Northern Ireland 2125?

Totally dis-ingenuous posting again.
Here is the point made:

Back to you reading 20+ catholic support for the status quo and confusing that for a 'pro Union' opinion.

If you, again, do your due diligence, and look at all the opinions given in that opinion poll, you will notice that majorities in both jurisdictions favour referendums in the next 10 years.

That is people saying we may favour the status quo or we 'don't know' but we want referendums because we want to see the Plan for a UI.

The only opinion poll that will matter is the one taken after we see that Plan. And that is as close as a change of party leader or a party entering coalition.

You can address if you wish, it's your credibility as an honest debater that's in question.

"With the inevitable devolution for the two nations"

Its one nation of people with one national patron saint. You will never get around that.

FrancieBrady, that review in your post no 1321 for "History Ireland" is by Niall Meehan. Interesting you quote him yet again. Not surprised he has those views on protestants, given his Republican credentials.

Quote:

"Except Niall Meehan is not just an academic. He is a devoted and enthusiastic Sinn Fein supporter who some believe specialises in….how shall I put this?…..delicate, back room work on behalf of the party. Whatever the truth about that it would be no exaggeration to say that the Griffith College lecturer is nonetheless an important cog in the Sinn Fein machine."

It says in the article below, and I quote

" Niall Meehan has written and/or smeared on behalf of Sinn Fein under a number of pseudonyms including but not restricted to the following: Adam O'Toole, Mick Griffith, Mick Finnegan, John O'Leary and Harry W."

I suppose you would know nothing about anyone writing on behalf of SF, FrancieBrady? ;)

Who is your national/nations patron saint?

You do not need Irish language to get a government job or go to Uni in Belfast ….not yet anyway, until a U.I. ;)

Interesting that even the German's are taking an interest.

Deutsche Welle is Germany’s international broadcaster, producing content in 30 languages. We independently report social, political and economic developments in Germany and Europe, incorporating both German and other perspectives. DW hopes to promote understanding between different cultures and peoples.

You attributed that quote to the wrong person. It comes from the author of The Pensive Quill, who is Antony McIntyre. Enough said about that.

Now what was it that Meehan wrote that was wrong or too SFish for you?

THIS IS CORRECT, there are other Southern Protestant testimonies rejecting this perception as noted by The Pensive Quill

Bury’s narrative asserts that IRA attacks on individual Protestants during the 1919–23 War of Independence and Civil War were sectarian. Southern Protestant testimony rejecting this perception is ignored, alongside other contrary evidence.

As noted also by D'Alton:

Also CORRECT, Bury does not think it important to mention many returned

Reasons for departure, but not return, interest Bury.

….

FULLY CORRECT. The evidence for this is not hard to find.

Protestants retained control of the commanding heights of the southern Irish economy, in banking, insurance, manufacturing, retail and the building trade.

This is largely because no one thought too much about taking it from them.

Had that happened the author would have had more to complain about.

Despite what the author intimates, there were never more than ineffectual efforts at questioning this sectarian system of ownership, control and discrimination, which lasted into the 1960s

CORRECT ALSO IF THE ABOVE AND D'Alton's observations are true. I didn't read the book so I don't know if there are many proofing oversights.

This is a fascinating book of interesting contradictions, in need of a proofreader.

The same Deutsche Welle that, after a year long internal investigation by the pro-Palestinian activist publication Arab48, opined that Arab employees in DW were unfairly dismissed over largely spurious antisemitism charges? Strange bedfellows you choose FrancieBrady ( I suppose the same could be said of your Sean Russell in WW2 when he went to Germany ) but then again, paper never refused ink.

Yet again you make exception of one sides violence that NOBODY has ignored.

You of course ignore this bit and repeated condemnation of all the violence:

Neither were the paramilitaries either before you rush up to the high moral ground.

When in a hole your argument seeks out the IRA or the Shinners…always.

Predictable not to mention pathetic.

You aren't interested in the whole picture just a bit of it. The IRA, UVF etc were a symptom of the wider problem

And it was when the British (the primarily the responsible party) stopped shoring up the problem they created, and allowed to get increasingly worse - stopped colluding with paramilitaries and corrupt sectarian security forces and sat down and ended the Unionist Veto and negotiated that we were able to treat some of those symptoms.

Some of those symptoms disappeared as a result (the IRA) and others are sadly still with us, but weakened massively and unable to destabilise much as they posture about it or try.

Not sure what the Arab department has to do with the clip posted.
Do you think the Germans edited the man to say what he did?😁

yeh, you did attribute it - 'to the article below'

It says in the article below, and I quote

" Niall Meehan has written and/or smeared on behalf of Sinn Fein under a number of pseudonyms including but not restricted to the following: Adam O'Toole, Mick Griffith, Mick Finnegan, John O'Leary and Harry W."

That quote is not in that article.

There is nothing wrong with being a republican Francis.

That you can't provide a counter argument or show where he was wrong or misleading speaks volumes.

BTW: to those interested, Meehan provides a quite extensive and notated answer to the 'The Broken Elbow' directly underneath that article.

The quote is in this article, the same picture almost, hence the confusion.

You have not shown where Graham Norton was wrong or provided a counter argument, and instead want to drag the argument even further off thread by diverting to a few sentences, loaded sentences, taken from someone else's book.

N.B. about the other person, Nothing wrong with being a republican, did I say there was? No. All I said was his Republican credentials were well known.

I didn't say Norton was 'wrong' I asked was he 'gilding the lily' because he has told two differing accounts at different times.

In the first case he told a different story humorously when he was promoting himself as the host of a comedy chat show - 'So Graham Norton'
And a different story when he was promoting books set in Ireland with a dark crime or act at their core.