Sinn Fein in a huff over new signs

Carlos_Ray

Genghis Khan. wrote: »

Carlos, no one here is interested in your bigoted religious point scoring system. Latest polls amongst Catholics see a huge rise in support for the Union and want to stay in the Union.

But that is irrelevant as far as this thread is going.

Lol keep telling yourself that buddy. I think you'll find that you are the person that nobody here is interested in. Every single one of your posts on this site are related to the one topic. It seems to me you're a little insecure about something....hmmm wonder what that could be.... lol

Genghis Khan.

Carlos_Ray wrote: »

Lol keep telling yourself that buddy. I think you'll find that you are the person that nobody here is interested in. Every single one of your posts on this site are related to the one topic. It seems to me your a little insecure about something....hmmm wonder what that could be.... lol

If you want to ignore the polls that is up to you but the rise in support for the Union is growing amongst Catholics in Northern Ireland. Why have you such a problem with that? Who cares what religion any one is but you seem to care for some odd reason. Bizarre.

Sound of Silence

Genghis Khan. wrote: »

Like I said, no one cares about terrorists. If you want to support the dissidents, that is up to you. Most of this forum hates them.

I'm supporting the dissidents? What in the name of God are you talking about?

Such an insane claim requires an equally insane amount of evidence that I'm sure you will be able to provide.

I wasn't the one calling for people to be killed. :rolleyes:

Carlos_Ray

Genghis Khan. wrote: »

If you want to ignore the polls that is up to you but the rise in support for the Union is growing amongst Catholics in Northern Ireland. Why have you such a problem with that? Who cares what religion any one is but you seem to care for some odd reason. Bizarre.

I love how the militant unionist is now saying " who cares about religion" just because the Catholics (traditionally nationalist) are becoming the majority.
The twisting and turning of a desperate man. Don't act all innocent, as a previous poster has already pointed out, your stance and politics are transparent.

Of course.... I can't help but ignore these mysterious polls. Who carried these polls out as a matter of interest? Your local orange lodge?

You're right about one thing though. You're only chance of keeping the 6 counties separate is if the Catholics vote for the union. So you better start being nice to them if you've to stand any chance of survival.

Genghis Khan.

Carlos_Ray wrote: »

I love how the militant unionist is now saying " who cares about religion" just because the Catholics (traditionally nationalist) are becoming the majority.
The twisting and turning of a desperate man. Don't act all innocent, as a previous poster has already pointed out, your stance and politics are transparent.

Of course.... I can't help but ignore these mysterious polls. Who carried these polls out as a matter of interest? Your local orange lodge?

You're right about one thing though. You're only chance of keeping the 6 counties separate is if the Catholics vote for the union. So you better start being nice to them if you've to stand any chance of survival.

Go look it up.

According to a recent survey, 52% of Catholics in Northern Ireland support the Union with Great Britain, whereas only 33% support a united Ireland.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/politics/survey-most-northern-ireland-catholics-want-to-remain-in-uk-16012932.html

golden lane

is it normal for people on the island of ireland to take note of the peoples wishes......i don't think so....

Carlos_Ray

Genghis Khan. wrote: »

Go look it up.


http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/politics/survey-most-northern-ireland-catholics-want-to-remain-in-uk-16012932.html

As I said earlier, you better start being nice to those Catholics because your future lies in their hands. Who knows what way they'll vote in the next ten or twenty years my friend. You may want to rethink your little marches and flag waving crap, because since those polls were carried out tension has been growing....

It must be a scary time for you lol

KeithM89_old

Genghis Khan. wrote: »

Like yourself? The majority of people in Northern Ireland support the link with the Union. That is all there is to it. You can't deny facts. The rights of those counties to belong to that Union are being upheld and away from Dublin.

Mod:
Genghis Bhan(ed)

/awful

Chuck Stone

Carlos_Ray wrote: »

As I said earlier, you better start being nice to those Catholics because your future lies in their hands.

Even without a UI this is happening. Catholics/Nationalists are in the ascendency in the north while people like the person you've quoted are becoming archaeological curiosities.

awec

Carlos_Ray wrote: »

As I said earlier, you better start being nice to those Catholics because your future lies in their hands. Who knows what way they'll vote in the next ten or twenty years my friend. You may want to rethink your little marches and flag waving crap, because since those polls were carried out tension has been growing....

It must be a scary time for you lol

How would you know?

lugha

Cú Giobach wrote: »

In what way am I not honouring the GFA??

I would suggest that anyone who voted for GFA and thus accepted for now, NI as a political entity but demands or even appeals that anything that exhibits or emphasises this political status be toned down is reneging on the agreement they endorsed.

