Seth Brundle wrote: » What did he say?
yagan wrote: » Name calling? Is not Calvinism a central part of the protestant tradition particular to peoples in the north east of Ireland, and do they not claim descendancy from English and Scottish colonialism? You can't just flippingly dismiss their heritage. Have some respect.
Infini wrote: » Tweedledee and Tweedledum parties aka FG and FF. Some consider the 2 parties 2 sides of the same one hence the FFG thing. Seen that one bandied around the journal comments sections (*cough*) and on reddit.
Professor Moriarty wrote: » What is an FFG?
Seth Brundle wrote: » i didn't. I suggested that you tone down the rhetoric!
yagan wrote: » Leo Varadkar has made the mistake that many here do in thinking Republican = Catholicism and now he's retracted that assertion. In trying to coax and accommodate the unionist sectarianism Leo alienates all of us of all believe in secular democracy.
Seth Brundle wrote: » Apparently it's official - a feasibility study is to assess the possibility of building a bridge between NI and GB :rolleyes: I've a feeling that the people working in Larne port won't be fearing for their jobs!https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-northern-ireland-56341013?__twitter_impression=true&s=09
ancapailldorcha wrote: » Calling Unionism a sixteenth century cult is at been unhelpful. You know full well that this was what I was referring to and now you're pretending to care about Unionist culture.
yagan wrote: » Britain actually reneging on its GFA commitment is a real threat to them. BNO status was actually created to stop people from the colonies moving to Britain and if the Hong Kong scheme backfires then I can see NI British passport holders having their British rights watered down too.
yagan wrote: » How is placating unionist feelings which is what FFG seem to be doing helping? Why is it those who adhere to the GFA are now being painted as unhelpful. Not calling out the anti GFA DUP and their para allies is encouraging anti democracy forces. It's accurate to state Calvinism is at the core of their identity, especially since Ian Paisley Sr actually called the political branch of his church the Protestant Unionist Party, before rebranding as the DUP. When will you understand that they don't care about democracy? They only partook of democracy when it buttressed their sectarianism. None of what I said above is against the peace, but politically and paramilitarilly opposing the peace process can no longer be entertained. They are as offside as Saoradh and CIRA/NIRA. The more the DUP and their paras are treated with kid gloves the more dissidents of all hues will feel justified.
Seth Brundle wrote: » The GFA worked because everryone in NI was treated as an equal. People are to be treated with respect. Whilst this did not suit all agendas up there, those that oppose it made a conscious choice. By name calling and belitteling people, you will never make them want to be part of what you are proposing to achieve (which I assume is a peaceful region where all are made feel welcome). Would the peace process have worked if nationalists were still made feel inferior?
schmoo2k wrote: » Add from New York Times + Washington Post - bound to help the NI protocol issue no end:
ancapailldorcha wrote: » The silly comparisons and name calling are not helpful. I'm not sure what you're hoping to achieve with them.
yagan wrote: » Why would we celebrate an anti Catholic feast day? Is there an Apartheid bank holiday in South Africa? If there's going to be a new holiday it will be about reunification. The anti democracy calvinist planters march with swords drawn against the Irish nation.
yagan wrote: » I'm pro peace but the paramilitaries are now aligned with the DUP in opposing the peace process. Why make excuses for anti democracy cults?
Seth Brundle wrote: » Give over with the silly terminology. If you're really wanting peace going forwards in NI then your approach needs to change!
yagan wrote: » The anti democracy calvinist planters march with swords drawn against the Irish nation.
ReganBrady wrote: » Even if the masses would like to have a United Ireland then it's true they would have to accept it, yes that will be a point to treat them as equal citizens, also 12th would be good to have as an extra day, though things seem more than far yet, not easy to make a guess, imagine or predict anything based on present scenario.
Hurrache wrote: » If that's what you take from what I posted, fair play to you.
FrancieBrady wrote: » You find it onerous living with a debate on a UI?
PeadarCo wrote: » Opinion on what? The protocol has nothing to do with a united Ireland, the justification for the protocol is the GFA. The GFA sets an avenue for how a United Ireland can be achieved peacefully but doesn't guarantee one. The protocol could result in changes economicly that makes a united Ireland more likely. But that's it more likely, you are looking into the future. By saying the protocol means a united Ireland is inevitable(it isn't) you are naturally associating it with a united Ireland. This something that is opposed by people in North Ireland. Get the protocol working. If you think its means a united Ireland is more likely and you support that idea, even better. You have no need to talk about a united Ireland for the next few months at least until the protocol has beded in. As once the protocol has beded in a united Ireland is only a matter of time.
Fionn1952 wrote: » Entitlement to an Irish passport doesn't make one Irish when the person entitled to it outright rejects it. It is a fundamental part of the success of the GFA that we don't, 'claim' people, it is the right of that citizen to decide if they're British, Irish or both. Should someone from a Unionist background consider themselves Irish and wish to obtain an Irish passport, that is down to them. If someone from a Unionist background tells me they're British not Irish, I'm not going to devolve into weaseling about to imply they're kind of a bit sort of Irish. That person is British, that's what I agreed to when I voted for the GFA. Whether they oppose Unification or not isn't relevant; it is perfectly possible for someone who is Irish, or a British/Irish dual citizen to oppose Unification....just take a look on the Irish Unification thread on here.
FrancieBrady wrote: » ?? So how long should this silence last for in your opinion?
PeadarCo wrote: » Because you start turning the protocol into a proxy unification vote. Something which the protocol has nothing to do with.
