In fairness, if your granny had balls your grandparents would be gay and you wouldn't exist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
Printable View
In fairness, if your granny had balls your grandparents would be gay and you wouldn't exist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...;v=0IX6FWxSWfM
It seems the BNP are even getting involved in the protests. Maybe it's time to start a counter protest group to remind NI of the three ignored counties of Ulster that don't necessarily share the protestors sentiments?
GR's attempts to belittle Irish Nationalism are a prime example of the fear within Unionism and Loyalism in general that the statelet is seeing what could be seen in the 1920's on it's creation. That the Nationalists are gaining a larger foothold in the areas of society that matter and the influence is growing daily.
Whilst Sf and GA may wish to end partition and you and a lot of people including nationalists and republicans believe it is a fantasy. They are expressing their wish for something that was agreed by the electorate of the whole of this country/nation/island in 1998 to come about. Whether the poll succeeds or not is irrelevant at this juncture. But it is defining within politics of Ireland what is the next logical step.
What we will face now over the next few weeks will be attempts by Loyalism and Unionism in general to base it on an economic argument that it is better as a constituent member of the United Kingdom than as a part of a United Island. What they will fail to see though is that by doing so they will further alienate people as they will be willfully ignoring peoples latent Nationalist desires.
Loyalism is on the backfoot. As a political belief it has always been about us-and-them. The unfortunate result of this is that "them" are going about their lives moving up in the world and becoming more influential and articulate than "us".
It reminds of a quote (I can't remember if it was in a movie or not) about how when the Irish went to the USA in the 18 & 1900s they just took the discrimation on the chin and moved up in society to the point where we had a president in 1960's (if you leave out Andrew Jackson of course) whilst the black poeple of the States kept on cribbing about how hard done by they where... etc.
Loyalism needs to wake up. Because no one else is going to standstill and sooner or later...
Surely Ulster said no to Sodomy?Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin
"The PNSI stand by using water cannons..." - Gerry, is that you?Quote:
Originally Posted by horton
I'm always amazed by the ability of dominant groups within society to feel persecuted.
Also, I had to laugh when the lead guy said "there may only be 100 people here" and some guy shouts "300!" Anybody who's been following the pro-life demonstrations here (25,000 at yesterday's protest! Let's not question that figure!) will be aware of how some people's maths ability can desert them at crucial moments.
Come out of denial, Danny. They live in part of the British state, paying British taxes, receiving British services and the rest. As I mentioned, they don't administer joint authority or some sort of UN protectorate. This is all self-evident, that there's a separatist movement in what's basically a local authority with long-term no overall control doesn't change any of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Danny Invincible
Of course they don't really abstain- they contest the British national elections and sit in the British local government.Quote:
Sinn Féin abstain from Westminster, operating, rather, across the whole island of Ireland, including within what is a contested jurisdiction
And are they really in a contested jurisdiction? For 40 years, English, Southern and foreign commentators have told us Unionists are hypocritical- they refuse to accept the will of British governments. True, of course, but a similar test should apply to Sinn Fein. They should accept reality- Southern governments and wider opinion for 90 years have accepted partition, and done basically nothing tangible to end it. The constitutional claim before 1998 was a joke and the GF Agreement since little more than parking in the long grass. Most parties and voters in the South would sh*t themselves at even the notional possibility of a united Ireland in five or ten years time. Remember, the Shinners aren't hoping to go it alone, in a Baile Andarsan Gaeltacht or West-of-the-Banntustan. They want to join another country- that makes deferring to its will almost inevitable, don't ye think?
Yes, implicitly by talking about invasions, since clearly they were ALL centuries ago. Either that or you think more recent British government actions are similar in intent/ effect to invasions. The first's largely irrelevant, as it's ancient history; the second's simply false.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peadar 1987
Actually, it has a 42% minority that votes for Nationalist parties in elections. 16% is a long way behind for a single-issue movement that is largely incapable- unwilling- to attract floating vote, let alone permanent support from Non-nationalists. Blame SF and SDLP because there isn't a united Ireland, not Cromwell and Strongbow. You might as well argue Australia or America are majority White/ Hispanic because Captain Cook and the Mayflower brought in guns, gin and syphilis. Historically fascinating, little to do with modern problems.Quote:
Northern Ireland has a slim protestant minority now because of invasion and ethnic cleansing from the 1100s to the 1700s
Actually, it doesn't. I'm not comparing anyone's morality, just pointing out SF's lack of realism on the one hand, and likely consequence of their antics on the other.Quote:
saying "there's only one actual country in Northern Ireland" like that gives some sort of moral authority over those who have a different ethnic identity is just plain ignorant
Did you not read the bit where I recommended compromise on BCC and accepted it beyond?Quote:
So you think the status quo should be maintained, without compromise, until the nationalists have an overall majority?
