Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

If the UK asked Ireland to rejoin the Union, how would you vote?

Options
1…2223252728…31

Comments

  • Options
    #722
    Donkey Oaty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,533 ✭✭✭Donkey Oaty


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Perhaps you can answer me a something I've been wondering for a while, why do most republicans also seem to be socialist? Not all of course but there does seem to be a correlation between the two beliefs.

    They are not automatic bedfellows by any means, but when you look at the history of Ireland - especially when it comes to land issues - you can see the appeal of a policy of common ownership and a government-lead system of social justice.


  • Options
    #723
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    No to reject rejoining the Union
    Donkey Oaty wrote: »
    They are not automatic bedfellows by any means, but when you look at the history of Ireland - especially when it comes to land issues - you can see the appeal of a policy of common ownership and a government-lead system of social justice.
    Perhaps. But it strikes me as odd that a demographic so well versed in history would be swayed by an ideology history has proven to be a failure.


  • Options
    #724
    Donkey Oaty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,533 ✭✭✭Donkey Oaty


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Perhaps. But it strikes me as odd that a demographic so well versed in history would be swayed by an ideology history has proven to be a failure.

    Provocative can of worms there, but the opposite hasn't been great for some people either - and anyway, we're pretty much all socialists now. It's just a matter of degrees.


  • Options
    #725
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    No to reject rejoining the Union
    Donkey Oaty wrote: »
    Provocative can of worms there, but the opposite hasn't been great for some people either - and anyway, we're pretty much all socialists now. It's just a matter of degrees.

    Only if you define any kind of government intervention as socialist. Which isn't the Marxist definition. Not meaning to be provocative I'm just stating fact.


  • Options
    #726
    Donkey Oaty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,533 ✭✭✭Donkey Oaty


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Only if you define any kind of government intervention as socialist. Which isn't the Marxist definition.

    True. But neither is the ideology promoted by most republicans. Not these days.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #727
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    No to reject rejoining the Union
    Donkey Oaty wrote: »
    True. But neither is the ideology promoted by most republicans. Not these days.

    But it does seem to me that most republicans are socialists. There definitely seems to be a correlation between the two ideologies.


  • Options
    #728
    Donkey Oaty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,533 ✭✭✭Donkey Oaty


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    But it does seem to me that most republicans are socialists. There definitely seems to be a correlation between the two ideologies.

    Well, I've given you my thoughts on this - which is that republicans are not necessarily Marxist, but are on the side of state-control (which means a state that they are in control of) and there are historical reasons for this - chiefly, because the wealth-imbalance, as far as they are concerned, was unfairly achieved and is not going to be readdressed by a normal free market system.

    You can agree or disagree with their stance, but it's not surprising really. Just look at the demographics involved.


  • Options
    #729
    Lucy and Harry
    Registered Users Posts: 763 ✭✭✭Lucy and Harry


    I would rather put Gerry Adams in power and become the new North Korea.


  • Options
    #730
    AnLonDubh
    Registered Users Posts: 216 ✭✭AnLonDubh


    Jawgap wrote: »
    Do you have anything to back any of that up?
    What component specifically?
    Jawgap wrote: »
    My reading of it is that when the Gaeltacht Commission Report was submitted to the Executive Council and subsequently discussed in the Dail there was significant optimism, initially.
    Sorry to be a pain, but when you say your reading of it, what is "it"?
    Jawgap wrote: »
    The Gaeltacht Commission's Report contained over 80 recommendations that went way beyond simply setting up schools - only about 14 were ever adopted and implemented - are we now blaming the Brits for our own government's inability or unwillingness to implement measures identified as useful 5 to 6 years after independence?
    I don't see how the British could be blamed for our governments policies, nor did I say they should be.
    Jawgap wrote: »
    But, yes in something as complicated as the decline of the language let's lay all the blame at the feet of the Brits - it's the best way to absolve ourselves from any responsibility :rolleyes:
    No offense, but you seem determined to view anybody who disagrees with you as a raving Brit-hating nationalist. The British* are not entirely responsible for the decline of the language, of course. I never said they were. Our government could have done more and in addition Irish people largely voted with their mouths.

