President Michael Higgins pulls out of 1916 Belfast event

Charles Babbage

In this respect Michael D. has shown that his political stature is less than his physical stature. The commemoration of the 1916 Rising, an event for all Irish people, has been characterised by a disgusting and exclusionary partitionism.

Red Kev wrote: »

Firstly, it's about 60%-40% population in favour of "protestant/unionist".

Really what year is it on your planet, 1975?
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/number-of-protestants-working-fulltime-to-be-eclipsed-by-catholics-in-labour-market-first-in-northern-ireland-34586274.html

Red Kev wrote: »

Secondly, about half the "nationalist" population of NI want to remain with the UK.

They vote for nationalist parties to arrange things so that leaving the UK is feasible. Unfortunately the useless politicians couldn't organise a pissup in a brewery.

Red Kev wrote: »

Fourthly, you need some form of international agreement to allow all this to happen, the UK would need to agree to this.

That would be called the Good Friday Agreement.

Flipper22

bilston wrote: »

Actually having just read the BBC report it says that while no one from the DUP will be attending they have no problem with the Irish President attending. Seems to me he should have attended anyway. The only person making a headline out of this story is Michael D Higgins, or at least those advising him.

The issue is that he agreed to go to all three on the basis of cross party support and attendance at all three. He wouldn't want to appear to support anything even mildly contentious which is what the DUP have done by refusing to attend.

I think the real difference is that many in the South try their best to draw a distinction between 'old' violence and the troubles. Unionists have no truck with the independence of the South and so can see that this is utter nonsense.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

timthumbni

BalcombeSt4 wrote: »

I think it would have been a lot easier for Sinn Fein to have worked wit the PUP instead of the DUP. SF & PUP are both leftys and are bound to agree on some issues, the DUP seem so righ-wing on nearlly every social issue it would be impossible for SF to agree with them.

Whilst I agree that SF and the PUP have a lot in common (both being the political wing of terrorists) I'm not sure what Good it would do. Barely any unionists vote for the PUP so SF may as well talk to the monster raving looney party.

I wonder aside from you user name relating to an IRA gang do you really have any idea about Northern Ireland? It would seem not.

Flipper22

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

??

The Republic obviously

Charles Babbage

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

he means the 26 counties, as you well know.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

timthumbni

BalcombeSt4 wrote: »

I don't think I have, I'm sure your average joe Unionist is grand but they seem to be the exception tho it's thosse women who wear UJ dresses & fellas who dance on police vans & shout at Nolan on the Nolan show about trivel things who are the norm & tell George Galloway to go back to Britain, the irony seemed to be lost on the Loyalists & his mates, maybe they Ulster Nationalists.

Just saw this one. Right so you haven't met any unionists, but you go on to post the above drivel. Excellent. Re the Nolan show you should know it's like the Jerry springer of Norn iron. He acts the devils advocate (look it up) and both sides lap it up. It's not something anyone should watch or listen to the radio show but there's always an audience.... Just like a car crash...

Jimoslimos

Red Kev wrote: »

Firstly, it's about 60%-40% population in favour of "protestant/unionist".

Secondly, about half the "nationalist" population of NI want to remain with the UK.

Thirdly, you would need a referendum in the RoI. I think if you honestly gave the people the choice here, faced with the rising security issues and costs of that, then a lot of people would be against it.

Fourthly, you need some form of international agreement to allow all this to happen, the UK would need to agree to this.

To my knowledge no party has proposed a referendum on the issue in the Dail, I'd like to see it happen so we can put the issue to bed for at least another generation.

It's that exact kind of petulant crap in the OP that turns me fully off a united Ireland, we have enough issues of our own without taking on more problems. NI needs to sort itself out, drop the sectarianism and try to reconcile itself in the long run.

I'm up in North Antrim several times a year for work, most people don't give a crap about who their work colleagues/neighbours are, but a significant number of politicians on both sides use it to flame votes for themselves rather than having the populace think along more regular voting lines like the rest of Europe such as voting left, right, liberal, green etc.

Shame, as it's a lovely place with great people.

I agree with a lot of your post, a UI is unlikely to happen anytime soon regardless of shifts in religion demographics.

