Do you care about uniting Ireland?

Sir Humphrey Appleby

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

You do realise the first president of the Republic was a protestant?

Not to mention not only some of the founders of the GAA but also a quite recent president of it.

dublinbhoy88

joe swanson wrote: »

Ill lighten up about thugs and murderers and their apologists. Sure werent they a great bunch of lads. What harm did they do?

You just prooved my previous post with your insightful post

murderers and thugs, British army or IRA ?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

dublinbhoy88

old hippy wrote: »

And so, as ever, the cycle continues.

and still they reply to my inane drivell,comedy gold this thread

Leftist

you might aswel give it up dublinbhoy, i promise you will end up cringing for years at this rhetoric when you get older.

Micky Dolenz

Mod

Alright, enough already. Can we please leave off the bickering.

dublinbhoy88 wrote: »

When you are off the blob maybe you will lighten up a bit.

I've just taken one post of yours as an example of the disruption you are causing.

Please don't post in this thread again. In future, please reflect on you interact with others.

Yamanoto

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

Not to mention not only some of the founders of the GAA but also a quite recent president of it.

Not to mention our 4th President, Erskine Childers, an Oxbridge educated son of a Protestant Irish Republican Father.

We're a complex bunch, us Irish.

Sir Humphrey Appleby

Now that we are back on thread, I think that the old emotional attachment to a UI has lessened considerably, less perhaps because of the inability of a lot of people in NI to live in relative peace with each other and more to do with Ireland generally becoming less inward looking.
Many now see themselves as European, the world has become more accessible and questions of nationalism less and less relevant to how people see themselves.

Fratton Fred

Fred Swanson wrote: »

Does the RC church still have such rules?

It might do, but I doubt anyone would pay any attention these days!

dublinbhoy88

Leftist wrote: »

you might aswel give it up dublinbhoy, i promise you will end up cringing for years at this rhetoric when you get older.

I doubt it

Mr_Spaceman

Sanity has, thankfully, prevailed on this thread with the culling of Sinn Fein's useful, impressionable, idiot.

The bhoyo himself is better off channelling his energies towards the British football club he claims to support.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

dublinbhoy88

Mr_Spaceman wrote: »

Sanity has, thankfully, prevailed on this thread with the culling of Sinn Fein's useful, impressionable, idiot.

The bhoyo himself is better off channelling his energies towards the British football club he claims to support.

another geography expert when it comes to football

Micky Dolenz

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

Mod

Alright, enough already. Can we please leave off the bickering.

I've just taken one post of yours as an example of the disruption you are causing.

Please don't post in this thread again. In future, please reflect on you interact with others.

dublinbhoy88 wrote: »

I doubt it

Mod

Banned.

Can we please keep the thread going now without the bickering.

Mr_Spaceman

dublinbhoy88 wrote: »

another geography expert when it comes to football

They were 'British' enough when they won the European Cup.

ninebeanrows

It's a difficult question, in an ideal world I would like a united Ireland but it is not the right time. The societies on either side of the border are unequal economically, there are huge social differences and that's leaving aside the sectarian element. The objective for those who want a reunion should be to eradicate these differences slowly but steadily, dissolve sectarianism and turn Northern Ireland into a society like the south.

But that is not where we are at. So attempted reunionification today would not get my support.

Leftist

Weathercheck wrote: »

It's a difficult question, in an ideal world I would like a united Ireland

why?

ninebeanrows

Leftist wrote: »

why?

Because I'm a nationalist.

shleedance

simongurnick wrote: »

There was talk in nationalist circles of a united Ireland, but remaining part of the Commonwealth.

An independent North makes sense in some ways, but would seem like a major concession, for both sides, but for different reasons.

As far as I am concerned, a unionist in the six counties actually has more in common with a citizen of the republic than a citizen of England (generally speaking).

It would be different to the commonwealth, as that is primarily focused on Britain. All countries in the Isles would be independent without any monopoly over each other, and have to be committed to help each other as allies. This means Ireland would have to lose its neutral stance, though. Decisions can be made by summits by each country's leaders.

An Independent N. Ireland would work this way due to the close cooperation between countries. Each country would be encouraged to share each others industries, commerce etc. or be helped to develop them if they're lacking.

