QuoteI am a 100% Mayoish
And a 100% Irish if that is in any way helpful. (I am sure that ye do know that I am trying to do y'ere heads in though)
I can't understand why NI unionists don't define themselves as British-Irish/ Scots-Irish in a similar way to how some prominent Irish citizens define themselves as Anglo-Irish (i.e., Garech de Brun - founder of Claddagh Records and son of Lord Oranmore). He seems to have no problem with his identity. Same with Henry Mountcharles and numerous others here like the Knight of Glin, Guinness family. They all seem to regard themselves as being Irish with an English heritage. I really can't see how they could be regarded as being any worse or better to those who don't have such a heritage and have as much a say in this country as anyone else.Originally Posted by third policeman
I am a 100% Mayoish
And a 100% Irish if that is in any way helpful. (I am sure that ye do know that I am trying to do y'ere heads in though)
Indeed. I'd meant to write a bit in response to this piece a few days ago, but only getting around to posting it now.
The argument is bizarre and doesn't stand up to scrutiny at all once you break through the intentionally cryptic nonsense. It possesses a false sense of sophistication when the truth is it's just as insincere, contradictory and stifling as most of the other arguments offered in favour of the IFA's stance.
The fact of the matter is that his argument doesn't challenge FIFA's interpretation at all. Nor does it actually attempt to. Rather, the piece is a pointless and confused attempt to win cheap political points and disingenuously position the IFA on the moral high-ground. It amounts to a few paragraphs of creaming himself over the prospect of Sinn Féin politicians having to admit they might actually be British. So much for keeping politics out of football then…
He assumes FIFA could care less about the rhetoric of nationalist politicians, or even the hallowed "spirit" of the GFA. He's also forgetting that the CAS proceedings are confidential; even if the FAI were to argue that playing for NI infers British nationality, whilst playing for Ireland infers Irish nationality, and that Irish nationality cannot make you eligible to play for NI, as is quite obviously the case, nobody would ever know anyway. So I doubt the FAI could care less about arguing such a point either. Although, I don’t see why they would be afraid to argue the point anyway. One thing for certain, however, is that CAS will not be afraid to confront the truth, whether the FAI or FIFA even argue the point or not. It can't fail to enter into CAS's decision-making process as it's so patently obvious that playing for Northern Ireland is to exercise a right to British citizenship whilst playing for Ireland is to exercise a right to Irish citizenship.
Yadda, yadda, yadda…The FAI in Dublin, in recent years, has set about targeting talented players from a nationalist background, who represent the IFA's underage teams.
Is there any proof Kearns had to be persuaded, never mind the fact that persuasion isn't the same thing as coercion anyway, no matter how much certain NI fans would like to attach such connotations to its usage.Having represented the IFA at schoolboy, U17 and U19 level, though, he was persuaded to defect to the FAI.
Duly noted.Careful reading of FIFA's statutes shows that, if the FAI position is upheld, it denies the right of players born in Northern Ireland to consider themselves Irish only.
But they do possess such, don't they? I don't see the point in denying an obvious reality, no matter what your politics are on the matter or how much you might dislike something. In any sphere, it's unlikely you'll overcome something by pretending it doesn't exist. Similarly, I don't see why it would be a weakening of any nationalist position to face up to that reality. You can just as easily oppose it. Anyway, back on point, there's merely no obligation to identify as British. And, unless a player wishes to play for Northern Ireland, there's no need to exercise that nationality either.If the FAI wants to take its pick of players born in the north, irrespective of any other criteria, it must rely on an inference that they possess dual nationality and are British citizens, whether they like it or not.
