# "Belfast" vs "Good Friday" agreement



## Thirsty (16 Mar 2021)

Can any one tell me why the Irish Times has taken to referencing a "Belfast Agreement"?


----------



## Purple (16 Mar 2021)

It can be called either. Maybe they are hoping that the people in Northern Ireland will become atheist and stop killing each other.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (16 Mar 2021)

It has become like stroke city London/Derry.  Protestants call it Belfast, Catholics call it Good Friday.  The Brits, trying to be super diplomatic call it the Good Friday Belfast Agreement.  I hadn't noticed any particular change in the IT's allegiance.


----------



## Betsy Og (29 Mar 2021)

I think the offical name is Belfast Agreement, it just got the 'nickname' of GFA at the time and it stuck.

While we're on, did the protestant J*sus not die on Good Friday as well?? (It seems Je*us is a bad word in the South now....what would the DUP think!!)


----------



## Purple (30 Mar 2021)

Betsy Og said:


> did the protestant J*sus not die on Good Friday as well??


Probably... he also almost certainly stayed dead but don't tell then that!


----------



## Purple (9 Apr 2021)

Interesting piece from Stephen Collins in todays Irish Times on the current trouble in Northern Ireland. (subscribers Only)


----------



## WolfeTone (10 Apr 2021)

I'm not a subscriber, but Collins talks about 'demand for an early vote', 23 years after it was agreed by the political class, overwhelmingly endorsed by the people of Ireland, that the future of NI would be decided by the people of NI. And that referenda would be the means to determine that future. 

23yrs later... demand for an early vote? 

Collins is of course not alone in cowering to the threats of loyalist violence. He would front and centre in condemning Republican violence and supporting all measures for the rule of law. But when it comes to loyalist violence, everybody should tip-toe around the sensitivities of 'loyalism' and be 'mindful of idle chatter about a United Ireland'. 

Just to query that term 'loyalism'. The UK government negotiated the NI protocol, the British Parliament endorsed it, and Her Majesty the Queen gave it Royal Ascent. 
Exactly who/what are these people 'loyal' too? 
The should show their loyalty to the British Crown by submitting to the will of the British Crown. That is their position, they are subjects. They are subservient, willingly so, to a higher authority. 

Collins, and some other journalists, would do well to remind them from time to time of their true position in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, rather than try direct responsibility for the rioting at those who openly talk about legitimate political objectives.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (12 Apr 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> it was agreed by the political class, overwhelmingly endorsed by the people of Ireland, that the future of NI would be decided by the people of NI. And that referenda would be the means to determine that future.


There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that the people of NI would have rejected the protocol, the biggest constitutional change in a century, if given their say - GFA how are you?
For 4 years Simon Varadkar "threatened" a resumption of republican violence if there was a hard border on the island. Leo even backed it up by showing "propaganda" clips of the IRA burning border posts to the EU mandarins who only wallowed in the chance to use Ireland as a cat's paw to make the Brits squirm.
So who cowered to whose threats with the totally OTT NI protocol?


----------



## WolfeTone (12 Apr 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that the people of NI would have rejected the protocol



Arguably not, considering they rejected Brexit outright. There is no doubt about that.

Leo and Simon were wise to raise the spectre of hard borders on land....you only have to gauge the level of anger Unionism has towards an invisible sea border to consider what Nationalism would have have thought of actual physical land borders.

If Simon Vradakar were using the spectre of republican violence to prevent a land border, then unionism is using the spectre of loyalist violence to usurp the sea border in equal fashion.

There is no constitutional change to NI. 

NI is a separate entity to GB under the 'United' Kingdom. It has separate laws, on many things, not least on trade. Sunday hours for example, different in NI to say England or Scotland.
They even use a different version of the Sterling currency. 
Now they have different arrangements at customs posts.

They have their knickers in a twist because they think the 'motherland' has turned them over. The reality is different, they just have different customs arrangements (arguably more favourable). The paperwork is causing some issues but they can be worked out Im sure. 
Unionism is trying to turn this into identity politics, when all it really is a wake-up call to come out from behind the drum-beating, hold out the hand to your neighbours (literally, the nationalist population in NI) and work with them for everyones sake. 

The UK government negotiated the NI protocol, the British Parliament voted it into law, Her Majesty the Queen gave it the Royal Ascent.
These 'loyalists' should be reminded of their place - they are subjects to the Crown, they are subservient to the majesty of higher authority, they would fare better if they actually showed some of the loyalty to the British Crown.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (12 Apr 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> Arguably not, considering they rejected Brexit outright. There is no doubt about that.


"Arguably"?  I would have thought that it was in the spirit of the GFA that if such a change in status was "arguably" the wish or not of the people of NI that it would have been put to a ref.  There is also no doubt in my mind that having originally voted against Brexit they  (the minority of unionists who voted Remain) would, like London, certainly not vote to be split off from the UK and into the EU.


WolfeTone said:


> Leo and Simon were wise to raise the spectre of hard borders on land....you only have to gauge the level of anger Unionism has towards an invisible sea border to consider what Nationalism would have have thought of actual physical land borders.


By their own nationalist aspirations, yes they were very wise.  Play your strongest card - the threat of republican violence.


WolfeTone said:


> If Simon Vradakar were using the spectre of republican violence to prevent a land border, then unionism is using the spectre of loyalist violence to usurp the sea border in equal fashion.


Absolutely, no argument there.  Republicans have shown that violence works, I never expected Loyalists to turn the other cheek.


> There is no constitutional change to NI.


Ever read Macbeth?  He was promised by the witches that he would never be killed by man "of woman born".  He was killed by Macduff who was a cesarean birth.  So unionists were promised a say in any constitutional change but it is deemed that splitting them off into the EU does not qualify.  The border is scarcely mentioned in the GFA but pan nationalism persisted that no hard border was in the spirit thereof.  A ref on the change that did happen was surely in the spirit of the GFA.


> NI is a separate entity to GB under the 'United' Kingdom. It has separate laws, on many things, not least on trade. Sunday hours for example, different in NI to say England or Scotland.
> They even use a different version of the Sterling currency.


This is downright incorrect.  Even before 1979 when both parts of Ireland used "sterling" it is true that the Southern punt was merely backed by the sterling reserves of our Central Bank but the Northern pound has always been sterling backed by the Bank of England.  (As an aside this is one reason why Brexit will ensure that Scotland will never vote for independence for the foreseeable future.)


> They have their knickers in a twist because they think the 'motherland' has turned them over. The reality is different, they just have different customs arrangements (arguably more favourable). The paperwork is causing some issues but they can be worked out Im sure.


Yes I am sure the world sees it as much ado about nothing.  Just like all that mullarkey about a hard border.  There were going to be no border posts, merely a version of a ROI protocol.  The greater threat of violence won the day.


----------



## WolfeTone (12 Apr 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I would have thought that it was in the spirit of the GFA that if such a change in status



The change in constitutional status refers only to NI being part of the UK. Last time I checked, it is still firmly part of the UK. There is no constitutional change, there is a change to trading and customs arrangements, but they are still, very much so, part of the UK.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> There is also no doubt in my mind that having originally voted against Brexit they (the minority of unionists who voted Remain)



Irrelevant. The 'forgive them Lord, for they do not know what they do' arguement, was trashed out after the Brexit referendum with calls for a re-run of the Brexit referendum by some Remainers. Unionists, were some of the loudest cheerleaders in demanding that the decision to leave the EU was made and there was to be no turning back.
Part of the whole debacle of Brexit was that no-one actually knew what it meant. Leading to soft, hard, Norwegian style, Swiss style, type of arrangements. 
The UK negotiated a UK style Brexit, that is, a full Brexit for Britain, with NI remaining within customs and single market. This is British policy, endorsed by British parliament, approved by Her Majesty.
In the context of democracy, a minority of Unionists who voted to Remain but would now presumably vote Leave are as relevant now as the minority of British people who voted Leave but would rather they had now voted Remain.
Unionism needs to get its head out of the sand, the power structure that secured NI as part of the UK perpetually is broken. Unionism is now subject to the will of the entire people of NI and further afield.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> So unionists were promised a say in any constitutional change but it is deemed that splitting them off into the EU does not qualify.



Arguably, the decision to take them out of the EU was also a constitutional change - they voted not to leave.




Duke of Marmalade said:


> the Northern pound has always been sterling backed by the Bank of England.



I never suggested otherwise, it still is backed by Bank of England, which kind of waters down the 'our constitutional status has changed' arguement.

My point was, try spending a NI£10 in Liverpool. Trying shopping for shoes before 1pm in Belfast on a Sunday - barriers to trade, not to be found elsewhere in the UK.


----------



## Purple (12 Apr 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that the people of NI would have rejected the protocol, the biggest constitutional change in a century, if given their say - GFA how are you?


Brexit changed their constitutional position. They voted against that change but the British government ignored them. 



Duke of Marmalade said:


> By their own nationalist aspirations, yes they were very wise.


You do know that FG are the party of Partition, right?


Duke of Marmalade said:


> Absolutely, no argument there. Republicans have shown that violence works, I never expected Loyalists to turn the other cheek.


Yep, I agree with you there.


Duke of Marmalade said:


> So unionists were promised a say in any constitutional change but it is deemed that splitting them off into the EU does not qualify. The border is scarcely mentioned in the GFA but pan nationalism persisted that no hard border was in the spirit thereof. A ref on the change that did happen was surely in the spirit of the GFA.


See above ref Brixit.


Duke of Marmalade said:


> Yes I am sure the world sees it as much ado about nothing. Just like all that mullarkey about a hard border. There were going to be no border posts, merely a version of a ROI protocol. The greater threat of violence won the day.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (12 Apr 2021)

@WolfeTone The bottom line is that we now see that from the standpoint of the weird politics of this little island the logic of Brexit all boiled down to whether there would be a ROI protocol or a NI protocol.  An ROI protocol was a much more logical consequence of existing constitutional arrangements.  But the threat of Republican violence together with the desire of the EU to make life uncomfortable for the Brits has led to the truly bizzarre NI protocol.

By NI£ I think you mean a bank note issued by say the Northern Bank.  Try cashing a banknote issued by the Clydesdale Bank or the Yorkshire Bank in Soho.  It's a silly point.  In fact the one thing that I would cling to if I was a loyalist is that the truly distinctive effect of partition is the different currencies in both jurisdictions.  Ironic that this is entirely due to the politically motivated and ill judged decision of the Republic to split from sterling in 1979.  I don't remember much concern expressed then about the disruption in border areas.


----------



## Purple (12 Apr 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> 23 years after it was agreed by the political class, overwhelmingly endorsed by the people of Ireland, that the future of NI would be decided by the people of NI. And that referenda would be the means to determine that future.
> 
> 23yrs later... demand for an early vote?


Yep, the Peace Process kind of stopped when the chuckle brothers left the stage. The two hags in charge now are doing their respective tribes no service. It's hard to know which one to dislike more.


WolfeTone said:


> Collins is of course not alone in cowering to the threats of loyalist violence. He would front and centre in condemning Republican violence and supporting all measures for the rule of law. But when it comes to loyalist violence, everybody should tip-toe around the sensitivities of 'loyalism' and be 'mindful of idle chatter about a United Ireland'.


True, but Loyalism is defined by what it isn't, not what it is. They are on the losing side no matter what the outcome. The only question is whether the Nationalist manage to end up on the losing side with them. 


WolfeTone said:


> Just to query that term 'loyalism'. The UK government negotiated the NI protocol, the British Parliament endorsed it, and Her Majesty the Queen gave it Royal Ascent.
> Exactly who/what are these people 'loyal' too?
> The should show their loyalty to the British Crown by submitting to the will of the British Crown. That is their position, they are subjects. They are subservient, willingly so, to a higher authority.


Excellent point but we all know that Loyalism isn't about loyalism, it's just a word used to define a tribal identity. One of the many things they have in common with Nationalists.


WolfeTone said:


> Leo and Simon were wise to raise the spectre of hard borders on land....you only have to gauge the level of anger Unionism has towards an invisible sea border to consider what Nationalism would have have thought of actual physical land borders.


We know what they thought about it. There are graveyards full of corpses to remind us. 


WolfeTone said:


> They have their knickers in a twist because they think the 'motherland' has turned them over.


They have their knickers in a twist because the 'Motherland' doesn't care about them and just wishes they would go away.
Their behaviour is the main reason for that.
Nationalists in Northern Ireland have yet to realise that the same thing has happened in this country.


----------



## Purple (12 Apr 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> An ROI protocol was a much more logical consequence of existing constitutional arrangements.


How so?
It was the UK that left the EU.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (12 Apr 2021)

Purple said:


> Brexit changed their constitutional position. They voted against that change but the British government ignored them.


I'm struggling to see this point.  At the time of the 2016 ref there was no awareness that the constitutional status of NI within the UK was up for grabs.  It is a result of the endeavours of Simon Varadkar that we have arrived at the truly bizarre arrangement of the NI protocol. (see #13)


Purple said:


> You do know that FG are the party of Partition, right?


I am aware of the history of early 20th century Ireland.  In the 21st century Leo played the Green card more forcibly than CJH himself, so much so that some commentators mistakenly thought he was cosying up to Mary Lou.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (12 Apr 2021)

Purple said:


> How so?
> It was the UK that left the EU.


NI is in the UK???  That's the whole point.


----------



## Purple (12 Apr 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I'm struggling to see this point. At the time of the 2016 ref there was no awareness that the constitutional status of NI within the UK was up for grabs. It is a result of the endeavours of Simon Varadkar that we have arrived at the truly bizarre arrangement of the NI protocol.


The Good Friday Agreement is a Constitutional Document and it ties NI law to the ECJ. Brexit, and the move away from recognising the jurisdiction of the ECJ changed the constitutional position of NI.


----------



## Purple (12 Apr 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> NI is in the UK???  That's the whole point.


As far as I'm aware, yes (thankfully... they broke it; they bought it).


----------



## Conan (12 Apr 2021)

Who is “Simon Varadkar”?
What the so called “Loyalists” are really struggling with is the fact that Boris lied to them (and many others) and sold them down the river. He promised no border, they could burn the export documents etc. All lies. And the DUP who campaigned for Brexit and tied their wagon to Boris (rather than the Teresa May deal) are now ostensibly trying to wash their hands of the violence (despite the fact that many of their members have been silent in their condemnation of the violence).


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (12 Apr 2021)

Purple said:


> The Good Friday Agreement is a Constitutional Document and it ties NI law to the ECJ. Brexit, and the move away from recognising the jurisdiction of the ECJ changed the constitutional position of NI.


_Purple_ I think we should avoid angels on pins territory.  "The jurisdiction of the ECJ" has sweet fanny adam  to do with the constitutional position of NI *within the UK*.  The folk on the Shankill Road are not upset about any influence the ECJ may have on their lives, trust me, I know the mindset.
But _Wolfie _does highlight a certain paradox.  Why are these loyalists so dismissive of the will of Her Majesty's government?  The answer is that their primary driving passion is not to be British, there is even a Red Hand faction in favour of independence.  Their all consuming passion is to never, never, never be Irish.  I'm afraid both SF/IRA and the Paisleyites are equally to blame for that.


----------



## Purple (12 Apr 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> _Purple_ I think we should avoid angels on pins territory. "The jurisdiction of the ECJ" has sweet fanny adam to do with the constitutional position of NI *within the UK*. The folk on the Shankill Road are not upset about any influence the ECJ may have on their lives, trust me, I know the mindset.


It does change the constitutional position of Northern Ireland though, whether they care or not. 


Duke of Marmalade said:


> But _Wolfie _does highlight a certain paradox. Why are these loyalists so dismissive of the will of Her Majesty's government? The answer is that their primary driving passion is not to be British, there is even a Red Hand faction in favour of independence. Their all consuming passion is to never, never, never be Irish. I'm afraid both SF/IRA and the Paisleyites are equally to blame for that.


Yes, hence my comment that Unionism is defined by what it isn't.


----------



## WolfeTone (12 Apr 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> An ROI protocol was a much more logical consequence of existing constitutional arrangements.



Not at all Duke, not at all. You may recall that RoI changed _its_ constitutional status in 1998 over the territorial claim. Inherent in that change was the understanding that Ireland and Britain had reached a space where the ordinary folk of the day were intent about going about their business and social activities under a broadly level playing field. By virtue of the European Courts of Justice hovering in the background, nationalists could sense the scales of justice being balanced in the event of enduring anymore British injustice (real or perceived).

This Brexit thing, a wholly English nationalist endeavour, was seized upon by Unionists as an opportunity to reinforce and reaffirm the false mantra of 'Ulster is British'. It was positively an opportunistic territorial grab by political class of Unionism.
Thankfully enough reasonable Unionists saw through it, and the people of NI in general,  exercising their democratic right to self-determination they resoundingly rejected Brexit.

Brexiteers, including Unionists, were afforded ample opportunity to demonstrate how border arrangements would work between North and South that would not antaganoise or provoke a militant Republican response. I'm not sure to what extent the reaction would have been, but I am satisfied that some reaction would occur.
So the sea border was invented. A reasonable compromise. Nobody lives in the sea, nobody works in the sea, it is a wholly abstract concept. All that it means is that some customs and trade regulations be applied between GB and NI. The paperwork being carried out by... customs officials... who are paid and trained for this sort of thing, so they should not be overly aghast at checking more forms (might even be a pay rise in for them?)



Duke of Marmalade said:


> The folk on the Shankill Road are not upset about any influence the ECJ may have on their lives



True, but the folk on The Falls may think differently.
While it is worthy of Dublin to pipe up from time to time about having the back of Nationalists, we all know it is mostly window dressing. 
But the ECJ on the other hand is a different beast, a heavy hitter in field of impartiality and for imposing its will on both Dublin and London if need be. 

The constitutional status of NI at the time of GFA (and changes to Art 2&3) was as members of the EU and its institutions. 
Brexit changed that, and as the GFA states, it is for the people of NI to determine their future, without external interference. They chose to remain in the EU, and they are still in the UK - arguably, for trade, it is the best of both worlds. 
It is an indictment on Unionist political class that they cannot sell this to their people.


----------



## WolfeTone (12 Apr 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Their all consuming passion is to never, never, never be Irish. I'm afraid both SF/IRA and the Paisleyites are equally to blame for that.



I would agree with this and some more, through the centuries. It is deeply embedded. Although I think it is never, never being Gaelic, Celtic or Green more so than 'Irish'. 
Even Big Ian P pronounced he was Irish, and his wife has admitted that she would be prepared to live in a UI. Admitting that partition was a mistake. 


NI exists only for one purpose, for the purpose of Unionism never, ever having to be Gaelic, it is an alien form to them to being British. It is why Acht na Gaeilge is resisted so much. But I recently discovered that Edward Carson, who thought partition to be a tragedy, was a fluent Irish speaker. 

But I stand with Gerry Adams on this, and Hume before him, it is a mindset that needs to be broken. Not a forced break, but to be exposed as a redundant way of thinking. 
It is the social and economic order of the day that will unite the people and banish centuries of hatred to the past.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (12 Apr 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> So the sea border was invented. A reasonable compromise. Nobody lives in the sea, nobody works in the sea, it is a wholly abstract concept. All that it means is that some customs and trade regulations be applied between GB and NI. The paperwork being carried out by... customs officials... who are paid and trained for this sort of thing, so they should not be overly aghast at checking more forms (might even be a pay rise in for them?)


The sea border operates as you say, with by definition nobody being anywhere near the border.  The same could have applied to a land border.
In the end the Irish had the far stronger hand.  In general there is far more sympathy with the nationalist cause and Boris was a dreadful ally for the loyalists compared to the Michel Barnier's on the Irish side.
Irish nationalism won hands down but at a cost.  This is a zero sum game.  Nationalism's win is Unionism's loss.  Simon Varadkar can never be seen as other than an enemy by unionists of all shades.  Michael Martin is slightly better placed in that regard.  One thing's for sure, 20 years after the "peace" accord of the GFA the hearts and minds of people in the six counties are more divided than ever on any version of a United Ireland.  So much so that the prospect of a border poll is a time bomb not just for the six counties but for the whole of Ireland.
Nearly give you a like for that last post, but the final para praising Grisly


----------



## WolfeTone (12 Apr 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> The same could have applied to a land border.



Without wanting to reinvent the wheel, how would a land border have worked? I'm pretty sure that ample opportunity was afforded to show how it would work but no workings ever came forward? 



Duke of Marmalade said:


> So much so that the prospect of a border poll is a time bomb not just for the six counties but for the whole of Ireland.



Ah, but this is the mindset that needs to be broken. The "let's not pursue legitimate political aims by exclusively democratic and peaceful means, in case the terrorists come back" mindset. 

It is the mindset of Stephen Collins and many others setting the media and political agenda. The perpetual "now is not the right time". 
I wonder what the womens suffragette movement would have achieved if it held this view? Or any other struggle for equality and rights? 

Those in leadership who raise the spectre of violence at the prospect of pursuing legitimate political aims need to be constantly challenged.


----------



## SGWidow (12 Apr 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> Without wanting to reinvent the wheel, how would a land border have worked? I'm pretty sure that ample opportunity was afforded to show how it would work but no workings ever came forward?



Ah come on now WolfeTone please!

EVERYONE knows full well that there are readily available _electronic solutions_ to the border issue. The unfortunate aspect of these solutions is that they haven't yet _found their tribe_ - as in hopping into the Irish sea doesn't work for them. These are landlubber electronics.....


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (12 Apr 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> I wonder what the womens suffragette movement would have achieved if it held this view? Or any other struggle for equality and rights?


Oh please _Wolfie_.  Equality and rights! Do you realise how OTT that is?  Rights to what?  For the 0.1% posers who want to speak to public servants in Irish?  Once upon a time a long time ago, catholics in NI found it hard to get on in the NI civil service just as people here with the wrong address find it now.  Please tell me what terrible deprivation of rights they now suffer.


----------



## WolfeTone (13 Apr 2021)

SGWidow said:


> EVERYONE knows full well that there are readily available _electronic solutions_ to the border issue.