These border signs are just another manifestation, albeit trivial, of this. Other examples by some nationalists is the continued use of terms like the six counties, principally to convey the view that they do not recognise NI. Some took issue with Derry being identified as a UK city of culture. And so on. They even have a new made up insult word, partitionist, to describe those that do respect the agreement that they voted to support.

The clear impression this gives to me is that, much like Dev taking the oath, nationalists have gone though the motions of supporting GFA, but nudge nudge, wink wink, we all know that in reality they only really supported the bits they like.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

There was a nasty conflict to quell and that was perhaps the principle driving force behind voting yes to the GFA for most. The GFA is not akin to some sort of biblical map to utopia. The GFA is not the end-game for republicans, rather, a step on the path to their ideological goal of a UI.

No it is not the end game and if they can bring about change, within the parameters of GFA, they let them go for it. But if they supported GFA, and they did, they should for now, honour their commitments, even for the bits they don’t like.

Many of us, the majority I would say, found prisoner release a bitter pill to take but there is no wide-spread (or even narrow) campaign to re-prison those who committed what many of us regarded as criminal acts. And there wasn’t because we endorsed this agreement and are prepared to accept the unpalatable bits.

TheChizler

KeithM89 wrote: »

Genghis Khan. wrote: »

Like yourself? The majority of people in Northern Ireland support the link with the Union. That is all there is to it. You can't deny facts. The rights of those counties to belong to that Union are being upheld and away from Dublin.

Mod:
Genghis Bhan(ed)

/awful

Was that person actually banned? I thought the posts were pretty rational and were analysing other posts reasonably.

Back on topic, what would be acceptable to both sides? Some say mph signs are enough to distinguish a boundary. If these admit there's a national boundary, why not put a name to them and end all ambiguity? Posters say that if you put jurisdiction names on the signs you should but relevant laws and descriptions on as well, but go on to say that mph signs do all this. To me this seems like a code only to be understood by people of this island.

Speaking as someone who isn't fully aware of the situation in the border areas, and for all intents and purposes qualifies as a tourist when driving about in those areas, I would desire some non-cryptic form of signage distinguishing the jurisdictions. I have given many reasons on the thread why many would desire to know what juristiction they are in. For practical purposes, emotions and politics aside, I think signage would be at minimum, handy.

Cú Giobach

lugha wrote: »

I would suggest that anyone who voted for GFA and thus accepted for now, NI as a political entity but demands or even appeals that anything that exhibits or emphasises this political status be toned down is reneging on the agreement they endorsed.

These border signs are just another manifestation, albeit trivial, of this. Other examples by some nationalists is the continued use of terms like the six counties, principally to convey the view that they do not recognise NI. Some took issue with Derry being identified as a UK city of culture. And so on. They even have a new made up insult word, partitionist, to describe those that do respect the agreement that they voted to support.

The clear impression this gives to me is that, much like Dev taking the oath, nationalists have gone though the motions of supporting GFA, but nudge nudge, wink wink, we all know that in reality they only really supported the bits they like..

Well you clearly have no understanding how compromises, treaties or agreements work in the real world by expecting the sun to rise on some sort of perfect telly tubby world the very next day with all the issues vanished forever, unfortunately here on planet Earth that isn't how it works.
The "NI question" hasn't gone away you know and telling people to basically shut up about it just shows a grave (and ultimately dangerous) naivety regarding how such conflicts progress.

Consider something, if all the people who have and talk about the issues you mention hadn't voted for the GFA so as not to be branded hypocrites by certain people, resulting in rejection of the agreement; How do you think the situation in the north would have developed, bearing in mind how thing were going on the ground in the year or two prior to the agreement.
I can tell you one thing, there would be a lot more grieving families in both communities, and for many of us that would be considered quite a negative thing, and concerns such as yours utterly, completely, totally even infinitely irrelevant in the face of such a situation.
Get your priorities in order.

PS. You specifically quoted a part of my post, but did not answer the actual question.

alastair

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Get your priorities in order.

So - just to clarify what it amounts to is:

"See that agreed resolution we all signed up to? - unless you go along with our selective reading of it - things could get nasty - very nasty."

I don't think so. It's the kind of blackimail strategy that the OO gets lambasted for (rightly) and has no place in NI politics. The NI question has been resolved on a number of fronts - two of them being the existence of a discreet jurisdiction and territory - Northern Ireland, and of a separate Nation -Ireland, or the Republic of Ireland. The legitimacy of the existing sovereign status of NI within the UK is accepted and uncontested. That might change one day through the mechanism of the democratic franchise, but until then - it's a national border, and anyone who has a problem with that demarcation (or signs to that effect) really needs to remind themselves what the people of this island agreed was a resolution to the NI question years ago.

