President Michael Higgins pulls out of 1916 Belfast event

steddyeddy

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.

It's posts like these that paints unionists as the bad guys.

Iwasfrozen

R P McMurphy wrote: »

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

In what way?

Could you imagine if nationalists in Ireland lived under constant threat of annexation if British people living there voted for it? You don't think such a situation would encourage resentment?

If the threat of annexation were removed that resentment would no longer have motivation. You'd have softening on both sides actually as the national question was finally laid to rest.

karma_

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

In what way?

Could you imagine if nationalists in Ireland lived under constant threat of annexation if British people living there voted for it? You don't think such a situation would encourage resentment?

If the threat of annexation were removed that resentment would no longer have motivation. You'd have softening on both sides actually as the national question was finally laid to rest.

LOL

LeinsterDub

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

If Ireland forsoke it's claim to Northern Ireland Unionist attitudes would quickly soften.

Didn't we do that nearly 20 years ago?

seamus

I'm not sure why Iwasfrozen is getting so much stick here.

He's right to a certain extent - NI unionists are not going to look favourably on any potential reunification vote, and do likely feel threatened by the idea that it could happen.

I guess the only problem here is that there's no viable alternative. You can't "remove" the threat of reunification. At best NI could vote itself a sovereign, independent state. But I imagine neither the nationalists or the unionists would be happy with that.

If the UK made it "illegal" to hold a referendum on the status of NI, then you will find nationalist sentiment rising again very quickly.
If the Republic removed its claim to the six counties, once again I imagine you'd see a major kick off in violence in both the Republic and the North.

In addition, there is nothing ever stopping, in theory, a future government from unifying. This applies to all countries. There is no legal framework that you could put in place that, for example, would prevent the Nordic countries from ever becoming a single entity. Whatever legal frameworks can be erected, can be always be removed at some point in the future.

Iwasfrozen

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Didn't we do that nearly 20 years ago?

Yes and no, we left the door open to unification, I think NI would be more peaceful long term if we closed that door.

VinLieger

Can we not all just accept the DUP are intransigent troglodytes and instead of be surprised at their backwards thinking just laugh and shake our heads whenever they do something like this?

Iwasfrozen

VinLieger wrote: »

Can we not all just accept the DUP are intransigent troglodytes and instead of be surprised at their backwards thinking just laugh and shake our heads whenever they do something like this?

Whatever about the DUP's attitudes towards religion or homosexuality you can hardly blame them for not wanting to commemorate terrorists.

You may not agree with it but it is a principled stance, it would be nice if our own government was a little more honest with itself concerning the men of 1916.

But all states embellish history to fit their agenda and at times justify their existence, Ireland isnt unique in this regard.

karma_

seamus wrote: »

I'm not sure why Iwasfrozen is getting so much stick here.

Reading his next post should clear it up for you so haha

VinLieger

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Whatever about the DUP's attitudes towards religion or homosexuality you can hardly blame them for not wanting to commemorate terrorists.

You may not agree with it but it is a principled stance, it would be nice if our own government was a little more honest with itself concerning the men of 1916.

But all states embellish history to fit their agenda and at times justify their existence, Ireland isnt unique in this regard.

One mans terrorist is anothers freedom fighter, can you say hand on heart the DUP have never commemorated the life or actions of someone who died as a member of a unionist/loyalist paramilitary organisation? ie. a terrorist?

Seamai

VinLieger wrote: »

Can we not all just accept the DUP are intransigent troglodytes and instead of be surprised at their backwards thinking just laugh and shake our heads whenever they do something like this?

I don't know if they're ever going to change. I sent a polite email to Arleen Foster 10 days ago after she past that remark about the leaders of the 1916 rising being egotists. I told her that she needed to me more careful with her remarks if she was interested in any sort of peaceful coexistence on this island. I was surprised to actually get a response back from her, however, I was more taken aback by here rudeness which I mentioned in my response back which this time was less than polite. The woman and her party are nothing but a bunch of knuckle dragging bigots and are not deserving of an iota of respect.

karma_

VinLieger wrote: »

One mans terrorist is anothers freedom fighter, can you say hand on heart the DUP have never commemorated the life or actions of someone who died as a member of a unionist/loyalist paramilitary organisation? ie. a terrorist?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-11164817

Iwasfrozen

VinLieger wrote: »

One mans terrorist is anothers freedom fighter, can you say hand on heart the DUP have never commemorated the life or actions of someone who died as a member of a unionist/loyalist paramilitary organisation? ie. a terrorist?

