Reunification Question

alaimacerc

Crooked Jack wrote: »

As a republican I can assure you notions of "shipping" anyone out are not prevalent. In fact the only time you really hear such sentiments on boards are when partitionists talk about wishing the north would "break off and float away" or some such nonsense.

I think your perception of what's "prevalent" or "real" is less accurate than you imagine. Is there a "safe background amount" of such nonsense? Do you at least challenge it when you see it? Or is it in the "only a bit of craic", like the "sniper at work" paraphernalia, and so on?

Does the occasional teenage moron write stuff like this on their facebook wall? Im sure they do, but the notion that this forms any part of modern republican ideology is most certainly all in your head

I'm thinking of far-from-occasional "Republican" morons (their age and sincerity I can't verify) here, for one thing. (politics.ie is significantly worse, mind you.)

Any notion that I'm ascribing this to "the official SF line" or that it's "all in my head" is indeed "all in your head". Or your line of inaccurate and less-than-civil argument, at least.

I've already told you about a number of very genuine outreach projects Sinn Fein is involved in. You obviously ignored that and didnt look them up at all for fear of upsetting your predetermined notions of republicanism

Yes, "obviously". Notwithstanding I specifically replied regarding the particular initiative you mentioned. Perhaps some "predetermined notions" are harder to shift than others.

As I've said several times now, it all comes down to how much credence or weight one gives to such efforts, as against the obviously countervailing trends. Like those noted above, and your own "we don't need to ask the Unionists what 'concessions' they'd like in a UI, we know what's equitable enough for the likes of them!" attitude.

alaimacerc

Crooked Jack wrote: »

That doesnt make british control of the north legitimate nor does it lock sinn fein into accepting british control of the north as legitimate.

Evidently your copy is considerably different to the one I just quoted! Are they not signatories to an agreement stipulating that "the present wish of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland, freely exercised and legitimate, is to maintain the Union" and "it would be wrong to make any change in the status of Northern Ireland save with the consent of a majority of its people"?

"Ah yes, but still somehow not legitimate" is at best in the category of "mental reservation", and frankly more like a bad faith understanding of the entire agreement.

Crooked Jack

alaimacerc wrote: »

I think your perception of what's "prevalent" or "real" is less accurate than you imagine. Is there a "safe background amount" of such nonsense? Do you at least challenge it when you see it? Or is it in the "only a bit of craic", like the "sniper at work" paraphernalia, and so on?


I'm thinking of far-from-occasional "Republican" morons (their age and sincerity I can't verify) here, for one thing. (politics.ie is significantly worse, mind you.)

Any notion that I'm ascribing this to "the official SF line" or that it's "all in my head" is indeed "all in your head". Or your line of inaccurate and less-than-civil argument, at least.


Yes, "obviously". Notwithstanding I specifically replied regarding the particular initiative you mentioned. Perhaps some "predetermined notions" are harder to shift than others.

As I've said several times now, it all comes down to how much credence or weight one gives to such efforts, as against the obviously countervailing trends. Like those noted above, and your own "we don't need to ask the Unionists what 'concessions' they'd like in a UI, we know what's equitable enough for the likes of them!" attitude.

Ah, so it is all your head because i said nothing of the sort. A UI is based on justice and equality. Nobody, from amy grouping needs "concessions" where there is justice and equality.

Crooked Jack

alaimacerc wrote: »

Evidently your copy is considerably different to the one I just quoted! Are they not signatories to an agreement stipulating that "the present wish of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland, freely exercised and legitimate, is to maintain the Union" and "it would be wrong to make any change in the status of Northern Ireland save with the consent of a majority of its people"?

"Ah yes, but still somehow not legitimate" is at best in the category of "mental reservation", and frankly more like a bad faith understanding of the entire agreement.

As i said, republicans are not denying that a majority of people in the area specifically picked to give a pro-union majority are pro-union.

SF have agreed to work within that political reality. There's nothing in there about them having to become unionists themselves

Godge

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Do you have something like a bucket full of cliches that you pluck randomly from when making Sinn Fein quotes?