Your reference to invasions and ethnic cleansing, clearly intented to refer to current politics rather than just old history, suggests otherwise. But relax, I'm not claiming you agree every line of SF policy.Quote:
Sinn Féin are very anti-British, and I don't agree with that, I don't think that I've ever indicated that I do
Both sides have done. The broad historical facts are almost universally accepted.Quote:
Acknowledging the reality of the history of Northern Ireland in terms of invasion and colonisation is something both sides need to do
Have you done a PhD on my ancestors? As far as I know, most of them lived in poverty in Ireland as they had in Scotland, continuing until well into the 20th century. So to repeat, spare us the mopery.Quote:
The fact that your ancestors displaced the native population through force in what was indisputably an act of ethnic cleansing
I'm not claiming supremacy over anyone or anything. You're hysterical, have a lie down.Quote:
doesn't give you supreme right over the country
You'd think that some of them would be able to hold their Fleg the right way 'round.Quote:
Originally Posted by horton
EDIT: Incidentally this is trending on twitter: #MeetUnionJMakeABanner I chortled.
Harsh, Bonnie. I agreed on this very thread that NI Nationalists' aspiration to a united Ireland was valid. I notice you don't (can't?) actually answer any of the reasoned criticisms I offered of how it tries to achieve that aspiration.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonnie Shels
Such as? I mean, which areas particularly matter? To what extent is that foothold growing in them? How will this affect something that matters tangibly, like election results?Quote:
a prime example of the fear within Unionism...that the Nationalists are gaining a larger foothold in the areas of society that matter and the influence is growing daily
You see, the thing is- as I mentioned above- that all this supposed greater influence isn't getting Irish nationalism in NI any new support from the only people who they right rationally want to attract, ie Unionists.
Make your mind up, Bonnie. If you're going to convince Unionists that we're running scared, you'll need to offer something slightly more spine-chilling than, effectively 'there MIGHT be a vote, but we might not win it: although don't worry, we've logically re-defined politics!'Quote:
Whether the poll succeeds or not is irrelevant at this juncture. But it is defining within politics of Ireland what is the next logical step
Of course there won't be a vote. Not in NI, because we know from every election for decades the strength of support for nationalism (ie, it rose sharply when SF stopped abstaining, then began to tail off because- as I said- there are no floating voters, and because migration rates and family size are roughly the same).
And not in the Republic, because it would be embarrassing for the entire political set-up if and when support wasn't overwhelming.
Are you Rip Van Winkle, just awoken from a kip that began in 1922? For the entire period since then, Unionists have been able to rely on Britain providing an economic safety net. For almost all of it, Britain has been a more affluent country than the Irish Republic. Even the credit-fuelled boom of your Celtic Tiger years has been largely wasted on a property bubble rather than investing in infrastructure.Quote:
What we will face now over the next few weeks will be attempts by Loyalism and Unionism in general to base it on an economic argument that it is better as a constituent member of the United Kingdom than as a part of a United Island
Are you seriously suggesting that there is some hidden source of support for a united Ireland in NI that doesn't already vote Nationalist? If so, let's see some evidence?Quote:
What they will fail to see though is that by doing so they will further alienate people as they will be willfully ignoring peoples latent Nationalist desires
Given that its main opposition in NI is basically its mirror image in the us-and-them stakes, that discomfort might not be as terminal as your wishful thinking hopes.Quote:
Loyalism is on the backfoot. As a political belief it has always been about us-and-them
Compare like with like. The Buckfast brigades bricking each other and the Police around the Short Strand aren't at all articulate. Mainstream Unionist and Nationalist politicians aren't that different in their fluency, or lack of it. See my example above, Gerry Adams waffling on TV last week about the budget deficits, something he clearly knows next to nothing about.Quote:
The unfortunate result of this is that "them" are going about their lives moving up in the world and becoming more influential and articulate than "us"
There were numerous Presidents of (part-) Irish descent before Kennedy, not just Jackson. As for the delay in electing a Black equivalent, I imagine a century of slavery followed by another of systematic racism, Jim Crow laws and the like might just have been a bigger factor than innate laziness and self-pity.Quote:
It reminds of a quote (I can't remember if it was in a movie or not) about how when the Irish went to the USA in the 18 & 1900s they just took the discrimation on the chin and moved up in society to the point where we had a president in 1960's (if you leave out Andrew Jackson of course) whilst the black poeple of the States kept on cribbing about how hard done by they where... etc
Do better, FFS.