Ah, c'mon yourself!, if these solutions were readily available to implement across a near 500 km border with 200+ crossings in any practical and meaningful sense we would have heard about them.

But if such solutions do exist, and can be applied to the UK/EU border in Ireland, then it stands to reason that such solutions could be applied to UK/EU border posts in Britain?
There would be no need for airport security, immigration checks, etc... just apply the Irish border solution?


----------



## WolfeTone (13 Apr 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Rights to what?



I think you missed the point, being, what would any rights based movement - women's, civil rights, same-sex marriage, abortion, workers, et al... have achieved if from the outset the mindset was of "now is not the right time", " it will upset those who cannot tolerate change". 

Surely the leaders of the Derry Housing Action Committee knew, in 1968, of the ticking time-bomb if they pursued their legitimate political aspirations?


----------



## Purple (13 Apr 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> The perpetual "now is not the right time".
> I wonder what the womens suffragette movement would have achieved if it held this view? Or any other struggle for equality and rights?


At the beginning of the last century the American Suffragette movement stopped black women participating in their marches because they thought that it would weaken their case and it wasn't the right time for that discussion.


----------



## Purple (13 Apr 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> I think you missed the point, being, what would any rights based movement - women's, civil rights, same-sex marriage, abortion, workers, et al... have achieved if from the outset the mindset was of "now is not the right time", " it will upset those who cannot tolerate change".


It's true to say that  as a cohort middle aged white men have never really changed anything since they have created what is the status quo. The richer they are the less likely they are to want change.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (13 Apr 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> I think you missed the point, being, what would any rights based movement


I think you missed my point.  SF/IRA are not pursuing a rights based movement.  They are seeking sectarian triumphalism.


----------



## WolfeTone (13 Apr 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> They are seeking sectarian triumphalism.



Duke, the political aspiration of a United Ireland is perfectly legitimate. It is part of the GFA, it part of this States Constitution. A border poll is the mechanism chosen to determine the future constitutional status, there is nothing sectarian about it all. 

That SF are loudest in the room in pursuing this political objective is another matter. Incidentially pre-2016, it was noticeable at SF Ard Fheiseanna, to me anyway, that while a UI is raison d'etre of SFs existence, the subject matter had fallen down the charts a bit in topic discussion. Instead, focus was shifting more to ordinary social and economic issues of housing, welfare, employment etc.

It was Brexit that propelled the notion of UI back up to the top of the SF charts, so much so, that the discussion has now taken a much broader dimension that forces the wider political class to sit up, take notice and take a position. For many, that position is the perpetual "now is not the right time" to facilitate such aspirations, that is their entitlement and for them it is the right thing to do. For others, the right thing to do is to aspire for a UI and as such, it is always the right time to do it. 
That is why we have democratic institutions, to facilitate political aspirations of the people.
SF, whatever you think of them, their core base is about 10%-15% of the electorate north and south. A UI is only possible with 50%+1.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (13 Apr 2021)

Ok _Wolfie_ but drop the rights bit.


----------



## Purple (13 Apr 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> Incidentially pre-2016, it was noticeable at SF Ard Fheiseanna, to me anyway, that while a UI is raison d'etre of SFs existence, the subject matter had fallen down the charts a bit in topic discussion. Instead, focus was shifting more to ordinary social and economic issues of housing, welfare, employment etc.


I broadly agree with the rest of your post but the Shinners are nothing if not pragmatic. They are, in many ways, like FF used to be; populist first and Nationalist second. They realised that they had to be in power, that they actually wanted to be in power, and so latched onto the most populist issues they could find. 
That's why they made that shift and that's why their support has grown. I agree that their base is 10-15% and taking a strong position on a united Ireland could damage their electoral chances in this country. It will be interesting to see how they handle that over the next few years. They have managed to jettison their more extreme socialist policies and are now winning votes in the  "Guardian Reader" cohort (a well educated middleclass person who doesn't really care about the poor but just hates rich people, especially if that rich person isn't as well educated).


----------



## WolfeTone (13 Apr 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Ok _Wolfie_ but drop the rights bit.



It is the right to pursue legitimate political aims through exclusively peaceful democratic means is what the "now is not the right time" brigade are trying to temper, warning of loyalist violence and 'sensitivities'. 
Ireland, and Britain, has had enough of this for a century or more.


----------



## Purple (13 Apr 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> It is the right to pursue legitimate political aims through exclusively peaceful democratic means is what the "now is not the right time" brigade are trying to temper, warning of loyalist violence and 'sensitivities'.


It's worth remembering that until the Good Friday Agreement Sinn Fein didn't think it was the right time to pursue their aim of a united Ireland through exclusively peaceful democratic means. They were happy enough to blow up children when it suited them and they still see nothing wrong with those actions or else they wouldn't behave like craven lickspittles at the funeral of child killers, sorry, good republicans. 

That's why their whole "rights based" agenda rings hollow to me, along with most everything else they say.
I'm not a Unionist and they frighten me. That makes me wonder how they make Unionists feel.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (13 Apr 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> It is the right to pursue legitimate political aims through exclusively peaceful democratic means is what the "now is not the right time" brigade are trying to temper, warning of loyalist violence and 'sensitivities'.
> Ireland, and Britain, has had enough of this for a century or more.


No one is denying anybody any rights.  Typical republican reaction, argue that they are "wrong" and they bleat about denial of rights.


----------



## WolfeTone (13 Apr 2021)

Purple said:


> Sinn Fein didn't think it was the right time to pursue their aim of a united Ireland through exclusively peaceful democratic means.



True, but fundamental to their approach was the absence of functioning democratic institutions in which to place trust and pursue those aims. The last time nationalist community tried the peaceful route through the civil rights movement they got their answer in spades.
Its a tragedy, and it is not to condone violence. It is a reality, not just in Ireland, but universally, if you block the path to peaceful protest with systemic violence then do not be surprised if people bite back.


----------



## Purple (13 Apr 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> True, but fundamental to their approach was the absence of functioning democratic institutions in which to place trust and pursue those aims. The last time nationalist community tried the peaceful route through the civil rights movement they got their answer in spades.
> Its a tragedy, and it is not to condone violence. It is a reality, not just in Ireland, but universally, if you block the path to peaceful protest with systemic violence then do not be surprised if people bite back.


Sure, but that block could have been removed with Sunningdale and was mostly removed with the imposition by the British Government of direct rule and the removal of the Apartheid Northern Irish Government and even more so with the Anglo Irish Agreement yet they still thought nothing of blowing up children and pensioners. 
It was only when it became politically advantageous for them that they stopped killing people, took off the balaclava and pretended that they were different people to the ones who did the killing.


----------



## WolfeTone (13 Apr 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> No one is denying anybody any rights.  Typical republican reaction, argue that they are "wrong" and they bleat about denial of rights.



Im not claiming anybodys rights are being denied. Im simply arguing the against the  "now is not the time" brigade in favour of "now is always the time".
At the moment, the "now is not the time" brigade have the ascendency. I dont agree with it, but I accept it. Their premise however, is conditioned with a large dollop of "we dont want to upset those kids with the petrol bombs"...which is kind of contradictory to their long held views of standing up to terrorism.


----------



## WolfeTone (13 Apr 2021)

Purple said:


> but that block could have been removed with Sunningdale



"could have been", being the appropriate word....Sunningdale, although in substance mirrors GFA, it was a harder sell when you still had hundreds of people interned without trial. A significant factor behind the momentum of GFA was prisoner releases. As Mo Mowlam stated herself, without prisoner releases there would have been no GFA.


----------



## Purple (13 Apr 2021)

Very selective quoting there @WolfeTone


----------



## WolfeTone (13 Apr 2021)

Purple said:


> Very selective quoting there @WolfeTone



I'm not sure how @Purple? I get the whole GFA is Sunningdale for slow learners quip, and it is true to a large extent. But I consider it a bit more nuanced than simply pointing to the extremists on both sides. The centrists did not exactly hold themselves up in great light either. Whatever about republicans, the State involvement in the murder and cover-up of many, many innocent lives, policies of criminalisation, shoot-to-kill, collusion, internment, deeply embedded the mistrust.
Thankfully, people in the centre like Hume, and Mowlam, would "cut through conventions and made difficult decisions that gave momentum to political progress" and prevail over rigid, inflexible approach of others over the 25yrs previous.


----------



## Purple (14 Apr 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> Thankfully, people in the centre like Hume, and Mowlam, would "cut through conventions and made difficult decisions that gave momentum to political progress" and prevail over rigid, inflexible approach of others over the 25yrs previous.


Hume wasn't in the centre. That's the problem with a tribal conflict; there is no centre.
The tribe that is Unionism finds that the ship to who's mast  is nailed it's colours forgot about them and sailed off into the distance. They now find themselves looking at the strong possibility of a SF first minister and a SF government in this country, along with the possibility of their tribal cousins in Scotland upping sticks and buggering off as well.

If the last 50 years has thought is anything it should be that imposing the will of the majority on an unwilling minority isn't always the right thing to do.
If Unionism is defined by what it isn't then first and foremost it isn't part of this country. In a new compromise Ireland they will simply disappear within a few generations. They know that, we know that and the British know that but only they see that as a bad thing.
They'll still bang their drums and wear their silly hats and their silly sashes and all that stuff but they are sustained by the lifeblood of sectarianism and we just don't hate them enough. It's like Celtic and Rangers; without the other they are nothing. Therefore they'll just ebb away.

Ironically Joe Biden's push for a global corporation tax rate may well help keep this island divided because if he gets his way our economy is screwed and nobody want's to jump onto a sinking ship.


----------



## WolfeTone (14 Apr 2021)

Purple said:


> Hume wasn't in the centre.



I'm defining the centre as a majority of people who are unequivocal and in steadfast agreement with each other with regard to particular standpoint. 
In terms of the standpoint for using violence as a means to an end, I consider Hume to be placed in the majority position of opposing the use of violence. 
In that regard he was very much in the centre.


----------



## Purple (14 Apr 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> I'm defining the centre as a majority of people who are unequivocal and in steadfast agreement with each other with regard to particular standpoint.


What standpoint?


----------



## WolfeTone (14 Apr 2021)

Purple said:


> What standpoint?



The standpoint of being unequivocal about the use of violence for political aims. 
I'm of the view the majority of people of NI did not endorse or participate in using violence.


----------



## Purple (14 Apr 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> The standpoint of being unequivocal about the use of violence for political aims.
> I'm of the view the majority of people of NI did not endorse or participate in using violence.


I dunno, plenty turned a blind eye.

It's like the socially deprived areas of Dublin (inaccurately called working class areas) where people say they are against criminality and drugs but refer to the Gardaí as pigs and anyone who does their legal and civic duty and cooperates with the Gardaí is called a rat.


----------



## WolfeTone (14 Apr 2021)

Purple said:


> I dunno, plenty turned a blind eye.



Sure did, but I'm not talking about those people. I'm talking about ordinary citizens who made sure not to get involved, at a minimum. It cannot have been easy for many. 


Purple said:


> It's like the socially deprived areas of Dublin (inaccurately called working class areas) where people say they are against criminality and drugs



Or the socially affluent areas where they say they are against criminality and drugs but simultaneously fuel the drug trade with cocaine parties. And 20yr old apprentice plumbers get shot dead in working class areas to facilitate the enablers. 

Anthony Campbell


----------



## Purple (14 Apr 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> Or the socially affluent areas where they say they are against criminality and drugs but simultaneously fuel the drug trade with cocaine parties. And 20yr old apprentice plumbers get shot dead in working class areas to facilitate the enablers.
> 
> Anthony Campbell


I think there is a higher proportion of people in category who view the Gardaí as pigs in socially deprived areas than there are people who have cocaine (or any other class A drug) parties in affluent areas. It's also fair to say that drug use is an issue in every area of Irish society and cocaine use at parties is at least as common in socially deprived areas.

Off topic but Anthony Campbell's death should have shocked people more but he was from the North Inner City so he didn't matter. By the same token when a socialite from a "good" background dies of a drug overdose it's a tragic death but when someone from the same background as Anthony Campbell does the same thing they are just a Junkie.

By the way, calling someone a Junkie is the same as calling a black person by the N word. There's no other form of addiction that is criminalised. We don't send gamblers or alcoholics to prison and we certainly don't send Bookies and Publicans to prison but I digress even further.

The kids from Loyalist areas of Belfast aren't throwing petrol bombs because they are upset by the details of the Northern Ireland Protocol, they are mainly doing it because they have been left behind by their government, their education system and their political leaders. It's only when you spend time in those areas that you realise that they are worse than any area in this country with a young population which is vastly less educated or equipped to engage with mainstream modern society.


----------



## Purple (21 Apr 2021)

Michael McDowell has an excellent piece about Sinn Fein and their masters in todays Irish Times.


----------



## Betsy Og (22 Apr 2021)

As regards the "now is not the time brigade" - of which I am one, 23 years on from GFA, is there not an element of 'NI is how it is because that's how people there want it?', which maybe leads us to 'if it ain't broke (more than they like it broke), don't fix it'.

The B Specials, the UDR and RUC have gone, there's universal sufferage, powersharing in government, no longer a sectarian bar on employment, education, housing, benefits, an invisible border. The goals of NICRA have been met, what more do people in NI want? Of course there's also a highly segregated community, getting to Uni before encountering 'the other', very little genuine powersharing, but whose fault is that?, and is a United Ireland going to make one bit of positive difference to that? By consistently voting in SF & DUP it seems they like the whole sectarian headcount offered by both. Alliance and SDLP hanging on are the only rays of light.

I'll vote for a UI, 4th green field, but the real vote is in the 6, and I'm not sure why 'the fight' that's been bubbling for 400 years won't go for another 100 even within the 32 (as it did for the first 300). So regardless of the outcome of a border poll, and while we might unite territory, it seems we're nearly as far away as ever from uniting people - & again maybe that's how they like it (grim and all as that may appear). I'd love to eat my words if they started to vote for other parties......

The only plus I'd see is if they disband Stormont, put them all into the Dáil, and hopefully move beyond the drivel that dominates Stormont - the drivel can be about "normal" political issues.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (24 Apr 2021)

I note that the Secretary of State is required to call a border poll when s/he thinks it “likely” that it would be carried.  Neither the Scottish Indyref nor the Brexit ref would have passed a “likely” test.  
A worst case scenario is 50% + 1.  Maybe the “likely” test reduces this possibility.  But when opinion polls are showing 50/50 the calls for a border poll will be deafening.


----------



## WolfeTone (25 Apr 2021)

Betsy Og said:


> The goals of NICRA have been met, what more do people in NI want?



You could say that about the 26 also - independent, sovereign nation, what more could we want? 
But poll after poll shows strong support for a UI, not least from yourself. 



Betsy Og said:


> I'll vote for a UI, 4th green field,






Betsy Og said:


> it seems we're nearly as far away as ever from uniting people - & again maybe that's how they like it (grim and all as that may appear).



I agree there are profound and deep divisions remaining. But in recent years I get a sense of a soft Unionist vote open to the idea of a new Ireland. Just a glimmer, that is. Recent comments from Peter Robinson and Paisley Jnr suggest a realisation that change is a constant, and that they need to prepare for it, in a constitutional sense. What that change entails Im not sure.


----------



## Purple (26 Apr 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> I agree there are profound and deep divisions remaining.


To say the least!


WolfeTone said:


> But in recent years I get a sense of a soft Unionist vote open to the idea of a new Ireland. Just a glimmer, that is.


Is there a danger that if the winds of change are too strong they could blow that glimmer out?


----------



## WolfeTone (26 Apr 2021)

Purple said:


> Is there a danger that if the winds of change are too strong they could blow that glimmer out?



Absolutely. But while the recent protestations and violence over the sea 'border' highlight the deep divisions, in retrospect, these protests are turning out to be a damp squib relative to the protests of yore. The likes of Jim Allister would like to portray the NI Protocol as big as a constitutional threat to NI as say, the Anglo-Irish agreement, or Sunningdale before it.
What Jim fails to grasp, is that 23yrs ago the people of NI signed up to the GFA, and the lives of everyone are, slowly, adjusting to an atmosphere akin to normal Western civility. 

There are no mass Paisley type protests. The violence emanates from a minority within the unionist communities. A recent fundraiser to financially support a legal challenge against the NI protocol fell €90,000 short.

The NI protocol is not a constitutional issue, not an identity issue, it is an administrative procedure. One that is causing some delays at customs posts, but no doubt will be resolved in due course by the people who are trained and paid to manage this stuff, customs officials.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (26 Apr 2021)

It is still a very unnatural position, I would guess unique, that there are border customs between parts of the same jurisdiction, at least not without the consent of both parties.  That the natural position of leaving it to customs officials to manage the stuff across the political border is a big sign to unionists that nobody really supports their cause.


----------



## WolfeTone (26 Apr 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I would guess unique, that there are border customs between parts of the same jurisdiction,



Not so sure, I recall encountering US border posts in Dublin Airport on my way to New York. Most countries afford sovereignty to foreign embassies within their own jurisdiction. 
It can be done, borders are just state of mind.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> at least not without the consent of both parties



On the contrary, both parties - the Govt of the UK (supported by its parliament and Crown) and the EU Commission consent to this arrangement.


----------



## Purple (26 Apr 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> Not so sure, I recall encountering US border posts in Dublin Airport on my way to New York. Most countries afford sovereignty to foreign embassies within their own jurisdiction.


Yes, but you weren't travelling within Ireland after going to US Pre-clearance in Dublin.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (26 Apr 2021)

@WolfeTone you are being silly there.  The majority of people in NI do not like this protocol one bit despite the implied promise in the GFA that there would be no significant change to NI's status without their consent. 
If you are typical of pan nationalism/republicanism and you equate what is happening in NI to US custom clearance at Dublin Airport, if I were a unionist I  wouldn't trust any weasel words of reconciliation that you might utter.


----------



## WolfeTone (26 Apr 2021)

Purple said:


> Yes, but you weren't travelling within Ireland after going to US Pre-clearance in Dublin.



I know, I was travelling in Ireland and happened upon border posts of a foreign nation while going about my business to board an aircraft in this country. 
I know it is not an identical situation but the premise is similar.


----------



## WolfeTone (26 Apr 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> The majority of people in NI do not like this protocol one bit



Says who?

Poll results on NI Protocol on knife edge as 47% say it should be kept


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (26 Apr 2021)

Poll on NI Protocol said:
			
		

> A slight majority (53%) support the EU having an office in *Brussels *with 40% against it.


You will always get cantankerous results in a poll


----------



## WolfeTone (26 Apr 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> You will always get cantankerous results in a poll



What on earth is that supposed to be, or mean?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (26 Apr 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> What on earth is that supposed to be, or mean?


Joke.  I presume they meant Belfast and not Brussels - a Belfast Telegraph typo, I hope.


----------



## WolfeTone (26 Apr 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Joke.  I presume they meant Belfast and not Brussels - a Belfast Telegraph typo, I hope.



Didn't spot that.


----------



## WolfeTone (26 Apr 2021)

Just a thought, is there US pre-clearance customs posts in George Best International?


----------



## Purple (27 Apr 2021)

Sinn Féin TD Matt Carthy's  eulogy at a commemoration of the IRA man Séamus McElwain, who is the prime suspect in the attempted murder of Arleen Forster's father and suspected in at least 10 murders in total,  is hardly the Shinners moving to understand and come closer to the Loyalist community. It shows the Unionists that the Shinners are looking for a triumph rather than as accommodation.


----------



## WolfeTone (27 Apr 2021)

Purple said:


> Sinn Féin TD Matt Carthy's eulogy at a commemoration of the IRA man Séamus McElwain, who is the prime suspect in the attempted murder of Arleen Forster's father and suspected in at least 10 murders in total, is hardly the Shinners moving to understand and come closer to the Loyalist community. It shows the Unionists that the Shinners are looking for a triumph rather than as accommodation.



Why? Are not both sides allowed to commemorate their dead?
The DUP regularly attend commemorative events of British Army soldiers who served in NI and were responsible for the murder of innocent civilians. What does that say to the families, nationalist and republicans, who were victims of this violence?


----------



## Purple (27 Apr 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> Why? Are not both sides allowed to commemorate their dead?


Not in such a manner, if they want to bring the other side closer to a sustained peace and a united Ireland.


WolfeTone said:


> The DUP regularly attend commemorative events of British Army soldiers who served in NI and were responsible for the murder of innocent civilians.


Really? I don't remember commemorations of specific named soldiers who actually murdered people.


----------



## Purple (27 Apr 2021)

And now another Shinner has been arrested, this time for a murder here in this country. I expect he'll be eulogised as well.


----------



## WolfeTone (27 Apr 2021)

Purple said:


> Not in such a manner, if they want to bring the other side closer to a sustained peace and a united Ireland.



I don't understand. 



Purple said:


> Really? I don't remember commemorations of specific named soldiers who actually murdered people.



Yes, well in order to commemorate murderers, they need to be convicted of murder first. 
Unlike the thousands of Irish people that served through British State prisons for their part in the conflict, I think only 4 British soldiers were ever convicted of murder. A pretty derisory return on an organisation that was responsible for over 300 deaths. Including, the aforementioned Séamus McElwain who was shot, captured, and murdered by the British Army. 
So much for law and order!


----------



## WolfeTone (27 Apr 2021)

Purple said:


> And now another Shinner has been arrested, this time for a murder here in this country. I expect he'll be eulogised as well.



He was expelled from SF after being involved in some caper, attempted kidnapping as far as I recall.


----------



## Purple (27 Apr 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> I don't understand.


I know you don't, as made clear by this;


WolfeTone said:


> Yes, well in order to commemorate murderers, they need to be convicted of murder first.
> Unlike the thousands of Irish people that served through British State prisons for their part in the conflict, I think only 4 British soldiers were ever convicted of murder. A pretty derisory return on an organisation that was responsible for over 300 deaths. Including, the aforementioned Séamus McElwain who was shot, captured, and murdered by the British Army.
> So much for law and order!


