How long before Irish reunification? (Part 2) Threadbans in OP

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I understand that Fionn and agree. I would be interested though if the referendum was close in favour of the Union, what the proposal is.

I see no way out of the problem other than going with a majority vote whatever size that majority is.

Partition was far from perfect as a solution, solving the problem it caused can't be perfect either.

I don't disagree with anything you've said Francie, nor was I suggesting any sort of support for supermajority requirements, I was making a purely academic point that they're not inherently undemocratic.

BonnieSituation

While I have to say that I appreciate the fact that posters' possessing more patience than I have attempted to discuss some pretty salient points overnight, I must also state though, the disgusting comments that the GAA is comparable to the B Specials deserved more opprobrium than they received.

It's not the first time however that such a comparison had been made, and I doubt it will be the last.

Fionn1952 wrote: »

Well the only way for it to be even an option would be to renegotiate the GFA, which would require referenda. Should those referenda pass, then it could be argued that the new requirements are democratic. I can't see it happening though.

Qualified/supermajorities aren't inherently undemocratic, and do serve a purpose in democratic society.

I understand that Fionn and agree. I would be interested though if the referendum was close in favour of the Union, what the proposal is.

I see no way out of the problem other than going with a majority vote whatever size that majority is.

Partition was far from perfect as a solution, solving the problem it caused can't be perfect either.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I too, would be interested in the how the 'democrats', who now want an increased majority to go with a UI, would propose dealing with that outcome.

Well the only way for it to be even an option would be to renegotiate the GFA, which would require referenda. Should those referenda pass, then it could be argued that the new requirements are democratic. I can't see it happening though.

Qualified/supermajorities aren't inherently undemocratic, and do serve a purpose in democratic society.

jm08 wrote: »

Nice yes, but that isn't how democracy works. Would you think the same if the vote was 52/48 to remain part of the UK?

Thought not!

I too, would be interested in the how the 'democrats', who now want an increased majority to go with a UI, would propose dealing with that outcome.

Granadino wrote: »

Hear, hear. David Ervine was a loss to politics in the north.
Out of curiosity, would there be much interest in Ulster rugby in Donegal, Cavan, Monaghan etc?
I'd say all over Ireland, you'd get posh blokes ribbing working class lads in rugby clubs, at least years ago.
In my limited time playing underage, I suppose I never felt part of "the clique"....

To be honest, when I played I never saw much interest in those counties but the success of our international rugby has inevitably changed that.

My experience is primarily in Fermanagh, where it was certainly more the well to do and Protestant side of the community who played. Being a working class lad from a mostly Catholic background, there was definitely a clique initially, but working together on the pitch quickly puts that to bed. You're fierce quick to forget cliques when you're celebrating a try or a match result, or commiserating a loss together. That being said, my knees are long past the point where I could play so I couldn't give you much of a current view even there.

Granadino wrote: »

Hear, hear. David Ervine was a loss to politics in the north.
Out of curiosity, would there be much interest in Ulster rugby in Donegal, Cavan, Monaghan etc?
I'd say all over Ireland, you'd get posh blokes ribbing working class lads in rugby clubs, at least years ago.
In my limited time playing underage, I suppose I never felt part of "the clique"....

I think the class thing n rugby is a thing of the past. And I would imagine interest in rugby in C,M,D is fairly high, it is where I am from in Monaghan.

jm08

markodaly wrote: »

A close vote is not something we want either. The 50%+1 types can't see the wood from the trees.

Nice yes, but that isn't how democracy works. Would you think the same if the vote was 52/48 to remain part of the UK?

Thought not!

Granadino

Fionn1952 wrote: »

On this note, I'd highlight the sterling work in Downcow's own county by Richard Maguire, David McGreevy and Linda Ervine (sister in law to David Ervine of UVF notoriety) with the East Belfast GAA club, which is largely Protestant.

I'd also point out that the Ireland team's success has led to a significant breaking of the barriers with regards to those from a Catholic background playing rugby. To toot my own horn, I played youth rugby at a point where I was the only person from a Catholic background in the club, and to be frank I had more flak at the time for being from a working class background than anything sectarian. Even then, it was nothing too serious and I remain friends with quite a few from my time there.

Sport has a wonderful way of breaking barriers. It was a cross community event which really introduced me to rugby; the local Protestant school was a rugby school, mine was a GAA school and we played a half each of both.....as a mediocre GAA player at best, I was delighted to find I had a much better natural talent for the other one.