However in the points highlighted you're essentially arguing for appeasement of terrorists and ignoring the Good Friday Agreement. Mealy-mouthed cowardice

Hercule Poirot

Patww79 wrote: »

So, Ireland then.

Ireland = 32 counties

Republic of Ireland = 26 counties

Northern Ireland = 6 counties

uck51js9zml2yt

Clonmel1000 wrote: »

Makes you wish we had a 32 county Ireland doesn't it.....

No !! Would you really want all those bigoted Nordies a part of the country and more of them in the Dail. having 1 in Kildare St is bad enough:D

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

Charles Babbage

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Ireland has 32 counties, as you also well know.

Do these immature posts amuse you?

seamus

Red Kev wrote: »

Thirdly, you would need a referendum in the RoI. I think if you honestly gave the people the choice here, faced with the rising security issues and costs of that, then a lot of people would be against it.

It would definitely require a lot of consideration. First off would be the vote in NI. This has to happen first because ultimately the decision affects them the most.
If that vote wasn't a comprehensive "yes" (I'm thinking turnout of 80% with a two-thirds majority voting "yes", then it would be folly for people in the RoI to vote in favour of it.

Far better the situation we have now with a relatively peaceful North poised to grow its economy, than a 32-county Republic under siege from Unionist terrorism.

Fourthly, you need some form of international agreement to allow all this to happen, the UK would need to agree to this.

I don't think the UK would be too concerned to be honest. If they were happy that the votes were free, fair and representative (e.g. the unionist community hadn't boycotted it), they would likely give whatever assistance they could to moving it across.

The Scottish referendum showed that while the UK will obviously encourage a nation to remain in the union, it won't stand in the way of one asking to leave.

nullzero

Northern Ireland should become an independent state and stop relying on support from the UK. All the sectarian sh1t would be forced to stop when they realize that they have no economy and little to offer the world. The most petty people and inconsequential place on earth. They need a good dose of reality.

Rezident

Unionists make me smile, they're like children, except without all the advantages of children.

jimgoose

keano_afc

So the Queen comes here, gets a great reception, visits the Garden of Remembrance and then throws out a cupla focal. No animosity. But the DUP just cant stomach the idea of the same cordiality being extended to our President. Sums it up really.

timthumbni

I'm not sure what the big issue is here. The council dinner will still go ahead will it not??? If mr Higgins decides not to attend then surely that's an issue for him and the organisers.

Are they saying the unionists should be forced to attend?? Or that they said they would go originally and now won't.

CrabRevolution

keano_afc wrote: »

So the Queen comes here, gets a great reception, visits the Garden of Remembrance and then throws out a cupla focal. No animosity. But the DUP just cant stomach the idea of the same cordiality being extended to our President. Sums it up really.

The UK ambassador was present for the 1916 parade Sunday, and said it had a very inclusive feel to it. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35908742

From what I can see, most ordinary people in Britain don't care as much about Ireland's past or politics. Most are indifferent about the north, and support for the union with the north is "softer", so to speak, compared to their connection to union with Scotland. They define themselves by what they are: British (and/or Welsh, English, Scottish).

Unionists up north define themselves by what they reckon they aren't, namely Irish. They feel the need to put down Ireland and Irishness because their "identity" consists simply of not wanting to be Irish.

That's the reason the OO wants to march through nationalist areas. It's the reason they burn hundreds of tricolours every July on bonfires.

It's the same reason why over in Britain, while there's not much support, there's not much hostility to Welsh or Scots Gaelic, they're ambivalent to indigenous languages really. Names like Alba and Cymru are proudly emblazoned on jerseys and crests there. They're proud of their heritage.

Meanwhile up North the unionists do their best to accentuate that they aren't from Ireland and that the Irish language is nothing to them. They do their utmost to denigrate and put down the Irish language, calling it a foreign language, mocking it in their own assembly and giving out about simple things like manhole covers for having Irish on them.

It's the same reason that 98% of the UK was and still are fine with the Union Flag only being flown from certain buildings on designated days. When this was extended to Belfast, there was uproar and protests amongst unionsts. It's not enough to simply be, and act like a normal part of the UK for them, the flag had to be up for 365 days a year.

timthumbni

CrabRevolution wrote: »

The UK ambassador was present for the 1916 parade Sunday, and said it had a very inclusive feel to it. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35908742

From what I can see, most ordinary people in Britain don't care as much about Ireland's past or politics. Most are indifferent about the north, and support for the union with the north is "softer", so to speak, compared to their connection to union with Scotland. They define themselves by what they are: British (and/or Welsh, English, Scottish).