    My main contention was that there was stigma against Irish among monolinguals and bilinguals in the countryside. I don't see how the Gaelic league existing disproves that, or how commenting on the existence of this stigma means that I am "laying all blame at the feet of the Brits".

    *Again the average British person had nothing to do with it, only a ruling class, in fact an implanted ruling class, the Anglo Irish, were part of the responsibility.


  • Options
    #731
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    No offence taken...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #732
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    Nodin wrote: »
    The systematic destruction of the language and culture is well documented. The only mystery is as to why certain parties seem to be either in denial of it, or thinking we should be grateful for it.

    It depends on what you constitute culture and where did this central Gaelic or Irish culture originate from? Do we say that St Patrick destroyed Irish culture by introducing christianity instead of Celtic Paganism? Where does the blame start? With the English? The British? The Normans? The Vikings? The Romans?
    Culture is always changing, sure there are more native Polish speakers in Ireland today than irish speakers. Also, the idea that "if it were not for the British Ireland would have be speaking its native tongue" is naive. The idea that all the great European powers would have left little ol Ireland alone is nonsense. The French and Spanish all have had a go, the Germans certainly would if it were not for the RAF

    The more I read of this debate the more that monty python sketch comes true to life.


  • Options
    #733
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    jank wrote: »
    It depends on what you constitute culture and where did this central Gaelic or Irish culture originate from? Do we say that St Patrick destroyed Irish culture by introducing christianity instead of Celtic Paganism? Where does the blame start? With the English? The British? The Normans? The Vikings? The Romans?
    Culture is always changing, sure there are more native Polish speakers in Ireland today than irish speakers. Also, the idea that "if it were not for the British Ireland would have be speaking its native tongue" is naive. The idea that all the great European powers would have left little ol Ireland alone is nonsense. The French and Spanish all have had a go, the Germans certainly would if it were not for the RAF

    The more I read of this debate the more that monty python sketch comes true to life.

    Right so, just add to the notes here

    "Sure nothin happened anyway. If it wasn't the Brits (not that they did anythin) it would have been somebody else, so its grand."


  • Options
    #734
    Smiles35
    Registered Users Posts: 1,749 ✭✭✭Smiles35


    jank wrote: »
    It depends on what you constitute culture and where did this central Gaelic or Irish culture originate from? Do we say that St Patrick destroyed Irish culture by introducing christianity instead of Celtic Paganism?

    That's the million dollar question, isnt it? I think much of the Gaelic revival stuff was an attemp to reconcile the differnt heritages . And frankly, if we gave the awkward eye to Rome, all the better to the writers.


  • Options
    #735
    WesternZulu
    Registered Users Posts: 1,939 ✭✭✭WesternZulu


    jank wrote: »
    Also, the idea that "if it were not for the British Ireland would have be speaking its native tongue" is naive. The idea that all the great European powers would have left little ol Ireland alone is nonsense. The French and Spanish all have had a go, the Germans certainly would if it were not for the RAF

    The more I read of this debate the more that monty python sketch comes true to life.

    Well other small nations in Europe like Denmark, the Netherlands, Greece, Norway etc seemed to do ok for themselves throughout history, so your argument that if the British hasn't invaded that another power would inevitably have done so does not necessarily hold true.


  • Options
    #736
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    Nodin wrote: »
    Right so, just add to the notes here

    "Sure nothin happened anyway. If it wasn't the Brits (not that they did anythin) it would have been somebody else, so its grand."
    As perusal u ignore the points I make. Can u define Irish or Gaelic culture that the British systematically ? Do we have to go back to Normans?