Hear, hear. David Ervine was a loss to politics in the north.
Out of curiosity, would there be much interest in Ulster rugby in Donegal, Cavan, Monaghan etc?
I'd say all over Ireland, you'd get posh blokes ribbing working class lads in rugby clubs, at least years ago.
In my limited time playing underage, I suppose I never felt part of "the clique"....

Sunny Disposition wrote: »

Oh, I get it's a Catholic thing in the North, but the GAA is not solely confined to the north and it just reflects the population in the rest of the island. But again outside of the north, religion just isn't a factor in most of Irish life.
I don't really know how much you can blame sporting organisations in the North for the division, don't think the GAA will be able to make inroads in Protestant communities, the NI Football Association isn't going to get Catholic support, hard to get Catholics into rugby or hockey. People would blame the GAA or say that the Football Association is to blame for Catholics not getting behind NI, but is it realistic to think any of that is possible in such a divided society? I don't think it can change before society does.

On this note, I'd highlight the sterling work in Downcow's own county by Richard Maguire, David McGreevy and Linda Ervine (sister in law to David Ervine of UVF notoriety) with the East Belfast GAA club, which is largely Protestant.

I'd also point out that the Ireland team's success has led to a significant breaking of the barriers with regards to those from a Catholic background playing rugby. To toot my own horn, I played youth rugby at a point where I was the only person from a Catholic background in the club, and to be frank I had more flak at the time for being from a working class background than anything sectarian. Even then, it was nothing too serious and I remain friends with quite a few from my time there.

Sport has a wonderful way of breaking barriers. It was a cross community event which really introduced me to rugby; the local Protestant school was a rugby school, mine was a GAA school and we played a half each of both.....as a mediocre GAA player at best, I was delighted to find I had a much better natural talent for the other one.

king_gizzard

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Funny how you always know 'someone' who proves your point.

Downcow seems to keep some interesting company alright.

[Deleted User]

downcow wrote: »

Francie I will be consistent. And I will admit that 'by my measure of sectarian' the B specials were sectarian. 'Your' use of the term 'exclusively sectarian' does not sit well with me, because I know you will not apply terms like that to your own community and organisations.
I have the pleasure of knowing a couple ex B specials very well, and they are decent gentlemen who would do anything for their neighbour irrespective of their background. And yes, in my measure of sectarian, they are sectarian, but so are you and me Francie. My interactions with them and you, leaves me in little doubt, that you are much more sectarian than them

This is interesting, and I'm sure quite true that the men you knew in the B specials were gentlemen, who felt they were doing something positive. I've no doubt that is true across the spectrum, most people Catholic and Protestant are decent, but have found themselves in an unfortunate political climate.
Was watching the Nolan show last week and found it so depressing, orange v green even on an issue like policing commemorations in the time of Covid.

[Deleted User]

downcow wrote: »

Sonny, we are bandying about terms without any definition - I am as guilty as you. So if the GAA isn't almost exclusively Catholic, I wonder what we mean by exclusively Catholic e.g. would you say that an organisation that is more than 80% one grouping is almost exclusively that grouping? It may help us not get rattled with each other if we know what we mean. Maybe you think 70% maybe you think 90%?

The phrase that I do take exception with in your posts is 'Sure, Catholics are overrepresented in the GAA in the north'. That in my view, is an incredible understatement and misrepresents the situation.
Would you hazard a guess how many Unionists belong to the GAA in the North. I have no idea of the answer, so I am not setting you up here, I just think it would be really interesting if a few people would give us a steer what they think to see if we are all on the same page. I will start with my guess - less than 2%

Oh, I get it's a Catholic thing in the North, but the GAA is not solely confined to the north and it just reflects the population in the rest of the island. But again outside of the north, religion just isn't a factor in most of Irish life.
I don't really know how much you can blame sporting organisations in the North for the division, don't think the GAA will be able to make inroads in Protestant communities, the NI Football Association isn't going to get Catholic support, hard to get Catholics into rugby or hockey. People would blame the GAA or say that the Football Association is to blame for Catholics not getting behind NI, but is it realistic to think any of that is possible in such a divided society? I don't think it can change before society does.

downcow wrote: »

Francie I will be consistent. And I will admit that 'by my measure of sectarian' the B specials were sectarian. 'Your' use of the term 'exclusively sectarian' does not sit well with me, because I know you will not apply terms like that to your own community and organisations.
I have the pleasure of knowing a couple ex B specials very well, and they are decent gentlemen who would do anything for their neighbour irrespective of their background. And yes, in my measure of sectarian, they are sectarian, but so are you and me Francie. My interactions with them and you, leaves me in little doubt, that you are much more sectarian than them

Funny how you always know 'someone' who proves your point.