----------



## Purple (27 Apr 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> He was expelled from SF after being involved in some caper, attempted kidnapping as far as I recall.


Right, but if he'd kidnapped and then murdered a "Brit", or a member of the Gardaí while robbing a bank, that would be okay. In fact he'd be awarded a "Good Republican" Medal and senior Shinners would collect him from Prison. 
Well we know that the Shinners must know how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.


----------



## WolfeTone (27 Apr 2021)

Purple said:


> Right, but if he'd kidnapped and then murdered a "Brit", or a member of the Gardaí while robbing a bank, that would be okay



No of course. No more than if a mother of eight children who, on going to the aid of a young boy lying wounded in the street from British Army fire, was herself shot several times in the head and body that part of her face was blown off. And as the autopsy showed, she lay wounded for a period slowly bleeding to death without any attempt to provide medical attention.

To cap it all, Joan Connolly was then labelled an IRA woman to besmirch, deflect, detract from any proper investigation into her murder. A murder, that successive British governments to this day continue to cover-up (If Mary Lou is answerable for Mountbatten and should apologise, then Boris is answerable for what happened to Joan Connolly and should apologise)

This is hardly the British governments way of fostering closer relations between two communities, is it? It shows the British State, slavishly followed by loyalist community, are looking for a triumph, not accommodation.


----------



## Purple (27 Apr 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> This is hardly the British governments way of fostering closer relations between two communities, is it? It shows the British State, slavishly followed by loyalist community, are looking for a triumph, not accommodation.


Is there a commemoration by Unionist politicians to the soldier who shot Joan Connolly? Did her killer set out with the expressed intention of killing her that day? Was he also suspected in up to ten other killings?

The attempt to establish a moral equivalence between the killings by the British Army, some of which were certainly murders, and the murders committed by the IRA is sickening and contemptible.


----------



## Purple (27 Apr 2021)

I wonder how the Shinners would react if a member of FF or FG was found to have kidnapped someone and then waterboarded them, was shown to have links to a criminal gang, was linked to a terrorist organisation and was then charges with murder?
Would kicking him out of the Party be enough?


----------



## WolfeTone (27 Apr 2021)

Purple said:


> Is there a commemoration by Unionist politicians to the soldier who shot Joan Connolly?



I don't know, he has never been identified. There is an on-going cover up.  He, for all we know, may have got a promotion or a medal.



Purple said:


> Did her killer set out with the expressed intention of killing her that day?



We don't know, because there has never been an investigation into her murder. There is an on-going cover up.



Purple said:


> Was he also suspected in up to ten other killings?



I don't know because he has never been identified because of the cover-up of murder.

Excellent questions though.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (27 Apr 2021)

Purple said:


> It shows the Unionists that the Shinners are looking for a triumph rather than as accommodation.


So true.  A chance to shout "Up the 'Ra" and wear a Kingsmills loaf of bread on your head.


----------



## Purple (27 Apr 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> I don't know, he has never been identified. There is an on-going cover up.  He, for all we know, may have got a promotion or a medal.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Wow, an answer out of the Shinner playbook. 
While the SAS, in their function as the military wing of MI5, certainly engaged in criminality and murdered people I think it is a gross misrepresentation of the truth to suggest that the British Army were deliberately attempting to murder civilians on a daily basis. What is true is that the IRA were certainly actively planning and/or attempting to murder civilians on a  daily basis.


----------



## WolfeTone (27 Apr 2021)

Purple said:


> I think it is a gross misrepresentation of the truth to suggest that the British Army were *deliberately attempting to murder civilians on a daily basis*



Wow! Straight out of the British propaganda school of massacare cover-ups! 
To come out with this in the face of discussing the murder of Joan Connolly as part of the Ballymurphy massacre is astonishing I have to say.

The Ballymurphy massacre _was a deliberate attempt to murder civilians on a daily basis! 

Between 9th and 11th of August 1971, over 600 British soldiers entered the Ballymurphy area of West Belfast, raiding homes and rounding up men. Many, both young and old, were shot and beaten as they were dragged from their homes without reason. During this 3 day period 11 people were brutally murdered._

It was a sustained murder campaign by armed terrorists. How else would you describe the above?
This followed the mass murder in Derry earlier in the year.

There can be absolutely no doubt that the British Army engaged in the deliberate targeting of innocent civilians intent on murdering them. The BA, and its proxies would adopt, like the IRA, a low-level insurgency against the IRA. Using the loyalist death squads, weapons supply, collusion, shoot-to-kill, torture while the public face of British authoritarianism presented itself as a law and order. 



Purple said:


> What is true is that the IRA were certainly actively planning and/or attempting to murder civilians on a daily basis.



True to form, GOIRA, PIRA, what's the difference?


----------



## WolfeTone (27 Apr 2021)

@Purple I don't particular want to regurgitate the war. I have no truck with the IRA, they are on the same base level as the British Army. The only difference being the British Army take a pensionable wage.

The point I was making is that while no doubt McElwain commemoration is offensive to Unionists, their are many things offensive to republicans also. My view, is let each commemorate their dead and time will be the great healer. Rather than this nonsense of asking MlMcD to apologise for Lord Mount Batten (I think MlMc was about 9yrs old) while Boris, or any other British leader is rarely asked to apologise for atrocities committed here in the name of their army.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (27 Apr 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> @PurpleI have no truck with the IRA...


This alongside a grotesque interpretation of the NI narrative which if even in part valid should make any reasonable person committed supporters of the IRA campaign.  Maybe _Wolfie _is a pacifist not to follow the inexorable logic of his narrative,
This approach of _Wolfie  _is typical of the sickening hypocrisy which I encountered with the so called silent majority of nationalists in NI and which gave the PIRA terrorists such succour for so long.
The telling feature of the SF airbrushing the PIRA campaign is their persistent pursuit of parity of esteem on the atrocity front, they daren't go so far as to claim the Brits were worse.  The strong consensus in this jurisdiction and everywhere else (except West Belfast et al) is that the republican campaign was the overwhelming cause of the pointless destruction of lives in the last 25 years of the Troubles.
As I have observed before in these parts, once SF/IRA saw that the terrorist game was up and they had much more to gain through a "peace process" then the violence, all violence, ceased.  Was it by mere coincidence that the British Army lost its lust for daily murdering innocent catholics coincidentally with the IRA seeing that the game was up?


----------



## WolfeTone (27 Apr 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> The telling feature of the SF airbrushing the PIRA campaign is their persistent pursuit of parity of esteem on the atrocity front



This is the big fear of the partitionists, the stickies, the Sindo, Michael McDowell et al, that they are losing control of their narrative.

Only could the debased and brainwashed unemotively distinguish between the  atrocities and _not_ equate them on level par. There is no other way for any rational, dignified human being to distinguish between them.

They murdered innocent mothers in cold blood. They disappeared their bodies or they let them bleed to death on the street. They slurred their names with sickening lies and they engage in a continuing cover-up of the truth protecting the perpetrators. 

But some still want to peddle a righteous morality of one atrocity over the other.

@Duke of Marmalade, you are just the flip side of that same rotten coin.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (27 Apr 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> This is the big fear of the partitionists, the stickies, the Sindo, Michael McDowell et al, that they are losing control of their narrative.
> 
> Only could the debased and brainwashed unemotively distinguish between the  atrocities and _not_ equate them on level par. There is no other way for any rational, dignified human being to distinguish between them.
> 
> ...


Into your silly phase again, it is becoming quite frequent.
I was talking quantity not quality* (of atrocities).
Apologies for invoking Godwin's Law but I am sure the Brits committed a few atrocities in WWII but which do you think were the worst culprit - the  Brits or the Nazis?
Actually that clever little riposte will likely come unstuck as you probably think they were equal.

_* though even on quality I don't think there was anything to compare with Kingsmills, Enniskillen, Le Mon etc._


----------



## WolfeTone (27 Apr 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> though even on quality I don't think there was anything to compare with Kingsmills, Enniskillen



Astonishing. Second time today, despite being laid out above, the Ballymurphy massacre still fails to register.
Still trying to make a distinction between cold blooded murder and cold blooded murder.

Instead, the automatic reversion to point-scoring or trying to distinguish by _quality_ (please! Pass the vomit bucket)

But I sense your rationale for your repulsive-o-meter is in the area of accounting. So let's crunch some numbers?

I will get the ball rolling.

How many people are broadly regarded as being victims of the conflict? 1969-1998
And how many of those victims are generally attributable to the Provos?


----------



## WolfeTone (27 Apr 2021)

Actually, rather than go around in circles here is the Wiki source that leans heavily on the CAIN database for all this information. 

Conflict Archive on Wiki


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (27 Apr 2021)

@WolfeTone Something really perplexes me.  By your narrative we had a foreign force who got their kicks from the daily massacre of innocent catholics.  And yet you have no truck for the only opposition to that, the IRA.  How would you suggest that the catholic population should have resisted such MOPE*?
SF buy into your narrative but at least they follow it to its logical conclusion - the IRA were fighting a just war.

_* Most Oppressed People Ever._


----------



## WolfeTone (27 Apr 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> By your narrative we had a foreign force who got their kicks from the daily massacre of innocent catholics.



It's pointless discussing any further. The sustained propaganda and censorship over the course of the conflict is embedded in your mindset, clearly unable to take an objective view. 
I have repeatedly made my views on PIRA, GOIRA, British Army, loyalists etc. 

I'm in a time of peace. When Her Majesty QE2 came to Dublin and bowed her head to our patriot dead, when she spoke of "_With the benefit of historical hindsight we can all see things which we would wish had been done differently, or not at all", _it was tacit acknowledgement from the British Crown that all protagonists in the conflict held responsibility, including those under her service. 
There is no getting away from this, she acknowledged it.

You can carry on the attempted point scoring, which atrocity outdoes the other. It is part of stale, bankrupt view that is hostage to the past. It is fading, thankfully, although not quickly enough. It continues to cling to moral righteous, being "appalled" because a SF politician commemorates the memory of an IRA volunteer. Or because MLMc didnt directly apologise for an atrocity 40yrs ago. Simultaneously, barely a peep from the same outraged quarter when DUP politicians meet with the local loyalist mafia for guidance on political strategy. 
It's a narrative that is worn and tired. 

Waterford Whispers News gets it.


----------



## Purple (28 Apr 2021)

On this;


WolfeTone said:


> barely a peep from the same outraged quarter when DUP politicians meet with the local loyalist mafia for guidance on political strategy.


The DUP are, in my opinion, bigoted god-bothering homophobic racists. I deplore them and what they stand for just as much as I do Sinn Fein and their IRA masters. In that they have, in my view, parity of contempt. The difference is that unlike the Shinners the DUP is not in the Parliament of this country and does not have a realistic chance of forming a government to run this country.


It is worth noting that the recommendation by the Chief Justice of Northern Ireland that an inquest be held into the Ballymurphy Massacre was held up by Arleen Foster and the DUP, not by the British Government (who were, I'm sure, happy to wash their hands of it).

On Mountbatten, it's not up to Mary Lou to apologise; it's up to her masters who should come out of the shadows, show their faces and then have that discussion.


----------



## Betsy Og (28 Apr 2021)

The long and short of it is that the RA kept going for about 25 years longer (post Sunningdale) than there was any justification for - they did so without the support of the people (SF barely registered electorally until the hunger strikes, and their political success was initially a reward for stopping the terror). The main army/state agressions were, by then, over (Rape of Falls, Interment, Bloody Sunday, Ballymurphy). So what we had after that was mostly the RA engaging in sporadic acts against crown forces (or random protestants), Loyalists being explicitly sectarian.

As someone said on here (Duke I think), when the RA stopped it all stopped. The 'Long War' was a totally pointless exercise.

SF now trying to gaslight us, I dont want Mary Lou apologies, I want the past left in the past so I've zero interest in lauding former gunmen and bombers. How are we going to move on if SF want to keep glorifying and trying to justify the dark deeds of yore?, let it go, move on.


----------



## Betsy Og (28 Apr 2021)

"You could say that about the 26 also - independent, sovereign nation, what more could we want?
But poll after poll shows strong support for a UI, not least from yourself."

It's not that the 26 wants anything, we would go along with. Eventually a definitive resolution of the constitutional position of NI (UI) should take away the uncertainty that currently hangs over the 6, BUT the idea was to heal the society first so that a UI would not be such an emotive point in a normally functioning society. We're miles away from that as it is. 

If the vote happens it happens, if there's a UI then fine, but there's hard work to be done to make the 6 counties (be they NI or just 6 of 32) work as a normal functioning society, so there's an element of cart before the horse in the rush for a vote. If we got a UI tomorrow there'd be a mountain of work to be done, & with one side up to high doe then I don't fancy our chances of making a success of it. Could we fix the car, & get it through the NCT first, before we buy it.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (28 Apr 2021)

Betsy Og said:


> The long and short of it is that the RA kept going for about 25 years longer (post Sunningdale) than there was any justification for - they did so without the support of the people (SF barely registered electorally until the hunger strikes, and their political success was initially a reward for stopping the terror). The main army/state agressions were, by then, over (Rape of Falls, Interment, Bloody Sunday, Ballymurphy). So what we had after that was mostly the RA engaging in sporadic acts against crown forces (or random protestants), Loyalists being explicitly sectarian.
> 
> As someone said on here (Duke I think), when the RA stopped it all stopped. The 'Long War' was a totally pointless exercise.
> 
> SF now trying to gaslight us, I dont want Mary Lou apologies, I want the past left in the past so I've zero interest in lauding former gunmen and bombers. How are we going to move on if SF want to keep glorifying and trying to justify the dark deeds of yore?, let it go, move on.


Young Betsy, I think we have crossed swords in the past on NI but you've been reading my mail with that post


----------



## Purple (28 Apr 2021)

Betsy Og said:


> It's not that the 26 wants anything, we would go along with. Eventually a definitive resolution of the constitutional position of NI (UI) should take away the uncertainty that currently hangs over the 6, BUT the idea was to heal the society first so that a UI would not be such an emotive point in a normally functioning society. We're miles away from that as it is.


Well said and with the Shinners picking at old wounds and the DUP kicking out Arleen because she's not bigoted enough it seems that both parties are working towards the same goal for very different reasons. The DUP want division to prevent a United Ireland from ever happening and the Shinners want to prevent it from happening until they are in power.

That's an important point in all this; the Shinners are all about being in power. That's all they want and everything else is just a means to that end. That's why they project an image of liberal inclusiveness but their members continuously display deeply racist and bigoted views. That's why they claim to be socialist but oppose socialist policies like property taxes and water charges. They are a populist party with a casual relationship with the truth, law and order and democracy who prey on the gullible and the disenfranchised. They frighten me and they want to run my country.


----------



## WolfeTone (28 Apr 2021)

Purple said:


> The difference is that unlike the Shinners the DUP is not in the Parliament of this country



I am familiar with the partitionist mindset. If its happening 'up there', well for sure its not nice, but just as long as I'm alright Jack and its not in my back yard, then so be it.



Betsy Og said:


> The long and short of it is that the RA kept going for about 25 years longer (post Sunningdale)



We are obviously going to disagree. Sunningdale was collapsed by the Ulster's Workers Council who called a general strike crippling NI economy forcing the collapse of the administration.
As a side, I happened across "The Irish Munitions Embargo, 1920", of how Irish railway and transport workers brought British military operations to a standstill.
The boycott went from May 1920 up to Dec 1920. It was actions like these that let Britain know that Ireland was lost.
The official narrative of IRA freedom fighters suits those who hold power. Because warfare is extreme, it is a much less likely occurrence for resolving injustices . Peaceful union agitation and solidarity is much more effective and easier to mobilise and arrange.
But it suits people in power and authority to peddle the warfare tactics of the IRA as being the catalyst of Irish independence.
It wasn't, it was peaceful agitation by workers and civilians who crippled British military and judicial systems.




Betsy Og said:


> SF barely registered electorally until the hunger strikes,



In fairness to them, SF was a banned organisation in NI. The public display of Irish Tricolour, illegal, was considered a 'provocative act' by police.
Kind of hard to mobilise politically with that kind authoritarian, racist mindset in charge.



Betsy Og said:


> The main army/state agressions were, by then, over (Rape of Falls, Interment, Bloody Sunday, Ballymurphy).



This is bizarre. This topic has re-emerge because of a SF rep commemorating the memory of an IRA volunteer killed 35yrs ago. "... shows the Unionists that SF are looking for triumph rather than accommodation...", someone said earlier.

But now you are suggesting that by the time Sunningdale happened (internment wasn't finished), that mass atrocities of BA that occurred only a couple of years earlier were over so it was time for everyone to move on?
What sort of logic is that. One of the biggest terrorist atrocities occurred on 17 May 1974 against innocent people of Dublin on Monaghan.
But because Sunningdale was written on paper, therefore everyone should move along now, nothing to see here? 




Betsy Og said:


> BUT the idea was to heal the society first so that a UI would not be such an emotive point in a normally functioning society. We're miles away from that as it is.



I don't disagree. Perhaps NI in its political and religious formation of Green and Orange, Catholic and Protestant divide is unsuitable to ever really heal.
Efforts to plan a new Ireland to accommodate all, religious and political viewpoints needs to be discussed. I think while SF are flying the border poll kite there is more than an element of realism that it is simply not going to occur Brexit style.
Others need to step up to the mark but they are few and far between. In fairness, Jim O'Callaghan FF has put forward his vision. Also Neale Richmond FG has put a paper forward. There are also soundbites from Peter Robinson, Trimble, and Paisley Jnr about some sort of future accommodation.




Betsy Og said:


> If the vote happens it happens, if there's a UI then fine, but there's hard work to be done to make the 6 counties (be they NI or just 6 of 32) work as a normal functioning society, so there's an element of cart before the horse in the rush for a vote.



I don't disagree. I do think the SF border poll calls are sabre rattling. Brexit has opened the door to the topic and it is their raison d'etre, so not surprising they are loudest about it. If they continue to grow in the polls, then it forces others to sit up and take notice.
SF know there will never be a UI on their terms. MLMc has said as much, it has to accommodate everyone insofar as practical.
Incidentally, should the SF  Holy grail of an Irish Republic ever emerge, what basis for their existence then?
SF as a nationalist party like FF before them, have right-wing conservative and left-wing socialist factions.
In a UI, those factions will split. Ditto, Unionist/British factions.


----------



## Purple (28 Apr 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> I am familiar with the partitionist mindset. If its happening 'up there', well for sure its not nice, but just as long as I'm alright Jack and its not in my back yard, then so be it.


I'm familiar with people being deliberately obtuse.  If its happening 'up there', well for sure its not nice, but only an idiot or those utterly blinded by ideology could possibly think that anyone other that those who are 'up there' can be the authors of their own salvation or damnation. As long as the two largest political parties in what is a failed economic and political entity are hell bent on mutual destruction then the least we try to impose a solution the better.
I like the way this country has changed in the last 30 years. I like our more liberal, inclusive and multicultural approach. I just finished a book called The Darkening Age about the Christianisation of Rome and the Latin world. It was harrowing and upsetting to know that 99% of all Latin science and philosophy and 90% of all Greek science and philosophy was lost due to the darkness of religion descending over Europe. It was like seeing what would happen if ISIS conquered the know world. It took us over a thousand years to recover. I don't want any part of the bigotry of religion poisoning my life or the lives of the people I love. The fact that Arleen Foster will lose her job as much for abstaining in a vote  to ban the vile practice of Gay conversion therapy for children is an inditement of those who want their version of '(Protestant) Christian Values' central to the political process.
The level of racism and homophobia shown by the Shinners isn't far behind them, despite their public pronouncements to the contrary.
I'll pay higher taxes and subsidise their mess of an economy if they agree to walk away from their tribalism, criminality and religious bigotry. On that basis I'll vote for a United Ireland but at the moment the culture of both tribes in Northern Ireland is poisonous.


----------



## Betsy Og (28 Apr 2021)

> But now you are suggesting that by the time Sunningdale happened (internment wasn't finished), that mass atrocities of BA that occurred only a couple of years earlier were over so it was time for everyone to move on?





> What sort of logic is that. One of the biggest terrorist atrocities occurred on 17 May 1974 against innocent people of Dublin on Monaghan.
> But because Sunningdale was written on paper, therefore everyone should move along now, nothing to see here?


The point was that everything that could be realistically achieved had been achieved in Sunningdale, that's why GFA was dubbed Sunningdale for slow learners. Also, this was in the context of RA being on a rampage in '73 & '74, there was no question of a peace dividend for unionists, so the UWC strike was a relatively easy sell. If Provisional SF had done their gun bargaining in '73 instead of '98 they probably would have improved on Sunningdale and there was a fair chance it would have stuck - DUP opposed GFA too remember.

But PSF demanded a 32 county socialist republic, entirely on their terms, as is the PSF way it's just about what they want, not what voters want or would benefit society. All this dragging out of decommissioning eroded UUP, it suits PSF to be facing DUP, easier rally the sectarian headcount. So other than the silence of the guns we eventually got, I'm not sure what PSF has to offer beyond historical rewriting.

As for Dublin & Monaghan, collusion between Loyalists & elements of the security forces, it was the Omagh of its day, but neither event would be justification for 'armed struggle'. There's no justice or resolution, just more innocent blood. I've read Don Mullan's book on Dublin & Monaghan, the botched investigation and treatment of the families was (& is) a disgrace.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (28 Apr 2021)

Betsy Og said:


> The point was that everything that could be realistically achieved had been achieved in Sunningdale, that's why GFA was dubbed Sunningdale for slow learners. Also, this was in the context of RA being on a rampage in '73 & '74, there was no question of a peace dividend for unionists, so the UWC strike was a relatively easy sell. If Provisional SF had done their gun bargaining in '73 instead of '98 they probably would have improved on Sunningdale and there was a fair chance it would have stuck - DUP opposed GFA too remember.
> 
> But PSF demanded a 32 county socialist republic, entirely on their terms, as is the PSF way it's just about what they want, not what voters want or would benefit society. All this dragging out of decommissioning eroded UUP, it suits PSF to be facing DUP, easier rally the sectarian headcount. So other than the silence of the guns we eventually got, I'm not sure what PSF has to offer beyond historical rewriting.
> 
> As for Dublin & Monaghan, collusion between Loyalists & elements of the security forces, it was the Omagh of its day, but neither event would be justification for 'armed struggle'. There's no justice or resolution, just more innocent blood. I've read Don Mullan's book on Dublin & Monaghan, the botched investigation and treatment of the families was (& is) a disgrace.