Unionists up north define themselves by what they reckon they aren't, namely Irish. They feel the need to put down Ireland and Irishness because their "identity" consists simply of not wanting to be Irish.

That's the reason the OO wants to march through nationalist areas. It's the reason they burn hundreds of tricolours every July on bonfires.

It's the same reason why over in Britain, while there's not much support, there's not much hostility to Welsh or Scots Gaelic, they're ambivalent to indigenous languages really. Names like Alba and Cymru are proudly emblazoned on jerseys and crests there. They're proud of their heritage.

Meanwhile up North the unionists do their best to accentuate that they aren't from Ireland and that the Irish language is nothing to them. They do their utmost to denigrate and put down the Irish language, calling it a foreign language, mocking it in their own assembly and giving out about simple things like manhole covers for having Irish on them.

It's the same reason that 98% of the UK was and still are fine with the Union Flag only being flown from certain buildings on designated days. When this was extended to Belfast, there was uproar and protests amongst unionsts. It's not enough to simply be, and act like a normal part of the UK for them, the flag had to be up for 365 days a year.

Too simplistic a view of Norn Ireland unionists to be honest. The Easter things up here for example in lurgan and Londonderry were anything but "inclusive". To be honest most unionists don't know and don't care what goes on in Dublin or elsewhere in the republic.

Masked IRA men (or the i can't believe it's not the ira) dissidents wearing sunglasses and berets promising unfinished business doesnt exactly lead unionists to be tripping themselves to attend them.

But of course you could use it as an excuse to slag off unionists in general.

riffmongous

timthumbni wrote: »

I'm not sure what the big issue is here. The council dinner will still go ahead will it not??? If mr Higgins decides not to attend then surely that's an issue for him and the organisers.

Are they saying the unionists should be forced to attend?? Or that they said they would go originally and now won't.

My understanding is all the parties decided to have 3 dinners to commemorate the Ulster Covenant, Easter Rising and Somme. Higgins was invited to the Easter Rising dinner and accepted assuming that since there was consensus about organising the events, all the parties would attend. Then he finds out the DUP are not attending and he doesn't wish to attend an 'no-unionists' event because it's looks bad and put's him in an awkward position. Not attending now also makes him look bad in the eyes of northern nationalists.

And the end result will now be two completely separate celebrations for the Easter Rising and the Somme and a golden chance to build some bridges through commemorating common experiences is missed, depressing but hardly surprising.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Michael D and pulling out are not two phrases I ever want to think about again

timthumbni

riffmongous wrote: »

My understanding is all the parties decided to have 3 dinners to commemorate the Ulster Covenant, Easter Rising and Somme. Higgins was invited to the Easter Rising dinner and accepted assuming that since there was consensus about organising the events, all the parties would attend. Then he finds out the DUP are not attending and he doesn't wish to attend an 'no-unionists' event because it's looks bad and put's him in an awkward position. Not attending now also makes him look bad in the eyes of northern nationalists.

And the end result will now be two completely separate celebrations for the Easter Rising and the Somme and a golden chance to build some bridges through commemorating common experiences is missed, depressing but hardly surprising.

Well of the 3 of those things only the Somme could really be said to a common experience amongst unionists and nationalists in Northern Ireland I would have thought.

At least the unionists have said they don't have anything against the dinner going ahead, just that they would not be attending. I think the uup have since come out and said they wouldn't attend either after wee Higgins said he wasn't going.

Did the DUP actually say they were going to attend. I know the council agreed the 3 occasions but I can't imagine that everyone in the council would be forced to attend.

riffmongous

timthumbni wrote: »

Well of the 3 of those things only the Somme could really be said to a common experience amongst unionists and nationalists in Northern Ireland I would have thought.

At least the unionists have said they don't have anything against the dinner going ahead, just that they would not be attending. I think the uup have since come out and said they wouldn't attend either after wee Higgins said he wasn't going.