Sinn Fein have indeed agreed to the principle of "consent" (well, the british version of consent where you only ask the people they've sectioned off to get the response they want) and what of it? That doesn't mean they recognise the legitimacy of the north, they just acknowledge it as a political reality of the time.
Trying to claim otherwise is like saying unionists voted for the GFA cause they really reeaaalllllyyy wanted to see the prisoners released.

Crooked Jack wrote: »

I dont see where the confusion is.
Republicans have never recognised the legitimacy of the north as a separate entity but have agreed to work within it as a political reality as a means of dismantling it.
There's a difference between not recognising the legitimacy of something and sticking your fingers in your ears and pretending it doesnt exist.

You keep repeating the same phrases and you suggest others have stock responses?


As has been pointed out to you already, the GFA clearly states:

" the present wish of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland, freely exercised and legitimate, is to maintain the Union and, accordingly, that Northern Ireland's status as part of the United Kingdom reflects and relies upon that wish; and that it would be wrong to make any change in the status of Northern Ireland save with the consent of a majority of its people;"


As I said already, either you accept the GFA or you don't. Implicit in accepting the GFA is recognition of the legitimacy of the North as stated in the GFA. The fact that the GFA also provides for a theoretical future change does not alter the recognition of the legitimacy of the North.

You will need to go back to Shinner Central and get a new phrase.

Sheldons Brain

Godge wrote: »

You keep repeating the same phrases and you suggest others have stock responses?


As has been pointed out to you already, the GFA clearly states:

" the present wish of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland, freely exercised and legitimate, is to maintain the Union and, accordingly, that Northern Ireland's status as part of the United Kingdom reflects and relies upon that wish; and that it would be wrong to make any change in the status of Northern Ireland save with the consent of a majority of its people;"

Legitimate means legal and laws are passed by the people with the biggest army. NI may be legal in some sense, but it is in no way morally legitimate and no moral person can support it.

Crooked Jack

Godge wrote: »

You keep repeating the same phrases and you suggest others have stock responses?

What am I to do when people keep making the same (wrong) points? At least it was in response to something on not just "the mask slips" type nonsense

As has been pointed out to you already, the GFA clearly states:

" the present wish of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland, freely exercised and legitimate, is to maintain the Union and, accordingly, that Northern Ireland's status as part of the United Kingdom reflects and relies upon that wish; and that it would be wrong to make any change in the status of Northern Ireland save with the consent of a majority of its people;"

Yes, that clearly states that the desire to maintain the north among some is legitimate. The opinion that the north should remain in the union is a legitimate one for people to hold. That's what it says.

As I said already, either you accept the GFA or you don't. Implicit in accepting the GFA is recognition of the legitimacy of the North as stated in the GFA. The fact that the GFA also provides for a theoretical future change does not alter the recognition of the legitimacy of the North.

Well, no actually, it's not. Respecting the view of the "majority" is in there and Sinn Fein have accepted and stood by that but like i said, there's nothing in it that requires them to accept the north itself or british control of it as legitimate.

You will need to go back to Shinner Central and get a new phrase.

Oh I see youve expanded on shinnerbot; how innovative of you

Godge

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Oh I see youve expanded on shinnerbot; how innovative of you

Thanks for the compliment but unfortunately, I will have to decline as neither shinnerbot nor Shinner Central are creations of mine.

They are well established internet terms that I picked up elsewhere.

Jim2007

Crooked Jack wrote: »

You may feel a difference to people from the north but that's cause you've never spent time in any part of it. I

But that is how it is for most of the people, they don't have relations nor contacts there, never mind spending time there - it is another country! I have four friends from the North, who have spend time living and working in the South (Cork & Kerry) and they all were disappointed in the country - we did not have their aspirations!

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Ridiculous, there is a very distinct Irish , gaelic culture that stretches across the island.

The GAA perhaps and ???

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Secondly, I personally believe there are huge advantages to reunification.
Economically I think it would make the country stronger. It would remove needless duplication, streamline and better space out services, remove the difficulties of operating businesses on either side of the border, we would be competing for international business as one unit rather than a tiny island competing against itself, we could market Ireland to the world as one tourist destination with reunification presenting a huge tourism opportunity.

