gormdubhgorm wrote: » Well in my opinion language is the bedrock of any (most cultures) you did point out exceptions. But I think by and large Ireland is a nation of hypocrites and deluded. English is still spoken as the main language in the ROI of Ireland after 100 years of freedom. Plus you cannot deny that Irish people have extremely close identification to British culture. Whether they like to admit it or not.
Because of the troubles Irish language became politicised and not used as a language of communication by the Protestant tradition
Also I feel in the ROI in the Irish psyche, many think Irish is still the language of the poor. Caused by a few generations believing it. A colony mindset.
As for the claim on a UI. The only people who managed to 'Unite Ireland' was the British got all those clans into one unit. Plus the split was caused by Irish people themselves who decided force was an option. Yet there is this delusion that the ROI has a birth right to those six counties, just by the very fact it is on the same island.
In my view most people in the ROI say they would like a UI because that is what they were taught at school. Makes people feel more 'Irish' by saying it. I used to be the same myself as a young fella even voted against the GFA because of the removal of Articles 2 and 3. I was well indoctrinated in that myth of 'the national territory'. I was wrong to vote like that now in hindsight as there has to be compromise in order to bring peace.
There is no real thinking of the practicalities of such a move to a UI , money, economics etc. It is not as if gas and oil will be found in lough Derg to pay for everything. No plans on how the Unionist tradition would not be left out in the cold. Which is why I mentioned the Commonwealth as a solution. Compromise a UI / ROI within a Commonwealth.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Did you read the article written by a Unionist and Orangeman I posted earlier? Not hard to divine from the facts posted in it who changed their attitude to the Irish Language and politicised it.
gormdubhgorm wrote: » 'Irishness' now has to come down to changing a line on map as a result years of needless, messing, deaths and destruction. .
gormdubhgorm wrote: » If you read the post the explanation is there. I can't explain it more simply for you I am sorry.. Other than saying that it will show inclusiveness to the Unionists, and will be more likely to bring about a peaceful and stable UI. If you refuse to read, I can't make you.
gormdubhgorm wrote: » It is SF also cynically politised the Irish language as well (Irish Language Act etc), while only mostly using the language symbolically in Stormont. Yet the two SF leaders one has no little Irish, and another has just passable Irish in no way fluent. As I said earlier if people just spoke the language day to day (at home daily life) that is a much more practical demonstration of Irishness and culture. Yet the sole way many seem to have to claim Irishness is crow about a line on a map. Very hypocritical - in my opinion. Plus I suspect you know it is true deep down, which is why you are getting so rattled.
downcow wrote: » So much utter nonsense and that, I don't know where to start.Carried to it's logical conclusion, it either leads to small-government Libertarianism (to which the NHS would be hugely antithetical) or a litany of exceptions so long that your bias becomes apparent (already happening). we don't normally carry everything to its logical conclusion - indeed I can't think of any position that, if carried to its logical conclusion, would not become ridiculous - so that's your first nonsenseJust to apply your own logic, why would we spend money on supporting people who can't speak English? If someone chooses to emigrate to an essentially monolingual society, the onus is on them to ensure they have sufficient grasp of the language. I'd much rather the money went to the NHS. this is just racist rubbish, not even worth of replyWe can very easily go down the list from July 12th/11th Night or St Patrick's Day, and the expense to the public purse (if you want to burn stuff and march up and down a few streets, do it out of your own pocket, not mine. I'd rather the money went to the NHS). even more nonsense. You are now trying to include policing violence and protecting lives. I think you probably know the nonsense this is. As for funding for the 12th/11th night or St Patrick's Day - I stand completely by my statement and would far rather see the money spent on cancer treatment. And anyhow, maybe you could outline the millions are spent on the 12th, because I am not aware of itMoving a step along - local arts councils. Create art in your own time. If it isn't profitable, do it out of your own pocket, not mine. I'd rather the money went to the NHS). here we go again taking it to its 'logical conclusion', but I have no problem with small sensible amounts of money being spent on the arts. I do though have an issue about £millions of money raised from the poor, through lotteries etc, being spent on exclusive hobbies and entertainment of the rich.Your local kids soccer team? If local kids want to play soccer, do it out of their parents own pocket. I'd rather the money went to the NHS. Certainly I would support kids to take part in any sport or activity that improves their health. This actually saves money for the NHS. It is also not targeted at just a small number of the population based on the community background. So no comparison, at more of your nonsense A few posters on here from an Irish background have given us a good insight into the niche interest that Irish language is. I think it was quoted 70,000 speakers in a population of 5 million people. Yet some people want more and more money poured in and more and more 'preserving and promoting'. It does not stand up to sensible scrutiny
gormdubhgorm wrote: » It ends up as nothing, but lip service. Instead of using the language. Irish people as a whole have a very odd attitude towards the Irish language they blame schools and so on. Yet all that has to be done is speak it more often in thier daily life. But most don't. So the sole foundation expression of Irishness is no longer language like most countries it becomes - 'A Nation Once Again' with a few Irish phrases bandied about. The truth is British culture has been almost completely submerged Irish culture. That is no longer just the fault of 'The Brits' but the Irish themselves. A UI is not going to change that in whatever form it takes.