Ho. Dear lord.
Anyone who may drop in here from time to time knows my stance well enough at this stage. That you picked apart my post in an odd fashion means I'll have today til my Sunday evening ends and I'm back at my computer to respond.
GR, quick question - which nationalist majority councils have the tricolour flying over council buildings, either on designated days or all year round? Last I knew, most such councils operated power sharing for key positions in the form of d'Hondt procedures, ensuring elected unionist representatives are given the opportunity to fill these roles.
Bonnie:Quote:
Originally Posted by BonnieShels
http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instanc...x/33695871.jpg
I was on the bus on the way into a date.Quote:
Originally Posted by horton
Tomorrow I will pick apart his ******.
Sounds like that went well.Quote:
Originally Posted by BonnieShels
What gave it away...
I'm on foot.ie and watching Ravens v Pats.
Dry bitch.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
SK- don't know, although I'll admit to lazily assuming without checking that some do. If not, I stand corrected. I certainly wouldn't want to exaggerate or invent anythingl likely to increase tensions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shanty Kelly
If they did, I'd accept that it would be a) locally popular with the majority community, and b) a response to the way Unionist- controlled Councils act in their areas. I would live with it.
Aye, mayors rotate and the like. If that works for all the main communities locally, fine.Quote:
Last I knew, most such councils operated power sharing for key positions in the form of d'Hondt procedures, ensuring elected unionist representatives are given the opportunity to fill these roles
Hope the date went well, Bonnie. Did you take the right red hand along?
It was horrendous. As I said. Dry bitch. :)
I could have chopped it off and tiocfaidh'd it at her to be honest.
No surprise it came from a movie rather than an esteemed sociology text. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by BonnieShels
I'm no expert on discrimination in the US and whilst the above claim - rooted firmly in folk mythology - might provide some nice sentiment for us "fightin' Irish" in order to help convince ourselves we're of tough stock and all that, I'm not so sure it would be fair to place anti-black and anti-Irish discrimination in the US on anywhere near the same pedestal. In fact, I could see very easily how the above might be perceived as racially offensive from a black perspective, as if to suggest the collective disadvantaged lot of African-Americans is primarily their own responsibility because they simply don't possess in their genetic make-up the traits of motivation, ambition or resilience that other groups, including the Irish, do happen to possess.
I think it would be naive to suggest that the primary distinguishing causal factors in determining the contemporary or latter positions of American society in which both social groups find or found themselves were their respective collective attitudes or psychological responses to the discrimination facing them. I'd attribute the varying degrees of social mobility generally experienced by the two respective groups more to the differing adverse surrounding social circumstances that faced them. No amount of "taking it on the chin" can improve your lot if there's just no opportunity for social mobility, and social mobility was undeniably much easier for Irish-Americans (as whites, albeit not of WASP descent) than it was for blacks, a class beneath.
I'm sorry I missed that gathering...Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin
The unexpected absurdity of the final words of the video gave me a chuckle and reminded me of that King of the Sheep competition/"F*ckin' hell!" scene in Father Ted:
Lead speaker: "God Save the Queen!"
*Wild applause and largely incomprehensible roaring with a few shouts of "No Surrender" before volume abates.*
Solitary background voice: "Go on, Queen!"