Did the DUP actually say they were going to attend. I know the council agreed the 3 occasions but I can't imagine that everyone in the council would be forced to attend.

Well common for the people of this island, one to represent each side and one almost neutral (depending on how it is presented). If you ignore the other one you don't agree with it lessens the impact. I can't find out anything about the Covenant agreement dinner.. this would be interesting.

The Alliance party claim the DUP did say they were going to attend, DUP say they didn't, seems like word against word with no written agreement. The fallout will be I guess the nationalists will now boycott the Somme commemorations, which some of them will probably be happy about, and the cycle will continue with both sides views being reinforced rather than challenged.

BalcombeSt4

I think the lesson here is forced democracy dose not work. Ever since 1921 there's been some sort of problem with the place.

BalcombeSt4

riffmongous wrote: »

My understanding is all the parties decided to have 3 dinners to commemorate the Ulster Covenant, Easter Rising and Somme. Higgins was invited to the Easter Rising dinner and accepted assuming that since there was consensus about organising the events, all the parties would attend. Then he finds out the DUP are not attending and he doesn't wish to attend an 'no-unionists' event because it's looks bad and put's him in an awkward position. Not attending now also makes him look bad in the eyes of northern nationalists.

And the end result will now be two completely separate celebrations for the Easter Rising and the Somme and a golden chance to build some bridges through commemorating common experiences is missed, depressing but hardly surprising.

So? 90% of Unionists have never liked nationalists, ever. Don't know why a like like from lord of the rings would change that.

Idbatterim

In fairness to him, I'd say it's a long time since he's pulled out of anything!

Iwasfrozen

CrabRevolution wrote: »

The UK ambassador was present for the 1916 parade Sunday, and said it had a very inclusive feel to it. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35908742

From what I can see, most ordinary people in Britain don't care as much about Ireland's past or politics. Most are indifferent about the north, and support for the union with the north is "softer", so to speak, compared to their connection to union with Scotland. They define themselves by what they are: British (and/or Welsh, English, Scottish).

Unionists up north define themselves by what they reckon they aren't, namely Irish. They feel the need to put down Ireland and Irishness because their "identity" consists simply of not wanting to be Irish.

That's the reason the OO wants to march through nationalist areas. It's the reason they burn hundreds of tricolours every July on bonfires.

It's the same reason why over in Britain, while there's not much support, there's not much hostility to Welsh or Scots Gaelic, they're ambivalent to indigenous languages really. Names like Alba and Cymru are proudly emblazoned on jerseys and crests there. They're proud of their heritage.

Meanwhile up North the unionists do their best to accentuate that they aren't from Ireland and that the Irish language is nothing to them. They do their utmost to denigrate and put down the Irish language, calling it a foreign language, mocking it in their own assembly and giving out about simple things like manhole covers for having Irish on them.

It's the same reason that 98% of the UK was and still are fine with the Union Flag only being flown from certain buildings on designated days. When this was extended to Belfast, there was uproar and protests amongst unionsts. It's not enough to simply be, and act like a normal part of the UK for them, the flag had to be up for 365 days a year.

It's not really comparable, Britain isn't under constant threat of annexation by another country. They haven't had to fight for their right to self determination like northern Unionists.
Imagine what Britain's attitude would be to Germany if German annexation was a real threat?

If Ireland forsoke it's claim to Northern Ireland Unionist attitudes would quickly soften. Where we're headed no is only a rehash of the troubles as nationalists get more and more aggressive / provocative.

The bonfires do help in that regard though, a United Ireland can only happen if the majority of Southerners vote for it and the more Unionists promise Bedlam the less likely that vote is to pass.

R P McMurphy

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

It's not really comparable, Britain isn't under constant threat of annexation by another country. They haven't had to fight for their right to self determination like northern Unionists.
Imagine what Britain's attitude would be to Germany if German annexation was a real threat?

If Ireland forsoke it's claim to Northern Ireland Unionist attitudes would quickly soften. Where we're headed no is only a rehash of the troubles as nationalists get more and more aggressive / provocative.

The bonfires do help in that regard though, a United Ireland can only happen if the majority of Southerners vote for it and the more Unionists promise Bedlam the less likely that vote is to pass.

You are like a fossil living in the past, with a tired jaded perspective