I'm sure there were very nice people in the B-Specials but the force was exclusively sectarian when it came to policing. It was 'disbanded' and replaced with another partisan force that had also to be disbanded in disgrace.

Sunny Disposition wrote: »

The GAA isn't almost exclusively Catholic! Again, people in the North have a habit of applying the sectarian lens to things in the south, not realising that religion just isn't a factor in most aspects of life down here. Sure, Catholics are overrepresented in the GAA in the north, but not in the south. There are heaps of players and administrators from various ethnic and religious backgrounds, but quite genuinely, no one cares. The secretary of the underage section of my club is originally from Afghanistan, have no idea what religion he is, suppose he's unlikely to be Catholic, but why would anyone involved in the club care?

Sonny, we are bandying about terms without any definition - I am as guilty as you. So if the GAA isn't almost exclusively Catholic, I wonder what we mean by the term 'exclusively Catholic' e.g. would you say that an organisation that is more than 80% one grouping is almost exclusively that grouping? It may help us not get rattled with each other if we know what we mean. Maybe you think 70% maybe you think 90%?

The phrase that I do take exception with in your posts is 'Sure, Catholics are overrepresented in the GAA in the north'. That in my view, is an incredible understatement and misrepresents the situation.
Would you hazard a guess how many Unionists belong to the GAA in the North. I have no idea of the answer, so I am not setting you up here, I just think it would be really interesting if a few people would give us a steer what they think to see if we are all on the same page. I will start with my guess - less than 2%

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Still trying to deflect from the certainty that the B-Specials were exclusively sectarian.
The bigoted sectarian state never had a problem recruiting some Irish catholics to their forces. They were looking for the type referred to here by the PM:

Francie I will be consistent. And I will admit that 'by my measure of sectarian' the B specials were sectarian. 'Your' use of the term 'exclusively sectarian' does not sit well with me, because I know you will not apply terms like that to your own community and organisations.
I have the pleasure of knowing a couple ex B specials very well, and they are decent gentlemen who would do anything for their neighbour irrespective of their background. And yes, in my measure of sectarian, they are sectarian, but so are you and me Francie. My interactions with them and you, leaves me in little doubt, that you are much more sectarian than them

downcow wrote: »

This is an excellent piece (well worth the short read) from a man lambasted throughout his political career for being too moderate (not by me I might add, I have always held him in respect as my local MLA - even though we did not always agree)

https://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/opinion/dermot-nesbitt-it-beggars-belief-unionists-say-nothing-about-how-ni-protocol-breaches-international-law-3138435

Two things leap out: it isn't 'Mr Barnier's Protocol' it is everyone who signed it, Protocol.
And what 'stalemate with the EU'? There is no stalemate, the border is operating as is the Protocol.

[Deleted User]

downcow wrote: »

Here is the problem. If I was to dare to state that the GAA was 100% Catholic, I would be jumped on here, and rightly so, as it would be factually incorrect.
I can though say that the GAA is almost exclusively catholic, and you could have said that the B specials were almost exclusively Protestant. And no one could say anything to either of us

The GAA isn't almost exclusively Catholic! Again, people in the North have a habit of applying the sectarian lens to things in the south, not realising that religion just isn't a factor in most aspects of life down here. Sure, Catholics are overrepresented in the GAA in the north, but not in the south. There are heaps of players and administrators from various ethnic and religious backgrounds, but quite genuinely, no one cares. The secretary of the underage section of my club is originally from Afghanistan, have no idea what religion he is, suppose he's unlikely to be Catholic, but why would anyone involved in the club care?