This is surely quite an outrageous claim. That's an IFA policy, which to the best of my knowledge permits Northern Ireland players to represent them with Irish passports. For the purpose of satisfying FIFA's rules, I can’t imagine, say, Conor Clifford of Chelsea waltzing into Windsor Park with an Irish passport and this alone proving him eligible to play for Northern Ireland. In the instance of which Polley speaks, the Irish passport is nothing more than a proof of identity and, presumably, place of birth, which along with other documents, such as ones signifying parents' place of birth or whatever, might make a player eligible to represent Northern Ireland. Indeed, a northern-born player might hold only an Irish passport and may self-identify as Irish, as he is completely entitled to do, but for official purposes, and as per FIFA's rules, any time he plays for Northern Ireland he is playing for a British team and exercising British citizenship.Currently a player who carries an Irish passport can use it as proof of nationality, if he plays for a Northern Ireland team.
Irish nationality simply doesn’t permit you to play for more than one country. To point out how ridiculous the thought is, there's no question, for example, that Robbie Keane qualifies to play for us under article 15 and not article 16, which is the rule that would apply if Owen Polley’s wild claims were correct.
Not sure what the relevance of this is. I thought Owen was trying to keep petty poltical squabbles out of this…A few years ago nationalist politicians justly fought a suggestion from FIFA that a footballer could be compelled to produce a British passport in order to confirm eligibility.
And with that startling admission, in contradiction of pretty much everything else he'd been trying to claim up to this point, the whole argument collapses in on itself. Good job, Owen. Cheers.to the letter of UK law, everyone from Northern Ireland possesses British citizenship unless it is renounced
As seemingly honourable as that is, I'm pretty sure, however, that FIFA do require that any player who lines out for Northern Ireland is in possession of British citizenship.the IFA, quite rightly, does not require any of its players to acknowledge British citizenship or carry a UK passport.
I don’t know why Owen Polley thinks CAS could care about ruling against what he perceives to be the "spirit" of the GFA. I can't believe that's even a serious point. CAS deal with written rules; not "spirit" and other such wishy-washy concepts.The CAS can't rule for the FAI without accepting that nationalist players, choosing to play for Northern Ireland, are automatically British, whether or not they claim that nationality. That would run counter to the spirit of the Good Friday Agreement.
It mightn't sound so unethical if he was to cease with the misrepresentational spin. I heard that deceit was another ethically-objectionable vice in which to engage...There are numerous valid objections to the FAI's strategy. Is it ethical for a neighbouring association, on friendly terms with the IFA, to poach young players after they benefit from considerable coaching and investment in Northern Ireland? Is it right to target players from one community background?
Hmm… In contrast to "the letter of UK law" under which "everyone from Northern Ireland possesses British citizenship unless it is renounced"? It's either one or the other, Mr. Polley. I think the fundamentally illiberal notion here, however, is attempting to dictate to an Irish national that he ought not to be allowed represent his country, as much twisting things to make it look otherwise occurs.Requiring young nationalists to acknowledge British nationality, if they are to represent the Northern Ireland football team, is a fundamentally illiberal notion.
Northern Irish identity is a British identity, though. Recipe for segregation or not, this is the legal fact of the matter.Indeed, if the logic were extended further, participation in all Northern Ireland's teams, institutions and the Northern Irish identity itself would depend on an acceptance of Britishness, with Irishness the exclusive preserve of the Republic. That is a recipe for segregation, rather than sharing.
Sure the FAI have moved onto "raids" now, didn't you know?...
Last edited by DannyInvincible; 26/07/2010 at 7:17 PM.
In furtherance of this point, seeing as Owen was keen to raise the idea of "participation in all Northern Ireland's teams, institutions and the Northern Irish identity itself", and to use an example I feel to be more indicative than anecdotal, check out the nationality requirements for any Northern Ireland civil service position. The job specification will usually feature something along the lines of the following:
Applicants must be either:
(i) A UK national; or
(ii) A Commonwealth citizen; or
(iii) A British Protected Person; or
(iv) An EEA national; or
(v) A Swiss National; or
(vi) A person who is not an EEA or Swiss national, but is a family member of
an EEA national who has moved to the UK from another EEA Member
State for an approved purpose.