Well if even half the estimates of the cost of running the North are true, the Irish exchequer would have to come up with anything from £3b to £9b to pump into, so there would have to be incredible economic gains!

Crooked Jack wrote: »

It never ceases to amaze me how people on boards, and i notice it particularly with the anti-SF crowd, feel so qualified to speak on behalf of everybody with huge, sweeping statements like this.

Crooked Jack wrote: »

I dont see how having concerns about certain treaties or being strong on the defence of Irish sovereignty makes you anti-Europe. Sinn Fein are most definitely pro-Europe.

The fact is that while you are dreaming of a united Ireland the rest of the country has moved on to forging a European integrated unit sometimes referred to as Euroland and that is not an aspiration, they have already started taking the practical steps in doing so by switching to the Euro and most recently the European Fiscal Compact which was accepted by way of a constitutional amendment supported by 60% of the voters. Clearly the people are not hanging around waiting for a conference on a united Ireland!

Which brings me back to the point that with every passing year the chances of a united Ireland on the terms expected by northern nationalists grow less and less likely.

eire4

Amprodude wrote: »

If Northern Ireland reunited would the name of the state change to something like " United Ireland" ? To reunify the Republic and the North under one? Flag would have to change as well and the national anthem. I don't understand why Northern Ireland doesn't have it own unique flag at present I.e representing both nationalist and unionist communities instead of using the union jack in areas.

How about just go with Ireland. Considering what the current tricolour flag means in terms of peace between the 2 major peoples on the island I think the current flag is pretty appropiate to keep in my opinion.

Godge

eire4 wrote: »

How about just go with Ireland. Considering what the current tricolour flag means in terms of peace between the 2 major peoples on the island I think the current flag is pretty appropiate to keep in my opinion.

Very naive thinking to believe that the current flag would be acceptable to the unionist community. In fact, the suggestion would be clearly provocative to them.

The only way you could keep the tricolour is if you were to add a Union Jack in the top left like the Australian and New Zealand flags.

Hannibal

Godge wrote: »

Very naive thinking to believe that the current flag would be acceptable to the unionist community. In fact, the suggestion would be clearly provocative to them.

The only way you could keep the tricolour is if you were to add a Union Jack in the top left like the Australian and New Zealand flags.

the St Patricks saltire, the flag with the arms of the four provinces and the Green harp flag are other ones.

The north is a strange place. A lot of rugby fans happily support the Irish team with the shamrocks, harps, tricolours and Amhran na bhFiann.

The soccer team play in green, soccer fans wear green but in every other part of their lives they despise the colour.

My theory on the constant displays of union jacks is simply marking territory. They are insecure and feel the need to constantly reassure themselves that they are British but the whole world knows them as Irish. When unionists are away and start talking especially in America, people respond with "what part of Ireland you from", this is what riles them more than anything.

Nationalists/catholics are in the majority for all age groups under 40, with every election there is another five years worth of Catholics reaching voting age and another five years of Protestants basically dying. The voting trends is all Catholic into the future and this feeds into a Catholic majority in universitys at the moment. Catholics in time will start occupying similar positions across the board in employment, this is what will break the unionist stranglehold.
The challenge for Sinn Fein is to keep all these emerging Catholics viewing themselves as Irish and not let them fall into the abyss of "northern Irish".

eire4

Godge wrote: »

Very naive thinking to believe that the current flag would be acceptable to the unionist community. In fact, the suggestion would be clearly provocative to them.

The only way you could keep the tricolour is if you were to add a Union Jack in the top left like the Australian and New Zealand flags.

I never said that the Irish tricolour would be acceptable to unionists. Here is what I said:


Considering what the current tricolour flag means in terms of peace between the 2 major peoples on the island I think the current flag is pretty appropiate to keep in my opinion.




I emphasized that the Irish tricolour flag is a very appropiate flag for a united Ireland considering it means peace between the 2 major peoples on our island. That simply is my opinion nothing more.


Unlike yourself I do not claim to know the opinions of the majority of unionists as to their views on what flag would be best suited for a unified Ireland.

downcow

Hannibal wrote: »

the St Patricks saltire, the flag with the arms of the four provinces and the Green harp flag are other ones.

