FrancieBrady wrote: » Ah quit! I wanted to ask what downcow wanted to call this 'new island' he had discovered?
Junkyard Tom wrote: » He still speaks from a position that the north of Ireland is a unionist 'country' that belongs to unionists. The north is neither a country nor some sort of Unionist fiefdom. Did DC even, for one instant, consider what the non-unionist majority will want from a United Ireland? You know, the ones who actually voted for unification? It's like the minority of kids who never wanted to go on the school trip then demanding to choose the destination for everyone else, the stench of privilege is stark. Regardless, DC is playing an important role here in demonstrating to any neutral readers of the thread exactly how difficult it is/was for our people to deal with Unionism in the north.
Fionn1952 wrote: » There were quite a few that you skipped over in your attempts to accuse me of bigotry. As a starting point, how about this one I've asked several times now? Why are you more questioning and concerned about flags and symbolism than what most people would consider the much more significant rights, protections and voice for your people? Are those things not a higher priority than what colour a post box is? If they are more important, then why have you chosen to focus your entire points of objection around the first group?
ittakestwo wrote: » They do hold the power under the GFA. If they choose to change from being subsumed by the UK into being subsumed into a new UI by democratic vote well that is fair. Do the minority group that is nationalist in NI get their way on the color of post boxs etc in NI at the moment?
FrancieBrady wrote: » I agree, he doesn't have the self awareness to see it and keeps falling into it. 'We own it, any change must be with our agreement'.
downcow wrote: » The RUC was changed to the PSNI because they may be offended /QUOTE]:D:D
FrancieBrady wrote: » downcow wrote: » The RUC was changed to the PSNI because they may be offended /QUOTE]:D:D So why don't you tell us Francie why the changes were implemented?. And don't be telling us that because of the treatment of nationalists by the RUC. We could argue over that all day, but let's assume they were horrendous to the nationalist community, beat them up every Saturday night, colluded with the UVF, wore Union Jack underpants and were members of the KKK. The personnel did not change. The change was that certain symbols that nationalists found offensive including the name were removed. The one thing that may have changed any of the above (if it was true) was the 50/50 recruitment policy - but sure Republicans soon scuppered that by focusing their murderous attentions on any catholic the joined. I am not disagreeing that some change needed to happen, but nationalists got wound up in a few symbols and names and missed the bigger picture. You will also note in my post that I said only two of the three examples were inappropriate. You picked the area that I felt some change was required i.e. all the security forces required some reform
downcow wrote: » The personnel did not change.
downcow wrote: » FrancieBrady wrote: » So why don't you tell us Francie why the changes were implemented?. And don't be telling us that because of the treatment of nationalists by the RUC. We could argue over that all day, but let's assume they were horrendous to the nationalist community, beat them up every Saturday night, colluded with the UVF, wore Union Jack underpants and were members of the KKK. The personnel did not change. The change was that certain symbols that nationalists found offensive including the name were removed. The one thing that may have changed any of the above (if it was true) was the 50/50 recruitment policy - but sure Republicans soon scuppered that by focusing their murderous attentions on any catholic the joined. I am not disagreeing that some change needed to happen, but nationalists got wound up in a few symbols and names and missed the bigger picture. You will also note in my post that I said only two of the three examples were inappropriate. You picked the area that I felt some change was required i.e. all the security forces required some reform Patten recommended that the RUC name should be replaced with an entirely neutral description and that there should be a new cap badge entirely free of association with the British or Irish states. On 19 January 2000 Mr Mandelson said that he wanted the force to be known as the "Police Service of Northern Ireland", in line with the Patten recommendations. It is called 'normalisation' of society. The RUC was a Unionist police force. It required and underwent significant reform in structure and accountability. To characterise that as change because a few Taigs were 'offended' is just indicative of your mindset again and that of the Never Never foot dragging belligerent Unionist.
FrancieBrady wrote: » So why don't you tell us Francie why the changes were implemented?. And don't be telling us that because of the treatment of nationalists by the RUC. We could argue over that all day, but let's assume they were horrendous to the nationalist community, beat them up every Saturday night, colluded with the UVF, wore Union Jack underpants and were members of the KKK. The personnel did not change. The change was that certain symbols that nationalists found offensive including the name were removed. The one thing that may have changed any of the above (if it was true) was the 50/50 recruitment policy - but sure Republicans soon scuppered that by focusing their murderous attentions on any catholic the joined. I am not disagreeing that some change needed to happen, but nationalists got wound up in a few symbols and names and missed the bigger picture. You will also note in my post that I said only two of the three examples were inappropriate. You picked the area that I felt some change was required i.e. all the security forces required some reform
Patten recommended that the RUC name should be replaced with an entirely neutral description and that there should be a new cap badge entirely free of association with the British or Irish states. On 19 January 2000 Mr Mandelson said that he wanted the force to be known as the "Police Service of Northern Ireland", in line with the Patten recommendations.