As is patently obvious, UK citizenship is accorded primacy. There is no specific mention given to Irish citizenship despite it supposedly being part and parcel of Northern Irish life and identity, or whatever Polley is trying to claim. Irish citizenship, rather, falls under category (iv). You might find something like this, then, in the annex:
'EEA National' means a national of one of the following countries:
Austria France Liechtenstein Romania
Belgium Germany Lithuania Slovakia
Bulgaria Greece Luxembourg Slovenia
Cyprus Hungary Malta Spain
Czech Republic Iceland Netherlands Sweden
Denmark Ireland Norway United Kingdom
Estonia Italy Poland
Finland Latvia Portugal
Clearly then, Irish nationality is not viewed in anyway as being the local nationality of Northern Ireland, or however one wants to put it. It is set on the same pedestal as the nationalities of all European Economic Area member states. This would signify that it is "the exclusive preserve of the Republic", at least in an official capacity. It is set on the same pedestal as, say, French nationality, which is the exclusive preserve of France. We all know this perfectly well anyway, as does Owen Polley (MA in Codology). Irish nationality is channelled through the Irish state; not through the UK state. Likewise, there's no office in Belfast handing out Irish passports to the best of my knowledge. Surely that is, once again, indicative of Irish nationality being viewed as a "foreign" one.
Last edited by DannyInvincible; 26/07/2010 at 7:21 PM.
Thanks Danny for bringing the thread back on topic somewhat!
It would certainly be interesting if Owen Polley decided to engage the criticism of his debate here (where criticism of his contention is not met with 'robust moderation'). I mean, there does appear to be an air of cynicism in the article and if I remember correctly, Owen once disingenuously talked of 'playing the tolerant card'. Spin-doctor?
As you mentioned to EG in one of his rants about the so-called 'snatching' of players, it truly is difficult to take a person seriously when they come out with this nonsense.
Implosion extraordinaire.
That says it all really.
Except that you don't even accept the basic mathematical precept, not withstanding TP's interjection below, of any single entity amounting to more than 100%.
With such a fundamental lack of understanding of this concept it's unsurprising any response is liable to ridicule, especially when the person they're dealing with, to put in your own unique parlance, 'looks a bit remedial'!
Indeed, for anyone who takes Irish citizenship.Obviously NI isn't a sovereign country, it's part of the bigger British state.
So if you want to distinguish between national Irish and 'regional' Irish, no offence taken.
Or even- as the other NI-supporting regulars on here have pointed out, if you distinguish between 'lifelong Irish with centuries of purely Irish ancestry' on the one hand, and people who aren't actually from Ireland/ have barely or never lived in it, on the other.
It all starts to get unnecessary complex, and potentially upsetting. Much easier just to accept that everyone from Ireland (defined as broadly as you like) is equally Irish, surely?
We don't see you or much more importantly, vast swathes of unionists taking the Irish citizenship open to them. If they want to continue being Brits, fine up to a point, but then they belong (& want to) to a different nation, as even you may have worked out??
Big of you to deem so. Besides addressing the highly patronising tone and issue of any British citizenship, you do have a problem with people from 'outside Ireland being Irish', as consistently ridiculing the members of Irish squads over many years who had the temerity to be born outside the 26 counties. Despite them being eligible as Irish citizens and members of the Diaspora.I'm 100% Irish, because it suits me, as it always has. I haven't changed any nationality, I'm quite content there.
I've no problem with anyone outside Ireland being Irish too.
Er, that I'm 100% Irish, just as you are if you want to be.
A policy now increasingly exploited by a certain association in the North! Gross hypocrisy (again) by certain individuals in my book.
Hardly, plenty of English people as you well know are happy to play along. It may have become diluted in the last half-century, but prior to that royal family had plenty of direct German blood links. Or perhaps you don't recognise the German Diaspora either!Come on, this is an exaggerated stereotype. Mrs Windsor has one German great-grandparent, by the way.
Given your repetitive parroting of certain flawed mantras, it probably would be a good thing if you did....As I've said repeatedly up-thread, bye bye.
