Why would you want a crown, a Zionist star and two red hands on Any fleg FFS?
And as Bonnie says why no Saltire?
As for the Tricolour, apparently it already offends too many unionists.
Maybe it's just too orange?
Printable View
Why would you want a crown, a Zionist star and two red hands on Any fleg FFS?
And as Bonnie says why no Saltire?
As for the Tricolour, apparently it already offends too many unionists.
Maybe it's just too orange?
Where did I say change? More goalposts being moved.
I would gladly keep the trickler but would also accept the Four Provinces or Saltire. I don;t think there's many who would find either offensive in any context. Perhaps some Republicans would get miffed at the saltire. but feck them.
How have I moved goalposts? I merely anticipated future demand for supposedly all-inclusive symbols and poked gentle fun at it.
I don't dislike the Saltire symbol, it just looks a bit odd.
So why not answer the points made above then?
And have this feeling the Saltire is not the only odd looking thing on this MB.
I don't usually answer your posts (and nor does anyone else) because they're almost always moronic, abusive, trolling, or all three. Do us all a favor and fcuk off, there's a good lad.
http://nowolves.com/glow%20in%20the%20dark%20600.png
I agree Gather, that's someone who uses Vox as a source, that's all ye need to know. Vox!
Charming, though clearly the education system has failed in the North on the basis of GR's spelling...
And clearly doesn't do irony.
Given their blatant hypocrisy.
The Detail (or someone sounding like Newtown Emerson) outlines an alternative take on the Irish government's negotiating/bargaining position:
https://vimeo.com/211773119
Four IRA men give their various opinions on the state of play presently in the I.T. today.
Link - http://www.irishtimes.com/news/irela...guff-1.3041131
My own effort. Nods to the Trickler, Union Fleg, and using the same design as South Africa will give the Shinners the chance to remind everyone how they were mates with Nelson Mandela which should get them on board.
Attachment 2548
I just came across the highly-rated Bobby Sands: 66 Days documentary on YouTube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDiQrifqCzY
It's sure to be of interest to a few of yous.
I see the same YouTube user who uploaded 66 Days has also uploaded Voices from the Grave (along with numerous other documentaries covering politics and conflict in the north):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCZShda0Oq4
Voices from the Grave is very insightful and well worth a watch. It is based primarily on the "Boston tapes" interviews (overseen by journalist Ed Moloney) with former-IRA volunteer Brendan Hughes and ex-UVF volunteer and PUP leader David Ervine conducted before they died.
From IMDB:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ed Moloney
Quote:
Originally Posted by IMDB
A really refreshing and progressive approach to the question of possible Irish unity outlined by unionist/loyalist Sophie Long (who recently left the PUP after provoking controversy within the loyalist community upon tweeting condolences to the "family, friends and comrades" of Martin McGuinness) on BBC Radio Ulster's Talkback programme this afternoon as she urged fellow unionists to start preparing for what she now regards as a "slightly more likely" united Ireland and to start outlining what sort of settlement or arrangement would be most palatable for them. Listen here from 7m50s: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08ljfn9
She admits that, given the recent electoral blow dealt to unionism, rather than battening down the hatches, unionists need to look outward and must strategise in preparation for what will be a "unionist apocalypse". Long refers to herself as a "pragmatic unionist" and describes her approach as a "contingency plan" or "insurance policy"; essentially, to paraphrase, she's saying that if unionists plan for unity, they can at least have a seat at the table and will have their voices heard so as to help ensure they won't be absorbed into a political territory that they had no role in shaping. I would very much welcome such dialogue, debate and discussion. A united Ireland will be one of compromise, and that's something a lot of nationalists and republicans will have to come to terms with too if we're to realise it.
For what it's worth, here are some recent tweets from Long on the matter:
Quote:
A forward-looking Unionism could and should outline its vision of a United Ireland inc links to UK and Commonwealth, minority rights etc.