FrancieBrady wrote: » downcow wrote: » It is called 'normalisation' of society. The RUC was a Unionist police force. It required and underwent significant reform in structure and accountability. To characterise that as change because a few Taigs were 'offended' is just indicative of your mindset again and that of the Never Never foot dragging belligerent Unionist. Francie, I was very clear in my previous posts that I agree with reform of the RUC. I just think it is a terrible shame that main the focus was on symbols etc and an opportunity was missed to make the police truly accountable, and to turn them into a service rather than a force. Any chance of an answer to the question on the border rather than deflecting
downcow wrote: » It is called 'normalisation' of society. The RUC was a Unionist police force. It required and underwent significant reform in structure and accountability. To characterise that as change because a few Taigs were 'offended' is just indicative of your mindset again and that of the Never Never foot dragging belligerent Unionist.
downcow wrote: » Francie, I was very clear in my previous posts that I agree with reform of the RUC. I just think it is a terrible shame that main the focus was on symbols etc and an opportunity was missed to make the police truly accountable, and to turn them into a service rather than a force. Any chance of an answer to the question on the border rather than deflecting
downcow wrote: » Is there anyone on here who does not accept that there is an internationally recognised national border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland?
downcow wrote: » This is where you and me disagree. I do believe we own it, but the we I am referring to is everyone who lives in Northern Ireland of all faiths and none. You seem to think the people of ROI have some sort of joint ownership of it even though there is an internationally recognised border between you and us.
RobMc59 wrote: » Ireland renounces any claim on NI and acknowledges it is part of the UK.
Junkyard Tom wrote: » We all know that there is an imaginary line on the map where jurisdiction changes. You should know that the vast majority of people who live near the border live their lives regardless of it.
Junkyard Tom wrote: » Alright Rob, how's things? Can you show me in the GFA where Ireland renounces its claim on the north?
RobMc59 wrote: » One thing that strikes me with republican posters Downcow is they claim to believe the GFA is sacrosanct yet if you read the majority of their posts they seem to have a mental block about the bit were Ireland renounces any claim on NI and acknowledges it is part of the UK.The only person of a republican persuasion who seems to have a realistic approach is Fionn.
ittakestwo wrote: » Everyone in Ireland (But surprisingly not in the UK) knows it is split into two jurisdictions.
RobMc59 wrote: » Older mainland British people know it because of the troubles which were constantly on the news back in the day.Generally,people in England don`t know everything about Scotland,NI and Wales and vise versa.Do you know everything about different parts of Ireland?
downcow wrote: » [ Francie, I was very clear in my previous posts that I agree with reform of the RUC. I just think it is a terrible shame that main the focus was on symbols etc and an opportunity was missed to make the police truly accountable, and to turn them into a service rather than a force. Any chance of an answer to the question on the border rather than deflecting
RobMc59 wrote: » Thanks for the link Tom which says it there and I hope this helps.https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/at-long-last-dublin-recognises-british-territorial-sovereignty-1.153882
downcow wrote: » Firstly, praise where praise is due - thats a more moderate post than i am used to from you. You are trying. But you need to examine you prejudice and patronising arrogance (not you personally particularly). You would allow me to keep my British passport!!! Firstly that would have zero to do with the Irish government and exclusively a matter for the British government (so big deal, thank you, my new master). My point was that you are not even considering a new name for this newly united island and therefore a new passport - You seem to actually be considering keeping the name and passport of your country - unbelievable!
Junkyard Tom wrote: » Rob, although interesting, the Irish Times opinion piece from 1998 falls a little short of underscoring where exactly in the GFA Ireland explicitly renounces any claim over the Six Counties. Further, I would contend that the former Irish territorial claim over the North of Ireland was reworded.. It is the firm will of the Irish Nation ... to unite all the people who share the territory of the island of Ireland ... recognising that a united Ireland shall be brought about only by peaceful means [GFA] ...in exchange for a British acceptance that.. it is for the people of the island of Ireland alone, by agreement between the two parts respectively and without external impediment .. to bring about a United Ireland [GFA] ... which essentially compels Britain to not interfere in the Irish desire to unite Ireland as one sovereign unit.
jm08 wrote: » No, I would not be allowing you to keep your British passport. My point is that a precedent was set in 1949 when Ireland became a Republic, that people born before that date were entitled to British citizenship. Tony O'Reilly is a famous one of these as that is how he got his knighthood. Retaining your British passport is entirely within the gift of the British Government. I imagine that there are many who would want to do that and continue serving in the British Army as British citizens for example. As for the name of the State - I'm all ears as to what you want to call it. We can then have a referendum on changing the name.
blanch152 wrote: » You don’t understand the difference between uniting people and uniting territory. One of the reasons I supported the GFA was because it signalled the first move away from the linkage between nation and territory. It just about overcame my revulsion at the provisions on prisoner release. Unfortunately, too many like you fail to see the far-reaching nature of the provisions.
jm08 wrote: » Come off it, it was a real bugbear to the unionist community. Bertie persuaded everyone to go for it so as to appease unionism. Are you a unionist Blanch?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://we.vanillicon.com/v2/e050b53be62f0ae2404c620976170938.svg)
