McMurphy wrote: » Missed him and Joe Brolly, have read about Brolly, but what did Bryson say?
Fionn1952 wrote: » NI looking out for itself by allowing vaccination for people who work in NI but live in Ireland is certainly to be applauded, it's a sensible move that NI should take to protect itself. Rather than playing silly buggers with language like, 'toxic' and accusing a side of stoking anything, how about we look at the numbers? Two questions will put it all together. 1) How many UK residents have been vaccinated due to vaccine doses sent from the EU 2) How many EU residents have been vaccinated due to vaccine doses sent from the UK.
RobMc59 wrote: » I made a comment regarding NI waiving protocol over vaccines which would be welcomed I'd have thought but that provokes annoyance amongst certain posters which is strange.One would almost think it doesn't fit into their 'British bad,Brussels good' agenda. In addition. there are probably many people who were born British who qualify for a jab,which would be good news imo.
bonzothedog wrote: » Good debate on Claire Byrne I thought, Andrew Trimble was quite interesting and I thought John Bruton was good too. Brolly let himself down big-time though.
FrancieBrady wrote: » John - rewrite the GFA, because it looks like there might be a UI - Bruton? Heard it all before, as much a dinosaur as Campbell tbh.
bonzothedog wrote: » Thank you Francie, I appreciate your response.
FrancieBrady wrote: » The EU have been helping out NI for decades and most recently in the heat of the pandemic. Not sure why you are making an exception out of some goodwill coming back from NI.
RobMc59 wrote: » Francie,someone posts news about the different countries helping each other and somehow our resident disgruntled republicans twist it into some nefarious British plot for world or Irish domination.
MrMusician18 wrote: » The Constitution is changed by simple majority and there will be no majority for that.
MrMusician18 wrote: » I don't really understand why varadkar is saying titles like taoiseach will need to go on a United Ireland. The Constitution is changed by simple majority and there will be no majority for that. Even if it's part of a bundle of changes, I don't see the political gain for appeasement of what will be a small minority. It will also be quickly reversed by a nationalist government looking for an easy win.
FrancieBrady wrote: » What they are also not getting is they are trying to appease a Unionism that won't be appeased, no matter what you do. Even if the majority was 80% in favour they will still be doing the Never Never Never.
eire4 wrote: » That is a very valid point. I think that there is good arguments for some changes in a new reunified Ireland as part of a new start for everyone that can be good not just as appeasement to unionists though, but positive for everyone. For instance our national anthem is very war like and I would be happy to see a new national anthem that was more positive and up lifting rather then one about war and fighting as an example.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Personally have no issues with flag or anthems. But if anyone thinks the rump of belligerent Unionism left would change because we agreed to change those things then they are deluded. Like the Anglo Irish Agreement and the GFA, we need to move on without those people for the greater good of all.
Fionn1952 wrote: » We still have a responsibility to extend the olive branch to all, make the less belligerent feel welcome and avoid a situation where future generations continue to feel alienated. The refusal of some to accept the extended hand of friendship doesn't justify withdrawing it altogether. Almost a million people from a Unionist/Unionist leaning background will be part of our country....how many do you want to move on without? Majority rule with no protection for a significant minority population didn't work out very well the first time we tried it on this island.
bonzothedog wrote: » But then it is very likely we revert to violence in the north, surely we need to do our best for the unionists and the moderates, I would probably vote for a united Ireland but only just- of the tradeoff is more violence and killing you can keep it.
eire4 wrote: » To be fair to Francie I did not read into his comments that we should not make some accommodations to reach out to and make the minority feel included in a reunified Ireland. Which of course is exactly what we should do. I read it more and I agree that there will be an intransigent group who will never accept anything and that we must accept that as reality just as we have when we have taken earlier steps along the road to where we are now such as the Good Friday Agreement. Over time I would like to think a new and inclusive Ireland would emerge over time and those intransigents would gradually fade away.
Fionn1952 wrote: » Please tell me you can see the irony in you complaining about, 'British bad, Brussels good' agenda, when the only reason you popped into the thread was for a bit of, 'Brussels bad, British good'. I've said it's a good thing that NI is protecting itself. That isn't a complaint or criticism; most of my family are in NI, including some immunocompromised family members, the more NI protects itself the better as far as I'm concerned. I offered CONTEXT for your, 'Brussels Bad' complaining by pointing out that the EU has exported vaccine doses to the UK, none have gone the other way; it is easy for the UK to feign taking the moral high ground saying they would never stop vaccines being exported.....when they're not exporting any. I've also been highly complimentary of Britain's vaccine roll out so far, and highly critical of their early strategy in dealing with CoVid, and vice versa with the EU/Ireland. Perhaps remove the log from your own eye before complaining about others taking one sided positions, Rob.
