Protestors disrupting World War 1 commemoration at Glasnevin

Happyman42

marienbad wrote: »

That may or may not be the case , but it is irrelevant . And why ? Because they will always be a proportion of people who will disagree with any legislation .

Well then, I suggest you shut up about protests and any violence these people carry out. You are endorsing acceptable levels of it if you sit back and refuse to progress an agreement that was all about progressing.

And if you cater for that tranche of voters you alienate a similar number and you just switch one minority for another.

That doesn't have to happen and isn't necessarily inevitable.

The GFA was endorsed by an overwhelming majority and usually that is as good as it gets .

You say the governments are ignoring issues - what do you suggest they do ?

Both governments are guilty of ignoring what caused the conflict up until the GFA.
Are they negotiating with these people on both sides? (We now know they were in the run up to the GFA)
Are we going to wait until the levels of violence and unrest get to 'unacceptable' levels again or go the extra mile and find a solution that ends it once and for all?

marienbad

Happyman42 wrote: »

Well then, I suggest you shut up about protests and any violence these people carry out. You are endorsing acceptable levels of it if you sit back and refuse to progress an agreement that was all about progressing.


That doesn't have to happen and isn't necessarily inevitable.


Both governments are guilty of ignoring what caused the conflict up until the GFA.
Are they negotiating with these people on both sides? (We now know they were in the run up to the GFA)
Are we going to wait until the levels of violence and unrest get to 'unacceptable' levels again or go the extra mile and find a solution that ends it once and for all?

Happyman ,can you stop with the rudeness , you come across like a 16 year old.

If you want a genuine discussion let me know.

Happyman42

marienbad wrote: »

Happyman ,can you stop with the rudeness , you come across like a 16 year old.

If you want a genuine discussion let me know.

Alright...if you accept that these people(on both sides) cannot be accommodated then you have to put up with them. It is what the 2 governments have decided to do, classic head in the sand governance which is what caused the last period of our cyclical conflict.

Fratton Fred

Happyman42 wrote: »

Alright...if you accept that these people(on both sides) cannot be accommodated then you have to put up with them. It is what the 2 governments have decided to do, classic head in the sand governance which is what caused the last period of our cyclical conflict.

So we ignore the peaceful (vast) majority and pander to the extremist minority because they make a bit of noise?

Happyman42

Fratton Fred wrote: »

So we ignore the peaceful (vast) majority and pander to the extremist minority because they make a bit of noise?

At any given time in our history the (vast) majority where 'peaceful'.
Try harder Fred.

marienbad

Happyman42 wrote: »

Alright...if you accept that these people(on both sides) cannot be accommodated then you have to put up with them. It is what the 2 governments have decided to do, classic head in the sand governance which is what caused the last period of our cyclical conflict.

There are always people disaffected in any voting exercise. I am sure many Fianna Fail voter are such right now , or Tea Party voters in the USA and the upcoming Referendum in Scotland will tell a tale .

I am certain the no to independence vote will will. If they do in your opinion what should the losers do ?

It is how such a loss is handled that defines how individuals as well as groups value democracy.

Happyman42

marienbad wrote: »

There are always people disaffected in any voting exercise. I am sure many Fianna Fail voter are such right now , or Tea Party voters in the USA and the upcoming Referendum in Scotland will tell a tale .

I am certain the no to independence vote will will. If they do in your opinion what should the losers do ?

It is how such a loss is handled that defines how individuals as well as groups value democracy.

Well then...put up with it. :rolleyes:

marienbad

Happyman42 wrote: »

Well then...put up with it. :rolleyes:

And that is the point I am making . Sure there are also disaffected voters from the GFA . But this will be always so - it simply unavoidable .

For example we could bring a few thousand unionists closer to the centre by easing up on the flag issue , but at what cost ? Driving the corresponding number out the other side . So what we have in the main is the majority a little bit pissed off ( at themselves as well as everything else if the truth be told) but reasonably satisfied ,

And the remainder free to democratically continue to campaign for change.

So what is wrong with that ? Is it some of those minorities have guns ? If so that does make their vote more than mine ?

Fratton Fred

Happyman42 wrote: »

At any given time in our history the (vast) majority where 'peaceful'.
Try harder Fred.

What?

Happyman42

marienbad wrote: »

And that is the point I am making . Sure there are also disaffected voters from the GFA . But this will be always so - it simply unavoidable .

For example we could bring a few thousand unionists closer to the centre by easing up on the flag issue , but at what cost ? Driving the corresponding number out the other side . So what we have in the main is the majority a little bit pissed off ( at themselves as well as everything else if the truth be told) but reasonably satisfied ,

And the remainder free to democratically continue to campaign for change.

So what is wrong with that ? Is it some of those minorities have guns ? If so that does make their vote more than mine ?

Kinda of ironic given the day and all that.
If Albert and Co. had said or believed that then the GFA would never have been possible.
The imperative is to continue seeking resolution...keep progressing or it could all be lost. We need to constantly be aware of what stagnation achieves when it comes to this ongoing problem.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

What?