Definitely acknowledge the concept, which you've far more succinctly summarised than the other waffle lover.
However, would similarly argue that certainly most unionists, at least in public (or I admit, when driven to make a choice) still see themselves as 'British'. Which I suppose is understandable, as you're not going to see a rapid change in this respect.
But would argue runs contrary to the argument you put forward as they would argue, in my experience one identity makes them somehow 'superior' to the alternative.
And even someone who claims to be a '100% this' & '100% that', would question their integrity other than to spout cliches!
Lastly have no problem with Britain's questionable past being acknowledged and even being included as part of Ireland's culture, but look how the unionists currently do this by lauding Cromwell, King Billy, The British Army and even Israel, FFS!
Nationalists are partly responsible for the current extreme definitions, but as much in response to the extremes defined elsewhere.
However,more optimistically perhaps, have met a handful of Prods in more recent times whose basic 'philosophy' on this matter was, we 'Don't care who runs the north' though no more enthusiastic about Ireland or Britain!
Oh and what jm said about the 'English' Irish.
You're probably right about all those Muslims in India, that said many have lived there peaceably and the division of places like the Punjab and Gujarat were entirely arbitrary. Also as Pakistan has found to its cost, the problem of extreme militancy has just been diverted elsewhere.
As for China, that's held together more by the autocratic stamp of state communism, far more than any ethnic solidarity!
Last edited by ArdeeBhoy; 26/07/2010 at 11:24 PM.
With this 'precept' in mind, I spoke to a colleague today, who has an Irish father and Canadian mother, and who has spent roughly half her life in each country. When I asked if she felt more one nationality than the other, she immediately said no, she felt equally of both. When I asked her she felt 100% Irish and Canadian, she thought about it for a while, and carefully replied that she didn't feel less than 100% Irish or 100% Canadian, specifying that she felt no less Canadian or Irish than people who had parents solely of those countries, and who had always lived there.
Fine. So she's around 50% Irish and 50% Canadian, but so what?
You have to consider she's more Canadian than most Irish residents and vice versa when in Canada.
I think it's time for you to reconsider your stance that nationality is a single entity which cannot go over 100% in any circumstance.
In her case, she has two separate nationalities, and doesn't feel less than 100% of either of them.
That's as maybe.
But no matter what an individual feels, until we live in an entirely transitory world, people of mixed heritage are just that. They belong to more than one nation or culture, which makes them different (and more unique for now?) than the vast majority of people who've just resided in one place or culture.
And still contend that no-one can be more than a 100% of anything. Except perhaps a Siamese twin....of mixed heritage??
Last edited by ArdeeBhoy; 26/07/2010 at 11:52 PM.
I've no problem distinguishing.
I don't- contrary to what you keep insisting- see one as secondary or subservient to the other.Of course you can feel both but I don't think you see both in the same light
I don't see that it necessarily does. It might for your great-uncle Redondo, that's fine.You can be 100% Basque or 100% Catalan and still be 100% Spanish, but your nationality being Spanish above the other two relegates your Catalanism or Basqueness
No need to be so defensive. No-one is suggesting you're not Irish. You don't need to listen to anyone for reassurance.Who do I listen to assess whether I'm Irish?
How can you impose your Irish identity on me? I already have an Irish identity.Well if we did then we get to imposing our Identity on you etc
That's Britain for you- it's pretty keen on royalty as a means of government. NI isn't really any keener on Brenda and her kin than Scotland, Wales or any part of England. Even the SNP don't want to get rid of the monarchy.I still feel from the overt and popular declarations of loyalty to Britain and it's first family suggest it's far from rare
Is this a joke? Seems a fair question to me. You don't seriously expect a Dane- however well-educated the population there- to be an expert on nationality issues in Belfast. Particularly when NI hasn't featured regularly in European news media for a decade or more. Do you think people in Ireland are au fait with the intricacies of Scandinavian government? Almost certainly not- most would struggle to pinpoint any Danish city outside Copenhagen, or think Aarhus is an early hit by Madness.Got a similar sort of observation after the game in Aarhus a couple of years ago by some Danish woman asking why there were 'Belfast' flags when that is in Northern Ireland. And this is a country with the highest number of degrees per population in Europe
Perhaps, but equally they may sit in parallel, or overlap.