If they are primarily to blame, how might Sinn Féin and the SDLP have realistically gone about achieving a united Ireland in light of unfavourable demographics since and due to the contrived creation of NI? What was the root cause of those unfavourable demographics? Historical factors remain factors that have played fundamental roles in the realisation of our contemporary situation. It would be silly to discount them as merely "historically fascinating" given the obvious existence of causal relationships between the past and the present, never mind the weighty significance attributed to/attempts to derive political validity from historical events, battles and figures by members of both communities in NI.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
By the way, do you view Sinn Féin's alleged anti-Britishness as a form of or something akin to racism/xenophobia? Admittedly, the British establishment often finds itself under fire in Sinn Féin discourse, but what do you mean exactly when you accuse the party of being anti-British? I pose the same question to Peadar.
This may surprise you as it surprised me: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/...327144275.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
Quote:
The survey shows that a substantial majority of people would still like to see a united Ireland but only a minority believe it will happen in the next 25 years.
...
One striking feature of the poll is a less partitionist attitude now than in 1987. At that stage when asked what constituted the Irish nation 38 per cent said the 26 counties and 56 per cent said the 32 counties with 6 per cent having no opinion.
In 2012 the proportion saying the 32 counties has remained exactly the same at 56 per cent. But the number saying 26 counties has dropped to 27 per cent while the number with no opinion has jumped to 18 per cent.
In line with other questions about the North those with no opinion is higher among the 18 to 34 age group with almost a third of them in that category.
The drop in adherence to a purely southern Irish identity and the growing acceptance of a dual identity in the North is clearly a response to the Belfast Agreement and the new era in North-South and British-Irish relations.
This is also reflected in the response to the question as to whether a united Ireland is something to be hoped for. Those saying Yes is still substantial at 64 per cent but it has declined since the 1980s. Even more striking, though, is that the number saying that they would prefer not to see a united Ireland has halved to 8 per cent since 1987.
Again there has been a steep rise in the proportion with no opinion, which has doubled to 28 per cent since 1987. Among younger people aged between 18 and 34 the proportion with no opinion is higher again with 37 per cent having no view.
Interestingly, Fianna Fáil voters were strongest in the view that a united Ireland was something to be hoped for. And, strangely, Sinn Féin voters were not as enthusiastic as Fine Gael supporters, despite the fact that Sinn Féin is the only one actively campaigning for unity.
Given the large number with no opinion on the subject it is interesting to note that 69 per cent of people say they would still favour a united Ireland even if they had to pay more in taxation to support it. Just 20 per cent said they would not favour unity in those circumstances while 11 per cent had no opinion.
While there is still strong support for a united Ireland, a majority do not believe that it would happen in the near future.
Asked which of the assertions came closest to their views, 35 per cent said Northern Ireland would never be reunited with the South, 6 per cent said it would be reunited in 10 years, 16 per cent in 25 years, 15 per cent in 50 years, 8 per cent in 100 years and 20 per cent had no opinion.
Curiously, Sinn Féin voters were significantly stronger in the view that there would never be unity than supporters of other parties.
As far as I'm aware, there were a few of Scotch-Irish (Presbyterian) descent; a distinctly different social group from that of Kennedy. Buchanan and Roosevelt were just two of them remembered in loyalist murals in Derry in recent times:Quote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3532/3...1e8406dc_z.jpg
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3398/3...16acdffb_z.jpg
Is there actually significance in meaning derived from the positioning of the red hand's thumb? I've heard something about that before and assume that's what you're referring to? I'm not sure though that there is any consistency of use of the hand with thumb resting against palm or pointing away from palm depending on the cultural or communal identification of those displaying it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
'Ulster Banner' (away from palm):
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...er_banner_.png
Blues Brothers' flag (against palm):
http://nominated.homestead.com/CFC_LOYAL_FLAG_SM.JPG
Red Hand Commando mural (against palm):
http://i41.tinypic.com/2vm5ws3.jpg
Some more examples...
Ulster Rugby crest (away from palm):
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ugby_badge.png
Tyrone GAA crest (away from palm):
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...yroneCrest.png
Flag of Ulster (positioning appears to vary):
http://www.my-secret-northern-irelan...lster-flag.jpg
http://u.jimdo.com/www21/o/sf8baaaab...orig/image.gif
The significance is probably created as a result of the hand in the Ulster Banner having it's thumb located away from the palm.