Are signs at the border neccessary? Probably not. Are they so contentious that local community sensitivities would be offended? Not in any rational world.

Cú Giobach

alastair wrote: »

So - just to clarify what it amounts to is:

"See that agreed resolution we all signed up to? - unless you go along with our selective reading of it - things could get nasty - very nasty."
.

What a load of shite, nothing remotely about what I said.

alastair

Cú Giobach wrote: »

What a load of shite, nothing remotely about what I said.

The "NI question" hasn't gone away you know and telling people to basically shut up about it just shows a grave (and ultimately dangerous) naivety regarding how such conflicts progress.

Seems like much of a muchness. I'm loving the sneaky RA reference btw - how's that conflict progressing for you?

Cú Giobach

alastair wrote: »

Seems like much of a muchness. I'm loving the sneaky RA reference btw - how's that conflict progressing for you?

Christ you are paranoid, reading things into every little statement. :rolleyes:
The "conflict" is between two communities in NI and the situation on the ground has not changed much with regard to ongoing tensions, as can be witnessed by the increase in the number of "peace lines" since 1998.
Sneaky RA reference, FFS get a grip.

MagicSean

Sound of Silence wrote: »

They wouldn't be able to tell which Country they're in? I'll ignore the fact that the MPH/KPH sign is a clear indicator of what side of the border they're on and the fact that such signs happen to appear everywhere, not just in select locations like the "Welcome to.." sign.

Some signs happen to be necessary. The sign in question happens not to be, which is clearly indicated by the fact that it won't appear on every stretch of road that happens to cross the border.

You are looking at it like a local. You can't see it from any kind of rational side. I don't know how you can reasonably argue that people shouldn't be notified when they are crossing a national border into a national jurisdiction. Hoping they'll notice the different speed signs and recognise that this means they are in a new country is just ignoring the problem so you can ignore the border.

Some signs are necessary. A sign telling you its 30 miles to Newry in a certain direction is not necessary. Are you campaigning for the removal of these because they are not necessary?

Fenian Army wrote: »

As if an ideological member of the heavy gang like yourself wants to see reunification MagicSean.

I wish people like yourself and Lord Sutch would be honest.

You have an anti SF agenda which is why you started this thread as an attack on a SF member. I don't see anything wrong with his comments, he said that people should have been consulted and seen as they didn't putting up signs was a waste of money as anyone could see that they would be removed by residents.

You don't give a damn about tourists, or giving people information. (signs dealing with that are of course already there)

Yawn. I don't agree with Sinn Fein so I must be a unionist right? Pathetic.

I support a unified Ireland. I think it will be brought about by cooperation and integration, not by ignoring the current reality and looking for any reason to have a fight. I despise the use of violence or illegality to bring about the unification. I dislike the hypocricy of Sinn Fein because I am smart enough to see they are nothing but populists.

One look at your username will tell anyone what kind of person you are. You run around playing soldiers all you want and support the murder of innocents. The mature people will keep working towards a unified and integrated Ireland where everyone has a say and everyone feels welcome.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

You're making less and less sense here. A sign saying 'Welcome to NI' will not educate people on the differences in laws and that's certainly not the purpose, or function, of the recently erected one's.

My objection to a unionist minister not consulting with the local community on provocative and useless signing is standing in the way of reunification? What a truly bizarre thing to say.

It will notify them they are in a different country and not just a different county. Simple speed signs are not sufficient for this. Ignore it all you'd like.

And you all ignored the rest of my questions so I'll post them again.

MagicSean wrote: »

If it is the case that the problem is solely with the use of the wording "Welcome to Northern Ireland" then what alternative wording would you suggest to inform people they are entering a seperate political and legal entity?

And if the name Northern Ireland is so offensive then why is there no campaigns against its use in other areas such as torism or the Northern Assembly?

alastair

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Sneaky RA reference

They haven't gone away you know. :rolleyes:

Cú Giobach

alastair wrote: »

They haven't gone away you know. :rolleyes:

And your point is?

alastair

Cú Giobach wrote: »

And your point is?

I doubt anyone missed your inference - they'd have to have their head in the sand. Unless you rather pretend it's a purely coincidental choice of phrase. :rolleyes:

Curly Judge

The sign should read: WATCH OUT FOR LOW LYING SHINNERS

Cú Giobach

alastair wrote: »

I doubt anyone missed your inference - they'd have to have their head in the sand. Unless you rather pretend it's a purely coincidental choice of phrase. :rolleyes:

What choice of phrase??
It was you how said "They haven't gone away" not me, I said the "NI question hasn't gone away" which it hasn't, as can be witnessed by anyone with the slightest modicum of intelligence.
What inference??
Are you referring to my factual statement that there is still ongoing conflict between two communities in NI??

