Any Chance we might see Mr Paisley address the dail in the not so distant future ? ;)

If the aim is stability and normalization (which I would hope it is), this is not a good idea for reasons commonly expressed on other threads. We cannot have an all-Ireland State coming about by stealth - either the argument for one is won under the terms of the Agreement (which, in the meantime, places the whole of NI wholly in the UK), or we try an entirely new Agreement involving some sort of power-sharing. This 'creeping towards an all-Ireland State' will create genuine instability among unionists. Better to have Northern voting rights for President, which does have precedents elsewhere, than anything that hints at a 'United Ireland behind our backs'.

Sinn Fein has also pressed for more powers to be given to the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and believe that that has been promised in the deal.

Also a very bad idea. This body has already gone well beyond its mandate but shown itself incapable of collective decision-making.

The objective of any deal must be the opposite - complete removal of these unelected, unaccountable, disunited quangos and replacement by democratically-elected politicians acting responsibly on behalf of everyone.

Proof, I fear, that an SF/DUP deal will be a complete carve-up with a few sweeties for each side but very little in it for the people of NI collectively. It is doomed to failure, because quite aside from being immoral, carve-ups simply do not work.

Dark days indeed.

IJP

By saying that the move will create genuine instability among unionists what do you mean? It could be taken as a threat or at least a prediction of violence.

The question for nationalists in this is how we would feel if the boot was on the other foot. If the British allowed Unionists to attend Wetminister is some non-voting capacity following a united Ireland. I don't think anyone would have a problem with it.

IJP

The objective of any deal must be the opposite - complete removal of these unelected, unaccountable, disunited quangos and replacement by democratically-elected politicians acting responsibly on behalf of everyone.

This I agree with. I think the Assembly should have the objective of taking over the work of all the quangos including The Parades Commission.

By saying that the move will create genuine instability among unionists what do you mean? It could be taken as a threat or at least a prediction of violence.

The question for nationalists in this is how we would feel if the boot was on the other foot. If the British allowed Unionists to attend Wetminister is some non-voting capacity following a united Ireland. I don't think anyone would have a problem with it.

First of all, you always have a hang up about threats of violence. Letting SF and SDLP MPs attend the Dail will be taken as a UI by stelth, that will cause instability in any "process" in Northern Ireland.

Second, you are not comparing like with like. Northern Ireland is an integral part of the UK. It is not a question of nationalists having a problem with our MPs and Lords sitting (and voting) at Westminster - it happens and that is that! Under the agreement, Northern Ireland is not a half way house between the Dail and Westminster, it is British, and nationalists voted for that.

Such a move would be unacceptable.

Is this what the DUP is negotiating as part of its "fair deal"?

Releasing the McCabe killers was bad enough.

Fantastic. This should have been done years ago. This and northern voting rights for the Presidency should be top of the Nationalist parties' respective agendas. We are Irish citizens, the least you could grant us would be observer status in our own parliament.

Under the Belfast Agreement (with all of its faults and contradictions) the sovereignty of Parliaments and regional assemblies was maintained throught the 3 strands. This proposal breaches the three strands and degrades the primacy of westminister.

Having established the principle of northern representation in Dail Eirean there is no limit on how far A future FF/SF coalition can take this.

North South meetings could be dominated by soley Northern Ireland issues which have been raised by SF Mp's from Northern Ireland in the Dail.

The DUP have screwed up royally on this one.

Half crown before the crown boys.

Caiaomhan (Kevin?)

We are Irish citizens, the least you could grant us would be observer status in our own parliament.

Why should ROI citizens in NI get "observer status" but not ROI citizens in England or the USA?

Michael

It is not a question of nationalists having a problem with our MPs and Lords sitting (and voting) at Westminster - it happens and that is that!

You misread my post. I was talking about a post-united Ireland situation. In that context I would consider it none of my business who is entitled to attend Westminister. it would be a matter for the British and if they wanted to invite Unionist TDs or any other TDs then I would not have a problem with that. I certainly would not be talking out the side of my mouth about instability. In fact southern peers sat in the Lords until the sixties and nobody cared.

Northern Ireland is not a half way house between the Dail and Westminster, it is British, and nationalists voted for that.

You can be assured that I did not vote to be British. I'm Irish. I hope you can accept that. Our representatives should be allowed attend the Dail to represent us. The constitutional position under the agreement will not change because of this nor will the need for a referendum. But you have no other veto over the development of political relations on the island.

If you think representation at Westminister is so important you should be trying to get rid of the sectarian oath that excludes us. But I'm sure you think that is just spiffing. Fine but if you don't think the exclusion of four MPs (and more to come) from Westminister is a problem then you can't have any real problem with them attending the Dail.

And I wouldn't worry too much about instability. Even the UDA have copped on that when they are used to create "instability" they get no thanks afterwards from the politicians who egged them on.

Well done Peter Robinson, you've negoiated de facto joint authority.

This is constitutionally illiterate. Rights of representation in the RoI are based on residence, not citizenship. I am a citizen, but do not live there and do not pay taxes there. I do not expect to be given a say in how taxes paid by others are spent.

You can be assured that I did not vote to be British. I'm Irish. I hope you can accept that.

If you voted for the agreement then you voted for the status of Northern Ireland as an integral region of the UK. As such UK elections have no legitimacy in the Dail. If you vote for Sinn Fein then you are voting to be unrepresented, that is no business of the Irish Republic, it is the penatly for Sinn Fein voters.

Looks like the DUPes have been left out of the loop on this one. If not, then if the UUP had a titter of wit they could make a lot of hay on this topic.
The DUPer grassroots must be looking on with a sense of bewilderment as the habitual nay sayers are saying yes to an awful lot these days.
If SF are in coalition power within a few years then from their point of view they can manipulate both the Dail and the Assembly to strengthen their 32 county agenda.
Paisley will be rolling in his grave.

Wonderful idea, representation in the Dail without an obligation to compliance with its votes is a civilised and imaginative solution. All Ireland representation by invitation and discussion, not by armed invasion. Much more congenial, and the DUP can ignore it if they feel they must.

Any Unionist who does not like the tone can come down and set themmuns right about a few things, and nationalists can test the actual limits of the ROI's yearning for the fourth green field.

Well negotiated Peter & Gerry.

The innovation could help other situations in the world, reflecting the fact that states cannot sustain independence and economic autarchy any more, but are interdependent, especially in this small rich corner of europe.

Totally amazed at how the DUP youngsters have managed to disappear in the light of the latest revelation about what they have been giving away.

Of spending their billion no doubt.

I do have to say they if that was the price of the union the republicans got it very cheap.

Henry94

You can be assured that I did not vote to be British. I'm Irish. I hope you can accept that.

You do not need to vote to be British, nor Irish. You are British by virtue of being a UK citizen, and Irish by virtue of being from Ireland. Votes don't come into it. Who has ever voted to be Irish???

Our representatives should be allowed attend [sic] the Dail to represent us.

Why should you be represented in the parliament of another state? Should they also be allowed to represent you in the US Congress?

This move is an attempt to undermine UK sovereignty in NI and is not acceptable. It is contrary to the Agreement.

Agreement don't look so bad now does it Stephen?

Michael

The agreement still looks bad because it has delivered the framework under which the current discussions take place.

As I have stated before the agreement was not about reaching a conclusion but establishing a process for precisely this type advancement by republicans.

There is no point in republicans recognising the current status of Northern Ireland if they can then head to Dublin to raise issues in the Dail.

still waiting for the junior dup's to show up!!!!!!

Its the DUPs watch, its their negoiating skills which will deliver this, not the agreement. As you point out, this is entirely contrary to the agreement. But never mind, this must be my fair deal.

willowfield, why are you pissing around with Caoimhín's name (copied and pasted from above - don't know if that is how it should look, maybe it's my computer). Are you trying to imply that he has an english name and is trying to turn it into an irish one? kevin is an anglicization the name of an irish saint (glendalough) from the 7th century or so and not an english name. Caoimhán is possibly a more accurate spelling,

Anyway, interesting discussion. I'm entirely in favour of some form of northern representation in the Dáil. It really isn't any business of unionists either.

It really isn't any business of unionists either.

Really? Gerry never told me I was excluded from his Ireland of equals!

it is the business of the dáil who it invites, not yours, mine or gerry's (although he has a bit of a say since he has members with seats there).

Fraggle

willowfield, why are you pissing around with Caoimhín's name (copied and pasted from above - don't know if that is how it should look, maybe it's my computer). Are you trying to imply that he has an english name and is trying to turn it into an irish one? kevin is an anglicization the name of an irish saint (glendalough) from the 7th century or so and not an english name. Caoimhán is possibly a more accurate spelling,

Not trying to imply anything. I'm not a Gaelic-speaker, I don't know what the name is, but I'm wondering if it is the Gaelic version of Kevin. Is it?

Anyway, interesting discussion. I'm entirely in favour of some form of northern representation in the Dáil. It really isn't any business of unionists either.

Of course it's the business of unionists, as its purpose is to undermine the Union.

The Dail would be in breech of international law to do this, by virtue of the Belfast Agreement, therefore it is not up to the Dail but the people of Northern Ireland.

no, other way round, kevin is the english version of it.

what law?

Hold on... this is just about speaking rights in the Dail, isn't it? How is it a breach of anything if the speaker can exercise no power?

exactly gonzo.

Caoimhin - (kwee-VEEN) Old Irish Caemgen: caem "gentle" or "beautiful" + gein "birth." 7th C. Saint Caemgen established the monastery at Glendalough in County Wicklow. Anglicized as Kevin.

I hadn't realised that there was a link to the name Kavanagh.

KAVANAGH: Irish/Gaelic name meaning "follower of Kevin." Variants include Cavanagh, Cavanaugh, and Kavanaugh.

Before we go on I should say that I will believe this when I see it. I always knew it would come but I will be surprised if it comes this easily. Maybe there is a Santa.

willowfield

This move is an attempt to undermine UK sovereignty in NI and is not acceptable.

If any unionist has a problem or believes there is any undermining of sovereignty in it then they can have one of their MPs raise it in the House of Commons and see if the representatives of the British people agree with them. If they do then the British government can express their concern to the Irish government.

But I assume if this is part of the deal the British are relaxed about it. As they should be.

You are British by virtue of being a UK citizen

The decision about my citizenship is for me to make. Not you and not the British. British law can try to claim me but I reject it with contempt and that is the end of the matter. I am and Armagh man an Ulster man and an Irish man. I am not British. I am not a UK citizen. I am a citizen of Ireland. That is my only citizenship.

Why should you be represented in the parliament of another state?

I won't be unless somebody runs for election on the basis that they will attend the Dail and wins. Some candidates will opt for the British Commons. Let the people choose.

Should they also be allowed to represent you in the US Congress?

Even if the Congress allowed it (and it would be up to them) I wouldn't vote for any candidate on that basis. I just want to be represented as an Irish person in the Irish parliament just as you as a British person are represented in the British parliament. It's an equality thing.

You might think equality means we can all equally swear allegiance to your queen but it's much more than that.

'Observer' status for citizens living outside the state's boundaries is usually attained either by votes for President (e.g. Russia, Croatia) or representation in the Upper House (e.g. France and effectively already the case in Ireland). A formalized presence in the Lower House is quite clearly an attempt at a United Ireland by the back door.

Gonzo

It is only speaking rights... for now. Then it'll be a say on matters of mutual interest, then voting rights, then full representation. Don't be fooled.

If people want an all-Ireland State, they should argue for one. Divisive politicking like this does no one any favours - least of all those seeking a properly-established, stable, prosperous all-Ireland State!

Michael

It means what it says it means! Unionists' confidence is already at an all-time low. Nationalist representatives seem to think, from their actions, that it is in their interests to keep it that way.

If, however, they genuinely seek stability (indeed even a stable all-Ireland State) it is about time they woke up to the fact it isn't.

Fraggle

It really isn't any business of unionists either.

A telling comment.

Henry94
Agreed
If my mind is correct the Joint Declaration labeled all of the people of the six counties as Irish. There was no mention of british.

IJP, you have nothing to complain about. even if this scheme gets as far as full representation, the dáil won't be usurping any british sovereignty. it will be a matter of sharing irish sovereignty with those of us who see ourselves as belonging to ireland (or it to us!). it won't affect britain's control over NI at all. if you don't want to join the irish state, it's none of your business how it is run. if you decide you do want to share, that's another matter.

IJP

A united Ireland will require a referendum. That is already agreed and it is right that it should. But it is wrong of you to conclude that nationalists must have unionist permission to create cross-border links short of a united Ireland. Nationalists are entitled to pursue closer links with the south and it is manifestly in the interests of the whole island to have such links. If that undermines unionists or de-stabilises them then they need to have a look at themselves. Their Britishness is not a problem for us and our Irishness should not be a problem for them.

Willowfield

The Irish constitution draws a distinction between Irish people on the island and those living abroad. It recognises our right to be part of the Irish nation. .

Article 2 which was amended by a referendum with over 90% support is quite clear.

It is the entitlement and birthright of every person born in the island of Ireland, which includes its islands and seas, to be part of the Irish nation. That is also the entitlement of all persons otherwise qualified in accordance with law to be citizens of Ireland. Furthermore, the Irish nation cherishes its special affinity with people of Irish ancestry living abroad who share its cultural identity and heritage.

Giving political expression to that in the national parliament is important in particular when you think you can simply call us British as if the Agreement never happened.

It is the entitlement and birthright of every person born in the island of Ireland, which includes its islands and seas, to be part of the Irish nation.

but only if one of their parents is Irish ...

Fraggle

As stated above, it is but a small step away from something that would 'usurp'.

What is the purpose of such 'observer status'? Why so keen specifically on this rather than ideas such as Upper House represenation or votes for President which would be unthreatening to anyone given the precedents elsewhere? The fact is Northern Nationalist reps have more access to the Taoiseach than most of his own coalition's TDs. There is therefore no real purpose to such status, other than as a first step in the preparation for a time when the status would be considerably more than that.

Northern Nationalist parties have made no attempt to 'reach out' to non-Nationalists since 1998, instead coming up with various schemes to 'pave the way' for their preferred constitutional settlement, even though there is no guarantee that it will ever happen (and, indeed, by spending all their time on such schemes at the expense of a bit of outreach they make it even less likely).

The result will be instability - Unionists unable to trust Nationalists due to their concentration of 'United Ireland by the back door' (as they would see it), Nationalist voters unable to trust their own representatives because despite the promise of such schemes, a United Ireland will remain illusive.

Who will suffer? The people of Northern Ireland collectively, as usual. Which is about time the parties seeking to represent the people of NI collectively made their case more coherently, because in reality they are the only ones with a case.

Henry

The question for nationalists in this is how we would feel if the boot was on the other foot.

Why is that a question for Nationalists?

If the British allowed Unionists to attend Wetminister is some non-voting capacity following a united Ireland. I don't think anyone would have a problem with it.

I most certainly would!

I would view it as 'Unionists' (who by definition would no longer exist, btw) trying to deny the reality of the New State and failing to represent their voters properly within it by wasting their time at an irrelevant parliament in London. Pointless and pathetic.

I think the Assembly should have the objective of taking over the work of all the quangos including The Parades Commission.

100% correct.

There is no point in all these unelected 'commissions' in the context of one almighty elected one!

IJP

'Unionists' (who by definition would no longer exist, btw)

I don't agree. There will be a perfectly reasonable position to take in a united Ireland which promotes closer ties between ireland and Britain.

There will be nothing to stop future generations of Irish and British people from agreeing some form of political union. Maybe Britain will someday embrace republicanism too.

I would personally favour a common defence position, co-ordination of fisheries and air-sea rescue policies, automatic extradition between the jurisdictions, and a whole sees of other sensible measures.

I see the unification of Ireland as the beginning of a golden agre of friendship between our nations.

Northern Nationalist parties have made no attempt to 'reach out' to non-Nationalists since 1998

Where nationalist have power they are willing to share it. But if you believe that to reach out to unionists we have to stop being nationalists then you are setting a higher bar for nationalists than for unionists. In fact i don't see you setting any bar at all for unionists.

IJP

In fact you say it is for those of us who want a united Ireland to make a case for it but it is equally for those who don't want it to make a case to us for the continuation of partition.

Yet those who claim to believe in the union fight tooth and nail against every effort to accommodate nationalists to it. That is of course their weakness. It's not really the union that is important to them but there sense of superiority. The union was opposed originally by the Orange Order because it was seen as a threat to that.

The full and fair implementation of the agreement will take away the point of unionism, as we have known it, and then we will be down to a debate on where our best interests lie.

I see a united Ireland as the inescapable conclusion to that debate but if I was already represented at the Dail and nobody was trying to claim I was British then I might be persuadable that other models would work.

Henry94

The decision about my citizenship is for me to make. Not you and not the British. British law can try to claim me but I reject it with contempt and that is the end of the matter. I am and Armagh man an Ulster man and an Irish man. I am not British. I am not a UK citizen. I am a citizen of Ireland. That is my only citizenship.

Citizenship is not your decision (or at least not entirely your decision): it is the decision of the state. You are a UK citizen. Presumably you are also an ROI citizen: there is no such thing as a "citizen of Ireland" in legal terms. You, like me, are Irish by virtue of being from Ireland.

But that is beside the point. What was that nonsense about voting, or not voting, to be British?!

"Why should you be represented in the parliament of another state?"

I won't be unless somebody runs for election on the basis that they will attend the Dail and wins. Some candidates will opt for the British Commons. Let the people choose.

That doesn't answer the question. Why should you be represented in the parliament of another state?

I just want to be represented as an Irish person in the Irish parliament just as you as a British person are represented in the British parliament. It's an equality thing.

You're mixing up geography and politics again. What you call the "Irish parliament" is actually only the parliament of the ROI: it doesn't cover the whole of Ireland. So your argument doesn't make sense. It's got nothing to do with "equality". (What is it with this obsession with trying to bring "equality" into everything?)

NI is part of the UK: hence it is represented in the UK parliament. NI is not part of the ROI: hence it is not represented in the ROI parliament.

You might think equality means we can all equally swear allegiance to your queen but it's much more than that.

"Equality" has nothing to do with being represented in the parliament of another state!

The Irish constitution draws a distinction between Irish people on the island and those living abroad. It recognises our right to be part of the Irish nation.

I couldn't give two hoots what the 26-county constitution says about "the Irish nation": nor, as a republican, should you.

In any case, we're not discussing the "Irish nation". We're discussing representation in the ROI state parliament.

willowfield

If the Dail allows our MPs to sit they will be there because we elected them to represent us. Therefore we will be represented in the ROI parliament.

Citizenship is not your decision

Too late. I've already decided.

You are a UK citizen

I am not.

What you call the "Irish parliament" is actually only the parliament of the ROI: it doesn't cover the whole of Ireland.

The Irish government are very much involved in the affairs of the north so it is only right that we should have a say there. Attending the Dail is a reasonable way of doing it if they agree. Of course if the British government feel that it is a problem then we would have to look at that but I don't think they do.

"Equality" has nothing to do with being represented in the parliament of another state!

It's not for you to define equality. Equality evolves. For example gay marriage is now on the equality agenda. Some say they have equal rights because they can marry a woman like the rest of us. But our concept of equality is developing beyond that.

In our situation my right to be represented in Dublin is equal to your right to be represented in London. But you want to confine it to an equal right to swear loyalty to the queen. You lack imagination on the subject.

I couldn't give two hoots what the 26-county constitution says about "the Irish nation": nor, as a republican, should you.

That article was changed to what it is now as part of the Agreement. Your representatives negotiated it with the Irish government. You can continue to pretend Ireland is a foreign country but Paisley still has to go to Dublin to negotiate. The border is fading away willowfield.

That's the reality.

While the Irish state and the Irish nation may not yet be the exact same we are dedicated to changing that through peaceful and democratic means.

Keep calling me British. It's good motivation.

Henry94

If the Dail allows our MPs to sit they will be there because we elected them to represent us. Therefore we will be represented in the ROI parliament.

Again you fail to answer the question. Why should you be represented in the parliament of another state?

Too late. I've already decided.

But it's not (entirely) your decision. It's primarily a state decision.

I am not [a UK citizen].

You are.

What you call the "Irish parliament" is actually only the parliament of the ROI: it doesn't cover the whole of Ireland.

The Irish government are very much involved in the affairs of the north so it is only right that we should have a say there.

"Being very much involved in the affairs of the north" does not make it right that you should "have a say" there. The UK and the US are "very much involved" in the affairs of Iraq, but it is not right that we should have a say in Iraq.

The ROI is consulted as a separate sovereign state: it has no jurisdiction over NI, and therefore representation of NI in its parliament is not acceptable.

It's not for you to define equality.

Nor for you!

Equality evolves. For example gay marriage is now on the equality agenda. Some say they have equal rights because they can marry a woman like the rest of us. But our concept of equality is developing beyond that.

The "concept of equality" has nothing to do with being represented in the parliament of another state!

In our situation my right to be represented in Dublin is equal to your right to be represented in London.

It's not. We both [equally] have the right to be [equally] represented in the UK parliament because we are part of the UK. We are not part of the ROI, therefore neither of us [equally] has the right to be represented there.

But you want to confine it to an equal right to swear loyalty to the queen. You lack imagination on the subject.

Imagination is not relevant. I could imagine that we should all be represented in a World Parliament, or that we should become part of China, but it wouldn't alter the fact that NI is part of the UK and not part of the ROI.

That article was changed to what it is now as part of the Agreement.

I know. That doesn't have any bearing on representation in the ROI parliament.

You can continue to pretend Ireland is a foreign country but Paisley still has to go to Dublin to negotiate.

"Ireland" is not a foreign country: it is an island comprising two countries. The ROI is, self-evidently, a "foreign country": that is what Irish nationalists fought for - the ROI and UK are separate countries!

The border is fading away willowfield. That's the reality.

As are all borders within the EU. It doesn't mean that Germany and France aren't separate countries. That's the reality.

While the Irish state and the Irish nation may not yet be the exact same we are dedicated to changing that through peaceful and democratic means.

Thank God you've stopped killing people.

"We" are equally "dedicated" to keeping NI in the UK through peaceful and democratic means.

Henry94,Fraggle,cg
What makes it difficult to reach an agreement in Northern Ireland, is that every agreement appears to be just a stepping stone to a final agreement that many people don’t want (at least at them moment).

Some people will therefore reject moderate policies, not because they don’t want to live in harmony with each other but because they fear it will lead to a situation to which they are fundamentally opposed. This pushes the electorate to the extremes of the political spectrum, which delays reconciliation, and threatens to destroy our economy and our way of life.

I have no problems with your aspirations (in the sense that you are entitled to yours, as I am to mine) but your position on this topic is either naive or mendacious. Either way it is counter productive to the cause you espouse.

This pushes the electorate to the extremes of the political spectrum, which delays reconciliation, and threatens to destroy our economy and our way of life.

That is what Henry and the Provos want. A NI at peace with itself is anathema to extreme Irish nationalism which depends on instability and sectarian tension in order to advance.

Henry94

On what basis do you claim not to be a UK citizen?

You live, and presumably were born, in the UK.

It has been very clear for some time that the final act in creating a United Ireland will be the actual vote. It has also been very clear that republicans believe that every aspect of life which can be addressed on an all--ireland basis, without actually having a referendum, should be.

The fact is that this process is intended to and will continue to gradually move the people of Northern Ireland into a progressively more united ireland irrespective of the wishes of the majority in Northern Ireland until the point at which the referendum will be merely a legal requirement to tie up loose ends.

I am still absolutely amazed at the total absence of DUP comment on this issue.

Another classing 'Republican' doublespeak. 'Equality evolves'!

No it doesn't. The issues covered by equality do, equality itself does not.

In legislation 'equality' is 'equality of opportunity'.

Representation in the Dáil has nothing whatsoever to do with this.

The Agreement gives legitimacy to the desire for an all-Ireland State, it also places the whole of NI wholly within the UK. If you can't respect the latter, don't be too surprised if others stop respecting the former. And, as MU wisely points out, that does no one any favours.

Constant reference to "equality" is violent nationalism's attempt to redefine the "conflict". They are trying to pretend that their terror campaign was about "equality", hence everything post-ceasefire has to be framed in terms of "equality". Hence they pretend the GFA was about "equality", even though equality issues were dealt with long before the GFA, which is about political accommodation.

Moderate Unionist

Some people will therefore reject moderate policies, not because they don’t want to live in harmony with each other but because they fear it will lead to a situation to which they are fundamentally opposed. This pushes the electorate to the extremes of the political spectrum, which delays reconciliation, and threatens to destroy our economy and our way of life.

The Unionist electorate already votes for Ian Paisley. Are you saying there are worse than him they could vote for. I don't think so.

Yet the Agreement stands and life goes on. It will stand no matter what because the British and Irish governments won't have it any other way. They are like the rest of us tired of the dark mutterings and bluster of unionism.

Reality check. Unionism's bluff was called in 1985. End of story. If there is something you want or don't want now you will have to negotiate for it.

Take the issue under discussion. What can you do about it? You can't stop the Dail passing the legislation and you can't stop our MPs for attending. You can appeal to the British govt. but they will laugh at you.

You can hold mass demos, wave firearm certs, resign as MPs and cause by-elections.

None of it will work. It's just something you're going to have to accept with as much good grace as you can muster.

British Rule means if it's OK with London then it's a done deal.

willowfield

You can call me equal or you can call me British but not both.

Henry94

You didn't answer the question.

On what basis do you claim not to be a UK citizen?

Nor, for that matter, have explained why you should you be represented in the parliament of another state.

We can stop the Dail from doing it because it was not any part of an overall agreement. It challenges the primcay of Westminister and will only proceed with the agreement of the DUP.

The total absence of DUP comment on this issue is therefore very disconcerting.

Either they have taken the big bribe or they have all been spirited away by aliens.

Stephen
Give us a break. I'm only just back from paying due devotion at the shrine in N5. BTW, IJP, say a prayer for Sunday-Ljungberg excepted, we're misfiring almost as much as Cunningham House ( oh no that's Tottenham).

To address your point, this is an unwelcome development, for the reasons that IJP gives, but it was always open to the Dail to do it. They can invite the Pope to send his nuncio to observe the Dail too if they want, and we can't interfere.

It's all about bribing the Provos, and possible FF/SF coalitions down south. It's also tokenism for Northern nationalists-note how there's no way the Shinners are going to be allowed to parachute few extra votes into the political mix-just the chance for Marty's murderers to use the members' bar and to drone on for a few minutes while everyone else -except his southern colleagues-vacates the chamber.

The concessions to the Provos from Dublin are more of the same serial misjudgment from Bertie and co, which make it easier for Paisley to say No, if he has to, or to seek more concessions from HMG before he says yes,thus demonstrating better negotiating than Trimble if he wants to-either outcome is better for the DUP,though not per se better for the Union. Of course being better for the Union is the longer strategic consideration he has to judge.

Henry can claim to be a moose if he wants to: that's his right. He is still bound by UK laws made by the only parliament in which his vote is recorded , and he(hopefully) pays UK taxes.

His refusal, like that of all nationalists, to see the GFA as a "final" settlement-as distinct from a "lasting" one-is the reason Unionism has adapted its defence strategy and must continue to do so. The siege mentality only works when the enemy is outside the gate. Trimble let the enemy into the house, and we can't ignore that unwelcome development-but the UUP, as you must know, has simply given up

Willowfield,
did you not read the GFA?

"recognise the birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both, as they may so choose"

If someone north of the border identifies themselves as Irish alone then they can choose that identity. There is no onus anymore to be British. Those days are over just like the days of the Irish Republic putting the onus on unionists to be Irish.
If my fellow citizens (300,000 fully paid up members in NI at the moment) want to speak in the Irish parliament, they should be allowed. I wouldn't vote against it. If you want to be an Irish citizen and speak to your neighbours in Dublin rather than pretending we're foreigners you're welcome too.

Moderate unionist,
you seem to miss the point on reconciliation. The majority of people on this island believe true reconciliation can only be achieved by unification.

Instead of even considering this idea, Unionists expect the rest of us to believe reconciliation can only be achieved by the perpuation of a divisive border we don't want and the maintenance of Northern Ireland's place within the UK, which we believe is the main obstacle to reconciliation in the first place.

Please tell me where unionism has outlined where if believes an Irish person's place is within the UK. I've yet to hear a unionist explain where the fair deal is.

No representation without taxation!

willowfield

A more interesting question is why you feel the need to impose UK citizenship on me. I am Irish by birth and I am an Irish citizen.

Nor, for that matter, have explained why you should you be represented in the parliament of another state.

I believe that by being represented in the Dail I will be better able to raise matters of concern to me than having an MP who has nowhere to sit.

If I am given the choice I will choose the Dail and hope that enough people agree with me to elect a TD/MP for our area.

idunnomeself

Should people on Social Welfare be denied the vote?

George

did you not read the GFA?

I did, yes.

"recognise the birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both, as they may so choose"

No-one’s doubting anyone’s right to “identify themselves” or “be accepted as” Irish or British, or both! (And we didn’t need the GFA to give us any such right.)

If someone north of the border identifies themselves as Irish alone then they can choose that identity.

Anyone north, south, east or west of the border can identify themselves as whatever he or she likes. It’s entirely up to them and no-one’s arguing different!

There is no onus anymore to be British. Those days are over just like the days of the Irish Republic putting the onus on unionists to be Irish.

Anyone born in the UK (no doubt with some minor exceptions) is a UK citizen. I’m asking Henry94 on what basis he claims not to be one. It’s nothing to do with “onuses”.

If my fellow citizens (300,000 fully paid up members in NI at the moment) want to speak in the Irish parliament, they should be allowed. I wouldn't vote against it. If you want to be an Irish citizen and speak to your neighbours in Dublin rather than pretending we're foreigners you're welcome too.

Presumably, then, you think that ROI citizens in England and the USA should elect members to the Dáil?

Henry94

A more interesting question is why you feel the need to impose UK citizenship on me.

I don’t. Now answer the question: on what basis do you claim not to be a UK citizen? Why is this such a difficult question for you?

I am Irish by birth and I am an Irish citizen.

Congratulations. But the question is this: on what basis do you claim not to be a UK citizen?

I believe that by being represented in the Dail I will be better able to raise matters of concern to me than having an MP who has nowhere to sit.

Such as? What matters of concern are better raised in the parliament of a different state?

(And your MP does have somewhere to sit: indeed, he sits there.)

Thank you davidbrew for stating the obvious. The Dáil can invite whoever it likes. People can whinge on about 'offensive irredentist gestures' until they are blue in the face but it is simply none of their business who the Dáil decides can visit or speak.

You are arguing, then, that this is outside the framework of "north-south" (or, indeed, "east-west") relations, and hence not for agreement by all parties?

I think you'd be hard-pressed to make such an argument.

willowfield

And your MP does have somewhere to sit: indeed, he sits there

That's true. I was getting ahead of myself. Sorry Seamus. But Seamus Mallon once sat in the southern parliament as a member of Seanad Éireann. Because of this he was excluded from the then Northern Ireland Assembly, set up as part of then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland James Prior's rolling devolution.

Isn't it terrible the way you people treated the SDLP. I wonder do you ever think you should have been fairer to them. Probably not.

But the question is this: on what basis do you claim not to be a UK citizen?

On the same basis as I claim no other citizenship but my own.

What matters of concern are better raised in the parliament of a different state?

The all-Ireland agenda and how best to move it forward.

Willowfield and Henry,
I was of the impression that you are only a British or any other citizen if you apply for it.

However, just to be on the safe side, Henry94, you can always renounce your British citzenship using form RN1.

All you need to prove is EITHER that you have, or will have on making the declaration of renunciation, another citizenship or nationality
OR that you are about to become a citizen of another country.

Maybe that is a move Irish citizens living north of the border should consider to make it perfectly clear where their allegiance lies.

However, it will cost 81 sterling so perhaps the British Home Office could offer a reduced group rate.

or to seek more concessions from HMG before he says yes

Trust Brewster to have us believe this is a Unionist gain. Yet another concession to the provos on the DUPs watch.

Henry94

On the same basis as I claim no other citizenship but my own.

That doesn't make sense, since you are both a UK and ROI citizen. If you were only claiming your own citizenship, then you would also be claiming UK citizenship, since you are a UK citizen.

The all-Ireland agenda and how best to move it forward.

So you accept that all other (i.e. almost all) matters would be better raised at Westminster.

George

I was of the impression that you are only a British or any other citizen if you apply for it.

Then you were under a wrong impression. When did you apply for your citizenship, George? Did you fill out the form in the maternity hospital? When did João Bloggs of Lisbon apply for his Portuguese citizenship?

Maybe that is a move Irish citizens living north of the border should consider to make it perfectly clear where their allegiance lies.

I thought Irish republicans' "allegiance" was to a yet-to-be-established 32-county republic, not to a partitionist state? (Or has that been ditched along with the rest of the ideology?)

willowfield

So you accept that all other (i.e. almost all) matters would be better raised at Westminster.

Hardly. If we want someting from the British it's better deal with Tony Blair directly or through Bertie.

That doesn't make sense, since you are both a UK and ROI citizen

I have never agreed to be a UK citizen (I thought you were subjects)

I thought Irish republicans' "allegiance" was to a yet-to-be-established 32-county republic, not to a partitionist state?

Very true but a man needs a passport.

(Or has that been ditched along with the rest of the ideology?)

Which is it willowfield? Are we compromising or uncompromising?

I didn't say any such thing young Sillyboy; you will have to go back to primary school if that is your level of comprehension. To reiterate without big words, I said that it was a crass decision, based on a flawed analysis, but the time and manner could be used by Unionists who know how to negotiate, as opposed to your party's preferred "roll over and then blalme everyone but us" style of politics.

Unionism has 2 choices now:
1 If the deal is bad, say NO-clear contrast with Trimbleism

2 If the deal is significantly better than Trimble got, say YES-Unionism has won a victory, which Trimble will try to diminish but will be better than he was ever able to get . pending this point, keep seeking concessions.

How does the UUP profit from either scenario? They are irrelevant,as they must have feared most, which is why Reg is writing silly op eds in todays News Letter contratsing Paisley in 1965 and 2004. What about his and his leader's colourful political journey-from a position at least as extreme?

Jumping up and down like a spoiled toddler may impress young master Shillyday-if only to give him a political style to copy- but it fools no one else. The DUP can't stop the Irish government bringing the Chippendales into Dail Eireann to do a free show for Mary Harney either, but it also doesn't weaken the constitutional status of NI in the UK.

As a UUPer you above all should consider the constitutional niceties- didn't Trimble spend 8 years telling us all about his brilliance as a lawyer in understanding these issues- and he's uttered not a cheep about this? Better luck with your next post young man!

as opposed to your party's preferred "roll over and then blalme everyone but us" style of politics.

You've left the DUP then?

This does weaken the status of Northern Ireland as a UK region. Having 7 out of 18 representatives attending one parliament and 11 attending another is comparable to repartitioning Northern Ireland and is the begining of unification by the back door. The Irish government does not have a right to invite NI representatives into the Dail as Stephen rightly points out, because it is in breach of the agreement and thus international law. This is dangerous and your flippant dismissable is not exactaly helpful. We can only but hope the great paitriotic leader has a better understanding of the dangers of this that you have.

davidbrew

The DUP can't stop the Irish government bringing the Chippendales into Dail Eireann to do a free show for Mary Harney either, but it also doesn't weaken the constitutional status of NI in the UK.

That is the only sensible position for unionists to take. I suspect the DUP are better negotiators because it's much harder to wind them up.

Henry

People on welfare pay taxes every time they buy anything.

Or much easier to get things past them.

Henry94
Are the DUP better negoitators? What have they traded? Where are the compromises and where is the gain?

Until we see the substance of any deal it's hard to know.

I think a deal will be done, the question is what will happen then. Will the DUP and SF unite to take the hard decisions that are required in Northern Ireland without falling out?
I would be interested in your analysis of a post agreement phase!

George
The principle of consent with regard to the constitutional issue was an important factor in the GFA. There will be no United Ireland whilst the majority of people in Northern Ireland don't want it.

By trying to assert a position that does not reflect the real world, you undermine your credibility and in fact reduce the likely hood of the outcome you desire being achieved at any time in future.

Moderate Unionist

Will the DUP and SF unite to take the hard decisions that are required in Northern Ireland without falling out?

I think they will. The reality abot devolution is that the people in general aren't that bothered about it. On balance they are for it but they haven't seen it make much of a difference.

The parties have a huge task in building confidence in the institutions. They will have an initial stock of goodwill when the deal is done but they mustn't waste it.

If I could give them one piece of advice it would be that if people are going to vote on a tribal basis anyway you might as well do the right thing on policy. It will cost you nothing.

Idunnomeself you are getting onto dodgy ground with sales tax etc. what of the people from the north who buy fuel in the south. or the people from the south who shop in the north.

the reality is that a lot of what goes on in the dáil is of interest to a lot of northerners. a lot of northerners contribute to the southern state in various ways without living there. for example, some people, including myself, work in the south. decisions made there affect me.

representation in the dáil is not just to piss unionists off. I know it's hard for some of you to accept but we nationalists are trying to get on with life. I see westminster as almost irrelevant and I don't approve of my elected representative going there. it has been accepted that NI will remain an appendage of the UK until a such time as a majority decide otherwise. we have accepted your right, why can't you leave us along to engage with the republic if we want. no uk authority or sovereignty will be usurped. why the begrudgery?

davidbrew

Chippendales in the Dail no problem

MP for Mid Ulster in Dail raising health or education issues, big problem

Of course Ahern could not do it unilaterally since it removes the safe guards such as they were under the three strand approach.

Once the principle conceded then it could be extended to committees etc.

Always up to DUP to close the door on this one but maybe as I've said its the half crown before crown.

Henry94

Hardly. If we want someting from the British it's better deal with Tony Blair directly or through Bertie.

Do you think Tony Blair is personally going to take up a constituents’ social security query, or ask a Parliamentary Question on your behalf?

I have never agreed to be a UK citizen (I thought you were subjects)

That is irrelevant. Nobody said you had agreed to be a UK citizen. It’s not a question of agreeing. You are a UK citizen by virtue of having been born in the UK.

Very true but a man needs a passport.

You don’t need to have NI MPs sitting in the Dáil to get a passport. You don’t even need to be an ROI citizen to get a passport: you can get a UK passport.

Which is it willowfield? Are we compromising or uncompromising?

On the issue of “republican ideology”, the Provos have proved to be very compromising. After splitting with the Officials over the issue of recognising the Dáil, the Provos did a U-turn in 1986 and voted to regognise it! In 1998, they even went so far as to recognise Stormont! Republican ideology out the window. It is incredibly ironic to see that the ideological hard-liners who instigated all those acrimonious splits down the years have ended up adopting a more liberal position on the issues than those with whom they split.

I'm sure you could get the robinsons to attend the dáil if you offered expenses!

Stephen Nicholl, why is it a problem for the MP for mid-ulster raising points on education or health?

some of his constituents use southern universities and colleges or might receive treatment in a southern hospital. maybe he might want to raise a public health issue about a donegal resort where a lot of his constituents holiday. why is any of this a problem to you?

Fraggle

If you think that Westminster, which determines policy for people living in NI, is “almost irrelevant”, then you must accept that the Dáil, which does not determine policy in NI, is even more irrelevant to people living in NI, thus negating your argument in favour of representation there.

Any MP, elected by constituents in Northern Ireland, who chose to sit in a parliament which had no jurisdiction over his constituency instead of the sovereign parliament, would be disenfranchising those constituents. Previous Provo claims about their voters being disenfranchised would be exposed as disingenuous.

Such a policy, contrary to the GFA, would promote an apartheid political culture in NI and must be resisted.