I suspect if this notional united Ireland ever happened, it would be because the previous unionists had lost interest in their link with Britain. So maybe nationalists wouldn't need to bother. But more immediately, it would be good if they radically extended that definition now.If there were ever to be a United Ireland it would require Irish nationalists to radically extend their definition of Irish to contain / embrace the Britishness which is unquestionably a significant part of the heritage and culture of this island
Many towns in eastern Germany have lost most of their industry, employment and mobile population. Which isn't great if you're older, ill, disabled or otherwise unable to move easily. The effect has been significant. I'm not defending the DDR or harking back to it, merely saying the transition was- and is- painful.
Why would you also think that? The South Koreans would have to cope with 25 million people who may have suffered endemic famine for years (as far as we can establish from their limited news media), an economic infrastructure decades behind East Germany's and so on. Afraid I can't share your optimism.I would also think the Nth Koreans are very 'biddable' and if the Sth Koreans want them, I don't see that it will be a huge problem
No, pretty much the opposite. The Greek Cypriot government still largely claims property abandoned or confiscated 35 years ago.Surely there were assurances made that [displaced Cypriots] wouldn't lose their property?
Maybe, but you were talking about Pakistan. You seemed to be saying that its 99% Muslim population led to social cohesion, etc. It doesn't- the country has been politically volatile for 60 years, with mainly military government, ethnic and religious conflict and lack of economic development even before you start on their permanent readiness for a nuclear kick-off with India.It has worked out better for India without having to deal with approx. 400m muslim in their state
Apart from the separatist majority being larger in NI, the most significant difference is that it's been a distinct, recognised entity for less time. 'Traditional' just means 'old'.Wales & Scotland were traditionally countries (Principality & Kingdom) NI was part of the Kingdom of Ireland. Their populations are largely protestant as well (i.e., something to be rated on the same level as having a common language
Some do, some don't.can't understand why NI unionists don't define themselves as British-Irish/ Scots-Irish in a similar way to how some prominent Irish citizens define themselves as Anglo-Irish
Sorry, never heard of any of them- although I'm guessing the first guy started life as plain Gary Brown. BTW like them, I've no problem with my identity (nor anyone else's).(i.e., Garech de Brun - founder of Claddagh Records and son of Lord Oranmore). He seems to have no problem with his identity
Hear, hear and Amen.
Last edited by Gather round; 27/07/2010 at 8:38 AM.
Saw this article from yesterday's Belfast Telegraph. Very unusual for the Telegraph to have opinions that would not toe the usual unionist line, in this case eligibility.
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/op...-14889070.html
Last edited by co. down green; 27/07/2010 at 8:38 AM.
Owned by Tony O'Reilly isn't it?
But there is a difference and why I keep bringing it up is that it is central - or should be central - to this thread. Who one sees as their nationality. The third policeman rightly says that you can have a British and an Irish identity, but for many people in the North there is no British identity, and yet they are not foreigners in their own country. They are fiercely Down, Armagh, Derry in Gaelic games as opposed to supporting Dublin. But when it comes to football, their allegiance to 'the south' is often viewed as an allegiance to a foreign country.
Again you might have your Irish identity but I don't think that applies to most unionists. Or is it just Sammy Wilson talking to Ali G on camera that insists that the 6C is not Ireland? Why did James Craig etc. take such offence at the former Article 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution, if their Irishness meant so much to them? Once again any Irish identity - usually dressed up as Ulster identity which may well be Irish but is hardly encompassing the island - is secondary to Britishness.