Once again Young Betsy, I'm with you all the way.

From their own perspective I suppose the PIRA had no choice but to continue their campaign.  Unlike GFA the Provos stood to be big, big losers out of an internal peace arrangement in 1974. There were no prisoner releases and no Northern Bank pension fund.  Added to that there was a sense that one more push would see the Brits Out.  They had after all conceded an awful lot in 4 years.  I remember the gable walls in West Belfast where I lived at the time - "Victory in '74/Tiochfaidh ár lá".  SF the political wing were quite irrelevant. 

So whilst the PIRA rejection of Sunningdale was understandable by their own terms so too was the stiff unionist resistance from all sections of that community.  Here they had lost so much or perceived to have done so in such a short space of time and still it wasn't enough.  And they too were apprehensive that one more shove would see Westminster push them off the ledge.

And neither side were entirely wrong in that calculus. Garret Fitzgerald in his memoirs records that he was extremely fearful that Wilson would pack his bags.  And this itself gives lie to @WolfeTone's narrative.  If the British were equal perpetrators of the Northern misery why would Garret (and all right thinking people) be afraid of a British withdrawal?


----------



## Betsy Og (28 Apr 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> so too was the stiff unionist resistance from all sections of that community.  Here they had lost so much or perceived to have done so in such a short space of time and still it wasn't enough.  And they too were apprehensive that one more shove would see Westminster push them off the ledge.


If Unionist had embraced Sunningdale didn't it have the potential to stabilise NI? (albeit with the RA on full output, only to a limited degree), whereas bringing it down meant all the cards up in the air again? I'm sure prisoner releases would have been a given if RA/PSF has been on board (esp. considering the interned weren't even convicted).

If Paisley hadn't shouted down Terence O'Neill the whole unfortunate business could have been avoided before it had begun - I realise there's a bit of 'aunt with alternative anatomy' about this whole discussion, but its important not to let the PSF narrative have a free run, the younger electorate either don't know or don't care, so before we know it it'll be 'Gerry was in the GPO in 1916'


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (28 Apr 2021)

@WolfeTone Given the atrocious behaviour of the British Army, as documented by yourself, was Garret Fitzgerald wrong and, with the benefit of hindsight of course,  would we have been much better off if Harold Wilson had packed his bags in 1974?  In fact, in your opinion and again with the benefit of hindsight would it have been better if the BA had not intervened in the first place in 1969?

My take is that the two communities of NI owe the 1,114 members of the British security forces who lost their lives an immense debt of gratitude for keeping them from a communal bloodbath of Balkan or Rwandan proportions.  (Reminder that in the words of James Prior this sacrifice was with no selfish strategic or economic interest on behalf of the British.)
Indeed the people of the whole island owe a debt of gratitude for being saved from the bloody civil war that CJH and his buddies craved.


----------



## Purple (28 Apr 2021)

It is remarkable, all the same, that Unionists feared the IRA for four decades but now seem to fear democracy even more. Given the Paisleyite rhetoric coming from so many Unionist politicians now, echoes of Hugh 'Roaring' Hanna who opposed the Home Rule Bill in an equally raw display of opposition to what then passed for democracy, is the Unionist commitment to democracy as self serving and limited as that of the tribe with which they share their benighted statelet?


----------



## odyssey06 (28 Apr 2021)

Arlene is gone... what happens next?


----------



## Purple (28 Apr 2021)

odyssey06 said:


> Arlene is gone... what happens next?


They elect a hardliner...


----------



## Betsy Og (28 Apr 2021)

odyssey06 said:


> Arlene is gone... what happens next?


A worse loon, that much is nailed on given the field.


----------



## WolfeTone (28 Apr 2021)

Lots to pack in there.

*Sunningdale*

"Sunningdale for slow learners", yes, to a large extent. Ironically, Seamus Mallon, who is attributed with this quip was also one of the slow learners. As @Duke of Marmalade testifies in his comment there were to be no prisoner releases, and internment without trial was still in place. There was no SF or IRA party to the agreement so the political parties may as well have been playing Scrabble for all the IRA cared. Without any representation, without any prisoner releases and without an end to internment of (mostly) Catholics without trial, why on earth would the IRA even be interested in Sunningdale? So that their prisoners could continue to rot in jail for a long time? This is just naivety.

As it happens, it was Loyalists that crashed the agreement. Not that they had representation either, but the concept of a Council of Ireland with Southern Ireland was a bridge to far (slow learners).
It would take, some 23yrs later, a woman NI secretary to cut through the indignation of the "_we will never talk to terrorists_" brigade (more slow learners) and provide an impetus in directing the political framework on a path that had real hope of sustaining.
Mo Mowlam did more in two years as NI Sec to bring about an end to the conflict than all others before put together. British and Irish governments have always known the dynamic of the prisoner issue, but were impotent in managing it politically. She taught everyone a lesson, one that was regrettably absent at Sunningdale.

*Decommissioning*

There is no doubt SF sought to squeeze as much as possible, but that is the nature of politics. But not without good reason. This is where the leadership and strategic prowess of Adams and McGuinness deserves its recognition. As far back as *1996*, Mitchel McLaughlin then chairperson of SF recorded in an interview that the aim of SF was to get rid of the IRA. (_Source: Peter Taylor 'Provos: SF and the IRA'_) . In order to do this, Adams/McGuinness had to make progress on the political front. That they did, prisoner release, political negotiation, RUC disbanding etc and they brought the republican community along with them, in ever increasing numbers
But the greatest strategic triumph of all was getting into government with UUP without arms decommissioning. Some may opine that Trimble and UUP were suckered and duped by SF, perhaps so. But the critical element is that while Trimble may have crossed the rubicon and gone into government, outside Paisley beat the drum of traitor, and it is resonated louder and louder within Unionism.
Even if the IRA had decommissioned, the risk of Paisley rising to the ascendancy of political unionism outside the political structures remained. Not having signed up to GFA, he could have refused power-sharing with SF and crashed the GFA , just like Sunningdale before. Adams/McGuinness would have been humiliated and republicanism in turmoil.
Instead, as Adams wrote explicitly at the time of first Stormont suspension, "_the Paisley deal is the only deal_". With Paisley signed up to a power-sharing arrangement, in return for decommissioning, there was no political unionist block left that was strong enough to crash GFA the way Sunningdale was crashed (slow learners anyone?)



Betsy Og said:


> when the RA stopped it all stopped



It is the nature of a ceasefire, yes. The political impetus being driven by Bill Clinton, Hume, Reynolds. 
Adams, McGuinness, Kelly, Slab Murphy, Martin Ferris now outflanked the militant McKevitt on the IRA AC and the political wing of SF/IRA had the ascendency over the militant wing. 


Betsy Og said:


> I want the past left in the past so I've zero interest in lauding former gunmen and bombers



Nobody is asking you to laud over former gunmen and bombers. Although it would have been hard to avoid with the state commemorations of  1916 a few years back. I think Thomas Clarke, an indiscriminate bomber of bridges and train stations, was afforded another bridge to be named after him by President D Higgins. 

The gaslighting is by the media. The Seamus McElwaine memorial occurs every year, attended by SF representatives of one sort or another. The media pay little attention, if at all. The only reason this memorial got traction is because it was a high profile rep like Matt Carty. 
Carty, probably sensing an election in the not too distant future, was playing to his base support in the region.



Betsy Og said:


> How are we going to move on if SF want to keep glorifying and trying to justify the dark deeds of yore



And yet we continue to glorify the past dark deeds of 1916-1921


Duke of Marmalade said:


> Garret (and frightened thinking people) be afraid of a British withdrawal



Garret being frightened, does not make Garret correct. The same "_now is not the time"_ brigade are still holding that line.


Duke of Marmalade said:


> Given the atrocious behaviour of the British Army, as documented by yourself, was Garret Fitzgerald wrong and, with the benefit of hindsight of course, would we have been much better off if Harold Wilson had packed his bags in 1974?



We don't have the benefit of hindsight because Harold Wilson did not pack his bags. 
But to indulge the hypothetical scenario, ideally, the Irish Army should have moved into the Nationalist area's. Failing that UN Peace-keepers.
While the BA did halt the pogroms against Catholics, it was a temporary reprieve as we know how they would choose to gun-down the innocents in due course.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> In fact, in your opinion and again with the benefit of hindsight would it have been better if the BA had not intervened in the first place in 1969?



Absolutely. The Irish Army in Nationalist areas would have been better. Or UN peace-keepers.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (28 Apr 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> Absolutely. The Irish Army in Nationalist areas would have been better. Or UN peace-keepers.


That is nigh eve beyond belief.  I feel embarrassed for having engaged with you on this, I've had enough.


----------



## WolfeTone (28 Apr 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> That is nigh eve beyond belief.  I feel embarrassed for having engaged with you on this, I've had enough.



Ok, I misconstrued. I was basing it on your hypothetical scenario of HW packing his bags (ie British withdrawal). I see you are asking on the basis of the non-hypothetical scenario. 

There is no doubt that the BA deployment was a benefit for all at the outset. But it became quickly apparent, under the direction of RUC, that they were not a neutral force. Evidenced by their open brutality, and their sustained covert war for 20yrs and more.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (28 Apr 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> Ok, I misconstrued. I was basing it on your hypothetical scenario of HW packing his bags (ie British withdrawal). I see you are asking on the basis of the non-hypothetical scenario.
> 
> There is no doubt that the BA deployment was a benefit for all at the outset. But it became quickly apparent, under the direction of RUC, that they were not a neutral force. Evidenced by their open brutality, and their sustained covert war for 20yrs and more.


Okay, I'm back.  Personally, being a young catholic on the ground in 1969, the arrival of British troops was an enormous relief.  The catholic population were under attack from loyalist forces.  The idea of Lynch's army invading Belfast to fight those forces is just unconscionable.  Mind you Lynch did rattle his sabre, moving troops to the border,  I suppose to appease CJH and his pals.

I accept that the British had some responsibility for allowing the situation to develop, going right back to partition and allowing a Protestant parliament for a Protestant people, and so had a moral duty to address it.  By and large they did address it.  Far more British security forces died than IRA terrorists, and I stand by my assertion that the whole island owe the former an enormous debt. Garret Fitz was right, a British withdrawal would have unleashed a nightmare on the whole island.


----------



## WolfeTone (28 Apr 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Personally, being a young catholic on the ground in 1969, the arrival of British troops was an enormous relief. The catholic population were under attack from loyalist forces. The idea of Lynch's army invading Belfast to fight those forces is just unconscionable.



The language is insightful. You paint a picture of a population living under siege and in fear (you've referenced Rwandan, Balkans also). 
There is no doubt who, at that time the outright aggressors were? 
And while it was a relief for Catholics when BA arrived, how must it have felt when they turned their guns on those the set out to protect? 

From one perspective, the BA allowed themselves to be played naively right into the hands of the IRA. No doubt influenced in no small part by directions and information from their friends in the RUC. 
From another perspective, considering how you have described matters, who could blame the Catholic population for rising up in arms in such circumstances ? I couldn't. 

Arlene Foster spoke of the 'evil' that was Séamus McElwain. She said she felt the same about him today as she did when she a small child and he attempted to kill her father 40yrs+ ago. 
Who could blame her? I certainly couldn't. 

The naivety in these discussions is that the communities of Ballymurphy and Derry and elsewhere are expected to feel different and move on with regard to BA atrocities committed against their loved ones, not just today, but should have done so when Sunningdale was signed! 

We've been down this road before. The question why was the IRA campaign sustained so long? 
Simplifying it, the absence of trust, lack of political will to compromise, presence of political will to inflict defeat, and a deep hatred. 
Once violence erupts, it is anyone's guess what direction it will take and for how long.


----------



## Betsy Og (28 Apr 2021)

WT, sure of course prisoner releases weren't part of Sunningdale since the Republican movement took no part - c'mon man. And it's not that the Brits wouldn't talk, they'd met t'lads at Cheyne Walk in London before then, only to be told 32 county socialist republic or nothing.

So the deal was there to be done if republicans interested. Put another way, was the extra 25 years of bloodshed worth it? Everything was lost and nothing won, as the song says.


----------



## WolfeTone (28 Apr 2021)

Betsy Og said:


> sure of course prisoner releases weren't part of Sunningdale since the Republican movement took no part - c'mon man



Kind of critical point though?
Similarly the Council of Ireland that repulsed Unionists would manifest itself again in another form under the Anglo Irish agreement, and again under GFA.
Was the Unionist resistance to this worth it?



Betsy Og said:


> And it's not that the Brits wouldn't talk, they'd met t'lads at Cheyne Walk in London before then, only to be told 32 county socialist republic or nothing.



Well, it wasn't exactly a 32 county socialist republic they were demanding from the British at those talks. They were seeking commitment to a British troop withdrawal and guarantee that the future of Ireland be determined by the Irish people alone (which to their mind would be a 32CSR).
The British side were committed to the people of NI determining their future.
The IRA, under leadership of MacStíofán obviously rejected this.




Betsy Og said:


> So the deal was there to be done



The deal was there to be done in the context of being able to sell the terms of the deal to their base.
In 1972 this was not plausible in any way shape or form, let's be realistic. Ballymurphy, Derry, Internment etc were on-going raw wounds in the psyche of Republican base. Let alone that in 'ordinary' times they lived in a sectarian state that punched down on them.



Betsy Og said:


> Put another way, was the extra 25 years of bloodshed worth it?



Of course it wasn't worth it. But it naive, in my view, that it was wholly sustained by the IRA alone. The British government, via its agents or its part, adopted policies of criminalisation, covert war, collusion with loyalist paramilitaries, etc... the culmination being the dirty protest and hunger strikes.

To say that all trust between IRA and British government had eroded is an understatement. In itself, sustainig the cycle of violence.


----------



## Betsy Og (29 Apr 2021)

Re prisoner releases, as I said that would absolutely have been on the cards, you can't knock Sunningdale on that basis since republicans didn't engage it in.

"The British side were committed to the people of NI determining their future.
The IRA, under leadership of MacStíofán obviously rejected this."

But ultimately SF signed up to exactly that (the people of NI determining their future). The reality of sityeation, as they say, is that barring Rwandan style ethnic cleansing there was never going to be a UI without the people of NI voting for it, and callous and all as the Brits are they couldn't watch that happen on their doorstep in the 1970s - so, sure. I'm naive that bloodlust shouldn't have driven on the Provos, doesn't make their actions justified though, & if I'm naive by God they were naive thinking they'd ever bomb their way to a UI. Yes, they weren't the only actors on the scene, and even if they'd signed up for Sunningdale there'd have been provocation from loyalists and some security elements, but I do think it would have ultimately prevailed.

An interesting question is that if the RA were justified in the Long War, what's wrong with the cause of dissident republicans now?, surely its PSF/PIRA who have sold out the purity of the cause, the flame that was lit in 1916.....(some suitable imagery & craw thumping, sure y'know yourself....), why was a 1972 'betrayal' acceptable in 1998, some slow learning perchance?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (29 Apr 2021)

@WolfeTone you can keep your fantasy for all I care.  But I won’t let you twist my own personal narrative.  On August 15th 1969 I went to Mass (feast of the Assumption, I went those days).
The priest informed us that overnight the Protestant mobs backed by the RUC had attacked Catholics and that 4 were killed.  He went so far as to say that if it wasn’t for the resistance of the IRA It would have been much worse.  It was scary, I’ll say even though I lived about 2 miles from the nearest Prod.  What a relief when the BA arrived and what a relief it should be to everyone on this island to this day that they persisted.
So no, sorry to disappoint, I was not in a community under seige but for that one day it was scary for me.

Do you ever question in your narrative of British atrocity and near pogrom against the Catholic community the dogs that weren’t barking?  Mainstream Southern politics.  The EU.  The US.  In fact other than the usual MOPE moans of a section of Mary Robinson’s diaspora international criticism of British activity in NI was extremely muted.


----------



## WolfeTone (29 Apr 2021)

Slow learners

- IRA were slow learners in thinking that they force a British military withdrawal by arms. They couldn't.

- British government were slow learners in thinking they could criminalise and defeat the Republican movement. They couldn't.

- British military/intelligence were slow learners in thinking they could turn nationalist communities against IRA by running a covert war supplying loyalists with weapons, intelligence and cover. They failed.

- British and Irish gov were slow learners in thinking a political settlement could be achieved without a settlement of the prisoners issue and without their representatives at the table. It couldn't.

- Paisley and Loyalism were slow learners in that "Ulster say No!" could sustain indefinitely. It couldn't. 

The IRA could not have signed up to Sunningdale because they were not part of the negotiation, and their primary demands of a British military withdrawal and recognition of the right of whole of Irish people alone to determine their future (1972, their demands were not a 32CSR) were not part of that agreement.

Even if somehow the IRA did tacitly acknowledge Sunningdale was the way forward, drop their arms, there was still the small matter of Paisley and Loyalist community who were firmly entrenched in the Ulster say No, No Surrender mode to accept the terms of Sunningdale. Meaning Sunningdale was dead with or without IRA on board. Fast forward to GFA and power-sharing and decomissioning. Until the Paisley block of Unionism/loyalism was prepared to sign up and compromise then the IRA, cognisant of what became of the Sunningdale agreement on foot of the Ulster Workers Council strike, held onto their weapons.



My point is that GFA is Sunningdale is for slow learners, but slow learners comes in a number of forms.


----------



## Purple (29 Apr 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> - British government were slow learners in thinking they could criminalise and defeat the Republican movement. They couldn't.


The British Government didn't try to criminalise and defeat the Republican movement. They, along with everyone else, criminalised and tried to defeat that minority which used terrorism to further their aims while co-opting the term "Republican Movement" to themselves.


----------



## WolfeTone (29 Apr 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> @WolfeTone you can keep your fantasy for all I care.



What are you talking about? What you are outlining is the very narrative that I understand matters to be!

If I figure you correctly, your beef is about "quantity, and even quality" of atrocity?

I have no qualms in recognising that the Provos were the single most aggressive protaganists in the conflict. Far more so than the BA in terms of death counts. But that that somehow is something the populations of Belfast and Derry should be grateful for? That that somehow eases the raw emotion that followed BA atrocities is really infantile thinking.

But if your measurement of who the goodies and baddies are based on quantity of death counts then you will see from the Wiki source I gave you that the conflict was not a one-way street. This is the false narrative peddled by yourself and others.

Purely on a death count, out of 3,532 people killed, The Provos are attributed with 1,705 deaths, or 48% of the deaths. So when doing your homework this evening, you might let me know who was responsible for the other 1,827 deaths, or 52% of the deaths - the bogeyman?


----------



## WolfeTone (29 Apr 2021)

Purple said:


> The British Government didn't try to criminalise and defeat the Republican movement. They, along with everyone else, criminalised and tried to defeat that minority which used terrorism to further their aims while co-opting the term "Republican Movement" to themselves.



Ok were into the semantics here. The "Republican Movement" being the political and military organisations of SF and IRA that adopted the term "Republican Movement" for themselves and which, as far as I'm aware, was the universally adopted term applied when talking about SF and IRA.


----------



## Purple (29 Apr 2021)

Newton Emerson has an excellent piece in the Irish Times today on the DUP's troubles could mean for them and Northern Ireland.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (29 Apr 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> If I figure you correctly, your beef is about "quantity, and even quality" of atrocity?


Actually more underlying motivation.  I never had any doubt that the British Government wished to stabilise the situation and, belatedly for sure, they started by addressing the NICRA demands.  In fact I never had any doubts that the British were working in my interests.
Republicans on the other hand yearned for a sectarian meltdown in the six counties that would spill over to the 26 and bring about their goal of a 32 county socialist republic.  
I have no doubt that the Republican overlords celebrated every excess of the British security forces as it would fuel the MOPE fantasy of which you are a clear believer.


----------



## Purple (29 Apr 2021)

The reframing of Irishness as something narrower and Catholic around the start of the last century also made the Protestants feel less Irish than they had in, for example, 1798. That made Home Rule much harder and Partition more inevitable. Basically modern Irish nationalism has always been exclusionary and in denial of our history and the PIRA and the Shinners have kept that tradition of exclusion alive. 
Loyalism of course is defined by it's bigotry and exclusion but in the long run they are on the losing side, no matter who wins.


----------



## WolfeTone (29 Apr 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I never had any doubt that the British Government wished to stabilise the situation and, belatedly for sure,



Please, Duke, I am not disputing that. Why would Britain want anything else?

But what you seem incapable of grasping is that wishing something and wanting something are fine and dandy, its the actual policy decisions (or none) that effect people on the ground. It is the regard that is afforded to those decisions when they are not working is what is important.
The British government may have wanted to stabilise the situation for sure, but as you say, _belatedly - _this is the disregard for what was happening right under their noses in the United Kingdom of Britain and NI for 50yrs.

NI was a neglected outpost of the empire since its inception. A creation of the inherent sectarianism of Ulster Protestantism. That is not excuse Catholic bigotry either. The Civil Rights movement shone a light on that nefarious institutionalised bigotry that governed the population. The British government are guilty of neglect and appeasing this apartheid state into its existence.
And when the light was shone on the and sectarian structures of the state the Protestant State gave its answer to reform in the manner that you have already outlined.
I have said this many times - Irelands interests have always been a distant second to Britains interests in the United Kingdom of GB and (NI)Ireland.

I have no doubt that Britain would wash its hands of NI in the morning if it could. But they are as responsible for its creation and dire management as anyone else.