Fraggle

If you think that Westminster, which determines policy for people living in NI, is “almost irrelevant”, then you must accept that the Dáil, which does not determine policy in NI, is even more irrelevant to people living in NI, thus negating your argument in favour of representation there.

Any MP, elected by constituents in Northern Ireland, who chose to sit in a parliament which had no jurisdiction over his constituency instead of the sovereign parliament, would be disenfranchising those constituents. Previous Provo claims about their voters being disenfranchised would be exposed as disingenuous.

Such a policy, contrary to the GFA, would promote an apartheid political culture in NI and must be resisted.

Fraggle

some of his constituents use southern universities and colleges or might receive treatment in a southern hospital. maybe he might want to raise a public health issue about a donegal resort where a lot of his constituents holiday. why is any of this a problem to you?

By that logic we should also be sending MPs to the Scottish Parliament, since many students from NI attend Scottish universities. Or to the US Congress where an MPs' constituent might be studying.

We should also send MPs to the Spanish Cortes in case of public health issues on the Costa del Sol.

the dáil has no jurisdiction over the north but has jurisdiction over matters that affect me as someone who works in the south.

maybe calling westminster 'irrelevant' was putting it too strongly but the bulk of the business conducted there has little affect on me.

So health, social services, education, social security, environment, transport, not to mention Northern Ireland political matters (!) have little effect on you!

You're being ridiculous.

willowfield

Nobody said you had agreed to be a UK citizen. It’s not a question of agreeing.

Then why are you so upset that I don't agree. If you want to consider me a UK citizen feel free. But I don't.

Do you think Tony Blair is personally going to take up a constituents’ social security query

Do people ask about things like that in the Commons Chamber? I doubt it.

After splitting with the Officials over the issue of recognising the Dáil, the Provos did a U-turn in 1986 and voted to regognise it!

And now we're in the Dail and they're not. Incredibly ironic as you'd say yourself.
Like comedy politics is mainly about timing.

... not to mention policing, justice, the taxes that you pay, economic policy ...

No effect?!

'the bulk'

Henry94

Then why are you so upset that I don't agree.

I'm not. As I explained earlier, it's not a matter of agreeing.

If you want to consider me a UK citizen feel free. But I don't.

It's not about me "considering" you to be a UK citizen. You are a UK citizen. My "consideration" is irrelevant.

You still haven't provided any sensible basis for claiming not to be a UK citizen. Why is that? Could it be that it is because you ARE in fact a UK citizen?

Do people ask about things like that in the Commons Chamber? I doubt it.

Yes, they do. It's called Question Time. They can also vote on legislation that affects NI. And use their position as MP to ask written questions.

Not much point in raising issues in the Dáil, which has no jurisdiction over NI.

And now we're in the Dail and they're not.

I thought you claimed the Irish Labour Party to be the Officials?

"By that logic we should also be sending MPs to the Scottish Parliament."

did I say should?

Fraggle

'the bulk'

An even bigger bulk of Dáil business than Westminster business has no effect on you!

Your own arguments are self-defeating.

Fraggle

'the bulk'

An even bigger bulk of Dáil business than Westminster business has no effect on you!

Your own arguments are self-defeating.

Fraggle

did I say should?

You are arguing that NI MPs should sit in the Dáil.

willowfield

I thought you claimed the Irish Labour Party to be the Officials?

I never claimed anything of the sort. The Labour Party is an open democratic party. The Workers Party is a Leninist style "democratic centralist" outfit.

Just because some former stickies are in the Labour Party doesn't change the nature of the Party. They had to accept the rules of The Labour party.

You still haven't provided any sensible basis for claiming not to be a UK citizen. Why is that? Could it be that it is because you ARE in fact a UK citizen?

No I'm not. I'm just an Irish citizen.

As I explained earlier, it's not a matter of agreeing

It is as far as I'm concerned. And if it isn't then why are you trying to get me to agree. It seems you have a big problem with something that's none of your business.

fraggle,

as a point of interest do you pay your main tax to the UK or ROI governments?

IE is income tax due where you live or where you earn it?
_________________

In general I would expect Irish tax payers/ voters to object to this proposal on practical grounds- not Northerners?

Henry94

I never claimed anything of the sort. The Labour Party is an open democratic party. The Workers Party is a Leninist style "democratic centralist" outfit.

Somebody on here always bangs on about Labour being the current manifestation of the Officials. Apologies if it isn't you.

No I'm not. I'm just an Irish citizen.

So you keep saying. But I'm asking you what is your basis for claiming not to be a UK citizen, given that you were born and reside in the UK. Why won't you answer the question?

It is as far as I'm concerned.

But it's not up to you. You are a UK citizen by virtue of being born in the UK. It's not a matter of choice.

And if it isn't then why are you trying to get me to agree. It seems you have a big problem with something that's none of your business.

I've no idea what you're getting at. I'm not trying to get you to "agree" anything. You claim you are not a UK citizen: I'm trying to find out the basis of this claim. That's all.

Your reluctance to explain leads me to believe that you are, in fact, a UK citizen, but don't want to admit it for some reason.

I am NOT arguing that NI MPs SHOULD sit in the Dáil.

What are you arguing, then??

Henry94
The language used at the moment and past experience does suggest that there my be some difficulty with a SF/DUP working arrangement.

How can you be so certain they will be able to work together?

Moderate Unionist,
we are awaiting the implementation of the GFA so until then all the rest is off the table, including principle of consent and recognition of the legitimacy of Northern Ireland. Sorry but that was the deal - north-south bodies, Patten etc in return for the rest.

I didn't give my consent to a continuation of or a slight improvement on the bad old days just like unionism didn't give its consent to prevarication on decommissioning. It all stands or falls together.

Willowfield,
people who were born and bred in Ireland have been refused ballot papers for Dail elections because they weren't Irish citizens and were therefore not entitled to vote. They had taken up some other citizenship instead. So you don't automatically become a citizen as these people found out to their horror and anger.

"This does weaken the status of Northern Ireland as a UK region. Having 7 out of 18 representatives attending one parliament and 11 attending another is comparable to repartitioning Northern Ireland and is the begining of unification by the back door. The Irish government does not have a right to invite NI representatives into the Dail as Stephen rightly points out, because it is in breach of the agreement and thus international law."says young Shilliday

having seven MPs attend the Dail for 2 days to observe is of course what is suggested,not what you suggest. The MP for Mid Ulster is the Westminster member, whether he goes there or not. There are absolutely no implications in international law from granting observer status, and conferring the right to speak is no more than granting Clinton an opportunity to address the Oireachtas. It is a gimmick- irritating and misguided (like yourself)- but no more.
If these MPs had votes, or were elected to committees with legislative or even consultative powers, you might have a point.

Willow-who should know better-NI MPs are not being offered the chance to sit in another Parliament, bacause even the most irridentist TD isn't stupid enough to risk giving the Provos another 7 votes in a closely divided Dail. They're pulling our collective chain to bribe the provos, but because you're desperate to find some failing in the DUP's current position you're trying to stampede the horses about everything. Like the killers of Garda McCabe's early release-Unionists aren't getting worked up about a contemptible gesture, because its a taste of the bitter medicine we had to swallow, because Trimble caved in on it.The BIG difference- as the NIO are finding out-is that the DUP will have no compunction about saying NO if they don't get enough to offset this nonsense, whereas let's all remember the last time the UUP faced down the governments about even the biscuits on the negotiating table

Moderate Unionist

How can you be so certain they will be able to work together?

I wouldn't say I'm certain but I am optimistic. The deal on offer isn't going to change very much so I don't see any gain in waiting.

And when they are in I don't think they'll want to come out again in a hurry.

George

we are awaiting the implementation of the GFA so until then all the rest is off the table, including principle of consent and recognition of the legitimacy of Northern Ireland. Sorry but that was the deal - north-south bodies, Patten etc in return for the rest. I didn't give my consent to a continuation of or a slight improvement on the bad old days just like unionism didn't give its consent to prevarication on decommissioning. It all stands or falls together.

Who is "we"? If you refer to the ROI, the principle of consent and recognition of NI was already in place: the GFA didn't alter that.

As for the implication of the rest of what you post, if what you say is true, it would mean that the UK could unilaterally, say, end 50/50 police recruitment, or revoke the early release licences. Do you accept this?

people who were born and bred in Ireland have been refused ballot papers for Dail elections because they weren't Irish citizens and were therefore not entitled to vote. They had taken up some other citizenship instead. So you don't automatically become a citizen as these people found out to their horror and anger.

Who were these people? Tell us more.

And when did you apply to become a citizen, George?

I never applied to be a British citizen, yet I am one. That fact alone immediately disproves your theory.

Stephen
"MP for Mid Ulster in Dail raising health or education issues, big problem"

He could raise those issues all he liked - no doubt the quizzical looks he would recieve may force him to remember that he should be raising those issues in the Northern Ireland Assembly where they actually have powers to do something about it!

Also, repeating your 'half crown' drivel ad infinitum isnt actually making any point. The only thing of note in your contributions is the notable way in which you (and presumably your mentor Mr Burnside) have fallen in line with the pro-Agreement consensus of the UUP.

So the DUP is content for NI MPs to go to the Dáil as observers?

Still waiting for Henry94 to explain the basis for claiming not to be a UK citizen, despite being born and residing in the UK.

He clearly doesn't want to be a UK citizen, but seems to think this means he isn't one. Is this a case of wishful thinking?

Willowfield,
the vote on recognising NI was taken as part of the GFA as a whole. I fully accept that the government isn't going to change the constitution again because we're having much more fun with this version.
However, this doesn't change the fact that many (if not most) people voted for it as part of a larger deal on equality, cross-border bodies etc. but learnt what kind of sliabhins they were up against when they saw UUP's John Taylor saying shortly afterwards unionism would now "pocket Articles 2 and 3" and ditch the agreement.

But heh, if unionism can pocket consent to strengthen the border, Irish nationalism should pocket as much as it can to weaken it. We can all always start looking for another agreement in a couple of years' time. The Irish Republic isn't going anywhere and is the match of anyone, especially the DUP, when it comes to backroom dealing.

It was during my time as a Presiding Officer at several Dail elections that I had this experience. I turned them away myself on a few occasions.
I also know a "British" girl who was refused entry to Britain because she was travelling on a Swiss passport.

Also Willowfield, if Henry is automatically British, you are automatically a member of the Irish nation.

davidbrew
by your comments I see you agree with the proposal.

Will
don't have a mentor

When I stood on platforms with the DUP opposing the Belfast Agreement (as I still do) I am quite sure the audience did not expect the good Doc to downgrade the status of Westminister.

as for the half crown comment I think from your tone it is making a very good point

George

You still haven't told me when you applied to be an ROI citizen. When was it? What was the application form like?

Why did you turn the people away, George?

And how do you square your theory with the FACT that I never applied to be a British citizen, yet I am one?

Also Willowfield, if Henry is automatically British, you are automatically a member of the Irish nation.

I couldn't give two hoots about belonging to the "Irish nation". I'm not very much interested in defining "nations" and who is and isn't a member.

But this discussion is about citizenship, and my membership or otherwise of the "Irish nation" has no bearing whatsoever on Henry's citizenship of the UK.

Willowfield
If it were up to me then I would not choose that NI representatives should be invited to address the dail. However I am not in a position to change deals between Bertie Ahern and Sinn Fein.

Stephen,
If David Burnside is not your mentor then why were you on this site tumpeting challenges to David Trimble within the UUC which never happened (why was that btw?).

Opposition to the Belfast Agreement is welcome - but without putting forward a way to replace it then what do you achieve? What are your and Mr Burnsides alternatives. Of course Burnside, despite being elected to the Assembly actually doesnt want devolution. Is that your position too?

The half crown comments may carry some weight were the DUP actually standing to gain something from this - I was merely asking for an explanation. Make whatever irrelevant points you like.

George,

we have had this argument before. Everyone from NI is an Irish citizen. I clarified this with someone I know in the DFA. I said I was born and live in the UK, I have a UK passport only, I have never committed an act of citizenship in the Republic (eg applied for a passport, gone on the electoral role, voted, although I am eligable to vote, etc.)

I was told it didn't matter, that I was an Irish citizen by right of birth. I expect the same is true for everyone in the North, we are all Irish and British citizens, by right of birth.

Will

If it were up to me then I would not choose that NI representatives should be invited to address the dail. However I am not in a position to change deals between Bertie Ahern and Sinn Fein.

But the DUP is engaging in a negotiating process involving both. This is apparently an outcome of that process, so the DUP cannot wash its hands of it.

The DUP didn't have such qualms about condemning Trimble for side-deals won by the Provos at previous talks.

Opposition to the Belfast Agreement is welcome - but without putting forward a way to replace it then what do you achieve?

Is this an admission at last that the DUP have accepted the GFA could not be replaced? That's what the UUP said all along!!

what exactly have the dup replaced the gfa with?

Willowfield
Previous side deals, such as those agreed last October, were not negotiated between the Government (or Irish Gov) and SF, they were negotiated between Trimble and SF.

"Is this an admission at last that the DUP have accepted the GFA could not be replaced? That's what the UUP said all along!!"

Not at all Willowfied, please read what I posted. I said that opposition to the Agreement is welcome, but what is required is opposition + an alternative. I was simply stating that without an alternative to the Belfast Agreement then we would be forced into its continuation.

IDM

we have had this argument before. Everyone from NI is an Irish citizen. I clarified this with someone I know in the DFA. I said I was born and live in the UK, I have a UK passport only, I have never committed an act of citizenship in the Republic (eg applied for a passport, gone on the electoral role, voted, although I am eligable to vote, etc.) I was told it didn't matter, that I was an Irish citizen by right of birth. I expect the same is true for everyone in the North, we are all Irish and British citizens, by right of birth.

Not quite true, IDM. Michael McDowell's Department (Justice?) wrote to me to tell me that I was not presumed to be an ROI citizen simply by virtue of being born in Ireland. Nor am I presumed not to be (!).

The Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 2001 states that:

"Every person born in the island of Ireland is entitled to be an Irish [sic] citizen. ... a person born in the island of Ireland is an Irish citizen [sic] from birth if he or she does ... any act which only an Irish citizen is entitled to do. The fact that a person so born has not done ... such an act shall not of itself give rise to a presumption that the person is not an Irish citizen [sic] or is a citizen of another country.

Essentially, I think, if you don't commit an "act of citizenship", you can choose whether you want to be presumed to be an ROI citizen or not. If you do commit an "act of citizenship", then you have no such choice, unless you make a "declaration of alienage".

I personally, not having committed an "act of citizenship", do not wish to be presumed to be an ROI citizen.

Will

Previous side deals, such as those agreed last October, were not negotiated between the Government (or Irish Gov) and SF, they were negotiated between Trimble and SF.

Such as?

And how do you respond to the point that the DUP cannot escape responsibility for something that is an outcome from the negotiation process it has engaged in?

Not at all Willowfied, please read what I posted. I said that opposition to the Agreement is welcome, but what is required is opposition + an alternative. I was simply stating that without an alternative to the Belfast Agreement then we would be forced into its continuation.

And what is this alternative?!

the fact that you have not committed an act of citizenship shall not of itself give rise to a presumption that you are not an irish citizen willowfield.

I'm afraid that this means the opposite of what you were hoping.

It means that I will not necessarily be presumed to be an ROI citizen (i.e. leaving the door open for those born in NI, but who haven't committed an "act of citizenship", to be considered ROI citizens). It doesn't mean I am an ROI citizen. Otherwise it would say so.

Michael McDowell's department has told me that I am not one unless I want to be considered one.

You never responded to my 4.33.

If these MPs had votes, or were elected to committees with legislative or even consultative powers, you might have a point.

Then according to your mate Jeffrey in the Irish News this morning, I have a point. From memory he talked about MPs sitting in Dail committees.

If David Burnside is not your mentor then why were you on this site tumpeting challenges to David Trimble within the UUC which never happened (why was that btw?).

Ask Jeffrey, he was the anointed one.

sorry willowfield. I was only taking issue with the word 'should'. that would imply that NI MPs would be compelled to go to the Dáil. I am arguing that the should be allowed to go, not that they should go.

That doesn't make any difference to the argument.

George
Your attitude surprises me. Willowfield has drawn some conclusions from your statement. Perhaps you could clarify your position on the following issues

I was under the impression that Articles 2&3 had been removed from the Irish Constitution and that the principle of consent with regard to the constitutional position had been firmly established.

Are you saying this isn't so?
Are you advocating that it shouldn't be so until the GFA is implemented in full?

Do you accept that only parties that are exclusively and irrevocably committed to democratic means should sit in the government of the Republic of Ireland?

"Do you accept that only parties that are exclusively and irrevocably committed to democratic means should sit in the government of the Republic of Ireland?"

MU
When was that a pre-requisite for membership of the Oireachtas? When did Finna Fail or Fine Gael give up "their guns"?

Albert Reynolds summed it up well when he said he couldn’t speak of guns because they (Finna Fail) went into government with them. (some even under the table) ; )

Ay, in 1922.

But this is 2004, soon 2005, for anyone who missed it...

IJP

Merely pointing out to “Moderate Unionist” that his assumption is historically inaccurate.

Also what happened to the stickies/workers party/democraric left's weapons ?

"by your comments I see you agree with the proposal" says Stephen

...thus proving, sadly, that even anti-Agreement UUPers are so prejudiced against the DUP that they can't read. We expect no better from Willow or Sillyboy, but really...

In case you didn't read my posts I said I do not agree with it, but it's not that important in the bigger scheme of things. It doesn't have any legal effect. It's a gimmick, which is yet another 2 fingers to our community, but I'm not going to try to trade it off against something significant to stop it, even if I could. As Will rightly points out, why would McGuinness want to raise issues of health in the south when the minister is in the north?

The truly sad thing about this is that there are still many good anti-Agreement people in the UUP who have been told they're not welcome in their own family any more, but are hesitant about joining the DUP which is now the centre-right based voice of Unionism that the UUP was in 1990. What can you possibly achieve in a party where Dermot Nesbitt is now the dissident right wing? You can go down with the rest of the ship in a gesture of staggering futility,opt out, or rebuild the core values of Unionism elsewhere.

The UUP's complete strategy is to wait for the DUP to do something and then hope to make capital. They may say that this strategy worked for the DUP post 1998- with some justification, but the big difference is that the UUP is exhausted, old , demoralised and on a downward spiral. Trimble once said his strategy was based on the fact that he would be the first Unionist leader to outlast Paisley. Barney Eastwood will give good odds on that one now. The UUP are like FIne Gael in RoI-no-one knows what they're there for, except to perpetuate family voting traditions in rural and middle class areas. Once in a while they might get lucky, but their politics -like Trimble's- are to wait for something to turn up. Three cheers for Mr Micawber!

Anti-Agreement? Who's anti-Agreement now?

Bob McCartney and Cedric Wilson, Marion Price and Rory O'Brady?

davidbrew
thanks for the clarification on your position though I still think that it is a far bigger issue than you think. Jeffery was apparently outlining yesterday how Dail committees would also allow representation from the North.

As for anti-agreement unionists being welcome in the DUP - might be true for some but not for all

Anti-Agreement? Who's anti-Agreement now?

Bob McCartney and Cedric Wilson, Marion Price and Rory O'Brady?

stephen
any invites to the dail, and lets remember they are being invited, not able to be there as of right, will be on the basis of observation and being able to address. They will not be able to participate in the same manner that members of the dail can.

"As for anti-agreement unionists being welcome in the DUP - might be true for some but not for all"

That is probably correct in some respects, but I would phrase it more that it is true that most anti-agreement UUP members would be welcome in the DUP it would not be true for all. There are some 'anti-agreement' UUP members who have made their distaste for the DUP abundantly clear. They (a small number) have clearly shown and stated that they would rather stay in a party led by David Trimble and fall in behind his policies than join with the DUP. Cutting off your political nose to spite your face IMO.

stephen, you know some anti-Agreement Unionists -in Mid Ulster, for example, who have personal dificulties with Willie McCrea, which make it painful for them to contemplate joining his party. I am sure that for some DUP old style members ex-opponents in the UUP as colleagues is also unwelcome.

The problem is, do you advance the cause of Unionism with a small comfortable group of friends withall the influence-as Alex Kane described Burnside's walkout -of a snowflake landing on an Aga; or do you grit your teeth and work with former opponents for the greater good?
Soldiers have to work with colleagues they dislike undere officers they despise-wht should you be different?

And remember-next May do you want your council votes to be counted in the tally for Trimble, like he "misappropriated" my vote for Willie Ross in 2001? The Titanic's holed below the water line. Get in the lifeboat, and don't worry about who's in it with you.

davidbrew
note what you say but being told that you are not welcome nor will ever represent at any level the "true voice of unionism" leaves staying or opting out as only choice.

Will

any invites to the dail, and lets remember they are being invited, not able to be there as of right, will be on the basis of observation and being able to address. They will not be able to participate in the same manner that members of the dail can.

Well, that's all right, then! (I don't think so.)

If this is true, it is resulting from the negotiations that the DUP took part in. They cannot escape responsibility.

willowfield

It was going to happen anyway. Sinn Fein would never have gone into government in the south without it.

The DUP has wisely concentrated on what things are rather than what they might symbolise. I hope the IRA are smart enough to do the same.

I must admit to being impressed with the way Paisley has played his hand.

Willowfield - the DUP has no power as to Bertie Ahern wants to invite into his parliament. That is up to him. He can have the village people there giving live performances every second afternoon if he wants, its not up to anyone but the Irish Government.

Gonna play at the D-A-I-L!

sorry

Will
The flaw in your arguement is that if it is included in the "fair deal" then Paisley et al did have the opportunity to influence this and chose not to see it as a threat.

I personally see it as a serious threat to the unionist position.

As I have said before the the creation of a United Ireland is for republicans a process and not an event. I think this helps their process more than we know.

Henry94

It was going to happen anyway. Sinn Fein would never have gone into government in the south without it.

But it's outside the terms of the GFA. I thought PSF were committed to the GFA?

The DUP has wisely concentrated on what things are rather than what they might symbolise. I hope the IRA are smart enough to do the same.

So it's merely symbolic? That's a change of tune!

Will

Willowfield - the DUP has no power as to Bertie Ahern wants to invite into his parliament. That is up to him. He can have the village people there giving live performances every second afternoon if he wants, its not up to anyone but the Irish Government.

It's within the scope of north-south and east-west relations, and therefore within the terms of reference of the negotations in which the DUP took part. They are responsible for this.

Imagine if this had resulted from negotiations in which the UUP had taken part! The DUP would be going ballistic! Hypocrites!

willowfield

But it's outside the terms of the GFA. I thought PSF were committed to the GFA?

There is nothing in the GFA to prevent it.

So it's merely symbolic? That's a change of tune!

It is what it is. Some are getting carried away with what it represents and where it might lead rather than the thing itself. I think the DUP are taking a sensible attitude.

Henry94

There is nothing in the GFA to prevent it.

There was nothing in the GFA to prevent full disclosure of decommissioning, yet the PRovos claimed there was. There was nothing in the GFA to prevent the setting up of the IMC, yet the Provos claimed that there was.

The GFA dealt comprehensively with north-south relations - this is outside the GFA and therefore contrary to it.

It is what it is. Some are getting carried away with what it represents and where it might lead rather than the thing itself. I think the DUP are taking a sensible attitude.

But you have talked in the past about pursuing all-Ireland agendas and brining in a united Ireland by stealth. This is clearly part of that. Do you deny this?

willowfield

But you have talked in the past about pursuing all-Ireland agendas and brining in a united Ireland by stealth.

I'm all for an all-Ireland agenda but I never advocated a united Ireland by stealth. You can only have a united Ireland by referendum and short of holding one without telling unionists I don't see how stelth comes into it.

All the all-Ireland agenda can do is demonstrate how a united Ireland might work. It can't make people want one. What are you afraid of?

There was nothing in the GFA to prevent the setting up of the IMC, yet the Provos claimed that there was.

And a fat lot of good it did them.

What am I afraid of?

The move is clearly designed to undermine the Union and create a political apartheid in NI. Neither is desirable.

Willow
Senor De valera was faced with this request from nationalists and didn't allow it, but could have done so-the point is it's not up to the DUP to prevent the manner in which the Dail orders its business-and considering we always complain about interference why would we care about the RoI parliament? Mallon's appointment to the Senate had far greater constitutional implications than this because he was a full, participating and voting member. He was kicked out of the NI Assembly because he knowingly defied the law, which is no longer the case.

This is a non story-nationalists get free parking space in Molesworth Street, and right to drone on about the four green fields to other nationalists. Yes, it's apartheid-but only in the sense that nationalism wants to be apart from this part of the UK.Even if deputy first minister Durkan/McGuiness or whoever is invited to speak in a debate,that changes nothing-the key point is how to make him accountable-another DUP aim which Trimble did nothing about.

I'm listening to Bob McCartney as I type, rightly focussing on the core gains the DUP must achieveto sign up to any deal. This isn't the hole in the dyke. As Bob has said, he'll be very surprised if Paisley budges an inch on the key issues. So that's two lawyers who aren't distracted by UUP flim flam

DB

Senor De valera was faced with this request from nationalists and didn't allow it, but could have done so-the point is it's not up to the DUP to prevent the manner in which the Dail orders its business-and considering we always complain about interference why would we care about the RoI parliament?

It wasn't up to the UUP how the Southern constitution was framed, but that did not stop the UUP insisting it be changed in negotiations. Equally, the DUP could insist that this not happen. Tough negotiatiors, remember?

Imagine if this, and the McCabe killers' release, had resulted from negotiations involving Trimble. You and the rest would have been damning him.

precisely what constitutional implications are there for the RoI in permitting 7/8 NI nationalists 15 minutes each twice a year to speak in their parliament? Will it require a referendum? Almost certainly not. It's of no more significance than inviting them to address whatever the equivalent of a select committee is- or indeed the New Ireland Forum-of course no one likes it , but the real significance of it is that this is the only thing the UUP are able to point to as an alleged dropping of the ball by the DUP whereas...
decommissioning
decommissioning
decommissioning
watchtowers
RUC name and symbols
number of MLAs
number of Ministers
Ministerial accountability
free standing North South bodies
(continues until cyberspace is full)

I think the electorate are clever enough to detect a pattern here.

but the real significance of it is that this is the only thing the UUP are able to point to as an alleged dropping of the ball by the DUP

What about the McCabe killers?

And, far more significantly, what about signing up to everything they previously denounced?

Is the DUP going to ensure that the watchtowers stay up? Is the DUP restoring the RUC name and symbols? Is the DUP reducing the number of MLAs?

As for the number of Ministers - how was this a "dropping of the ball" by the UUP?

How were North South bodies "free standing" and how is the DUP addressing this alleged situation?

Are the prisoners going back to jail?

Is the Human Rights Commission being stood down?

Are the Gaelic language provisions being removed?

The move is clearly designed to undermine the Union and create a political apartheid in NI.

Yes, spot on.

Neither is desirable.

Well, from my point of view the lack of respect for NI's constitutional position is fundamentally anti-Agreement.

And indeed a political apartheid in NI is not desirable, but let's be honest, any DUP/SF deal will inevitably move us towards that.

That's why Alliance's consistently anti-segregationist voice remains so important, if only we heard it more often!

Willowfield
Interesting to see that you have reverted to the drivel that is asking whether the name of the RUC can be returned. Some things unfortunately have been given away and cannot be returned. Unfortunately the RUC name was one of those.

"As for the number of Ministers - how was this a "dropping of the ball" by the UUP?"

Because the UUP policy when they went into the talks that there should only be 6, or at a maximum 7 Government Departments - that is what unionists argued. However, surprisingly, we ended up with 10 (actually 11 with OFMDFM) because of pressure from Nationalists.

"How were North South bodies "free standing" and how is the DUP addressing this alleged situation?"

People like David Trimble and Esmond Birnie said that the N-S Bodies would collapse should the Assembly collapse, they could not continue if the Assembly wasnt functioning. They said that this provided a unionist safeguard.

However, when the Assembly folded, the bodies continued - they were free standing. Understand?

1 "What about the McCabe killers?"

nothing to do with us if the RoI let's out its killers

2 "And, far more significantly, what about signing up to everything they previously denounced?"

where?-they remain opposed to the unacceptable aspects of the Agreement

3 "Is the DUP going to ensure that the watchtowers stay up? Is the DUP restoring the RUC name and symbols? Is the DUP reducing the number of MLAs?

No- No-and wait and see.
Honestly its your bastard child we're trying to confer respectability on here. You seem to find that unacceptable unless we stuff it back up whence it came, and it's still our fault because we can't restore your lady friend's virginity too

4 "As for the number of Ministers - how was this a "dropping of the ball" by the UUP?

Because they hatched a deal with the Stoops to get 10 to maximise the jobs for the boys, even though if they'd held out for 7 there would have been a Unionist majority in the executive-as trimble was told, but decided to ignore mathematics as well as politics

5."How were North South bodies "free standing" and how is the DUP addressing this alleged situation?"
Ask Trimble the former point. As for the latter-er, by negotiating better.

With deep sadness I must grade you as having regressed to level 1 on your political development (Billy Armstrong)

Will

Interesting to see that you have reverted to the drivel that is asking whether the name of the RUC can be returned.

Not as interesting as the DUP signing up to a deal that includes the name change along with almost all the other provisions that they previously opposed!

Some things unfortunately have been given away and cannot be returned. Unfortunately the RUC name was one of those.

How come? All you have to do is get the other parties to agree to it. I thought the DUP were tough negotiators who were going to negotiate a new Agreement? Remember the "fair deal"? Since when did the DUP consider the name-change to be fair?

Because the UUP policy when they went into the talks that there should only be 6, or at a maximum 7 Government Departments - that is what unionists argued. However, surprisingly, we ended up with 10 (actually 11 with OFMDFM) because of pressure from Nationalists.

And why is that such a big deal? Don't remember the DUP ever mentioning it before. Is this another fig-leaf that the DUP will pretend represents a "new" agreement?!!

People like David Trimble and Esmond Birnie said that the N-S Bodies would collapse should the Assembly collapse, they could not continue if the Assembly wasnt functioning. They said that this provided a unionist safeguard.

The implementation bodies remain in existence but are unable to take any initiatives without a functioning Assembly. The NSMC has been suspended. What's the issue? How is the DUP going to change it?

Are the prisoners going back to jail?

Is the Human Rights Commission being stood down?

Are the Gaelic language provisions being removed?

David B

nothing to do with us if the RoI let's out its killers

They're being released as part of this deal that the DUP is almost ready to sign up to! You can't escape responsibility.

Imagine if it had happened on Trimble's watch! Would the DUP have been so dismissive?

where?-they remain opposed to the unacceptable aspects of the Agreement

So the prisoners are going back?
RUC being restored?
Legislation to exclude terrorist ministers?
Gaelic language promotion to be removed?
Human Rights Commission to be abolished?

No- No

So they can hardly complain about Trimble! And what happened to the "new Agreement"? The "fair deal"? These things were "fair"?? Since when?

Honestly its your bastard child we're trying to confer respectability on here. You seem to find that unacceptable unless we stuff it back up whence it came, and it's still our fault because we can't restore your lady friend's virginity too

You said you'd negotiate a new Agreement and a "fair deal". In reality you're signing up to virtually the same deal!

At least be honest about it!

Because they hatched a deal with the Stoops to get 10 to maximise the jobs for the boys, even though if they'd held out for 7 there would have been a Unionist majority in the executive-as trimble was told, but decided to ignore mathematics as well as politics

Has the DUP secured agreement to 7 ministers this time?

As for the latter-er, by negotiating better.

By negotiating better to what end?

What conditions apply to those out early under the GFA ?

Because they hatched a deal with the Stoops to get 10 to maximise the jobs for the boys, even though if they'd held out for 7 there would have been a Unionist majority in the executive-as trimble was told, but decided to ignore mathematics as well as politics

I'm not sure of the maths, but seeing as there is a 15 unionist majority in this assembly over a 6 majority in the last, surely there is not a unionist majority in this executive? More unionist transferring (eg Strangford) and all is well!

If this is true, it is in my view a great threat to Unionism.

SF/IRA have no doubt pushed in negotiations to have the right to have people elected to the Dail (as TD's) in Dublin, as they have said and demanded issues like this before. This response is a concession in order to accommodate their demand. It is perhaps the first step on the stepping stone.

Is this 'new' agreement (or amendment of the Belfast Agreement 1998) going to be even more greener and accommodating to SF/IRA demands?

These negotiations have perhaps given SF a better hand.

but seeing as there is a 15 unionist majority in this assembly over a 6 majority in the last

Eh???

It was 58-42-8 last time and now it's 59-42-7.

But indeed a 10-strong Exec gives a 6-4 split given the way the seats fall among the parties.

In the 1st Assembly there were 6 more Unionists than Nationalists, now there are 15.

On party size, APNI and smaller Unionist parties don't matter when it comes to Ministerial seats.

"They're being released as part of this deal that the DUP is almost ready to sign up to! You can't escape responsibility."

Willowfield, you don`t know anything about the proposed eal as of yet and even IF the DUP are going to agree with it and nor for that matter does anyone else and for that matter whether a new referendum will be called or new Assembly elections to rubber stamp said deal.

Alan2

New elections maybe but a referendum? On What? Electing the ministers in one go rather than one at a time?

That would be the most trivial referendum in history.

A referendum to rubber stamp a new deal but as you say, new elections are more likely.

If there are to be elections they should wait until May. Let the current lot sit until then. I think the turnout for assembly election now would be an all-time low.

That would be the most trivial referendum in history

Oh, if only that were true! The most trivial referendum in Northern Ireland, or even the UK, maybe. But you have to look to the US for the truly trivial and ridiculous.

A couple years ago in Florida we had a referendum on the ballot for a constitutional amendment protecting pregnant pigs, specifically the type of crate they can be housed in. And it passed.

Yes, the rights of pregnant pigs are now enshrined in the Constitution of the Great State of Florida.

Michael

In the 1st Assembly there were 6 more Unionists than Nationalists, now there are 15.

Is this the type of top-level analysis we get from the Ulster Unionists these days?!!

You're just plain wrong!

If you mean Unionists excluding smaller Unionist parties, you should say so.

Alan2

Why on earth would we need yet another election??!!

Maybe we should have a referendum about whether the people of NI are fed up with elections!!

We are the most-polled people in Europe but we still don't have a functioning democracy. That should tell us all something.

I'm all for Northern MPs and MEPs sitting in the Dáil. How about 365 days a year so we can all get on with life here without the Gobsh*tes ? And the Dáil can have all the MLAs as well and welcome to them. Maca, Pat,cg, IJP,Gonzo and pete can run this place. Do a damn site better job. There you go, even a cross border input. Sorted.

Has anyone actually asked the southern irish people if we want these people invading our country?

"Pat,cg, IJP,Gonzo and pete can run this place. Do a damn site better job."

LOL
I am touched Davros, truly touched.

CM
"Has anyone actually asked the southern irish people if we want these people invading our country?"

It would be pretty hard for citizens of Ireland to invade their own country.

IJP
"Is this the type of top-level analysis we get from the Ulster Unionists these days?!!

You're just plain wrong!"

Go easy on the wee fella - - well on the other hand.... it wouldnt be the first time that the best brains of the UUP had been proven just plain wrong!

CavanMan
"Has anyone actually asked the southern irish people if we want these people invading our country?"

If I was to be unkind I would suggest that they have been telling us up here for years that we had to stomach these people so now its your turn. But you may have something of a point there - even more MOPE shinners in the dail might waken the Republic up to what could happen should more people there be foolish enough to vote for these people!

Historically Will the Free State and the ROI have been tougher on SF and the IRA ...after all two SF members have just been jailed for membership ... so there's a chance if we are too nice to them up here that there could be a mass movement to "the North East and Occupied Corner of Ireland"... did I get the terminology right cg ? ;)

Davros,
Now there's a shocking prospect! ;-) But surely because of their dislike of SF we could persuade them all to vote Unionist!!!

It would be pretty hard for citizens of Ireland to invade their own country.

Posted by: cg at December 7, 2004 08:40 PM

Well there is to different countries on the Island of Ireland. I thought you would have know that, after all that is what you signed up to recognise in 1998.

"Well there is to different countries on the Island of Ireland. I thought you would have know that, after all that is what you signed up to recognise in 1998."

Correction AndrewD there is only one country, Ireland.

Just as a point of information, I didn't sign up to anything in 1998. ;)

Correction AndrewD there is only one country, Ireland.

Depends on how one defines "country".....

Willowfield - the DUP has no power as to Bertie Ahern wants to invite into his parliament. That is up to him. (Will)

Cant remember Bertie inviting the provos during the last six years, why now? Oh yes, the DUPes.

Cavanman

Has anyone actually asked the southern irish people if we want these people invading our country?

Who? Pat,cg, Gonzo, Pete and I?!! :))

Depends on how one defines "country".....

Precisely.

A line like 'Ireland is one country' is a classic example of one-sideism. Generally, only Nationalists see it as one country (although to most intents and purposes I view it that way too). For mutual respect to be reality, you have to accept not everyone sees it that way. In short, the phrase 'Ireland is one country' is simply not factual (unless you're referring only to the 26-county state of course).

This is where the One Small Step campaign is very strong. We do need to think more laterally. Rather than banging our own 'side's' view and about our own 'rights', we need to take responsibility to see that there are often several legitimate sides to the same story.

That does not mean, however, that 'there are no facts', another daft post-modernist politically-correct piece of nonsense! Notwithstanding the above, not all views are legitimate!

If you mean Unionists excluding smaller Unionist parties, you should say so.

I did. My point was Brewster only has a point on the unionist majorityt in the exec if unionists don't sufficiently transfer to unionists (eg in Strangford)

...was reading in the irish times today about a discussion of places in the séanad for northern parties. Labour seemed quite concerned that both 'sides' of the community up here would be represented. if formally given seats, would any unionists turn up?

Northern representation should be allowed in the Dail and I feel it will strengthen the ties between north and south.
It is something I have called for in the past along with:

-Efforts to allow the people from the North decide the Irish presidency along with the rest of the island.We can have a president from the North yet the people there can't vote?Farcical.

-Efforts to reach out to southern unionists such as the establishment of an ambassador.

-Efforts to make as many sports as possible on an all-Ireland basis.From what I've read recently this seems to be happening.

-Efforts to promote the friendship between the two islands through ceremonies,festivals etc.

-Efforts to push for an all-Ireland police force.

-Regular meetings with the British monarchy.

-Acknowledge the right of people from the south to consider themselves British if they so choose.

-Consideration to the idea of rejoining the commonwealth.

-Fianna Fail to merge with Sinn Fein to stop its growth and challenege its position a the biggest all-Ireland party.

Two things that strike me about this.

One is the comments of people like David Brewster saying it has no relevance. This has significant relevance under that favoured "hollowing out of the Union" phrase so often valued by Anti Agreement unionists in recent years. "at least twice per annum" will become more and the range of matters they will want to bring up will grow - how the Southern politicians will allow it to develop is another matter but there is no doubt that this is another clever strategy to destabilise the constitutional position of NI within the UK post any final resolution and Agreement here. Saying it isn't is either naievity or blindness - with the latter being a typical DUP trait.

(Incidentally just heard Sammy Wilson on the radio asking the Govt to move on without Sinn Fein but with what he termed the "other Pro Agreement Parties"? - I suppose he means this great revolutionary 'almost Agreement' of last week of course)

The other thing I would say about this is basic Job description and under that I would preclude it.
If I employed someone and they said they wanted to trot off a couple of times per annum to a competitor to discuss our policy it simply wouldn't be allowed.

Understanding, mutual co-operation etc - between the designated Ministers North and South and by the properly constituted and accountable North South bodies - no problem. However individual members and/or their parties doing their own thing - sorry no way.

