Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Northern Ireland 2125?

15354565859188

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 81,279 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    I never said anything about 'the majority'. I am actually talking about a minority of people who have and do hold power.

    The grip is slowly being released and you can sense the fear in those vociferously opposed to any test of the constitutional status of NI as a test of the constitutional status of NI approaches. As many commentators and analysts have said, a Border Poll is inevitable, sooner rather than later.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    But Francie, you, i, and many many others elect people to the Dail who form a government that hold that power you speak of. Start by getting out there and try to change the mind of the electorate.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 81,279 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    What makes you think that's not happening?

    Talk and discussion of a UI is everywhere.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    You think? Looking at the results of the exit poll after last years election in the South, a UI isn’t mentioned as an important issue, even among SF voters.

    https://amp.rte.ie/amp/1483885/



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,220 ✭✭✭Fionn1952


    For that exit poll, I'd be curious if it was a case of asking an open question or asking people to rank options. I suspect the latter, and if so, I'd be curious to see what the options were and if a UI was one of those options. If it wasn't an option, it does nothing to answer how important people think it is as an issue.

    That being said, I wouldn't ever expect it to be the absolute top concern for many at any time. I'd be strongly in favour of Unification and don't think I would mention it as a top 5 even if I was asked an open question, but it is still an important issue to me.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 81,279 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    It won't be until it is platformed politically. The public weren't having a conversation about abortion rights or same sex marriage rights etc until it was politically platformed by the work of activists. That is what is happening now, same process and you can deny until the cows come home if you wish.

    As I said, we are a 'change of leader' or the 'make-up of a coalition' away from a Plan being made ready and all the back channel work to begin to put a Border Poll in place. No-way will this be either government making a solo run ideally, unless government in the UK really fractures that is, which isn't impossible either.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,534 ✭✭✭Suckler


    This just sums up the OP's raison d'etre.

    The salient point of the post is, conveniently, ignored. There is nothing genuine about the thread; simply another platform for bitter and immature comments like this misquotation to gain an insignificant 'win' for himself.

    Anyone who can summarise the Troubles, and what went before it, in such an intentionally blinkered and pointedly simplistic manner is categorically not interested in any honest discussion.

    "I don’t want to blame one side for closing it down (but I guess I am) - we are caught in a bind where Republicans promised a unified romantic Ireland and thousands of people were killed supposedly in this cause, I recognise that it is extremely difficult for the hard edge of Republicanism to accept the reality that they will not get this."

    From the above to then self redefining the word of "Colonialism"/ attending "lectures" that conveniently back up this redefinition / cheap scouring of internet for AI self serving blurbs / self declared victories - "everyone has run a mile".

    It's purely an opportunity for the OP to play out his 'one upmanship' game.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,195 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    https://www.independent.ie/news/sunday-independentireland-thinks-poll-at-a-glance-the-eu-vs-trump-the-race-for-the-aras-tax-cuts-gaza-and-do-you-feel-safe-on-our-streets/a887127099.html?

    People think housing, cost of living and immigration are more important.

    In fact, Israel/Gaza, Trump and the Ukraine feature much more highly on lists of important issues than a united Ireland does.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Yes, you could be right there. More data here, has pie charts, but only gives the top three choices unfortunately.

    https://www.rte.ie/news/election-24/2024/1130/1483888-election-age-gender/

    EDIT: Gives you more info viewing via a webpage. Originally posted from a phone. Still no mention of a UI though.

    Post edited by [Deleted User] on


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 81,279 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady




  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,777 ✭✭✭Francis McM


    That seems a fair definition of a "moderate republican". Some republicans meet those conditions above. Some do not. The ones who meet those conditions, like accepting that violent republicanism was wrong,and who condemned the pIRA - which would include most people south of the border - are moderate republicans. Someone like FrancieBrady, who falls short on meeting those conditions, could not be thought of as a moderate republican, in my opinion.

    If the boot was on the other foot, I would say the same about unionists, and would think a good indicator would also be their attitude to para-military violence : if they condoned the loyalist paramilitaries, and thought they achieved something with their violence during the troubles, I would say they are extremist unionist: it they condemned the loyalist para-militaries , I would say they are moderate unionists.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,873 ✭✭✭ittakestwo


    A moderate unionist would also acknowledge the British army's part takeing in murders during the troubles like bloody sunday and the british governments whitewashing of the murders.

    You seem to just want to call out paramilitaries and dont except the wrongs of the BA or british government so you cant be considered a moderate either.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,195 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Yes, by definition, a moderate unionist would condemn the British Army's actions on Bloody Sunday, but I haven't ever seen anyone on here support what the British Army did that day.

    Unfortunately, that can't be said about the apologists for the PIRA which are numerous enough.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 81,279 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Really?

    Not even the prolific poster who tries to excuse it by mentioning what happened several days before?

    Or goes on about the 1000's who served but never did anything to dilute the part played by the British and their various forces.

    😁



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,195 ✭✭✭✭blanch152




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,873 ✭✭✭ittakestwo


    It Wasn't just that day tho was it. They were supplying weapons to loyalist paramilitaries through the troubles.

    But glad we agree that a moderate unionist would condemn the actions of the British Army and government in the troubles.

    But Francis McM doesn't condemn the British Army or government for thier partakings in the troubles so we both agree he cant he cant be described as a moderate.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,195 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Stop making things up that I didn't post.

    The question was asked about Bloody Sunday and I made that clear.

