So, after 30 years of armed insurgency...

Tommy T

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

What are Northern elections but sectarian headcounts? Each party declares itself Unionist or Nationalist, and mostly (but not exclusively) gets its votes from within the Protestant or Catholic community.
You're right the Provos aren't a sectarian movement. A lot of the founding fathers of the Republican movement were Prods, and some current members are i'm sure.

FF are from the lets wash our hands of any involvement branch! Any more cliches to throw into the mix Tommy? You're on a bit of a roll.

So in your view once the Royal hospital announces the birth of the Catholic baby that finally titlts the balance of the population that 50.1% of the 6 county population will vote for a UI...? How naiveor is it avoidance of reality..?

I ask again would your poster boy Bobby sands be happy with seeing Martin acting as Ian's lacky...?

Tommy T

conor2007 wrote: »

yes

by the mere fact that even where they are a majority they are under foreign rule

you dont get simple concepts do ya?

Thats not descrimination dude...

conor2007

discriminated - if there was a vote you said it wouldnt matter
denied democracy?

denied the right for children to walk to school?
piss thrown on them - scum

loyalist keep guns while ira are forced to give up arms

thats discrimination to me ''dude''

Tommy T

conor2007 wrote: »

discriminated - if there was a vote you said it wouldnt matter
denied democracy?

denied the right for children to walk to school?
piss thrown on them - scum

loyalist keep guns while ira are forced to give up arms

thats discrimination to me ''dude''

Who is denied democracy..?

conor2007

catholics if they vote for a ui - the unionists will kick off and win

Tommy T

conor2007 wrote: »

catholics if they vote for a ui - the unionists will kick off and win

Thats Democracy in action.. Tyranny of the majority...

conor2007

you are a tit

Tommy T

conor2007 wrote: »

you are a tit

Gee thanks.. I think you're just dandy...;)

Erin Go Brath

Tommy T wrote: »

So in your view once the Royal hospital announces the birth of the Catholic baby that finally titlts the balance of the population that 50.1% of the 6 county population will vote for a UI...? How naiveor is it avoidance of reality..?

I ask again would your poster boy Bobby sands be happy with seeing Martin acting as Ian's lacky...?

The North is constantly evolving and changing and who knows how people will vote if presented with a referendum on Unification. Unionism is in decline, lots of Prods don't vote for them anymore. When a Catholic majority happens it obviously doesn't mean a UI. It will mean that Unionist dominated Ulster is on its last legs though.

What would Bobby think if he was alive today? I don't know! The struggle is going through a new and less violent phase which is a good thing. BTW Theres plenty in the GFA that I disagree with, but its providing stability at the moment so I'm prepared to give it a chance.

conor2007

45 % went to dup and uup combined
40% went to sinn fein and sdlp combined

who knows now that they are in govt - 10/20 years away anything is possible

AckwelFoley

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

So the Catholic majority should accept British rule then. What makes the Prods so special?



All polls show at least 2:1 ratio in the 26 Counties support this brain dead EIRE 32 attitude!

First point you make, the term is Protestant, not Prods.

Secondly, lol.. not even close to correct.

McDaid--1916

Tommy T wrote: »

So in the end of the day Bobby gave up his life for Martin to play second fiddle to the good Reverend in Stormont... What a waste of a life...

martin and ian have exact same powers although they have different titles...

McDaid--1916

snyper wrote: »

Secondly, lol.. not even close to correct.

Proof this isnt correct?

A "united Ireland" will never be achieved!
Even if the majority both north & south agree (It's not a given that all Protistants will say "NO" & all Catholics would say "yes") you then end up with a 32 (34 is you recognise the splits in Dublin county) county island state, BUT the people win NOT be united!.

There are far too many republicans & loylists that are unable to even be in the same street - let alone be close enough to have a friendly chat!

AckwelFoley

McDaid--1916 wrote: »

Proof this isnt correct?

You require the proof, you made the statment

McArmalite

Tommy T wrote: »

The Provisional Movement signed an agreement not only accepting but agreeing to administer British rule on the island of Ireland on Good friday 1998.

Personally, as a Republican(Fianna Fail) myself, I was delighted to see that day come after so much bloodshed and mayhem for all concerned in the conflict.

But my question is how do those who supported the Provisionals(SF/IRA) throughout the last 30 years reconcile their struggle to end foreign occupation and in the end signing an agreement copperfastening that same occupation...?