The north is a strange place. A lot of rugby fans happily support the Irish team with the shamrocks, harps, tricolours and Amhran na bhFiann.

The soccer team play in green, soccer fans wear green but in every other part of their lives they despise the colour.

My theory on the constant displays of union jacks is simply marking territory. They are insecure and feel the need to constantly reassure themselves that they are British but the whole world knows them as Irish. When unionists are away and start talking especially in America, people respond with "what part of Ireland you from", this is what riles them more than anything.

Nationalists/catholics are in the majority for all age groups under 40, with every election there is another five years worth of Catholics reaching voting age and another five years of Protestants basically dying. The voting trends is all Catholic into the future and this feeds into a Catholic majority in universitys at the moment. Catholics in time will start occupying similar positions across the board in employment, this is what will break the unionist stranglehold.
The challenge for Sinn Fein is to keep all these emerging Catholics viewing themselves as Irish and not let them fall into the abyss of "northern Irish".

What a load of tosh. I'll not bore you dealing with every point. ..but to use a term like nationalists/Catholics just shows how you have not grasps the complexities and you are back in 1970 A significant and fast growing percentage of Catholics do no longer regard themselves as nationalist (even you wish it so). It is over Northern Irish is the growing identity. We want tone first class neighbours and friends of ROI but not a United country. And as for identity crisis. I don't know where you've been but you seem to represent the group in crisis - everyone else seems fairly settled

alaimacerc

downcow wrote: »

What a load of tosh. I'll not bore you dealing with every point. ..but to use a term like nationalists/Catholics just shows how you have not grasps the complexities and you are back in 1970 A significant and fast growing percentage of Catholics do no longer regard themselves as nationalist (even you wish it so).

I think you're misreading the terminology completely. To say "Nationalist/Catholic" is not to say the one implies the other, and certainly not that they all have precisely the same identity -- much the same less political views. It's a hedge term, just as "Protestant/Unionist/Loyalist" even more explicitly is. To denote "that community 'over there'" -- *vague gesture* -- that self-identifies in a "family resemblance" sort of way.

If you think you can rid of the concept entirely, you might want to look at voting patterns. Or indeed, the GFA (and enabling legislation) that legally codifies it.

Crooked Jack

downcow wrote: »

What a load of tosh. I'll not bore you dealing with every point. ..but to use a term like nationalists/Catholics just shows how you have not grasps the complexities and you are back in 1970 A significant and fast growing percentage of Catholics do no longer regard themselves as nationalist (even you wish it so). It is over Northern Irish is the growing identity. We want tone first class neighbours and friends of ROI but not a United country. And as for identity crisis. I don't know where you've been but you seem to represent the group in crisis - everyone else seems fairly settled

who is we? Who exactly are you qualified to speak for beyond yourself?

Berserker

Crooked Jack wrote: »

who is we? Who exactly are you qualified to speak for beyond yourself?

By 'we' I understand that the poster is referring to the people of Northern Ireland. I have spent a significant amount of time in Belfast over the past six months and have been surprised by how strong the cross community, Northern Irish, identity has become. In twenty years time, I believe and hope that the hardcore Irish Republican and Loyalist mindsets will be a minority in comparison to Northern Irish identity.

aveytare

downcow wrote: »

What a load of tosh. I'll not bore you dealing with every point. ..but to use a term like nationalists/Catholics just shows how you have not grasps the complexities and you are back in 1970 A significant and fast growing percentage of Catholics do no longer regard themselves as nationalist (even you wish it so). It is over Northern Irish is the growing identity. We want tone first class neighbours and friends of ROI but not a United country. And as for identity crisis. I don't know where you've been but you seem to represent the group in crisis - everyone else seems fairly settled

The vast majority in my experience still tend to be culturally nationalist and vote for nationalist parties though. Maybe North Down's an exception. I think something like 1% of catholics vote for unionist parties. Wouldn't surprise me if Sinn Fein end up the largest party here. It's interesting that at the same time a lot of people from a catholic background aren't too fussed about a United Ireland at the moment.