Again, get a grip. Try for once to use a little bit of logic and your ability to read English in order to differentiate between people who discuss the ongoing situation and people who are militantly or intransigently stuck "on a war footing".

alastair

Cú Giobach wrote: »

What choice of phrase??
It was you how said "They haven't gone away" not me, I said the "NI question hasn't gone away" which it hasn't, as can be witnessed by anyone with the slightest modicum of intelligence.
What inference??

You echoed Gerry Adams' familiar meme on the IRA - "They haven't gone away you know" (The "NI question" hasn't gone away you know) in a sentence that warned of the consequences of "grave (and ultimately dangerous) naivety" - ie: actual commitment to the terms of the already agreed resolution legislation - the GFA.

You can spin all you like - but I think anyone with an ounce of familiarity with the iconic soundbite would laugh at the claim there was no inference at play.

Cú Giobach

alastair wrote: »

You echoed Gerry Adams' familiar meme on the IRA - "They haven't gone away you know" (The "NI question" hasn't gone away you know) in a sentence that warned of the consequences of "grave (and ultimately dangerous) naivety" - ie: actual commitment to the terms of the already agreed resolution legislation - the GFA.

You can spin all you like - but I think anyone with an ounce of familiarity with the iconic soundbite would laugh at the claim there was no inference at play.

You're nuts.

R P McMurphy

Whatever about what everyone else thinks, the people in the areas where the signs went up don't want them there and therefore there is no hope of them remaining in place. That is the reality. The one outside Clones only lasted a couple of hours. As soon as they go up they will be taken back down again, it is not possible to enforce something like this without the cooperation of the local community and that will not be forthcoming anytime soon so might as well wave goodbye to the signs idea

TheChizler

R P McMurphy wrote: »

Whatever about what everyone else thinks, the people in the areas where the signs went up don't want them there and therefore there is no hope of them remaining in place. That is the reality. The one outside Clones only lasted a couple of hours. As soon as they go up they will be taken back down again, it is not possible to enforce something like this without the cooperation of the local community and that will not be forthcoming anytime soon so might as well wave goodbye to the signs idea

Do you think there is a particular wording that they might be ok with or is it more the act of marking a border at all? Cause if it was opposition to any kind off marking I'd expect the mph warning signs to be taken down.

R P McMurphy

TheChizler wrote: »

Do you think there is a particular wording that they might be ok with or is it more the act of marking a border at all? Cause if it was opposition to any kind off marking I'd expect the mph warning signs to be taken down.

I don't know, suppose the only way to ascertain that is through local community consultation. The existing ones are clearly unacceptable to the local communities hence their removal. The main problems with the existsing ones are the to do with the person who sanctioned them and his perceived reasons in doing so

lugha

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Well you clearly have no understanding how compromises, treaties or agreements work in the real world by expecting the sun to rise on some sort of perfect telly tubby world the very next day with all the issues vanished forever, unfortunately here on planet Earth that isn't how it works.

I do know how agreements work (the clue is in the name). If you sign up to a agreement then you are morally compelled to abide by it. If it goes to far or demands too much then you don’t sign up. Simples.

GFA patently was not the final solution, indeed part of its appeal is that it promised incompatible outcomes to the two communities (a road map for a united Ireland and the safe guarding of NI within the union).

What it actually was was an arrangement where everybody who signed up to it gave some ground, much less that the amount that one side will ultimately have to give, and they did so because the benefits (peace) ultimately outweighed any concession that they had to make. But once you agreed to concede something then you clearly should not try to subsequently row back on it or dilute it.

It would have been wrong for either government to circumvent the release of prisoners by finding some flimsy pretext to ensure that none were released.

It would have been wrong for an Irish government to try and reinstate articles 2 and 3, were this possible.

It would have been wrong for a British government to try to reconstitute the RUC.

It would have been wrong for the PIRA to use violence for political ends.

It all cases because they agreed to the agreement (excuse my poor sentence construct but I think you are missing the key word in all of this)

And all parties to the agreement, agreed to recognise the state of Northern Ireland. If that was step to far for them then they should not have supported GFA.

Cú Giobach

lugha wrote: »

And all parties to the agreement, agreed to recognise the state of Northern Ireland. If that was step to far for them then they should not have supported GFA.

Grand that is your opinion, but for many of us the prospect of more violence especially the escalating tit for tat killings that were occurring prior to the agreement was of grave importance and something that was of a slightly more important nature than the "major" issue you have.