Whilst I've heard of this apparent significance before, no one has ever really explained what it is. So I reckon that if we are both stumped Danny, and GR doesn't know then, there is none perhaps?
Incidentally, above James Buchanan it is away from the palm and above Teddy R it's against the palm.
The plot thickens.
As I suggested above, NI Nationalists have done little or nothing to 'sell' a united Ireland to Unionists and other non-Nationalists. SF obviously by running a paramilitary campaign for 30 years, SDLP by quickly abandoning the Social Democratic and Labour parts to redefine themselves as basically a little-changed successor to the old Nationalist party.Quote:
Originally Posted by Danny Invincible
Of course I'm not suggesting that a more compromising attitude would have been successful, but it just hasn't been tried. Instead, Nationalists have relied on usually simplistic variants of the tick-tock theory that they'll inevitably a) achieve a 50% + 1 majority, and then seamlessly b) be welcomed into the 32 county utopia.
We're going round in circles here. Insteading of just repeating 'it's not fair that the Unionists are a majority locally', you could address the points above.Quote:
What was the root cause of those unfavourable demographics? Historical factors remain factors that have played fundamental roles in the realisation of our contemporary situation. It would be silly to discount them as merely "historically fascinating" given the obvious existence of causal relationships between the past and the present, never mind the weighty significance attributed to/attempts to derive political validity from historical events, battles and figures by members of both communities in NI
Yes, past events affect the present, but shouldn't dominate it. It's actually perfectly reasonable not to get bogged down in who did what in 1922, 1641 or 1169. Your idee fixe that these are crucial is the real oddity. Do you ever hear people in Germany, France, Sweden or Poland talking about the 30 Years War that have played fundamental roles in the realisation of our contemporary situation?
In the post-Troubles era, I see their repetitive, exaggerated references to Britain's failings as tiresome and invariably resulting in a mirror-image response from many Unionists. That attitude is that Britain isn't just foreign, but oppressive over centuries. Which maybe isn't that relevant to primary education or bin collections.Quote:
By the way, do you view Sinn Féin's alleged anti-Britishness as a form of racism/xenophobia? What do you mean exactly when you accuse them of being anti-British?
I wouldn't use xenophobia or racism, that would just stir another debate. Presumably SF and their supporters would argue no prejudice against individual Britons ;)
Aye, some interesting and possibly self-contradicting stuff there.Quote:
The problem for any Southern government is that the national/ emotional/ constitutional commitment to a united Ireland is bound to make any less than overwhelming poll an embarrassment. It seems clear to me from that survey that a large majority in the South expect (read: want, even if they won't admit it) the problem to be safely parked in the long grass for a generation or two.
Ha, indeed. I just noticed that after posting the other examples.Quote:
Originally Posted by BonnieShels
Here's another of George Washington with thumb against palm:
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/images/photos...shington1r.jpg
That's not quite what I was saying. I don't subscribe to the "sins of the father shall be borne by the son" school of thought. We are where we are and so must deal with the present situation in a contemporary manner. No doubt, an inability to sell the notion of a united Ireland to unionists is one reason amongst many why such has never been realised but that's not to say that the present situation cannot be explained further by reference to historical events and circumstances so that we can appreciate a fuller understanding.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
Well, why would they continue debating resolved territorial disputes that bear no direct relationship with contemporary issues within the universally-agreed boundaries of those states? By and large, European territorial disputes have been resolved and are truly matters of history. NI/Ireland is an exception to the trend, or has been until very recently/the signing of the GFA, depending on one's point of view. It would be entirely reasonable that those engaging in discussion about the dispute or its conflicting parties would make some reference to its historical roots.Quote:
Yes, past events affect the present, but shouldn't dominate it. It's actually perfectly reasonable not to get bogged down in who did what in 1922, 1641 or 1169. Your idee fixe that these are crucial is the real oddity. Do you ever hear people in Germany, France, Sweden or Poland talking about the 30 Years War that have played fundamental roles in the realisation of our contemporary situation?
I missed that first time around. Go on, Queen indeed.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
Found this very funny!
http://i50.tinypic.com/do2ec9.gif
According to Arlene Foster on the Nolan Show/Radio Ulster this morning, the DUP are considering responding to Sinn Féin's call for a border poll with an assured invite to "bring it on" in the hope a result in favour of maintaining the union with Britain would "remove instability" and provide "a clear validation" of that union. She feels this would "call Sinn Féin's bluff".