The Catholic Church and Irish government probably didnt intend harm to singles mothers by operating a dire and punitive system of incarceration. They probably thought it was best for stabililty of the Catholic ethos. But thinking they have the best interests in mind, doesn't mean their decisions were in the best interests.




Duke of Marmalade said:


> In fact I never had any doubts that the British were working in my interests.



Perhaps, but you have alluded to it already, it was too little too late. The problems of the NI state began in 1921, from its very inception.

I refer once more to Her Majesty the Q2 "_there are things we all wish we could have done differently, or not at all_"



Duke of Marmalade said:


> Republicans on the other hand yearned for a sectarian meltdown in the six counties



This is just more infantile projection.

If you plant bombs or take up arms, for sure, you are signaling to everyone that you are preparing to take this all the way to hell and back. This is a no-brainer.

Similarily, if raid entire communities and streets burning the population out of their homes. If you are of the mindset to pick up a Catholic, torture and murder, for kicks, if you send in the Army to "shock and awe" the local population, engaging in cold-blooded murder.

All of these things signal to others 'look what we are prepared to do if you don't toe the line or don't dance to our tune'.

Its warfare. It is not normal and it is naive to expect everyone to act rationally and calmly. Arriving after the fact, to announce that Britain will _now_ act in the interests of everyone - so stop all that shooting, is, too little too late. "Where the .... were you for the last 10, 20, 30, 40, 50yrs?", spings to mind.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (29 Apr 2021)

@WolfeTone I will concede you one thing.  State forces should be held to a far higher standard than terrorists.  SF are not applying this filter.  For them there is parity of esteem between the BA and the PIRA both for bad and good.
Your statement that you "have no truck with the IRA" gives me hope that you do not seek parity of esteem but are judging the BA by a higher standard, which is fair enough.


----------



## WolfeTone (29 Apr 2021)

Purple said:


> Basically modern Irish nationalism has always been exclusionary and in denial of our history and the PIRA and the Shinners have kept that tradition of exclusion alive.



They are not the only ones. I cringed when watching my son partake in an 1916 re-enactment in primary school a few years back. Here is the Dept of Education, overseers of fostering the intellect of the country instilling pride in private armies, without no mandate from anyone, to go and shoot up the city in the name of freedom.
Have these clowns been asleep for the rest of the century?
They cannot even explain why 1916 was 'justified' other than glib "they fought for our freedom from the British" nonsense.
This is why we have a puppet media that beech-slaps a section of the population into their persona of moral outrage and indignantion when someone else, but not suiting the narrative, is commemorated for the exact same thing.


----------



## Purple (29 Apr 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> They are not the only ones. I cringed when watching my son partake in an 1916 re-enactment in primary school a few years back. Here is the Dept of Education, overseers of fostering the intellect of the country instilling pride in private armies, without no mandate from anyone, to go and shoot up the city in the name of freedom.
> Have these clowns been asleep for the rest of the century?
> They cannot even explain why 1916 was 'justified' other than glib "they fought for our freedom from the British" nonsense.
> This is why we have a puppet media that beech-slaps a section of the population into their persona of moral outrage and indignantion when someone else, but not suiting the narrative, is commemorated for the exact same thing.


So you are saying that we should stop all that stuff?
If so, and that leads to real peace, than I'm with you, but at some stage politics becomes history.
While the families of those who were killed are still alive it's not history and I don't think commemorations of said events are a good idea.


----------



## Purple (29 Apr 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> Have these clowns been asleep for the rest of the century?
> They cannot even explain why 1916 was 'justified' other than glib "they fought for our freedom from the British" nonsense.


I kind of agree with that but I'd also say that the Shinner/IRA narrative ignored the previous century. They ignore the Vice President of the real (original) Sinn Fein, Fr. Michael O’Flanagan who, in an article in 1916, said that Ulster unionists were “not Irish in the national sense” and should be given the same right to decide their nationality as nationalists themselves. Lloyd George quoted his article in introducing the Government of Ireland Bill. (source)


----------



## WolfeTone (29 Apr 2021)

Purple said:


> While the families of those who were killed are still alive it's not history and I don't think commemorations of said events are a good idea.



I understand the sentiment, but there was no commemoration of the specific actions that Seamus McElwaine was involved in. 
There was glib token reference to "he fought for our freedom", "brave volunteer" etc,. The commemoration was of his being, as a person. Regardless of what anyone thinks of McElwaine there is a family that mourns his passing also.

It was the media that choose, this year, to zone in on this commemoration that occurs every year. It is pot-stirring.
If Carty had called out for others to follow in McElwaines footsteps, if he had called out to rise up in arms, if he had identified specific attacks and glorified them, then I could understand the outrage. But he didnt. 

If this commemoration should not be allowed, then any commemorations for the lives of any British soldiers that inflicted pain on innocent civilians in Ireland should not be commemorated.
Personally, I think that would be silly, and just lead to more aggravation for everyone. Which is what the media focus on Carty was about more than anything.


----------



## Purple (29 Apr 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> If this commemoration should not be allowed, then any commemorations for the lives of any British soldiers that inflicted pain on innocent civilians in Ireland should not be commemorated.


I used to Spend a good deal of time in the Seagate facility in Limavady (not the one in Derry). They had a policy of not allowing any flags or emblems to be displayed in offices, cars or clothes etc. If you had tattoos you had to cover them up.  I think that would be a great idea for all of Northern Ireland. I'd happily apply the same rule here if it helped.


----------



## Peanuts20 (29 Apr 2021)

Purple said:


> I used to Spend a good deal of time in the Seagate facility in Limavady (not the one in Derry). They had a policy of not allowing any flags or emblems to be displayed in offices, cars or clothes etc. If you had tattoos you had to cover them up.  I think that would be a great idea for all of Northern Ireland. I'd happily apply the same rule here if it helped.



I know a bank up there that had a ban on football, rugby and GAA jerseys on dress down days for the same reason. 

The rather depressing part about it was that if one my colleagues took me for a pint, we'd go to a certain well know nationalist pub. Our boss, a senior Orangeman, would take me to a different pub in a very different part of town if we went for a drink. I was always made very welcome in both. However if he was taking the team out for a drink, there was a "neutral" pub out the coast road which had no TV (so no arguements about matches) and that was where we used to go to as a team. That is all only 10 years ago. 

There was also an unwritten rule that no-one from the South went up there for a meeting in July, "just in case!"


----------



## Betsy Og (29 Apr 2021)

Peanuts20 said:


> There was also an unwritten rule that no-one from the South went up there for a meeting in July, "just in case!"


I recall doing a business thing up in Ballymena one time (doubt it was July though), and getting a few 'double takes' with my free state car reg.


----------



## Purple (29 Apr 2021)

Yea, a few of the villages with red white and blue painted curb stones and union jack bunting for most of the year are strange places. I always made a point of stopping in a shop whenever I drove into one. I was never made to feel unwelcome.


----------



## Betsy Og (29 Apr 2021)

Purple said:


> Yea, a few of the villages with red white and blue painted curb stones and union jack bunting for most of the year are strange places. I always made a point of stopping in a shop whenever I drove into one. I was never made to feel unwelcome.


You're a bigger man than me so, was on hols in Fermanagh last year, a local village Kesh was festooned. I thought to myself, I'm not giving these [expletives] my money. Anywhere with paramilitary flegs, they can keep it. Maybe its a time of year thing but it seems to be fascination of one community only, I'd say I hardly spotted a tricolour and was in plenty places where that would be the fleg flown.


----------



## WolfeTone (29 Apr 2021)

Purple said:


> They elect a hardliner...



Edwin Poots has thrown his hat in the ring. Is he a hard liner? I don't know much about him except he had cancer recently. 
A devout Protestant I believe.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (29 Apr 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> A devout Protestant I believe.


A hard liner.
Donaldson is the best of a bad lot.


----------



## odyssey06 (29 Apr 2021)

Purple said:


> Yea, a few of the villages with red white and blue painted curb stones and union jack bunting for most of the year are strange places. I always made a point of stopping in a shop whenever I drove into one. I was never made to feel unwelcome.


I remember walking back to digs on a trip to Belfast in mid 90s.
One side of kerb was painted union jack.
One side tricolour.
I walked on tricolour side as figured with my accent if I ran into any trouble best not to overthink it.


----------



## WolfeTone (29 Apr 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Donaldson is the best of a bad lot.



I agree, but he has, like Foster, UUP DNA. So they won't go for that again. 

I'm reading about Poots, he is full on bible-belt material. I feel the DUP are moving towards some need of some purification. There is a sense they have been sitting for too long, too close to the dirty Shinners and have become contaminted.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (29 Apr 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> I agree, but he has, like Foster, UUP DNA. So they won't go for that again.


He writes for the Irish Times so he can't be a total bigot.  Can we all agree that it would be great if Alliance came on top in the basket case six counties?  Just checking.


----------



## WolfeTone (30 Apr 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Alliance



Partitionists!


----------



## Purple (30 Apr 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> Edwin Poots has thrown his hat in the ring. Is he a hard liner? I don't know much about him except he had cancer recently.
> A devout Protestant I believe.


I just hope that if another civil war starts in the UK it doesn't spill over into this country again .


----------



## WolfeTone (30 Apr 2021)

Purple said:


> I just hope that if another civil war starts in the UK it doesn't spill over into this country again .



Just to be sure though, we could re-unify the country by rejoining the UK in an economic and trade union. 

A reversion back to 1914 when the majority of Irish people were willing participants of the British Empire. When a parliament for All Ireland, through exclusively peaceful and democratic means, had been achieved. 

Why not apply the NI protocol to the whole of Ireland? 
We could have best of both worlds also. Our deeply historic, cultural ties with Britain could be strengthened not weakened. We could have access to EU single market. 
We could have ECJ as a final arbitrator for constitutional and rights disputes. 
The Union Jack could fly over Leinster House. Members can take an oath to the Crown, if they wish.


----------



## Purple (30 Apr 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> Just to be sure though, we could re-unify the country by rejoining the UK in an economic and trade union.
> 
> A reversion back to 1914 when the majority of Irish people were willing participants of the British Empire. When a parliament for All Ireland, through exclusively peaceful and democratic means, had been achieved.
> 
> ...


Yes, we could do that but why would we? The majority of the people in this country don't want to join the UK and the majority in Northern Ireland don't want to join this country. 

If the Nordies could just dial down the bigotry and glorification of murder then, from a  Nationalist perspective, demographics will take care of the problem in a few generations.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (30 Apr 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> Partitionists!


Ah _Wolfie_, my recall is that you are a big supporter of GFA.  Doesn’t come more partitionist.
On a separate clarification, we are subject to the equivalent of the NI protocol, we are in the EU just like them


----------



## WolfeTone (30 Apr 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Ah _Wolfie_, my recall is that you are a big supporter of GFA. Doesn’t come more partitionist.



Indeed. There are certainly elements of the GFA I do not like. But in the round it is a good thing. And as my fellow countrymen and women, north and south, have overwhemingly expressed their acceptance of it, I shall accept it too.
There is a lesson in there for the DUP perhaps?


----------



## WolfeTone (30 Apr 2021)

Purple said:


> The majority of the people in this country don't want to join the UK and the majority in Northern Ireland don't want to join this country.



Well, yes, on the bare canvass of simply removing the border by referendum, that would appear to be case today etc

But are we not in a 'Shared island' mode? I don't think it is unreasonable to assess that the current situation of a divided Ireland hasn't really worked that well.

So rather than pull Unionists into a United Irish Republic, why not join with them in a federal union between Britain and Ireland? Our history and cultures are inextricably linked, most of the rest of the world cannot distinguish between us. Allowing for all the diversity within our societies centuries old division may disappear and they become irrelevant.
Us Southerners already accept a significant portion of our citizenery should accept their lot in the UK, and it appears a significant portion of that lot are quite content to do so.

Maybe all this Republican idealism was a mistake? Ok, it has great intentions, and yes, London's record of governance in Ireland is pretty absymal.

But as the Reverend Ian said to the Rebel Martin "_We don't need Englishmen to rule us. We can do that ourselves._"

Afterall, having gained our 'independence' from Britain in 1921, we then joined with them again in another economic union when we joined the EEC 50yrs later.
Our place in the future is to stand with Britain, as equal partners.


----------



## Purple (30 Apr 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> But are we not in a 'Shared island' mode?


Yep. Shared being the operative wo



WolfeTone said:


> I don't think it is unreasonable to assess that the current situation of a divided Ireland hasn't really worked that well.


It's working just fine for us. It would work just fine for the Nordies if they could behave like civilised adults and stop with the religion, bigotry and tribalism, if they weren't tethered to the past.



WolfeTone said:


> So rather than pull Unionists into a United Irish Republic, why not join with them in a federal union between Britain and Ireland?


Because that's not what the majority of people want.


WolfeTone said:


> Our history and cultures are inextricably linked, most of the rest of the world cannot distinguish between us. Allowing for all the diversity within our societies centuries old division may disappear and they become irrelevant.


On that basis Canada should join America, Austria should join Germany and all of Africa should join each other. Political union based on the ignorance of people in distant countries isn't a good idea. 


WolfeTone said:


> Us Southerners already accept a significant portion of our citizenery should accept their lot in the UK, and it appears a significant portion of that lot are quite content to do so.


An even bigger proportion of our citizens live in the USA. Should we join them as well?


WolfeTone said:


> Afterall, having gained our 'independence' from Britain in 1921, we then joined with them again in another economic union when we joined the EEC 50yrs later.


We both joined the same Union then they left.


WolfeTone said:


> Our place in the future is to stand with Britain, as equal partners.


We were equal partners in the EU but they left.


----------



## Betsy Og (30 Apr 2021)

Wolfie, while I'm not taking all this seriously, you'd have to say it would be an odd time to hitch your wagon to the UK with Scotland shaping to leave (whether they actually will....), Welsh nationalism showing early stirrings, & Eng-er-lund going through its worst patch in quite some time. 

England doesn't do unions, it does colonies. Not allowing Scotland a vote to see if it wants to stay in the "union" - tis a quare union that you're not allowed hold a vote to see if you want to leave. #coercivecontrol 

We'll always have our cultural links, and other than the Tory Party I wish them all well, but I'm sitting pretty looking across at the shambles they are putting themselves through & I wouldn't dream of getting entangled in it (any more than we already are).


----------



## WolfeTone (30 Apr 2021)

Purple said:


> It's working just fine for us.



I think we have touched on this 'us' business earlier. There is a clearly a significant portion of 'us', north and south, that feel it isn't working for 'us'.
A quick glance over the last century, Civil war, Insitutionalised sectarianism,  Troubles, and now Brexit.


Purple said:


> It would work just fine for the Nordies if they could behave like civilised adults and stop with the religion, bigotry and tribalism, if they weren't tethered to the past.



Yeh, but we could have said that in 1916 before our 'heros' started shooting up the city. Maybe we should tone down the rhethoric there also instead of spending public money on such events?



Purple said:


> Because that's not what the majority of people want.



We don't know, we haven't asked them? Has a federal union of Britain and Ireland even been considered?  I'm not aware of it?



Purple said:


> On that basis Canada should join America, Austria should join Germany and all of Africa should join each other. Political union based on the ignorance of people in distant countries isn't a good idea.


Why? Is there a historic border dispute between these countries that keeps manifesting itself in political dispute of these countries? I'm not aware there is. There is certainly a dispute here.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (30 Apr 2021)

I sense, but I might be wrong, that there is a presumption that a Federal union with the UK is ours for the asking.  Please realise that in a Federal union of "equals" it is the lesser parties who get most benefit - for example in terms of financial and military security.  Why would the Brits welcome us back?


----------



## Purple (30 Apr 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> I think we have touched on this 'us' business earlier. There is a clearly a significant portion of 'us', north and south, that feel it isn't working for 'us'.


I'm talking about "us" being the people in this country.



WolfeTone said:


> Yeh, but we could have said that in 1916 before our 'heros' started shooting up the city. Maybe we should tone down the rhethoric there also instead of spending public money on such events?


Absolutely, but that was over 100 years ago and we have moved on and most of us have matured a bit, unlike a larger proportion of the Nordies.


WolfeTone said:


> We don't know, we haven't asked them? Has a federal union of Britain and Ireland even been considered? I'm not aware of it?


No, but a federal union with Somalia hasn't been considered either and I know what the answer to that one would be too. Maybe the people who read English Newspapers and talk about "us" when referring to British Football Teams would welcome it but it's not in our political or economic interests. 


WolfeTone said:


> Why? Is there a historic border dispute between these countries that keeps manifesting itself in political dispute of these countries? I'm not aware there is. There is certainly a dispute here.


Oh, you were talking about it based on the number of Irish Citizens living in Northern Ireland. I was just pointing out that there are more Irish Citizens living in the USA than in Northern Ireland.


----------



## Purple (30 Apr 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I sense, but I might be wrong, that there is an assumption that a Federal union with the UK is ours for the taking if we just asked for it.


Plus we'd have to leave the extremely successful and beneficial Union we are already in. That would be a really bad idea. 
Why burn your house down because your neighbour is burning down their larger house?


----------



## WolfeTone (30 Apr 2021)

Betsy Og said:


> you'd have to say it would be an odd time to hitch your wagon to the UK with Scotland shaping to leave (whether they actually will....), Welsh nationalism showing early stirrings, & Eng-er-lund going through its worst patch in quite some time.



I would think the exact opposite. It was David Cameron that touted in the HoC that maybe it was time for an English parliament for England.

I'm talking looking to the future.
Most of divisions is underpinned by symbolism. One great lesson of the GFA is, as Patrick Kielty put it, "it allows Irish people to be Irish and British people to be British".

So Parliaments for England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales in a Federal Union of Great Britain and Ireland. Scotland and Ireland, being pro-EU (including the now former region previously known as NI) can, through their parliaments apply to join the EU in whatever form they want. All in, Norwegian style, Swiss style, or NI protocol style.

Ireland could have a President of the Parliament, that derives its authority from republican principles of democracy and equality for all its citizens. The federal union can be headed by the British Monarch, affording titles of grandeur and pomposity (or whatever it is they get their kicks from) in a House of Lords and Senators who can, if they wish, take an oath of allegience to the British Crown.


----------



## Betsy Og (30 Apr 2021)

Meh, I don't see the benefits. Don't we have 'East West' bodies as part of the GFA, that should be enough. I'd maybe just about stomach rejoining the commonwealth ......to be patted on the head by the Queen.... like all the other former colonies, but that would be absolutely as a sop to unionists. It's outdated AF, we're already in one supranational organisation (the EU), I think we should 'stick to the knitting' of managing that relationship - the main interaction with England is markets for their products and ours - but that's dictated by the EU/UK deal anyway, so I honestly don't know what any other arrangements would give us.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (30 Apr 2021)

Note that in most federal arrangements the capital city is deliberately chosen not to be the biggest - e.g. Canada, US, Australia, EU.
In a Federal British Isles would the capital be Dublin?  More realistically in a federal UI would Belfast be the correct choice of capital city?


----------



## Betsy Og (30 Apr 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> More realistically in a federal UI would Belfast be the correct choice of capital city?


Go for Athlone, geographic centre of Ireland, close to everywhere but needs a few more motorways (that the country needs anyway) - need regional development. No historic baggage in terms of centre of power (Athlone Town doesn't count).

Aren't we blue in the face from agonising over the plight of house buyers on the east coast, time to help them. #rebalance


----------



## WolfeTone (30 Apr 2021)

Betsy Og said:


> I don't see the benefits



Well the benefits would be, or intended to be, a deeper integration of the people's of these islands over the long-term. The borders that currently remain is some quarters (primarily in the mindset) will begin to dissolve. National pride and cultural identity in tact, we can all get about our business, and societal battles can be fought on the rugby field or the football field - choose your own battleground.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> More realistically in a federal UI would Belfast be the correct choice of capital city?



Who knows, but good question. I think somewhere like Liverpool would be ideal. It is a city in England, but not a typical English city, or English people. A mish-mash of long cultural ties with Ireland, Scotland and Wales. Both the Orange and Green traditions have a presence there.
It also a city, steeped in soccer culture and rivalry, that is an example of transcending the bigotry in many ways.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (30 Apr 2021)

Glasgow?


----------



## Purple (30 Apr 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> Well the benefits would be, or intended to be, a deeper integration of the people's of these islands over the long-term.


I'd rather see the UK re-joining the EU and us all becoming part of a Federal Europe.
Then move the capital to Rome and see if we can get that Empire up and running again. The sex and general carrying on would be only massive; the Romans knew how to enjoy themselves, have you been to Pompeii?


----------



## Betsy Og (30 Apr 2021)

All credit to international cooperation and trading relations, but at the end of the day I'm more comfortable with a Europe of national states, than a United States of Europe. Bottom line is that Ireland is too small to matter, and yes we form alliances blah blah and it worked for Brexit, but overall I think the EU has pretty much gone far enough in terms of its reach, I don't want to be encouraging them any further.

If Scotland goes independent it'll be in EU in jig time. I can see England being back in EU in my lifetime.


----------



## Purple (30 Apr 2021)

Betsy Og said:


> All credit to international cooperation and trading relations, but at the end of the day I'm more comfortable with a Europe of national states, than a United States of Europe. Bottom line is that Ireland is too small to matter, and yes we form alliances blah blah and it worked for Brexit, but overall I think the EU has pretty much gone far enough in terms of its reach, I don't want to be encouraging them any further.
> 
> If Scotland goes independent it'll be in EU in jig time. I can see England being back in EU in my lifetime.


I'm happy the way things are but I'd rather my scenario than a Union with the UK.


----------



## WolfeTone (30 Apr 2021)

@Purple I detect a tone of sarcasm!   

I'm of a generation that was brought up to believe that there would never be,

...peace in N Ireland
...Governments would never talk to terrorists
...SF would never get into government
...Unionists would never share power with SF
...IRA would never give up its arms
...Ian Paisley _certainly_ would never share power
...there would never be an Irish Sea border 
(ok, that last one came belatedly) 

Its probably why I buy bitcoin.


----------



## WolfeTone (30 Apr 2021)

Betsy Og said:


> If Scotland goes independent it'll be in EU in jig time. I can see England being back in EU in my lifetime.