In the end of the day although hopefully good neighbours recognising the shared history and problems of this part of the world we are still fiscal competitors and you cannot have your foot in both camps.

John

If I employed someone and they said they wanted to trot off a couple of times per annum to a competitor to discuss our policy it simply wouldn't be allowed.

The thing is you don't have to employ them. They will state clearly at their interview (election campaign) how they intend to act and seek a mandate for it. You can vote for someone who believes Ireland is a foreign country if you like. But please accept that a lot of us think that is nonsense.

but there is no doubt that this is another clever strategy to destabilise the constitutional position of NI within the UK post any final resolution and Agreement here

What part of democratic and peaceful means didn't you understand? If you think there is a constitutional issue you should take it to court.

We, the victims of partition, are going to do everything we can to create as effective an all-Ireland agenda as we can. The referendum when it comes will be a much better debate if we can point to effective examples of already existing cross-border institutions, projects, relationships and structures which work well.

Henry 94

"The referendum when it comes will be a much better debate if we can point to effective examples of already existing cross-border institutions, projects, relationships and structures which work well."

Exactly part of a clever strategy !

I have no problems with nationalists coming here to East Belfast or anywhere in NI and trying to persuade and convince unionists that their future lies within a UI - that is democratic and peaceful means.

I have no problems with them attempting clever strategies but it is the job of unionists to point them out and say what they are. The DUP on this occasion, because it is an add on they have allowed, have decided to play the three monkeys.

The basis of the Agreement was consent for the six counties and the relationship between ROI and NI was defined in that Agreement.

That NI and ROI are close neighbours in every sense of the word is true and although I don't choose to use the word "foreign" from a legal and fiscal perspective it is how it is.

Regarding trusting the NI electorate to behave sensibly and not just follow gut or tribal emotions is why we have an Agreement in the first place.

That we have bad politicians is true and of course it is not for the Govt. to remove the people's choice. However I think it is very much the role of Govt. to intervene to stop politicians trying to 'serve out' that mandate within another jurisdiction.
This move should not be allowed.

If the Dail want to select people from the north to come and speak then they are free to do so - but they should not consist of people selected in UK/NI elections.

John

However I think it is very much the role of Govt. to intervene to stop politicians trying to 'serve out' that mandate within another jurisdiction.
This move should not be allowed.

Your position is an honourable one as you locate the issue where it belongs in terms of British politics which is in the House of Commons and with the British Government.

It is open to the British to pass a law denying elected MPs the right to accept an invitation to address Dail Eireann. Of course when the Dail was first set up it was declared illegal by the British.

If such a law was passed nationalists would have to consider our response then.

Maybe Andrew Hunter could raise it in his new role as the representative of the DUP people of Basingstoke. That should bring some mirth to the Commons.

John, could you explain what you mean by 'fiscal competitors' please?

We, the victims of partition, are going to do everything we can to create as effective an all-Ireland agenda as we can.

The v word again. Why can't nationalists move away from their victim mentality? It really does make you look pathetic.

We are all, both sides in NI, victims of partition and it does indeed make us look pathetic.
We look pathetic to the british who have to bankroll the place and we look pathetic to the people in the republic for not being able to stand on our own two feet.

glad to see Michael Shilliday condemning those resorting to 'playing the victim.' Shall we assume, therefore, that unionist 'fears'/ 'concerns'/ 'sensitivities' will be banished from the political lexicon here as unionists like Michael move away from playing the victim game???

I think you've well and truly hit the nail on the head Fraggle. The notion that the people of my country see N.Ireland as an asset is totally absurd. If the truth be known, neither country wants N.Ireland and its intractable problems.

Provisionalism needs to wise up to the fact that a united Ireland with a single government based in Dublin is a yesterday's dream.

And the two detached but equal communities also need to wise up to the fact that Leinster Hse and Westminster are agonising over the future of N.Ireland not because both want that distant place (would you get real!!!), but conceivably because both want shut of it.

Michael,
the true feeling of victimhood will only arrive for Irish people if they are the ones who have to subsidise the northern community so it can continue to maintain its poisoned world rather than getting on with real life.

I'm not convinced that we are 'victims' of partition. The alternatives at that time were worse.

I would argue that we are 'victims', if you want to use that word, of the factors that led to partition - oppression of the working classes and the battle for supremacy between the two Imperial Powers, Britain and the Vatican, for hegemony.

I don't recall the Vatican sending gun ships up the Liffey Davros.

If you want to talk Vatican and it's role in Politics, I'm willing but I'll only be labelled sectarian by a.n. other.

I wont say a word - will look the other way and bite my tongue.

Just this once.

LOL Shay, I wasn't thinking of you for a.n.other - I'll Quote Seamus Deane, no Unionist he! What IS it about Derry wans ? ;)

Joyce made it clear that, in his opinion, the Revival was conceding to public pressure by allowing the caricatured, but popular, version of Ireland to become the abiding image of the Abbey Theatre. This was wrong on a number of grounds.
It deprived the artist of his independence; it nurtured provincialism; and it did this in the guise of a return to the 'natural'. Exile safeguarded independence; cosmopolitanism helped to avoid provincialism; and the return to the natural was to be achieved, not by a romanticizing of rural and peasant life, or of the idea of the Celt and his lost language, but by an unflinching realism which, like that of Ibsen, stripped the mask from the pharisaic middle-class society of urban Europe and exposed its spiritual hypocrisy and impoverishment. In that respect, Ireland was indeed a special country.It lived under the political domination of England and the religious domination of Rome while it espoused a rhetoric of freedom, uniqueness, especial privilege. Ireland was, in fact, especially underprivileged and was, on that account, more susceptible to and more in need of an exemplary art than any other European country.

Deane, Seamus, Joyce the Irishmen.
In: The Cambridge Companion to James Joyce,
Deane, Seamus, pp.31-53. Cambridge University Press, 1990.

From Seamus Deane's Introduction to A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man by James Joyce.

Portrait is among the most important of Irish novels because it is the first to examine the distorted relationship between the Irish community and oppression and to focus upon oppression's ultimate resource - the cooperation of the oppressed. It is a sweet irony that the novel should have appeared in the year of the Easter Rising in Dublin.
The political rebellion and even the cultural resurgence lead by Yeats seemed to Joyce insufficient (although notable) attempts on the part of the Irish to break from the psychological dependency that they manifested towards the British and the Roman Catholic imperiums that had between them transformed the Irish into 'A race of clodhoppers!' (p. 272).

His words, not mine! And now it's siesta time.

An ancestor of mine, (won't say, don't ask) wrote and had enacted more plays than James for the Abbey. I think this was part of his motivation in that quote.

Needless to say my ancestor born an Ulsterman first and an Irishman second, died as he was born despite attempts to remove the second title.

Fraggle

"John, could you explain what you mean by 'fiscal competitors' please?"

Both NI nad ROI administrations raise taxation and governments spend it for the benefit of their repsective citisens.

The job of elected representatives is to spend and/or scrutinise how those taxes are both raised and indeed spent.

All of this is done within discreet boundaries.

NI elected reps should have no say whatsoever on how taxes are raised or spent in the ROI and visa versa.

Indeed both jurisdictions are actual competitors when it comes to impoprtant matters such as inward investments.
Although I would prefer such jobs to go to East Belfast before say Londonderry I would still prefer the latter to Limerick. Indeed i would prefer Liverpool to Limerick.

The same would be said I am sure for the citisens of Limerick.

Therefore politicians meddling in each other's jurisdictions is just daft and also way outside their mandates.

I also can't see how southern citisens would want northerners meddling in their affairs or indeed would want valuable Dail time wasted on northern affairs.

Indeed it could also conceivably lead to situations where say Northern politicians could start to align themselves with say border counties like Monaghan. This would not be tolerated by again the citisens of Limerick.

The whole idea is just daft.

If elected northern nationalists want to observe proceedings in the Dail then they should do it from the public gallery - in their own holiday time

John East Belfast,
no northern politician would have voting rights in the Dail, just speaking rights, so NI elected representatives would have no say whatsoever on how taxes are raised or spent in the Irish Republic.

They would be able to say what they thought about it, especially if it affected them. There are lots of examples such as the effects of different fuel tax levels, illegal dumping, infrastructure investment, water pollution, sewage, tourism, health, education, energy, fishing, farming etc.

Interestingly, Limerick citizens would much rather see jobs go to East Belfast than Liverpool.

George

"Interestingly, Limerick citizens would much rather see jobs go to East Belfast than Liverpool."

Why should that surprise you ?

It goes to the heart of the British and Irish debate here.

Its not that I am anti limerick I am just pro British - I want a strong British economy as I pay British taxes and enjoy British benefits.

I would also prefer the jobs go to Limerick than say Frankfurt (no EU cities beginning with L come to mind)

JEB

Don't you realise that Liverpool is one of Irelands largest cities.

Lisbon
Lille
Luxembourg
Lyon
....

John East Belfast,
it doesn't surprise me but I find it interesting and understandable that people in East Belfast would want to put the welfare of Britain ahead of the welfare of the island of Ireland.

It's not surprising that it is so difficult for them to reconcile themselves with those who wish to put the island of Ireland's welfare first.

These people therefore want to at least speak on all-island economic issues in the Dail as they feel it affects their long-term welfare more than what goes on in Liverpool.

I'd say Limerick would rather see the jobs go to Frankfurt than Liverpool as they are in the same eurozone economic project.

David Brew sez: "or do you grit your teeth and work with former opponents for the greater good?"

If only Northern politicians from all parties had the balls/brains to work for the "greater good" of the people of Northern Ireland. Unfortunatly they (especially SF & DUP) have neither the balls nor brains to work for the greater good of anyone but themselves.

Both parties have massive egos Maca - they both think they have all the answers, they both are tightly controlled-when did you see either a DUP or SF politician dissent ? - and they both have a totalitarian mindset - what's good for the party is good for the people.

"We look pathetic to the british who have to bankroll the place and we look pathetic to the people in the republic for not being able to stand on our own two feet."

And you pretty much look pathetic to Europe and the entire world! At times I feel very embarassed when talking to people from other countries about Northern Ireland. They think you are all just silly saps.

George

I am not begrudging recent ROI economic success - indeed I applaud and celebrate it realising that on this small island it has undoutedly worked for the benefit of all who live here - I have first hand experience of how it saved the NI construction industry in the mid to late nineties.

I was simply asked what I meant by fiscal competitors (on the macro scale) and the massive mid lothian type question it would pose for elected nationalists trying to behave in a way which did not reflect the legal and fiscal realities they have given their consent to.

All the stuff about the shared concerns over the environment etc can be better dealt with at ministerial level and the north south and east west bodies set up by the Agreement.

The current proposals are simply nothing more than nationalism attempting creeping joint authority and demonstrate the stupidity of the DUP in not even noticing it.

John EB, that's pretty much what I thought you meant.

On inward investment, you are a bit off the mark. NI needs inward investment but at the moment, the problem in the south is getting enough people to fill the jobs already created or in the pipeline. A decent road to the border would be very helpful. I'm sure the people of Derry would welcome a new factory in Letterkenny more than one in Leicester.

Belast faces greater competition from british cities than it does from any other irish city. who competes with belfast's shipyards? liverpool, glasgow, newcastle etc. NI only marginally benefits from economic success in britain through things like the huge sponging civil service here. In the private sector, salaries are a fraction of what there are in GB and the geographic isolation of NI means that NI companies don't benefit much from investment in britain. in contrast, NI companies can easily (if you call driving along the A1 easy) benefit from investment in the south. of course, things like the different currency make this a little inconvenient. economic success in britain probably has an adverse effect on NI due to increased brain drain anyway.

Fraggle

"I'm sure the people of Derry would welcome a new factory in Letterkenny more than one in Leicester"

Fair point.
But how are Leicester tax payers going to feel about UK salaried representatives using their influence in a competing country to bring jobs at their expense to Letterkenny - this is the gist of what I am trying to say.

"who competes with belfast's shipyards? liverpool, glasgow, newcastle etc"

I don't think Belfast shipyard competes with anyone now

"NI only marginally benefits from economic success in britain"

Every tax we pay as individuals and every benefit received through health and the whole welfare state will ultimately depend on the economic success or otherwise of the British State.
On this one I think you are way of the mark.

Anyhow on these small islands speaking the same language and with very similar corporate law and accountancy regulations we all benefit from one another's success.

"But how are Leicester tax payers going to feel about UK salaried representatives using their influence in a competing country to bring jobs at their expense to Letterkenny - this is the gist of what I am trying to say."

It's none of the business of Leicester taxpayers how elected representatives other than their own spend their time. If an mp for derry managed to get a company to come to letterkenny, that would be a good thing for that mp's constituents and so long as no laws are broken in the process, that is an acceptable use of the mp's time.

"Every tax we pay as individuals and every benefit received through health and the whole welfare state will ultimately depend on the economic success or otherwise of the British State.
On this one I think you are way of the mark."

You are missing my point or I didn't make it clearly enough. I mentioned the civil service jobs as an example of the state funding you go into more detail with. I am not disputing that. What I am talking about is economic investment and the private sector. If a company sets up in liverpool, there are spin off benefits throughout the economy. NI is largely out of that loop and won't see the benefit. Ironically, the ROI does more business per capita with Britain than NI does.

NI has few of the benefits and all of the drawbacks of being in the UK.

Fraggle

"It's none of the business of Leicester taxpayers how elected representatives other than their own spend their time. If an mp for derry managed to get a company to come to letterkenny, that would be a good thing for that mp's constituents and so long as no laws are broken in the process, that is an acceptable use of the mp's time."

Not if that company had also been considering going to Leicester. It would be none of the Leicester MP's business if the company had gone to Londonderry - so long as UK taxpayers money was not going out of its way to create an uneven playing field - INI has guidelines on such matters.

"If a company sets up in liverpool, there are spin off benefits throughout the economy"

what economy ? - should people in Aberdeen also benefit ? the benefits accrue to the whole UK economy via increased tax receipts and lower unemployment benefits and hence a reduction in national taxaton.

There are no major regional taxes in the UK.
Just because there is a short stretch of water bewteen us doesn't mean NI is anymore isolated from the macro economy than anyone else - on a micro level fair enough and that is why I said I agreed the Derry populace would be delighted at a Letterkenny success.

However elected reps have to serve the jurisdiction they were elected to - not working for the benefit of some other.

I know NI has major economic problems but they are considerably getting better - remember we are coming out of a period of terrorism which if it hadn't been for the British taxpayer we would be akin to somewhere like Kosova by now.

You shouldn't be so ungrateful

"Just because there is a short stretch of water bewteen us doesn't mean NI is anymore isolated from the macro economy than anyone else."

It does. go and live in britain and you might see what I mean.

"Just because there is a short stretch of water bewteen us doesn't mean NI is anymore isolated from the macro economy than anyone else."

It does. go and live in britain for a while and you might see what I mean.

Fraggle

Is there a different

Income tax rate
Inheritance Tax threshold
VAT rate
State retirement pension
NHS rights
education rights
......

I could go on all night.

There are now more economically deprived areas in the GB than NI - Parts of The north east of England are becoming a waste land

How do you explain that ?

Anyhow drive around Belfast and have a look at the cars going about. How you say we have not benefited from the UK link is beyond me

"How do you explain that ?"

The Irish Sea isn't wide enough?

John East Belfast,
"How do you explain that?"

Very easily, Northern Ireland as it stands now is a pretty much recession proof economy due to the fact that it is so enormously subsidised.

The north of Britain hasn't been so lucky. The question is whether Britain will continue to subsidise NI to this extent or whether it will now go the same way as isolated parts of Northern Britain.

Also, NI's growth in the last decade has been greatly helped by the fact that it is bordering the Irish Republic. A quarter of the goods it manufactures go south.

19% of the annual foreign direct investment in Northern Ireland is from the Irish Republic. 32% is from Great Britain. Figures from Investni.

Ulster pays heavy price for terrorism

Not a relevant article in relation to the economics of Northern Ireland Davros and the reason for the current growth and the effect of subsidies.

Not an economist, but you are talking economics and I thought it might be of interest.

Interesting without a doubt, just questioning relevance :-)

Great debate ladies and gents. I’d say Stephen Nicholl’s contribution way back when was the most perceptive.

``It has been very clear for some time that the final act in creating a United Ireland will be the actual vote. It has also been very clear that republicans believe that every aspect of life which can be addressed on an all-Ireland basis, without actually having a referendum, should be. The fact is that this process is intended to and will continue to gradually move the people of Northern Ireland into a progressively more united Ireland irrespective of the wishes of the majority in Northern Ireland until the point at which the referendum will be merely a legal requirement to tie up loose ends.’’

I think Stephen is spot on. It’s a good definition of how nationalism should pursue Irish reunification through exclusively peaceful and democratic means. Of course the reality remains that any transcending of the border in matters of Irish housekeeping will stand or fall not on emotional attachments to traditional nationalist or unionist shibboleths but simply on the benefits derived. All Ireland approaches will become more prevalent as long as they are seen to actually work. Northern representation is the Dail is important symbolically but there is a huge challenge facing the northern MPs to actually make their presence felt in Leinster House, yet in a productive way.

(Let’s be honest: this could turn out to be counter-productive for northern nationalism.)

The development of all-Ireland approaches will mean that nationalism’s totemic themes – that the border was/is just a really bad idea and that a single decision-making structure on this island is just common sense – are to be put to the test. Obviously this presents a huge challenge to all-Ireland nationalism but it also presents a major challenge for unionism.

One of the central difficulties with arguing for the retention of a border on this small island is the sheer effort required and cost of supporting separate public infrastructures. Some may see partition as necessary, others will disagree, but no-one can deny that it is expensive. Northern Ireland costs the UK a fortune and could never be viable without its benefactor.

One of the reasons why NI is so expensive is that political and social schisms have conspired to see the area cut off from its natural hinterland – which, like it or not, is still the rest of Ireland. The border is a monument to the will of fewer than a million people packed into one corner of Ireland to pretend that is not the case, but it does not change the reality. If the border is nothing more than an exercise in wish fulfilment then its existence is always going to be challenged by prevailing realities.

Fact is, partition created in the north a crippling dependence. It could not have been other. An enclave as small as six counties on a landmass as small as Ireland was and is always going to have to be a subsidised operation. Short of the ending of partition, an all-Ireland approach is the most logical way to reconnect the region with its natural hinterland and help alleviate this crippling dependence.

Of course such a scenario is against the interests of the pro-union argument, which brings us to a major dilemma for unionism: does the continuation of the union depend on the limitations created by partition?

If so, should future generations is counties Antrim and Down be condemned to sticking by the ancient ideology, even though it places a ne plus ultra on their lives?

Or in short: what if it turns out that the union isn’t worth it? Or worse, what if nationalists are right? What if they are correct to argue that the interests of northerners – including unionists – are better served by an all-Ireland approach?

None of us know yet whether this is the case, but it certainly suits the political rhetoric on both sides better to leave the thesis untested.

However it may be possible that at some future point all-Ireland institutions will develop to the point where they demonstrably deliver better government for the north than British rule does. Such a schism between ideology and material interest is usually fatal for any strand of political thought. What then?

I think the answer seems to be that all-Ireland developments need to be resisted now, lest they demonstrably succeed and deliver benefits to the people of the north. However such an approach at least potentially does a great disservice to a public that deserves the best efforts of its leaders.

If we leave aside sectarian motivation, then the only grounds on which unionists should oppose all-Ireland developments – indeed the only grounds on which unification should be opposed – is that it would not work as well in practice as the status quo.

That would be a meaningful debate in which all opinions could be respected. But of course that is not what this is all about.

If partition was so disastrous, then nationalists shouldn't have left the UK: that was what necessitated partition.

"then nationalists shouldn't have left the UK"
...or shouldn't have left the 6-ctys behind behind.

maca's implied support for the forcible removal of people from the UK is deplorable.

of course britain could start alleviating the crippling dependence of NI with the civil service cuts and security related cutbacks.

partition was terrible but not as bad as the alternative of all of ireland remaining in the uk.

On what basis do you make that claim?

Willowfield,
nationalists are to blame for partition, that's a great bit of revisionism.
The 85% should stay in the union because the 15% don't want to leave. Classic.

I take you'll have no problems ending partition today with the 55% leaving to union because the other 45% want them to.

Willow.

``If partition was so disastrous, then nationalists shouldn't have left the UK: that was what necessitated partition.''

Do me a favour. See if you can explain, in your own words, why a nationalist would see this statement as, at best, only part of the story.

"maca's implied support for the forcible removal of people from the UK is deplorable."

haha, there's nothing implied. Dream on dude!
Anyway no more deplorable than your implied support for the forcible imprisoning of people WITHIN the UK :-P

George

nationalists are to blame for partition, that's a great bit of revisionism. The 85% should stay in the union because the 15% don't want to leave. Classic.

Pursuing the removal of Ireland from the UK was bound to lead to partition. It was nationalists who pursued that end.

No-one's saying they should have stayed in the Union: they were perfectly entitled to leave. Just don't complain about partition once you've made the decision, as partition was the inevitable consequence of that decision.

I take you'll have no problems ending partition today with the 55% leaving to union because the other 45% want them to.

This doesn't appear to make sense.

maca

haha, there's nothing implied.

Despicable.

Anyway no more deplorable than your implied support for the forcible imprisoning of people WITHIN the UK :-P

It is more deplorable, since I would support people choosing to leave a country they didn't want to be in, obviously so long as they were in a majority of the territory to be transferred and it could be practically facilitated.

You, on the other hand, support forcibly removing majority populations.

"Pursuing the removal of Ireland from the UK was bound to lead to partition. It was nationalists who pursued that end."

No it wasn't bound to lead to partition. Setting up a private army called the UVF and threatening violence and disorder if the will of the people of Ireland was enacted caused partition.

"This doesn't appear to make sense."
It makes as much sense as blaming the right of the people of this island to self determination for partition. You probably blame the Poles for World War II for having the timerity to have a nation state between two Imperial powers.

Billy Pilgrim,
I think for those in favour of unification, the route is simple. Produce a prosperous, secular Irish Republic which clearly shows the benefits of independence over subsidised living in the UK.

At the moment only 9% of Northern Ireland's entire foreign direct investment comes from Europe while 19% comes from the Irish Republic, 26% from the US and 32% from Britain.

Europe meanwhile accounted for 21 billion of the inflow and outflow total of 25 billiion to Ireland in 2002.

The euro will accentuate the difference between the two regions and in time (ten to 15 years) a real choice will be on offer to the people of NI as to what kind of life they want, not just what kind of passport.

That will be the litmus test.

Willow.

Sorry to intervene in your discussion with George but I had to take issue with this:

``(George), on the other hand, support(s) forcibly removing majority populations.''

In fact no-one advocates the relocation or forceable removal of any population on this island. What you are referring to is a change in the sovereign status of a specific territory - NOT the physical relocation of a population. There is a huge difference between the two - one is a reasonable and noble goal to pursue, the other a crime against humanity.

Would you be so kind as to acknowledge the distinction before you speak again of the removal of populations?

Are you going to accept my earlier challenge? Just for the sake of keeping this interesting, would you attempt to explain why you think nationalits would see your reading of partition as at best a partial one?

George

No it wasn't bound to lead to partition.

It was.

Setting up a private army called the UVF and threatening violence and disorder if the will of the people of Ireland was enacted caused partition.

Um, the UVF was set up directly in response to nationalist attempts to remove Ireland from the UK!!

It makes as much sense as blaming the right of the people of this island to self determination for partition.

It didn't make grammatical sense.

As for "blaming" the right of the people of this island to self determination for partition, self-determination was bound to lead to partition, since two separate peoples wanted determined for two different things!!

You probably blame the Poles for World War II for having the timerity to have a nation state between two Imperial powers.

You’re off your rocker. Take a cold shower.

George

I think for those in favour of unification, the route is simple. Produce a prosperous, secular Irish Republic which clearly shows the benefits of independence over subsidised living in the UK.

You’d also need to demonstrate how “subsidised living” would be ended in a united Ireland. If you mean by mass job cuts and inferior public services, it’s highly unlikely to be a vote-winner.

Billy Pilgrim

``(George), on the other hand, support(s) forcibly removing majority populations.''

It was maca who posted in favour of that.

In fact no-one advocates the relocation or forceable removal of any population on this island.

No-one’s claiming they do!

What you are referring to is a change in the sovereign status of a specific territory - NOT the physical relocation of a population.

I never claimed to refer to physical relocation!

There is a huge difference between the two - one is a reasonable and noble goal to pursue, the other a crime against humanity.

It is not reasonable to pursue a change in sovereign status of a specific territory against the wishes of its inhabitants. On the contrary: it is entirely unreasonable.

Would you be so kind as to acknowledge the distinction before you speak again of the removal of populations?

I have no need to acknowledge any distinction, not having mentioned anything about physical relocation.

Are you going to accept my earlier challenge? Just for the sake of keeping this interesting, would you attempt to explain why you think nationalits would see your reading of partition as at best a partial one?

If nationalists thought it was partial, it would be because of their refusal to acknowledge unionist self-determination and their obsession with geography.

'You, on the other hand, support forcibly removing majority populations.'

That's illegal under international law, unless of course you're the Israelis.

"Um, the UVF was set up directly in response to nationalist attempts to remove Ireland from the UK!!"

The UVF was set up when the House of Lords veto on Home Rule was removed in 1911. There was no UVF in the 30 odd years before that when Home Rule was on the table.

Also, there was no talk of independence in the Irish Home Rule Party and the IVF was only set up when the UVF managed to exclude parts of Ulster from any future Home Rule.

"As for "blaming" the right of the people of this island to self determination for partition, self-determination was bound to lead to partition, since two separate peoples wanted determined for two different things!!"

Two separate peoples? When was this stated by the UVF or Carson? You do realise are you hereby saying that the Irish were never British in the first place.
I don't mind because you then logically accept the first Dail as the legitimate parliament of the Irish people, the British Army as an occupying force post 1919.

You should also have no problem with repartitioning NI so those Irish people stuck under foreign rule can leave.

Were we always different or when did this metamorphosis happen.

"It didn't make grammatical sense."
It did, you just think think mathematically enough.

Willow.

``Um, the UVF was set up directly in response to nationalist attempts to remove Ireland from the UK!!''

Actually the UVF was set up to resist militarily the introduction of home rule for Ireland - WITHIN the United Kingdom. When the UVF was founded Irish home rule was being pursued through British parliamentary procedures. Irish independence was not seriously on the table in 1912, though after the formation of the UVF attitudes hardened and the relative ineffectiveness of the parliamentary approach has been clearly demonstrated.

``If you mean by mass job cuts and inferior public services, it’s highly unlikely to be a vote-winner.''

I know we have been over and over the economic arguments and I know that you just don't understand what it is that makes an economy succesful, or at least functioning.

Two words: wealth creation.

The Republic of Ireland's economy creates wealth. Northern Ireland's consumes wealth, which has to be donated from elsewhere.

If you look at the restructuring of the southern Irish economy since Mac the Knife's hair-rasing budget of 1987, through the Tallaght strategy, Ruari Quinn's cautious conservatism during his time as minister for finance and into champagne Charlie's embrace of PD-style free-marketeering you will see how an NI-style sponge can be transormed into an RoI-style dynamo.

Won't happen in NI though, as long as we labour under Westminster's rules on matching funding.

I said: ``In fact no-one advocates the relocation or forceable removal of any population on this island.''

You replied: ``No-one’s claiming they do!''

However, earlier you said: ``You, on the other hand, support FORCIBLY REMOVING MAJORITY POPULATIONS.'' (My emphasis.)

Forgive me if I somehow misunderstood what you were trying to say. Even now, I can't see any distinction between what you said and what you later denied saying. I'm sure I just don't get it.

``If nationalists thought it was partial, it would be because of their refusal to acknowledge unionist self-determination and their obsession with geography.''

You're not getting into the spirit of the thing. I was challenging you to an exercise in trying to see the other guy's point of view. I would be interested to see how far your grasp of nationalist thought actually goes. You are undoubtedly a smart guy, though that intelligence may be pretty narrow.

Either that or you really do think that nationalists are motivated primarily by a desire to piss unionists off. Which I assure you is not the case.

``their obsession with geography.''

In fairness, nationalists are obsessed with geography and unionists are dismissive of it in exact proportion to its perceived usefulness re. our constitutional question. Both nationalists and unionists are aware that geography is one factor that the pro-unity argument will always have over the pro-union argument - which is why the former accentuates it while the latter plays it down.

Geography IS an important issue, but it's only one of many. It is neither the final word nor an insignificant detail.

George

The UVF was set up when the House of Lords veto on Home Rule was removed in 1911.

It was set up after the Third Home Rule Bill was introduced

There was no UVF in the 30 odd years before that when Home Rule was on the table.

That doesn’t alter the fact that it was set up directly in response to nationalist attempts to remove Ireland from the UK!!

Also, there was no talk of independence in the Irish Home Rule Party and the IVF was only set up when the UVF managed to exclude parts of Ulster from any future Home Rule.

No-one claimed otherwise.

Two separate peoples? When was this stated by the UVF or Carson? You do realise are you hereby saying that the Irish were never British in the first place.

The Irish were British, and I never said otherwise.

I don't mind because you then logically accept the first Dail as the legitimate parliament of the Irish people, the British Army as an occupying force post 1919.

The British Army wasn’t an occupying force: it left once de facto independence was established.

You should also have no problem with repartitioning NI so those Irish people stuck under foreign rule can leave.

I certainly would have a problem, since I support self-determination and nobody in NI has indicated support for repartition. Those who want to leave the UK elect to wait until a majority in NI wants to leave rather than to leave now. If they changed their mind, though, of course I wouldn’t have a problem with repartition. Why would I?

Were we always different or when did this metamorphosis happen.

Who’s “we”?

It did, you just think think mathematically enough.

It didn’t.

Billy Pilgrim

Actually the UVF was set up to resist militarily the introduction of home rule for Ireland - WITHIN the United Kingdom.

No. The UK would have ended.

Two words: wealth creation. The Republic of Ireland's economy creates wealth.

So does the UK’s.

Northern Ireland's consumes wealth, which has to be donated from elsewhere.

The UK can better afford to “donate” than the ROI.

Won't happen in NI though, as long as we labour under Westminster's rules on matching funding.

So you ARE proposing inferior public services!! Can’t see that winning too many votes!

However, earlier you said: ``You, on the other hand, support FORCIBLY REMOVING MAJORITY POPULATIONS.'' (My emphasis.) Forgive me if I somehow misunderstood what you were trying to say. Even now, I can't see any distinction between what you said and what you later denied saying. I'm sure I just don't get it.

Removing the unionist people from the UK does not have to be done by physical relocation.

In fairness, nationalists are obsessed with geography and unionists are dismissive of it in exact proportion to its perceived usefulness re. our constitutional question. Both nationalists and unionists are aware that geography is one factor that the pro-unity argument will always have over the pro-union argument - which is why the former accentuates it while the latter plays it down.

The will of the people overrides geography. Sorry. Nationalists lose on that one.

Willow.

You have regressed to glibness once again.

``No. The UK would have ended.''

Okay. Go on. You can't just leave it at that. Home Rule would not have meant the end of the UK. You have offered an conjecture-based opinion. Back it up or leave this blog to the adults.

``The UK can better afford to “donate” than the ROI.''

Oh good Jesus, you just don't get it do you? My point is this: the six northeastern counties of Ireland, call them what you will, bloddy well SHOULD be creating wealth, but they are not doing so.

``So you ARE proposing inferior public services!! Can’t see that winning too many votes!''

Can't even begin to see how you made that leap. I can, of course, understand why you would like to think that's what I am saying, but it's not borne out in anything I have said. What age are you, by the way?

Matching funding has been disastrous for Northern Ireland as it shackles us to norms and regulations designed for Britain but unsuited to Ireland.

Here's an example. There was European money available in the late 80s for infrastructural development in the west of NI but because that money was dispersed through Westminster it was subject to matching funding regulations.

The upshot was that Europe sent us money to build motorways to Derry, Enniskillen and Donegal via Omagh, funds to reopen railways and rebuild airports and so on, but we only saw a fraction of it. Why? Because according to British standards, the population in the west didn't merit motorways or railways. The fact that Ireland is a different country with different needs and accordingly different standards didn't come into it.

As for other services, only in healthcare could the north be said to have a clear advantage. And according to a special report in the Irish News last week even that isn't clear cut any more. (`Worst healthcare in Europe'.)

``Removing the unionist people from the UK does not have to be done by physical relocation.''

I only ask that you stop invoking the terminology used for the Indian/Pakistan emergency. There is not going to be any removal of people from anywhere. It is a change in sovereignty - your talk of removal of populations is so misleading as to be a lie.

``I certainly would have a problem, since I support self-determination and nobody in NI has indicated support for repartition. Those who want to leave the UK elect to wait until a majority in NI wants to leave rather than to leave now. If they changed their mind, though, of course I wouldn’t have a problem with repartition. Why would I?''

Let's just get this straight: you oppose repartition as long as there is a unionist majority, but if and when unionists cease to comprise the majority, THEN you would support repartition?

Surely this is moving the goalposts? Even Paisley has previously conceded that if a majority in the north vote for reunification then that would be that.

How would you justify repartitioning AFTER the point at which the legal and agreed threshold for reunification had been passed? Why should two sovereign governments and majorities (then) on both sides of the border be thwarted by the refusal of a minority within a minority to come to equilibrium with their neighbours?

Nah. If you want repartition, you'd better ask for it while unionism is still in the majority in the north.

Incidentally, how many partitions should the people of Ireland be expected to endure? Would we end up with the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Antrim? The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Larne?

If there were to be a repartition, which areas do you think could reasonably be retained within the union? Would it even be a third of the existing Northern Ireland?

"It was set up after the Third Home Rule Bill was introduced"

Willowfield, you know that the difference between the first, second and third Home Rule bills was the House of Lords veto was removed in 1911. To state that the UVF was formed as a result of the Home Rule Bill and not the removal of the House of Lords veto is disingenuous in the extreme.

Once the Ulster Protestant veto was removed from parliamentary politics in Ireland, a private army was set up using threats of force to ensure it achieved its goals. Hardly democratic.

"That doesn’t alter the fact that it was set up directly in response to nationalist attempts to remove Ireland from the UK!!"

There was no attempt to take Ireland out of the UK by the overwhelming majority of Irish people until 1918, six years after the formation of the UVF. Read the Home Rule Bill accepted by the Home Rule Party !!

"The British Army wasn’t an occupying force: it left once de facto independence was established."

It became an occupying army in January 1919 when it tried to crush the democratic parliament of the Irish people by force. From that moment on they were terrorists.

Please explain what you mean by separate peoples?

Also, why was the island majority who wanted to leave the UK in 1919 not acceptable but any future NI majority will be?

"It didn't."
It did.

``The will of the people overrides geography. Sorry. Nationalists lose on that one.''

The will of the people in Counties Fermanagh, Tyrone, Derry and Armagh is to take part in Irish independence.

Okay, by ``the will of the people'' I mean the majority of the population in those counties - wafer thin majorities in Armagh and Derry I might add.

I realise that this argument is fatuous in the extreme. For one, you can't just claim that 50% plus automatically equates to ``the will of the people''.

I also realise that you can't just point to a specific area in which the people are supporters of the political minority

, draw an arbitrary line around it and then start talking about the ``democratic rights'' of that one constituency as being of equal weight to that of the rest of the country.

Oh, hang on...

Billy Pilgrim

Home Rule would not have meant the end of the UK. You have offered an conjecture-based opinion. Back it up or leave this blog to the adults.

It would; that was its purpose: to repeal the Act of Union.

Oh good Jesus, you just don't get it do you? My point is this: the six northeastern counties of Ireland, call them what you will, bloddy well SHOULD be creating wealth, but they are not doing so.

It is creating wealth: just not enough. But businessmen should create more wealth, and the government should implement policies to facilitate them. But, until that happens, the point remains that the UK can better afford to “donate” (to use your derogatory terminology) than a united Ireland could.

Can't even begin to see how you made that leap. I can, of course, understand why you would like to think that's what I am saying, but it's not borne out in anything I have said. What age are you, by the way? Matching funding has been disastrous for Northern Ireland as it shackles us to norms and regulations designed for Britain but unsuited to Ireland. Here's an example. There was European money available in the late 80s for infrastructural development in the west of NI but because that money was dispersed through Westminster it was subject to matching funding regulations.

Oh, you’re talking about European funding? Don’t understand the point. NI has done pretty well out of the EU.

As for other services, only in healthcare could the north be said to have a clear advantage. And according to a special report in the Irish News last week even that isn't clear cut any more. (`Worst healthcare in Europe'.)

So you want MORE public spending? You’re contradicting yourself.

I only ask that you stop invoking the terminology used for the Indian/Pakistan emergency.

It was you who mentioned “physical relocation”, not me, so practice what you preach.

There is not going to be any removal of people from anywhere. It is a change in sovereignty - your talk of removal of populations is so misleading as to be a lie.

It’s not misleading. It’s quite clear that by changing the sovereignty of NI, you remove it from the UK. Stop being so silly.

Let's just get this straight: you oppose repartition as long as there is a unionist majority, but if and when unionists cease to comprise the majority, THEN you would support repartition?

Stop talking nonsense. If you’re not going to be sensible, there’s little point of discussing.

The will of the people in Counties Fermanagh, Tyrone, Derry and Armagh is to take part in Irish independence.

They vote for parties who oppose repartition and want the whole of NI to remain in the UK until such time as the majority in NI votes otherwise. If they changed their mind, I would support them.

George

Willowfield, you know that the difference between the first, second and third Home Rule bills was the House of Lords veto was removed in 1911. To state that the UVF was formed as a result of the Home Rule Bill and not the removal of the House of Lords veto is disingenuous in the extreme.

Stop being a fool. You really think the UVF was formed to oppose the Parliament Act? Catch yourself on. It was formed in opposition to Irish nationalism.

It became an occupying army in January 1919 when it tried to crush the democratic parliament of the Irish people by force. From that moment on they were terrorists.

It didn’t. Ireland was still lawfully part of the UK in January 1919. And the Army didn’t try to “crush” the Dáil in January 1919. Read some Irish history.

Please explain what you mean by separate peoples?

Look the word “separate” up in a dictionary if you don’t know what it means.

Also, why was the island majority who wanted to leave the UK in 1919 not acceptable but any future NI majority will be?

Because unionists have agreed to the latter.

It did.

It didn’t.

Willowfield.
``It would; that was its purpose: to repeal the Act of Union.’’
Nowhere in any of the Home Rule bills was the repeal of the union specified. It just wasn’t part of the deal. In fact the (democratically-elected) British government was willing to devolve home rule to Ireland precisely because it was calculated that this would head off the desire to see an end to the union. There is no point in pursuing this any further: you are totally wrong. You are arguing against fact – against which, of course, there is no argument. If you have some other interpretation of events that explains your assertions – which otherwise look to be borne simply out of ignorance – then please, for the third time, let’s hear it.

``(Northern Ireland) is creating wealth: just not enough.’’
You can say that again. In fact it’s losing £8 billion a year. With all due respect Willow, that was the weakest response I think I have ever seen on Slugger.

``Oh, you’re talking about European funding?. NI has done pretty well out of the EU.’’
It was an example of how matching funding regulations have hurt Northern Ireland. I thought I had explained that with sufficient clarity but I forgot your tendency to regress to infancy when someone makes a point you don’t agree with but have no answer to.
``Don’t understand the point.’’ Yes you do, very well, but you have no answer. Don’t feel bad – there isn’t one. We got screwed as a result of the union. Wasn’t the first time and won’t be the last.