I'm a bit like that myself, I see myself as Irish but recognise that I'm from Northern Ireland, I could take or leave a United Ireland (right now, anyway) yet have a fairly strong dislike of unionist parties.

Interestingly enough in recent polls (maybe just one poll, I can't really remember tbh) there's apparently been a sharp enough decrease in people seeing themselves as "Northern Irish" and an increase in people seeing themselves as Irish/British. Saw the graph of the results somewhere. Might have a look.

Personally I'm skeptical of this whole Northern Irish identity thing as it's obviously in unionist interests and I'm not exactly particularly enamored by the DUP and Orange Order etc, and I have zero affinity with unionist symbolism and traditions, not that I'm a huge fan of patriotism etc in general.

Thomas_.

Hannibal wrote: »

...

My theory on the constant displays of union jacks is simply marking territory. They are insecure and feel the need to constantly reassure themselves that they are British but the whole world knows them as Irish. When unionists are away and start talking especially in America, people respond with "what part of Ireland you from", this is what riles them more than anything.

.....
The challenge for Sinn Fein is to keep all these emerging Catholics viewing themselves as Irish and not let them fall into the abyss of "northern Irish".

That´s typical Shinner talk. One can be both, Irish and British if one is from Northern Ireland. To make it exclusive to choose between one or another is typical for the Shinners because of their deep hatred of everything British.

I rather hope that younger generations are not so easy deluded by the Shinners propaganda like some Posters appear to be.

Crooked Jack

Thomas_. wrote: »

That´s typical Shinner talk. One can be both, Irish and British if one is from Northern Ireland. To make it exclusive to choose between one or another is typical for the Shinners because of their deep hatred of everything British.

I rather hope that younger generations are not so easy deluded by the Shinners propaganda like some Posters appear to be.

This is the main problem with the anti-shinners on Boards. They rail against things that they claim Sinn Fein say or do but in actual fact don't.

There's some clown on here keeps saying Sinn Fein are in favour of "shipping people out." Same sort of rubbish as this. I suppose I hate Peep Show, Motorhead and my girlfriend 'cause theyre all English?

Grow up.

Regarding Hannibal's post he actually makes a fair point. Look at the expressions of nationalism in the north (feiseanna, féilte, fleadh cheoils) then look at unionism; territory marking, burning flags, marching where they arent welcome etc...) Unionism has a serious identity crisis, only made worse by increased support for Scottish independence.

Crooked Jack

Berserker wrote: »

By 'we' I understand that the poster is referring to the people of Northern Ireland.

Wow, I've gotta meet this great representative fit to speak for all the people of the north. Dont recall voting for him myself, mind.

I have spent a significant amount of time in Belfast over the past six months and have been surprised by how strong the cross community, Northern Irish, identity has become. In twenty years time, I believe and hope that the hardcore Irish Republican and Loyalist mindsets will be a minority in comparison to Northern Irish identity.

What exactly is a "hardcore Irish republican mindset"? You mean people in Ireland who consider themselves to be Irish and dont buy into this ridiculous makey uppy "northern" Irish shite, which, more often than not, is really a Belfast identity just applied to the rest of the north by lazy and/or ignorant people.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Willfarman wrote: »

So in what year were the four provinces of ireland United apart from being United as part of the United Kingdom?

1800.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Ireland

Thomas_.

Crooked Jack wrote: »

This is the main problem with the anti-shinners on Boards. They rail against things that they claim Sinn Fein say or do but in actual fact don't.

There's some clown on here keeps saying Sinn Fein are in favour of "shipping people out." Same sort of rubbish as this. I suppose I hate Peep Show, Motorhead and my girlfriend 'cause theyre all English?

Grow up.

Regarding Hannibal's post he actually makes a fair point. Look at the expressions of nationalism in the north (feiseanna, féilte, fleadh cheoils) then look at unionism; territory marking, burning flags, marching where they arent welcome etc...) Unionism has a serious identity crisis, only made worse by increased support for Scottish independence.