I disagree. When I was at school, the royalty was universally detested by my classmates, and this was a state school. Could you tell me you had the same experience? There are no overt displays of 'loyalism' for most of England. My own 'keeness' on the royals as head of state stem more from keeping Thatch and Bliar out than keepioing a bunch of scroungers in big houses.
I expect a forty-something of any part of Western Europe to at least know, from forty years of television coverage, that quite a large part of the population of the 6C see their country, their capital, and their nationality as Ireland, and not to ask me such a idiotic question.
This is the cooooooooooooolest footy forum I've ever seen!
Almost everyone on this thread, including me, agrees it's fine for people from Northern Ireland to play for the Republic's football teams. The thread has gone off at an extended tangent mainly because you and others just keep repeating that other Irish people are less or not at all Irish. When basic observaton suggests the contrary.But there is a difference and why I keep bringing it up is that it is central - or should be central - to this thread
See immediately above and ad nauseam similarly up-thread and elesewhere. I've no problem with people from Northern Ireland supporting the Republic's football teams, or perhaps more importantly identifying with it overall. Of course I regard the Republic as a foreign country, but I don't feel any need to assume from that, that nationalists in NI are therefore foreigners. If they see themselves thus, that's fine.But when it comes to football, their allegiance to 'the south' is often viewed as an allegiance to a foreign country
The main evidence that you (plural) use for this is basically opinion surveys where respondents tend to be offered a deliberately limited choice of identities. British, Irish or Northern Irish. Largely because of the loaded question, unionists tend to equate 'Irish' (as opposed to 'Northern Irish') with 'Republic of Irish', and thus to reject it. But it would silly to assume from this that they don't feel at all Irish. You don't see the word 'Ireland' painted over in graffiti in unionist areas, to take an equally silly example.Again you might have your Irish identity but I don't think that applies to most unionists
Most unionists were irritated by Articles 2 and 3 because they were both a) aggressively seeking to force us from our own country into another, yet b) dishonest to the point of absurdity. The Republic of Ireland has done basically done nothing since 1948 to try to re-integrate the national territory. Mainly because they know a significant population- probably a majority- would sh*t themselves if it ever became more than a notional possibility.Why did James Craig etc. take such offence at the former Article 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution, if their Irishness meant so much to them?
We may be getting somewhere if you at least acknowledge Ulster may be Irish. It doesn't have to encompass the whole island to be Irish, any more than a Corkman's does. It doesn't have to be secondary to Britishness, although it can be. How many times?Once again any Irish identity - usually dressed up as Ulster identity which may well be Irish but is hardly encompassing the island - is secondary to Britishness
No, most of my schoolmates just accepted, as their elders did, that Britain was a monarchy because that suited a large majority of the population. There was more agitation/ political support to end it when Victoria was having it off with her gamekeeper in the 1860s.When I was at school, the royalty was universally detested by my classmates, and this was a state school. Could you tell me you had the same experience?
There are no Orange carnivals any more. But that's only one exaggerated form of support for the monarchy. There are plenty of others, and because of their popularity there's no likelihood of a Republic of Britain in the near future. A shame, from my point of view, but there you go.There are no overt displays of 'loyalism' for most of England
Interesting idea. You tactically voted for a monarchy to keep Maggie and Tony out? Maybe a new strategy's needed, last time I looked the pair of them and their immediate successors ran an effectively presidential-style government for 30 years?My own 'keeness' on the royals as head of state stem more from keeping Thatch and Bliar out than keepioing a bunch of scroungers in big houses
Sorry, that's just unrealistic. Even people in Belfast recognise they aren't a crucial Europe-wide news story any more, and haven't been since the 1990s. Further afield people just aren't likely to know/ care. Your exaggerated outrage might be justified if the woman was a journalist doing a feature on the lovable craicster tourists, but if she was just someone you met in a pub or cafe, it's over the top. Locals don't have to research what tourists do and think; the convention surely should be the other way round?I expect a forty-something of any part of Western Europe to at least know, from forty years of television coverage, that quite a large part of the population of the 6C see their country, their capital, and their nationality as Ireland, and not to ask me such a idiotic question
It is written by a columnist. Unfortunately most of the journalists on the paper still don't get it.