``So you want MORE public spending? You’re contradicting yourself.’’
The frustrating thing of course Willow is that we both know you are not the moron you are currently pretending to be. It’s always the same: after a few posts you revert to your rhetorical goalkeeper position and drag other posters into a war of attrition. It’s for this reason that in all your time on Slugger you have learned nothing – and in that you my well be unique. There are no other posters on Slugger – Jesus, even on ATW – who share your nihilistic tendency to drag things down. You’re unique. Congratulations.

``It was you who mentioned “physical relocation”.’’
Stop hiding behind the word `physical’. Come out and have the courage of your convictions instead of being such a coward. You talked about ``forcibly removing majority populations’’ (3.02). If you haven’t got the guts to stand over such inflammatory rhetoric then don’t use it.

``Stop talking nonsense. If you’re not going to be sensible, there’s little point of discussing.’’
I asked you a question. You didn’t answer it. Yet again. Why do you bother Willow? Why the hell do you even post on Slugger? I seriously don’t understand why someone with such a closed, incurious and uninquiring mind would bother. What age are you anyway, as a matter of interest?
``You really think the UVF was formed to oppose the Parliament Act? Catch yourself on. It was formed in opposition to Irish nationalism.’’
Another assertion which runs contrary to historical fact. You are trotting out a loyalist myth in its pure form. The scary thing is that you might actually believe it.
Nationalism has its revisionist movement which has skewered most of the old myths – unionism has not yet reached sufficient maturity to allow it to have a comparable reappraisal of the old myths.

'You really think the UVF was formed to oppose the Parliament Act? Catch yourself on. It was formed in opposition to Irish nationalism.'

Actually, the UVF was formed in opposition to the Home Rule Bill, and it's subsequent enforcement by the British Army if necessary. There were no armies of Irish nationalists, legal or illegal anywhere in sight. And it was Home Rule within the UK that was proposed, or rather glorified local government. There was no question of Ireland of being independent because a) the Irish Parliamentary Party weren't asking for it, and b) the British wouldn't have allowed it. The terms of the 'Home Rule' on offer were fairly tame even by todays standards which makes the formation and gun-running of the UVF thing even harder to comprehend.

Billy Pilgrim

Nowhere in any of the Home Rule bills was the repeal of the union specified. It just wasn’t part of the deal.

Funny how it proposed to end the union of the parliaments then!

There is no point in pursuing this any further: you are totally wrong.

I'm not.

You can say that again. In fact it’s losing £8 billion a year.

Where's the £8bn going?

We got screwed as a result of the union. Wasn’t the first time and won’t be the last.

What are you talking about? Who got screwed?

The frustrating thing of course Willow is that we both know you are not the moron you are currently pretending to be. It’s always the same: after a few posts you revert to your rhetorical goalkeeper position and drag other posters into a war of attrition. It’s for this reason that in all your time on Slugger you have learned nothing – and in that you my well be unique. There are no other posters on Slugger – Jesus, even on ATW – who share your nihilistic tendency to drag things down. You’re unique. Congratulations.

You claimed NI had the worst health care in Europe, and I asked if you wanted more public spending to improve it. Rather than explain your point, you resort to ad hominem nonsense.

Stop hiding behind the word `physical’. Come out and have the courage of your convictions instead of being such a coward. You talked about ``forcibly removing majority populations’’

Yes, I know. I never mentioned physical relocation: you did. Stop pretending otherwise.

If you haven’t got the guts to stand over such inflammatory rhetoric then don’t use it.

I stand over everything I have posted.

I asked you a question. You didn’t answer it.

What question? I always answer questions. If you repeat it, I'll answer it.

``You really think the UVF was formed to oppose the Parliament Act? Catch yourself on. It was formed in opposition to Irish nationalism.’’ --- Another assertion which runs contrary to historical fact.

Good grief: the man thinks the UVF's purpose was to oppose the Parliament Act!! You're crazy. You need medication! Even Millie agrees with me!

Millie

Actually, the UVF was formed in opposition to the Home Rule Bill, and it's subsequent enforcement by the British Army if necessary.

Thank you. But it's Billy Pilgrim you need to tell!

There was no question of Ireland of being independent because a) the Irish Parliamentary Party weren't asking for it, and b) the British wouldn't have allowed it.

Nobody said there was!

'Thank you. But it's Billy Pilgrim you need to tell!'

But isn't that what he said??

Willow
"You, on the other hand, support forcibly removing majority populations."

I certainly hope you are able to back-up such an accusation? A quote where I said such a thing would be nice though you can search till the cows come home and you won't find such a quote. An apology would also be nice but I won't hold my breath for that one.

Billy Pilgrim

Two comments on what you have spent a long time saying today.

Evils of Partition

Given the same set of circumstances anywhere in the world today and partition will be seen as a solution. Iraq could likely go the same way with Kurds, Sunnies and Shias - if tribes cannot share the same piece of earth together then they are either go to war or reside in peaceful existence with one another.

At the turn of the century Ireland had two distinct peoples with different loyalties, religions and economies.

What came next with the Majority not having the foresight to have the place sensibly governed and the Minority always looking to another land left us where we are today.

The bottom line is that the Irish who also saw themselves British were geographically concentrated in a part of Ireland lending itself to partition.
The 'Irish' got 26 counties and the British and Irish got the other 6 - what is so wrong with that ?

NI Economy

The ROI economic revival much to be celebrated remains about a 12 year phenomenon - long may it continue but nationalists shouldn't gloat that a statelet 70 years old has finally got its act together.

In NI you are also completely overlooking the fact that we are still emerging from 25 years of terrorism and civil unrest. What kind of economic state do youe expect us to be in. Your statement

"Oh good Jesus, you just don't get it do you? My point is this: the six northeastern counties of Ireland, call them what you will, bloddy well SHOULD be creating wealth, but they are not doing so."

shows you with all your words you have little understanding of the reality.

Some of us are engaged in the private sector and are working our balls off trying to create wealth. Many others are supporting this and working equally hard in the public sector providing valuable support. In these efforts I am not sure what you do ?

However just because NI is a geographical distinct entity doesen't necessarily mean it should be judged on its own.

It only has the population of a large British city - in any such environment you will find prosperity and poverty. If you draw such a similar sized boundary around many other parts of GB or indeed the south west of Ireland you will realise large concentrations of wealth supporting the rest of the country.

Infact, although I don't have stats to support it, I would suspect that the greatest consumption per head of state benefits and least payers of taxation are the nationalist population of NI from which I suspect you come from.

Meanwhile the nationalist population has elected an orgainisation, as its political leaders, that for the majority of its existence was dedicated to the destruction of the economy. It has little respect for law and order and has ruled its 'community' with the kind of control that has created an economic wasteland by deterring investment and destroying any semblance of law and order.

Therefore when you want to start looking for reasons as to the six north eastern counties of Ireland are bloody well not creati g wealth take a look a bit closer to home

JEB
"British and Irish got the other 6 - what is so wrong with that ?"

That's the problem John, "two distinct peoples with different loyalties, religions and economies" got the other 6. Was that not wrong? As you said yourself "f tribes cannot share the same piece of earth together then they are either go to war or reside in peaceful existence with one another." ... and they went to war.

maca

the only civil war in Ireland post partition was in the 26 counties

John
I don't think you can say everybody up North lived all hunky dorey neighbourly. British attacked Irish, Irish attacked British. ;)

I find it disappointing that unionists on this thread are acting as if there were no nationalists in the north of Ireland and that as a result partition was a fair solution.This is nonsense.
Ireland was an island and should have been treated as the unit.Even when Ireland was part of the UK,the British treated it as its own unit which is reflected by the fact that pre-1922 Ireland had a Lord Lieutenant and a Chief Secretary.
Another major problem for nationalists is the way the border was drawn.It was clearly unfair and was manipulated to give unionists a majority.
Even if it meant sacrificing unionists in the Ulster counties of Donegal,Cavan and Monaghan.

Young Irelander

"I find it disappointing that unionists on this thread are acting as if there were no nationalists in the north of Ireland"

unlike you who act as if there were never unionists on the whole island

Where's your evidence of that,John?

Also John if you'd read the rest of my post you'd see I condemned the border for leaving out unionists in the Ulster counties of Donegal,Cavan and Monaghan.
Did you miss that part?

John East Belfast

"Infact, although I don't have stats to support it, I would suspect that the greatest consumption per head of state benefits and least payers of taxation are the nationalist population of NI from which I suspect you come from."

I think this says a lot about you John.

Young Irelander

"Also John if you'd read the rest of my post you'd see I condemned the border for leaving out unionists in the Ulster counties of Donegal,Cavan and Monaghan.
Did you miss that part?"

Well unless you are saying that the border should not be there and that all Ireland should be part of the UK then what I said about you not recognising the rights of unionists to realise that right on any part of the island is true.

Cahal

What if I had said the nationalist community of NI were on average more economically disadvantaged than the unionist community - would you agree with me ?

If that is true then all the other problems that go with poverty such as poor health and educational attainment etc will follow - thus leading to a higher consumption of state benefits and lower payment of taxation.

I only raised it because nationalists on this thread were knocking the fact that NI was a net destroyer of UK wealth and at the same time electing people as their leaders who were among the greatest causes of that economic deprivation both at the macro and local community level.

Millie

But isn't that what he said??

No. He’s trying to claim it was set up to oppose the Parliament Act!

maca

I certainly hope you are able to back-up such an accusation? A quote where I said such a thing would be nice though you can search till the cows come home and you won't find such a quote. An apology would also be nice but I won't hold my breath for that one.

See your 1:46 of yesterday, maca.

Young Irelander

I find it disappointing that unionists on this thread are acting as if there were no nationalists in the north of Ireland and that as a result partition was a fair solution.

I find it disappointing that nationalists on this thread are acting as if there were no unionists in Ireland and that, as a result, a united Ireland would be a fair solution.

Ireland was an island and should have been treated as the unit.

There we go!! The nationalist obsession with geography! It never takes long before nationalists have to resort to the nonsense about islands having to be treated as a unit. Wise up. People take precedence over geography.

Willow
"See your 1:46 of yesterday, maca"

I saw it (I wrote it remember). So in my 1:46 of yesterday did I say I "support forcibly removing majority populations"? Well?

In saying that "nationalists shouldn't have left the 6 counties behind", you implied that they should have been forcibly removed from the UK.

People take precedence over geography.

Where do you draw the line though, Willowfield?

If the country had been partitioned on the will of the people, rather than geography, we would have had pockets of "Northern Ireland" within the Free State and vice versa. For example, the constituencies of Dublin University and Dublin County Rathmines returned Unionist MPs in the 1918 General Election. Surely the people who elected them should have been allowed remain in the Union?

The constituencies of Fermanagh South, Londonderry City and Tyrone Nort West all returned Sinn Féin MPs, so shouldn't they have been allowed join the Free State? In addition, Armagh South, Belfast Falls, Down South and Tyrone North-East elected Nationalist MPs, so they two could have a claim to be included in the Free State.

Geography did have a part to play, otherwise post-partition Ireland would have resembled a patchwork.

Sorry for the typos in that last one...

Gerry O'Sullivan

Where do you draw the line though, Willowfield?

At the optimal place.

If the country had been partitioned on the will of the people, rather than geography, we would have had pockets of "Northern Ireland" within the Free State and vice versa. For example, the constituencies of Dublin University and Dublin County Rathmines returned Unionist MPs in the 1918 General Election. Surely the people who elected them should have been allowed remain in the Union?

I don't think what you propose would have been practicable.

The constituencies of Fermanagh South, Londonderry City and Tyrone Nort West all returned Sinn Féin MPs, so shouldn't they have been allowed join the Free State? In addition, Armagh South, Belfast Falls, Down South and Tyrone North-East elected Nationalist MPs, so they two could have a claim to be included in the Free State.

Whole constituencies are unnecessarily big units. Self-determination should be based on the smallest units possible. But, yes, large parts of Fermanagh, Armagh, etc., should have gone to the Free State. Of course.

Geography did have a part to play, otherwise post-partition Ireland would have resembled a patchwork.

Obviously. But it shouldn't take precedence.

"In saying that ... you implied that they should have been forcibly removed from the UK."

I didn't imply that. You drew your own conclusion which happened to be wrong, and not for the first time. Retraction or apology, either is fine.

Willow.

``No. He’s trying to claim it was set up to oppose the Parliament Act!’’

Actually Willow, I never said anything of the sort. Check my post from 4.11 yesterday so you can read what I actually said. I said the UVF had been set up to oppose the introduction of home rule. Previously George had mentioned the Parliament Act, though he wasn’t suggesting that the UVF had been set up in response to that either. I think he was pretty clear on the point that the parliament act of 1911 opened the door to the home rule crisis of 1912 - which is a reasonable reading of history.

He was not suggesting that the UVF was founded in order to maintain the privileges of the Lords - but rather that with the ending of the privileges of Ulster unionism's allies in the Lords, the unionist population could no longer rely on parliament for support, so armed itself in defiance of the very parliament they proclaimed loyalty to. ``We may have to fight the British in order to remain British,'' as Carson memorably put it.

All of which you know very well. Which is why it's so frustrating when you pretend you don't.

And all of which is beside the point. I never once mentioned the parliament act. I trust you will have the dignity and maturity to withdraw your earlier claim that I did, and to apologise for such a blatant misrepresentation of what I said.

So what did you mean by the remark?

Above directed at maca.

John East Belfast,
"the only civil war in Ireland post partition was in the 26 counties"

Maybe you could explain why a quarter of the Catholic population of your city alone, 23,000 were forced out of their homes after partition.

Maybe you can explain the hundreds of deaths. Criminality? Rehousing?

Also, social welfare spending is not the largest cost in Northern Ireland. I think it's less than 2%.
In fact it's the bloated public sector with people on fat wages being unproductive that is draining the place.

Are you saying its the nationalists on the fat public sector wages?

Billy Pilgrim

Actually Willow, I never said anything of the sort. Check my post from 4.11 yesterday so you can read what I actually said. I said the UVF had been set up to oppose the introduction of home rule. Previously George had mentioned the Parliament Act, though he wasn’t suggesting that the UVF had been set up in response to that either. I think he was pretty clear on the point that the parliament act of 1911 opened the door to the home rule crisis of 1912 - which is a reasonable reading of history.

The Home Rule Bill was introduced to placate nationalism, Billy, and was supported by nationalists! It was a nationalist demand! You denied that the UVF was formed in opposition to nationalism!

And all of which is beside the point. I never once mentioned the parliament act. I trust you will have the dignity and maturity to withdraw your earlier claim that I did, and to apologise for such a blatant misrepresentation of what I said.

You posted in support of George’s absurd claims that the UVF was not formed in opposition to nationalism, but in opposition to the Parliament Act. Hence my assumption that you agreed with him. You have now clarified your position and so now I have absolutely no problem in withdrawing my inference and apologising.

I note your own withdrawal from the essence of the discussion.

Willowfield,
"The Home Rule Bill was introduced to placate nationalism, Billy, and was supported by nationalists! It was a nationalist demand! You denied that the UVF was formed in opposition to nationalism!"

It was the demand of the majority of the people of Ireland for the guts of four decades.
The UVF were formed because unionism could no longer veto democratic progress on the island of Ireland once the Lords veto was removed.

Explain why there was no UVF founded to crush the first two Home Rule bills if this wasn't the case.

Re: end the union of the parliaments

Did the Government of Ireland Act 1920 and the creation of Stormont end the union of the parliaments?

If so, why did this Home Rule not mean leaving the union but the Irish Home Rule Bill did?

Willow
Retraction or apology, either is fine.

George

It was the demand of the majority of the people of Ireland for the guts of four decades.
The UVF were formed because unionism could no longer veto democratic progress on the island of Ireland once the Lords veto was removed.

So you accept that the UVF was formed to oppose nationalist demands for home rule for the whole island?

Explain why there was no UVF founded to crush the first two Home Rule bills if this wasn't the case.

Because it was unnecessary and would have been wrong!

Did the Government of Ireland Act 1920 and the creation of Stormont end the union of the parliaments?

In respect of the South, yes. NI continued to be represented at Westminster, though.

If so, why did this Home Rule not mean leaving the union but the Irish Home Rule Bill did?

See above.

maca

Retraction or apology, either is fine.

Why would I retract or apologise when you haven't offered any alternative assessment of what you meant?? Unless you clarify what you meant, I have no reason to alter my interpretation.

The UVF was formed because unionism's veto over Ireland's democratic progress (addressing the needs and concerns of the overwhelming majority of Ireland's population) ended with the end of the Lords veto.

If you can't stop the will of the majority of the people in parliament, stop them with guns.

Actually, the biggest difference between the Second and Third Home Rule Bill was the devolving of policing to Ireland.

Well here we are again 90 years later. Unionism is once again in fear of losing its control over state violence. Let's see how it works out this time.

George

The UVF was formed because unionism's veto over Ireland's democratic progress (addressing the needs and concerns of the overwhelming majority of Ireland's population) ended with the end of the Lords veto.

And? How does that alter the fact that its purpose was to oppose nationalism's demands for all-Ireland home rule?!!

Well here we are again 90 years later. Unionism is once again in fear of losing its control over state violence. Let's see how it works out this time.

Unionism doesn't have control over state violence.

Dear, dear, George, you're embarrassing yourself again.

Willow
"Why would I retract or apologise when you haven't offered any alternative assessment of what you meant??"

You jumped to one conclusion (of many possibles) which I pointed out was incorrect.

"Unless you clarify what you meant, I have no reason to alter my interpretation."

There were a number of conclusions you could have made but chose one perhaps based on prejudice. It would be quite natural to look at other possible conclusions as being the more likely.

To clarify then: My point was very simple, I would have preferred all 32 ctys gained independence instead of just the 26.
If this meant upsetting the unionist minority then so be it, not everyone was going to be happy anyway.

So I was right. You would have preferred the forcible expulsion of unionists from the UK.

No apology, then.

"So I was right. You would have preferred the forcible expulsion of unionists from the UK."

So you were wrong. My point again is "I would have preferred all 32 ctys gained independence instead of just the 26". This says nothing about the forcible expulsion of unionists from the UK. Unionists would be free to remain in the UK if they so desired. (my preference would have been for them to embrace independence as well)

Don't think I didn't notice how you now leave out the word majourity when you made it an important part of your earlier point.

"Unionism doesn't have control over state violence."

In your view, has unionism ever had control over state violence and if so when did it lose this control?

maca

So you were wrong. My point again is "I would have preferred all 32 ctys gained independence instead of just the 26". This says nothing about the forcible expulsion of unionists from the UK. Unionists would be free to remain in the UK if they so desired.

But you said that nationalists should have "taken the 6 counties with them": that implies against the will of the people living there.

Don't think I didn't notice how you now leave out the word majourity when you made it an important part of your earlier point.

Explain.

George

In your view, has unionism ever had control over state violence and if so when did it lose this control?

I take it this means you concede that unionists don't have control over the police? Don't you get fed up being wrong, George?

(FYI, Unionists had control over the police until 1972.)

Third last sentence above should read "state violence" instead of "the police".

Willowfield,
In your view, has unionism ever had control over state violence and if so when did it lose this control?

Stop repeating questions that have been answered. It's tiresome.

Who has had control over state violence since 1972?

Willow
"But you said that nationalists should have "taken the 6 counties with them": that implies against the will of the people living there."

As I said it does NOT imply anything!

Maca.

``There were a number of conclusions (willowfield) could have made but chose one perhaps based on prejudice. It would be quite natural to look at other possible conclusions as being the more likely.''

This is Willowfield's thing. He compensates for his lack of arguments by dashing genuine contributions on the rocks of his mendacity. He rarely makes a serious contribution, has never had the maturity to concede a point to his opponents and it seems has never learned anything on Slugger.

Take this, for example. George said:

``...Unionism is once again in fear of losing its control over state violence...''

To which Willow replied:

``Unionism doesn't have control over state violence.''

No argument, no explanation, just bald assertion, grounded in obstinate and wilful ignorance. The absence of rebutting evidence speaks volumes about the intellectual nihilism from which his potshots spring forth.

Now it's true to say that it's very hard to get the better in debate of someone who has consciously chosen ignorance as their modus operandi. The downside is that the thoughts of such a closed mind are rarely of any significance, even in a democracy.

Sorry Willow. I wish you would adopt a more enlightened approach but short of that I can only point out why I despair at the approach you do employ. For example, and this is a rhetorical question, have you ever, in all your time on Slugger, ever read a point made by a nationalist contributor that altered your perceptions one iota? Ever read a unionist v nationalist exchange and thought, `you know, the nationalist kinda has a point that hadn't occurred to me before'?

I doubt it. You insist on staying in your philosophical trench while the rest of us at least have the courage to stand in the open, where our fallibilities can be shot at by those we disagree with.

If you aren't prepared to accept at a fundamental philosophical level that despite everything you believe, you might actually be wrong, then you don't deserve to be treated as an adult and your postings don't deserve to be taken seriously.

Furthermore, you're a coward.

Billy Pilgrim

Are you gay ?

Its just your last sentence to Willowfield is the kind of thing a gay man having a rant would say !

John East Belfast,
I would be interested in knowing why you believe there was only a civil war in in the 26 counties and not over the border where a quarter of the Catholic population of your city alone, 23,000 were forced out of their homes after partition.

I would also be interested in hearing your explanation of the hundreds of deaths.

The were 3,000 people killed in the first 11 months of the Irish Civil War.
Between June 21, 1920 and June 18, 1922 there were 428 deaths in Northern Ireland.

Pathetic insult John, is that your only contribution?

George

Who has had control over state violence since 1972?

Unsurprisingly, George ... the state!

maca

As I said it does NOT imply anything!

It does.

Billy Pilgrim

Take this, for example. George said: ``...Unionism is once again in fear of losing its control over state violence...'' To which Willow replied: ``Unionism doesn't have control over state violence.'' No argument, no explanation, just bald assertion, grounded in obstinate and wilful ignorance.

Good grief, Billy, you think it requires "argument" to back up a statement of the obvious??? You're bananas!

It is George who is claiming that unionists have control over state violence - it's up to him to provide evidence for that claim!

Furthermore, you're a coward.

I'm not.

If you are incapable of debate. If you can't defend your own statements, don't come on the board.

maca

Pathetic insult John, is that your only contribution?

How is it an insult to ask someone if he is gay?

Willow
"It does"

It does not. I made the statement, I know what I meant and now i've told you that you jumped to the wrong conclusion.

"How is it an insult to ask someone if he is gay?"

The post was very clearly an attempt at an insult, no matter how you try to spin it.
But that's a matter for John & Billy to sort out.

Willowfield,
you said Unionism had control over state violence until 1972, which I agree with you on.

I said that the main difference between the 3rd Home Rule bill and the other was that it would devolve policing to Ireland as a whole and out of unionist control.

With the help of its private army, unionism was able to maintain total and unquestioned control of state violence until the collapse of the unionist state in 1972.

I assume you believe that since 1972 the British government has had sole control over state violence. I would say that for the most part they acted as proxies for the defunct unionist state in the intervening 25 years until the GFA when Patten decided the RUC were now to be seen as primarily acting as defenders of the state rather than upholders of the law per se.

At the moment, we seem to be in a sort of flux where the carrot of devolved police powers to the people of Ireland (NI now of course) rather than an ideology is back on the table after a 95 year absence.

I believe just as it was all those years ago unionism don't want the powers devolved unless the are assured of control over state violence as they were the last time there was a functioning Assembly.

This time around though, they don't have the private army to make this a reality.

George

you said Unionism had control over state violence until 1972, which I agree with you on.

So you accept you were wrong to claim it had control today.

And I only said it had control over the police. The armed forces were controlled from London.

With the help of its private army, unionism was able to maintain total and unquestioned control of state violence until the collapse of the unionist state in 1972.

It wasn't. The armed forces were controlled by London.

I assume you believe that since 1972 the British government has had sole control over state violence. I would say that for the most part they acted as proxies for the defunct unionist state in the intervening 25 years until the GFA when Patten decided the RUC were now to be seen as primarily acting as defenders of the state rather than upholders of the law per se.

Then you'd be wrong.

I believe just as it was all those years ago unionism don't want the powers devolved unless the are assured of control over state violence as they were the last time there was a functioning Assembly.

Then your belief is ridiculous.

In answer to your question John, I'm straight.

Why would my calling Willow a coward be ``the sort of thing a gay man having a rant would say''?

What would a straight man having a rant say?

Why would my sexual orientation, or that of anyone else be of any relevance?

You have disgraced yourself with that Ron Atkinson-style moment. It'll be hard for you to escape the charge of homophobia now.

Willow.

``Good grief, Billy, you think it requires "argument" to back up a statement of the obvious?''

(BTW: love the way you put the word argument in inverted commas!)

It may seem an obvious statement to you Willow but to many people on this board and in Ireland the statement is far from obvious. You have stated an opinion, not an infallible truth.

Thousands of people think that George's point - which is the opposite of yours - is ``obviously'' correct, which proves that there is nothing ``obvious'' about either statement. Both are purely subjective.

It's the point I was making earlier about using Slugger as a learning experience, y'know? I'd like to think I have learned a bit about unionism and the thoughts and feelings of unionists since I started blogging here. I can understand and acknowledge that unionists have reasonable and non-sectarian reasons for wanting the retain the union - something that really wasn't apparent when I was growing up. I'm still a nationalist though. I disagree with my opponents but I disagree respectfully. It's a shame that you don't feel it necessary to show even a sliver of respect to nationalists or to concede any dignity to the aspirations of the majority of Irish people.

Now, on George's point: surely you are aware of what nationalists think of the security forces? I mean, you don't have to agree, but if you disagree, please explain why, rather than just stating that the point is ``obviously'' wrong. Then we can debate the issue back and forth and hopefully both learn something. For this you need evidence and rational argument.

I think the union and partition are ``obviously'' bad ideas and that a sovereign, unified Irish state is ``obviously'' a good idea. I understand that others disagree, so I try to explain my position. If everyone here just stated my opinion and declared that opinion to be so obviously the truth that no further discussion or elaboration was required, it wouldn't be much of a debate, would it? In fact it wouldn't be a debate at all.

You may not even realise it, but that's the approach you take. I'm sorry for giving you a hard time but to be honest I just have a very low tolerance for rudeness.

``Then you'd be wrong.''

``Then your belief is ridiculous.''

These responses for example are just plain rude.

Billy Pilgrim

It may seem an obvious statement to you Willow but to many people on this board and in Ireland the statement is far from obvious. You have stated an opinion, not an infallible truth.

I simply don't believe you. In fact, I don't think a single person on Slugger, save for George, believes that unionists have control over "state violence" in NI today.

Thousands of people think that George's point - which is the opposite of yours - is ``obviously'' correct, which proves that there is nothing ``obvious'' about either statement. Both are purely subjective.

Again, I don't believe that "thousands" of people believe that unionists have control of state violence.

I understand that others disagree, so I try to explain my position.

But you get all sensitive when it's challenged!

``Then you'd be wrong.'' ``Then your belief is ridiculous.'' These responses for example are just plain rude.

George's postings are just plain ridiculous. It is not credible to claim that unionists want to have absolute control over policing. It is unionists who are trying to INCREASE the accountability of ministers, to avoid precisely the situation where individual ministers have absolute control!!

Try following politics, man!

Willowfield,
I just told you I believe unionism has had direct control or control by proxy of state violence over the last 90 years. Read my last post.

You said I was wrong to assume you believe that since 1972 the British government has had sole control over state violence.

Who in your has had control over state violence since 1972 if it wasn't the British government?

Also, are you in favour of devolving power to a functioning NI Assembly which includes SF?

Should read devolving police powers.

George

I just told you I believe unionism has had direct control or control by proxy of state violence over the last 90 years. Read my last post.

Well, it hasn't. "State violence" has been controlled entirely by Westminster since 1972. That does not mean unionist control by proxy. Conservative and Labour governments have been in charge and to claim that unionists have some sort of control over them is ridiculous - there is no basis for such a claim. Unionists have virtually been shut out of power since 1972.

Who in your has had control over state violence since 1972 if it wasn't the British government?

??????????????? Are you well?

Also, are you in favour of devolving power to a functioning NI Assembly which includes SF?

Yes.

Willow.
``I simply don't believe you. In fact, I don't think a single person on Slugger, save for George, believes that unionists have control over "state violence" in NI today.’’
Fine. Fair enough. All I’m saying is that you should argue the point. It’s NOT an obvious point, even though it may seem so to you. For example, you may not be aware that when nationalists talk about `unionist’ control of state violence, that refers to the whole apparatus of the state, including the pro-union civil servants and militarists who really run this place. It doesn’t just refer to unionist political parties. So when George says that unionists have been in control of state violence here before 1921, between 1921-72, and from 1972 til the present, most nationalists will nod in agreement. The fact the Ulster Unionist Party lost control of the police in 1972 is a detail – an important one, agreed, but just a detail. Justice powers continued to be in the control of the pro-union community and their imperial benefactors. So when a unionist says that unionism does not have control over state violence because Stormont was prorogued in 1972, rightly or wrongly nationalists see this as sheer mendacity.
Now, you may disagree with all of the above. Fair enough. But an inquiring mind would tease the issue out in a respectful exchange of ideas. Your approach does not allow for that.

``Again, I don't believe that "thousands" of people believe that unionists have control of state violence.’’
Of course you don’t. You have never conceded that there is any substance to nationalist opinion and so have never explored any opinions you are not comfortable with. So OF COURSE things that seem obvious to nationalists seem ridiculous to you. Fact is that virtually all nationalists saw the security forces as being the instrument of unionist rule, and to this day most still do. Even the SDLP don’t argue that the PSNI isn’t still a unionist police force – they instead argue that it is in the process of changing, and that change is best pursued from within. You can choose to believe me or not, but your belief doesn’t make the argument any more or less valid. In fact, your belief is irrelevant. The reality is what it is.

``But you get all sensitive when it's challenged!’’
Actually, in fairness you’ll find that I rarely get all sensitive with any other unionist posters, with whom I generally enjoy good, robust exchanges. It’s just you Willow. You get my goat. As I said, I have a low threshold for rudeness.

``George's postings are just plain ridiculous.’’
They are not. They only seem so to you because you have never taken a nationalist argument at face value and have never deviated from your complete lack of respect for any and every nationalist argument.

``It is not credible to claim that unionists want to have absolute control over policing. It is unionists who are trying to INCREASE the accountability of ministers, to avoid precisely the situation where individual ministers have absolute control!!’’

Again you are looking at this purely in party political terms. If you open your mind and concede some humanity and dignity to nationalist arguments you would see the point that control over state violence remains, as it always has been, in the hands of people who are pro union. Then you might understand why it's such an important issue for nationalists.

Willowfield,
your constant lowering of the tone to the level of abuse makes things very difficult.

I find a lot of what you seem to believe to be totally ridiculous and from the world of unionist make believe, otherwise known as nevernever land, but it makes more sense to ask why you believe these things rather than bleating the word ridiculous at nauseum.

some of the, what I would consider, ridiculous things you have said on this thread alone:

Dail speaking rights for NI politicians undermine UK sovereignty in NI and are contrary to the Agreement.

Caiaomhan (Kevin?)
"I'm not a Gaelic-speaker, I don't know what the name is, but I'm wondering if it is the Gaelic version of Kevin. Is it?"

"'Equality' has nothing to do with being represented in the parliament of another state!.... Such a policy, contrary to the GFA, would promote an apartheid political culture in NI and must be resisted"

And my favourite....
"equality issues were dealt with long before the GFA"

To quote yourself, one time only:

You're being ridiculous.

John East Belfast,don't confuse me stating the border was wrong with me saying unionists were wrong.I respect the integrity of the unionist position.I just don't feel the border was the right solution to the issue.

willowfield,before you go on one of your rants,is there any chance you might actually read the ENTIRE post?I know you like to pick quotes here and there,how about quoting the part where I stated the British treated Ireland as its own unit?
I'm sure I'm not the only one on this site who feels this way.....

I have to agree with Billy on this one.

I've tangled with Willowfield's hairsplitting and obstinacy before regarding "murder," the "law," power and "state violence" in NI.

For him everything boils down to the unassailable legitimacy of the NI statelet and a belief that the law has been functioning normally in NI. Everything else he says seems to follow from here: that's why he will never see NI in terms of the "forcible inclusion" of Irish people in the UK, but will characterise nationalism as the desire to "forcibly remove" Britons from the UK.

It's a position I try to respect, but completely disagree with for what seem to me to be "obvious" reasons.

This thread has brought out the worst in everybody. That's why I've stayed out of it. There is sectarianism, bigotry, stubborness and even a bit of homophobia thrown in for good measure. I hope the thread is terminated soon. It has contributed nothing positive in any way.

maca, cahal et al

"homophobia" ? Lighten up I was only messing about.
It's just when I read through Billy Pilgrim's rant at Willowfield at 1.27pm today and then the when I read the last line it just conjured up an image for me that made me smile.

If I have genuinely offended anyone I apologise.

Anyhow in my book calling someone a coward is more offensive than jokingly asking if they were gay.

As for me making a contribution I had made what I though were a couple of substantial contributions - firstly I highlighted the creeping joint authority and the massive mid lothian type question of the thread topic.

Then I pointed out some issues regards the NI economy following attacks by nationalists and finally I tried to tackle the old issue of the evils of partition.

The last one is the most frustrating of all because when I was checking into Slugger about a year ago Young Irelander and Billy Pilgrim were saying exactly what they are saying now. ie partition was bad and there would be no Irish problem if Unionists would just recognise that they are a minority in Ireland and accept the wishes of the island's majority.

The pragmatic compromise of partition where the Irish and British got six counties and Irish Republicanism got the other 26 just doesn't register.

When Willowfield tries to drive this point home in his focused way he gets abuse that he is almost somehow deranged because he does not accept the nationalist thinking on this.

That is why this thread is so frustrating.

George

As for your question on why I thought the only civil war in Ireland post partition was in the 26 counties it is because although there has been a lot of pain and trouble in the 6 counties it was never a civil war.

In the run up to the Great War the chances for an all Ireland Civil War between Irish unionism and nationalism was huge. Undoubtedly a conflict that would have left tens of thousands dead and who knows what the outcome would have been.

However all because of that historic compromise called partition it didn't happen.

John why was it acceptable for unionists to get SIX counties?Demographically this was not right.
Do you not accept that?

Young Irelander

I don't have all the demographic stats, land owning details and industrial centres of the early twenties to hand but that was what was agreed at the time.

They did concede three of the Ulster counties.

Why - are you saying that in ceratin circumstances some kind of partition would have been justified ?

John as I stated in my post at 11:03pm yesterday nationalists have a problem with the border but also the way the border was drawn.
Nationalists were led to believe that the NI state would consist of four counties which would've been fairer based on demographics.
I do not feel the introduction of the border can be justified and certainly not the one that resulted which was clearly designed to manipulate a state that unionists could control.
A border was bad enough.A border that gave unionists six counties was farcical and cannot be justified in my view by anyone nationalist or unionist.

John East Belfast

They did concede three of the Ulster counties.

Only to contrive a majority for themselves. But Young Irelander that's all in the past. We have an agreed solution to partition and we need to concentrate on bringing about the majority we need.

George

I find a lot of what you seem to believe to be totally ridiculous and from the world of unionist make believe, otherwise known as nevernever land, but it makes more sense to ask why you believe these things rather than bleating the word ridiculous at nauseum.

Nothing that I believe is ridiculous, either partially or totally. You have cited a number of things that you claim are “ridiculous”, but, significantly, you are unable to demonstrate how they are ridiculous.

Dail speaking rights for NI politicians undermine UK sovereignty in NI and are contrary to the Agreement. --- nothing ridiculous about that. On the contrary: perfectly reasonable comment.

"I'm not a Gaelic-speaker, I don't know what the name is, but I'm wondering if it is the Gaelic version of Kevin. Is it?" --- this is a perfectly reasonable question. In fact, I believe I was correct!

"'Equality' has nothing to do with being represented in the parliament of another state!.... --- far from being ridiculous, this statement is actually true!

Such a policy, contrary to the GFA, would promote an apartheid political culture in NI and must be resisted" --- far from being ridiculous, this is perfectly reasonable comment.

And my favourite...."equality issues were dealt with long before the GFA" --- again, far from being ridiculous, this is actually true.

George, maybe you should take a break from Slugger. You’re out of your depth.

JD

I've tangled with Willowfield's hairsplitting and obstinacy before regarding "murder," the "law," power and "state violence" in NI. For him everything boils down to the unassailable legitimacy of the NI statelet and a belief that the law has been functioning normally in NI.

Sorry JD, but no law in any civilised society permits murder. It’s simply wrong and any attempts by you or anyone else to justify it will, unsurprisingly, be challenged.

Everything else he says seems to follow from here: that's why he will never see NI in terms of the "forcible inclusion" of Irish people in the UK, but will characterise nationalism as the desire to "forcibly remove" Britons from the UK.

That’s a misrepresentation, JD. Any non-partition solution would have resulted in either the forcible exclusion of unionists from the UK, or the forcible inclusion of nationalists within the UK. Partition was the best way round that dilemma, but obviously minorities of both peoples ended up on the wrong side of the border, and hence forcibly included or excluded. The difference between the nationalist solution (forced union) and the unionist position (partition), is that the nationalist solution would have forcibly excluded an entire people, whereas the unionist solution facilitated the wishes of the vast majority of both peoples.

""I'm not a Gaelic-speaker, I don't know what the name is, but I'm wondering if it is the Gaelic version of Kevin. Is it?" --- this is a perfectly reasonable question. In fact, I believe I was correct!"

Just to be accurate, it IS actually incorrect.

So what is the English equivalent, then?

JEB

``The last one is the most frustrating of all because when I was checking into Slugger about a year ago Young Irelander and Billy Pilgrim were saying exactly what they are saying now. ie partition was bad and there would be no Irish problem if Unionists would just recognise that they are a minority in Ireland and accept the wishes of the island's majority.''

Actually, I hadn't thought of it that way, but I
suppose it is true that if unionists recognised they are the minority and Ireland and accepted the wishes of the majority, there wouldn't be any problem. (Joke).

That's not what I advocate though. I respect the validity and morality of the unionist position, though as you know I disagree with it. My ideal is detente between the peoples of Ireland and ultimately a consensual alliance in the form of a sovereign state. This too is a valid and moral position, and I make no apology for it.

You have accused me of declaring the union and partition as `evil'. I have never done any such thing. I think they are bad ideas - all nationalists do. That's what nationalists are: people who would prefer a single and sovereign Irish state to the partitioning of the country and union with Britain.

That said, I have an open mind on the issue. I would NEVER say that I would never change my mind. I'm more committed to rationality than to nationality. But at present I believe the case for reunification to be compelling. So of course I will challenge those whose opinions, as I see it, stand in the way of that noble end.

Where I grew up, to be honest, unionists seemed like a myth, a bad dream, because
I never really saw too many of them in my part of town. You are from east Belfast - perhaps your experience of nationalists is similar?

These days of course I meet, work with and do business with unionists day and daily. I realise that they are real, that most are reasonable and moral, and that they see things through a fundamentally different prism than I do.

When I have been critical of the union I have tried to explain why. I have tried to illustrate with evidence and the best reasoning I can summon why I see our situation as I do. I try to be fair, though my opposition to partition and non-Irish rule in Ireland runs deep.

You seem exasperated that I am still in favour of reunification, despite having listened to what I have no doubt you consider compelling arguments for the union. Did you think that by simply being exposed to unionist arguments, the scales would fall off my eyes and I would see light?

This suggests a fundamental disrespect for the pro-unity argument. We see other examples of this disrespect in, for example, the refusal of some to countenance the idea, for example, that someone else's views on the nature of the NI state are to be even worth considering.