Edit: In order to provoke some debate, I imagine, Nolan is now rather disingenuously proclaiming that support for a border poll is the DUP's current official position on the matter.
A rather bizarre letter in the Belfast Newsletter on the flag issue: http://www.newsletter.co.uk/communit...o5S6zM.twitter
Quote:
IN response to the question posed by Neil C Oliver (Letters, January 15 - “Who pays the bill for lost business?” - there would appear to be a prima facie case that Belfast City Hall Alliance councillors should be held accountable for a breach of contract with the Belfast City ratepayers.
John Locke, widely known as the father of Classical Liberalism, enunicated a social contract between the electorate and the elected - legitimate government is instituted by the explicit consent of those governed.
As no consent was given for a change to the flying of the flag on designated days - only 10 out of 15,600 responses supported designated days in the quality impact assessment - there would appear to be a prima facie case of a breach of contract by the Alliance councillors’ with the Belfast ratepayers in making an amendment without a mandate, and therefore they are liable for damages incurred by the ratepayers.
John Saxton
(UKIP member)
Nothing new there.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
Trimble was peddling that line 10 years ago knowing it was unlikely to happen. There will be no-border poll for a loooooooong time. With the Scottish poll next year though, it's unlikely that the north will get an opportunity for a while.
I would like to "bring it on" too, but the problem is that the Secretary Of State can only call a Border Poll when it is deemed there is a reasonable chance that a Poll might succeed in a Constitutional change - there is no such chance, and PSF know it!Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
The Shinners are working to a different agenda with this call for a Poll - centred around their political progress in the South.
The vagueness of that part of the process makes it unlikely it will happen for many many years. Just scanned through the GFA. It's fierce vague about a lot of stuff. :) I love that phrase constructive ambiguity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Not Brazil
Indeed, a rather sensationalist Nolan was getting way ahead of himself with some callers when he declared something along the lines of, "But it has to happen, doesn't it, now that the DUP support it?!"Quote:
Originally Posted by Not Brazil
Of course, the DUP are only at a consideration stage with regard to what tactical approach to take, as Foster made clear to him, but even if they did come out in support of a poll, that wouldn't mean "it appears likely ... that a majority of those voting would express a wish that Northern Ireland should cease to be part of the United Kingdom and form part of a united Ireland", which is the test that needs to be satisfied, as far as the Secretary of State is concerned. The DUP would obviously be campaigning against the motion of Irish unity.
In what sense? In the sense that campaigning for a inevitably-doomed poll in the north will attract votes south of the border? How does that translate exactly?Quote:
Originally Posted by Not Brazil
Hmm...Scotland, Flanders, Catalunya, Gibraltar, Kosovo?Quote:
Originally Posted by Danny Invincible
True, Northern Ireland is an exception to that trend, but for basically the opposite reason that you suggest. In each of the other cases, you have either a separatist movement aiming to independence, or an existing state trying to 'reclaim' lost territory. Whereas both Britain and the Irish Republic have effectively been agreed on NI's basic status- ie, that there's a border- for nearly 90 years. The South's antics with your constitution are just a pretence.
As I keep repeating, nationalists in NI aren't intending to go it alone. They persist in trying to join another country that doesn't seem to want any of their land, not even a tweaking of the border so that- say- Derry Cityside and most of Newry would be on the other side of it.
Abstentionism goes only so far, eh?Quote:
Originally Posted by Conor Murphy on House of Commons notepaper
If the north of Ireland is the exception to the trend, why did you feel the need to bring those territories into it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
Now I ask you, why were ther no alterations to the border? Have you got some knowledge of some other Border Commission plan?
There remain outstanding disputes, of course, and there may always will, but I don't think that negates my fundamental point. Don't separatists (or "reclaimists") almost invariably invoke the notion of a "native homeland", the attempted validation of which is most often found in reference to a long-term generational experience upon or historical identification with a particular territory of land?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
See dialogue between Argentina and the UK in relation to their territorial dispute over the Falklands, for example. Both sides, especially Argentina, try to validate their respective positions with references to history. Not that such references are necessarily the only ways by which they do try or can try to validate their positions; the UK government, of course, also appeals to the present-day reality that a democratic majority of the islanders currently support maintaining their British ties as legal justification for a continuance of the UK's claim over the islands.