This is an excellent piece (well worth the short read) from a man lambasted throughout his political career for being too moderate (not by me I might add, I have always held him in respect as my local MLA - even though we did not always agree)

https://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/opinion/dermot-nesbitt-it-beggars-belief-unionists-say-nothing-about-how-ni-protocol-breaches-international-law-3138435

downcow wrote: »

Here is the problem. If I was to dare to state that the GAA was 100% Catholic, I would be jumped on here, and rightly so, as it would be factually incorrect.
I can though say that the GAA is almost exclusively catholic, and you could have said that the B specials were almost exclusively Protestant. And no one could say anything to either of us

Still trying to deflect from the certainty that the B-Specials were exclusively sectarian.
The bigoted sectarian state never had a problem recruiting some Irish catholics to their forces. They were looking for the type referred to here by the PM:

"The PRIME MINISTER [Sir James Craig]: The hon. Member says that all our appointments are carried out on a religious basis. I would like to go into this somewhat fully. The appointments made by the Government are made as far as we can possibly manage it of loyal men and women. Why not? And what objection can there possibly be to those who are upholding Ulster as part of the great British Empire and the United Kingdom, seeing that we have not got saturated through the place those who acquiesce in the policy of the hon. Members opposite, of endeavouring to break down the machinery of government given to us by the British people? Surely nothing could be clearer than that. If a man is a Roman Catholic, if he is fitted for the job, provided he is loyal to the core, he has as good a chance of appointment as anybody else; and if a Protestant is not loyal to the core he has no more chance than a similar Roman Catholic.
Mr. O'NEILL: How do you test their loyalty?
The PRIME MINISTER: There are ways of finding that out. The hon. Member knows just as well as I do there are ways of discovering whether a man is heart and soul in carrying out the intention of the Act of 1920, which was given to the Ulster people in order to save them from being swallowed up in a Dublin Parliament. Therefore, it is undoubtedly our duty and our privilege, and always will be, to see that those appointed by us possess the most unimpeachable loyalty to the King and Constitution. That is my whole object in carrying on a Protestant Government for a Protestant people. I repeat it in this House."
Sir James Craig, Unionist Party, then Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, 21 November 1934
Reported in: Parliamentary Debates, Northern Ireland House of Commons, Vol. XVII, Cols. 72-73.

Five Eighth wrote: »

Maybe taking the quote to task against a 100% literal interpretation in order to cast doubt on its merits?

An often used deflection tactic...

Here is the problem. If I was to dare to state that the GAA was 100% Catholic, I would be jumped on here, and rightly so, as it would be factually incorrect.
I can though say that the GAA is almost exclusively catholic, and you could have said that the B specials were almost exclusively Protestant. And no one could say anything to either of us

Five Eighth wrote: »

It wasn't an article. It was a piece extracted from a book written by a respected NI journalist who quoted a report undertaken by the National Council of Civil Liberties (UK). It is this report which included the comment.."...the maintenance of the exclusively Protestant B Specials." I also posted a reference to Tim Pat Coogan's book on Michael Collins where he describes how recruitment was controlled by ex UVF loyalist leaders. How is that deflecting anything?

Just accept the piece was factually incorrect or provide evidence otherwise. Simple

Fionn1952 wrote: »

.....you weren't having a laugh at yourself, Downcow. If we take your word that it was supposed to be humorous, you were making a joke at the expense of a group your very much perceive as, 'other'.

If I started making jokes about Jewish people, the French, Indians or Protestants and one of those groups took offence, I could hardly claim it is because they're not comfortable with having a laugh at themselves.

To take it to the extreme, given your usual attitude towards the Irish, I'd expect a black man to derive less humour from a joke made by a Klan member than another person of colour.

.....that all as a total aside from the fact that it just plain wasn't funny.

I am going to take you at your word that you were offended. I sincerely apologise.

RobMc59 wrote: »

I found your quoting of murderous terrorists bizarre to say the least although your subsequent posts suggest you don't hero worship and agree with their actions.
My post prompted a few very illuminating comments from one or two regular republican posters though...
I'm British so believing in the Union isn't unusual or controversial and doesn't change how I feel about Ireland/NI.

Ah Rob let's be honest, you were jumping in two footed on a legitimate criticism of Downcow and desperately scrambling for any way to defend him/her that you could. Believing in your Union is fine....blind defense of any criticism of it, not so much.

The quote was contextually relevant and even then, I specifically called out the distasteful nature of it. I've been known to quote the bible on occasion, I'm still an atheist. I've quoted Stalin in the past, despite thinking he's a murderous so and so and not being a communist.

Other posters comments are their own and I'd appreciate you didn't try to use them to discredit or put me down. If you find them illuminating, take it up with the relevant poster instead of trying to make implications and seeing if it'll stick with me.

maccored

Natterjack from Kerry wrote: »

I dont think I have ever read something so illogical in my life !

It was necessary to have a terrorist campaign so that there would be a peace process !!! What about no terrorism in the first place ?