Quote:
Refusing to acknowledge demographic shifts and the impact of Brexit is not political strategy or principledness. Its a lack of vision.
Quote:
"Never, never, never" worked so well last time. What could possibly go wrong?
Quote:
Alternatively, there's always non-territorial autonomy. Plenty of political options for Unionists to avail of. None of which are saying "No"
Quote:
We aren't in 1913 and won't see a cross-class alliance of militant Unionists. Any solutions must be political, non-violent and creative.
Quote:
Even pockets of organised violence will be quickly stymied. In a post 9/11 security setting no major operations will be successful.
'Roadmap to a united Ireland revealed in new report by leading Irish politicians': http://www.irishcentral.com/news/pol...sh-politicians
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheila Langan
This piece also contains some very interesting graphics of the shifting population trends based on the various census counts since 1971 and their impact on how things might be about to unfold, the main thread is the still largely divided society in housing and education particularly - http://www.irishtimes.com/news/irela...land-1.3030921
http://www.independent.ie/life/irish...-35621422.htmlQuote:
An increase in the number of Protestant immigrants, particularly from Africa and India, has helped to re-energise some parishes, and there has also been an influx of worshippers who grew up as Catholics.
One parishioner from Lucan estimates his local church-going population as 50pc traditional Church of Ireland, 25pc African or Indian, and 25pc people who were baptised as Catholics.
"There are a number of people from a Catholic background who feel more comfortable in the Church of Ireland at the moment, but I would not see this as a form of competition," says Patrick Comerford.
This is consistent with the fact there are more Northern Catholics who would rather remain in the union than there are Northern Protestants who desire unification.
:confused:
I'm just hoping that someone can explain to me the supposed connection or "consistency" between a number of Catholics in Lucan converting to Anglicanism and the fact that a higher proportion (37 per cent) of Catholics in the north of Ireland may prefer to maintain a political union with Britain than the proportion (5 per cent) of northern Protestants who'd vote for Irish re-unification.
Does it make me a bad Irishman if I would welcome a United Ireland more for the opportunity it would bring to tear down and rebuild the rotten political system in the Republic than anything to do with nationalism and territorial integrity?
That's a very pragmatic viewpoint tbh and one which I would be in agreement with.
Of all the fig leaves we can offer Unionism, a 'look lads, we need a hand to sort this sh*t out, its a mess' would surely turn their heads, see, this works on every level :)
And with Unionism's proven track record of a one tier society with a fair hand dealt to all and opportunity based on merit they will be the very men we need, surely ?
There is an interesting article on FT.com.
It's behind a paywall so I'll quote some of it here if that's okay:
https://www.ft.com/content/f4c720b0-...b-5528796fe35cQuote:
Originally Posted by Financial Times
Just on that note...: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7703141.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by Will Worley
I wonder how the people making/responding to that survey defined "uprising".
Edit: Just saw this on the news: http://www.rte.ie/news/brexit/2017/0...nited-ireland/
Brian Walker on Slugger O'Toole feels that the EU's declaration on a future accommodation of Irish unity further isolates a weakened UK, but may also lead to unionism being less willing to co-operate with the south: https://sluggerotoole.com/2017/04/28...ish-isolation/
Some interesting comments:Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Walker
This one is similarly complimentary of Enda Kenny:Quote:
Originally Posted by Karl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Conchúr Ó Conghaile
As much as a I fully agree with the statement as it pertains to the north and would compliment the government on pushing for it, the idea that it came about because we were "good Europeans" during the crash and after makes my skin crawl a little.
Heh, I hear you. It's not the most pleasant of thoughts and I'd personally be hesitant to heap too much praise upon Enda, but I thought it an interesting interpretation of developments, or perhaps realpolitik even, in the broader context nonetheless.