I think the EU is a walking dinosaur. I do not agree much with Boris Johnson but I agree that it is a noble idea whose time has passed.
For sure, there are many good things about the EU and it will limp on, probably for 50 to 100yrs longer than is required.
The principles of free movement and free trade across the continent are established. The ECJ is invaluable, but after that, let sovereign states decide their own fate.
It has one shot at rejuvenation, a federal Europe. Likely to pushed in the coming years by political elites as conformity to international corporate tax rates, trade agreements, takes further hold. The politicians will certainly push for it. Whether the people will accept it is another thing. I would not be confident of that.


----------



## Betsy Og (30 Apr 2021)

Maybe the EU got too ambitious in reach, but there's definitely an eternal role for the trading bloc. When will it ever be in Ireland's interest to be all alone in the world?, have to go crawling back into a UK for instance - can't see it. Same for many countries in Europe.


----------



## WolfeTone (30 Apr 2021)

Betsy Og said:


> have to go crawling back into a UK for instance - can't see it



Hang on now, there would be no 'crawling back' to the UK. I'm simply talking about pooling sovereignty in a partnership of equals. We've being doing it for the last 40yrs with UK as part of the EU. How inconscionable would it be to do it again? 

Obviously the terms, crossing the t's dotting the i's etc would be protracted and complicated. 
But if it were to open the door to making redundant the centuries old divisions on this (these) islands it would at least be worth exploring.


----------



## Betsy Og (30 Apr 2021)

Political unions are like spouses, one at a time please.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (30 Apr 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> @Purple I detect a tone of sarcasm!
> 
> I'm of a generation that was brought up to believe that there would never be,
> 
> ...


Indeed and widening the net:
A black man would become presie of the US
Followed by a deranged egotist 
A clown would become prime minister of the UK ruling alongside Carrie Antoinette
A gay indian would become TeaShop


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (30 Apr 2021)

Arlene leaving DUP coz she doesn’t like their direction.  That is a nice piece of revenge and I think it will hurt the DUP.  Very good chance they will lose next year’s election.  If the loyalists don’t like the protocol how will they cope with a SF First Minister?


----------



## WolfeTone (1 May 2021)

Irish Unification poll

This is timely.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (1 May 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> Irish Unification poll
> 
> This is timely.


35 pc in NI in favour of UI.  Unless there is some momentous game changer it looks like it will be at least 100 years before the Secretary of State would think it "likely" that a border poll would be positive for a UI.


----------



## WolfeTone (1 May 2021)

"_Subject to paragraph 3, the Secretary of State shall exercise the power 
under paragraph 1 *if at any time it appears likely to him *that a majority of 
those voting would express a wish that Northern Ireland should cease to 
be part of the United Kingdom and form part of a united Ireland. "_

If I were that SoS, that's not how I would interpret that poll. 
I would exclude the don't knows. In which case, out of 100 eligible votes, 79 votes were cast and 35 voted for a UI.

That is 44%. 

I would interpret that as being within a reasonable margin to appear likely to me that a majority could vote for a UI. 
That in the circumstances of the strong majority in South, and in consideration of constitutional framework of what a UI would entail, that therefore, it appears likely to me that a majority would vote for a UI and that the only way to find out for certain is to hold a referendum. 

But only if I was that SoS.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (1 May 2021)

Nice try @WolfeTone.  I take your point on the "don't knows".  But the following are synonyms for "likely" (Google it).
*Probable
To be expected 
Odds-on*
As a betting man myself I like the expression "odds-on".  Now 44% opinion poll of those who expressed an a opinion is some distance away from meeting any of these definitions.


----------



## WolfeTone (1 May 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Now 44% opinion poll of those who expressed an a opinion is some distance away from meeting any of these definitions.



Indeed, but the SoS is not bound by any of those definitions. The SoS has a blank cheque to interpret and define "appears likely to him".
Obviously, the political argument would have to be made and to be reasonably convincing to avoid a Unionist backlash.
But that is where discussions around what a UI would look like come into the frame.
If such discussions, over a period of time, had Unionists concerns - primarily British identity and 'loyalty' to the Crown (I don't think fear of Rome Rule is still a plausible concern anymore?) at front and centre. If similar polls continued on trend, hovering on 45%+ mark, then it would not be beyond reason for a SoS to deduce that in the course of a referendum campaign such a gap is not insurmountable.

Of course, a lot of fences to jump in all of that but in politics anything can happen.

The most interesting part of that poll for me is the 2/3% vote of Unionist / Loyalist that are strongly in favour or somewhat agree in an UI.
The scope for increasing that figure through open dialogue of a future constitutional arrangement is huge in my opinion.
In any open dialogue, Unionists can either participate or ignore it, but if that figure were to ever increase, even marginally, then NI's days may be numbered.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (1 May 2021)

@WolfeTone
"_Subject to paragraph 3, the Secretary of State shall exercise the power
under paragraph 1 *if at any time it appears likely to him *that a majority of
those voting *would *express a wish that Northern Ireland should cease to
be part of the United Kingdom and form part of a united Ireland. "_

The key word is highlighted (by me) in red.  Now if it was "could" instead of "would" one could just about stretch the SoS flexibility on the word "likely".  Certainly not to the point where 44% would indicate "likely" but possibly if the opinion polls were showing 50/50 s/he might just be persuaded that it is "likely" that they "could" vote for NI.  IMHO it would need to be about 55/45 in favour to justify "likely" that they "would".  It would be one not for the constitutional lawyers but the professors of the English language.

Anyway, despite all the republican bombast to the contrary the swing toward a vote for UI has been glacial, marked in 1% per decade terms (like climate change).  I give it 100 years to move from 44% to 55%.


----------



## WolfeTone (1 May 2021)

Taking out the 'Don't knows' the vote for a UI in this jurisdiction is a whopping 80%. 

Considering the populations and applying a 3:1 ratio of voter proportion South: North, I estimate that in the entirety of the whole island some 71% would vote for a UI. 

The "_now is not the right time_" brigade have had their way for far too long. 100yrs of since the establishment of NI, borne largely out of a sentiment that it would bring peace and the best solution for the 'greater good' has failed. Or as someone argued at the time in support of the Treaty "_In my opinion it gives us freedom, not the ultimate freedom that all nations desire … but the freedom to achieve it.”_

The people of Ireland, North and South deserve the opportunity to have their say to remedy a great wrong.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (1 May 2021)

@WolfeTone I thought we were discussing the GFA, not rehashing the debates of 100 years ago.


----------



## WolfeTone (1 May 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> the swing toward a vote for UI has been glacial, marked in 1% per decade terms



I'm not sure where you are getting that from? Are you sure you are not thinking about Catholic population of NI? 

My recollection is that a vote for a UI in NI was traditionally between 20-25%? 
As the independent report states "_An exclusive Irish Independent /Kantar poll of 2,250 people across the island suggests there is *momentum* behind the idea of holding a Border poll in both the Republic and Northern Ireland." _

If you were a Unionist today, adamant of never wanting a UI what do you do? Do you take the Gregory Campbell approach of its" never going to happen", or the Peter Robinson approach "we need to prepare for a border poll"?


----------



## WolfeTone (1 May 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> @WolfeTone I thought we were discussing the GFA, not rehashing the debates of 100 years ago.



In any discussion about whether we should hold a border poll or not, the debates of 100 yrs may be useful in supporting / opposing the motion.

Just to add to that, the constitutional arrangements for a UI would also have to be teased out.
My instinct is that a New Ireland would end up being Home Rule for slow learners!


----------



## odyssey06 (1 May 2021)

The poll also found that...
But on the question of finances, only one in five are willing to pay more tax to facilitate the merging of the two jurisdictions.
In the Republic, 54pc said they would be unwilling to pay more tax to fund a United Ireland. Just 22pc said they would pay more while 24pc didn’t know.
In the North, 63pc rejected the idea of higher taxes compared with 17pc who would and 20pc didn’t know. The jury is out in the Republic in terms of financial stability in the event of a united Ireland. In the North, over half believe they would be worse off. Just one in six see a rosy outlook.


----------



## WolfeTone (1 May 2021)

odyssey06 said:


> only one in five are willing to pay more tax



I would have thought that as a positive. I think people are broadly accepting of having to pay taxes, but to pay _more_ tax , for anything? 

The tax issue is a red herring. The notion is peddled that Ireland will have to fill the British subvention that underpins NI existence, at €15bn (?) a year. 
I don't subscribe to this notion at all. In base terms, well, NI won't exist, so there is that. 
Furthermore, as part of any dialogue and agreement for a new UI, it will be in everyone's interest - Britain, EU, US, that such a transition occur as smoothly as possible. I do not think that a decade or two of financial transitioning, supported initially Ireland, EU, Britain and the US, slowly being subsumed by Ireland in total would be out of the question. 
In short, if it is done right, a UI could be an economic boom for Ireland. 

The last thing anyone would want is a more costly civil war, if reunification lead to widespread unemployment and economic depression.


----------



## Betsy Og (1 May 2021)

I think Scottish Independence, if it happened, might move the dial. The union would be essentially done. For a PUL point of view their historical origins would be out of the union. You'd imagine the English might be sensing a chance to offload NI, maybe some "not alone have we no selfish interest in NI, we absolutely want to withdraw all involvement at the earliest opportunity", maybe some budget slashing, to convince enough that their fate would be better within a 32. So I'm inclined to let that play out before getting too invested in UI possibilities. We're probably at the high point of Brexit/Protocal disillusionment, they patch a few bits and pieces, the DUP will eventually take their beating (hopefully at the ballot box), and hype about UI starts to recede.


----------



## WolfeTone (1 May 2021)

Labour Party Chair: Unionists must have guaranteed seats

Mostly window dressing, but it is an example of how the momentum identified in the earlier poll is emerging.


----------



## Betsy Og (2 May 2021)

Wants to retain Stormont - no. Wants to have guaranteed seats - why?

We are a country of religious freedom and property rights and EU legislation at every turn - if there is a UI there's nothing that will set aside those rights and norms. Do protestants in the 26 have guarantees of this and that?, do they need them?

Above all, Stormont has to die, the eternal bunfight must end, keeping it is just perpetuating the cycle. Let unionists be coalition partners in a 32 county arrangement, their needs will be well looked after in the coalition structure in the 32.


----------



## WolfeTone (2 May 2021)

Betsy Og said:


> Wants to retain Stormont - no. Wants to have guaranteed seats - why?



It's pure tokenism on the part of O'Connor. He is not saying anything that he could not have been saying for 40yrs, but chose not to. There is good reason, its nonsense. 

The only thing of significance is that he is saying it now. Its simply a sign of how the topic of a UI has breached the banks of SF and has become part of the general discourse across the political spectrum.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (2 May 2021)

At least SF are being honest.  UI will be a very cold place for unionists.  They (the unionists) are not fooled by the weasel words from well meaning Southern players such as Jack of parity of esteem for them in that eventuality.  
So let's be honest, it would be utter madness for any unionist to vote for UI.  And as for a section of the Catholic middle classes, especially that significant proportion receiving British pensions,  its all very well to wave your tricolour in an opinion poll but when it comes to the real thing??

And another thing.  Despite the € having done well against £ in its short lifetime, it has a poor reputation and the folk in NI, both Catholic and Protestant, do like to see the Queen's head on their currency (again easily dismissed in an opinion poll).  In fact this €/£ thing will also doom Scottish Indyref 2.


----------



## Betsy Og (2 May 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> At least SF are being honest.  UI will be a very cold place for unionists.


What exactly are SF being honest about?

I don't believe a UI will be a cold place for unionists, I think the warm winds from the south will usher in an era of regular politics. At the moment they're fighting with SF over everything everyday. Will SF necessarily be in government in the 32?, they'd surely get the euphoria bounce, but I'm not convinced about their abilities - I think they're one term in government away from being back in "the pack" - hurling from the ditch is all well and good, they don't like getting pulled up on the record north of the border, there'll be no shirking what they do (or don't do) when in government in the South. 

Do you not think unionists would get more fair play from Labour, FG, FF than they do from SF? 

p.s. I don't think we'll ever convince unionists of same, that's why I don't believe we should move off 50% +1. It'll just have to be a pleasant surprise for them when/if/ever it happens. Anything more than a simple majority stinks of unionist veto by another name.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (2 May 2021)

Betsy Og said:


> What exactly are SF being honest about?


None of this "shared island", guaranteed ministries, 12th a national holiday, Pied Piper pallaver.

It could be argued that the whole UI question has become almost entirely symbolic, little more than a Celtic/Rangers match (not to belittle that bunfight).  We are a long distance from 1912 when unionists could genuinely fear Home Rule as being Rome Rule.  And we are a long way from when the six counties was ruled by a Protestant parliament for a Protestant people.
I agree we can't move the goalposts.  As I mentioned before I think the goalposts (SoS thinks Yes is "likely") makes the goalposts narrow enough to make a very close Yes result "unlikely".


----------



## WolfeTone (2 May 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> We are a long distance from 1912



I would argue that is not so the case. 
There are two tribal, and to all intents and purposes, immovable positions. 
The Union with Britain and the 'firm will' of a UI. The Union has deeper roots because it is a reality. The UI is aspirational and, like Brexit, we dont know what it means, other than it is something the vast majority here would like to see. 

The principle source of contention for Unionists in 1912 was the prospect of being a minority in a Catholic dominated society and government. 
These fears are no longer credible. Prepared now to share power with their Catholic neighbours in NI, being a 'minority' on the basis of religious denomination is not a plausible cause for fear any more. 



Duke of Marmalade said:


> to make a very close Yes result "unlikely".



While polls on a UI in the North indicate a consistent majority to remain in the union there is method to the 'madness' of pro-UI's wanting to hold a poll despite the apparent inevitable defeat. 

It is important to note that the DUP have still not signed up to GFA and have not tied themselves to the principle of consent . They are very much in the 'things far stronger than (parliamentary) majorities' when it comes to NI status within the UK. 
Meaning, the best outcome for them to a border poll on a UI is not a rejection of a UI, but to never hold a poll in the first instance. 
They need to be challenged on this.

It's also why Jack O'Connors intervention is derisory. As if the last 100-400yrs was centred around a few seats at cabinet.
What a clown! 
Trying to convince Unionists of a united Ireland will mean constitutional guarantees of irradicable ties to the British Crown and Her Majestys government. Trying to coerce Unionists into an independent Irish Republic will be about as successful as Unionists attempts to brow-beat Nationalists that 'Ulster is British!' for the last 100yrs.

The framework for a United Ireland already exists, it was derived over a 100yrs ago when the vast majority of Irish people on the whole island were content with remaining in the UK. All they sought was a parliament of their own to govern themselves. 

The principle of consent has been established, but it needs to be applied.


----------



## Betsy Og (2 May 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> None of this "shared island", guaranteed ministries, 12th a national holiday, Pied Piper pallaver.


I heard Mary Lou on that it can't just be adding the 6 to the 26, so I think she's able to espouse "Shared Island" as good as the best of us. I do think the 12th should be national holiday in the 26, United Irishmen Day. We're short a bank holiday in July, we have May, June & August, just need 1 more.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (2 May 2021)

@Betsy Og Know them by what they say in the early morning after an election victory.  If there ever was a Yes vote in a border poll, the "Up the 'Ra" shouts would be deafening.


----------



## WolfeTone (2 May 2021)

Attempting to frame this issue in the manner of SF v rest is way off track. 
SF have not a snowballs chance in hell of delivering a UI by way of a majority decision North and South. They know that,  everyone knows that.

What SF are good at is keeping the issue of a UI on the agenda. By virtue of their presence on an All Ireland basis they have, from the get-go of the Brexit result, argued for NI as a special status.
It has forced the "_now is not the right time_"  brigade to get the finger out and face up to the centuries old division the prevails on this island.
But any UI, for the foreseeable future, will require compromise from all positions.

SF want a 32 county socialist republic. But they have already shown that they will compromise by entering Stormont, a parliament under British rule. 

How much would the partitionists in the South be willing to compromise? In the face of growing momentum for a border poll, what would FF and FG envision that would look like? 
Vradakar has made the point that Bunreacht na hÉireann is a Constitution for an Irish Ireland. Where are the cast iron constitutional rights of one million Protestants that identify as British in that document? 

The Constitution, the political structures of Ireland would have to go under profound change. 
How much would the 80% pro-UI votes in the South be willing to compromise of the 'Irish Republic' in order to accommodate the Unionist community into a United Ireland?


----------



## Betsy Og (2 May 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> Vradakar has made the point that Bunreacht na hÉireann is a Constitution for an Irish Ireland. Where are the cast iron constitutional rights of one million Protestants that identify as British in that document?
> 
> The Constitution, the political structures of Ireland would have to go under profound change.
> How much would the 80% pro-UI votes in the South be willing to compromise of the 'Irish Republic' in order to accommodate the Unionist community into a United Ireland?


We changed it before (the constitution), Art 2 &3 for the GFA, we'll change it again. Is the special status for the catholic church still in there?, I'd have zero problems with that going if its still there.

Beyond that you've flag, anthem etc etc, all superficial stuff - do you think the union flag will be replaced on the 12th with the new Ireland flag?, I doubt it but I don't care one way or the other. Likewise for many the tricolour and Amhrán na bFhiann will always be their choice. The only thing that causes me concern is the cost and how its paid for, but it wouldn't change my voting choice.


----------



## WolfeTone (2 May 2021)

Betsy Og said:


> Art 2 &3 for the GFA, we'll change it again



Yes, but to what? Would you be prepared to accept an Irish Constitution that was based on Republican ideals of democracy and equality for all citizens but acknowledging the subordination of the All Ireland Parliament to the British monarch? 

An Irish President (or viceroy), but only of the Parliament, required to take an oath of allegiance to the British monarch?
In return, an All Ireland parliament?


----------



## Betsy Og (2 May 2021)

Wolfie, I dunno where you are going with this. Scotland will probably vote out (almost certainly will eventually) - there's stronger demographics on this one than NI. England has no interest high up or low down in Ireland. Even if we wanted to attach ourselves to some sort of UK union I don't think there'd be anyone there to meet us by the time there's a UI vote. 

And anyway, why would we want to?, there's no preconditions on a 50%+1 vote in the 6 for a UI. Would I go along with it to have the 20% tail wag the 80% dog? - No. The limit of grand gestures would be Commonwealth ..... through gritted teeth. There's nothing for fear in a UI, if like Arlene they don't want to stick around to find out, well we have no lawful basis for detaining them.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (3 May 2021)

In 1973 there was a border poll in NI.  Nationalists boycotted it.  The IRA planted bombs in London the day of the poll.  Why is it that today the IRA want a poll?  Surely they don’t think they can win.


----------



## WolfeTone (3 May 2021)

@Betsy Og fair enough. I suppose my point is that at the two extreme ends of the equation there is the pursuit of an independent Irish Republic ala 1916 Proclaimation and there is the 'Ulster is British, No Surrender'.

Somewhere in between there is formula of political engagement and compromise that will be enough to swing the NI vote to 50%+1 for a UI, but would such a formula be enough to sustain a 50%+1 in the South.
In other words, for compromise, some unpalatable sacrifices will have to be made.


----------



## Betsy Og (3 May 2021)

I guess I'm "easy" about there being a UI, if NI was functioning fine with an open border then hey ho, isn't that dandy. We've a grand country here and if ye want to join it then fine, we'll redecorate a bit and such. But I'm not interested in major contortions to try to get a UI quickly, it'll come in its own time.....or not.


----------



## WolfeTone (3 May 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Why is it that today that the IRA want a poll? Surely they don’t think they can



As I've mentioned before, while the principle of consent has been established, it has not been applied.
The 1973 border poll, like Brexit, was not binding.
Nationalists boycotted it,
- number of polling stations reduced
- constituency analysis suppressed
- bias over postal votes.

The problem with such a poll is that even in the event of an unlikely vote for a UI, it was not legally binding and as such there would be requirement to actually follow through on it.

The DUP have never signed up to the principle of consent with regard to NI status within the UK. To them, NI is as British as Finchley. They very much lean on the sentiments of 1707 Act of Union between England and Scotland

"...._that all Papists and persons marrying Papists shall be excluded from and for ever incapable to inherit possess or enjoy the Imperial Crown of Great Britain and the Dominions thereunto belonging or any part thereof And in every such case the Crown and Government shall from time to time descend to and be enjoyed by such person being a Protestant as should have inherited and enjoyed the same in case such Papists or person marrying a Papist was naturally dead according to the provision for the Descent of the Crown of England made by another Act of Parliament "_

The GFA has legally binding provisions for the govt of UK to implement necessary measures along with the govt of Ireland. The DUP have not signed up to this and in the event of a 50%+1 vote for a UI it is unlikely that the DUP and that block of Unionism that supports it, will accept the result.


----------



## Betsy Og (3 May 2021)

A 50%+1 will however be sufficient reason for the UK (if it still then exists) to stop writing the cheques & wash its hands of the whole thing. No cheques no union no choice. We'll be lucky if we're not presented with this ultimatum before we're ever ready for a border poll.

English nationalism has risen, if Scotland escapes then in a wave of bitterness it'll be 'England First' and 'Why are we paying for NI?'


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (3 May 2021)

@WolfeTone My question was a simple one and not trying to score points.  I didn’t expect a reply referencing the 1701 Act of Union.
The 1973 poll was boycotted by Nationalists because everyone knew what the result would be and it was therefore seen as a propaganda weapon.
The IRA are now wild keen for a border poll.  Do they think there will be a different result from 1973?  I could similarly ask why unionists are so against it when they relished the 1973 poll.


----------



## WolfeTone (3 May 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> The IRA are now wild keen for a border poll. Do they think there will be a different result from 1973? I could similarly ask why unionists are so against it when they relished the 1973 poll.



Because the poll result under the GFA will be legally binding. 

The principle of consent being applied. 