    The majority of the actions taken by the British Army, the RUC and the British government during the Troubles were appropriate security responses to a terrorist group. Yes, there were times that they overstepped the mark, like Bloody Sunday, and there were also mistaken policy responses like internment, but that doesn't take from the job they were mostly doing which was protecting ordinary people. You contrast that with the actions of the PIRA who were kneecapping, punishment beating and raping and abusing their own "side".



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,534 ✭✭✭Suckler


    That summary excuses and minimises a lot of what the security forces were doing and why they were doing it. It also leaves out the successive governments policies that gave rise to the Troubles. It bluntly gives a pass to loyalist militants, security forces and those in power to say they only had to take those measure solely because of the PIRA.; despite the fact the government policies and loyalist militants pre-date the PIRA.

    Telling that the PIRA get a mention but you omit the Loyalist terrorist groups that were active long before the PIRA. Like the last time(s) when you simply want to paint it as a very one side, single fault, conflict.

    Post edited by Suckler on


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,873 ✭✭✭ittakestwo


    A moderate unionist would condemn the muders by the British army, its connections with loyalist paramilitaries and the whitewashing by the British government during the troubles. Do we agree on this?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,195 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    What murders?

    Were the Gibraltar 3 murdered? They were honoured by the PIRA as fallen combatants.

    Let's get back to the original definition of a moderate unionist put forward here:

    "People who are comfortable with who they are and who don’t have to hate on all things Irish to make them feel more British.
    People who can accept there are other stories from the conflict/war and before it.
    People who aren’t living under sieges in their own heads.

    Ordinary decent people who want to stay in the UK but who accepted long ago that if a maiority want unity so be it.

    Moderate people."

    I only see moderate unionists posting on here.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,534 ✭✭✭Suckler


    Again, telling you had to use the Gibraltar three as an example of British army murders….

    The 26 from Bloody Sunday a bit too much to reflect on..?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,195 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    I have already said that a moderate unionist would condemn Bloody Sunday.

    By the way, I am not a unionist, I am a moderate nationalist.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,873 ✭✭✭ittakestwo


    So you think moderates can only condemn para-militaries during the troubles.

    Moderates will condemn all that were involved in the troubles including the British army and british government. You already condemned bloody sunday that was carried out by the BA. Do you condemn the whitewashing of it by the British government during the troubles too?

    Why cant you just say aswell as para-militaries i condemn the British Army and government for thier wrongs too during the troubles.

    You're clearly not a moderate if you cant condemn the BA or BG for their wrongs in the troubles.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,534 ✭✭✭Suckler


    A "moderate nationalist" with a very skewed and questionable thought process when it comes to NI and The Troubles.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,195 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Not at all, I share the views of other moderate nationalists on the Troubles. Examples would be John Hume, Seamus Mallon and Austin Currie, who, like me, never engaged in the horrific revisionism that Sinn Fein and their supporters are at.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,534 ✭✭✭Suckler


    Except thats not what I was referring to and you know it.

    Your summary of - "It was the PIRA who were to blame and anything that was done was solely due to them", has been trotted out a few times. The summary above makes little of how one side acted yet names the PIRA as the sole bad actors. It's a well worn thought process that's been flushed out a number of times.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,195 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Sorry, my views are very closely aligned with those of Seamus Mallon and Austin Currie. They are, by definition, moderate nationalists.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,777 ✭✭✭Francis McM


    I think in general the British army and British government done the best they could, as honestly and lawfully as they could, given the situation they were in at the time. Someone needed to keep the 2 sides apart in N.I. In any country in the world, there needs to be a government and a police force, to keep some sort of law and order. As we saw in the 1956-62 border campaign by the IRA, if a terrorist group attacks and kills members of a police force that breaks down community relations and makes the situation worse for everyone.

    Probably hundreds of thousands served in the security services over many decades : the vast majority acted within the law, despite many being under huge personal strain 24/7 at the time.

    Of course there were exceptions ( some might call them bad apples), as in the armed forces or police of any government in the world. The majority wanted peace, and the vast majority of the security forces did not want to shoot anyone or plant bombs and destroy property, and the vast majority did not shoot anyone or plant bombs and destroy property.

    I condemn any soldiers who acted unlawfully on Bloody Sunday, and I'm sure other mistakes were probably made.

    I think my attitude is the same as most people in Ireland during the troubles. Most people I know back then hated the pIRA as well as the loyalist para-militaries. SF only got a per cent or 2 in elections. Do not forget the pIRA killed some of our Gardai and army too, so stop the revisionism.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 81,279 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    There isn't a single point of blame for what happened in NI.

    There is, as in all things a hierarchy of blame:
    Beginning with those with the power to prevent the circumstances that led to a society basically collapsing and then trying for a time to maintain those circumstance.
    Then they are those who engaged in the violence, the British and it's security forces, the paramilitaries and then after the GFA those still engaged in violence and those threatening it.

    I don't see anyone here on the nationalist/republican side threatening 'all hell will break loose' 'not able to guarantee being peaceful' or to resist the democratic will of the people by seeking a 'satellite to the motherland' if a Border Poll does not go their way.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,873 ✭✭✭ittakestwo


    Strongly disagree with the British gov did the best they could. They allowed an apartheid state develop where gerrymandering and and giving best jobs and housing to one side. Then at the start of the troubles when people demanded equality and protested they murdered them and subsequently whitewashed it. Infact IMO the british gov were the ones most responsible for the troubles. If NI was originally set up like after the GFA the troubles wouldn't have started.

    Also through the troubles the British army was supplyingweapons to para-military that were used to kill civilians. So were aiding and abetting alot of under civilian murders.

    But a moderate unionist would be just abel to say now i condemn para-militaries and the british army and government during the troubles.



Advertisement
Advertisement