I know about your political stance and I expected nothing else than what you´ve written. You might know yourself as well that within and outside SF, there are different people with a different mindset and attitude. Some play the moderate cart, some the more radical. It´s all in there and one can find them among members and non-members of SF. What they have in common, by all their differences is a staunch Irish nationalism which is, imo, despite their claim to be "inclusive" rather "exclusive" because it demands to stand 100% behind Irishness as their expression of their own identiy. I think that such an "identiy attitude" is fairly exaggerated and in display shows as well some traces of chauvinism.

When it comes to "territory marking", the republicans and nationalists are no different from the unionists. It´s part of an old "Tradition" in NI and it won´t go away that soon, if ever.

There are some people who fall for the Shinners honey trap and there some who see right through them. I count myself to the latter. You can find such types of people and posters not just on boards.ie, they are posting in other places as well.

Crooked Jack

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

1800.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Ireland

I believe there was also a relatively brief period under Brian Boru and other High Kings (plus, y'know, the first dail and all that bothersome stuff) but all that stuff anyway is missing the point that the Irish nation is clearly one entity

Crooked Jack

Thomas_. wrote: »

I know about your political stance and I expected nothing else than what you´ve written. You might know yourself as well that within and outside SF, there are different people with a different mindset and attitude. Some play the moderate cart, some the more radical. It´s all in there and one can find them among members and non-members of SF. What they have in common, by all their differences is a staunch Irish nationalism which is, imo, despite their claim to be "inclusive" rather "exclusive" because it demands to stand 100% behind Irishness as their expression of their own identiy. I think that such an "identiy attitude" is fairly exaggerated and in display shows as well some traces of chauvinism.

This is what I mean, how can you argue with someone who insists on projecting their own ignorance onto the party and rails against that. You clearly know nothign about Sinn Fein.

When it comes to "territory marking", the republicans and nationalists are no different from the unionists. It´s part of an old "Tradition" in NI and it won´t go away that soon, if ever.

Wrong. Painting kerbstones, decking everything in flags, paramilitary flags and murals, all are far far far less common in nationalist areas than unionist ones. That's before we even get into the whole crazed, animalistic frenzy around bonfires.

There are some people who fall for the Shinners honey trap and there some who see right through them. I count myself to the latter. You can find such types of people and posters not just on boards.ie, they are posting in other places as well.

Honey trap? Sinn Fein put their policies out there. You either agree with them or you dont. if you dont, grand, off you go elsewhere, that's how politics works, but this notion that youre somehow seeing through something is frankly, egotistical naval-gazing

Thomas_.

Crooked Jack wrote: »

This is what I mean, how can you argue with someone who insists on projecting their own ignorance onto the party and rails against that. You clearly know nothign about Sinn Fein.

The usual stereotypical reply from a Shinner when his party is questioned and seen in a different way from a different angle. To sum it up, your comment reads like the motto "one party, one voice and one opinion" anything else that is against it, means that one knows nothing about them.

Wrong. Painting kerbstones, decking everything in flags, paramilitary flags and murals, all are far far far less common in nationalist areas than unionist ones. That's before we even get into the whole crazed, animalistic frenzy around bonfires.

Well, you might be reight regarding the kerstones, but the Republican Nationalists have their bonfire too, like the do have the other things you´ve mentioned, except "paramilitary flags" because the IRA always used the tricolour for their own display.

Honey trap? Sinn Fein put their policies out there. You either agree with them or you dont. if you dont, grand, off you go elsewhere, that's how politics works, but this notion that youre somehow seeing through something is frankly, egotistical naval-gazing

Policies are always the pramework of a political party to express their political aims. It´s on paper and there it is, the way how such things can and would be realised is another thing. As well as it is another matter how people who are members of that party or just supporters act and express their opinions either as party members of sympathisers. In the whole Picture, they give some impression to the outsider on how he or she perceives them accordingly.

Where you live, SF is the big Nationalist Party and playes their role accordingly to keep their voters. In the Republic of Ireland, they act as the Socialist Party and alternative to Labour with a lesser degree of nationalistic overtones. In theory and in progaganda they always present themselves as being the "inclusive" Party for all People in Northern Ireland. In practice, "some of" their Cllrs can´t pass an occation to not either complain or interfere with marches of the Ulster Protestant Bands, going that far that despite a leading member of such a band calling on the doors of residents along the route to ask them of whether they have any objections and surprise surprise, None of them expressed even one when asked, the Cllr goes to the PC and declares that the band is not wanted to parade there because he declared the area as being of a close nationalist community.