I'm assuming Walker is arguing that the declaration "could make unionists more reluctant to cooperate with the south on a practical basis" because he feels they'll fear such future co-operation would only further weaken the union with Britain and strengthen the case for Irish unity. Considering political unionism represents a minority now, with those unionists who'd be actively hostile or antagonistic towards the south representing fewer numbers, they'll be paddling against the tide. Nationalism and the non-designated middle-ground ("Other") - now representative of greater numbers - will be pushing for enhanced co-operation.
This though: "...could make unionists more reluctant to cooperate with the south on a practical basis."
The very nature and existence of Unionism is predicated on a concept of non-cooperation. The middle ground will grow and the likes of Campbell, McCausland and Poots will be left behind. Thankfully.
The Daily Mail's rational and considered take on the situation:
Jeffrey Donaldson was of course measured in his response: " 'no chance' Northern Ireland would want to abandon the UK and join a 'struggling' EU."Quote:
Originally Posted by The Daily Mail
"'None of this changes the reality that Northern Ireland remains part of the UK and I believe it is likely to do so in the lifetime of every single person alive today.
'What the EU is doing is little more than clarifying a legal position. No person in their right mind would want to give up British citizenship to join an organisation that is seriously struggling.
'This is no more than the Irish government trying to lay down a marker that there wouldn't be a problem.
'There is more chance of the Irish Republic wanting to rejoin the UK... given its huge dependence on the UK for trade.'"
My take is that today had nothing at all to do with Ireland.
The precident of Germany is as obvious as getting hit by a brick. Today was about putting Scotland and Catalonia off.
I'd like if possible to bring this back around to the issue of partition and the huge damage it does to our society. This week in the north we have had controversy over the potential closure of Daisy Hill Hospital in Newry. It seems ludicrously obvious to me that there should be an acute regional hospital in Dundalk to cover the people of Newry, Dundalk and Drogheda and surrounding areas. Yet people in Newry having a heart attack are to be carted off the Portadown.
This is crazy. This is directly because of partition. Partition is crazy.
In that the message to Scottish and Catalan separatists is that the north of Ireland will only be accommodated with continued EU membership because it would be uniting with a present member state rather than going independent alone? Why would today necessarily set a precedent for the Scottish and Catalan situations considering those situations aren't really analogous to our situation at all? And isn't the EU sympathetic to the soon-to-be-marooned Scots?
The EU has always given the tit to the mouth screaming the loudest. Ireland want it made clear that Northern Ireland should be able to rejoin the rest of the island in the EU without any paperwork or bull****, and Spain want it made clear that Scotland can't. And that is exactly what has happened.
No European nation with a reasonable economy and human rights record has ever been told no as far as i am aware, but it seems obvious that Spain would want to pull up the drawbridge in the event of a Scottish application to rejoin. But for that the Scots would have been given a much better reception imho.
Obviously, as far as a fearful Spain is concerned, accommodation of Scotland by way of assuring Scots a smooth or seamless transition back into the EU bloc would only give encouragement to Catalan separatists, but when was it made clear that Scotland would have great difficulty re-joining the bloc? Was that clarified yesterday/today? Hasn't there been a bit of ambiguity and confusion over that since Scotland's independence debate began with most pronouncements from those in the know making clear that Scotland would have to re-apply but that this really shouldn't be an insurmountable hurdle?
This STV piece from the 20th of February claims that "[a]n independent Scotland could be "fast tracked" to full European Union membership by 2023, according to two academics".
This Guardian piece from the 14th of March states:
That reiterated position of Barroso was first set out in 2012.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jennifer Rankin and Severin Carrell
Meanwhile, this New Statesman piece from the 29th of March argues that this notion of possible Scottish difficulty in the future is a pretence:
What has effectively or substantively changed as of yesterday or today, as far as Scotland's potential future route back into the EU (if it decides to leave the UK) is concerned?Quote:
Originally Posted by Julia Rampen
For what it's worth, the EU27 unanimously approved the draft negotiating guidelines for Brexit talks with UK within 15 minutes today.