Anyhow, whether or not states offer official sanction to a certain position or argument in a dispute is irrelevant as to whether or not a dispute exists in reality, or in the minds of people concerned. Indeed, some in the international community may perceive official state support for a certain claim as a means by which that claim can be validated (or perhaps the only means by which a certain claim can be validated), but such state support need not necessarily be a prerequisite in order to validate a claim. Otherwise, how would non-states or regions within existing states ever acquire or have acquired statehood?
A significant proportion of the population in NI disputes the territory's position within the UK, or would at least prefer to see a change in its constitutional status by democratic means due, perhaps, to a held view that the territory's rightful position is to be found within an independent, 32-county Irish state; that's a reality worth acknowledging whether the Irish state and the UK have come to an accord between themselves on the very same matter or not. The official positions of the two states don't contradict or nullify the opinion of what is a significant number of people within those states. If a minority fringe of "lunatics" were raising a particular dispute, then their claims might be less worthy of serious consideration. I should add that as a potential political pejorative that can be used to belittle the merits of an opponents viewpoint, I don't particularly like using the term "lunatic" in this context; I use it only for the sake of argument, as common sense should inform you of what I mean.
Touché. :)Quote:
Abstentionism goes only so far, eh?
Your constant sniping in and around various aspects of nationalism loses you any empathy towards what you may have initally stated. Your "Eddie Coll" statement par example.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
Irish Nationalists will never achieve their aims until there's a political structure in place for it to be achieved.
As it stands the political structure in place is what we have and in order for it to take place it needs to be shown that there is a likelyhood of a border poll succeeding.
The only thing that Nationalists can do right now is show how a United Ireland is in the best interests of every Irish person regardless of his or her political beliefs in the hope that if a poll was to take place it would succeed.
Again I think you are misreading what I am saying and are being deliberately awkward.Quote:
Such as? I mean, which areas particularly matter? To what extent is that foothold growing in them? How will this affect something that matters tangibly, like election results?
You see, the thing is- as I mentioned above- that all this supposed greater influence isn't getting Irish nationalism in NI any new support from the only people who they right rationally want to attract, ie Unionists.
Again it is up to Nationalism to promote the idea of United Ireland > United Kingdom.Quote:
Make your mind up, Bonnie. If you're going to convince Unionists that we're running scared, you'll need to offer something slightly more spine-chilling than, effectively 'there MIGHT be a vote, but we might not win it: although don't worry, we've logically re-defined politics!'
Of course there won't be a vote. Not in NI, because we know from every election for decades the strength of support for nationalism (ie, it rose sharply when SF stopped abstaining, then began to tail off because- as I said- there are no floating voters, and because migration rates and family size are roughly the same).
In order for this debate to occur we have to start it somewhere. GA has done this.
In fairness the next big question was always going to be this. I'm only surprised it took so long.
Embarrasment from a hypothetical referendum that may or may not need to happen?Quote:
And not in the Republic, because it would be embarrassing for the entire political set-up if and when support wasn't overwhelming.
The aspiration of a united Ireland is a strong fact of life amongst the majority of people on this island.
That some believe in it more than others is moot. You'll be surprised how ferevent the will will be come when the opportunity arises.
Again, nothing to worry about until the north of Ireland decide that they want to secede from the UK in order to join with the rest of Ireland politically.
What? You are saying that one of the major economic powerhouses of the planet that we seceded from in 1922 was a more affluent nation than Ireland over the course of the last 90 years? Get out of town.Quote:
Are you Rip Van Winkle, just awoken from a kip that began in 1922? For the entire period since then, Unionists have been able to rely on Britain providing an economic safety net. For almost all of it, Britain has been a more affluent country than the Irish Republic. Even the credit-fuelled boom of your Celtic Tiger years has been largely wasted on a property bubble rather than investing in infrastructure.
The talk of safety-nets shows the height of ambition...
I mean countries of approx 6.5million people are generally basket cases economically...
The less said about anything FF did over the last 20 years the better. In a United Ireland they wouldn't have ever gotten next to near to what they did over the years. :P We need our staid northern brethern to rescue us from the gombeen.