That is the two-faced side of SF in theory and propaganda, and in praxis by their very representatives in constituencies. Hypcrites the lot of them. I judge them by their doing and not just by the pamphlets they distribute and the claims they make regarding being "inclusive" which in praxis they are proved of being lying because how can a party be that "inclusive" when she even can´t cope with a couple of bands marching on parade. There is more party political point scoring behind the scenes than they would ever admit.

As Long as SF and her followers can´t overcome their stupid and outdated anti-Britishness (where Gerry and Marty have no problem to hide that when meeting some member of the Royal Family), I don´t buy their false pretentions of being "inclusive" because they fail to be even tolerant towards their opponents, in political and cultural terms.

Crooked Jack

Thomas_. wrote: »

The usual stereotypical reply from a Shinner when his party is questioned and seen in a different way from a different angle. To sum it up, your comment reads like the motto "one party, one voice and one opinion" anything else that is against it, means that one knows nothing about them.

How else am i to respond when you clearly know nothing about them? Im at a loss as to what to tell you. You keep hammering Sinn Fein for policies that are not theirs. Im left with no option but to inform you of your mistake.

Well, you might be reight regarding the kerstones, but the Republican Nationalists have their bonfire too, like the do have the other things you´ve mentioned, except "paramilitary flags" because the IRA always used the tricolour for their own display.

Eh? No. A tiny, tiny handful of groups still light interment bonfires. The vast majority of nationalists/republicans do not. Internment commemorations are now marked, for example in Belfast, by Feile an Phobail, there is simply no comparison.
So, no kerbstones, no bonfires, no paramilitary flags. What were all your other great comparisons again?

Policies are always the pramework of a political party to express their political aims. It´s on paper and there it is, the way how such things can and would be realised is another thing. As well as it is another matter how people who are members of that party or just supporters act and express their opinions either as party members of sympathisers. In the whole Picture, they give some impression to the outsider on how he or she perceives them accordingly.

I have literally no idea what youre waffling about here

Where you live, SF is the big Nationalist Party and playes their role accordingly to keep their voters. In the Republic of Ireland, they act as the Socialist Party and alternative to Labour with a lesser degree of nationalistic overtones.

Where I live is Ireland, and in Ireland Sinn fein are, as of the last election, the most popular party. As an all Ireland party they are the same north and south. Page one line of their newry/armagh website, up in the north where theyre a totally different party according to you, for example puts their left credentials ahead of the "nationalistic" ones.

Sinn Féin is a democratic, progressive, left wing political party committed to the creation of a united Ireland of Equals.

In theory and in progaganda they always present themselves as being the "inclusive" Party for all People in Northern Ireland.

Eh? No. Again, this is what I mean, you clearly have no idea what Sinn Fein are about. Firstly, as I said, they are an all Ireland party and dont even use the phrase "northern Ireland."
Secondly, they are a republican party. they set out their policies and goals and those who agree with them vote for them. They do not try to be for "all people" any more than any other party does.

In practice, "some of" their Cllrs can´t pass an occation to not either complain or interfere with marches of the Ulster Protestant Bands, going that far that despite a leading member of such a band calling on the doors of residents along the route to ask them of whether they have any objections and surprise surprise, None of them expressed even one when asked, the Cllr goes to the PC and declares that the band is not wanted to parade there because he declared the area as being of a close nationalist community.

Again, no idea what your waffling about there but of the over 3000 loyalist parades held every year, about a dozen of them are really contentious. Maybe, just maybe Sinn Fein arent the problem in that particular scenario. Maybe loyalists could try taking a leaf out of Sinn Fein's book and willingly divert marches away from contentious areas.

That is the two-faced side of SF in theory and propaganda, and in praxis by their very representatives in constituencies. Hypcrites the lot of them.

Firstly it's "some of" but now it's "hypcrites (sic) the lot of them".

