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

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

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.

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

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?

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.

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

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%

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.

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

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.

king_gizzard

FrancieBrady wrote: »

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

Downcow seems to keep some interesting company alright.

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.

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"....

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

gilly1910

Just spotted this thread, and even though we are all bored out of our minds with Covid-19, I do not have the will to read back through 348 pages of posts. Anyway my take on it this is, in that while a United Ireland is an extremely noble and worthwhile aspiration, are we actually ready for it in the Republic of Ireland, financially or the huge changes that would have to come about as part of a United Ireland. Off the top of my head we would probably need a new anthem, a new Police Service, a new Health Service, a new Public Service, new army, new seat of government etc, so are we ready for all of these massive changes? Not to mention Unionists would probably insist on some form of a link with the UK possibly in the form of re-joining the Commonwealth, or dual citizenship, so while I would have no problem with any of the things that I have mentioned, I'm sure there are plenty down here who would?

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.

Not sure what the other are claiming but for me the idea that there should be a clear majority would refer to opinion polls that might inform the decision of the SoS.

After that whatever the actual result is you just follow the democratic wishes of the majority.

markodaly wrote: »

And thank you for illustrating perfectly as to the 'WHY' I would not be voting for a UI in the near future, attitudes like this.

I'm not the one that has to reconcile the vote I will have just made with the people I've just voted with.

The old adage, "Judge a man by the company he keeps" springs to mind.

You don't strike me as a fellow who has bitter, bigoted, angry and sectarian views and yet you'll be voting with people who do. For me that would take some reflection. Like those who voted against marriage equality had to deal with say.

gilly1910 wrote: »

Just spotted this thread, and even though we are all bored out of our minds with Covid-19, I do not have the will to read back through 348 pages of posts. Anyway my take on it this is, in that while a United Ireland is an extremely noble and worthwhile aspiration, are we actually ready for it in the Republic of Ireland, financially or the huge changes that would have to come about as part of a United Ireland. Off the top of my head we would probably need a new anthem, a new Police Service, a new Health Service, a new Public Service, new army, new seat of government etc, so are we ready for all of these massive changes? Not to mention Unionists would probably insist on some form of a link with the UK possibly in the form of re-joining the Commonwealth, or dual citizenship, so while I would have no problem with any of the things that I have mentioned, I'm sure there are plenty down here who would?

I'd suggest you probably do read back. A lot of that has been hashed out and rehashed.

BonnieSituation wrote: »

I'd suggest you probably do read back. A lot of that has been hashed out and rehashed.

Extensively hashed out and rehashed.....and ultimately those who came into the discussion favouring continued partition left doing so and those who came into it supporting Unification left doing so.....I'd be reluctant to recommend reading 300-odd pages given that!

Fionn1952 wrote: »

Extensively hashed out and rehashed.....and ultimately those who came into the discussion favouring continued partition left doing so and those who came into it supporting Unification left doing so.....I'd be reluctant to recommend reading 300-odd pages given that!

They may learn something about how Partitionists seem to side with belligerent Unionists in almost all cases.

BonnieSituation wrote: »

They may learn something about how Partitionists seem to side with belligerent Unionists in almost all cases.

All the talk of flags, languages and anthems, one thing that absolutely hasn't been resolved to my satisfaction, and I will be asking every person who comes to my door campaigning.....what about Tayto?

With Nordie Tayto being vastly superior to Free-Stayto, I'm not sure I could vote for the demise of a clearly superior snack. I'll concede on the Cadbury's chocolate down this way though.

Fionn1952 wrote: »

All the talk of flags, languages and anthems, one thing that absolutely hasn't been resolved to my satisfaction, and I will be asking every person who comes to my door campaigning.....what about Tayto?

With Nordie Tayto being vastly superior to Free-Stayto, I'm not sure I could vote for the demise of a clearly superior snack. I'll concede on the Cadbury's chocolate down this way though.

I think we should concentrate on finding a sport for Fermanagh people to play that they might be good at.