The majority of people where 'peaceful' during the last conflict....it didn't stop what happened..happening.

marienbad

Happyman42 wrote: »

Kinda of ironic given the day and all that.
If Albert and Co. had said or believed that then the GFA would never have been possible.
The imperative is to continue seeking resolution...keep progressing or it could all be lost. We need to constantly be aware of what stagnation achieves when it comes to this ongoing problem.


The majority of people where 'peaceful' during the last conflict....it didn't stop what happened..happening.

And we are aware , but in every process the last few inches are always the most difficult to resolve.

And ultimately the price asked may be too much or impossible to give.

What do you say to those disagreeing ? What are their responsibilities ? Particularly in the face of such overwhelming consent ?

Happyman42

marienbad wrote: »

And we are aware , but in every process the last few inches are always the most difficult to resolve.

And ultimately the price asked may be too much or impossible to give.

What do you say to those disagreeing ? What are their responsibilities ? Particularly in the face of such overwhelming consent ?

Again, you are ignoring quite clearly flagged problems in the GFA process as well as little or no efforts to deal with dissidents. Except firmly excluding them.

marienbad

Happyman42 wrote: »

Again, you are ignoring quite clearly flagged problems in the GFA process as well as little or no efforts to deal with dissidents. Except firmly excluding them.

I am not ignoring anything that I am aware of . Can you give some examples ?

Happyman42

marienbad wrote: »

I am not ignoring anything that I am aware of . Can you give some examples ?

Just one example,
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/gerry-adams-warns-peace-process-faces-serious-threat-1.1891362

marienbad

Happyman42 wrote: »

Just one example,
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/gerry-adams-warns-peace-process-faces-serious-threat-1.1891362

That is no different that any politician in the western world lambasting those in opposition to him ! If anything it show how well the process is working.

That is not to say that there is still not a long long way to go. But you will need to be much more specific than that to advance your argument.

The is just mainstream politics , it is the dissidents you refer to as excluded
I am more interested in. How should they be accommodated ?

Happyman42

marienbad wrote: »

That is no different that any politician in the western world lambasting those in opposition to him ! If anything it show how well the process is working.

That is not to say that there is still not a long long way to go. But you will need to be much more specific than that to advance your argument.

The is just mainstream politics , it is the dissidents you refer to as excluded
I am more interested in. How should they be accommodated ?

And you just blithely ignore it and refuse to countenance that he is pinpointing the reasons why (and why there always will be) violence on the streets of this island for many years to come.

Mainstream politics? Yeh, right! :rolleyes:

One thing we need to do is to stop pretending that 'the future' is a fait accompli because the GFA was achieved. It isn't.
Another thing is to stop the cringeworthy deference to monarchy, it's embarassing and dangerous as that particular monarchy is the figurehead for a government which still has many answers to give about their activities against the people of Ireland. Our government has to be seen to be acting in the interests of all the people.
We also need to see an honest debate begun about our shared future with all points of view on the table and leading to the first poll on the subject.
Those simple things would do a lot to bring the 'dissidents' in from the cold. It HAS to be an ongoing process much and all as it might pain and bore some of the people.

pablomakaveli

Happyman42 wrote: »

And you just blithely ignore it and refuse to countenance that he is pinpointing the reasons why (and why there always will be) violence on the streets of this island for many years to come.

Mainstream politics? Yeh, right! :rolleyes:

One thing we need to do is to stop pretending that 'the future' is a fait accompli because the GFA was achieved. It isn't.
Another thing is to stop the cringeworthy deference to monarchy, it's embarassing and dangerous as that particular monarchy is the figurehead for a government which still has many answers to give about their activities against the people of Ireland. Our government has to be seen to be acting in the interests of all the people.
We also need to see an honest debate begun about our shared future with all points of view on the table and leading to the first poll on the subject.
Those simple things would do a lot to bring the 'dissidents' in from the cold. It HAS to be an ongoing process much and all as it might pain and bore some of the people.

They'll never be happy. They want a UI but thats not going to happen anytime soon so they are going to be sat outside the process while the rest of us move on.

There shouldn't be anyone bending over backwards to accomodate a small minority (no matter how important and relevant you try to make them seem). They're the ones that need to be flexible. In any case there will always be people unhappy no matter what happens.

Also how is welcoming the queen and treating the UK's head of state with the same respect they showed ours deference. I call that hospitality and diplomacy because as much as you and the dissidents may not like it we need friendly relations between Ireland and the UK if anything is going to be achieved.

The Highwayman

Strazdas wrote: »

Absolutely shameful. This is a commemoration of the IRISH war dead in WW1.

Some may see all of the men who fought for the empire as traitors. May were treated as such on returning from Flanders.

tomwaterford

The Highwayman wrote: »

Some may see all of the men who fought for the empire as traitors. May were treated as such on returning from Flanders.