I judge them by their doing and not just by the pamphlets they distribute and the claims they make regarding being "inclusive" which in praxis they are proved of being lying because how can a party be that "inclusive" when she even can´t cope with a couple of bands marching on parade. There is more party political point scoring behind the scenes than they would ever admit.

This marching thing seems to be an issue for you, perhaps this will help.

http://www.thedetail.tv/articles/northern-ireland-s-culture-war-don-t-believe-the-hype

As Long as SF and her followers can´t overcome their stupid and outdated anti-Britishness (where Gerry and Marty have no problem to hide that when meeting some member of the Royal Family),

So they cant over come their anti-britishness but Gerry and Marty, the main leaders, can overcome it to meet english royalty. Youre tying yourself in knots here. Tired of arguing with a version of Sinn Fein that only exists in your head you are now arguing with yourself.

I don´t buy their false pretentions of being "inclusive" because they fail to be even tolerant towards their opponents, in political and cultural terms.

You do know what a political opponent is, dont you?
Culturally, as my links and your own statements on meeting with royalty have shown, youre talking gibberish.

Godge

Crooked Jack wrote: »

What exactly is a "hardcore Irish republican mindset"? You mean people in Ireland who consider themselves to be Irish and dont buy into this ridiculous makey uppy "northern" Irish shite, which, more often than not, is really a Belfast identity just applied to the rest of the north by lazy and/or ignorant people.

If you want an example of the "hardcore Irish republican mindset", read this:

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Look at the expressions of nationalism in the north (feiseanna, féilte, fleadh cheoils) then look at unionism; territory marking, burning flags, marching where they arent welcome etc...) Unionism has a serious identity crisis, only made worse by increased support for Scottish independence.

Oh....that was you.

In contrast, down South, we express our nationalism and Irish culture through the rugby, cricket and soccer teams, through U2, Christy Moore and Thin Lizzy, through outdoor festivals such as Slane, through Roddy Doyle, John Connolly and other modern Irish writers writing through the medium of English, through IMMA, through Fair City, through Hill16 and Croke Park in September, through "Ireland's Call", it is only a minority of our cultural nationalism that focuses on the past. Yes, we have those elements of Easter 1916, the Wolfe Tones, feiseanna, even the Irish language etc. but they are a very small part of what we are. We have grown culturally and nationally far beyond those limited perspectives. That is what makes us so different to Northern nationalists who are stuck in a dead vision of Ireland.

Crooked Jack

Godge wrote: »

If you want an example of the "hardcore Irish republican mindset", read this:



Oh....that was you.

In contrast, down South, we express our nationalism and Irish culture through the rugby, cricket and soccer teams, through U2, Christy Moore and Thin Lizzy, through outdoor festivals such as Slane, through Roddy Doyle, John Connolly and other modern Irish writers writing through the medium of English, through IMMA, through Fair City, through Hill16 and Croke Park in September, through "Ireland's Call", it is only a minority of our cultural nationalism that focuses on the past. Yes, we have those elements of Easter 1916, the Wolfe Tones, feiseanna, even the Irish language etc. but they are a very small part of what we are. We have grown culturally and nationally far beyond those limited perspectives. That is what makes us so different to Northern nationalists who are stuck in a dead vision of Ireland.

And that stuff doesnt apply to nationalism in the north?

http://www.feilebelfast.com/events/

http://www.feilebelfast.com/projects/

There's the Féile an Phobail website's calendar of events and projects. Have a look through that and tell me it's "stuck in a dead vision of Ireland."

Y'know I can take the anti-Republican bile spewed out here, that's just a different political opinion, albeit taken to TUV-like extreme.

What really gets me is the absolute ignorance of some people here regarding people in their own country. Hell, even if you dont think it's your own country it's only up the road. The blind assumptions based on chinese whispers passed down through generations, the bigoted dismissals, the refusal to listen or learn. You're a bigot and every bit the bigot the extremes of northern unionism are.

johnnyskeleton

Crooked Jack wrote: »

You're a bigot and every bit the bigot the extremes of northern unionism are.

MOD: Please don't level personal abuse at other posters.