Fionn1952 wrote: » This conversation started with your allegation that 'there is no other country in Europe that doesn't speak it's native language' or words to that effect. You pushed this as the reason that Ireland is essentially British in culture. I persist in using Austria as a example as they do not speak their native language. Given the history of Austria, Austro-Bavarian would be the native language, and yes, this is distinct from the Austrian-German widely spoken there. In your eyes, apparently that prohibits them from having a distinct Austrian culture, and they're basically just Germans. Their history and art mean nothing, because, 'tír gan teanga, tír gan anam'. Now you've shifted the goalposts away from your original position to rambling on about a colonial mindset, and how despite the Swiss not speaking their own native language, because they're multilingual, it doesn't count. Let's just create a starting point here. Can you acknowledge that you were incorrect when you stated that Ireland is the only European country to not widely speak it's native language?
Lord Fairlord wrote: » Austrians do speak Austro-Bavarian, with differences from standard German in some vocabulary and grammar.
Fionn1952 wrote: » While I'm certainly no expert, I was under the impression that the primary language of Austria was Austrian-German, which is different from both standard German and Austro-Bavarian. If I'm mistaken, hands up on that.
gormdubhgorm wrote: » They don't have that colony mindset except Cyprus. And have an inclusive approach which stops them fracturing. Unlike Ireland. I don't know why you persist in using Austria as an example as German is thier main lingo - the only difference is in dialect. Many in Switzerland are multi-lingual in using languages as communication. In Ireland Irish is not used as a communication language and only approx 70,000 people speak it within a community. It has only being used as political tool instead of a language of communication. Using a language is easily done. By just speaking the language. But for some reason many proud Republicans who call for a UI for a sense of national identity don't speak Irish or have a low level. It does not say much to me for a future of a UI that English is still the main language of Ireland after 100 years.https://data.oireachtas.ie/ie/oireachtas/libraryResearch/2016/2016-11-07_l-rs-note-the-irish-language-a-linguistic-crisis_en.pdf If Ireland cannot even get thier own culture in order, how will they manage real inclusiveness in NI? I still believe that a country is not a real country without a widely spoken native language as communication. It is just people using the language of another instead. Definitely lacking.
BloodyBill wrote: » Wow Australia, Canada, New Zealand arent real countries because they dont speak a native language.? Language is a means of communication and thats about it no matter what does eejit in Conradh na Gaelgie say.
jm08 wrote: » Here are some young Irish people enjoying the Irish language in song.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1A6__HssHW8 Scoil Lorcain is an Irish summer school in the Gaeltacht. They have a whole series of videos like this - translating popular songs into Irish and then performing them with dance and Irish instruments. This particular Youtube video has over 8 million views. Enjoy DC
BonnieSituation wrote: » The thing is Bill, a lot of the arguing that GDG is doing here is with people who are pro-Gaeilge and pro-ILA. So I don't understand what the real problem is!
BonnieSituation wrote: » If it's "simply there" why not put it simply here? If it was a simple answer to a simple question you wouldn't be so evasive. Can I take it that "it will show inclusiveness to the Unionists, and will be more likely to bring about a peaceful and stable UI" is the answer?