  • Options
    #737
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    jank wrote: »
    As perusal u ignore the points I make. Can u define Irish or Gaelic culture that the British systematically ? Do we have to go back to Normans?


    Unbelievable.


  • Options
    #738
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    WesternZulu wrote: »
    Well other small nations in Europe like Denmark, the Netherlands, Greece, Norway etc seemed to do ok for themselves throughout history, ........


    I don't know if this is some form of sarcasm or based on a complete lack of knowledge of Western European history ?????


  • Options
    #739
    AnLonDubh
    Registered Users Posts: 216 ✭✭AnLonDubh


    jank wrote: »
    As perusal u ignore the points I make. Can u define Irish or Gaelic culture that the British systematically ? Do we have to go back to Normans?
    So, because cultures change, it is impossible to destroy a culture. I must go dump toxic waste into the Shannon, I won't be polluting it for as Heraclitus said, you cannot step into the same river twice, it would be impossible to define an unchanging Shannon that I am polluting.


  • Options
    #740
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    Nodin wrote: »
    Unbelievable.

    Answer the the question? Define Gaelic or Irish culture and when did the British start their destruction of it? Did it start with the Normans?


  • Options
    #741
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    AnLonDubh wrote: »
    So, because cultures change, it is impossible to destroy a culture. I must go dump toxic waste into the Shannon, I won't be polluting it for as Heraclitus said, you cannot step into the same river twice, it would be impossible to define an unchanging Shannon that I am polluting.

    Yes, but as he also made clear - it's not just the river that has changed, it's also the man - maybe there's a lesson there for people who refuse to even countenance that there might possibly be a better way forward for the nation than notional independence ;)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #742
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    jank wrote: »
    Answer the the question? Define Gaelic or Irish culture and when did the British start their destruction of it? Did it start with the Normans?


    No, your right, nothing bad has ever ever happened here. We only communicated in grunts and traded horse ****e before the Brits civilised us, mere ape creatures that we were.


  • Options
    #743
    Its Only Ray Parlour
    Registered Users Posts: 393 ✭✭Its Only Ray Parlour


    jank wrote: »
    Answer the the question? Define Gaelic or Irish culture and when did the British start their destruction of it? Did it start with the Normans?

    You've never heard of the Penal Laws?


  • Options
    #744
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    No to reject rejoining the Union
    Its Only Ray Parlour wrote: »
    You've never heard of the Penal Laws?

    Penal laws had nothing to do with it.


  • Options
    #745
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    Its Only Ray Parlour wrote: »
    You've never heard of the Penal Laws?

    .......the ones abolished close on two centuries ago by the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829 :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #746
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Jawgap wrote: »
    .......the ones abolished close on two centuries ago by the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829 :rolleyes:


    And what year were they enacted, and what effect did they have before they were abolished?


  • Options
    #747
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    Penal laws had nothing to do with it.

    Had nothing to do with what Fred?


  • Options
    #748
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    No to reject rejoining the Union
    Nodin wrote: »
    Had nothing to do with what Fred?

    With Irish culture or language.


  • Options
    #749
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    Nodin wrote: »
    And what year were they enacted, and what effect did they have before they were abolished?

    1691 and the gradual revocation of them began in 1760 - so they've been repealed for far longer than they were ever in force..........but lets go on blaming them :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #750
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    With Irish culture or language.


    Course not. The reduction and disenfranchisement of the vast majority of the population to landless tenants had no effect on anything. All in our little pixie heads.

    This thread is very informative, so it is.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #751
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    No to reject rejoining the Union
    Nodin wrote: »
    Course not. The reduction and disenfranchisement of the vast majority of the population to landless tenants had no effect on anything. All in our little pixie heads.

    This thread is very informative, so it is.

    So before the penal laws, unlike the rest of the world, the Irish were all living in big houses with their own farm lands?

    For 99% of the population, the penal laws meant they couldn't go to mass on a Sunday.


Advertisement