No, I can't say that and the DUP are just as bad as SF in that regard.

I wouldn't criticize a nationalist for not wanting to attend a commemoration for loyalist terrorists with the British head of State though.

Yet switch it around, unionists refusing to attend a commemoration for nationalist terrorists with the Irish head of State and they get criticized for it.

karma_

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

No, I can't say that and the DUP are just as bad as SF in that regard.

I wouldn't criticize a nationalist for not wanting to attend a commemoration for loyalist terrorists with the British head of State though.

Yet switch it around, unionists refusing to attend a commemoration for nationalist terrorists with the Irish head of State and they get criticized for it.

Nice non sequitur, you were saying about why we should close any door in regards to a future reunification...

Last time I read muck like this I was reading stormfront for a laugh

Iwasfrozen

karma_ wrote: »

Nice non sequitur, you were saying about why we should close any door in regards to a future reunification...

Last time I read muck like this I was reading stormfront for a laugh

Yes, I've covered that in my previous posts.

LeinsterDub

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Yes and no, we left the door open to unification, I think NI would be more peaceful long term if we closed that door.

So we would be essentially saying we'd ignore the democratic will of people from both states?

karma_

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Yes, I've covered that in my previous posts.

You've covered quite a bit in previous posts as right. My personal favorite was when you managed to immediately pull the rug from under the feet of the only poster who stepped in to defend you.

Stay gold, Ponyboy, stay gold.

VinLieger

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

No, I can't say that and the DUP are just as bad as SF in that regard.

I wouldn't criticize a nationalist for not wanting to attend a commemoration for loyalist terrorists with the British head of State though.

Yet switch it around, unionists refusing to attend a commemoration for nationalist terrorists with the Irish head of State and they get criticized for it.

Firstly they agreed to it, no matter how much they want to deny the truth thats a fact.

Secondly your saying the men and women of 1916 should be put on the same level as the modern day IRA, PIRA, RIRA or other modern day nationalist groups?

congress3

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

No, I can't say that and the DUP are just as bad as SF in that regard.

I wouldn't criticize a nationalist for not wanting to attend a commemoration for loyalist terrorists with the British head of State though.

Yet switch it around, unionists refusing to attend a commemoration for nationalist terrorists with the Irish head of State and they get criticized for it.

By attending the Ulster covenant dinner the nationalists were willing to attend an event commemorating loyalist terrorists ...
I'm sure it's not because they wanted too but in the interests of peace, reconciliation and improving inter-community relations.

Sort of sums up one of the big differences in attitude between unionism and nationalism in the North.

Strazdas

congress3 wrote: »

By attending the Ulster covenant dinner the nationalists were willing to attend an event commemorating loyalist terrorists ...
I'm sure it's not because they wanted too but in the interests of peace, reconciliation and improving inter-community relations.

Sort of sums up one of the big differences in attitude between unionism and nationalism in the North.

I have to say the Unionist (particularly DUP) response to the 1916 commemorations has been very mealy mouthed, describing the rebels as "terrorists" and not even caring whether they insult or offend their next door neighbours, just as long as they get their point across.

Iwasfrozen

congress3 wrote: »

By attending the Ulster covenant dinner the nationalists were willing to attend an event commemorating loyalist terrorists ...
I'm sure it's not because they wanted too but in the interests of peace, reconciliation and improving inter-community relations.

Sort of sums up one of the big differences in attitude between unionism and nationalism in the North.

Is peace without commemorating terrorists too much to ask?

steddyeddy

seamus wrote: »

I'm not sure why Iwasfrozen is getting so much stick here.

