nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Border Poll discussion

segarox

i hope some people from northern ireland are reading this because it concerns them.

i've been watching a few videos on what might happen to the north following brexit and one of the options is to reunify with ireland, which i believe, is not everyone cup of tea. me personally as an irishman, i have no strong feelings about this but i think it'd be nice to see a complete ireland on a map. however, i think i may have seen an option that hasn't been considered.

what if the north was to vote to rejoin ireland but in name only; establish yourselves as a separate state with your own government, your own police force (technically you have that already; Stormont and the PSNI) and your own currency.

could have the benefits of staying in the EU and not have the unpleasant taste of irish in your mouths. or am i talking rubbish? please, i'd to hear what you have to say.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

James Brown

RobMc59 wrote: »

Apart from the same tired old waffle being trundled out by SF and a few posters on here trying to spin it up, is there really any appetite for a UI at the moment?That's not to say the people of NI might consider a referendum in the future.But it is alarming that before any of that has happened there are people wanting to say what is and isn't acceptable-smacks of condescending preaching to me.

That doesn't back up your claims. You're generalising again. Most of us are open to discussing compromises. The thread is based on a 'what if'. Unionists have a right to say what is and isn't acceptable, as do the rest, that's what the discussion is. You claim it's all 'my way or the highway' on one side.

RobMc59

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You've been reading a different thread to me. You keep coming in with sweeping generalisations like this. I think you're choosing not to understand the points many are making. Maybe you could quote a few?

Apart from the same tired old waffle being trundled out by SF and a few posters on here trying to spin it up, is there really any appetite for a UI at the moment?That's not to say the people of NI might consider a referendum in the future.But it is alarming that before any of that has happened there are people wanting to say what is and isn't acceptable-smacks of condescending preaching to me.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

As to compulsory Irish, I for one have no problem with that. Compulsory Irish is a failed experiment in supporting the language. It is much more productive to enshrine it as equal and to fund those who wish to speak it and use it.

The really strange aspect of this is that Ulster Irish died out. The last native speakers died during the 1980s.

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

"The last speakers of varieties of Irish native to what is now Northern Ireland died in the 20th century. Irish as spoken in Counties Down[9] and Fermanagh were the first to die out, but native speakers of varieties spoken in the Glens of Antrim[10] and the Sperrin Mountains of County Tyrone[11] and County Londonderry survived into the 1950s and 1970s respectively, whilst the Armagh dialect survived until the 1930s or '40s.[12] Varieties of Irish indigenous to the territory of Northern Ireland finally became extinct when the last native speaker of Rathlin Irish died in 1985.[13] Séamus Bhriain Mac Amhlaigh, who died in 1983, was reportedly the last native-speaker of Antrim Irish."

The Irish now spoken in Northern Ireland is imported from Donegal Irish. Ironically, it is nearly as much an imported or reinvented language as Ulster-Scots.

James Brown

downcow wrote: »

I think most in unionist community (including myself) see Irish signage exactly the same as the flags you mention above.
ie nationalists see it as their culture. It is very dear to many representing something of their identity and they enjoy seeing it displayed. Others of course like to use it to antagonise their neighbours from writing chuckie ar la on unioinst property to demanding it on goverment materials.
All of this applies just the same to flags on lamp posts.

...and of course both very effectively mark territory as you travel around NI

TBF, 'Ulster' and the red hand symbol are used by terrorists and as part of Ulster/Unionist/Irish heritage and culture. As with flags and language, we choose how we want to perceive them to a certain extent. The vast majority of people see Irish language as what it is a language associated with Ireland. Any criminal element or terrorist would also use English but we accept that as okay and give no negative connotations to it.

Farawayhome

I think we should just take over Northern Ireland. Remove many of them from their homes and land and replace them with Nationalists. After a while, we will award control of Northern Ireland to the Nationalists. They will be allowed to treat unionists as second class citizens. Sounds reasonable?

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

I think most in unionist community (including myself) see Irish signage exactly the same as the flags you mention above.
ie nationalists see it as their culture. It is very dear to many representing something of their identity and they enjoy seeing it displayed. Others of course like to use it to antagonise their neighbours from writing chuckie ar la on unioinst property to demanding it on goverment materials.
All of this applies just the same to flags on lamp posts.

...and of course both very effectively mark territory as you travel around NI

So you cannot get above spite and being taunted by a tiny minority and see the importance of the language to those who value it.

That is an unwillingness to compromise, no matter how you phrase it.

There will be, as there exists now, no way to stop the ignorant and the mindless from taunting and provocation, on both sides.
What we will have to do is move on without them and hope they catch up.

On that basis, I see no real reason for an objection to the Irish language.

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Before I answer this, can you tell us, what your problem is with the Irish language?
Is it a threat? An insult to you? Or is it just that it irritates you so much, you cannot even look at it, or accept that some might get value from it?

I think most in unionist community (including myself) see Irish signage exactly the same as the flags you mention above.
ie nationalists see it as their culture. It is very dear to many representing something of their identity and they enjoy seeing it displayed. Others of course like to use it to antagonise their neighbours from writing chuckie ar la on unioinst property to demanding it on goverment materials.
All of this applies just the same to flags on lamp posts.

...and of course both very effectively mark territory as you travel around NI

James Brown

RobMc59 wrote: »

You are correct-some posters idea of 'compromise'appears to be-'do as we say and don't be awkward!'

RobMc59 wrote: »

As blanch has pointed out some here choose to harp on about the past and when discussing the future for Ireland want everything their own way-before a referendum has even been proposed they are settling down red lines and spitting their dummies out if others have the audacity to disagree.

You've been reading a different thread to me. You keep coming in with sweeping generalisations like this. I think you're choosing not to understand the points many are making. Maybe you could quote a few?

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

I have no problem whatsover reciprocating these gestures as they are hardly very challenging.
i.e. I am willing to compromise on flags, anthems, marching, as long as it is respectful and non triumphalist, I will respect the identity of nationalists also.

anything else you would like?

.and i think i would be happy with not flying my flag or playing my anthem where it upsets you if you can reciprocate that to?
and i'll also not put up Ulster-Scots signs where you don't want them if you agree to not put up Irish signs where i don't want them

Before I answer this, can you tell us, what your problem is with the Irish language?
Is it a threat? An insult to you? Or is it just that it irritates you so much, you cannot even look at it, or accept that some might get value from it?

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

Unionist have been asking for years what does this mean?
Give us a few examples of what you would like that doesn’t currently happen?

The key issue is in the brackets.

Unionists need to live up to the commitments within the GFA, under rights and parity of esteem. Because you object to it as a single political party is not an excuse for blocking them.

Until they are instigated, there is not 'equal status'.

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

This is ridiculous.
The supporters of a UI here have indicated they are willing to compromise on flags, anthems, marching, as long as it is respectful and non triumphalist, they will respect the identity of unionists also.

In contrast, when asked what they would be willing to compromise on, unionists say, nothing at all.

I have no problem whatsover reciprocating these gestures as they are hardly very challenging.
i.e. I am willing to compromise on flags, anthems, marching, as long as it is respectful and non triumphalist, I will respect the identity of nationalists also.

anything else you would like?

.and i think i would be happy with not flying my flag or playing my anthem where it upsets you if you can reciprocate that to?
and i'll also not put up Ulster-Scots signs where you don't want them if you agree to not put up Irish signs where i don't want them

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

This is ridiculous.
The supporters of a UI here have indicated they are willing to compromise on flags, anthems, marching, as long as it is respectful and non triumphalist, they will respect the identity of unionists also.

In contrast, when asked what they would be willing to compromise on, unionists say, nothing at all.

And none of the items on my list, refers exclusively to the past - they are all ongoing reactions equaling NO - Never- No surrender...etc etc etc.

Give us a few examples of what you would like unionists to compromise on?

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Extend equal status to those who identify as Irish (language rights etc)

Unionist have been asking for years what does this mean?
Give us a few examples of what you would like that doesn’t currently happen?

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

I really don't think you understand.

A united Ireland needs tacit acceptance from unionists. That is a huge compromise, beyond any of the things that you have suggested that nationalists are prepared to compromise on.

You have also left out some of the more important issues that need compromises from the nationalist side such as compulsory Irish which absolutely must go in a united Ireland.

So the majority vote for a UI and that is all that is required of unionists?
The onus will be on all democrats to build a new united future. That will require compromise from both sides.

The UIers have clearly stated what compromises they are willing to make but all partitionists and unionists seem willing to do is state their redlines.

As to compulsory Irish, I for one have no problem with that. Compulsory Irish is a failed experiment in supporting the language. It is much more productive to enshrine it as equal and to fund those who wish to speak it and use it.

I am of the opinion it is just a stick for some belligerent unionists to wield anyhow, as none of them here have shown how it damages or dilutes their identity ot how it is a threat to it.

facehugger99

blanch152 wrote: »

You have also left out some of the more important issues that need compromises from the nationalist side such as compulsory Irish which absolutely must go in a united Ireland.

We really shouldn't be waiting for a mythical UI to remove compulsory Irish from the curriculum.

Although, in fairness, it's reasonably easy to get exemptions for your kids if you know the right approach, which obviously frees up the time to study something useful.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

This is ridiculous.
The supporters of a UI here have indicated they are willing to compromise on flags, anthems, marching, as long as it is respectful and non triumphalist, they will respect the identity of unionists also.

In contrast, when asked what they would be willing to compromise on, unionists say, nothing at all.

And none of the items on my list, refers exclusively to the past - they are all ongoing reactions equaling NO - Never- No surrender...etc etc etc.

I really don't think you understand.

A united Ireland needs tacit acceptance from unionists. That is a huge compromise, beyond any of the things that you have suggested that nationalists are prepared to compromise on.

You have also left out some of the more important issues that need compromises from the nationalist side such as compulsory Irish which absolutely must go in a united Ireland.

RobMc59

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

"Northern Ireland electricity grid can now be run from state-owned Dublin control room"

newsletter.co.uk/news

The soft unification of Ireland continues. Like Britain's inability to withdraw from the EU without inflicting serious self-harm the hard re-partition of Ireland will become practically impossible in time, and literally impossible politically.

Surely that's a good thing about the electricity grid for all concerned?-what would be a big mistake would be to think anyone was 'over a barrel'.

FrancieBrady

RobMc59 wrote: »

As blanch has pointed out some here choose to harp on about the past and when discussing the future for Ireland want everything their own way-before a referendum has even been proposed they are settling down red lines and spitting their dummies out if others have the audacity to disagree.

This is ridiculous.
The supporters of a UI here have indicated they are willing to compromise on flags, anthems, marching, as long as it is respectful and non triumphalist, they will respect the identity of unionists also.

In contrast, when asked what they would be willing to compromise on, unionists say, nothing at all.

And none of the items on my list, refers exclusively to the past - they are all ongoing reactions equaling NO - Never- No surrender...etc etc etc.

Junkyard Tom

"Northern Ireland electricity grid can now be run from state-owned Dublin control room"

newsletter.co.uk/news

The soft unification of Ireland continues. Like Britain's inability to withdraw from the EU without inflicting serious self-harm the hard re-partition of Ireland will become practically impossible in time, and literally impossible politically.

RobMc59

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The past?

I understand that partitionists and some unionists would like it put aside when it suits their agendas, but there is nothing 'past' about the GFA, nor is there anything past about:
Extend equal status to those who identify as Irish (language rights etc)
Invitation to partake on numerous 'shared future' fora,
Invitation to commemorate our various centenaries,
Invitation to discuss the shared problems and/or opportunities of Brexit.

As blanch has pointed out some here choose to harp on about the past and when discussing the future for Ireland want everything their own way-before a referendum has even been proposed they are settling down red lines and spitting their dummies out if others have the audacity to disagree.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

You can look at the past and ask about who compromised, or you can look at the future and ask who is not willing to compromise?

The past?

I understand that partitionists and some unionists would like it put aside when it suits their agendas, but there is nothing 'past' about the GFA, nor is there anything past about:
Extend equal status to those who identify as Irish (language rights etc)
Invitation to partake on numerous 'shared future' fora,
Invitation to commemorate our various centenaries,
Invitation to discuss the shared problems and/or opportunities of Brexit.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You only have to look at the list of 'No's' from the belligerent no compromise Never Never wing of Unionism:

Anglo Irish Agreement = No
The Good Friday Agreement = No
Extend equal status to those who identify as Irish (language rights etc) = No
Invitation to partake on numerous 'shared future' fora = No
Invitation to commemorate our various centenaries = No
Invitation to discuss the shared problems and/or opportunities of Brexit = No

That's just of the top of my head.
Compromise?

You can look at the past and ask about who compromised, or you can look at the future and ask who is not willing to compromise?

Farawayhome wrote: »

Ban all bonfires - Drama sorted
Change the flag into one all are happy with - Drama sorted
Irish is not a Nationalist language, it's the language of this island which was and is learned by unionists also - Drama sorted
Parades be they unionist or nationalist should only go on streets where they are wanted - Drama sorted.

Welcome to a United Ireland.

This is only one example of where there has been little or no compromise on a future United Ireland. There are many others on this thread and in public discourse. Such an attitude does little to help advance the issue.

McMurphy

Step aside, temporarily and without prejudice to facilitate the independent inquiry ref the RHI scandal? No.

RobMc59

downcow wrote: »

What is evident reading all our posts is that we are a long way off being ready for an all Ireland.
I am ok with that but you guys that want UI need to work a little harder at compromise

You are correct-some posters idea of 'compromise'appears to be-'do as we say and don't be awkward!'

FrancieBrady

BonnieSituation wrote: »

We need to compromise?

It's like a unionist play by play.

You only have to look at the list of 'No's' from the belligerent no compromise Never Never wing of Unionism:

Anglo Irish Agreement = No
The Good Friday Agreement = No
Extend equal status to those who identify as Irish (language rights etc) = No
Invitation to partake on numerous 'shared future' fora = No
Invitation to commemorate our various centenaries = No
Invitation to discuss the shared problems and/or opportunities of Brexit = No

That's just of the top of my head.
Compromise?

BonnieSituation

downcow wrote: »

What is evident reading all our posts is that we are a long way off being ready for an all Ireland.
I am ok with that but you guys that want UI need to work a little harder at compromise

We need to compromise?

It's like a unionist play by play.

jm08

downcow wrote: »

What is evident reading all our posts is that we are a long way off being ready for an all Ireland.
I am ok with that but you guys that want UI need to work a little harder at compromise

Is this part of the loyalist campaign I've heard about to put people in the ROI off the thought of UI by being as awkward as possible?

You need to be careful about not over doing it, because people in the ROI might feel sorry for the vast majority of people in NI who want to live in a state ruled by people who still think they are still living in the 16th century.

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

What is evident reading all our posts is that we are a long way off being ready for an all Ireland.
I am ok with that but you guys that want UI need to work a little harder at compromise

You are indeed a long way off. Your Nolan email and other stuff you have posted tells me that you are in a relatively minor percentile of those who will never accept a UI or even talk of one.
There is a percentile there that can be convinced though. The moderates will win the day imo.

downcow

What is evident reading all our posts is that we are a long way off being ready for an all Ireland.
I am ok with that but you guys that want UI need to work a little harder at compromise

Farawayhome

It was actually very lucky that Ireland had some media attention on it in the early 70's. If not, the mass murders such as Bloody Sunday, Ballymurphy, Dublin/Monaghan bombings, etc would have continued unabated. We know this because the British security forces committed these types of atrocities elsewhere and continue to do so. For example, in Kenya, not long before the brought their terror to Ireland, they were raping women with glass bottles and castrating men. Mass murdering civilians has been a common activity for the British armed forces, just as starving native populations and setting up concentration camps has been also.