Officially they're not opposing it by force. If you mean by 'they' the law-abiding unionist people then according to their politicians, they believe in the principle of consent, which means that they will peacefully support whatever the people of the north decide. It means that if the people ever decided to unite with the south, they would be obligated to accept that decision. If they don't then they'll be seen as hypocrites.

and that SFIRA realises the futility of opposing it by force, yes?

How did nationalists in the north respond to partition? Although there was a few years of minor skirmishing by the IRA, it didn't take long for them to settle down once they realised they didn't stand any chance of success. It wasn't until the late 1960s that the republicans saw a chance to exploit catholic grievances as a way of justifying a renewed campaign against the British. The important lesson to learn from that is that people learn to put up with constitutional arrangements that they're not happy with if they're treated well. As long as protestants are well treated in a united Ireland, we shouldn't have to worry too much about any civil war.

rsynnott

Macmorris wrote:

Officially they're not opposing it by force. If you mean by 'they' the law-abiding unionist people then according to their politicians, they believe in the principle of consent, which means that they will peacefully support whatever the people of the north decide. It means that if the people ever decided to unite with the south, they would be obligated to accept that decision. If they don't then they'll be seen as hypocrites.

No, by they I mean exactly the same braindead terrorists who would make trouble if the two countries were united.

Macmorris wrote:

How did nationalists in the north respond to partition? Although there was a few years of minor skirmishing by the IRA, it didn't take long for them to settle down once they realised they didn't stand any chance of success. It wasn't until the late 1960s that the republicans saw a chance to exploit catholic grievances as a way of justifying a renewed campaign against the British. The important lesson to learn from that is that people learn to put up with constitutional arrangements that they're not happy with if they're treated well. As long as protestants are well treated in a united Ireland, we shouldn't have to worry too much about any civil war.

So, the exploding children we've been seeing in an NI where catholics are treated fairly equally are a naturally occuring phenominon, yes?

Macmorris

rsynnott wrote:

No, by they I mean exactly the same braindead terrorists who would make trouble if the two countries were united.

That's not a civil war then. That's only a terrorist campaign. A civil war is a more widespread conflict between two armies. It's unlikely the UDA or UVF will ever get the kind of support in the north that will enable them to conduct that kind of war. As I said, I just don't think most protestants in the north would have the heart for that kind of of thing. They might have had in the past but not now and not if it turns out that they don't have the majority of the north's population supporting them.

So, the exploding children we've been seeing in an NI where catholics are treated fairly equally are a naturally occuring phenominon, yes?

But according to the republicans they weren't treated equally. That was the justification they used for their armed campaign against the British. I know it's possible that in a United Ireland, the protestants could make the same claim to justify terrorism against the state but I just don't think protestants are the kind of people who would do that. In a united Ireland catholics will go out of their way to make sure that protestants are well looked after and so I don't see it happening that protestants will behave in a united Ireland in the same way that catholics behaved up in the north.

murphaph

What about the south rejoining the union? On a more realistic note, if, and I said if Ireland is heading towards political unity, don't be surprised if a rejoining of the Commonwealth is mooted by many sides in an attempt to placate unionists. I imagine that would be ok with pro-unification people?

Being a republic and a member of the Commonwealth are not mutually exclusive.

Macmorris

murphaph wrote:

What about the south rejoining the union?

Personally, I think it would be a good idea. Maybe not a return to the 'Union', but more as an alternative to the European Union, as a confederation of the countries of the British Isles. Provided that the union respects the rights of individual countries to determine their own affairs, and it doesn't assume any greater powers than are now held by the EU, I don't see why people should have a problem with that. Although it's unlikely that the anti-English republican idiots will be too happy about it, I would say most Irish people have moved beyond their immature anglophobia that they would look on the proposal with an open mind.

As it is, I think a lot of people are becoming disillusioned with the EU and with the direction it's taking. I think we have a lot more in common with the people of Britain than we do with the people of Europe, and so I would feel a lot more comfortable with sacrificing some of our sovereignty to a four country British Union than I would sacrificing it to a union of 25 foreign countries.

rejoining of the Commonwealth is mooted by many sides in an attempt to placate unionists. I imagine that would be ok with pro-unification people?

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic but I can't see how any United-Irelander would have a problem with the republic joining the commonwealth. You're assuming that all United-Irelanders are anti-British.

murphaph

Macmorris wrote:

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic but I can't see how any United-Irelander would have a problem with the republic joining the commonwealth. You're assuming that all United-Irelanders are anti-British.

I was being sarcastic to a degree, but you have to admit, a quick glance over these boards reveals that there is a certain correlation between wanting a UI and being anti-british. I accept of course that there are UI'ers who aren't anti-british. Many believe a republic cannot even be a member, which is false of course, DeValera himself regretted the fact that we did not seek permission in '49 to remain members after we had declared the republic.

catholicireland

What about the south rejoining the union?

Because we are our own country. I could also ask, why wouldnt you like to be controlled by Ireland?
A bit of respect from our english posters, this is, or supposed to be an Irish forum after all.

rsynnott

catholicireland wrote:

Because we are our own country. I could also ask, why wouldnt you like to be controlled by Ireland?
A bit of respect from our english posters, this is, or supposed to be an Irish forum after all.

I think he is Irish, and also being somewhat sarcastic. But seriously, you find it 'disrespectful' to suggest Ireland joining a country that the majority doesn't want to be part of, but not Northern Ireland joining a country that the majority doesn't want to be part of? How does that work?

catholicireland

catholicireland wrote:

Because we are our own country. I could also ask, why wouldnt you like to be controlled by Ireland?
A bit of respect from our english posters,

A bit of respect for other peoples opinions wouldn't go amiss from you.

this is, or supposed to be an Irish forum after all.

Really?
Last I checked there was no nationality condition on joining the board.
Frankly your views appear to be showing hints of racism.
Don't expect that to be tollerated here.

bonkey

catholicireland wrote:

this is, or supposed to be an Irish forum after all.

I wasn't aware that people equated Irish and Republican so strongly.

jc

Sponge Bob

I believe that he is a Paisleyite pretending to be Irish and Catholic

catholicireland

But seriously, you find it 'disrespectful' to suggest Ireland joining a country that the majority doesn't want to be part of, but not Northern Ireland joining a country that the majority doesn't want to be part of? How does that work?

Its only a majority of a section of Ireland, not the whole counrty. England divided it so such a majority was possible.

Really?
Last I checked there was no nationality condition on joining the board.
Frankly your views appear to be showing hints of racism.
Don't expect that to be tollerated here.

I didnt mean to show any racism, and if you read what I wrote you would have seen that.

I believe that he is a Paisleyite pretending to be Irish and Catholic

I realise that to be Irish and Catholic is a very envyable thing, but I am not pretending!