He's right to a certain extent - NI unionists are not going to look favourably on any potential reunification vote, and do likely feel threatened by the idea that it could happen.

I guess the only problem here is that there's no viable alternative. You can't "remove" the threat of reunification. At best NI could vote itself a sovereign, independent state. But I imagine neither the nationalists or the unionists would be happy with that.

If the UK made it "illegal" to hold a referendum on the status of NI, then you will find nationalist sentiment rising again very quickly.
If the Republic removed its claim to the six counties, once again I imagine you'd see a major kick off in violence in both the Republic and the North.

In addition, there is nothing ever stopping, in theory, a future government from unifying. This applies to all countries. There is no legal framework that you could put in place that, for example, would prevent the Nordic countries from ever becoming a single entity. Whatever legal frameworks can be erected, can be always be removed at some point in the future.

The poster said this:

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.

It's no mystery why the poster is getting stick.

Iwasfrozen

steddyeddy wrote: »

The poster said this:



It's no mystery why the poster is getting stick.

From their perspective, yes.

But even you must admit their are placed in an extra ordinary position.

What other country but the UK would tolerate the threat of annexation constantly looming. Would the US? Would France? I doubt it.

Remove the threat of annexation, remove the prospect of a United Ireland and Unionists will no longer fear their existence is under threat.

karma_

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

From their perspective, yes.

But even you must admit their are placed in an extra ordinary position.

What other country but the UK would tolerate the threat of annexation constantly looming. Would the US? Would France? I doubt it.

Remove the threat of annexation, remove the prospect of a United Ireland and Unionists will no longer fear their existence is under threat.

What of the Nationalists in the North?

If only Unionists and Nationalists had thought to agree on a deal, around 1998 called the GFA that tackled this very problem, we wouldn't need to... oh wait.

Iwasfrozen

karma_ wrote: »

What of the Nationalists in the North?

If only Unionists and Nationalists had thought to agree on a deal, around 1998 called the GFA that tackled this very problem, we wouldn't need to... oh wait.

They would have all rights as any other citizen of the UK.

The GFA lessened the tension but normality can never exist while the threat of annexation loomed.

Now the Irish government should close the door on that prospect and let both groups get on with living together.

karma_

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

They would have all rights as any other citizen of the UK.

Just no democratic rights of self determination should the majority wish?

I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that that would not be in accordance with the rights of other UK citizens. (Looking at you Scotland).

Iwasfrozen

karma_ wrote: »

Just no democratic rights of self determination should the majority wish?

I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that that would not be in accordance with the rights of other UK citizens. (Looking at you Scotland).

That's standard international practice, few developed nations would allow a region vote to join a neighbour, but most have sufficient legislation in place to protect their minorities.

karma_

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

That's standard international practice, few developed nations would alloe a region vote to join a neighbour, but most have sufficient legislation in place to protect their minorities.

I think I just lost brain cells reading your post. It's that bad.

Arsemageddon

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

They would have all rights as any other citizen of the UK.

The GFA lessened the tension but normality can never exist while the threat of annexation loomed.

Now the Irish government should close the door on that prospect and let both groups get on with living together.

Articles 2 and 3 were aspirational, there was never a realistic threat of the Republic invading and annexing the north.

The GFA signed the Republic up to the principle that the people of Northern Ireland will democratically whether or not there will be a united Ireland. A majority of peole in the Republic voted to remove articles 2 and 3.

Exactly what more do you want?

Iwasfrozen

Arsemageddon wrote: »

Articles 2 and 3 were aspirational, there was never a realistic threat of the Republic invading and annexing the north.

The GFA signed the Republic up to the principle that the people of Northern Ireland will democratically whether or not there will be a united Ireland. A majority of peole in the Republic voted to remove articles 2 and 3.

Exactly what more do you want?

To remove the prospect of a United Ireland. Without the threat of annexation looming and the existential threat that comes with it Unionists will no longer have to define themselves by what they aren't.

Remove the prospect of Union, answer the national question and I believe you'll see a sofenimg on both sides as people simply get on with their lives.