And once it is applied once, it sets precedent. Once there is precedent, then the result of future border polls will be bound and as I have said before, a result in favour of a UI only has to happen once. 
A result in favour of remaining in UK has to happen all the time.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (3 May 2021)

@WolfeTone I don't get that.  I guess I am a slow learner.


----------



## WolfeTone (3 May 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> @WolfeTone I don't get that.  I guess I am a slow learner.



I don't think it's hard to understand.
Just as nationalists boycotted the 1973 referendum, my understanding is that DUP would boycott a border poll under terms of GFA.
They never signed up to it and when it comes to NI status within the UK they do not believe in the principle of consent.

They need to be challenged on this as 70% of people of NI voted in favour of GFA.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (3 May 2021)

Ok, that makes a (little) bit more sense though I have never seen it quite articulated in that way by Mary Lou et al.
A boycott would be one massive gamble by the DUP because it would lead to a certain win for the Nationalists and as you say the legal process would imply a UI, irrespective of whether Pootsie is law abiding or not.    It would make their Brexit gamble look like a £ each way on the Grand National versus betting the house.


----------



## WolfeTone (3 May 2021)

It's all part of the political strategising. The DUP have not said they would boycott it either but they have had no reason to pull that tactic out of the bag, yet. 
I have had cause on a few occasions to engage this point with some DUP members, including one touted future leader (Gavin Robinson). When pushed on the issue of accepting a border poll that questions the constitutional status of NI in the UK the answer was always the same - no. 

It is not for SF to hold the DUP to the wishes of the people of NI. It will be for the Irish and British governments. 

It's 2021, not 1914. The notion that Unionists could be allowed usurp the results of a democratic poll of the people that went against their demands is to make a mockery of democratic principles, and lead militant Republicans back into the IRA. 

The boycott will be a tactic to be used at the mere hint or suggestion of an SoS facilitating a border poll. 
That is why, at 44% in favour of a UI, the political argument for holding a poll is weak. To strengthen it, the constitutional arrangements of a UI will have to be determined first by across the broad political spectrum. 
Unionists can either choose to participate in this or ignore it. 
But as I have mentioned, if the low 2/3% of unionist opinion that is favour of a UI ever began to increase in any significant way, then it will force the hand of Unionist politicians to engage. 

I see Jeffrey D has thrown his hat into the DUP leadership race. I wish him well. I might not agree with his politics but I accept he is more pragmatic when it comes to dealing with us Southerners.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (3 May 2021)

If SF/IRA is playing high stakes poker with the DUP on this then for sure this is "not the time".  More likely their IRA masters have merely reminded SF to keep the big prize top of the agenda.  Again it's not the time.
You keep strange company _Wolfie _


----------



## WolfeTone (3 May 2021)

Brexit has changed the whole dynamic of this matter. It has little to do with SF. 
SF may be the loudest in the room, but there is little reason to think that the NI Protocol was possible without Ireland being (enthusiastic) members of the EU. 

Unionism has been dealt a slap in the face by mother England. Stoic in their outlook, unionism directs its anger at Dublin, Shinners and EU. 

@Duke of Marmalade wants to shape this as a narrow battleground between SF and Unionists in traditional street disturbances in Belfast. 

The players involved now are beyond that. Irish-America and the EU for instance.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (3 May 2021)

Jayz _Wolfie _we're discussing the timing of the IRA's call for a border poll and you throw at me the 1791 Act of Union, the EU, Irish America


----------



## WolfeTone (3 May 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Jayz _Wolfie _we're discussing the timing of the IRA's call for a border poll and you throw at me the 1791 Act of Union, the EU, Irish America



Yeh, I'm figuring that... and admittedly its just a hunch....that the prospect of a border poll will invite more nuanced consideration over a bare Yes/No type Irish independent.ie poll.

But as I said, that's just my hunch.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (3 May 2021)

PP has Poots and Donaldson even money each, more or less.  I do hope Poots wins as I think that will ensure a Fenian First Minister next year.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (5 May 2021)

Michael McDowell in IT answers my question.  SF and DUP slipped in the last elections and next year's are looming.  So SF are lobbying for a border poll knowing that there is neither any chance of winning one nor any chance of being granted one so as to keep the national question at the forefront of next year's NI election.  As MMcD observes it is to heighten the divisions in NI on which the extremes thrive.


----------



## Purple (5 May 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Michael McDowell in IT answers my question.  SF and DUP slipped in the last elections and next year's are looming.  So SF are lobbying for a border poll knowing that there is neither any chance of winning one nor any chance of being granted one so as to keep the national question at the forefront of next year's NI election.  As MMcD observes it is to heighten the divisions in NI on which the extremes thrive.


Sinn Fein, as the name suggests, are only interested in themselves. They are the epitome of cynical self interest.


----------



## WolfeTone (5 May 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Michael McDowell in IT answers my question. SF and DUP slipped in the last elections and next year's are looming. So SF are lobbying for a border poll knowing that there is neither any chance of winning one nor any chance of being granted one so as to keep the national question at the forefront of next year's NI election. As MMcD observes it is to heighten the divisions in NI on which the extremes thrive.



I agree broadly with MMcD on the point of outlining what Irish unification is supposed to look like. SF want a 32 county socialist republic, but do the people of Ireland want that? Clearly not. 

But the idea that SF, in kite-flying a border poll for Irish Unity is to _'inflame and polarise northern politics'_ is just more '_now is not the right time'_ nonsense. In case MMcD hadn't noticed, the division of the country inflamed and polarised Irish politics for a century and counting.

The pursuit of an ideal of a united Ireland is not extreme, it is overwhemingly the centre view of the vast majority of the people living on this island. How it would be constitutionally agreed is the big question which I agree with MMcD with.

Partitionists, like McDowell, pretend the ideals of pursuing legitimate political aim for a united Ireland written in the constitution should be enough, therefore everyone should stop talking about it.
SF flying the kite, of a perfectly legitimate aspiration, has been ignored for years. They have been shouting for this since 1998, but across the political spectrum few paid much heed.
The prospect of a border poll being successful for SF is remote. But MMcD is ignoring the caveat of a border poll that would establish the principle of consent of the people in NI in practice, rather than just principle. This is SF's aim, forcing the DUP and that block of Unionism that cannot fathom the constitutional status of NI being determined by the people of NI exercising their right to self-determination. These people are subjects to the sovereignty of the British monarch, to them, it is infallible. 

And now that Brexit has thrown up the conumdrum of the Irish border and had everyone in knots, the light is being shone across the broader spectrum of the Irish political landscape.

Typically, a partitionist like McDowell says anyone can devise a models for Irish unity, yet offers no view on what he thinks a united Ireland could look like himself. Nor is he inclined to. He see's the aspiration of a United Ireland is written into the constitution and GFA and that should be enough. He wants everyone to stop talking about it, it is just more "_now is not the right time_" mantra.


----------



## EmmDee (5 May 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> Partitionists....



Is this 2021 or 1921.

I don't believe MMcD is advocating partitioning anything. There is a pre-existing "partition" - accepting that reality doesn't make one a partitionist. Using the language of 100 years ago doesn't bode well for the rest of the point being made


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (5 May 2021)

@WolfeTone _"now is not the right time"_ is indeed the mantra of all the political participants*, except SF/IRA.  They are using Brexit as cover for stoking it up at this, the wrong time.  But not because they are true to your spirit of 1798 but because prodding at the old wound is the best way to keep these reconciliation pansies Alliance and SDLP in their box, with an Assembly election on the horizon.

_* edited in response to pedantic comment from you know who_


----------



## WolfeTone (5 May 2021)

EmmDee said:


> I don't believe MMcD is advocating partitioning anything.



I think he is clearly advocating keeping the status quo of a partitioned island indefinitely. Which I would consider contrary to the Irish Constitution and to the wishes of the overwhelming majority of people being expressed in a recent poll.

One the 100yr anniversary MMcD is quoted as writing "_The North badly needs a decade of political quietude and conciliation._"
You can interpret that to whatever you want, but to my mind it is the language of putting the issue on the long-finger, kick the can-down-the-road, don;t want to talk about that, now is not the right time, it will upset the others.

As a legislator in our Parliament, MMcD will be conscious of his duty to be bound by the Constitution that affords him his status as a legislator. I agree with his sentiment that there is a prior obligation on anyone calling for a Border poll to propose the model of Irish Unity. Calling for a poll without setting out clearly the actual manner to be decided (in the context of hoping to or expecting to win) is pointless.

Equally however, not setting out a model of Irish Unity, allowing for debate, discourse, persuasion, to develop and expecting there ever to be a united Ireland is also pointless. MMcD is firmly in this camp.


----------



## WolfeTone (5 May 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> _now is not the right time"_ is indeed the mantra of everyone, except SF/IRA.



This is simply not true.
In the recent poll 90% of people in the South said they would like to see a border poll within 10yrs (19% now, 51% within 5yrs, 21% within 10yrs).  MMcD is firmly in the 10% of kick-the-can-down the road for 10yrs before we should even broach the subject. His view is extremist at best.


----------



## Purple (6 May 2021)

Well the Tories showed their true colours again late last night with a contemptable and cynical move which betrays all of the victims of the Troubles in order to bolster support in a few English constituencies which have military bases.


----------



## WolfeTone (6 May 2021)

Another nail in the coffin of the failed 100yr old statelet called Northern Ireland. Police made 'significant investigative failures' over four Belfast deaths in 1969 including the first child to be killed in the conflict, Patrick Rooney, (9). 
It is a story that is to repeat itself over and over again for the following 25yrs right up to the slaughter of six innocent men in Loughinisland Heights Bar, watching one of Irelands greatest nights in the World Cup in 1994. 

I go with Colum Eastwoods quote of the proposed amnesty for these killers

“_If true, this will be the biggest betrayal of victims by the British government & will put a huge obstacle in the way of true reconciliation. This is the most unprincipled & cynical British government in many years and that’s saying something. An absolute disgrace. Shame on them._” 

Michael McDowell, where are u today?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (6 May 2021)

It absolutely beggars belief that, for example, the killers of Mountbatten and the "heroes" of Warrenpoint can now appear with impunity at SF commemorations and make a few bob out of writing their books.  Possibly even stand for election in West Belfast.  This must be a hoax.


----------



## WolfeTone (6 May 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> It absolutely beggars belief that, for example, the killers of Mountbatten and the "heroes" of Warrenpoint can now appear with impunity at SF commemorations and make a few bob out of writing their books.  Possibly even stand for election in West Belfast.  This must be a hoax.



Thomas McMahon was convicted and given a life sentence for the attack on Mountbatten following an investigation into the attack.

The difference being, in case you missed it, was that there was no investigation, or failures in the investigations, of killings of innocent civilians by Crown forces.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (6 May 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> Thomas McMahon was convicted and given a life sentence for the attack on Mountbatten following an investigation into the attack.


Got me there!  I was repeating a point made by the Ulster Unionist leader.  Strangely he picked the Monaghan bombers for his example of glory hunters.


----------



## WolfeTone (6 May 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I was repeating a point made by the Ulster Unionist leader.



Perhaps not the most objective source?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (6 May 2021)

All the same an amnesty for the Le Mon bombers, the Enniskillen bombers, the Warrington bombers, the Kingsmills massacre, the Birmingham bombers etc. etc. just to let a few Brit bad apples off the hook in a bi-election ploy. A bit hard to swallow.
I see that you are much more concerned with the bad apple Brits getting off. You are at one with SF on that as they know there is zero chance of their heroes ever being caught.


----------



## WolfeTone (6 May 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> just to let a few Brit bad apples off the hook in a bi-election ploy.



You don't really need to delve much further into the disregard and hypocrisy surrounding all these events than read a comment like that.
Straight out of the Eoghan Harris indoctrination playbook. Harris, who I am delighted to report is being kicked out on his ear from the Sindo for running fake Twitter account propagating his bile that is not fit for publishing.

Here is excerpt from Guardian article about proposed amnesty for British security personnel

"_Unresolved killings from the Troubles have dogged policing and politics in Northern Ireland and in London, where consecutive UK governments have wrestled with whether and how to shield *as many as 200 former members of the security forces* from potential prosecution." _

Systemic and deliberate cover-up of murder over 25yrs.

Notably, for the IRA members who will benefit from this amnesty it is the UUP and DUP who are welcoming this decision, and not SF - it speaks volumes.

The phony revulsion for the lives of innocents over IRA atrocities is revealed by the total disregard for the lives of innocents over BA atrocities - "_just a few bad apples", " they had my best interests at heart". _
Speaking of IRA atrocities, the campaign for #justice4the21 (Birmingham Pub bombings) has hit roadblock after roadblock within the British justice system. Questions about how much the British security forces knew prior to the actual attacks, and the lack of intervention to prevent the attacks is under scrutiny. The families continue to campaign.

Truth and Reconciliation Platform


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (7 May 2021)

@WolfeTone So now the Brits share some of the blame for the Birmingham bombs.  If the Brits were the root cause of all the Troubles why was Garret the Good so fearful that they would pack their bags in 1974?
You must believe that IRA decommissioning was grossly irresponsible, to leave the Catholic community at the mercy of this murder gang.  I mean they murdered 11 innocents in Ballymurphy and that was with IRA defence.  What would they do when that defence was gone?


----------



## WolfeTone (7 May 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> So now the Brits share some of the blame for the Birmingham bombs



I didn't say that. I said the #justiceforthe21 campaign has has hit roadblock after roadblock within the British justice system in determining facts about the investigation. An oddity surely?

The blame lays fairly and squarely with the perpetrators make no mistake. The investigation into the atrocity is the responsibility of the law enforcement agencies. It is the investigation, and questions relating to it, that the families of the victims are being kept in the dark about. It is a pattern that occurs again and again throughout the conflict - Birmingham, Guildford, Dublin/Monaghan, Belturbet, Loughinisland, Greysteel, Miami Showband, Derry,  Ballymurphy, Finuncane, Reavey/O'Dowd, Sean Graham bookmakers.....

In the Sean Graham bookmakers 'investigation' the families were told that the weapon used in the attack had been inexplicably destroyed and lost to evidence. The assualt rifle would subsequently turn up on display at the Imperial War Museum in London.

After the revelations of a proposed amnesty for British Soldiers, which has brought condemnation far and wide, it does take some imaginative gumption on your part to minimise it all to a "few bad apples".
Eoghan Harris would be proud.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (7 May 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> I didn't say that.





			
				Wolfie said:
			
		

> Questions about how much the British security forces knew prior to the actual attacks, and the lack of intervention to prevent the attacks is under scrutiny.


We've heard it many times.  The security forces either deliberately or through incompetence were party to the IRA atrocities.  Give me a break.
I think you are in the parity of disteem camp in terms of the badness of the IRA and BA.  How many investigations have the IRA carried out into Le Mon, Enniskillen, Kingsmills, Warrenpoint, Warrington etc. etc. etc.  Of course, there is a huge difference.  The actions of bad apples in the BA are roundly condemned by those in authority.  The actions by the IRA as cited are totally in line with policy, so why have an investigation other than to hand out the medals?

Oh, in case you missed the not so subtlety of my earlier post.  The killing of 11 civilians in Ballymurphy was *because *the IRA were "defending" the populace.  It was a gunfight between the IRA and the BA.


----------



## Betsy Og (7 May 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Oh, in case you missed the not so subtlety of my earlier post.  The killing of 11 civilians in Ballymurphy was *because *the IRA were "defending" the populace.  It was a gunfight between the IRA and the BA.


There was rioting/running battles for days. I'd have to re-read to see how much shooting the IRA did (none in the early stages at least as the IRA wanted to radicalise the locals), but from my recollection those killed were indeed civilians - i.e. not in possession of guns or bombs, and at least some (maybe all) were executed as opposed to caught in cross fire between IRA & BA. So its every bit as bad as Bloody Sunday from what I've seen/read.

One question for the RA fans, if it was "war" then why all the whining over Loughall & the SAS "shoot to kill", they were on active service, the RA shot to kill (& the rest), why wouldn't the security forces shoot to kill? Aren't Loughall & Narrow Water just opposite sides of the same coin?


----------



## WolfeTone (7 May 2021)

@Duke of Marmalade What are you talking about? I have listed a series of well-known atrocities from the conflict, perpetrated by BA, Loyalists and IRA.

The underlying point in all of those atrocities are the questions raised about the subsequent investigations. There is more than a whiff of complicity by British security personnel at some level, either directly in the attacks, paving the way for the attacks, providing refuge and cover for the perpetrators of the attacks or deliberately interfering with the investigation into those attacks.

Your propensity to deny or accept wrong-doing on the part of British security forces in this whole conflict is completely at odds with the facts as they emerge. At the very most you try to minimise British State involvement as a "few bad apples".
The death toll in the atrocities I listed is around 111 people, over a 25yrs period, where no-one has been brought to book (except some innocent Irish people tortured into giving false confessions).



Duke of Marmalade said:


> The actions of bad apples in the BA are roundly condemned by those in authority.



Condemned, Yes.
Investigated, No.
Amnesty from prosecution, absolutely!


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (7 May 2021)

Betsy Og said:


> There was rioting/running battles for days. I'd have to re-read to see how much shooting the IRA did (none in the early stages at least as the IRA wanted to radicalise the locals), but from my recollection those killed were indeed civilians - i.e. not in possession of guns or bombs, and at least some (maybe all) were executed as opposed to caught in cross fire between IRA & BA. So its every bit as bad as Bloody Sunday from what I've seen/read.
> 
> One question for the RA fans, if it was "war" then why all the whining over Loughall & the SAS "shoot to kill", they were on active service, the RA shot to kill (& the rest), why wouldn't the security forces shoot to kill? Aren't Loughall & Narrow Water just opposite sides of the same coin?


Young Betsy, I agree that the victims were probably all innocent civilians.  But the situation arose because of the agitation and indeed use of arms by the "defenders" of the population.  The circumstances in which BA excesses have been committed are oh so different from those associated with the terrorists - who deliberately set out to maim and murder.   I accept that state forces should be held to a completely different standard than terrorist gangsters but it is @WolfeTone who seems to me to persist in a parity of disteem which is ridiculous.


----------



## WolfeTone (7 May 2021)

Betsy Og said:


> if it was "war" then why all the whining over Loughall & the SAS "shoot to kill", they were on active service, the RA shot to kill (& the rest), why wouldn't the security forces shoot to kill? Aren't Loughall & Narrow Water just opposite sides of the same coin?



Correct. The point being it was a war. British policy was to label it as a criminal conspiracy. This had the effect of telling the rest of the world, keep your nose out it is an internal criminal manner.

Which is fine, except, under UK criminal law there are no provisions for summary executions of suspected criminals or the civilian population. The right to a trial, the presumption of innocence until proven guilty etc. These tenets of fair and just criminal system in a free democratic society were rolled over in Ireland and more akin to something that belonged in China or some fundamentalist regime.

Can you imagine if the BA had unloaded live ammunition on the poll tax protests of the 80's/90's in London or the miners who were on strike in Yorkshire and Lancashire? 

There was a collapse of the political system in NI, brought about the failure of the Stormont administration to act adequately to legitimate demands of the Catholic population. The civilian population were at each others throats, the IRA was an aggressor in its approach, the BA and British security apparatus responded in kind. The mass slaughter of innocents (Derry/Ballymurphy) was not a sustainable approach in its war against the IRA. The British engaged in a low-level covert war against the IRA which often involved collusion with loyalist paramilitaries to murder innocent civilians.

Force Research Unit 

There is no 'whining' about Loughall or Gibraltar. IRA volunteers on active service were executed in a war time ambush. Absolutely fair game. The British should commend their officers for their actions for carrying out their war-time duties.
The only 'whining' is that the British were telling everyone else that there was no war.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (7 May 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> Can you imagine if the BA had unloaded live ammunition on the poll tax protests of the 80's/90's in London or the miners who were on strike in Yorkshire and Lancashire?


Can you imagine the miners having an armed gang prepared to open fire on the security forces and wallowing in sectarian genocide.
@Betsy Og Lest there be any doubt #232 confirms that _Wolfie _is of the view that the Loyalists, IRA and BA are all equal baddies.  As I mentioned before it is interesting that neither SF nor _Wolfie _would dare go so far as to suggest that the BA were/are worse than the IRA.  Contrast this with conventional views on the Troubles of 100 years ago, which would hold that the Easter risers were on a different moral plane to the BA or indeed that the republican fighters in the WoI were similarly a cut above the Black and Tans.  I exclude _Wolfie _from this conventional narrative as he seems to have a simplistic view that every protagonist is an equal baddie both compared to their contemporaries but also across time.


----------



## Betsy Og (7 May 2021)

I'll revisit later when have more time, but I think in Gibraltar they were unarmed at the time?, so I think that was "unlawful killing" or whatever the phrase is (albeit they were known combatants, there on a mission, so I'd be a bit more forgiving than.....say...... shooting civilians in the back in their own neighbourhood).


----------



## WolfeTone (7 May 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Can you imagine the miners having an armed gang prepared to open fire on the security forces and wallowing in sectarian genocide.



Is that what the civil rights protesters had in Derry? 
Or what the Ballymurphy victims had? 
You are at both saying Ballymurphy was a consequence of a gun battle with the IRA and that the victims were all innocent 
There was no gun battle with the IRA, in Ballymurphy or Derry. This is the fabrication, the lies to perpetuate the cover up of mass murder of civilian population. 

Your propensity to excuse the BA is based on your view that overall they were the goodies. To minimise their own atrocities to a few bad apples. 
You obviously haven't been the homework I gave you. The Provos are attributed to killing some 1750 out 3550 conflict related deaths. 
Who killed the other 1800 (50% Civilian) ? A few 'bad apples'? 

You claim that we should expect to hold the BA to a higher standard. 
That is the whole point, they are not being held to a higher standard. They cover up and lie about their involvement in murders of civilians, sustained throughout the conflict, no different to IRA. 

So where is, or what is this 'higher standard' you speak of?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (7 May 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> You are at both saying Ballymurphy was a consequence of a gun battle with the IRA and that the victims were all innocent
> There was no gun battle with the IRA, in Ballymurphy or Derry. This is the fabrication, the lies to perpetuate the cover up of mass murder of civilian population.