"Well we had to have the Great War, otherwise we wouldnt have had been able to have the ceasefire and agree the Treaty of Versailles, so of course the war was worth it".

people get beat off the street for looking for equality, people get shot at and murdered because of in equality, those people then react violently.

Thats illogical to you? Says more about yourself in that case, than anyone else

markodaly wrote: »

No, but as I live in the South, the blatant hatred and sectarianism on display from both sides will largely be contained to the North. If we are not ready and mature for it, we are just not. Its that simple. Maybe the next generation will not be so hateful, maybe the old guards on both sides need to die off.

We saw the rupturing of divisions in the UK over the Brexit debacle. A tight UI vote that goes, either way, will result in much worse here.
Why should we expose ourselves willingly to that?

It was half two in the morning, I was in my bed and leaning a little towards the melodramatic in my post....you'd never guess I was re-reading some Tolkien from it, would you?!

Being honest, all I was really getting at was your statement that it exists on both sides of the border would've rendered your justification moot.

I'd also argue that your perceived, 'blatant displays of sectarianism' are much less common than you think in the North nowadays, largely being reserved to small numbers in a case of the squeaky wheel getting the oil regarding reporting.

In general society, the vast majority just get on with their lives and don't consider, 'themmuns' all that often. The sectarianism that still exists in the North would mostly be of the kind which I've admittedly been guilty of myself; see an average exchange between myself and Downcow, we certainly both have some leftover baggage and would have differing narratives on our history....but I wouldn't say either of us are a danger to society. If I am, you'll have to tell me so I can move back!

Does the more violent and unpleasant stuff exist? Certainly. I'd highlight that NI has a lower crime rate and is on a downward trend since the GFA, Ireland's is higher and has been trending upwards though, so like I said perhaps not as common as you think.

It seems you have trouble even accepting that I would vote No, which I think tells a lot.

No idea what you're getting at here. I've repeatedly said your vote will count just as much as mine. Are you suggesting that discussing someone's opinion on the matter and pointing out why I disagree with it is somehow wrong?! Like I genuinely don't even understand what your point is here, beyond a generic attempt at a parting blow.

RobMc59

Fionn1952 wrote: »

What the hell are you ranting about now, Rob?!

Perhaps I should clarify.

1) I did not attempt to murder Margaret Thatcher
2) I did not attempt to justify any attempts to murder Margaret Thatcher
3) I think Margaret Thatcher was as repulsive a leader as has existed in a modern democracy in my lifetime, and I still do not believe that justified her murder.
4) I used a very famous quote regarding Margaret Thatcher as it was contextually appropriate
5) I highlighted the distasteful historical nature of that quote when I used it, and did not use it to suggest anything regarding the murder of Margaret Thatcher or my opinion of the events that led to that quote
6) Your weird rant has absolutely nothing to do with the conversation about Downcow taking random potshots at the Irish apart from your desperate need to defend anyone you see as against your precious little union, while still trying to hide beneath a veneer of neutrality (despite your getting banned from any thread that expects a grown up level of discussion).

To summarise....what the hell is your point?!

I found your quoting of murderous terrorists bizarre to say the least although your subsequent posts suggest you don't hero worship and agree with their actions.
My post prompted a few very illuminating comments from one or two regular republican posters though...
I'm British so believing in the Union isn't unusual or controversial and doesn't change how I feel about Ireland/NI.

markodaly

Fionn1952 wrote: »

You're acknowledging that these people exist on both sides of the border, so for all your lofty posturing what does your no vote actually achieve to change that? Do you expect that in the event of a No vote that we're going to have some sort of event like the One Ring being cast into The Cracks of Doom epiphany moment and suddenly these people (who already exist here by your own reckoning) will suddenly disappear?

No, but as I live in the South, the blatant hatred and sectarianism on display from both sides will largely be contained to the North. If we are not ready and mature for it, we are just not. Its that simple. Maybe the next generation will not be so hateful, maybe the old guards on both sides need to die off.

What exactly are you hoping to avoid exposing your family to if you think it is already so prevalent? Surely the Sword of Damocles type of unresolved situation regarding Unification is an exacerbating factor for these issues which would be gradually eliminated by resolving the issue with some degree of finality, whereas a No vote just puts it on the back burner for seven years and makes it all the more heated as a subject?

We saw the rupturing of divisions in the UK over the Brexit debacle. A tight UI vote that goes, either way, will result in much worse here.
Why should we expose ourselves willingly to that?

It seems you have trouble even accepting that I would vote No, which I think tells a lot.