I thought FF was a socialist party these days as the Teflon Taosieach Ahern declared himself a "socialist" not so long ago As a Republican(Fianna Fail), I suppose you'd also like to see the 26 back in the commonwealth ??

" 45 % went to dup and uup combined ....40% went to sinn fein and sdlp combined....who knows now that they are in govt - 10/20 years away anything is possible " Exactly Conor. The gap between Nationalist and Unionist is closing at about 1 and 1/4 % every 4 years. We'll out breed them, not out bomb them. Indeed with the FF making nosies about organising across the border and Mark Durkan welcoming it, the cute whures of FF are making early moves to get their slice of the political pie I'd say.

McArmalite

Deleted User wrote: »

A "united Ireland" will never be achieved!
Even if the majority both north & south agree (It's not a given that all Protistants will say "NO" & all Catholics would say "yes") you then end up with a 32 (34 is you recognise the splits in Dublin county) county island state, BUT the people win NOT be united!.

There are far too many republicans & loylists that are unable to even be in the same street - let alone be close enough to have a friendly chat!

When the inevitable happens and a 32 county Ireland is brought about, if many of the unionists wish to hold onto their british passports and declare their nationality british - fine by me. But the political state will be a 32 county Irish one, how and if they want to parcipate is up to them. Anyway, like the Trinity/border county unionists abondoned to the new Free State, the more pragmatic of them will join in it's running. Behind all the bluster, |I'd say 40/50% or even more unionists would have no problem been pragmatic when the time comes.

Tommy T

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

The North is constantly evolving and changing and who knows how people will vote if presented with a referendum on Unification. Unionism is in decline, lots of Prods don't vote for them anymore. When a Catholic majority happens it obviously doesn't mean a UI. It will mean that Unionist dominated Ulster is on its last legs though.

What would Bobby think if he was alive today? I don't know! The struggle is going through a new and less violent phase which is a good thing. BTW Theres plenty in the GFA that I disagree with, but its providing stability at the moment so I'm prepared to give it a chance.

Did someone have a word in your ear to bring you back on 'Armani Message'...;)

I'm pulling your leg slightly there mate. Don't get me wrong I'm as happy as the next man to see peace in the North. I believe without Fianna Fail in power down here the process would have taken a hell of alot longer if it would be settled at all.

THe main point of my question is the gains for Republicans/Nationalists from the GFA were all but identically on offer at Sunningdale in the 1970's. In hindsight, admittedly, the continuation of armed resistance for a further two decades garnered little...

Tommy T

McDaid--1916 wrote: »

martin and ian have exact same powers although they have different titles...

Those titles being First Minister and DEPUTY First Minister... As I said second Fiddle...

The Sunningdale agreement was brought down by a unionist led general strike!
I've never compared the GFA & Sunningdale to know exactly the differences, but both had similar aims.

Tommy T

Tommy T wrote: »

Those titles being First Minister and DEPUTY First Minister... As I said second Fiddle...

It was almost a "toss the coin" type of arrangement, but both have the same "power".

Tommy T

Deleted User wrote: »

The Sunningdale agreement was brought down by a unionist led general strike!
I've never compared the GFA & Sunningdale to know exactly the differences, but both had similar aims.

They were both very similar in substance. The big difference being at that time the SDLP were the major force in Nationalist politics...

#15

conor2007 wrote: »

the reality is that the british should never have been there

sure they ar allowed - once they accept its irish - ireland - the whole island

thats the biggest point

So what happens if about a million of those Irish people do not want to renounce their membership of the UK? Some Irish people are happy to be both british and irish, you cannot force them to be something that they are not.

#15

conor2007 wrote: »

i speak irish and need irish road signs because it is my language

no matter what ways ye twist it

ireland is an island - surrounded by the irish sea

I like to see pride like that. We should all be proud of our island, it is the second biggest island in the British Isles afterall!

AckwelFoley

ireland is an island - surrounded by the irish sea

lol - look at that map a little harder again.

Only Island surrounded by the Irish sea that i know if is the Isle of Mann

Fratton Fred

conor2007 wrote: »

its true
your adopting a culture which is not your own
fake - west brit ya

South east Brit actually and there is nothing fake about me (Not even my tan):D

But you are right, I am adopting a culture that is not my own.

Anyone for a Guinness?

guinnessdrinker

Fratton Fred wrote: »

South east Brit actually and there is nothing fake about me (Not even my tan):D

But you are right, I am adopting a culture that is not my own.

Anyone for a Guinness?

I'll have one please!