The issues with the EU itself would remain to see, and other problems can easily arise too.

old hippy

Weathercheck wrote: »

Because I'm a nationalist.

Be a internationalist. Much better.

seachto7

No. Not as it stands. They are brought up in a different society to us where symbolism means everything. I have no interest in entertaining orange marches or IRA parades or rioting scum. An independent Norn Iron. I have no interest in welcoming them as it stands.
I even think they are different to us. Nordies are nordies.

Fratton Fred

shleedance wrote: »

It would be different to the commonwealth, as that is primarily focused on Britain. All countries in the Isles would be independent without any monopoly over each other, and have to be committed to help each other as allies. This means Ireland would have to lose its neutral stance, though. Decisions can be made by summits by each country's leaders.

An Independent N. Ireland would work this way due to the close cooperation between countries. Each country would be encouraged to share each others industries, commerce etc. or be helped to develop them if they're lacking.

The issues with the EU itself would remain to see, and other problems can easily arise too.

That's exactly how the commonwealth does work. No need to change anything.

old hippy

seachto7 wrote: »

No. Not as it stands. They are brought up in a different society to us where symbolism means everything. I have no interest in entertaining orange marches or IRA parades or rioting scum. An independent Norn Iron. I have no interest in welcoming them as it stands.
I even think they are different to us. Nordies are nordies.

That said, I still have family there who would call themselves Irish but not in the uberpatriotic sense.

As for the riots, as with any sort of civil disturbance, they tend to arise out of frustration and unrest, a feeling of injustice. It's how to realistically adress these factors, that's the headache.

seachto7

crockholm wrote: »

When I was younger I did,but no longer.To the point where I could understand how an Irish Government would baulk at the thought of re-unification.Strange to say,but what little interaction I have had with "Nordies",I much preferred my time with the Unionists,a better class of people going on my limited experience.

Let it stay within the Union,best for all of us IMO

Limited experience is right. That's a bit out of order to be saying that to be honest. I didn't see a better class of people on July 12th on tv. I know plenty of nationalists from good backgrounds with unionist friends.
Problem with a lot of unionists is they think they are better than us, and since the flawed foundation of Norn Iron, which, let's face it was set up as an apartheid type state, the unionists have had the upper hand and say in everything. Now the boot is on the other foot, and there's "equality" in Norn Iron, the bigots don't like it.

seachto7

old hippy wrote: »

That said, I still have family there who would call themselves Irish but not in the uberpatriotic sense.

As for the riots, as with any sort of civil disturbance, they tend to arise out of frustration and unrest, a feeling of injustice. It's how to realistically adress these factors, that's the headache.

I'm sick of this "injustice" line. They weren't allowed to march down a road where they are not wanted in order to antagonise the locals, so they rioted. Simple as.

old hippy

seachto7 wrote: »

I'm sick of this "injustice" line. They weren't allowed to march down a road where they are not wanted in order to antagonise the locals, so they rioted. Simple as.

If only it was that simple. I'm not condoning riots, btw. However, injustice is in the eye of the beholder and human nature being what it is - if you feel continuously hard done by, eventually you'll make your feelings known.

We're still trying to figure out the London riots, 2 years on

Mike 1972

Weathercheck wrote: »

Because I'm a nationalist.

Why ?

Leftist

Weathercheck wrote: »

Because I'm a nationalist.

how come?

shleedance

Fratton Fred wrote: »

That's exactly how the commonwealth does work. No need to change anything.

Not exactly. The commonwealth's head is the British Monarchy, and would not offer the same level of close cooperation. It is British orientated, even if there are independent republics being members.

What Im describing is more like a "mini EU".

Fratton Fred

shleedance wrote: »

Not exactly. The commonwealth's head is the British Monarchy, and would not offer the same level of close cooperation. It is British orientated, even if there are independent republics being members.

What Im describing is more like a "mini EU".

Actually, the symbolic head is Queen Elizabeth, not the monarchy. When she curls her toes up they will elect a new head.

The Secretary General, who is the functioning head, is Indian.

But, of course, the two billion people of the commonwealth would, I'm sure, be only too happy to change all that to let a few Irish in.