The word `ridiculous' has been bandied about here often, but there is nothing ridiculous in the unionist claim that Northern Ireland is a normal and functioning state, nor in the nationalist claim that it isn't.

We disagree, so we debate. I'm sorry if I sometimes lose patience when confronted with the rudeness of the closed mind.

By the way John, your `gay' comment was completely out of order and your apology was a joke.

``Anyhow in my book calling someone a coward is more offensive than jokingly asking if they were gay.''

Not so. I explained what I thought was Willowfield's intellectual cowardice. It was not name-calling, it was an extensively argued criticism that culminated in a damning conclusion. I don't care if it offended him, I stand by it. Willow rejected the charge, as is his entitlement. We move on.

A person's sexuality is not a debating point. Your question not only questioned my sexuality - which is an inherently offensive thing to do - it was also a slur on gay people to suggest that any sentence is ``the sort of thing a gay person would come out with''.

Billy Boy

When I have been critical of the union I have tried to explain why. I have tried to illustrate with evidence and the best reasoning I can summon why I see our situation as I do.

Yet when someone challenges that reason, you get upset.

This suggests a fundamental disrespect for the pro-unity argument.

The pro-unity argument fundamentally entails disrespect for the right of unionists to a separate national identity worthy of separate statehood.

willowfield

The pro-unity argument fundamentally entails disrespect for the right of unionists to a separate national identity worthy of separate statehood.

A Protestant State for a Protestant people?

I don't equate unionists with Protestants, so the answer is "no".

A Catholic state for a Catholic people?

Willowfield,
"The pro-unity argument fundamentally entails disrespect for the right of unionists to a separate national identity worthy of separate statehood"

Unionism's right to separate statehood is no more or no less worthy than Irish nationalism's right to unification.

Previously you wrote:
"Nothing that I believe is ridiculous, either partially or totally." Do you not realise how ridiculous that is for a start?

Anyway you asked me to address on of your claims. I'll use your one that "equality issues were dealt with long before the GFA".

Firstly, most women would call that comment riduculous.

Even now, official statistics show that on most major social and economic indicators, Catholics are worse off than Protestants.
In thirty years of statistical monitoring, Catholic males are consistently 2 – 2.5 times more likely to be unemployed than Protestant males.

Up until 1998, the British government failed to end discrimination. The fair employment laws had to be revised four times between 1976 and 1998.

Catholics and women remain grossly underrepresented across middle and senior grades in government departments.

Test cases against the British government were taken to the European Court of Human Rights by companies denied contracts and by a nationalist thrown out of his job. Neither case was supported by the independent statutory bodies charged with promoting equality in the north of Ireland.

These cases finally triumphed with the ECHR ruling that the British government provisions were unlawful. Rather than repealing the provision, the British government revised and renewed it in the equality legislation of 1998.

The Agreement is designed to deconstruct this hierarchy of inequality by addressing the deficit in socio-economic and cultural rights, and, as I said before, legitimising the political ambitions of those who want Ireland re-united and those who wish to remain under British rule. No hierarchy of worthiness.

Put at its simplest, if, as you say, equality was addressed pre 1998 why the Equality Agenda in the Northern Ireland Act 1998?

If there is equality why did John Taylor, deputy leader of the UUP say before the GFA was signed "The Irish minority cannot be equal to the majority in Northern Ireland."

Or conversely, why did UUP man Dermot Nesbitt disingenuously proclaim when he was junior Minister for Equality that "We are winning the war on equality" if there is no inequality?

willowfield

I don't equate unionists with Protestants, so the answer is "no".

That was the basis on which the NI state was set up. It has no other basis. Do you repudiate it?

A Catholic state for a Catholic people?

We need one state for all the people of Ireland. It will embrace the republican principle of the separation of Church and State.

Willow
"So what is the English equivalent, then?"

Kevin, obviously.
But before you jump in saying you were right, you said 'Caoimhín is the Gaelic version of Kevin' whereas Kevin is actually the anglicisation of the Irish Caoimhín (pronounced Kwee-veen). There is a dfference.
Which is all irrelevant really cos his name here is Caoimhín and should not be translated (unless by Caoimhín of course).

George

Unionism's right to separate statehood is no more or no less worthy than Irish nationalism's right to unification.

You’re not comparing like with like there, Georgie.

Anyway you asked me to address on of your claims. I'll use your one that "equality issues were dealt with long before the GFA".

Firstly, most women would call that comment riduculous.

Really? Why would most women call the comment that “equality issues were dealt with long before the GFA” ridiculous? On what do you base this judgement?

Even now, official statistics show that on most major social and economic indicators, Catholics are worse off than Protestants. In thirty years of statistical monitoring, Catholic males are consistently 2 – 2.5 times more likely to be unemployed than Protestant males.

And what is your point? What “equality issues” are contained in the GFA that had not previously been dealt with? In what way is it “ridiculous” to point out that equality issues were dealt with long before the GFA? Equality issues have been dealt with since the 60s.

Up until 1998, the British government failed to end discrimination. The fair employment laws had to be revised four times between 1976 and 1998.

No government can succeed in completely ending discrimination. All governments can do is provide a legal framework for preventing, detecting, punishing and compensating. That has been done and has been very successful.

Catholics and women remain grossly underrepresented across middle and senior grades in government departments.

And?

The Agreement is designed to deconstruct this hierarchy of inequality by addressing the deficit in socio-economic and cultural rights

And how is this done?

and, as I said before, legitimising the political ambitions of those who want Ireland re-united and those who wish to remain under British rule. No hierarchy of worthiness.

Such political ambitions were already legitimate.

Put at its simplest, if, as you say, equality was addressed pre 1998 why the Equality Agenda in the Northern Ireland Act 1998?

The “equality agenda” puts a positive duty to promote equality of opportunity on public authorities. It’s a far-reaching initiative, way beyond the norms of most states. Does the absence of such a duty in other states mean that “equality” has not been addressed in those states?

The point I made, as presumably you well know, was that the GFA was not about “equality”, it was about political accommodation. Attempts to dress it up as an agreement about “equality” are disingenuous attempts by nationalists to hide the fact that they signed up to “British rule” in NI. The “equality agenda” – Section 75 alluded to above – is a small add-on.

If there is equality why did John Taylor, deputy leader of the UUP say before the GFA was signed "The Irish minority cannot be equal to the majority in Northern Ireland."

I imagine he meant equal in numeric terms.

Or conversely, why did UUP man Dermot Nesbitt disingenuously proclaim when he was junior Minister for Equality that "We are winning the war on equality" if there is no inequality?

I imagine he meant that, while individual cases of discrimination still occur, and will always occur, we have sufficient legal provisions to deal with them and that, overall, we have tackled the issue of discrimination.

I note your failure to deal with the other points. I assume this means that you accept that they weren’t “ridiculous”.

Thank you.

Henry94

That was the basis on which the NI state was set up. It has no other basis. Do you repudiate it?

We've moved on since then. Just as nationalism has moved on from equating Roman Catholicism with nationalism. We've all moved on.

We need one state for all the people of Ireland.

We don't.

It will embrace the republican principle of the separation of Church and State.

Except you'll keep your state-funded Roman Catholic schools!!

maca

Kevin, obviously.

So Kevin is the English "equivalent" of Caiombhin, but it was "ridiculous" to suggest that it was the English "version"?

Whatever.

Willow.

``The pro-unity argument fundamentally entails disrespect for the right of unionists to a separate national identity worthy of separate statehood.''

Jackpot.

I think you have just articulated unionism's bottom line very well.

Nationalists - by virtue of being nationalists - are enemies of unionists. The very fact that they are nationalists shows how much they hate unionists. They are not so much nationalists as anti-unionists. The very existence of nationalism is an insult to unionism.

Let me just tell you Willow: none of the above is true. The way you perceive our dispute would change utterly if you could digest that reality. Politics would become possible.

Such a philosophy provides the bedrock for sectarianism.

(I can tell you that nationalists do not consider the very existence of unionism to be a personal slight. Some nationalists think unionists are wicked, others just that unionists are wrong, but I have never heard anyone proclaim that unionism was fundamentally about dissing nationalism. That would just be so utterly vain.)

"I note your failure to deal with the other points. I assume this means that you accept that they weren’t “ridiculous”."

I would be here all day Willowfield and considering you seem to believe that you can do no wrong, there's not much point.

Má tú ag lorg cara gan locht, beidh tú gan cara go deo.

Willow.

``Unionism's right to separate statehood is no more or no less worthy than Irish nationalism's right to unification.

You’re not comparing like with like there, Georgie.''

How so Willow? It's just bad manners when you dismiss a point without explaining why, for the benefit of we who are not as enlightened as you.

Why are the respective unionist and nationalist preferences for Northern Ireland's constitutional future ``not comparing like with like''?

Is this again about your fundamental refusal to accept the legitimacy of the nationalist aspiration?

(Incidentally, I know you have previously stated that you do accept the legitimacy of the pro-unity argument. I am questioning whether you were telling the truth or just mouthing a platitude. Your posts generally suggest the latter.)

Willow
"Whatever"

You raised the issue. If you don't want to be accurate then fine.
(I also not how you twisted the issue there.)

Má tú ag lorg cara gan locht, beidh tú gan cara go deo.

Can we have a translation please ?

Billy Boy

Nationalists - by virtue of being nationalists - are enemies of unionists.

They're not. They're only enemies if they seek to undermine unionism.

The very fact that they are nationalists shows how much they hate unionists.

It doesn't. A nationalist does not have to oppose the existence of NI. A nationalist might support that right, while believing that unionists should opt to join an all-Ireland state.

The very existence of nationalism is an insult to unionism.

It's not. The existence of irredentist nationalism is insulting, but unionists fully respect the right to an independent nationalist state within the territory in which nationalists are a majority.

Let me just tell you Willow: none of the above is true.

I know. I've just refuted it all.

The way you perceive our dispute would change utterly if you could digest that reality. Politics would become possible.

But I do "digest that reality": it was you who posted the untrue statements!

Such a philosophy provides the bedrock for sectarianism.

?????????????????????

"Can we have a translation please ?"

If you are looking for a friend without fault,
you will be without a friend forever.

willowfield

We've moved on since then.

Who? Rev Paisley Rev Smyth? Rev McCrea?

Except you'll keep your state-funded Roman Catholic schools!!

I would fund all schools on the same basis. You either have a state monopoly or you allow people to set up schools. If you allow people to set up schools then you have to treat them all in the same way.

The only alternative is to allow private schools but ban all religious groups from running them. I don't know how such a discrimination could be justified. For example would an interdenominational school be banned under such a provision?

Cheers :)

Dav,
Another form in Gaelic (Gd)

"Ged dh'imicheadh tu 'n cruinne, chan fhaigh thu duine gun choire."
"You may go around the world, but you'll not meet a a man without fault"

Henry94

Who? Rev Paisley Rev Smyth? Rev McCrea?

Well, even they have signed up to the Agreement now! ... (maybe not Smyth, actually)

I would fund all schools on the same basis. You either have a state monopoly or you allow people to set up schools. If you allow people to set up schools then you have to treat them all in the same way. The only alternative is to allow private schools but ban all religious groups from running them. I don't know how such a discrimination could be justified. For example would an interdenominational school be banned under such a provision?

Spin it however you like, but state financing of religious schools is contrary to the republican principle that you claim to espouse. Go to France to find out what it means in practice.

I found this to be very interesting:

willowfield

"The existence of irredentist nationalism is insulting,but unionists fully respect the right to an independent nationalist state within the territory in which nationalists are a majority."

First of all,nationalism does not believe the border can separate Irish from Irish and looks on the island as our nation.Indeed the 'Irish nation' is spoken of in the Irish constitution so what is irredentist to you would not be for nationalists.
Secondly,if "unionists fully respect the right to an independent nationalist state within the territory in which nationalists are a majority" what then was the purpose of the establishment of the Ulster Volunteer Force?
Some more questions I'd like answered:

-If the British on the mainland voted for partition to be ended,would unionists accept it?

-If in the future there is a referendum in Ireland's north and the people decide to vote for reunification,if one of the counties,let's say Antrim,decided to set up a unionist state out of Antrim and let's say the majority in Antrim were unionist,would their actions be justifiable?

-If the Irish communtiies in Liverpool had decided to set up a 33rd Irish county,would unionists have supported their right to do this?

willowfield

Would you ban inter-denominational schools? France does. I don't believe there is any constituency on the island for such an extreme position. So we need a fair and consistent policy that is capable of winning public support.

Whoever wrote that had never been to County Tyrone!

Young Irelander

First of all,nationalism does not believe the border can separate Irish from Irish and looks on the island as our nation.

That is unacceptable. Nationalists need to get over their obsession with territory and geography. It is people who decide these things, not territory. The world moved on from this territorial aggression after the atrocities of the Second World War.

Secondly,if "unionists fully respect the right to an independent nationalist state within the territory in which nationalists are a majority" what then was the purpose of the establishment of the Ulster Volunteer Force?

Its purpose was to prevent nationalists acquiring territory in which unionists were the majority.

-If the British on the mainland voted for partition to be ended,would unionists accept it?

I would doubt it.

-If in the future there is a referendum in Ireland's north and the people decide to vote for reunification,if one of the counties,let's say Antrim,decided to set up a unionist state out of Antrim and let's say the majority in Antrim were unionist,would their actions be justifiable?

I don't accept this obsession with counties.

-If the Irish communtiies in Liverpool had decided to set up a 33rd Irish county,would unionists have supported their right to do this?

I don't know.

Henry94

Would you ban inter-denominational schools? France does.

It doesn't. It bans state support for them. And, yes, I would too.

I don't believe there is any constituency on the island for such an extreme position. So we need a fair and consistent policy that is capable of winning public support.

Then there is no constituency on the island in favour of the principle that you claim to support.

Jesus Davros, are you a Tyrone man?

I wish you'd told me: we don't talk to your kind...

Billy Pilgrim

"Some nationalists think unionists are wicked, others just that unionists are wrong"

I neither think unionism nor nationalism are either wicked or wrong.

They are both totally legitimate positions that democrats have to achieve through the six county ballot box.

That is the crux of the matter - ie the acceptance of partition by Irish nationalism - as Henry 94 said earlier - now that has been done we need to move on.

At the same time the majority of unionists will not accept re-partition. The border has been drawn and I know few people who will want to re-draw it.

If a 50+1 majority for Irish nationalism ever comes then unionism will either put up or get out.

Therefore arguments about the rights and wrongs of partition are totally frustrating and wasteful.

Irish nationalism (including physical force Republicanism) have accepted that full independent Irish Unity can only be achieved through the peaceful persuasion of a sizeable section of the unionist community - not to mention holding onto their traditional 'catholic' nationalist vote.

The days of cohersion or back door creeping joint authority (back to the thread again) should be over.

If you want Irish Unity you will have to earn it.

Willow.

``I don't accept this obsession with counties.''

You are avoiding the substance of his question. Why?

Willowfield,
re: out of my depth on Slugger.

You certainly don't appear to have any kind of grasp of the Irish spectrum, but still feel you know enough to determine whether someone has the ability to shed some light on a specific part of that unknown spectrum.

You will never be out of your depth and therefore never learn to swim in the sea of other peoples' ideas because you never let the water get above your ankles.

Your priority on Slugger appears to be to prove yourself right, at all costs.

Willow obviously hasn't witnessed a Derry-Tyrone or Armagh-Down clash in Clones. He'd understand then allright!

Georgie

You certainly don't appear to have any kind of grasp of the Irish spectrum, but still feel you know enough to determine whether someone has the ability to shed some light on a specific part of that unknown spectrum.

What is the "Irish spectrum"? I'm unaware of ever having commented on it.

PS

Willow obviously hasn't witnessed a Derry-Tyrone or Armagh-Down clash in Clones. He'd understand then allright!

So the obsession with counties is a result of GAA? I can see that all right, but it seems odd to base arguments about self-determination around sporting identity (and the sporting identity of only one community).

This just in

Taoiseach Bertie Ahern has pledged his support to a referendum on Seanad reform ahead of the next general election.

Mr Ahern's plans are to provide more cross-community representation from Northern Ireland.

"I support increasing membership of the Seanad and formalising the existing ad-hoc arrangements," Deputy Ahern told the Dáil today.

"This, of course, could only be done by referendum. I imagine that this is a matter on which all parties will have views. For my part, I would like to see such a referendum before the next general election."

In fairness my response was fairly flippant and shouldn't be taken as a measured poltical response. I think it was the home Rule deliberations circa 1914 that used the counties as a basis for the arguement of self-determination. I, myself, would have used the island as a whole (surprise, surprise)!

I do take your point though that it is ironic that an Elizabethian concept such as counties has become the cornerstone of the GAA.

Disgraceful.

Irredentism continues unchecked in the South.

Thanks, DUP!

"I do take your point though that it is ironic that an Elizabethian concept such as counties has become the cornerstone of the GAA."

Would you not say the cornerstone is the parish rather than the county?

Billy - lived and went to school there - The Old Grey Mother - as a teenager. I would have thought you would have guessed by my "attitude" LOL

W F Marshall

Not where I'm from maca, we've three clubs in one parish!(from only 1 thirty years ago, and the parish next to us has four including this years Ulster champions) You are right of course that the club is the most important unit of the GAA, hwoever even at club level, leagues and championships are organised primarily on an internal county basis.

Good post John. I hope we can put our little falling out behind us.

``I neither think unionism nor nationalism are either wicked or wrong.’’

I hope I was clear that neither do I think either is wicked. By wrong I mean mistaken or misguided. It’s not meant as a moral judgement.

``They are both totally legitimate positions that democrats have to achieve through the six county ballot box.’’

Agreed.

``That is the crux of the matter - ie the acceptance of partition by Irish nationalism - as Henry 94 said earlier - now that has been done we need to move on.’’

If you mean that nationalism must accept that partition is a fact and one that can’t be wished away, then I agree. If you mean by ``acceptance’’ that partition must be permanent then I don’t. You’re absolutely correct to say that how partition came about is totally irrelevant to where we go from here. It’s now an historical argument only. The fact is that no matter how strongly nationalists feel that partition was an injustice (I’m restraining my language here), that won’t change a thing. It’s not as if unionism en masse is ever going to turn around and say, `actually, you’re right’.

I’d say we have now arrived at an interesting phase in history where, tired from fighting, we have agreed ground rules on how to take our disagreement forward.

Nationalists have accepted that, however it came about, the playing field is Northern Ireland, and only Northern Ireland. (Which is a major wrench because, without prejudice to anyone else’s views, we don’t instinctively believe there is any such thing as `Northern Ireland’.)

Unionists have accepted that though the cards may be stacked in their favour they are in a game where they could lose the union itself.

Those are two major compromises, and we are rarely magnanimous enough to acknowledge the enormity of what the other side has put on the table.

``The majority of unionists will not accept re-partition. The border has been drawn and I know few people who will want to re-draw it. If a 50+1 majority for Irish nationalism ever comes then unionism will either put up or get out.’’

This is an important contribution. If the consent principle is to mean anything then it must be agreed that any decision taken by the people of Northern Ireland as a whole is respected by the people of Northern Ireland as a whole. I’m glad John has indicated the all-or-nothing nature of the consent principle, and I’m even gladder that he has demonstrated a bit of that good old fashioned British fair play. Though I would be appalled if unification meant `put up or get out’ for unionists. I would be anxious that the unionist experience of reunification would be one of very pleasant surprise.

``Therefore arguments about the rights and wrongs of partition are totally frustrating and wasteful.’’

Once again when I said wrong, I did not mean it in the moral sense. I think the union is a bad idea and a damaging factor in our lives, but then so is fast food. Doesn’t mean its evil or anything like that, just that change is badly needed.

``Irish nationalism (including physical force Republicanism) have accepted that full independent Irish Unity can only be achieved through the peaceful persuasion of a sizeable section of the unionist community - not to mention holding onto their traditional 'catholic' nationalist vote.’’

Agreed. But for this to be a real runner we need some sort of reciprocal response from that community. Not a `yes’, just no more `nevers’.

``The days of cohesion or back door creeping joint authority (back to the thread again) should be over. If you want Irish Unity you will have to earn it.’’

Agreed. But wouldn’t you agree that one way that nationalists could demonstrate the desirability of all-Ireland decision-making is to develop northern representation in the southern decision-making process? (Though such developments would be impossible without the support of the British government, which as we have all agreed is still sovereign here.)

Patrick - The shiring of Ireland considerably predates Elizabeth I. It Started at the end of the 13th Century.

Are the 32 counties not an Elizabethian concept though, or at least solidified during this time? Please don't shatter my illusion of the infallibility of my A level teacher on the tudor period!

Davros.

``Billy - lived and went to school there - The Old Grey Mother - as a teenager. I would have thought you would have guessed by my "attitude" LOL’’

Explains a lot!

The Old Grey Mother? Dungannon Royal, right? Bit of a bizarre name - what's the background, do you know?

I agree with a lot of what Paddy says but agree with maca that the GAA is often sustained from the Parish input.

The cornerstone of the GAA is the community. It’s the effect that it has on the community to the point that the GAA is an integral part of many communities.

This might be of interest to Football fans :)

Strange seed of the Stony Grey Soil
Issue Date Sun, Dec 30 01
A new biography of Patrick Kavanagh bolsters the adage that 'there was never a genius without a tincture of madness'

PATRICK cut a better figure on the football field than on the dance floor. He was taller than most of his companions,and his height and long limbs, physical fitness and love of running worked to his advantage. He had inherited his athletic ability from his mother's family; his Quinn cousins were to be well known for their football prowess. In 1929, the year he first published in the Irish Statesman, he graduated from Inniskeen's junior to its senior team, the Rovers. He was the Inniskeen goalkeeper, a rather erratic and unreliable one. Easily bored with standing about when there was nothing happening in his vicinity, he had a bad habit of deserting his post to run up the field and take close-in frees, hot-footing it back before the action returned to his end of the field. In a game against Killarney in March 1930 his defence was so poor that theDundalk Democrat's reporter described him as Inniskeen's "weak point", and thought he should be replaced. This match "came to an abrupt conclusion with but a few minutes to go" when Killaney were leading four goals and one point to Inniskeen's one goal and six points. The Rovers walked off the pitch because the umpire, a Carrickmacross man, refused to recognise a point they had scored from a free. A couple of months later theDemocratcommended Kavanagh's performance in the home and away games against Aughnamullen. However, he was not dependable. On September 20, 1931, the same reporter once again criticised his play in the Owen Ward cup match against Castleblayney at Carrickmacross: "Kavanagh, in goals, was not safe and needs a lot of practice and shows little judgement." The following year he acquitted himself well in two matches against Donaghmoyne and was pronounced "incisive in goal", a phrase that baffled his local critics.
Kavanagh's most inglorious moment as the Rovers' goalkeeper occurred during a Monaghan county final against Latton in Carrickmacross on August 9, 1931. In the course of this game the Inniskeen supporters invaded the pitch and it took 15 minutes to restore order. Considering that the better part of valour was discretion, Kavanagh made himself scarce. Unfortunately, he miscalculated the time it would take before play was resumed; when he returned it already had, and a Latton player had taken advantage of his absence to fist a ball through the goalposts. Inniskeen lost the match and theDemocratreporter blamed Kavanagh. In later years, Kavanagh gave different reasons why he was not at his post; on one occasion he said he had gone to buy ice cream. Surprisingly, he was retained as goalkeeper.
Gaelic football was a rough sport in 1930s Monaghan. The position of goalkeeper was a particularly vulnerable one. There was often no designated sports field in country parishes and since the game was played in borrowed fields Toal's Meadow and Caffrey's Field in Inniskeen the goalposts were not firmly secured and supporters of the two sides were in the habit of "bive-ing" them, pulling and pushing them to foil or assist a likely score. Far more wounding than any newspaper criticism was the verbal onslaught from the Inniskeen supporters when Kavanagh failed to save a goal. "Go home and put an apron on you," they would yell. "Me oul' mother would make a better goalier."
The unfortunate players, as well as being subject to verbal attack, found their own supporters were often physically assaulted by players on the opposing team and their supporters. The county board attempted to impose discipline and to make players responsible for the conduct of their supporters, but for too many the game was an excuse for a fight or display of dirty tricks. "Gut yer man," "Bog into him," supporters would roar at one of their side who was trying to take possession of the ball, and when the ball had been successfully seized there would be loud cries of "boot 'er up the middle" or "lash 'er between the sallies" (goalposts); sometimes not content with such verbal encouragement, they swarmed on to the pitch and a free-for-all ensued. The Troubles and the Civil War had left a legacy of violence and some of the enmity between Treaty and anti-Treaty families was channelled into football hooliganism. A further factor in rousing passions to breaking point was the fierce inter-parish rivalry that the County Senior League competition engendered. Teams and supporters turned up at Sunday afternoon matches spoiling for a fight, and fierce, no-holds-barred combat ensued on and off the pitch. A Senior League championship encounter between Castleblayney and Inniskeen in November 1932 was such a "dirty game" that nine 'Blayney players were injured. The Democrat listed the injured: Bradley (fractured jaw, detained in county hospital); McElroy (neck injuries); Burns (rib injuries); Fisher (split knee, split lip and cut on face); Roche (kick on hinch); Cunningham (kick on thigh); Loughman (kick on leg); Malone (kick on thighs; still lame); Mason (injuries to side of head). Few of the remainder of the team escaped minor injuries.
When dissatisfied with the outcome of a match, teams could make an official complaint to the county board, seeking to have the result invalidated. Kavanagh, who was secretary and treasurer of the Inniskeen team from 1930 to 1932, had to represent his side at some of these reviews and disciplinary hearings. At the end of June 1930 he was one of two Inniskeen representatives at a county board meeting where the Inniskeen supporters were accused of being unruly in a match against Aughnamullen in Lough Egish. He also represented Inniskeen when the team challenged the validity of a result against Killaney. Inniskeen claimed that one of the Killaney players had not been the required six months in residence, while Killaney countered that one of the Inniskeen players was resident in Dundalk and that its list of players was not written on Irish watermarked paper. Kavanagh's defence that the list was written on the inside of a large Player's cigarette packet made in Ireland did not impress the board.
In 1932 he was secretary, treasurer and captain of the Inniskeen team. In addition, he was in charge of keeping the ball and the players' boots in good repair. As the local expert on leather, he was once sent to Carrickmacross to purchase a new football, but when the new ball was inflated it proved to be out of round and had to be surreptitiously swapped for the Lough Egish ball before a match.
What brought Kavanagh's footballing career to an end was not a lack of athletic prowess, or any deficiency in the purchase of equipment. It was discovered that he had been embezzling the team's funds. As treasurer he had kept the gate money in a suitcase under his bed and could not resist dipping in to defray some of his expenses, especially the occasional packet of cigarettes. These petty thefts were discovered and denounced by the incoming club chairman in 1932. His mother, the usual victim of his pilfering, was too relieved that his football career had ended to be outraged at this public revelation of his dishonesty. She had feared that he might be irreparably injured in one of the faction fights on the pitch.
Kavanagh continued to be a keen football spectator and remained so until the end of his life. "The ban", as it was known in Gaelic football circles, forbade members of the Gaelic Athletic Association to participate in or support "foreign games", but he was a soccer supporter and regularly cycled into Dundalk to watch matches for free from the "Vincent de Paul stand", the top of a high wall overlooking the football grounds, reached by standing on a bicycle saddle. A shared interest in football cemented a growing friendship between him and his brother Peter, despite a gap of 12 years in their ages. They cycled together to matches and Patrick followed his brother's account of his English literature course with the same zeal as he had once read his sister Lucy's texts.

Extracts from 'Patrick Kavanagh: A Biography' by Antoinette Quinn
Gill and Macmillan £25, euro31.74

Oh aye Patrick :) Elizabeth and cronies pushed on.
Us folks in the North were the last to be shired - County Coleraine where I now live :)The North was protected by the South Ulster Drumlin belt and bogs and forests.

"County Coleraine"

Where?

God, if the game was like that nowadays my premature retirement might have been avoided!

CG

Get your courseowrk done!

Paddy
how far are you on with yours?

Did you go to the lecture this morning?

cg- in those days Coleraine was the main town in this neck of the woods. Derry was tiny. So the County was originally named County Coleraine - I kid uyou not - or cul rathaine if that makes it any better ;)

BTW Paddy
You can use my Christian name it's no longer a secret.

"So the County was originally named County Coleraine - I kid uyou not - or cul rathaine if that makes it any better ;)"

go raibh maith agat ;)

*****WARNING:SHAMELESS SELF-PLUG*****

Hey did anyone check out this cool site?

YI
Good site

My name was "Fluffy Dangleberry" and I take it as a compliment ; )

OK - It's Chris and Paddy then ?

or Fluffy Dangleberry ;)

Thanks cg.BTW how could you not take that as a compliment;)

Is dangleberry any relation to dingleberry and if so I can certainly see why it wouldn't be taken as a compliment :-)

"BTW how could you not take that as a compliment;)"

I am too much of a gentleman to explain how it's a compliment. ;)

What is Fluffy Dangleberry as gaeilge ? ( if I have spelled that right)

As the dangleberry (apparently a huckleberry of the eastern United States with pink flowers and sweet blue fruit) is not known in Ireland, I'd say we'd have to gaelicise the English word.

I'd go for Daingealcaor clúmhach myself.

I would have to check into that but fluffy is clúmhach.

PS & CG

"Not where I'm from maca, we've three clubs in one parish!(from only 1 thirty years ago, and the parish next to us has four including this years Ulster champions) You are right of course that the club is the most important unit of the GAA, hwoever even at club level, leagues and championships are organised primarily on an internal county basis"

We all have different experiences I suppose.
We also have a number of clubs within a single parish at home too but i've always felt there was as much if not more rivalry between parishes than between counties. Maybe that's because my county was shite and didn't get to play that many intercounty matches ;)

CG is dead right about the community though. Just look at any of the small country clubs, the GAA club is almost the heart of the community.

Maybe that's partly why the GAA doesn't suit Unionists?!?

I didn't know a referendum was necessary for mere speaking rights in the Dail and the seanad, this must be a bigger overhaul.

Does anyone know if there is a referendum due on the European constitution anyway which would mean both being held on the same day?

"What is Fluffy Dangleberry as gaeilge ?"

Don't be trying to impose your forrin berries on our fine langidge! ;)

Maybe that's partly why the GAA doesn't suit Unionists?!?

That's torn it LOL I'm off for my siesta!

I just had to throw it in there Dav, things were getting too boring!

I just attempted to liven up ATW by mentioning the trial of John McKeague - before your time :)
Was emntioned by Marc on Tuesday Blog at Daily Moiders

Willowfield -
Irredentism continues unchecked in the South.

I'm late joining this but do you not think it is possible that this is a concession to Nationalists/Republicans in the North- and not something that any party (aside from Sinn Fein) in the south would have anything to gain by?

"We also have a number of clubs within a single parish at home too but i've always felt there was as much if not more rivalry between parishes than between counties"

Totally agree maca.

In my own club of Dromintee the rivalry between us and cross is intense as is our rivalry between killeavy (the next parish)

uh Crossmaglen,they bet us in the ulster club semis this year.I HATE THEM.cg do you know armagh clubs are the only ones,whos players have threatened us southern boys with kneecappings.Dont you feel proud ;)

Ringo

I'm late joining this but do you not think it is possible that this is a concession to Nationalists/Republicans in the North- and not something that any party (aside from Sinn Fein) in the south would have anything to gain by?

Yes, it is possible. But nationalists in the north are pursuing an irredentist agenda.

Posted by: Ringo at December 15, 2004 02:55 PM

I sincerely doubt if it was a serious threat.

we have six protestants on our glorious club team............Cavan champions 2004,if only the northern clubs could act like us,there would be peace on our fantastic island

CavanMan

I think you need to put things in perspective and judge any threats as the heat of the moment.
As you are aware Gaelic is a very passionate sport and emotions can be heightened. I seriously doubt if these alleged threats had any intention behind them.

I trust this is just sour grapes because you lost to a good South Armagh team. ;)

Can i just ask, where have all the DUPes gone?

CavanMan

uh Crossmaglen,they bet us in the ulster club semis this year.I HATE THEM.cg do you know armagh clubs are the only ones,whos players have threatened us southern boys with kneecappings.Dont you feel proud ;)

I hope you are not claiming that anybody from Crossmaglen Rangers made threats against any members or supporters of the Cavan Gaels team at Brewster Park this year. It is implied in your post and I would like to clear it up.

Anyone else having trouble getting on to Nuzhound
?

It is now Mr. Stiffler's webpage!

Is it implausible?

yes cg you are right,i do not like armagh football much,because we never do well against them,i have played against Cross,Silverbridge and Paul Mc Granes team Ballyheagen(correct that spelling if it is wrong)We cannot beat Crossmaglen,which is why i HATE them.

CavanMan

Sorry but you won't get any sympathy from me. ;)

Henry 94
yes i am implying that.Colm o'Neil referred to Michael Lyng as a ''free state bastard''.and Colm Dooley asked me if i would like to keep my kneecaps.Now Henry try defending these comments.

Willowfield -
Yes, it is possible. But nationalists in the north are pursuing an irredentist agenda.

Fair enough, but that's an entirely different matter to saying that irredentism continues unchecked in the South.

As far as I'm concerned it is more of a threat to our sovereignty than yours - it is one thing having Mary McAleese in the Áras - we as a nation put her there - it is entirely another matter to have Gerry Adams in the Dáil.

"players have threatened us southern boys"

I think you need to look at your original post as you implied that more than one player was involved.

You seem to suggest that Colm Dooley threatened you (which given what you said seems doubtful)
But if that is the case it is only one person.
I would advise you cavan man to thread carefully as these comments don't have any privilege and you might face court action over these unfounded allegations.

Yes. No Nuzhound. Has it closed. Who is Mr Stiffler?

"As far as I'm concerned it is more of a threat to our sovereignty than yours - it is one thing having Mary McAleese in the Áras - we as a nation put her there - it is entirely another matter to have Gerry Adams in the Dáil."

Ringo,
do you believe granting just speaking rights affects our sovereignty?

Also, as theoritically (very theoretically I know) we could have a united Ireland by the end of 2005 (year seven has arrived so the first border poll on unification can be held if the Direct Rule minister so deigns) surely we need to keep tabs on what's happening.

Cavanman

Sounds like sledging. People will say anything during a game to wind their opponent up.

WF

"But nationalists in the north are pursuing an irredentist agenda."

And?

cg
unfounded allegations?were you on the field?Not likely..i was threathened by the individual all ready mentioned,as were other members of my team.why dont you lot try playing Real football(that is without hitting the referee like in the slaughtneil game)and stop using your bully boy tactics.

you might face court action over these unfounded allegations

which is more than would happen to a prominent Armagh man if he decided to roll the process of putting you under anesthetic - and a bit of extractive dentristry - into one, on the pitch...

Totally hypothetically of course.

"cg
unfounded allegations?were you on the field?Not likely..i was threathened by the individual all ready mentioned,as were other members of my team.why dont you lot try playing Real football(that is without hitting the referee like in the slaughtneil game)and stop using your bully boy tactics."

Cavanman
Firstly it was just a piece of friendly advice in case you land yourself in legal bother so don’t take your anger out on me.

Secondly
"unfounded allegations?"
Yes unfounded, have your allegations been proven, no.

"were you on the field?Not likely.."
No I wasn't and never claimed to be

"as were other members of my team"
This is a typical type of comment someone uses when they know the others won’t agree or there is no evidence.

"why dont you lot try playing Real football.and stop using your bully boy tactics."

Which lot, I am not a member of Crossmaglen Rangers nor am I from Cross.

If however you are referring to Armagh people I consider it a disgraceful slur upon the Character of the people of Armagh and demand an apology forthwith.

This slur is perpetuated by a very sad loser with no concept of losing with dignity and who brings the good name of his team and county down to his level.

To be honest, the kneecapping comment is the kind of oul shite northerners sometimes come out with when south of the border. I remember how the Armagh lads would bewilder our Donegal housemates at the gaeltacht with our talk of the extreme violence we were used to at home.

It was all a load of balls of course, but it made us feel like big, hard men, and it (naturally enough) scared the shit out of the Donegal lads. They were fresh out of Killybegs and their main association with the north was the violence within it.

It was also stupid, crass and totally pathetic. We wanted to make a virtue out of the fact that we came from outside the Irish state, so we played up our battle-hardened credentials. The fact that we were 12 didn't come into it.

(To be honest, as a northern nationalist I feel an irrational and almost subconscious sense of shame that I have fallen on the wrong side of the border. Don't know why. It doesn't make any sense. Am I alone in this or is this a common feature in the northern nationalist psyche?)

Now Crossmaglen has (unfairly) been conjured in the public imagination as the capital of bandit country. It wouldn't surprise me that someone would make a stupid and crass comment at a football match. I'm only amazed that you say teams from other counties don't do likewise. Jesus, even the Tyrone ones? They're animals...

(PS McGrane's club is Ballyhegan. Was Paddy McKeever also playing?)

Ringo
What are you getting at, spit it out man

Ringo

As far as I'm concerned it is more of a threat to our sovereignty than yours - it is one thing having Mary McAleese in the Áras - we as a nation put her there - it is entirely another matter to have Gerry Adams in the Dáil.

You make a good point. I think it's a threat to both our "sovereignties" in different ways.

Will there be any opposition to the move in the South, other than token?

Georgie

Also, as theoritically (very theoretically I know) we could have a united Ireland by the end of 2005 (year seven has arrived so the first border poll on unification can be held if the Direct Rule minister so deigns) surely we need to keep tabs on what's happening.

It doesn't work like that. The Secretary of State can call one at any time he thinks it is likely to pass. But only after he calls one does the 7 year clock start ticking. The clock didn't start in 1998.

CavanMan

Colm Dooley asked me if i would like to keep my kneecaps.

I'll pass on your answer;-)

"To be honest, as a northern nationalist I feel an irrational and almost subconscious sense of shame that I have fallen on the wrong side of the border. Don't know why. It doesn't make any sense. Am I alone in this or is this a common feature in the northern nationalist psyche?"

I've seen quite a few southerners made to feel a sense of shame by northerners about them sitting happily on the "right" side of the border so it affects both the northern and southern psyche.

I think he's referring to an incident in the Ulster final between Mayobridge and Cross.

Benny Coulter picked the ball up at centre forward for the 'Bridge, saw Mickey Linden running through on goal and then proceeded to demonstrate where the term `hospital pass' came from.

Linden ran onto the ball while the Cross full back - the ``prominent Armagh man'' referred to above, otherwise known as the great Francie Bellew - ran out to meet it.

As full backs are wont to do, Francie took ball, man and all. The ref gave a free but Bellew was not booked. He was entitled to challenge for the ball, though he was perhaps overly robust. But hey, it was the first ten minutes of an Ulster final - what do you expect? Both teams were there to win.

Unfortunately poor Mickey - one of the finest footballers Ulster has ever produced - was hit badly in the challenge. He suffered concussion and lost two teeth. The picture on the back page of the Irish News the next day was gut-wrenching - surely one of the best sports pics of recent times?

But sure Linden lost four teeth in the 1991 All Ireland final in a clash with Kevin Foley, yet that Meath team are held up as icons and that particular match as one of the great All Irelands.

Does Armagh have a bad rep in football? I don't follow Gaelic at all (Longford suck) but I know a lot of people wanted Armagh to lose this year, they don't like the type of football they play, too dirty perhaps.

Was it that Meath bollix ORourke who went to an Armagh club? I think he brought the rough tactics with him, Meath have a nasty side to him, as do the college teams which O'Rourke coached.

...that's the 'word on the street' anyway so no-one take offence.