gormdubhgorm wrote: » Well it is a different approach to the issue of Brexit for a start a bit of give and take helps you know. I fully understand how you were force fed like me with the 800 years of hurt line and so on. And how you would John Bruton who called for Ireland to join the commonwealth is a 'West Brit'. I used to think the same myself. But when you step back from the rhetoric and think about it. Burton may have a point in saying 1916 was unnecessary. All it ended up doing was splitting the country in two and harbouring mistrust and division. In this thread for example there is very little discussion of inclusiveness, and trying to understand another political viewpoint on the island of Ireland. Poor auld downcow could well be excused for thinking he/she is heading for the slaughterhouse once a UI is proclaimed. :eek: Here is a general discussion on why Ireland joining would not be a bad idea.https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:EPl9WomJvcEJ:https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/why-the-republic-must-consider-rejoining-the-commonwealth-1.3605886+&cd=11&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ie The latter is not the first to consider this an an option 'The reform group' was formed in 1998 to promote "a more inclusive definition of Irish identity" throughout all of Ireland. The Reform Group released a book discussing the topic ten years ago.https://www.omahonys.ie/ireland-and-the-commonwealth-towards-membership-p-262266.html FF TD Malcolm Byrne (who has since lost his seat ) - even suggested that Ireland have the 12th as a National Holiday, Ireland rejoin the commonwealth, and 30pc of Cabinet positions for unionists in a UI.https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/ff-td-united-ireland-could-celebrate-the-twelfth-and-rejoin-commonwealth-38795028.html He pointed out that "The late Albert Reynolds once suggested that we could reserve 30pc of cabinet places for those from a unionist tradition - that could prove to be a very visionary statement." -- Now you might think that joining the commonwealth is outlandish and abhorrent to Republican traditions. But the fact is a Republic can still join the Commonwealth with all its bells and whistles. Even keep the President. India manage perfectly well in the commonwealth as a Republic. One of the fastest growing economies in the world. But the crucial aspect is it is a way of keeping Ireland united while including all traditions. Member states have no legal obligations to one another, but are connected through their use of the English language and historical ties. Which Ireland already has as I have discussed. In Eamon De Valera's last years in office as Taoiseach to achieve a UI he was in secret negotiations to join The Commonwealth.https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:T5qdNqtK4NAJ:https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/heritage/united-ireland-de-valera-s-secret-plan-for-unification-1.3999072+&cd=16&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ie "De Valera and Aiken proposed that Northern Ireland should surrender its direct allegiance to the queen in return for a united Republic of Ireland within the Commonwealth" In fact even earlier back in 1953 De Valera said to Churchill that: he would not have taken Ireland out of the Commonwealth, as Costello had done. At the time of the Republic of Ireland act 1948 - Republics were not permitted to join The Commonwealth. This changed following The London Declaration of 1949.https://thecommonwealth.org/london-declaration So that is why I think it would be a good idea for Ireland to join the Commonwealth. It stops the posturing of the likes of Celtic jerseys at Republican protests and actually accept common bonds. Instead of focusing on differences to divide and politise they should be included. That is how a UI should be achieved. As Gerry Adams once said himself the oppressed must not become the oppressors in a UI. But I believe it is only mere rhetoric unless a proper move forward is made, like joining The Commonwealth, that will lead to an inclusive United Republic of Ireland.
BloodyBill wrote: » I ll have to lie down after all this Irish language codology. It reminds me of debates in school 20 years ago. Irish is never going to revive when a large proportion of the population dont want it to. I'm actively anti Irish language and take a degree of pride in that. Kids with Irish first names like Fiachra or Oisin deserve to be kidney punched or at least open handed slapped...their parents deserve jail. And they are the first ones to whine about Trump banning the J1 Visa when in actuality Trump is saving their little Feargal from being called Frank for 3 months
gormdubhgorm wrote: » Here it is again:
BonnieSituation wrote: » I saw all that nonsense the first time around. I still don't understand what problem that exists currently in the Republic today that will be solved by the Republic as it exists currently, joining the Commonwealth. What problem are you trying to solve? Or are you just throwing a sop to Unionists' who have no interest in a UI?
gormdubhgorm wrote: » No trying to get the moderate Unionists to agree on a UI. If De Valera and other had/have the same idea, it can't have been that silly? Compromise.
BonnieSituation wrote: » But a UI is anathema to a unionist. Quality of Life is what will change their minds. The moderate unionist was always more loyal to the half crown.
FrancieBrady wrote: » If Brexit puts keeping their land in danger there isn't a Unionist farmer who would not revert to being just a farmer. The land comes first then the union make no mistake about that. If it's stay in the EU and continue farming or leave on a random, rollcoaster ride with Boris and chums and likely lose the land...there will not be a second lost making the choice.
jh79 wrote: » Same goes for all those working for the public and civil service. No chance they'll vote for their own redundancy.
gormdubhgorm wrote: » No trying to get the moderate Unionists to agree on a UI.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Unless of course their positions are addressed in a Unity plan. Which they will be IMO. Nobody is going to advocate unity with a period of depression following it. We all know what would happen were that to be imposed.
jh79 wrote: » The issue here is that whatever is done on one side will have a negative effect on the other. So lets say they are retained. What about wages? Can't replace partition with economic partition by having different rates of pay for the same job.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Do you see everything in life this way incidently? 'Can't be done, can't be done'. Shut the door before anyone even looks at a way of solving the issue. Very negative outlook on life...nothing would get done if we were waiting on people like you. I come across people like this all the time, who suck in and say 'ah now...ye can't be doing that'. I don't think a UI will be discussed in that way.
gormdubhgorm wrote: » Precisely, they are not. They were colonial land grabs, not organically naturally formed Nations, AND they have no native language left. Also language is a language of communication and should be used. It is the main expression of national identity. It permeates through culture, speech music. Way of thought and heritage. . Even the word 'eejit' you used in your post has Scottish and Irish origins based on the intonations of Irish - Hiberno-English and Scots Gaelic. Changing a land border will not make someone like you more Irish - whether you live in the ROI or not. Because you have a negative attitude towards the Irish language, thereby Irish culture. So I would describe you as a lost cause who identifies more with Britain deep down. But I believe if there was a UI you should not be forgotten about.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w4.vanillicon.com/v2/4b1a2e86cedae1628937f4503f2281da.svg)