McArmalite

Tommy T wrote: »

Did someone have a word in your ear to bring you back on 'Armani Message'...;)

I'm pulling your leg slightly there mate. Don't get me wrong I'm as happy as the next man to see peace in the North. I believe without Fianna Fail in power down here the process would have taken a hell of alot longer if it would be settled at all.

THe main point of my question is the gains for Republicans/Nationalists from the GFA were all but identically on offer at Sunningdale in the 1970's. In hindsight, admittedly, the continuation of armed resistance for a further two decades garnered little...

Well the Fian and Fall Party know plenty about Armani suits, don't they sweetie as FF stalwart Terry Keane would say

BTW I'm not a member of SF or RSF, though I have been invovled in many campaigns, anti extradition, opening border roads, divorce referendum, etc I descrbe my politics as Independent Republican, James Connolly, Liam Mellows been my political influences. Though I don't agree verbatim with Adams I have read some of his books. I was against the GFA, didn't support dropping articles 2 and 3. It's gone now so I'll not argue about it.

I agree that the GFA would not have come about without FF in power, the few months John 'unionist' Bruton wa sinvovled he nearly wrecked it, but that's the instinctive unionists of FG for you. SF can say what they like, but it is identical to Sunningdale. As for the armed struggle gaining little for the next 2 decades, well it was an all or nothing situation, biritish withdrawal or not. ( I remember it was revealed in state papers that Wilson was in favour of british withdarawal in 1974 I think. Turns out that his minister Callaghan was in holidays in west Cork and Garret Fitzthatcher (Fitzgerald) and Jack Lynch from the 'Republican Party' tore down to him and told him to try and persuade Wilson not to withdraw. It's true. I'll see if I can dig up more info on that). True the brits couldn't beat the Provos, but Adams and McGuinness could see the futility of it and obviously see the nationalist birthrate as bringing about a future United Ireland and an end to british terrorist occupation.

#15

McArmalite wrote: »

I was against the GFA, didn't support dropping articles 2 and 3. It's gone now so I'll not argue about it..

The dropping of those articles may have been a good thing for supporters of a UI imo. The claim on territory was replaced by a claim on nationality. In that anyone born in NI is entitled to be a citizen of this state if they wish. Sometimes I feel that is overlooked.
As a matter of interest, if you had to choose, would you favour the claim on territory or nationality for furthering your aims?

As for the armed struggle gaining little for the next 2 decades, well it was an all or nothing situation, biritish withdrawal or not. True the brits couldn't beat the Provos, but Adams and McGuinness could see the futility of it and obviously see the nationalist birthrate as bringing about a future United Ireland and an end to british terrorist occupation.

I think its a fair point, stalemate was the best any side could hope for, no one was going to win outright (militarily anyway!)

McArmalite

#15 wrote: »

The dropping of those articles may have been a good thing for supporters of a UI imo. The claim on territory was replaced by a claim on nationality. In that anyone born in NI is entitled to be a citizen of this state if they wish. Sometimes I feel that is overlooked.
As a matter of interest, if you had to choose, would you favour the claim on territory or nationality for furthering your aims?
I think its a fair point, stalemate was the best any side could hope for, no one was going to win outright (militarily anyway!)

Wouldn't support dropping articles 2 and 3. As I said, they are gone, I'm not debating it.

But one of the things that gets me about ANY debate on the North, the 'peace' people who shout loudest about the IRA's violence NEVER mention british violence in the situation. Nor britian's culability in creating and maintaining the secterian gerrymander that is the six county state, you'd think the IRA had created the northern state, not the brits and unionists !!! It's always the IRA who are predominately denounced with a passing mention of the loyalists. You'd think the british forces didn't exist in the whole equation. The first deaths in the troubles in August 1969 were done by the british RUC and unionist mobs. And needless to say, no one ever charged with any. I haven't the exact date, but I think the first british soldier shot in the North was after the infamous Falls Road curfew* in July 1970 a few days after the british army had murdered several Nationalits during the curfew. This was by no means the only murders of Nationalists as many others had benn murdered by the brits prior to July 1970.


Thought provoking stats according to research undertaken by the CAIN** organisation -

Civilians killed , " 85.6% (873) of Loyalist killings, 52.9% (190) by the security forces and 35.9% (738) of all killings by Republican paramilitaries took the lives of civilians between 1969 and 2001. "

Combatants killed " Republicans killed 1318 combatants, the security forces killed 192 and the Loyalists killed 147. "

Draw your own conclusions.

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falls_Curfew
** http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/sutton/chron/1969.html