Billy
Yes Paddy Mc Keever was playing.We beat them by 3 points.Their best player was actually a guy named Michael Mc Keever,and another guy David Wilson.Yes Billy we experience the Violent language from Northern People down here,the problem we have is,We cannot know when the person is having a laugh,or if they are a member of the provos.
cg
in no way would i ever belittle the county of Armagh or question their peoples character ,What i meant is,The image Crossmaglen has up here drags down the image of Armagh football and people.I believed you were a member of the Crossmaglen club and that is why i criticised their football tactics..You have my apologies for that,however i did not insult the people of armagh.I only gave my opinion on the dreadful workings of Crossmaglen GFC.

George.

``I've seen quite a few southerners made to feel a sense of shame by northerners about them sitting happily on the "right" side of the border so it affects both the northern and southern psyche.''

Yeah, I hate all that ``you sold us out'' shite that northerners sometimes trot out after a few drinks in Dublin or Galway. It's embarrassing and exacerbates the separation between Irish and Irish that the border created - something that such bar-stool brigadiers presumably would not want.

One interesting thing though, about how northern nationalists feel about the south: while there may be some sense of abandonment - and shame - at being left behind, I have never yet heard a single person say they wish the 26 had not gained independence. Even though one might reasonably conjecture that had partition not occurred, all of Ireland might later have become independent together. (Pure conjecture, I know.) I'd say the attitude northern nationalists have to our southern compatriots is: fair play to ye, but don't forget about us.

Which - given that the price of independence for the 26 was partition and the copper-fastening within the union of the 6 in which we live - is fairly extraordinary.

"To be honest, as a northern nationalist I feel an irrational and almost subconscious sense of shame that I have fallen on the wrong side of the border. Don't know why. It doesn't make any sense. Am I alone in this or is this a common feature in the northern nationalist psyche?"

I've seen quite a few southerners made to feel a sense of shame by northerners about them sitting happily on the "right" side of the border so it affects both the northern and southern psyche.

Time you all matured and moved on.

Cavanman.

``the problem we have is, we cannot know when the person is having a laugh, or if they are a member of the provos.''

Don't worry mate. Even if they did happen to be a member of the provos they wouldn't send a punishment squad after you over an incident on the pitch.

It's the kind of thing that some northerners find funny. Our sense of humour is pitch black. (I suppose it would need to be.)

Willowfield,
firstly, I'd appreciate if you'd call me by my actual name, which is George. I don't call you Willie, regardless of your behaviour.

"It doesn't work like that. The Secretary of State can call one at any time he thinks it is likely to pass. But only after he calls one does the 7 year clock start ticking. The clock didn't start in 1998. "

To quote you: are you sure?

This is a link you sent me not two days ago and I am a believer in reading the comments of others and learning from them.

Last paragraph. Are they wrong or are you? Am I about to witness a first, Willowfield admitting he isn't always right?

Billy
"I'd say the attitude northern nationalists have to our southern compatriots is: fair play to ye, but don't forget about us."

I think the attitude of a lot of Southerners is 'we won't forget about ye, but lads, cut the bullshit'.
A lot of Southerners are just tired of the troubles (even though it's ye that suffered).
I wonder is the gap already too wide between us Billy?

Billy -
But hey, it was the first ten minutes of an Ulster final - what do you expect?

I expect that Mickey Linden would be able to play a full part in the game. I also expect that he wouldn't have to end up in hospital, because Frncie decided to rough him up. As you correctly mentioned, it was foul play. And that Meath team had an awful rep for years - Tommy Dowd for God sake!

Anyway - I'll leave my Armagh baiting for other forums.

Maca
The Armagh GAA have a bad reputation for two reasons
(1)The Style of football they play,which is an ingenius,Counter-attack defensive game which has been successful
(2)Their tendency to flirt with the extreme when it comes to the physical exchanges..which in some of their cases is pretty often however we cannot brand them all like that(i have never seen Marsden or Mc Conville do anything dirty)
Also Maca it seems we share a hatred for everything from Meath :),O'Rourke hates ulster teams .His hatred is full of jealousy because Meath are useless now.lol

Willowfield

Sorry JD, but no law in any civilised society permits murder. It’s simply wrong and any attempts by you or anyone else to justify it will, unsurprisingly, be challenged.

You have the wrong sow by the wrong lug.

I was making the point that those in power create the laws, so falling back on the law as the final guarantor of justice is folly.

Killing in these circumstances becomes a very difficult thing to simply label "murder."

The release of paramilitary prisoners under the GFA is proof of the slipperiness of your insistence that there was no war in NI because there was only "murder."

The conversation has moved on now, and what's done is done, but I have a hard time stomaching your implication that partition was simply an example of fair-minded pragmatism. I do not accept that reading.

George

To quote you: are you sure? This is a link you sent me not two days ago and I am a believer in reading the comments of others and learning from them. Last paragraph. Are they wrong or are you? Am I about to witness a first, Willowfield admitting he isn't always right?

That article contradicts itself. It says "The seven yearly interval is only triggered when the first such poll is held" (which is what I said), but then says there will be a decision about one in 2005!

You'd be better to look at the actual Belfast Agreement, which backs up what I say.

In short, then, since you ask, they are wrong and I am right.

Willowfield -

Will there be any opposition to the move in the South, other than token?

No - grudging acceptance from the public would probably be the best description. I would assume that the TD's like any political animals will do everything necessary to ensure that their powers wouldn't be in any way diluted. Which should mean that it is a purely token gesture - on par with inviting a head of state to address it - but without the glamour.

Willowfield.

``Time YOU all matured and moved on. (My emphasis.)

Thanks for the tip.

Maca

``I think the attitude of a lot of Southerners is 'we won't forget about ye, but lads, cut the bullshit'.''

Which is a fair enough attitude, if you ask me. Jesus, I'm from the north, I live in the north and have a direct stake in the future here and I'm sick of all the bullshit too. Most of us are. There are good people on both sides of the divide here trying to bring some sanity to the place. We're getting there, and we will get there eventually. Don't give up on us.

``I wonder is the gap already too wide between us Billy?''

Not at all. Of course 80 plus years of separate development have brought about changes - it would be impossible for partition thinking to be entirely absent. But to this day very few non-unionist Irish people would think of north and south as separate countries, or as northerners and southerners as different in any fundamental way. Our recent experience has been very different

So during my occasional moments of partitionist anxiety I think of Seamus Heaney, Mary McAleese, Liam Neeson, Brian Friel, Van Morrison, Tom McGurk, Stephen Rea, Paul Muldoon, Paddy Kielty, Jackie Kyle, George Best, Pat Jennings, Rinty Monaghan, Eddie Irvine, `Teenage Kicks' by the Undertones, `In the Name of the Father' by Jim Sheridan, `Odd Man Out' by Carol Reed

When these major figures and icons of Irish life are discussed it is as Irish people and creations - Irish without any asterisks.

Which leads me to conclude that while southerners might be disillusioned with politics north of the border - quite understandably - this doesn't mean they have washed their hands of northerners. During my six years living in Dublin I found this to be the case, where the only occasions on which I was treated as ``different'' was when I was being told I had a lovely accent.

Which I can certainly live with.

"My Perfect Cousin" has the edge for best Undertones song. IMHO. (Let the flames begin...)

That should have read:

``Our recent experience has been very different but we still have far more in common than not. A small bit of will would be enough to get over any initial strangeness that there might be.

Billy Pilgrim and maca,
"I'd say the attitude northern nationalists have to our southern compatriots is: fair play to ye, but don't forget about us."

I'd agree. I've never met a northerner who said Ireland should have waited for all or nothing.

"I wonder is the gap already too wide between us Billy?" I actually think a lot have Irish people realise a gap opened up with partition and, since the ceasefire, many more are working to close it without fear of a call to the door from Garda Special Branch.

The interest in the Irish language, the GAA, support for Brian Kerr's team and the 900% increase in those taking up Irish citizenship north of the border would be examples of closing this gap and getting on with being "Irish" .

I have certainly noticed a change in the last ten years, which (let me know if you think I'm misjudging the runes) I have noticed in the northerners coming down south.

There's an awful lot more of them for a start and they appear to have a new found confidence in their Irishness which wasn't there before. Most have made it perfectly clear to me (without making it an issue) that they are my countrymen first before moving onto the differences later.

I would describe it as an acceptance of their constitutional position but the complete rejection of any sense of British identity.

I for one believe we should give a sign to our northern brethren that we are serious in our aspirations.

The next step south of the border should be to introduce a unity fund where a set percentage of our GDP, say 0.5%, is paid in every year.

We could set a timeframe of 10, 15, 25 years (whatever) for a border poll and if in 2030 it's clear the majority want to stay in the union and will do so for the forseeable future, we've got around another 70 billion extra to throw into the national pension reserve.

If there is a successful poll, we've got 70 billion to invest on the spot.

We already give 0.5% in foreign aid and 1% into the Pension Reserve so why not?

George.

That's a terrific idea. It would give a great confidence-boost to northern nationalists and would introduce actual money into the unity vs union debate. (Money always has a great way of concentrating the mind.)

Perhaps the Irish government could prevail on their British counterparts to make a similar gesture, just in case. If there is to be Irish unity and a British withdrawal, Britain would still have a responsibility to aid the process of transition.

That said, I think some of our unionist brothers might consider such a fund to be provocative. But I'll leave that to them to articulate.

(Note to Willowfield: this is an example of showing respect for the opinions of others. You see the way I have referred to your feelings as actually being of significance?)

Billy
I agree in that we certainly have more in common than not but there's times when 'discussing' here on Slugger and also when chatting with a good friend of mine from Belfast I pause to think 'how to hell could we ever reunite?'. Our backgrounds really are very different.

However I think this attitude of mine applies only to a small percentage of people in NI. Thankfully there's plenty of level headed people about.

I suppose we should look to the example of Northerners currently living down South and how they are treated. I went to college with a few Northerners and the only difference was the accent as you mentioned.
Still, the south has changed a lot in the past few years alone.

I've often been in the depths of Cork and wondered if I was in the same country. But then again, I'm from Dublin.

George
Good points about closing the gap although I think all those efforts are from the North, what about efforts from the south. Are people really bothered too much anymore? There were times in the past when I got the feeling that people just decided 'shag it, they can sort themsleves out'.
Having said that, the last poll I saw said 70% in the south want reunification...

"The next step south of the border should be to introduce a unity fund"

I can already hear Paisley clearing his throat, on with the ear plugs quick lively!!

Maca

``there's times when 'discussing' here on Slugger and also when chatting with a good friend of mine from Belfast I pause to think 'how to hell could we ever reunite?'.''

But this is a forum for debate. Sometimes tempers get frayed and nasty comments come out. You should read www.gaaboard.com - sometimes those guys would make you wince, and they're just talking about football and hurling.

And sure they're all mad in Belfast. And as for the Tyrone ones...

(Sometimes when in Tyrone I end up thinking: wouldn't a 31 county republic be the best?)

But it's worth remembering that the cause of our madness is our constitutional uncertainty. After unification that would be gone. Call me naive or overly optimistic, but I fully expect that after unification you would be talking about a totally different north.

Besides, all the tribes on this island are united by a love of bad food, good whiskey, great music, enthusiastic dancing and an abiding distrust of the English.

That's a good basis on which to build a nation if you ask me.

Pan-nationalism is very much in evidence in the discussion between Billy Pilgrim and George about underhand attempt to override unionism by weight of numbers.

So much for respecting the constitutional position. So much for leaving it to the people of NI to decide for themselves. They’re planning a return to the days of De Valera, when the Southern state was a hostile neighbour, coveting the territory to its north.

No interest in reconciliation in NI. No political progress outside the context of a supposed “inevitable” united Ireland. A refusal even to countenance the possibility that NI will not vote to stay in the UK. No, these pan-nationalist irredentists are concocting ways to tip the scales in their favour.

Maca

``Are people really bothered too much anymore? There were times in the past when I got the feeling that people just decided 'shag it, they can sort themsleves out'.''

Good point Maca. I believe there is a compelling pro-unity case to be made purely in terms of southern self-interest, completely aside from questions of what reunification would mean for the north. There are all sorts of issues in terms of the economic impact of the border on the whole island that aren't widely recognised. Such issues will emerge if and when unity seems to be approaching - though they should be out there now.

The fact that a large majority still support reunification despite the absence of a real campaign or any substantive arguments being pursued is very encouraging for northern nationalists. It suggests that though partition may be a present reality, the national unity of those who are of Ireland and for Ireland is an unchanging one.

Cork ? There's a nasty streak there
Armagh ? There's a pleasant streak in some of them ;)

Speaking as one with Paternal Cork Grandparents and Maternal Armagh Grandparents.

Maca,
our job on this as southerners is simple: to build a nation capable of paying for and delivering a unitary Irish state acceptable to the majority on both sides of the border.

We have to be economically prosperous, socially and culturally diverse and have in place a stable form of representative democracy to even begin to hope we can achieve the aspiration of an end to partition. An Irish Republic has to be the obvious government of choice for all.

Figures today show the Irish Republic will have a population of 5 million by 2016. By then we will have nearly as many Slavs and Africans as unionists on this island and the south will have copperfastened its position as the economic, cultural and political hub of the island.

That's of course unless wnionism changes quickly and keeps pace with the rest of the island.

We shall see in a peaceful way over the next two decades whether unionism wants to retain partition more than Irish nationalism wants to be rid of it.

JD,
Having been banished to Cork for my sins, I can assure you it doesn't get any better the longer you're here. Although one thing I'll say for Cork people, I'd rather fight with them on my side and they certainly look after their own.

For Armagh people, Dubs hate Meath too.

Willow.

I hope you feel better after getting all that off your chest.

``underhand attempt to override unionism by weight of numbers.''

What does this mean? Weight of numbers? Are you talking about a scenario in which a majority in Northern Ireland vote for unity? How would that be underhand?

If unionism was ``over-ridden by weight of numbers'' - surely that would mean the unionist case had been democratically voted down? In such a scenario, what would be your objection?

(Is consent a one-way street? Or have you accepted that while you oppose unity, it MAY happen one day?)

The unity fund is a sensible suggestion since the consent principle explicitly envisages unity as a possible future scenario. It is only sensible to prepare for all possibilities.

``So much for respecting the constitutional position.''

The constitutional position is that NI is in the UK until a majority votes for reunification with the rest of Ireland. So the constitutional position explicitly acknowledges that while we're in the UK today, that position is up for debate. We who support unity are engaging in that debate and - surprise surprise - are eager to move the debate towards our preferred outcome. As are unionists. The game is on, so don't cry foul at nationalists being nationalists.

``So much for leaving it to the people of NI to decide for themselves.''

Only the people of Northern Ireland have a say in the constitutional question. If the Irish government want to save some money just in case of unification, why should that bother you? It won't affect the strength of the unionist case but it would make unity more bearable should it ever come about. Besides, if there were to be a border poll the outcome would very clearly concern
the Irish government - they stand to take on six more counties.

``They’re planning a return to the days of De Valera, when the Southern state was a hostile neighbour, coveting the territory to its north.''

And expressing this hostility and covetousness by saving money, just waiting for the opportunity to lavish those funds on the north. Oh God spare us from such a fate.

``No interest in reconciliation in NI. No political progress outside the context of a supposed “inevitable” united Ireland.''

That is not a fair assessment by any stretch of the imagination, given the southern government's record over the last number of years.

``A refusal even to countenance the possibility that NI will not vote to stay in the UK.

This is idiotic. We are all painfully aware of that possibility.

``No, these pan-nationalist irredentists are concocting ways to tip the scales in their favour.''

Of course we are. We are NOT unionists. So?

Hi George: no slight to Corkonians intended. I have a bit of Cork in me. :)

I was just trying to comment obliquely on Maca's posts about feeling Northerners and Southerners being too far apart. Regional differences in Ireland can be just as broad.

``A refusal even to countenance the possibility that NI will not vote to stay in the UK."

Willowfield, I wrote this about the unity fund:

"We could set a timeframe of 10, 15, 25 years (whatever) for a border poll and if in 2030 it's clear the majority want to stay in the union and will do so for the forseeable future, we've got around another 70 billion extra to throw into the national pension reserve."

My suggestion of a unity fund not only countenances the possibility of a continuation of partition but plans for it. I get to retire at 60!

JD,
I've maternal Cork grandparents (yikes like Davros - are we all related?)

If you are tall, dark, Handsome , intelligent and successful with women we could be cousins George! ;)

Billy Boy

What does this mean? Weight of numbers? Are you talking about a scenario in which a majority in Northern Ireland vote for unity? How would that be underhand?

No, I mean by weight of numbers of nationalists in the Republic being added to those in NI.

The unity fund is a sensible suggestion since the consent principle explicitly envisages unity as a possible future scenario. It is only sensible to prepare for all possibilities.

It's a psychologically underhand way of trying to undermine unionism.

The constitutional position is that NI is in the UK until a majority votes for reunification with the rest of Ireland.

Then respect it and stop trying to dream up ways to influence it from outside. It's up to the NI people alone to decide.

Only the people of Northern Ireland have a say in the constitutional question.

Then Southerners should butt out.

If the Irish government want to save some money just in case of unification, why should that bother you?

Why should they need to? According to you "unity" will be a economic boon!

It won't affect the strength of the unionist case but it would make unity more bearable should it ever come about.

More "bearable". So you accept it would not be pleasant?

That is not a fair assessment by any stretch of the imagination, given the southern government's record over the last number of years.

A record that is beginning to take a turn back to the De Valera irredentist years - it started with the extension of citizenship outside the territory; we have the increasing use of the name "Ireland"; we have presidential ceremonies with symbolic representation of the whole island; now we're getting NI MPs being allowed to sit in the Southern parliament.

This is idiotic. We are all painfully aware of that possibility.

Then stop behaving like a united Ireland is an inevitability. Butt out and get on with your own business and leave NI to itself.

Of course we are. We are NOT unionists. So?

So it's clearly unfair and against the spirit of the Agreement. Stop trying to balance the scales in your favour: leave them be and let the people of NI decide unhindered.

Georgie Boy

My suggestion of a unity fund not only countenances the possibility of a continuation of partition but plans for it. I get to retire at 60!

If partition is to continue, then you don't need a "unity fund".

wow, you got all that from just your maternal grandparents Davros. You da man. What did the other half give you! :-)

I would certainly like to think we have a lot in common although I do think of Humphrey's line in the Big Sleep

Bacall: You're not very tall, are you?
Bogart: I try to be.

wow, you got all that from just your maternal grandparents Davros. You da man. What did the other half give you! :-)

Modesty ;)

If partition is to continue, then you don't need a "unity fund".

And what if it is not to continue?

NI is a "leaky" entity: the reality is that a sizable chunk of the population in NI looks South and identifies with it. It does not and never has existed in a vacuum. And given the action on setting up cross-border/ all-Ireland bodies, is it any longer realistic to demand that the South simply butt out?

Willowfield
You recent comments on this thread show the fear that envelopes you.
It highlights the fear within unionism that one day the union will end. Could I ask you, if this is the case, to engage in debate with your Irish brethren about what sort of new unified Ireland you would like, should the unthinkable happen and a majority of the six counties support reunification.

The reason I ask this is not political taunting it’s just that your belief that the union is secure seems non exixtant.

"non exixtant"

Should read "non existant"

Sorry

Willowfield,
please try show a modicum of respect and use my correct name, which is George.

"If partition is to continue, then you don't need a "unity fund"."

True, which is why I recommend putting it into the pension reserve once it becomes clear that for the forseeable future (50 years) the majority in NI don't want to share our aspirations.

I don't know what world you are living in but why should the 4 million people in the Irish Republic (5 million by 2016) ignore a distinct possibilty that could end up costing them for generations if they don't deal with it correctly.

At the moment 43% of the NI electorate vote for unification parties. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that in 15 to 20 years that figure exceeds 50%. I also fully accept it is not beyond the bounds of possibility the number drops back below 40% but it's best to be prepared.

As comrade Lenin once said: Do something? Do Something!

Unionism has nothing to fear if it's clear the union delivers for the majority of its Northern Irish citizens better than an Irish Republic ever could.

My recommendation to you is to do something about achieving that rather than trying to stunt the work of the rest of us.

Maybe you would be better off asking yourself wow will you deliver for all in Northern Ireland in the long term when by your own admission 43% of your population are a "separate people".

Good Luck.

Had to put the young lad to bed, lot of posts since then. Good points Billy, George et all, Willow - lay off the coffee.

I can understand Willows reaction to the unity fund suggestion but it IS a very logical move in my opinion. A UI MIGHT happen and we should be prepared for it, just in case.
If unionists are confident that it won't happen then they shouldn't really be too bothered if Ireland sets up such a 'pension' fund.

"Butt out and get on with your own business and leave NI to itself."

I'm stumped. Sometimes one faces such posts and no response seems to be the correct one...Reminds me of the American poster I read on the BBC site who said during the US election that Europeans should mind their own business and keep their noses out of the affairs of others, this from an American!

George

I don't know what world you are living in but why should the 4 million people in the Irish Republic (5 million by 2016) ignore a distinct possibilty that could end up costing them for generations if they don't deal with it correctly.

"Costing them for generations"? So Billy Boy's ramblings about what an economic boon a united Ireland would be are a load of balls after all?

At the moment 43% of the NI electorate vote for unification parties.

No they don't.

As comrade Lenin once said: Do something? Do Something!

Speaking of which, how many here knew that Patrick McCartan negotiated a draft treaty with the Soviets just after WWI ?

Willowfield,
""Costing them for generations"? So Billy Boy's ramblings about what an economic boon a united Ireland would be are a load of balls after all?"

That is a bit lame. You don't need a degree in economics to realise that running Northern Ireland incorrectly can be quite expensive and dangerous for its citizens. Just ask the British taxpayer or the people of Northern Ireland.
It only makes to plan ahead so the best results are achieved. Bi Ullamh as they say in the scouts.

"At the moment 43% of the NI electorate vote for unification parties.

No they don't"

At the last general election, the combined SDLP and SF vote was 42.7% which we would round up to 43% if we weren't using decimal places. Standard rule of mathematics.

What is the SDLP motto?
"100% for a United Ireland. 100% for the Good Friday Agreement."

I take you accept SF are in favour of unificaton.

Please explain your "no they don't" comment because they patently do.

a) At the moment 43% of the NI electorate vote for unification parties.

b) At the last general election, the combined SDLP and SF vote was 42.7% which we would round up to 43% if we weren't using decimal places. Standard rule of mathematics.

Come on George, b) does not prove a) :)

You know that less than 100% of the electorate cast their vote !

George

That is a bit lame. You don't need a degree in economics to realise that running Northern Ireland incorrectly can be quite expensive and dangerous for its citizens.

So the Free State would run NI incorrectly?!!

At the last general election, the combined SDLP and SF vote was 42.7% which we would round up to 43% if we weren't using decimal places. Standard rule of mathematics.

And? That's 43% of people voting, George. You said 43% of the electorate.

You won't fool me!

Please explain your "no they don't" comment because they patently do.

On the contrary, George, they patently don't.

You won't pull the wool over my eyes, George!

Nor Davros's!

Billy Pilgrim

"I think the union is a bad idea and a damaging factor in our lives"

Please give me an example of how the Union has been a damaging example in your life

"But wouldn’t you agree that one way that nationalists could demonstrate the desirability of all-Ireland decision-making is to develop northern representation in the southern decision-making process?"

I addressed this in my 12.49 am 12th Dec post 12.49 am.

I said it is a bad idea - I also consider recent posts about a "unity fund" in an equal light. Now nationalists are talking about buying a united Ireland.

I know I said earlier that I will accept a 50+1 majority but I will see it differently if I feel I have been shafted.

I have made it clear that the way for a united Ireland or the maintenance of the Union is for Irish unionists and nationalists to both argue their cases and may the best man win.

However underhand strategies and plans backed up by the Irish Govt(meddling as Willowfield quite rightly put it) are not what you described earlier as good old fashioned "fair play".

"Besides, all the tribes on this island are united by a love of bad food, good whiskey, great music, enthusiastic dancing and an abiding distrust of the English."

I like the good whiskey and great music but I pass on all the others

George

"Figures today show the Irish Republic will have a population of 5 million by 2016. By then we will have nearly as many Slavs and Africans as unionists on this island and the south will have copperfastened its position as the economic, cultural and political hub of the island."

So what

This goes to the heart of the matter.

Unionists don't see themselves in the context of the Irish island,
We are part of the greater Bristish family of up to 60m people.

Incidentally what was all the parochial talk about GAA on this thread all about. I felt like I was standing at a party with a few Frenchmen who took great delight in talking French in my company despite their ability to talk English.

You guys have a lot to learn about making friends and influencing unionists. I bet you are all under 25 ?

OK George - combined SF and SDLP vote : 345,257.

Average turnout 68 % !

So , even setting aside the higher turnout of SF and SDLP voters, Circa 30% of the ELECTORATE voted for unification parties.

* Average turnout in DUP seats - 64.5%
* Average turnout in UUP seats - 63.0%
* Average turnout in SDLP seats - 72.2%
* Average turnout in Sinn Féin seats - 77.0%

JEB
"Incidentally what was all the parochial talk about GAA on this thread all about. I felt like I was standing at a party with a few Frenchmen who took great delight in talking French in my company despite their ability to talk English."

So we're not allowed to talk about the GAA? Or is it our English you have a problem with? Please do expand!

"At the same time the majority of unionists will not accept re-partition. The border has been drawn and I know few people who will want to re-draw it."

Well hardly- I for one and I am not alone would love to see repartition--if only for the joy of watching the republic shit itself at the prospect and delight as the attempted exodus from the west bank of the Foyle was turned on its heel.

A constructive contribution, barnshee.

maca

"Please do expand"

I think you know very well what I meant

With respect to turnout, sadly those who don't vote eschew their right to have a say.

JEB
"I think you know very well what I meant"

Actually I don't, that's why I want you to expand.
If you don't know what we're talking about then the problem is yours. If you took an interest in the games you'd then understand us.

To revisit your post:
"I felt like I was standing at a party with a few Frenchmen who took great delight in talking French in my company despite their ability to talk English."
Are you saying we're talking about the GAA just to piss you off or something? Don't flatter yourself.

He felt excluded.

"You guys have a lot to learn about making friends and influencing unionists"

WE have a lot to learn. No offence dude but you've some learning to do yourself!

That doesn't alter the fact that it is misleading to claim that 43% of the electorate voted for Unification parties. Some 30% of the electorate voted for unification parties. And not all of those who vote for a "unification party" support "unification". I cast two votes, myself and a proxy, for the SDLP for very different reasons.

JD
"He felt excluded."

If that's the case then such is life. We don't talk about the GAA to exclude him or anyone, some of us have a genuine interest and as is clear from the discussion it was a real discussion about some serious issues and not some pseudo discussion designed to exclude anyone.

Fair enough, so long as we don't imply that if 30% of the electorate voted for unification parties, the remaining 70% are in favour of the union.

Agreed, Maca.

JD- That's why I for one would like to see another Border referendum. So that we can see what the %'s are in favour and opposed to unification. I would guess 35% in favour, 10% undecided or neutral and 55% opposed.

Nobody here should feel excluded-except when there's a discussion in Irish which excludes those of us without the language, not complaining before anybody is offended - after all we come here to learn and exchange views. So I read things like the discussion between the GAA fans with more interest than the DUP/UUP squabbles and back-biting.

maca

"You guys have a lot to learn about making friends and influencing unionists"

WE have a lot to learn. No offence dude but you've some learning to do yourself!"

followed by

"If you don't know what we're talking about then the problem is yours. If you took an interest in the games you'd then understand us."

and

"If that's the case then such is life"

that's what I mean

The thread had reached a point where nationalists were talking about how to get a UI in an environment of consent.

The points I made were relevant and indeed your response has confirmed them.

If you guys want to have a 2 hour discussion about Paddy's biography or the Crossmaglen whatevers then I suggest you do it on an MSN chatline or something ?

and yes I do think it was done to piss unionists off - along with the Unity Fund and the endless talk about % vote share, the evils of the 1921 UVF and the failed economic performance of NI.

However it would take a lot more than that to piss me off - I just find it sad - that's why I asked if you were all under 25 - i hope you aren't destined to make the same kind of errors of understanding my generation did.

I have also noticed that the meaningful points I raise to tackle any and more of these issues go unanswered.

John, the informality of this place is one of it's attractions. We make friends and chat about culture as well as debate about politics. Good natured exchanges about culture and the like builds funds of good will which are useful when we hit in something sensitive - so if cg says something I really don't like, or vice-versa, it's not the end of the world. Same as happened with George and I when things got a bit heated the other day.

John, are you not being a little over sensitive?

I sincerely doubt the GAA stuff was deliberately discussed to piss you off or make you sad.

As for the discussion of percentages and funds, those topics were in the context of IF the majority votes to unite Ireland. Surely a possibility that must be taken into account?

JD

I don't want to open up this particular can of worms but I would have thought nationalism would have realised the GAA was viewed in the same light in the unionist community as the Orange Order is in the nationalist community.

Its why, for instance, GAA shirts along with Rangers & Celtic shirts are banned in the workplace.

Its what nationalists mean by a neutral environment.

I know you don't see the GAA in this light but I am afraid that is the reality of the unionist community.

ie there is a time and a place.

John, I don't know what to say to you.

JD

"John, I don't know what to say to you"

Surely I haven't given you some kind of earth shattering revelation about the standing of the GAA in the unionist community ?

"that's what I mean
The thread had reached a point where nationalists were talking about how to get a UI in an environment of consent.
The points I made were relevant and indeed your response has confirmed them."

Your point, which I tackled, was solely about the GAA discussion. I'll presume these points are part of a wider issue you are trying to highlight. That's not what I was challenging you aboput though.

"If you guys want to have a 2 hour discussion about Paddy's biography or the Crossmaglen whatevers then I suggest you do it on an MSN chatline or something ?"

Why? A discussion about cricket would exclude me, should we ban sports as a topic on Slugger?
Politics & Culture reads the subheader above, Gaelic sports come under that.

"and yes I do think it was done to piss unionists off"

As I said don't flatter yourself.
It was actually Willowfield (if I remember correctly) who brought up the issue of "obsession" with counties. The reason we explained was probably due to the GAA.
The main GAA discussion then kicked off because CavanMan raised a very serious issue.

No, i'm not under 25 or even 30.

"I would have thought nationalism would have realised the GAA was viewed in the same light in the unionist community as the Orange Order is in the nationalist community."

And you'd be prerfectly entitled to discuss the Orange Order here. I wouldn't expect you to go to a MSN forum, indeed i'd be quite interested in the discussion because it's the only way i'll learn more about the Orange Order. That's why i'm here, to learn.

JEB
Get a life
We are free to talk about the GAA, UI, and politics, whatever we chose and if you don’t like it, tough you know what you can do.

You have a very high opinion of yourself if you think I have the time to post threads just to piss you off. In all honesty you aren’t worth it.

As Davros said this is informal and is about politics and culture and for a large majority of people on this island the GAA is a very fundamental point of Irish culture. You have no right to tell anyone to go to MSN chat rooms to discuss GAA issues. That is exclusion and sectarian thinking

Then again I would have expected nothing else.

maca

"Politics & Culture reads the subheader above, Gaelic sports come under that."

GAA doesn't come under the harmless sports or culture category I am afraid.

It isn't something you do small talk in at the exclusion of unionists. Same goes for Orange Order.

There is very much a role for GAA discussion on Slugger but as I said by its nature it should involve an exchange of views rather than a 2 hour discussion among nationalists on a totally unrelated thread.

That of course is just my opinion.

"and yes I do think it was done to piss unionists off"

As I said don't flatter yourself."

How sensitive of me to be offended by the overt display of GAA - something nationalism would never suffer from. You guys throw up at the sight of a Union Jack or the singing of the national anthem or the wearing of a poppy.

Anyhow as for the GAA not being about pissing off Unionists - I was at Queens in the early eighties - I remember the Students Union well.

Surely I haven't given you some kind of earth shattering revelation about the standing of the GAA in the unionist community ?

Not at all. I just don't have anything constructive to say about your siege mentality. Sorry.

cg

amazing how so many nationalists on this thread just ignore all the issues and end with a limp response like

"Then again I would have expected nothing else"

I suppose you were sticking your tongue out at me at that moment also ?

JD

"Not at all. I just don't have anything constructive to say about your siege mentality. Sorry."

This is where Willowfield fell out with you guys yesterday.

You simply won't/can't address the issues and when faced with any kind of criticism you adopt a superior than thou attitude and revert to name calling and personal attacks.

Any reasonable thinking nationalist would realise I don't have a siege mentality

I don't get personal but I get frustrated at the level of deabte about the real issues.

Anyhow I am away to bed as this is most tiresome

JEB
"GAA doesn't come under the harmless sports or culture category I am afraid."

Politics & Culture I said, and of course it comes under it. Most certainly.

"There is very much a role for GAA discussion on Slugger but as I said by its nature it should involve an exchange of views rather than a 2 hour discussion among nationalists on a totally unrelated thread."

There was an exchange of view but unionists take no interest in the GAA so were unable or just not interested enough to comment.
Are you now actually saying that we can discuss the GAA but only GAA topics which a unionist might have an opinion on, such as the rule book for example? You may have no interest in the GAA but it doesn't stop you having an opinion on the topic which we were discussing.

"How sensitive of me to be offended by the overt display of GAA - something nationalism would never suffer from. You guys throw up at the sight of a Union Jack or the singing of the national anthem or the wearing of a poppy."

So now you're offended by us discussing GAA?
I don't recall ever throwing up because of any of those things.

"Anyhow as for the GAA not being about pissing off Unionists"

This is a new issue which we have not being discussing, why do you now bring this in here?
The point was that we were not discussing the GAA just to piss anyone off.

John a 2 hour discussion among nationalists

I'm not a nationalist John. I don't think they would want me LOL

John, I backed off the discussion, but you pushed it by asking a silly question, and I answered you. Sadly, you did not like the answer.

That said, I see where you are coming from, but I disagree entirely. Do you expect me to simply disregard all my thoughts on this matter? I don't expect you to: that's why I said I didn't know what to say to you. Sorry.

"There was an exchange of view but unionists take no interest in the GAA so were unable or just not interested enough to comment."

I realise that came out worse than intended because some unionists do have an interest in the subject.

Off to my leaba too.

There was an exchange of view but unionists take no interest in the GAA so were unable or just not interested enough to comment.

hey! I was only kidding about Dana!

I clarified that statement Dav! No offence was intended, I know it was badly phrased.
And please stop mentioning Dana, i'll have friggin nightmares tonight!!

479 posts! What's the current record? Must be over 600.
Start us off on another GAA discussion John, should be good for a hundred posts. ;)
(just kidding dude)

Definitly off to mo leabe now...

LOL - there'll be a plaque to me one day -

Davros, the man who killed off nationalism by pointing out that we have thousands more like Dana held back by the border! ;)

On a serious note, if I raise a point about the GAA it's more likely to be taken seriously as I have shown an interest and at least some knowledge, just as I would take something said about an aspect of my community more seriously if the person making the point or asking a question showed a genuine interest and willingness to understand.

Dav
"On a serious note, if I raise a point about the GAA it's more likely to be taken seriously as I have shown an interest ..."

I try to take all comments seriously as I want to understand your issues with the GAA, although it may not look like it as I have an agressive posting style and a stubborn streak. But I agree with your point, I take some comments more seriously than others depending on who is posting and how they post.
Some discussions about the GAA are just about GAA bashing and it's very hard to take some people seriously when they start shouting racist, as has happened here many times.
That doesn't apply to you of course.

I really have to hit the sack now.

"I suppose you were sticking your tongue out at me at that moment also ?"

Actully John I wasn't I was thinking what a W****R you must be.

An apology for my last post as it was childish.
Am doing coursework and am really stressed but John I won't accept the implication that Nationalists can't discuss GAA issues unless accompanied by an adult (unionist)

cg

you should be doing your coursework during the day instead of wasting your time on slugger chatlining about GAA.

- Tosser yourself

John East Belfast

It is interesting that you see the GAA as the equivalent of the Orange Order and also believe that discussing the GAA is done to offend you.

I try to put myself in your shoes and imagine how I would feel if a thread developed into a discussion about the internal affairs and issues of the Orange Order (which lodge has the best band? the optimal size of a Lambeg drum?)

I certainly don't think I'd feel offended. I might find it interesting. If I didn't I'd wander off to another thread.

But if we are going to discuss the GAA I think we should talk about the proposed rule changes.

The main ones are (for the uninitiated)

-Hurling: Two points for a sideline cut put directly over the bar.

-Football: The ball can be scooped up by hand from the ground.

I think the change could make football an even faster and more exciting game. I can't wait to see it in action.

Some good will come of this after all-

The Lodges don't "have" bands. They are totally seperate and don't come under Orange discipline.

"cg

you should be doing your coursework during the day instead of wasting your time on slugger chatlining about GAA"

LOL
John In all honestly if you thought we were discussing the GAA just to annoy you or our unionist brothers then I assure you we weren’t. It may be hard to believe but most of us enjoy the GAA and like to discuss it.

So there may be some members of the band who are also members of the lodge, but there's no organic link between the two organisations? ;)

Ringo- hopefully DavidB will give a definitive answer, but as far as I know bandsmen aren't members themselves - as otherwise they would be required to walk with their brethren.

I'm only taking the piss. You just put it in the same way as Sinn Fein's disassociation from the IRA.

Most bandsmen aren't members, but there's nothing to stop them being so. You occasionally see a band member playing in a band while wearing an Orange collarette.

Anyone taking offence so far?

Me neither.

Henry 94

My whole GAA comments were taken out of context.

I only raised it as a joking observation - I wasn't offended - I just noticed the exclusivity of it - others took the line that I was offended and I went along and confirmed it.

Perhaps it was a bit like Paisley and the humiliation thing - nationalists said it was what he was about and he confirmed it to be the case.

Infact nationalists were more clearly offended at the thought of me being offended.

I don't want to open another can of worms but that is often how unionism sees nationalism. ie the latter believes that in the Irish conflict that it is the most wronged party. Its gets exasperated when unionism cannot buy into this ideal and gets offended if unionism tries to articulate how it might have been wronged itself.

However at the same time I was expressing the reality of the GAA in the unionist community. I know there are very good people there etc but there is a problem.

Interesting when I suggested that GAA doesn't come under harmless sports and culture category (I thought these two groupings were adequate) Maca went out of his way to point out that Slugger is about Politics and Culture - thus only reinforcing in my mind that the GAA is about a lot more than a few guys discussing the match.

When I pointed out that a 2 hour discussion among nationalists on an open thread about something that is both alien and 'mildly' offesnsive to the unionist readership was odd then I was set upon as some kind of unionist bigot.

Also when

cg says

"if you don’t like it, tough you know what you can do."

or when Maca says

"If you don't know what we're talking about then the problem is yours.."

I wonder if that is the kind of "pleasant surprise" unionism could expect in a UI that Billy Pilgrim was telling me about yesterday ?

And maca please stop the "dude" stuff - I assume you are not Bart Simpson in 'real' life ?

me niether

"I only raised it as a joking observation"

Funny joke dude. You might consider using smileys in future.

"or when Maca says
"If you don't know what we're talking about then the problem is yours..""

It's a fact of life everywhere and aplies to me as much as you or anyone.

John East Belfast

In fact nationalists were more clearly offended at the thought of me being offended.

While we reserve the right to offend each other we are outraged when offence is taken where none was intended. What a mad situation we are in.

maca

"479 posts!What's the current record?Must be over 600."

I remember contributing to a thread months ago I think it might have been called 'Nationalism in Crisis' or something and I'm pretty sure it went to over 800 posts.IJP contributed to it alot.
I don't know if you contributed to that thread or not maca but I remember it was a pain in the backside waiting for the page to open!

"It may be hard to believe but most of us enjoy the GAA and like to discuss it."

GAA is very hard to follow, what I find especially confusing is the scoring system where the point are for example 3:1 - 2:4, in that situation how do you tell who has won, do you add them up or something?

(no offence intended here btw, I am not trying to belittle GAA, I have watched matches but not understood what is going on!)

Unionist_observer

It's pretty simple really - if the ball goes over the bar, you score a point. If the ball goes into the net, you score a goal. A goal is worth three points. Whoever scores the most points wins, naturally enough.

When you see a score like

3:1 to 2:4

This means that the first team has scored three goals and one point, and the second team has scored two goals and four points. Your example has ended in a draw.

aha, and is it the same scoring system for hurling as well as football?

unionist_observer

It is.

Well, not quite. A score worth 2 points can now be obtained in hurling, as Henry94 points out above:

Hurling: Two points for a sideline cut put directly over the bar.

A sideline cut is roughly equivalent to a throw-in in soccer i.e. when the opposing team causes the ball to cross the sideline.

hmmm, right, see I'm confused already ;)

Cheers anyway, I'll try to keep some of that in mind next time I see a GAA match!!

"You recent comments on this thread show the fear that envelopes you.
It highlights the fear within unionism that one day the union will end. Could I ask you, if this is the case, to engage in debate with your Irish brethren about what sort of new unified Ireland you would like, should the unthinkable happen and a majority of the six counties support reunification."

An interesting example of SF racism here. The Unionist community is not afraid, because the Union will not end. It will evolve,of course, just as it has in the rest of the UK, because, as I have posted elsewhere, it is an Act of Parliament which has been amended on numerous occasions. We remain obliged to be on the defensive because the nature of the evolution is uncertain. SF also realise the potential for causing damage from within -hence their pathetic desire to be Ministers of the Crown in the hope of weakening its influence. But what is certain, is that , as the chance of a share of power in Dublin grows, they will have to choose whether to concentrate on that or on the pipedream they killed and maimed for.The two will not be compatible for generations by which time the Union will have evolved again-that's the wonder of an unwritten constitution.

The link has also changed in its nature- the Union did not collapse with the disestablishment of the Church of Ireland in 1868 as some Tories feared. Culturally all Northern Irish people are closer to the rest of the UK tha ever before-as indeed are most citizens of the RoI. Proposals which nationalists are continually floating are primarily intended to undermine the symbols of the Union because they recognise that they can't hollow out the Britishness within them by banning foreign games,the News of the World, the BBC, and the mighty DHSS which remain popular in nationalist hearts and minds.

Why not recognise the truth of Nell McCafferty's recent comments, cg ? You threw everything at us for thirty years. You failed. Unionism is bloodied but unbowed. SF are now unable to manufacture any grievance to allow them to go back to war which would gain sympathy for them in the world. We're not going to discuss a new Ireland with you -ever- because it's permanently off the agenda.

We have been trying to find ways to reduce the alienation of as section of our population from the rest of the state. In that regard Trimble's project was right (bloody hell-did I just type that?)-though the manner in which he conductd it was hopeless ( ah that's more like it). Things like the 2 day trips for Barbara and the SF MPs to Dail Eireann are so far off being a prototype all Ireland Parliament it's risible to tout it as such. it'll make the British Irish leg of the Agreement which Trimble was so fixated on look like a constitutional juggernaut. And as for the bogeyman of joint authority with a green tinge, which so scared Reg Empey and others that they forgot basic horsetrading skills, that won't run either-for economic reasons as much as any other.

Some day, conceivably -as Carson himself recognised- the Unionists of the future could feel the Union didn't protect their interests- as some felt in 1800. And former opponents of the Union might become its supporters-like the Church conditionally supported it in 1800. Both might be longshots, but they're a better bet than your outdated 32 county fantasy. So lay off the juvenile psyops- it's even less credible than Gerry's denial that he was Brownie

JEB

'Unionists don't see themselves in the context of the Irish island,
We are part of the greater British family of up to 60m people.'

That's fair enough, however the 'greater British family' is extended throughout the world in the form of white settler colonies of which Ireland was the first. It's patently obvious why unionists don't see themselves in the context of the Irish island since that was the whole point in them being settled here in the first place. Divide and rule isn't just peculiar to Ireland, the Brits perfected it all over the place, leaving many a divided and war-torn society even till this day, South Africa, Palestine & India the ones that instantly spring to mind.

So in one way unionists of today are merely fulfilling their age-old garrison role of holding Ireland for Britain, however those days are now long gone. Whatever strategic imperial role the Protestants of Ireland used to have died with the Empire, all they have left is a sentimental attachment to the mother country, a country which plainly has no use for them anymore and barely conceals its contempt for their elected leaders. But NI is Britain's mess, a result short term imperial gain, with irreparable damage to Ireland economically, socially and politically.

"irreparable damage to Ireland economically, socially and politically...?"

ah yes, damaging Ireland economically by massive structural and financial investment; damaging it socially by providing a neutral anvironment for the various cultural and religious communities to coexist; and damaging it politically by resisting a warped nationalist political ideology grounded in antiBritish and anti-Protestant phobias.

as John Cleese would have it "What have the Romans ever done for us?"

Send those Planters back where they came from- especially half castes Gerry Adams, John Hume, and Danny Morrison. Ireland should be free to evolve as a good Catholic nation exporting poteen and turf, and led by pure Irishmen like ..er ..Senor de Valera

The internet is a modern invention Millie-it shouldn't have to publish views that were outdated in the 19th century

Abandon all Nationist aspirations. Brewster can see the future... and it's Orange. Seriously though, I love it when an Orangeman accuses Catholics of being anti-protestant.

Dec-

Brewster can see the future... and it's Orange.
I much prefer to see a Unionism that is sure of itself and knows its destiny lies with itself than one that (wreongly) feels 'mildly offended' when the topic temporarily changes to GAA.

Same goes for the other side.

db

Do you even know what a colony is? Or even what it does? It makes money for another stronger economy - Britain in this case - and suffers exploitation in order for the stronger economy to develop. How many infant Irish industries over the last few centuries from cloth to cattle were destroyed or restricted so they wouldn't pose a threat to British goods? How many human beings died or were exported as labour to work in the new British industries, right into the 20th century? We all know about the uneven development of the Irish economy but do you even know why the southern economy stagnated and went backwards under British rule?

In fact, do pupils from state schools in NI actually learn the history of the country or do they learn the sanititized version, i.e. the British Empire minus the colonies? Anyway it doesn't matter what I say you're never going to believe me, next you'll be saying the slaves in the American South had it good before emancipation.

I have learned from this thread: (a) there are Unionists who say that the Union is strong and will never end; (b) therefore they believe there is no need to enter into a hypothetical discussion about what would need to happen should it fail; (c) but Unionists still get upset/ worried/ offended by that hypothetical discussion.

I really don't see why the discussion of the possible end to the Union should not take place. But I am genuinely surprised that Unionism fears Ireland so much.

There's always a hint of hypocrisy about these for-and-against the Union debates if one consideres the skullduggery, corruption and threats that ensured the original Act of Union happened at all. Given that less than saluberius start is it any wonder the 'Union' between Britain and Ireland, and then Britian and NI is wracked with political illegitimacy and instability? Even at the time the poet Shelley likened the Act of Union to the union of a boa constrictor with its prey.

UO
"hmmm, right, see I'm confused already ;)"

If a player hits the ball over the side line the other team gets a "throw in" or 'sideline puck'. If this "throw in" goes over the cross bar then it's worth two points. This is just a new experimental rule as traditionally this would only be worth a single point.

3:1 (9+1) to 2:4 (6+4)

Any easier?
If you think GAA scores are hard to understand have you tried cricket? That one has me stumped!! ('cuse the pun)


YI
"..I'm pretty sure it went to over 800 posts.IJP contributed to it alot. I don't know if you contributed to that thread..."

I probably bowed out after a while, loading times and all...

its telling that the thread seems to have developed into a pro versus anti-union debate and that is exactly where this DUP concession will take us

millie

"It's patently obvious why unionists don't see themselves in the context of the Irish island since that was the whole point in them being settled here in the first place"

Have you any idea how ridiculous that sounds. Do you honestly think unionists don't see themselves as Irish men and women with as much right to determine the destiny of this little bit of earth as you. Do you think we are all going around with a conscious mindset of the plantation almost 500 years ago ?

and it gets worse

"So in one way unionists of today are merely fulfilling their age-old garrison role of holding Ireland for Britain,"

dear oh dear

"all they have left is a sentimental attachment to the mother country"

unionists are many things but sentimental is not one of them
Sentimentality for a mother Ireland is your department.

I am though very proud to be a citisen of one of the greatest nations on earth - a view, IMHO, held by the majority of the people on this planet with the exception of the French and the nationalist Irish - good company there,

"But NI is Britain's mess, a result of short term imperial gain, with irreparable damage to Ireland economically, socially and politically"

Billy Pilgrim said something similar yesterday

"I think the union is a bad idea and a damaging factor in our lives"

I asked him

"Please give me an example of how the Union has been a damaging factor in your life"

but unsurprisingly he couldn't find one.

Meanwhile I see maca is having a feeble attempt to irritate me by calling me dude despite me telling him that thinking he was Bart Simpson was just sad. Funnily I just sent my 12 year old son to his room for irritating his little sisters in a similar fashion.

You see the level of nationalist debate about a UI seems to rotate around the evils of everything from the plantation to partition and beyond.

Why in God's name would I want to be united with such a bunch of inward looking self absorbed and self pitying people like you ?

This thread only proves to me that nationalism can neither make unionists welcome in a UI nor indeed make any real concrete case as to why unionists would wish to leave the UK and join with them in a separate Irish State.

Ok, John. Let's try and make this constructive. What would you need to make you more comfortable in a UI?

"Meanwhile I see maca is having a feeble attempt to irritate me"

John, to be honest I wouldn't even bother wasting my time or energy trying to irritate you, i've better things to de doing.

JD

"Ok, John. Let's try and make this constructive. What would you need to make you more comfortable in a UI?"

I think that is your job ?

If you believe in a UI so much then you tell me why ?
of course leave out all the sentimental stuff about mother Ireland and of course the need to put right historical wrongs since the Plantation, Partition, 50 years of Unionist Rule and of course the last 30 years of our stubborn defence to remain Bristish.

Once all that is stripped out you tell me why I would want to live in a UI and how you feel the nationalist community could make me feel comfortable there.

You are selling a product I assume and you want me to buy it

No, it's not my job. You know that.

I'll try again. What do you want out of a UI?

If you don't tell me, how can I take what you want into account? Use a bit of common sense.

fairplay maca, I have no idea what cricket is about either. Give me a good rugby match any day - all those big strapping lads in their little shorts, now thats entertainment!!

Millie

re- your comment on education in NI state schools. When I was doing that course we were taught a huge variety of topics in history from the easter rising to ancient egypt to nazi germany to Henry VIIIs wives. There was great variety, and certainly not all about how great the British Empire was!!

Don't make the mistake of taking David Brewster seriously, and certainly don't think that all unionists are like him - they are most certainly not!

UO
"all those big strapping lads in their little shorts, now thats entertainment"

I think you've just turned me off rugby ;)

haha, those big strapping GAA players in their little shorts are very entertaining too..........does cricket seem more appealing now?!?!

"I am though very proud to be a "citisen" of one of the greatest nations on earth"

JEB
Don't you mean subject ;)

UO
"does cricket seem more appealing now?!?!"

Things haven't gotten that bad yet. ;)
I'll stick to the handball.

ah well, worth a try!

I just posted on my blog what I believe should be done to pave the way for Irish unity.I'd be interested in hearing what you think...

YI
You don't think you could start such a discussion on a thread on which there isn't already 525 posts? ;)

thats not bad Young Irelander, its certainly a much more sensitive approach than unionists are used to being presented with.

I think your points about southern unionists and nationalist and republican attitudes towards unionism are very valid ones. Closer links between the two islands is also a common sense approach that usually provokes panic in republicans. Remembrance Sunday is also something that should be commemorated in the republic, there was plenty of brave Irishmen died for that cause too, it wasn't all the 36th Ulster division.

Do you know much about the reform movement? Its a group that represents the pro British minority in Ireland. Some of their stuff is similar to yours in terms of the councilatory (spelling?) vibe.

Unfortunately I don't agree with you because at the end of the day I am a unionist and I want to see the union retained but I do like the way you have gone about that.

Unfortunately I don't agree with you because at the end of the day I am a unionist and I want to see the union retained but I do like the way you have gone about that.

I can respect your position, but this is also the crux of the matter: you are intelligent, reasonable, eductaed, and no matter how it is presented, you don't want a UI. And the nationalist position is just as ingrained.

But UO, can you even conceive of what you would like to see if a majority voted for a UI? What might that be?

well JD, at the end of the day, if the majority of people in Northern Ireland voted for a united Ireland I would have to accept it. I am a democrat at the end of the day.

UO, okay, but what would you like to see in a UI?

YI
I agree with some of what you have said. I don’t agree with the stuff about Ireland not being a republic. Don't think your point about Sinn Féin being a partionist party is plausible.
I favor a socialist Republic where we have equality for all and not just some. I agree with the point of respecting Irish unionists "brutishness".

Personally my republicanism is that of Davis. Meaning simply that I hold my love of Ireland greater than any hatred of the British.

unionist_observer
I would like to see a Day of remembrance for all victims of the two world wars. When do we not mourn for all that died? Did German families not feel grief?
You must however accept that rememberance Sunday is a non starter for Nationalists as it mourns the life of every British solider and that is not something the majority of the people of Ireland can agree to.

"Do you know much about the reform movement? Its a group that represents the pro British minority in Ireland. Some of their stuff is similar to yours in terms of the councilatory (spelling?) vibe."

And some of their stuff I find to be somewhat, dare I say, "anti-Irish". I don't think "conciliatory" is a term I would apply to them. Just my own impression of what I know of them.

First of all, I don't want a united ireland.

But if it happened, I would like equality for my community, I would like to see unionists continue to be represented politically and most of all, I would be terrified that things like the border campaigns and the events that took place in West Cork in the 1920s would happen all over Ulster in some sort of triumphalist display by the rougher elements of Sinn Fein.

I would be mostly concerned for my way of life, in all probability I think I would move to Scotland

"brutishness".
Should read "British ness"
No dig intended.

"I would like to see a Day of remembrance for all victims of the two world wars. When do we not mourn for all that died? Did German families not feel grief?
You must however accept that rememberance Sunday is a non starter for Nationalists as it mourns the life of every British solider and that is not something the majority of the people of Ireland can agree to."

I'm sorry but I am going to have to leave this conversation now, I would like the remain civil and discuss this topic reasonably but the above has made me fairly angry.

So, you fear that there would be a purge? Do your honestly believe that? I doubt the Irish people would stand for that.

"my way of life": what might that include?

I ask because I'm interested.

UO
"I would be mostly concerned for my way of life, in all probability I think I would move to Scotland"

Considering where you are now located I would assume that things would get a heck of a lot better than they currently are?? I could be wrong though.

and besides do the families of British soldiers not feel grief, these are mostly young men sent on their first tour of duty and alot of them were returned in bits or not returned at all to their families.

Cut the crap cg, this whole peace and love idea of grieving for both sides is only applied to what you feel comfortable with.

"I'm sorry but I am going to have to leave this conversation now, I would like the remain civil and discuss this topic reasonably but the above has made me fairly angry.2

I am sorry you felt angry as that was not my intention.

I would be interested if you could tell me what exactly you found offensive. I understand Rememberance Sunday is important to the Unionist community and I respect that. You however have to accept that Rememberance Sunday is not just for the soldiers of the two world wars.
It is for every British soldier that died in conflict including the six counties.

The problem I have is that soldiers involved in the murder and torture of innocent members of my own family and friends are remembered as well.
What annoys me most is that I have family members who fought in both wars and due to the association of other British soldiers I can't remember their sacrifice, albeit misguided, for Ireland and freedom

"Do your honestly believe that? I doubt the Irish people would stand for that."

well they did in the 1920s didn't they?

Nobody stood up for the prods when they were being burned out of their homes in south armagh and their husbands/fathers/brothers shot before them. Nobody stood up for the people of West Cork when they were burned out of their houses

"Cut the crap cg, this whole peace and love idea of grieving for both sides is only applied to what you feel comfortable with."

I have posted my response but don't give me any sanctimonious rubbish about cutting the crap as this is the situation and you can deal with it or bury your head in the sand, I don't really care.
By the way you are not the only one who has strong feelings on this issue.

well they did in the 1920s didn't they?

Nobody stood up for the prods when they were being burned out of their homes in south armagh and their husbands/fathers/brothers shot before them. Nobody stood up for the people of West Cork when they were burned out of their houses

OK, but do you really believe that this would be tolerated in the current climate in Ireland?

"Nobody stood up for the prods when they were being burned out of their homes in south armagh and their husbands/fathers/brothers shot before them"

When, where?

I come from the area and know the history of the 1920's so don't try and twist the situation for your own purposes. It doesn't wash.

you were being completely hypocritical - you want to grieve for both sides in WW2, but you won't grieve for both sides in the troubles - you were the one being sanctimonious.

"but you won't grieve for both sides in the troubles - you were the one being sanctimonious."

I have no problem with that. I never said I wouldn't you just assumed I wouldn't.

"I come from the area and know the history of the 1920's so don't try and twist the situation for your own purposes. It doesn't wash."

I got it from a book I am currently reading about south armagh

"Bandit country: The IRA and South Armagh" by Toby Harnden. Makes very shocking reading

unionist_observer
I have had the misfortune of reading it and know a lot of the people mentioned in it and most of it is sensationalist bullshit.

If you really want to learn the history I will be more than happy to invite you down to god's country and you can research for yourself the history.

I have been there already, thank you anyway.

Have to head on now, on the phone.

Don't say I didn't offer ;)

cg- what is the local version of events at Altnaveigh and the role of Frank Aiken ?
My grandfather was very blunt about those days. Bad things were done on all sides. Therre was sectarianism and there were sectarian killings.

Altnaveigh
Was an attempt to kill RIC men not Protestants it would not have mattered if the police man was Catholic or protestant? The problem I had with UO post was that he suggested that only Protestants were attacked. Your granddad was right, there was wrong on both sides.
Frank Aiken was the leader of the 4th Northern Division and an honorable man from what I have researched.

As I told you before the Tan's were particularly brutal in this time but there was fault on both sides.
BTW "local version" I hope you mean version ;)

I was trying to lead on from your point that the story one would hear in S Armagh would be different from those available elsewhere :)

The Tans - interesting picture painted of them in
"History Ireland" Autumn 2004.

"I was trying to lead on from your point that the story one would hear in S Armagh would be different from those available elsewhere :)"

Absolutely but that is the same with every issue. Ever hear of Chinese whispers. ;)

Wasn't that a Wham album ? ;)

"Wasn't that a Wham album ? ;)"

Sorry I am not that old. ;)

Now THAT was below the belt! ;)

JD

"No, it's not my job. You know that.

I'll try again. What do you want out of a UI?

If you don't tell me, how can I take what you want into account? Use a bit of common sense."

What breath taking arrogance.

You ask me what price I would take for my nationality and I politely ask you to make me an offer and you come out with that above.

However it is interesting to note that when I ask you to take out the sentimental mother Ireland stuff and the need to right hundreds of years of wrongs against the Irish people by the British you are rendered speechless when it comes to cnstructing an argument as to why Unionists should join a UI.

I was even thinking of inviting some nationalists to East Belfast to put a case but you clearly don't have one.

I see cg is bringing up the black n tans now - the quality of nationalsit thought.

I am more sure than ever - the Union is safe

JEB- bit harsh on Chris for mentioning the Tans. It was a perfectly reasonable reply to my post about events at Altnaveigh.

JEB,

Sad to see that you took a well-intentioned question for dialogue and understanding as an affront.

Oh well.

JD

Sad to see you cannot make a case for a UI to a Unionist

I asked you what you wanted to see in a UI.

You did't want to tell me, but instead got angry.

It was a genuine question.

JD

I didn't get angry !

I genuinely asked you to make me an offer and I am still waiting

In a UI, I would hope you could be guaranteed:

Your right to a secular state.

Your right to freedom of cultural expression.

Your right to freedom of religion.

Your right to representation.

Your right to equality.

Your right to peace.

Your right to justice.

Your right to maintain your quality of life.

JD

But I have all that within the uk

Again, I must ask, what do you think you will lose in a UI?

JD

I will lose being a British citisen (or subject as somebody pointed out)

With respect your question is quite absurd. I would say insulting but somebody will come back and accuse me of being over sensitive.

Would you ask the same question of an American, or a Frenchman or ........

JD

Can I ask you what it is you have to lose by remaining a British citizen ?

Self-determination.

JD

So what you are saying is that by remaining a british citisen you are forgoing your right not to be a british citisen - not a very convincing argument for a ui.

JEB,

You do realise that as things stand, your nationality is purchased at the expense of others?

What are you offering them?

Do you believe that ireland is an inferior country to Britain?

JD I must ask, what do you think you will lose in a UI?

JEB I will lose being a British citisen (or subject as somebody pointed out)

No you wouldn't. Only you can renounce your citizenship.

The British government could grant those born in the 6 counties British citizenship as part of a united Ireland. If that happened you wouldn't have any objections to UI?

Ringo- hopefully DavidB will give a definitive answer, but as far as I know bandsmen aren't members themselves - as otherwise they would be required to walk with their brethren.-Davros

basically correct. bands are usually hired -I've often thought of booking SLF but it might be difficult to walk behind

Thanks David.

I haven't had time to read all the posts but I thought I'd ask a question anyway even though it's possibly already being covered.

Who cares who can attend and vote in the Dail? The Dail (the lower house) can only legislate for the ROI so why should Paisley care, even if the Pope is made President and the Seanad (the upper house) is replaced by the IRA Army Council?

No part of this suggestion involves giving the Dail the right to legislate for Northern Ireland so no resident of Northern Ireland should be getting excited about it.

When Tony Blair was invited to speak in the US Congress did that mean that the UK had got it's colonies back?

Robert Keogh

"Only you can renounce your citizenship.

The British government could grant those born in the 6 counties British citizenship as part of a united Ireland. If that happened you wouldn't have any objections to UI?"

well why are nationalists not happy with their equivalent Irish citisenship currently bestowed on them ?

Anyhow the issue is that I want the benefits and obligations of British citizenship.

Occasional Commenter

"even though it's possibly already being covered.

Who cares who can attend and vote in the Dail? The Dail (the lower house)"

If you were interested you could check out what I said on 12th Dec @ 12.49am above

JD

"Do you believe that ireland is an inferior country to Britain?"

I don't think of it in terms of superior and inferior.
I simply believe the people of these islands who speak the same language and have a very shared history should all be one nation.

Let's face it if Ireland had had a Reformation and become exclusively Protestant there wouldn't have been an Irish problem and to this day there would have been a UK of GB & Ireland.
The Irish, north and south, may have had similar rivalry with the English as the Scots do today, but we would have been one nation

You see when nationalists look at Ireland and geography barks back and says division is crazy I see the same thing when I look at the two islands.

I believe the Irish would be punching way above their weight in Westminster and we would all be the better for it.

What I don't understand is how Ireland is so hooked into the EU dream and the eventual consequence of where that might lead but won't throw their lot in with their nearest and closest neighbour.

Quite frankly I consider the notion of an independent 32 county Ireland of 5 million people on the edge of Europe to be absurd - sorry.

Indeed the above thread only illustrates to me that the desire for a UI is largely based on myth and anti British prejudice arisng from real and pereceived past injustice.
Such perceptions have been fuelled by organisations like the GAA and the Catholic Church also unfortunately has a lot to answer for

I think you are entirely correct Occasional Commenter and I'm sure that most reasonable minded unionists would agree with you.

However, a small number of small minded unionists would say that this is an "irredentist" gesture which is disrespectful to unionism.

I think you will find that these very same people also find the very concept of nationalism disrespectful to unionism as well though. (They may claim that they dont, but the substance of their arguments cleary indicates that they do)

This 43% figure I gave for the electorate is the figure that matters. I could also argue that majority of the electorate didn't voting unionist in the last general election but would be stupid in my view.

For an easy life I shall rephrase to "voting electorate". I hope that satisfies everyone. All I know is that the voting electorate are the ones that matter in a democracy.

The fact is that if this 43% figure goes above 50% in a general election then we will have a situation of a border poll being called.

If over 50% of the vote is for unification in the subsequent poll, it's on and it doesn't matter if there are those out there screaming that it wasn't 50% of "the electorate".

Willowfield,
the Freestate hasn't existed for over half a century. Try keep up.

John East Belfast,
you are looking at this unity thing in the wrong way. As it is unity we are talking about you have to ask what a united Ireland would do for all of us on this island not just unionism.

Can unionism unite the people of Northern Ireland?
Over 40% of NI's voting electorate want to see Northern Ireland cede to the Irish Republic ASAP so the answer at the moment seems a categorical no.

This is hardly the sign of a unifyied place delivering for all its citizens. I'm open to you telling me how this will change.

In the Irish Republic, 99% of the Irish voting electorate vote for parties that support the idea of an independent Irish Republic, which they see has united the people within its borders probably for the first time.

Within 20 years we'll probably have more Slavs than unionists on this island and I don't think we'll have a problem united them with the rest in the Republic either. Why? Because the overwhelming majority of the Irish Republic's population feel they belong. A huge minority of the population of Northern Ireland not only feel they don't belong they also don't want to belong.

As for your assertation that if we were all Protestant, we'd be in the union, I'd say that if the Reformation came to Ireland, the Act of Union would never have taken place and we would have been independent for the last 200 years.

"I believe the Irish would be punching way above their weight in Westminster and we would all be the better for it."

The Westminster system has been inept at dealing with the problems of majorities and minorities. I don't like the way in which Westminster politics has traditionally operated in the spirit of first past the post and winner takes all. All too often the English were inclined to expect the others to accept their democratic dictates. So thanks, but no thanks.

I'm quite fond of the concept of the council of the isles though, even if it doesn't have any executive power. I sincerely hope that it does evolve with time, hopefully incorporating the principle of subsidiarity.

Admittedly it does have the potential to unite the disparate elements throughout the isles in a non-threatening manner.

"Why should you be represented in the parliament of another state? Should they also be allowed to represent you in the US Congress?"

Do you not accept the fact that the relationship between the Republic and NI is a distinct one (given that a large proportion of the NI population vote for parties who seek unification) and as such warrants a distinct system of representation? And why do you care if nationalists are represented in the Dail anyway? What actual harm will it do you?

JEB

'I simply believe the people of these islands who speak the same language and have a very shared history should all be one nation.'

Well so does Britain and Jamaica, except if you're a Jamaican you'll recall that the relationship, like Ireland, was an exploitative one. Ireland's geographical proximity to Britain made it unique as both colony and (from 1801) part of the British state itself. However, the only reason for the act of union was to quell nationalist dissent and co-opt various Irish interests into those of Britain.

'Let's face it if Ireland had had a Reformation and become exclusively Protestant there wouldn't have been an Irish problem and to this day there would have been a UK of GB & Ireland.'

Or alternatively, if there had been no conquest and colonisation of Ireland then a lot of bother may have been avoided altogether. People seem to forget that the collecting and holding of colonies was considered the norm right up until the eve of WWII. Or even if you take things from 1922 and the establishment of the NI state, if the Catholic minority had been treated like normal human beings then nearly all the bloodshed since 1969 could have been avoided. Except NI couldn't be anything other than a state based on Protestant privilege with repression, gerrymandering and discrimination the order of the day. But if NI had been established as a non-sectarian state with equality between Catholic and Protestant then what was the point of the border? This alone explains why peaceful civil rights marches were met with violence: the state couldn't function in any other way.

The relationship between Britain and Ireland has always been based on inequality and violence, no amount of revision can alter that fact.

JEB: Indeed the above thread only illustrates to me that the desire for a UI is largely based on myth and anti British prejudice arisng from real and pereceived past injustice.
Such perceptions have been fuelled by organisations like the GAA and the Catholic Church also unfortunately has a lot to answer for

But you could so easily reverse all of your terms here and you have the nationalist position. You have a similar mythos, sentimentality and perception of injustice that you clearly wear on your sleeve. I'm also not sure how possible it is to forget history either. Why don't you try it? Even Joyce wasn't successful in waking from that nightmare.

It does seem to me that you think Britain is superior to Ireland.

And I certainly am not convinced that the 60 million people on the island of Britain will accept a reworking of their nation to keep Unionists happy. They really don't seem to care.

You wanted me to "sell you" a UI. But one of the first rules of selling according to Donald Trump is don't see someone apples when the want oranges (!). Perhaps never truer words were spoken about NI.

But I'll stick my neck out and offer a possible scheme: What about a system whereby each individual district (individual county council, for example) that wants to be either Irish or British remains/ becomes so. You would then have a patchwork system of different nationalities. Each "patch" would have "international" bodies to talk to each other. This, coupled with the passport scheme, might go a long way toward keeping both national identities happy.

That should read: You wanted me to "sell you" a UI. But one of the first rules of selling according to Donald Trump is don't sell someone apples when they want oranges (!). Perhaps never truer words were spoken about NI.

ps: can we get an edit function? Just asking...

George

"This is hardly the sign of a unifyied place delivering for all its citizens. I'm open to you telling me how this will change."

it was called the Belfast Agreement ?

ie where the consent principle is accepted and everyone commits themselves to peaceful and democratic persuasion while at the same time working for the good of all the people who live in what many call the six counties. Power is shared so that everyone feels they have proportinate say in who governs their lives.

Therefore all the talk about inequality and not delivering for all of its citisens - what you mean is nationalists cannot have a UI

Nathan

"The Westminster system has been inept at dealing with the problems of majorities and minorities"

that is a whole different argument and not as relevant as here. The big problem with FPTP in a tribal society like NI was that the biggest tribe held power for 50 years with no sign of change. They didn't have the vision to see how unhealthy it was. In the rest of GB (even in Scotland there may be hope) the success of parties can be swayed by the electorate - eg the Labour Party had to change to get back into power - the UUP never had to.

Carrier

"Do you not accept the fact that the relationship between the Republic and NI is a distinct one (given that a large proportion of the NI population vote for parties who seek unification) and as such warrants a distinct system of representation?"

yes its called the Belfast Agreement.

Millie

I am sorry but you really need to lighten up on this Britain the conqueror stuff.

Although I acknowledge past British mistakes and Unionist narrow vision you always miss, in my opinion, two important points

1. What was going on in NI 1921 to 1971 was not happening in a vacuum. There was a hostile state centered 100 miles down the road

2. All the violence was not one way over the centuries and during the last 30 years the majority of the violence was from Irish Republicans.

JD

"You have a similar mythos, sentimentality and perception of injustice that you clearly wear on your sleeve."

possibly but I don't wear it on my sleeve. I only talk about when I am debating with nationalists on Slugger or elsewhere and usually in repsonse to them wearing it as their entire clothing.

and with respect I think your scheme is just daft

"And I certainly am not convinced that the 60 million people on the island of Britain will accept a reworking of their nation to keep Unionists happy"

nobody is asking them to.

"It does seem to me that you think Britain is superior to Ireland"

I tried to answer that question. I suppose I should have said they are equal as I don't buy into inferiority or superiority when it comes to people on the basis of what particular gift has been bestowed upon them. Same for nations I suppose - such views were propbably the basis for colonialism. There may be differences in population, wealth and world influence but so what.

'What was going on in NI 1921 to 1971 was not happening in a vacuum. There was a hostile state centered 100 miles down the road'

Interesting that for a state so hostile to NI its record of fighting partition is fairly abyssmal. Partition was an equitable agreement between two different sections of Irish capital, one more advanced than the other. The infant capitalism of the South required trade tariffs to protect the fledging Irish industries from competition with Britain and elsewhere. A gentleman's agreement you could call it. All the God and Ulster, king and country, mother Ireland and the other nonsense was merely the crap fed to the unionist and nationalist masses about what was supposedly at stake.

Believe it John, anti-partition sentiment down South was always symbolic, periodically wheeled out at election times or during times of economic depression, but never to be taken seriously.

Perhaps you might expand on why you think my scheme is "daft"? As absurd as my scheme may be, I at least put something out there for you to dismiss. I have yet to see you take any similar risks. Has that got to do with your implicit belief that even though you don't want a UI that the nationalist population must do a degrading dance of the seven veils to try and seduce unionism? After which it zips up and heads back home to its wife?

I note as well that you have still offered nothing to those who do not feel that they are British, and are stuck inside the UK border. In fact, you ignored that question. Sell them the idea of the union.

It is far easier to dismiss without offering anything in return than it is to genuinely engage in the discussion.

JD

I wasn't trying to be offensive in describing the scheme as daft - I just couldn't be bothered typing a response. However in a nut shell I am generally against convoluted forms of govt. Keep it simple - if there was a UI lets just have a central parliament in Dublin with all Ireland parties contesting elections on an all Ireland basis. Ireland is too small for anything else.

As for trying to sell the Union to nationalists if you are living in it you must surely be witnessing the benefits first hand - for instance what downside are you encountering ? In terms of how your all Ireland aspirations are dealt with and the fact that you might feel alienated from power then as I said to George that is why we had the *!*@ing Belfast Agreement !

millie

"Partition was an equitable agreement between two different sections of Irish capital, one more advanced than the other"

you surprised me there - first time I have heard a nationalist on Slugger talk like that. That's the kind of thing I would say.

anyhow symbolic, perecived or real -either way it was 'hostile' to the very existence of NI - Articles 2 & 3 for instance.

JEB

No offence taken.

As far as the GFA is concerned, do you really see it as a way of selling the union to nationalists?

JD

It should certainly help nationalists live with it and might grow on a sizeable proportion of them.

I doubt if it will make them proud to be British like I am though

Unionist Observer,
"Nobody stood up for the people of West Cork when they were burned out of their houses."

I hope you do realise that the biggest house burning in Cork was the torching of the city by the British armed forces. But don't let the facts bother you.

Who murdered the elected Lord Mayor Tomas MacCurtain in cold blood. The RIC terrorists under orders of the British government as they didn't like SF getting 90% of the vote.

This old chestnut comes up again and again. Over a quarter of the Catholic population of Belfast were forced out of their homes in 1921, that's 23,000 people.

You talk as if what happened in West Cork was some huge pogram or that it happened in a vacuum, unprovoked by events.

True there were attacks on the occupying forces and their collaborators who in many cases were Protestant landlords or RIC men but they refused to accept the legitimate democratically elected parliament of Ireland, Dail Eireann, making them subversives.

How many Protestants were burned out of their homes in West Cork unionist observer? Would it be close to the Belfast figure of 23,000 or would it be less than 10,000? Less than a 1,000? Less than 500? Less than 200?

Would it be more than the number of houses destroyed in Cork city on that night the Black and Tans went walkabouts?

Plenty of the Black and Tans were Irish Catholics
George. Why would they have wanted to burn out Catholic Houses ?
And don't talk such twaddle about the RIC.

Did I mention the Black and Tans burning Catholic houses Davros? No I didn't so don't talk twaddle.

Also, if somebody refuses to recognise the democratic parliament of my country and are prepared to use force of arms to deny the public's democratic will they are a subversive, regardless of whether they call themselves the IRA or the RIC.
If they support the occupying enemy, they are a collaborator.

Davros,
I mentioned the burning of Cork city because if we are talking about burnings in Cork it makes sense to mention the biggest one, which happens to have been carried out by the British armed forces. Don't you agree?

Unionist observer,
This is who was "protecting" the people of Cork:

"If a police barracks is burned or if the barracks already occupied is not suitable, then the best house in the locality is to be commandeered, the occupants thrown into the gutter. Let them die there – the more the merrier.
Should the order ("Hands Up") not be immediately obeyed, shoot and shoot with effect. If the persons approaching (a patrol) carry their hands in their pockets, or are in any way suspicious-looking, shoot them down. You may make mistakes occasionally and innocent persons may be shot, but that cannot be helped, and you are bound to get the right parties some time. The more you shoot, the better I will like you, and I assure you no policeman will get into trouble for shooting any man." (Lt. Col. Smyth, Black and Tan divisional commander June 1920)

I personally think they were occupying and terrorising Cork.

George - plenty of Irish people on both sides regarded the RIC, a strongly catholic force, as their police. So less of the "Terrorist RIC" twaddle if you please ....

Have you a source for that quote George ?

"George - plenty of Irish people on both sides regarded the RIC, a strongly catholic force, as their police. So less of the "Terrorist RIC" twaddle if you please "

Take a trip to Cork Davros and you will see "Terrorist" is the word used to describe the Crown Forces who fought the Irish army in the war of independence there. I would accept accept occupying forces rather than terrorist but it's understandable that they would be considered terrorists.

Lt. Col. Smyth was a terrorist in the view of the people. There's an Orange Lodge named after him though as he was from Banbridge whose good people drove all the Catholics out of their jobs in the town as a reprisal if they didn't promise to not support SF. What, intimidation of nationalists!

His brother was a member of the Cairo gang and was executed for spying.
source
http://www.raymondscountydownwebsite.com/html/banbridge_g.1.htm although they didn't quote him fully here.

George - My family are from Cork :) The RIC were regarded very differently from the British Army.

Q) and why am I not surprised you have left out this part ?

I wish to make it perfectly clear to all ranks that I will not tolerate reprisals. They bring discredit on the police and I will deal most severealy with any officer or man concerned in them.

A) because it offended your prejudices.

Lt. Col. Smyth was a terrorist in the view of the people. There's an Orange Lodge named after him

In your rush to vilify you didn't read your own source very carefully, did you ?

He wasn't from Banbridge. His Mother was.

Gerald Brice Ferguson Smyth was born on Monday 7th September 1885 at Phoenix Lodge, Dalhousie, Punjab, India.He was the 1st son of George Smyth who was the British High Commissioner in the Punjab & Helen Ferguson Smyth daughter of Thomas Ferguson, Edenderry House, Banbridge.

Sloppy, sloppy :)

Possibly DavidB. can check out if LOL 518 still, as you claim, exists. The only other reference I could find to LOL 518 was of a Canadian Lodge now disbanded.

Davros,
I don't know why you think the RIC, who murdered the Lord Mayor of Cork, are considered differently to the other forces of occupation in Cork.

That is, to use one of your words, twaddle.

This part of the quote was also left out Davros.

"You may make mistakes occasionally and innocent persons may be shot, but that cannot be helped, and you are bound to get the right parties some time. The more you shoot, the better I will like you, and I assure you no policeman will get into trouble for shooting any man."

Is that something that offends your prejudices?

Davros (and unionist observer)
here is a short list of places that suffered official and unofficial RIC reprisals which went from murder to the normal torching and destruction of homes, property and factories.

Bouladuff, Knocklong, Tuam, Balbriggan, Cork City, Galway City, Drumshambo, Kilcommon, Limerick, Bantry, Miltown-Malbay, Ennistymon, Lahinch, Midleton, Kilmallock, Clifden, Passage West, Rochestown, Carrowkennedy, Westport, Dungarvan.

Eventually, the British authorities realized that the policy of official and unofficial reprisals wasn't working because once the houses and other buildings were destroyed, they no longer possessed any leverage over people.

But we still have people thinking the Big Houses got burnt in a vacuum.

are considered

George, don't try to be clever , it doesn't suit - you were talking about how they were regarded at the time :) Not how they are regarded now.

and some dishonest posting there George...

This part of the quote was also left out Davros.
"You may make mistakes occasionally and innocent persons may be shot, but that cannot be helped, and you are bound to get the right parties some time. The more you shoot, the better I will like you, and I assure you no policeman will get into trouble for shooting any man."

That's not on the source you provided, so how could I have quoted it ?