Some people would want to think long and hard about bending over backwards to call them Irish war dead....as what many appear to forget in there eagerness to be almost anti republican is that many of the Irish (not all) who died in WW1 would spit on the very notion of being called Irish

Karl Stein

Happyman42 wrote: »

Just one example,
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/gerry-adams-warns-peace-process-faces-serious-threat-1.1891362

“As Martin McGuinness has noted, ‘We are in government with unionists because we want to be. They are in government with us because they have to be.’”

On the money. There's a hardcore of Union/loyalists who never wanted to share power and were happy to live with the conflict as long as it meant the pesky taigs were not about the place and they could get to march wherever the hell they liked. Nationalists want to move forward into the 21st Century while the above Unionists want to move back to 1690.

Instead of sitting down with Nationalists and working toward a positive future for all the citizens of the north some Unionists would rather whinge and moan about not being allowed to march past the Ardoyne shops.

It's pathetic.

pablomakaveli

tomwaterford wrote: »

Some people would want to think long and hard about bending over backwards to call them Irish war dead....as what many appear to forget in there eagerness to be almost anti republican is that many of the Irish (not all) who died in WW1 would spit on the very notion of being called Irish

The unionist ones yes maybe. But there was a lot from Nationalist or Catholic backgrounds that were in the Irish Volunteers. I wouldn't say most would have hated that notion.

marienbad

Happyman42 wrote: »

And you just blithely ignore it and refuse to countenance that he is pinpointing the reasons why (and why there always will be) violence on the streets of this island for many years to come.

Mainstream politics? Yeh, right! :rolleyes:

One thing we need to do is to stop pretending that 'the future' is a fait accompli because the GFA was achieved. It isn't.
Another thing is to stop the cringeworthy deference to monarchy, it's embarassing and dangerous as that particular monarchy is the figurehead for a government which still has many answers to give about their activities against the people of Ireland. Our government has to be seen to be acting in the interests of all the people.
We also need to see an honest debate begun about our shared future with all points of view on the table and leading to the first poll on the subject.
Those simple things would do a lot to bring the 'dissidents' in from the cold. It HAS to be an ongoing process much and all as it might pain and bore some of the people.

I am not ignoring anything ! He has set out his stall as he sees it , others may differ . You seem to think that the only legitimate end to the GFA ,whether log term or short term is a united Ireland . Would that be correct ?

feargale

tomwaterford wrote: »

Some people would want to think long and hard about bending over backwards to call them Irish war dead....as what many appear to forget in there eagerness to be almost anti republican is that many of the Irish (not all) who died in WW1 would spit on the very notion of being called Irish

Can you give us examples of WW1 people born in Ireland who asserted that they were not Irish?

losthorizon

tomwaterford wrote: »

Some people would want to think long and hard about bending over backwards to call them Irish war dead....as what many appear to forget in there eagerness to be almost anti republican is that many of the Irish (not all) who died in WW1 would spit on the very notion of being called Irish

I see you are from Waterford - 630 people died from Co. Waterford alone in WW1. Are you telling me these people didnt consider themselves Irish?

It was actually John Redmond himself who encouraged people to join up.

http://imr.inflandersfields.be/search.html


For instance four times the amount of people from Dublin were killed than from Belfast. Many of those from Belfast would have joined up for Home Rule as would most of those from the South. Its a historical event that been ignored in our country.

Happyman42

marienbad wrote: »

I am not ignoring anything ! He has set out his stall as he sees it , others may differ . You seem to think that the only legitimate end to the GFA ,whether log term or short term is a united Ireland . Would that be correct ?

This is the bull**** those who think that the future is a done deal engage in. 'Leave it alone, everything will be alright'.
Where in reality are things alright? Time for you to show some credible evidence that Adams is wrong.

I believe that the solution was always a shared UI and a proper republic.

marienbad

Happyman42 wrote: »

This is the bull**** those who think that the future is a done deal engage in. 'Leave it alone, everything will be alright'.
Where in reality are things alright? Time for you to show some credible evidence that Adams is wrong.

I believe that the solution was always a shared UI and a proper republic.

You are not answering my question. None of the above refers to anything I said.

Again - do you believe that the only legitimate end to the GFA is a united Ireland ?

Happyman42

marienbad wrote: »

Again - do you believe that the only legitimate end to the GFA is a united Ireland ?

No, it isn't the only legitimate outcome.
It is the only outcome that has any chance of ending the protests and cyclical violence though.

marienbad

Happyman42 wrote: »

No, it isn't the only legitimate outcome.
It is the only outcome that has any chance of ending the protests and cyclical violence though.

So does that mean that violent protest supersedes non violent protest and parliamentary process ?

Happyman42

marienbad wrote: »

So does that mean that violent protest supersedes non violent protest and parliamentary process ?

The various answers to that are always going to be a problem. You either put up with it, 'acceptable levels' or you continue to do everything you can to solve it.

marienbad

Happyman42 wrote: »

The various answers to that are always going to be a problem. You either put up with it, 'acceptable levels' or you continue to do everything you can to solve it.

But what does that really mean ? Would you accept that by accommodating one violent faction you alienate another ?

And what of the violent factions themselves , how democratic can they really be ?