Heaven forbid any other country in the world may have ended up in a credit crisis and had to bail out it's banks... Thank god for that safety net for NI's banking 'system'.
I don't think I was. My phraseology could have been better I suppose.Quote:
Are you seriously suggesting that there is some hidden source of support for a united Ireland in NI that doesn't already vote Nationalist? If so, let's see some evidence?
Ya what? Who are the people always peddled out to play poormouth? Never usuallly your typical SDLP member or middle class Shinner.Quote:
Given that its main opposition in NI is basically its mirror image in the us-and-them stakes, that discomfort might not be as terminal as your wishful thinking hopes.
Compare like with like. The Buckfast brigades bricking each other and the Police around the Short Strand aren't at all articulate. Mainstream Unionist and Nationalist politicians aren't that different in their fluency, or lack of it. See my example above, Gerry Adams waffling on TV last week about the budget deficits, something he clearly knows next to nothing about.
I was using that vague quote to demonsrate a point. I wasn't stating it as an entirely accurate summation of the Irish in America for the last 100 years. If you choose to be literal, I can't help it.Quote:
There were numerous Presidents of (part-) Irish descent before Kennedy, not just Jackson. As for the delay in electing a Black equivalent, I imagine a century of slavery followed by another of systematic racism, Jim Crow laws and the like might just have been a bigger factor than innate laziness and self-pity.
Always!Quote:
Do better, FFS.
The democratic decision to have the Union Jack flying on designated days at Belfast City Hall is already a compromise decision and that's the context to view protests to this by the Unionist parties. Perceptions by those who think that this is a last straw, just demonstrates the failures/difficulties of this partitioned statelet to get on with being a shared statelet, since the GFA. The National Party in South Africa in the dying years of Apartheid were more proactive /progressive about what needed to be done than the Unionist parties in NI. The DUP and the more wackier elements in particular, appear to take a similar position to that of the Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging, the extreme Afrikaners, a position totally devoid of rationality.
Sinn Fein calling for a 'border poll' is a good long term strategy and that strategy appears to go above the head of those Unionists who say 'bring it on'.
Facebook were given a legal order to remove two of the pages used by the Loyalist protesters after several threats were made against a named individual. Said nutjobs are up in arms claiming the decision infringes on their freedom of speech etc. etc. and so they've got the EU involved:D
http://sphotos-c.ak.fbcdn.net/hphoto...33126963_n.png
That is the most amazing example of hyperactive whackjobbery I've seen in ages. Well, today.
You're sidestepping the point. There isn't a dispute between states, but internally within the British state on the one hand, and between the Southern state and NI nationalism on the other. A dispute where one side pretends to welcome the other, while in reality and over decades doing pretty much the opposite. A combination of cold war and doublethink, if you like.Quote:
Originally Posted by Danny Invincible
Irrelevant. Nationalists in NI don't want independent statehood (although they might have to consider it if the South ever votes against reunification).Quote:
Otherwise, how would non-states or regions within existing states ever acquire or have acquired statehood?
Point taken, you don't want to be perjorative. Anyway, back to repeating the same strategy over and over again with the same unwelcome result.Quote:
Lunatics [have taken over the asylum]
Have you been reading Michael Farrell? There hasn't been an Orange State(let) for 40 years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Geysir
Very droll. Do you seriously think the collapse of decades of systematic apartheid is comparable to a dumb decision by the DUP and UUP to stir up some spides into a month of rioting?Quote:
The National Party in South Africa in the dying years of Apartheid were more proactive /progressive about what needed to be done than the Unionist parties in NI. The DUP and the more wackier elements in particular, appear to take a similar position to that of the Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging, the extreme Afrikaners, a position totally devoid of rationality
Yes, as a strategy it's well up in the clouds. SF call for border polls becaue it's what they do, their raison d'etre. They'll still be doing it as an automatic reflex millennia after our cockroach overlords have taken over the Earth.Quote:
Sinn Fein calling for a 'border poll' is a good long term strategy and that strategy appears to go above the head of those Unionists who say 'bring it on'
It's a silly publicity stunt. A Loyalist equivalent of Healy-Rae.Quote:
Originally Posted by Horton