This is what your source wrote:

After 1919 he went to Staff College for a year, after which he arrived for duty with the Royal Irish Constabulary on 7th June 1920 at Cork, commanding the 12th Field Company as Brevet Lieutenant Colonel. Through his great knowledge and skill, Major General Tudor - 9th Division, made him Divisional Commissioner of the Royal Irish Constabulary in Munster, due to his short period of time in his job, he never received a police rank but remained with this army rank of Lt. Colonel. In the Listowel Barracks on 19th June 1920 he issued a speech possibly a government document, which read as follows. "I wish to make the present situation clear to all ranks. A policeman is perfectly justified in shooting any person seen with arms (guns) who does not immediately throw up his hands when ordered. A policeman is perfectly justified in shooting any man who he has good reason to believe is carrying arms (guns) and who does not immediately throw up his arms when ordered. Every proper precaution will be taken at police inquests that no information will be given to Sinn Fein as to the identity of any individual or the movements of the police. I wish to make it perfectly clear to all ranks that I will not tolerate reprisals. They bring discredit on the police and I will deal most severealy with any officer or man concerned in them."
:)

No mention of your little additions :)

">A Force Divided Policing Ireland 1900-60
History Today, Oct, 1999 by Brian Griffin

There were, however, some major differences between the two forces. The most important concerned their handling of sectarian issues. Throughout its history the RIC strove to avoid sectarianism within its ranks and partisanship towards any political or religious grouping. Members were forbidden to join any secret society, with the exception of the Freemasons, and were dismissed for using sectarian epithets. The RUC failed to follow the RIC's example in this instance. In fact, as early as January 1923 an Orange Lodge, the Sir Robert Peel Memorial Loyal Orange Lodge, was established solely for RUC men.

Whoops

Article

I don't have anything to hide, here's the source George.

Davros,
I'm sure you don't have anything to hide and thanks for the link which makes interesting reading.

I have no doubt the RIC were highly respected within the community until they decided to side against the legitimate parliament of Ireland in 1919.

The day they decided to use force of arms to help the occupying powers against the democratic will of the people was the day they lost that respect and became occupiers and therefore the enemy.

Even to this day, nobody is happy a proud force would be sullied by this but sullied they were by their behaviour 1919-1921, which was the behaviour of a terrorist grouping.

"That's not on the source you provided, so how could I have quoted it ? "
I meant it was interesting that this link didn't quote the bit I quoted.
Here's the full quote. http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/black_and_tans.htm

Davros,
I think this
article sums up quite well how the RIC went from being a police force in the community to an occupying military force often terrorising the local population and why they ended up being "regarded as active oppressors and received all the vituperation".

JEB

'you surprised me there - first time I have heard a nationalist on Slugger talk like that. That's the kind of thing I would say.'

No not a nationalist John, socialist. Just to expand, partition was an equitable agreement between northern and southern capitalists, NOT the Irish working classes. The Irish capiatlists of north and south found partition to their liking, the south did hardly any trade with the six counties anyway since most of NI's industry was export orientated. These Irish landowners, industrialists and capitalists made up a small minority of the population - as they do in any other country - so what common cause can workers possibly have with them? The answer is of course absolutely nothing. But in Ireland there was one crucial factor that could divide workers from effectively organising together: religion. So the Orange capitalist appealed to Protestants about high and lofty ideals like the King or Queen, the Empire, God, the Protestant way of life and religion - all impressive soundbites but ultimately meaningless. And more importantly he appealed to them directly on the basis of the rather tenuous connection of them sharing the same religion. Hell, he'd be their friend, even join their Orange lodge and march with them on the 12th just to show he was one of the boys. An all-class alliance, a capitalist's dream!

Partition made sense from the point of view of the Irish capitalist class north and south, but it condemned workers on both sides of the border to poverty, low wages, social conservatism, sectarianism and emigration. For the workers in NI it gave them sectarian strife and over 3,500 dead since 1969. Nice.

I meant it was interesting that this link didn't quote the bit I quoted.

You phrased your post ( Is that something that offends your prejudices? ) as to imply that I had been selective in quoting from your reference.

Re the History Learning site link - It's opening words The Black and Tans as a subject still arouses controversy in Ireland. The Black and Tans were mostly former soldiers brought into Ireland by the government in London after 1918 to assist the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RIC) in their work. destroys any credibility :)

Thanks for the Lowe Link George. Neatly proves muy point when he writes "By 1919 the R.I.C. represented a century-old police tradition (2) that had recruited generations of young Irishmen to its ranks and had achieved substantial acceptance in Irish communities." (in bold my emphasis ). There was a lot of emnity during the WOI. But it's stretching it to pretend that the RIC themselves were universally viewed with the same loathing as Soldiers or auxiliaries. I'm afraid you are a victim of republican propaganda that wishes to malign a very fine body of men.

Davros,
this isn't some Republican story, this is our history. I said they were a respected part of the community but when they were changed from a police force to a British military force there to put down the legitimate government of this country they were no longer part of the community.

They became as Dev said "spies in our midst.... They are the eyes and ears of the enemy."

The Dail (the legitimate government of the Irish people) passed a resolution that the people of the state were to boycott the constabulary as traitors "unworthy to enjoy any of the privileges or comforts which arise from cordial relations with the public."

People who by force of arms try and suppress the democratically elected parliament of a country are terrorists.

"Police are turned over to military work, their duty as policemen being largely changed, and the military, in full war equipment, are used to protect and assist the police in depriving the people of their constitutional rights." Tipperary people

"The Black and Tans were mostly former soldiers brought into Ireland by the government in London after 1918 to assist the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RIC) in their work. destroys any credibility :)"

"Plenty of the Black and Tans were Irish Catholics" Whose credibility? :-)

George- The claim that Plenty of the Black and Tans were Irish catholics is not mine, but was shown by the same WJ Lowe that you yourself quote. Sadly the article isn't online, but appears in History Ireland Autumn 2004. But to show I'm not inventing this :

Many Black and Tans ‘were Irish Catholics’

By Valerie Robinson Southern Correspondent

THE notorious Black and Tans are remembered as a lawless force of British mercenaries but a new study has revealed that a sizeable number were Irish-born Catholics. The study by US-based Prof-essor WC Lowe appears in the latest edition of History Ireland and reveals that while 78.6 per cent of the Black and Tans were British close to 19 per cent were born in Ireland.

From 1920 the British government began to augment the number of the declining Royal Irish Constabulary (RIC) by recruiting First World War veterans from throughout Britain and Ireland.

The new recruits, numbering almost 14,000, earned their ‘Black and Tan’ tag because of their uniforms: a shortage of dark police uniforms led to the issuing of military khaki and a mixture of the two was initially used.

Their experience of weapons and tactics gave them a tougher edge than their more traditional RIC colleagues.

The IRA campaign also led to the formation of the Auxiliary Division, former officers who wore distinctive Tam o’ Shanter caps and operated in counter-insurgency units independent of other RIC units.

Prof Lowe wrote that “folk memory holds that the British administration was not very concerned about the backgrounds of the Black and Tan recruits, as long as they had military experience”.

The force was almost overwhelmingly British. However, a sample study of the personnel register maintained in Dublin Castle revealed some surprising facts.

“An unexpected finding that is at odds with popular memory is that nearly 19 per cent (514) of the sampled recruits were Irish-born. Many Irishmen joined the RIC in a role assumed by folk memory to be the exclusive preserve of British mercenaries,” said the historian.

“Eighty two per cent of the Black and Tans and Auxiliaries sampled were Protestant, 17.4 per cent were Catholic and there were 10 English Jews.

“The largest proportion of Catholics, not surprisingly, was found among the Irish recruits (59 per cent of the 478 sample). Fifty five per cent of the Irish recruits were Catholic, mostly concentrated among the Black and Tans,”

he added.

Members of the Black and Tans as well as the Auxiliaries born in Connacht and Munster were “overwhelmingly” Catholic (both 78 per cent), compared to 60 per cent of Leinster recruits.

However, the Ulster-born Black and Tans were largely Protestant (72 per cent) while the 46 Irish Auxiliaries in the sample included 17 Catholics.

Prof Lowe said the study pointed to unemployment as a major factor in Irishmen’s decisions to join the reviled forces, with fewer than 40 per cent having previous military experience, compared to 70 per cent of the English and over 80 per cent of the Scottish recruits.

The Black and Tans earned a questionable reputation, not just among civilians but also members of the existing police force.

Prof Lowe wrote: “Members of the ‘old’ RIC had very mixed reactions to their presence and violent behaviour that not all officers were able to restrain. Black and Tans were thought of as ‘gun happy’ and the Auxiliaries’ ferocity was reputed to be fuelled by heavy drinking.”

The RIC was disbanded after the 1921 Anglo-Irish Treaty but many of the recruits traced through the sample had already quit the force.

Interestingly, Irish recruits were more likely to have remained (55 per cent), compared to 36 per cent of the English and 39 per cent of the Scottish.

• WJ Lowe is Provost and Professor of History at Metropolitan State University, Saint Paul, Minnesota.

Friday, August 27, 2004, the Irish News, page 21

Davros,
"But it's stretching it to pretend that the RIC themselves were universally viewed with the same loathing as Soldiers or auxiliaries."

Not at all, the government issued what was virtually a directive to loathe. They were the enemy and treated as such.

You also seem to be forgetting one very important fact: the Black and Tans were part of the RIC as were the auxiliaries so when you talk about the loathing for the auxilliaries you are talking about loathing of the RIC who were considered the occupying enemy once they took on the military role. They were no longer policemen.

They were no longer, as you seem to think, a fine body of men and this is not Republican propaganda. They were loathed for a good reason.

"An unexpected finding that is at odds with popular memory is that nearly 19 per cent (514) of the sampled recruits were Irish-born. Many Irishmen joined the RIC in a role assumed by folk memory to be the exclusive preserve of British mercenaries,” said the historian. "

The figures you give say that 10% of the Black and Tans were Irish Catholics. A little bit higher than the RUC in its day.

I disagree George - at the end of the War they were still regarded with respect by the IRA- in fact so much so that they modelled the Garda on the RIC.

As the article you quoted stated :

"By 1919 the R.I.C. represented a century-old police tradition (2) that had recruited generations of young Irishmen to its ranks and had achieved substantial acceptance in Irish communities."

and

Yet even at the end the R.I.C. received tributes from its determined opponents. When handing over Naas station in 1922, an R.I.C. officer remarked to the I.R.A. commander that the Free State could have had almost the entire constabulary as its police force. The I.R.A. man replied: "But if we hadn't dealt with the R.I.C., there would have been no Free State. We weren't afraid of the army. We could always fool them, but your fellows had the most marvelous local knowledge, which was too much for us. Anyhow, we want to have our police modelled on your old lot." (178) In 1921 the men of the "old" R.I.C. had had enough, and the respect of their enemies was cold comfort as they contemplated disbandment and life in a new Ireland.

It's hard to argue with your own quoted articles without looking foolish George ;)

Davros,
as we have both read the same article I assume you've also read the parts where it is clearly pointed out that the RIC became a military force in 1919 and was considered the enemy of the people and a collaborating force.

I don't disagree with the RIC pre 1919 being an integral part of the community although they started losing the support in certain parts as early as 1917.

The RIC only became full blown enemies of the state in 1919 when they refused to recognise the Irish parliament. Over 1,500 left but the others stayed on to collaborate and were used as an army of occupation by the British. They were no longer a police force.

The RIC's motto was "Loyalty" but not loyalty to the people of Ireland.

An Garda Síochána on the other hand achieved their authority not by force of arms or numbers, but by their moral authority as servants of the people.
Note: servants of not loyal to

An Garda Siochana was based more on the unarmed Dublin Metropolitan Police than the RIC by the way.

Davros,
those two quotes you cite fully back up my point so I'm a bit confused when you use them to say you disagree.

Firstly,
Anyhow, we want to have our police modelled on your old lot.

Note the "old lot", the RIC until 1919 was a police force. Post 1919 and its refusal to recognise Dail Eireann it was an army of occupation.

"By 1919 the R.I.C. represented a century-old police tradition (2) that had recruited generations of young Irishmen to its ranks and had achieved substantial acceptance in Irish communities."

This I fully agree with. It is after 1919 that matters in the point.

"Later on The militarization of the police role continued to fray the links between the R.I.C. and local communities."

When they became a military force of occupation they became British state-sponsored terrorists.

cg

The problem I have is that soldiers involved in the murder and torture of innocent members of my own family and friends are remembered as well.

Really? What soldiers were these?

What annoys me most is that I have family members who fought in both wars and due to the association of other British soldiers I can't remember their sacrifice, albeit misguided, for Ireland and freedom

Maybe you should look at the bigger picture instead of looking at everything through ultra-nationalist glasses.

Willow
IF in the event of their being some from of a "national" rememberance day in the North, some time in the future, where all "soldiers" are remembered including the IRA terrorists who attacked your community over the years, would you be happy to remember them? Would you be able to look at the bigger picture?

That's rubbish George - you are trying to taint the core body of the RIC who withstood tremendous pressure including attacks on wives and children with the behaviour of the Auxiliaries. As the quotes show, even after 1919 their enemies admired the RIC.

The Boycott ? Imposed and enforced by terror tactics of the same kind as Adams and Co supported when used against members and ex-members of the RUC,so don't pretend that the people of Ireland en masse except for Unionists turned against their own.

I know you want to pretend those of 1916-1922 were some kind of morally superior force to the Provos, but the men who were responsible for attacks on women, threw a live human being into a furnace and were responsible for the dreadful crimes seen at Ballyseedy and Countess Bridge were no better than the Provos.

"Mary Crean of Frenchpark, Co. Roscommon, was accused of supplying the police in the summer of 1920 and in reprisal had three pig rings fixed to her buttocks. (100) During a busy week in Kerry that same summer the McCarthy sisters of Portmagee had their hair shorn for being too friendly to the police, and the sister of an R.I.C. constable in Annagh suffered the same humiliation."

"District Inspector Regan reported that R.I.C.-sponsored dances in Limerick continued to be popular with local girls, even after a young woman was shot while walking with a constable."

The IRA then were no better than the Black and Tans.

Davros,
if you accept Dail Eireann as the legitimate Irish parliament, then the RIC were collaborators and tools of British terrorism of the Irish people. From Eoin McNeill speaking in the Dail in

"The R.I.C., unlike any other police force in the world, is a military body armed with rifle and bayonet and revolver as well as baton. They are given full licence by their superiors to work their will upon an unarmed populace. The more brutal the commands given them by their superiors the more they seem to revel in carrying them out—against their own flesh and blood, be it remembered!

Their history is a continuity of brutal treason against their own people. From their very foundation they have been the mainstay of the privileged ascendancy and the great obstacle to every movement for social as well as national liberty. I need not remind you of their record during the tithe and land wars or of their recent outrages at Ballybunion, for which not a man of them was punished. Punishment by their British masters—not likely! They are patted on the back, praised and encouraged. The British minister, Macpherson, to whom they are most directly responsible, speaks of their wonderful fidelity—there have been no Curragh Mutinies in the R.I.C.—and promises that he and his Government will back them up with all their resources in everything they do and in every action they take. Very well, they have undoubtedly merited the praise of their paymasters, but the Irish people have a duty to themselves....

We know how our comrades are being treated in the jails—in Belfast and Mountjoy and elsewhere. We know their crime is simply that of loving their country, and of working to achieve her rightful freedom. We know that it was the direct activities of the R.I.C. that put them in jail. We know that it was the police who tore them from their homes, leaving their families dependent; that it was the police evidence—open, unabashed perjury as it often was—that has condemned our comrades to the loss of personal liberty and to the physical and mental tortures they are being compelled to endure; that it was such evidence and such information that led to the deaths of Ashe, of Coleman, and of McCann, and knowing this, in our eyes the pay these men receive from their paymasters is little if at all better than blood money. To freely associate with them is to prove false to those who are sacrificing themselves in the fight for National liberty.

He concluded:
"These are hard things I have said. The truth is very bitter sometimes. Hitherto, hoping for some change of heart, I have refrained from speaking about the police in the terms their conduct deserved....

But whether Ireland's cry for justice be attended to or not, there is one feature of our slavery we ourselves must endeavour to put an end to—this degrading police rule and the weak toleration that is but an inducement under the economic pressure to which our youth are subject to enter that detestable force and be trained in it to forget their nationality and their honour, and to become the ready tools of an unscrupulous foreign domination."

My parliament agreed. As a democrat, I accept the rulings of my legitimate, democratically elected parliament, which considered them a detestable force.

Well, we're not going to agree, so shall we agree to differ ?

Dav-as usual your comment is well informed and reasoned- but if I recall it was two Auxiliary Cadets thrown alive into a furnace in Tralee by the brave heroes so admired by George who still pretends the IRA was a legitimate government despite almost 12 months of conclusive proof by us and others that they had no such mandate.

He presumably has a justification for the murder of the two unarmed policemen at Soloheadbeg, the murder of an elderly magistrate on a bus in Dublin and others who stupidly hadn't realised they were oppressing the irish people by doing their jobs-not to mention the notorious septuagenarian superspy Mrs Lindsay of Coachford and her sinister coach driver whose reign of terror still frighten small children. In fact except for that minority of the electorate (even of the voting electorate) who voted for SF and some Irish Americans, the vast majority of the world's population then correctly regarded Dublin castle as the legitimate government

Congratulations George-your mindset makes you perfect Provo fodder. Or is your warped morality so corrupt as to attempt to distinguish the IRA of 1919 from the 1970s? And no doubt the PIRA, CIRA or Real IRA's next mad campaign will be ok too

maca

IF in the event of their being some from of a "national" rememberance day in the North, some time in the future, where all "soldiers" are remembered including the IRA terrorists who attacked your community over the years, would you be happy to remember them? Would you be able to look at the bigger picture?

Firstly, the word is "remembrance". And, while I'm at it, the country where the Provos have gone AWOL is "Colombia", with an "o".

Secondly, it is outrageous to suggest that terrorist murderers should be remembered by anyone, victim or otherwise.

Thirdly, it is disingenuous to imply that there is an equivalence between legitimate soldiers of a legitimate army and illegal terrorist gangsters.

George

if you accept Dail Eireann as the legitimate Irish parliament, then the RIC were collaborators and tools of British terrorism of the Irish people.

Don't be ridiculous, George. It's hardly as black-and-white as that. Catch yourself on. And shame on you for attempting to legitimise the murder of policemen.

Move on. Grow up. Get some perspective.

David I wouldn't count George as a fellow-traveller of the current IRA, but It's a worry that the Provos try and claim that electoral support for SF gives them the same retrospective mandate and legitemises their activities at La Mon and Claudy in the same way as some argue that SF's electoral success in 1918 retrospectively mandated 1916.
It's often claimed that there will be blank cheques for Unionists in Nua Éire... one cheque that will have to be cashed is an honest reappraisal of the history of the Free State and the ROI. I don't want to see Lenny Murphy honoured and I see no reason to tolerate his equivalents from some 80 years ago (eg Breen and Aiken ) being treated as heroes.

Willow
"Firstly, the word is "remembrance". And, while I'm at it, the country where the Provos have gone AWOL is "Colombia", with an "o""

Fantastic! I feel so enlightened!

"Secondly, it is outrageous to suggest that terrorist murderers should be remembered by anyone, victim or otherwise."

Who has suggested this?

"Thirdly, it is disingenuous to imply that there is an equivalence between legitimate soldiers of a legitimate army and illegal terrorist gangsters."

Perception is everything, as you know.

The point is that to *some* people the British Army are no better than terrorists. Yet you can say to CG "Maybe you should look at the bigger picture instead of looking at everything through ultra-nationalist glasses."

Care to answer the question I put to you?

BTW David - is it possible that an orange Lodge abroad ( Canada) could have the same Number as a Lodge that exists in NI ? LOL 518 was a Canadian Lodge, But according to George's link above there was alsos a LOL 518 in Banbridge.

maca

Who has suggested this?

See your 5.54.

Perception is everything, as you know.

It's not.

The point is that to *some* people the British Army are no better than terrorists.

Those people are wrong.

Yet you can say to CG "Maybe you should look at the bigger picture instead of looking at everything through ultra-nationalist glasses."

Good advice.

Care to answer the question I put to you?

I already did.

Willow

"See your 5.54."

Maybe you should re-see my 5.54 and quote where I suggested there should be a remembrance for these folks.

"It's not."
Of course it is.

"Those people are wrong."
Irrelevant whether they are or not.

"I already did."
No u didn't. Scared to answer?

IF there was such a remembrance would you have a problem remembering these people? If so, shouldn't you take your own "good advice"?

maca

Of course it is.

Of course it's not. Do you know what a mirage is, for example?

Irrelevant whether they are or not.

It's not.

No u didn't. Scared to answer?

The fact that I already answered should answer that.

IF there was such a remembrance would you have a problem remembering these people? If so, shouldn't you take your own "good advice"?

If you are unable to ascertain the clear and obvious answer from my 6.57, then you must be stupid.

Willow
"Clear and obvious answer" Is this a willowfieldism for dodge the question?
Not only did you fail to answer but now you resort to insults. Pathetic!

You must be stupid, then.

Which part of the answer do you not understand?

i thought personal insults were not allowed on this website?

Davros,
let's agree to differ. Thanks for engaging.

Davidbrew,
I consider the RIC and Provos as being in a similar position and having equally invalid mandates.

Both ignored the democratic wishes of the Irish people and instead continued using force of arms.
One for the army of British imperialism, the other for the army of Irish nationalism.

The job of the RIC was loyalty to the crown not loyalty to the people of Ireland. The legitimate parliament of Ireland in 1919 was Dail Eireann and the legitimate army Oglaigh na hEireann.

This is still the case, which is why the Provos are subversives. The provos were and are terrorists, the RIC and the British forces in 1919-1921 were terrorists. You only see one side of history. The democratic wishes of the Irish people don't matter to you obviously. I suppose you think we should have all lined up in fields with pikes to be gunned down instead of fighting to win.

I suppose you also think George Washington was a terrorist as was Ben Gurion and everyone else who represented his people first and foremost.

I don't really care you refuse to accept the legitimacy of Dail Eireann and try to denigrate it at every opportunity. After all, david brew you consider it an instutional supporter of terrorism and even Ian Paisley today doesn't recognise it. The man won't even shake the Taoiseach's hand.

Davidbrew,
There is no honour in war, just victory. If you believe the Irish Republican Army perpetrated more "atrocities" 1919-1921 in winning the war with the British Army than your average army trying to win a war against vastly superior occupying forces you are mistaken.

They did no more or less than Tito's partizans fighting the Nazis or the sharpshooting Finns up against the Soviets or the French Resistance.

Would you have had them fight like the 1916 signatories, who fought the good fight with the British forces, acknowledged by all combatants at the time as a "clean" fight. Read the court martial records.

What did they get in return for an "honourable" fight? A bullet in the head and their bodies dissolved in quicklime.

Cheers George-it was a good discussion :)

What did they get in return for an "honourable" fight? A bullet in the head and their bodies dissolved in quicklime.

From BBC website :
"There can be no doubt that the response of the British government to the Rising contributed measurably to the further alienation of Irish public opinion. On 26th April 1916, it had introduced martial law and next day appointed Major-General Sir John Maxwell as Commander-in-Chief of troops, Ireland. He had full authority to restore order, put down the rebellion, and punish its participants. Maxwell never doubted that its leaders should be court-martialled and those most prominent executed. He was also determined that, in order to crush militant nationalism, those who had surrendered with them, and their suspected supporters, should be arrested and their arms seized in a nationwide sweep by soldiers, supported by police. In total, the security forces arrested 3,430 men and 79 women and of these 1,841 were sent to England and interned there. They were substantial figures in relation to the scale of the outbreak, though most (about 2,700) had been released by early August 1916. Meanwhile, those thought to have organised the insurrection had been held back in Ireland for trial – 190 men and 1 woman, Countess Markievicz. In 90 cases the court’s verdict was ‘Death by being shot’. Maxwell confirmed this judgement on 15 defendants, and these were executed between 3-12 May 1916."

While it's obvious now that it was a terrible mistake politically, at the time that only 15 were executed out of 90 condemned could have been argued as being lenient.

Good God, look what George has written:

I consider the RIC and Provos as being in a similar position and having equally invalid mandates.

So the official state police force had an "equally invalid mandate" as the Provisional IRA!

To be fair WF, He is talking about the RIC after the establishment of the first Dáil. While I would accept that it is a reasonable claim, although not one with which I would agree, that the RIC had questionable mandate and legality I cannot accept that the RIC equate to the provos.

So a "mandate" from the lawful parliament of the United Kingdom was "equally invalid" to the non-existent "mandate" of the Provisional IRA?

Hardly a reasonable claim!!

WF

After the elections of 1918, it was clear Republicans had a huge, overwhelming mandate. The forces of the British Crown were bestowed no corressponding mandate by the Irish people.

Willowfield,
"a "mandate" from the lawful parliament of the United Kingdom"

It was not the lawful parliament of the Irish Republic in 1919, Dail Eireann was. Just as the Supreme Soviet was not the lawful parliament of Lithuania in 1990 once the people decided they weren't Soviets. That is what democracy is about. We the people......

Davros,
maybe my equating the RIC to the Provos was inflammatory just for the sake of it so I retract it without reservation. It didn't add to the debate.

I was only continuing on the point that post 1919 the RIC were an army not a police force and they didn't have the support of the Irish government (I know many unionists don't accept it was the Irish government but I do and so do the overwhelming majority of the Irish people) but instead worked for what after 1919 became a foreign occupying power.

Many unionists seem to be of the belief that an Irish parliament is only legitimate if it is approved by Westminster. An Irish parliament, police force and army is only legitimate if it is approved by the democratically elected representatives of the Irish people.

In 1919 this was Dail Eireann, which made the RIC an occupying army for siding with the enemy. The Irish Republican Army was the legitimate army of the Irish state and won a war against vastly superior forces without inflicting mass civilian casualties.

Some may resent them to this day for defeating the British and wish to tarnish their memory but I and my fellow citizens don't.

"What I don't understand is how Ireland is so hooked into the EU dream and the eventual consequence of where that might lead but won't throw their lot in with their nearest and closest neighbour.

Quite frankly I consider the notion of an independent 32 county Ireland of 5 million people on the edge of Europe to be absurd - sorry."

I have to answer this. At the moment, Ireland two thirds of foreign investment coming into ireland (republic of) comes from the EU. Ireland has done better from EEC/EC/EU membership than it ever did from it's relationship with our nearest 'neighbour'.

I also find the idea of a 32 county Ireland with a polulation of 5 million absurd. Imagine the massive economic collapse and emigration required to bring this about. The population of the republic is 4 million at the moment and is projected to reach 5 million by 2020.

"However in a nut shell I am generally against convoluted forms of govt. Keep it simple - if there was a UI lets just have a central parliament in Dublin with all Ireland parties contesting elections on an all Ireland basis. Ireland is too small for anything else."

NI has been damned by history to have an extremely convoluted form of government with more layers than elsewhere. You have (or will soon have) a local assembly where proper politics is impossible due to tribal voting patterns. Above that, you have a national parliament in westminster controlled by parties none of us vote for. Above that, you have europe. In a UI, there would be the national parliament in Dublin and europe. Ireland's PR would also ensure minority parties of a chance in government every so often. The small country bias of the EU makes it more attractive for small countries like ireland. ireland's small size also means things like tax policy can be more flexible for the purpose of attracting industry and investment. I would dearly love Derry to be given the IDA treatment.

Some people may want to argue about who was the biggest bastard in the 1920s but I live in the real world. I would like a good job and i would like to live near where I'm from. Under british government, that isn't possible.

Dec

After the elections of 1918, it was clear Republicans had a huge, overwhelming mandate.

It wasn’t. Although they didn’t manage an overall majority of the vote, the fact that many seats were uncontested probably indicates that they had a majority, but it was hardly “huge” and “overwhelminh”.

The forces of the British Crown were bestowed no corressponding mandate by the Irish people.

Nobody said they were.

George

It was not the lawful parliament of the Irish Republic in 1919, Dail Eireann was.

No. It was the lawful parliament until 1922. What do you think the negotiations were about in 1921-22?!

I was only continuing on the point that post 1919 the RIC were an army not a police force

They weren’t: they were a police force.

Fraggle

Above that, you have a national parliament in westminster controlled by parties none of us vote for.

Parliament is only controlled by one party: Labour. Apparently many thousands of us voted for its "sister party", the SDLP.

I would like a good job and i would like to live near where I'm from. Under british government, that isn't possible.

What on earth does that mean?

WF

46.9% of the vote (despite the fact they did not contest 25 seats) is a huge and overwhelming majority over the pro-British (26.2).

BTW David - is it possible that an orange Lodge abroad ( Canada) could have the same Number as a Lodge that exists in NI ? LOL 518 was a Canadian Lodge, But according to George's link above there was alsos a LOL 518 in Banbridge.

Dav-eacg Grand Lodge issues its own warrants, so there will be the same number in different jurisdictions. Confusingly, there are many duplicaste warrants in Ireland as warrants were handed in and reissued repeatedly in the early 19th century before the structures becamse formalised-thus there are 2 LOL 645s- each given the number over 150 years ago and each alowed to retain it for historical reasons

George
Interesting comparison -the IRA with Tito's partisans. So the IRA were opposing a fascist military invader guilty of a racist and anti-Irish policy were they? All your fellow Shinner bloggers will be cooing in pleasure at your brilliant analogy, but nobody else who is objective or understands history.

BTW, you attach great importance to the mandate of the 1918 election in this part of the Kingdom, but are noticably silent on the lack of any mandate for Pearse and his squalid bunch of terrorists. Where was their mandate to kill unarmed policemen and elderly army reservists? Oh I forgot, they were telepathically in tune with the soul of Ireland (funnily enough just like Gerry), so their unprovoked rebellion was retrospectively ratified.
Or otherwise by your own logic it wasn't a legitimate army until 1918, but ...a bunch of terrorists! And since the George philospophy of politics is that pre 1918 there was no mandate for republicans and a country has to be run by someone then the legitimate government was the British, who were thus quite justified in crushing an act of rebellion ..oops, caught out there I'm afraid.

Now all you have to do is find where and when the mandate for killing Protestants, RIC officers, ex-servicemen and anyone who might have had a different opinion from the gunmen was conferrd by the Irish people. perhaps we've all misunderstood senor de valera's election slogan -maybe it was "put him in to get themmuns out"-= it would explain a lot.

"I would like a good job and i would like to live near where I'm from. Under british government, that isn't possible."-

Why not fraggle? Are you a detainee in Guantanamo bay?

Davidbrew,
"So the IRA were opposing a fascist military invader guilty of a racist and anti-Irish policy."

Many would believe the previous 3 centuries of British rule indeed were anti-Irish. Maybe you as a legal man can tell me what was the difference between Hitler's anti-Jewish laws and the Penal Laws against the Irish. No blah, blah bluster just an answer telling me why the two types of legislation were different.

"And since the George philospophy of politics is that pre 1918 there was no mandate for republicans and a country has to be run by someone then the legitimate government was the British, who were thus quite justified in crushing an act of rebellion ..oops, caught out there I'm afraid."

Not caught out at all Davidbrew, we have been talking the whole time about the RIC post 1919.

I fully accept the Irish Rising had no democratic mandate and actually didn't state that they were the legitimate army. Dail Eireann didn't come into being until 1919. I only accept Dail Eireann as the legitimate parliament and Dail Eireann made the Irish Republican Army the legitimate army of the country 1919-1921.

The RIC were an army within, collaborating with the enemy. They fought with the enemy and lost with the enemy. I am sorry it had to be that way but the democratic will of the people must be observed.

By the way, for that reason I don't accept Provisional Sinn Fein until such time as they accept Dail Eireann as the legitimate parliament of the Irish people and Mary McAleese as the head of Oglaigh na hEireann. Until then they are subservises.

It's quite simple really. It's called democracy.

You seem to only follow democratic values when they suit you which means you aren't a democrat. But I told you that before.

wf, i am from derry which is an economic disaster area. similar places over the border have so many jobs, many in my area, that they are having to import workers.

and that SDLP sister-party stuff is just so much nonsense.

David Brew
Or otherwise by your own logic it wasn't a legitimate army until 1918, but ...a bunch of terrorists!

In fairness David I don't think you can simply section all armed groups in the world into two categories - Terrorist and legitimate armies. By that logic there can be no armed insurrections/resistances/popular uprisings anywhere in the world that are not carried out by a terrorist organisations - and by doing so you are giving certain terrorist organisations a good name by standing them side by side with some of the more legitimate armed groupings.

I have no regard for the 1916 Rising and in particular Pearse whose vanity finds more than an echo in Gerry Adams. But surely one of their greatest follies was that they tried to behave like a legitimate Army by taking the GPO when they hadn't a hope of being able to withstand the British Army. On the other hand - the tactics employed in the later war of independence (and the civil war) - fit much easier with the notion of terrorism - but this would find little sympathy in the south as the end is seen to justify the means. And the Black'n'Tans while granted legitimacy by the British State at the very least terrorised the general population.

And perhaps the worst terrorist atrocity that I am aware of in the south at that time was during the Civil War in Ballyseedy where the legitimate army -the Free State forces chained republicans POW's together and blew them up in retaliation for an earlier incident.

Good grief, check this gem out from George:

Maybe you as a legal man can tell me what was the difference between Hitler's anti-Jewish laws and the Penal Laws against the Irish.

Dec

46.9% of the vote (despite the fact they did not contest 25 seats) is a huge and overwhelming majority over the pro-British (26.2).

Interesting that you have to resort to air-brushing constitutional nationalists out of the picture in order to twist the facts to fit with your perverse claims.

Fraggle

wf, i am from derry which is an economic disaster area. similar places over the border have so many jobs, many in my area, that they are having to import workers.

And what has this got to do with "under the British government"?

Fraggle
similar places over the border have so many jobs, many in my area, that they are having to import workers.

eh?? well you can't be referring to Donegal because all we ever hear about down here is about how they are haemoraging jobs there -and in fairness just from hearing of closures on the news they do indeed seem to be hit worse than anywhere else.

WF

"Interesting that you have to resort to air-brushing constitutional nationalists out of the picture in order to twist the facts to fit with your perverse claims."

SF trumped everyone else at the 1918 election. If they had stood in all constituencies it has been projected that they would have won 53% of the vote. I didn't reference the Nationalist vote (in what was a 2 line post after all) because I didnt think it was particularly relevant to the matter in hand ie whether or not their majority was huge or not.

And yet this is a 'perverse claim'? Now I know Unionists like yourself aren't too fond of democracy when the vote goes against you but 'perverse' is a bit strong, is it not?

ringo, donegal has suffered as much from the border as derry. it is cut off from the rest of the republic and is an undesireable investment location compared to the similar regional cities of galway, limerick and cork.

derry's problems stem from the fact that it has been under the control of governments who don't give a shit about it.

derry is comparable to cork and donegal to the cork hinterland which is full of pharmaceutical companies. these companies are there because the government put in places policies to ensure that they would come.

sure, the troubles played a huge part but remember that before the troubles, derry had shanty towns due to the lack of decent housing. even the university which should have been set up in derry city was put in a field outside coleraine. contrast UCC and UCG. is it any wonder that nationalists want a united ireland?

Fraggle

donegal has suffered as much from the border as derry
Wexford is as far from the border as it gets and the southeast is significantly underperforming - it even has Rosslare Harbour - things are rarely as simple as blaming the border. Louth is on the border and it is booming.

Donegal's difficulties are have more to do with Spanish fishermen and Moroccan textile workers than British Parlimentarians.

And UCC and UCG (NUIG or as its called now) were set up the same time as Queens Belfast by the same British state. You can be sure that if they hadn't built the University in Galway that there wouldn't have been one there in my time - I don't think any Irish University was created between the foundation of the state and about 1990 (Maynooth maybe?). Limerick was without one until then for example.

louth is a bad example. it's close proximity to dublin is key to it's success.

magee college dates from 1845 which is, I believe, exactly the same as NUI Galway. it is subsequent development which counts, not the date of founding.

Davros,
maybe my equating the RIC to the Provos was inflammatory just for the sake of it so I retract it without reservation. It didn't add to the debate.

You are a gentleman of debate George.

Thanks for the feedback DavidB. Is there an order of Seniority amongst lodges ?

Many unionists seem to be of the belief that an Irish parliament is only legitimate if it is approved by Westminster.

George, did you regard Ian Smith's UDI as legitimate ?

the difference between Hitler's anti-Jewish laws and the Penal Laws against the Irish.

Several Hundred years would be the obvious answer.

The second and equally important difference would be that there wasn't a religious war raging across Europe between Jewish and non-Jewish states. There had been no Jewish rebellions. I know it's something that people prefer to to take into account, but there was no Jewish equivalent of The St Bartholomews day Massacre where Jews slaughtered German Christians in their thousands.

Protestants in France had been made second class citizens by the Edict of Nantes (1598) which were an IMPROVEMENT in their status, then there was the revocation of the Edict of Nantes on 1685 and the edict of Fontainebleu of Louis XIV …

So chaps, let's not get too hung up on the Penal laws but let's keep them in context.

Whoops : I know it's something that people prefer not to to take into account, but there was no Jewish equivalent of The St Bartholomews day Massacre where Jews slaughtered German Christians in their thousands.

Dec

SF trumped everyone else at the 1918 election. If they had stood in all constituencies it has been projected that they would have won 53% of the vote.

53%? Is that what you call a “huge and overwhelming” majority?? Most people would call it a bare majority. Why not just admit you were exaggerating?

WF

You're right. To only win 73 seats out of 105 is scraping in.

More twisting. You've lost the argument, but rather than admit it, you change the goalposts and start talking about seats!

We're not stupid, you know!

louth is a bad example. it's close proximity to dublin is key to it's success.

Absolutely. The point is that the border is not the ultimate determinator of regional development - it is merely one of many.

Fraggle -
louth is a bad example. it's close proximity to dublin is key to it's success.

Absolutely. The point is that the border is not the ultimate determinator of regional development - it is merely one of many.

louth is a bad example

Louth is bad full stop, or as Lou would say Louth is Louthy! ;)

Louth is Louthy!

that was an offaly bad joke

WF

How did I lose the argument? The original point was that Republican's won a huge and overwhelming majority in the 1918 general elections. You seem to be confusing a general election with a single issue referendum. 53% is pretty much a landslide in electoral terms. 73 seats out of 105 would tend to underline that point. However, with no real counter-argument, you come back with an accusation of 'twisting' and more pathetically a declaration that I lost the argument. You haven't a leg to stand on here, so drop the issue and move on.

Dec

How did I lose the argument?

Er, you said republicans had a "huge and overwhelming" mandate, and then had to concede that it was actually less than 50% of the vote, and even taking into account uncontested seats, would only have been 53%!

The original point was that Republican's [sic] won a huge and overwhelming majority in the 1918 general elections.

It wasn't. You said they had a "huge and overwhelming mandate".

"It wasn't. You said they had a "huge and overwhelming mandate".

Compared to combined Unionist mandate of 26.2, 46.9 is what I would call huge and overwhelming.
But I've already said that so if it didn't sink in yesterday, why expect it to sink in today.

Air-brushing again.

Pathetic.

Looked at another way, something like 30% of the irish Electorate voted for Independence.

I don't want to get into this pointless argument but following davros' logic in his 11.22 post, if a border poll was held next year in NI, less than 50% of the electorate would vote for the union, (based on 55-45 pro-union majority and a 90% turnout).

Oh aye Patrick :) Elizabeth and cronies pushed on.
Us folks in the North were the last to be shired - County Coleraine where I now live :)The North was protected by the South Ulster Drumlin belt and bogs and forests.