Leaving to one side the largely pointless waffle or patronising twaddle, would however highlight this one point worthy of reply.
Hmm, clearly you do.
Except that a majority of your unionist contemporaries dont agree with you, a point you still seem difficult to acknowledge.
Similarly you've failed to explain what happened to your new-diluted 'Britishness', or are you still insisting on the farcical 200% (and counting) 'logic' ??
Absolutely spot on. Sums up the unionists in the North to a tee.
Well, er, No. You just don't like the results.
Lol.
Unionists when presented with those choices (What others could they have had??), are quite comfortable as a majority in consistently saying they're primarily British. As Senor Lopez has so astutely identified its type.
To be fair to our paranoid friends, the numbers saying this are slowly declining, but not slowly enough!
And if you were looking for a reason, despite the exaggerated way in which it was phrased, indicative of their usual insecurities, it was, according to you, because of.....
Though the last line is clearly nonsense, unless you have a crystal ball?Most unionists were irritated by Articles 2 and 3 because they were both a) aggressively seeking to force us from our own country into another, yet b) dishonest to the point of absurdity. The Republic of Ireland has done basically done nothing since 1948 to try to re-integrate the national territory. Mainly because they know a significant population- probably a majority- would sh*t themselves if it ever became more than a notional possibility.
Hmm. Waffle or twaddle, you decide?We may be getting somewhere if you at least acknowledge Ulster may be Irish. It doesn't have to encompass the whole island to be Irish, any more than a Corkman's does. It doesn't have to be secondary to Britishness, although it can be. How many times?
Surely as aspiring unionists it was the least that would be expected of them.....No, most of my schoolmates just accepted, as their elders did, that Britain was a monarchy because that suited a large majority of the population.
So those fools in bowler hats marching and bonfires are just an illusion then? Yeah, right.There are no Orange carnivals any more.
I've no difficulty acknowledging anything. Where I disagree I explain why. Do you think anything that a majority of unionists agree on is automatically right?
I remain 100% British, as I always have been. Nothing is diluted. I'm not claiming to be 200% of naything, nor is that implicit anywhere.Similarly you've failed to explain what happened to your new-diluted 'Britishness', or are you still insisting on the farcical 200% (and counting) 'logic' ??
They could have had the choice you're so keen to deny them, ie to be British and Irish in any combination they fancy. I've no problem with some of them feeling primarily British.Unionists when presented with those choices (What others could they have had??), are quite comfortable as a majority in consistently saying they're primarily British
No. Don't need one to see into the past, their intentions over decades could be quite clearly identified from their actions.Though the last line is clearly nonsense, unless you have a crystal ball?
Are you quite mad? No-one forces anyone, at school, or otherwise, to be a unionist or support the monarchy. Most 15 years in Britain support the Monarchy basically because most 45 and 75 year olds do, and there's litle sign of that changing.Surely as aspiring unionists it was the least that would be expected of them.....
Yes, in England they are, pretty much. I was answering Lopez's specific point, which you seem to have either missed or failed to understand.So those fools in bowler hats marching and bonfires are just an illusion then? Yeah, right
Surely the only person who can judge if GR is 100% Irish or not is GR himself. Personally I’m really glad to hear that’s how he sees himself, alongside his Britishness. I think it’d be churlish of a unionist to say he’s British but not Irish.
I remember David Trimble being put on the spot over a decade ago, possibly on the Late Late Show. He was asked how he would classify himself if asked by a local while was holidaying abroad. His response was something along the lines of “I’m from that part of the United Kingdom called Northern Ireland” which I thought was a really cumbersome way of avoiding calling himself British, Northern Irish, or Irish.
Anyway, my childhood maths lessons when we learnt about Venn diagrams spring to mind.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks