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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Extend equal status to those who identify as Irish (language rights etc)
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.
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?
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
RobMc59 wrote: » You are correct-some posters idea of 'compromise'appears to be-'do as we say and don't be awkward!'
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?
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
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.
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?
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.
blanch152 wrote: » 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.
Matt Barrett wrote: » 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 wrote: » The thread is about,as you say-is there a possibility of a border poll-not people saying what is and isn't acceptable prior to any consultation taking place.I haven't heard much here that would reassure worried unionists their traditions and way of life wouldn't be riden over roughshod by over zealous republicans.
Farawayhome wrote: » 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 wrote: » 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.
Matt Barrett wrote: » 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.