			
				Wiki said:
			
		

> On the morning of Monday 9 August 1971, the security forces launched Operation Demetrius. The plan was to arrest and intern anyone suspected of being a member of the Provisional Irish Republican Army. The unit selected for this operation was the Parachute Regiment. Members of the Parachute Regiment stated that, as they entered the Ballymurphy area, they were shot at by republicans and returned fire.


This was not like Derry where there was a mass protest against internment.  The BA were on a security mission against the PIRA.  I would fully expect some resistance from said PIRA or at least resistance from the local population who were big sympathisers.  I wasn't there but I was in close by Andersonstown when Operation Motorman was launched to release it from PIRA control.  It had been a No Go area for 9 months during which as a young lad I was told off by the PIRA for speeding.  Possibly learning from Operation Demetrius much advanced warning had been given and the PIRA had escaped across the border.  I woke to find the street crawling with British soldiers with one on my very front doorstep. No one was hurt. I have to say that I hadn't feared the BA operation but nor was I in any fear during the 9 months of PIRA control.  Not because I was a brave lad but because I knew that neither the PIRA nor the BA were out to get me.  Long personal narrative to let you know why I am convinced that what happened in Ballymuphy was not part of a concerted pogrom against the Catholic population, that you seem to think it was.  It was a botched security operation, underestimating the capacity of the PIRA backed up by the residents to mount an armed resistance.


WolfeTone said:


> The Provos are attributed to killing some 1750 out 3550 conflict related deaths.
> Who killed the other 1800 (50% Civilian) ? A few 'bad apples'?





			
				Wiki said:
			
		

> More than 3,500 people were killed in the conflict, of whom 52% were civilians, 32% were members of the British security forces and 16% were members of paramilitary groups.[8] Republican paramilitaries were responsible for some 60% of the deaths, loyalists 30% and security forces 10%


Clearly the BA had by far the greatest fire power.  Strangely they were "outscored" 9/1 by a few urban terrorists.  They also let in 3 times as many goals as they scored, if you pardon the noir metaphor.


----------



## WolfeTone (7 May 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> The BA were on a security mission against the PIRA. I would fully expect some resistance form said PIRA or at least resistance form the local population who were big sympathisers



Please Duke, enough. 

The very next sentence in your selective wiki quote

"Mike Jackson, _later to become *head of the British Army*, includes a disputed account of the shootings in his autobiography and his then role as press officer for the British Army stationed in Belfast while the incidents happened.[4] This account states that those killed in the shootings were Republican gunmen_." 

The "IRA gunmen" killed in the shootings being identified as;


Francis Quinn (19), shot while going to the aid of a wounded man.[13][14]
Father Hugh Mullan (38), a Catholic priest, shot while going to the aid of a wounded man, reputedly while waving a white cloth to indicate his intentions.[13][15][16]
Joan Connolly (44), shot as she stood opposite the army base. It has been claimed she was shot by three soldiers and that she might have survived had she been given medical attention sooner, but she lay injured in a field for several hours.[13][17][18][16]
Daniel Teggart (44) was shot fourteen times. Most of the bullets entered his back, allegedly as he lay injured on the ground.[13][19]
Noel Phillips (20), shot as he stood opposite the army base.[13][20]
Joseph Murphy (41), shot as he stood opposite the army base.[13] Murphy was subsequently taken into army custody and after his release, as he was dying in hospital, he claimed that he had been beaten and shot again while in custody. When his body was exhumed in October 2015, a second bullet was discovered in his body, which activists said corroborated his claim
Edward Doherty (28), shot while walking along Whiterock Road.[22]
John Laverty (20) and Joseph Corr (43) were shot at separate points at the top of the Whiterock Road. Laverty was shot twice, once in the back and once in the back of the leg. Corr was shot several times and died of his injuries on 27 August.[13][23]
John McKerr (49), shot by unknown attackers while standing outside a Catholic church, died of his injuries on 20 August.[14][24][25]
Paddy McCarthy (44) got into a confrontation with a group of soldiers. Family allege an empty gun was put in his mouth and the trigger pulled. McCarthy suffered a heart attack and died shortly afterwards.

You speak of a higher standard being expected of the BA. What is that higher standard you refer to?


----------



## WolfeTone (7 May 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Long personal narrative to let you know why I am convinced that what happened in Ballymuphy was not part of a concerted pogrom against the Catholic population, that you seem to think it was.



I never said it was!



Duke of Marmalade said:


> It was a botched security operation,


 Absolutely, with dire, most extreme consequences for the victims and their families.

Here is a thought, if you are going to take up arms and join an army, if someone is prepared to give orders for those arms to be used, then those people need to be held to a high standard of responsibility.

Now, before the standard "_Wha' bout the 'Ra_? _They never took responsibility for their actions_" retort - that is exactly the point. 
Neither side have taken responsibility for the atrocities they inflicted in any meaningful way other than measly mouthed expressions of regret.

You claim that the BA should he held to a higher standard. What is that higher standard?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (7 May 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> You speak of a higher standard being expected of the BA. What is that higher standard you refer to?


A higher standard expected and in general delivered.  Despite an overwhelming superiority in personnel and materiel they were responsible for only 10% of deaths (contrary to your insinuation in #235 of a far greater number) and it seems to me that a great many of these deaths were "legitimate" or accidental.
They also gave a far higher sacrifice than the urban terrorists they were here to protect us from.  That's the higher standard.  That's what is expected from them.
Quite rightly Bloody Sunday has captured the World's attention.  Does anybody outside this island care or know about the sickening sectarian massacre at Kingsmills and other such atrocities?  Did Bono give us any songs? plenty of material.
I'm all for holding security forces to account when they fall below that standard but despise the attempts by SF to use these transgressions to try and put the needlessly prolonged terrorist campaign on a respectable footing.
Question why SF are so wild keen for this accountability when by any measure the atrocities of PIRA clearly outweigh anything performed by the security forces.  Two reasons.  Firstly, whatever the chances of convicting a British soldier there is absolutely zero chance of any provo being held to account.  Secondly the adverse publicity surrounding investigations into excesses of the security forces is oxygen to their propaganda of a just war.  In fact they are not even looking for convictions, they just want the propaganda.


----------



## Purple (7 May 2021)

Just on the "Shoot to Kill" point; armed forces, including the police, are trained to shoot at the middle of the torso. They are neither trained to kill or not to kill, they are trained to hit the target. Anyone who has ever fired a rifle will know how hard it is to hit a target unless you are in a prone position. In the case of a pistol if you are more than 3-5 metres away it's very difficult to hit the target.

That said soldiers receive vastly more firearms training than any police force. Even large American forces like the NYPD do just 15 days training and that includes theory, pepper spray, tasters and firearms. Significantly less than half of that time is on a gun range. In New York in 2017 police responded to over 5 million calls, made 290,000 arrests but only discharged their weapons 52 times and 12 of those discharges were accidental.

So police receive almost no firearms training.

Then there's the army.
In the 60's and 70's the British Army received no Peacekeeping Training, no police training and no crowd control training.  They, just like every other proper army in the world, are trained to regard everyone who is not in a friendly uniform as a threat. They are trained to kill people. While I'm against amnesties I'm also against trials of foot soldiers unless their commanding officers are also in the dock.


----------



## Betsy Og (7 May 2021)

Purple said:


> Just on the "Shoot to Kill" point; armed forces, including the police, are trained to shoot at the middle of the torso. They are neither trained to kill or not to kill, they are trained to hit the target.


In the case of Loughall they absolutely riddled the van (if you ever saw the photo with the bars indicating the path of the bullets), and this was the SAS, reputedly a higher standard of marksman. So they knew what they were doing, but as I said I don't particularly have an issue with it since all involved were combatants in the act of combat. As regards Gibraltar, they were on foot so it may have been somewhat more feasible to arrest using non-lethal force.


----------



## WolfeTone (7 May 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I'm all for holding security forces to account when they fall below that standard



That's the whole point. They have fallen below the 'standard' set on many, many occasion and have never been held to account. 
Therefore adding fuel to fire. It is no great secret that in the aftermath of Bloody Sunday attack, the subsequent demonisation of innocent victims and cover up of the truth that scores of youth lined up to join the IRA. 



Duke of Marmalade said:


> Firstly, whatever the chances of convicting a British soldier there is absolutely zero chance of any provo being held to account.



Hundreds, if not thousands of Provos have been held to account and served long sentences in prison. 
4 British soldiers have only ever been convicted. 

If by that you mean Provos not holding their own to account, then as a excuse for not holding BA to account then what is the difference? Where is this 'higher standard'. It doesn't exist.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (7 May 2021)

@WolfeTone I was explaining why SF/IRA have no fear of investigations into the past - no chance any Provos will suffer as a result.  But their main reason for being so keen is the very one sided nature of the propaganda spin off.  You are the perfect example of their target audience. You seem to have completely priced in all the horrendous atrocities of the PIRA to the point that a few further revelations won't faze you.  But you regard every BA excess as evidence of a system of security that was chronically biased against the Catholic population and persecuted them with impunity.

You have no sense of proportion, the stats from Wiki made no impression on you at all.  In fact you had cited half those stats asking "who killed the other 1800?". Maybe you failed to read the full stats as shown in Wiki and fed you own obsession that it must be the BA who killed the other 1800.   Your mind is closed.  So maybe after all SF are not targeting you.  They are after people who have doubts but could be pushed to your grotesquely one sided narrative.


----------



## WolfeTone (7 May 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> You have no sense of proportion, the stats from Wiki made no impression on you at all. In fact you had cited half those stats asking "who killed the other 1800?". Maybe you failed to read the full stats as shown in Wiki and fed you own obsession that it must be the BA who killed the other 1800. Your mind is closed. So maybe after all SF are not targeting you. They are after people who have doubts but could be pushed to your grotesquely one sided narrative.



This is getting bizarre now.
I have made no assertion that the BA killed 1800 or anything like it. They killed 10% as you say. The reference to the 'other 1800' was to debunk the notion peddled by yourself and others that this was a one-sided affair. It most certainly wasn't. 

Of those that the BA murdered, they should be held to account - this is the standard. To not apply this standard (which has been the case and now a proposed amnesty to boot) then that acts as a slap in the face for victims. 

Im not talking about BA killings of IRA or any other protagonists. I'm explicitly talking about deliberate murder of civilians. 

If the BA had murdered just one civilian do you think the people responsible should be held to account for that one death?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (7 May 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> I have made no assertion that the BA killed 1800 or anything like it. They killed 10% as you say. The reference to the 'other 1800' was to debunk the notion peddled by yourself and others that this was a one-sided affair. It most certainly wasn't.


I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.  The thread at that stage was focussing on the culpability of the BA so I took it that the hanging question was intended to highlight that culpability rather than to play down the culpability of other players.


WolfeTone said:


> If the BA had murdered just one civilian do you think the people responsible should be held to account for that one death?


Absolutely.  And I do accept that the British security forces have some very murky deeds to their name and that there have been cover ups and collusion.  Not denying any of that.  I also think the announcement showed cynical timing by Bojo.  But he needn't have worried - he is riding very high with the British electorate, but that is for another thread.
But your narrative prompts two reactions in me.
The first is that I think you have a very unbalanced perspective (I am sure the feeling is mutual).  I speak from my own experience but I have also cited Garett's fear of a British withdrawal.  This was a fear that I would have shared and which I think most people wanting an end to the nightmare or at least to see it contained would have shared.  This fear of a withdrawal was despite Bloody Sunday and Ballymurphy which had happened at that time.  I know your preference was for Dublin to send troops into West Belfast, the rest of us know how that would have worked out.
But the reaction in me that is strongest is my revulsion at the hypocrisy of SF/IRA.  What do they care about victims as they splattered body parts at Le Mon, Enniskillen, Warrington, Mullaghmore etc. They only have an eye for the propaganda possibilities for giving the needless extended campaign respectability.  I doubt they even care about  bringing accountability to a few British soldiers.


----------



## WolfeTone (7 May 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> But the reaction in me that is strongest is my revulsion at the hypocrisy of SF/IRA.



Your disdain of all thing SF/IRA is clear. But this part of the thread emerged when @Purple posted the article that the British government is proposing to provide an amnesty for all pre-98 related killings. It has nothing to do with SF. 

The British government had for 25yrs resisted the violence of the IRA. 
So why in 2021 propose an amnesty?... 


Duke of Marmalade said:


> Absolutely. And I do accept that the British security forces have some very murky deeds to their name and that there have been cover ups and collusion. Not denying any of that.



... because the murky deeds you speak were paid lip service during the conflict. 
Your reversion to all things IRA when it comes to the victims of British State violence makes no sense. 
The victims had nothing to do with IRA or SF. They were innocent. Their loved ones deserve to know the truth, their loved ones deserve justice. It is that simple. 
Those who hold up that standard hold the high moral ground. 
Those who hide behind mealy-mouth apologies and regret without trying to do all within their power to assist victims in their quest for truth and justice and simultaneously perpetuating the cover-ups do not hold any ground. 

That is equally applicable in my eyes to those in SF who continue cover-ups for the IRA as those who continue cover-ups in the British government, or any other organisation or political representative of any other political party.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (7 May 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> Your disdain of all thing SF/IRA is clear. But this part of the thread emerged when @Purple posted the article that the British government is proposing to provide an amnesty for all pre-98 related killings. It has nothing to do with SF.


SF are the most vociferous in their very hypocritical and faux demand for closure for the victims.  What about the disappeareds?


----------



## WolfeTone (7 May 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> What about the disappeareds?





WolfeTone said:


> Your reversion to all things IRA when it comes to the victims of British State violence makes no sense.



If you want to discuss the disappeared I have no issue with that, but we are discussing the proposal of the British government to offer an amnesty to British soldiers engaged in killings pre-98. 
It has been roundly condemned in many quarters across the political spectrum. 
Unionism has broadly welcomed the move. 

What is your position on this? Do you think BA soldiers (or their superiors) responsible for the deaths of innocent civilians should be held to account if those deaths are found to be deliberate? 
Or do you think, as proposed, they should receive an amnesty? 

After that, I'm happy to discuss the disappeared or any other injustice inflicted on innocent people by the IRA.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (7 May 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> If you want to discuss the disappeared I have no issue with that, but we are discussing the proposal of the British government to offer an amnesty to British soldiers engaged in killings pre-98.
> It has been roundly condemned in many quarters across the political spectrum.
> Unionism has broadly welcomed the move.
> 
> ...


I gave @Purple a like.  I am against the amnesty, which by the way is for all and has been rejected by unionism


----------



## WolfeTone (7 May 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I gave @Purple a like.  I am against the amnesty, which by the way is for all and has been rejected by unionism



Ok. 
I must have misread a Unionist representation that suggested otherwise. 
You are correct, opposition to this amnesty is across the political spectrum in Ireland. 

Only in Tory England could is this to be welcomed - where presumably no British soldiers committed any alleged offences. 

As I've said before, (Northern) Irelands interests are a distant second to Britains interests in the 'United' Kingdom.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (7 May 2021)

@WolfeTone I am sure unionists support an amnesty for Brit soldiers but my understanding is that they are against this blanket amnesty, which Bojo tells us isn’t an amnesty.


----------



## Betsy Og (11 May 2021)

I see the 10 Ballymurphy killed were fully cleared - no gunshot residue etc etc.  Whether there'll be any further justice?, not if Johnson can help it.....


----------



## WolfeTone (11 May 2021)

Damning accounts being delivered by the families. Soldiers taunting the bereaved. 
50yrs waiting for the truth. 
Despicable.


----------



## WolfeTone (12 May 2021)

Barely a mention on front pages of British newspapers that it's Army killed innocent civilians of its own citizens on the streets of the UK.


----------



## Purple (12 May 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> Damning accounts being delivered by the families. Soldiers taunting the bereaved.
> 50yrs waiting for the truth.
> Despicable.


Two years after this headline in the Daily Mail.


----------



## Purple (24 May 2021)

Interesting piece from Bertie Ahern in todays Irish Times putting the current Shinner drive for a boarder poll into a historical context.


----------



## WolfeTone (24 May 2021)

Purple said:


> Interesting piece from Bertie Ahern in todays Irish Times putting the current Shinner drive for a boarder poll into a historical context.



It is interesting, but I cannot understand his conclusion given his view of the deceitful nature of Llyod George and the British Administration.

"_It was an imposed sectarian headcount that partitioned Ireland and, going forward, the last thing this island needs is another sectarian headcount. Right now it is not helpful to have premature demands for a border poll._"

Except it won't be a sectarian headcount, as all of the people, North and South will vote. It will simply be, a headcount. 
100yrs after a border that he describes as being '_vehemently opposed_', engineered out of deception and political bad faith, he then jumps on the "_now is not the time_" brigade. 

_"The preparatory work needs to be undertaken and completed, setting out clearly the options and how it would work in the future."_

I agree with this. It should be pointed out that unlike Brexit, for example, there is no two-year negotiation deadline for a UI should a border poll pass. Instead what should be made clear is, that if both jurisidictions vote in favour of a UI then _in principle _a UI should be brought into being. But there is nothing that says that that should not happen for another decade or two, or longer. Simply, the principle will have been set, the people will have voted for it, and it will be incumbent on both administrations north and south to set out the preparatory work to be undertaken to make it happen.

If, it were not to pass, either north or south or both, then it will be incumbent on those who wish for a UI to convince people to change their minds through exclusively peaceful and democratic means. But there would be no onus on the rejecting administration(s) to lay any preparatory work.

Critically however, as per the requirements of GFA which the people overwhelmingly endorsed, the precedent of self-determination will have been set.

"_In my view the time for a border poll is not opportune until we reach a situation where nationalists and republicans and also a sizeable amount of unionists and loyalists are in favour of such a poll on the basis of consent._"

This is just sustaining and perpetuating the unionist veto. This type of thinking needs to be smashed. 70% of people in NI voted for GFA. They are in favour of the people of Ireland alone determining their own future.


----------



## Betsy Og (1 Jun 2021)

We need to keep the 50% +1 there, as the realistic prospect of UI may/should incentivise unionist politicians to make the 6 a more palatable place for middle-of-the-road nationalists (it'll never be enough for SF voters, and anything is too much for DUP voters, so its time to work on the centre). If you gave them a veto why would they ever change? The gerrymandered state has had 100 years to run itself properly, I'll shed no tears if it comes to an end, but my preference would be for a properly functioning and reconciled 6 counties - its debatable whether a UI would ultimately assist in that process, wouldn't in the short run I think, but again I wouldn't let that be a de facto veto.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (1 Jun 2021)

Betsy Og said:


> The gerrymandered state has had 100 years to run itself properly,


I think that is the wrong use of the word "gerrymander".  France is a very arbitrary geographical region but it has achieved political self determination because the majority of folk who live there speak French and are culturally different from adjoining countries.
Gerrymandering is were an electoral system is distorted to give a minority control as happened in Londonderry a long time ago but which patently does not apply today to the six counties.


----------



## Betsy Og (1 Jun 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I think that is the wrong use of the word "gerrymander".  France is a very arbitrary geographical region but it has achieved political self determination because the majority of folk who live there speak French and are culturally different from adjoining countries.
> Gerrymandering is were an electoral system is distorted to give a minority control as happened in Londonderry a long time ago but which patently does not apply today to the six counties.


Reading a bit about the era, (Ulster Unionism 2, Buckland) there were 9 county men and 6 county men, the 6 were chosen specifically to lock in a unionist majority - so specifically drawing the area to get the political outcome you want is, I think, close enough. You'd say something if the 6 were already an entity and/or were overwhelmingly unionist, leave them at it (the French equivalent).  But to maximise the land while still keeping the power was not some convenient natural grouping.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (1 Jun 2021)

Betsy Og said:


> Reading a bit about the era, (Ulster Unionism 2, Buckland) there were 9 county men and 6 county men, the 6 were chosen specifically to lock in a unionist majority - so specifically drawing the area to get the political outcome you want is, I think, close enough. You'd say something if the 6 were already an entity and/or were overwhelmingly unionist, leave them at it (the French equivalent).  But to maximise the land while still keeping the power was not some convenient natural grouping.


Young Betsy, it is not gerrymandering, but is it equally mischievous?   I don't think so.
The whole WW1 and WW2 peace settlement processes were about redrawing the map of Europe to best reflect ethnic loyalties.  Some very weird geographic borders make up a map of Europe.  The aim was to have an ethnic majority in each country sufficiently large that the majority would feel secure and therefore generous to the minority,  It was recognised that evenly split ethnic situations were a recipe for trouble.   Similarly the partition of the Indian sub continent sought to have sufficiently large religious majorities in each country.
Now when it came to the partition of Ireland a 9 county solution would have been even more unstable than the 6 county version.  Unfortunately, whilst the 6 counties appeared to give Ulster protestants a secure majority they never felt secure and so unfortunately they did not behave generously to the minority.  That they didn't feel secure was not entirely their fault.


----------



## WolfeTone (1 Jun 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> The whole WW1 and WW2 peace settlement processes were about redrawing the map of Europe to best reflect ethnic loyalties. Some very weird geographic borders make up a map of Europe. The aim was to have an ethnic majority in each country sufficiently large that the majority would feel secure and therefore generous to the minority,



Yes, it was called Irish Independence from British rule. The Irish, broadly Catholic and ethnic minority in the UK governing for themselves.
Becoming the dominant ethnicity on the island of Ireland, generosity to Protestant minority was undoubtedly a measure of Irish ability to govern. So much so that The Proclaimation had this to say

"_The Republic guarantees religious and civil liberty, equal rights and equal opportunities to all its citizens, and declares its resolve to pursue the happiness and prosperity of the whole nation and of all its parts, cherishing all the children of the nation equally, and oblivious of the differences carefully fostered by an alien Government, which have divided a minority from the majority in the past."_

Of course, actions speak louder than words_, _and the mass slaughter of innocent Protestants in Dunmanway and border areas of Ulster by so called good ol' IRA in war of 'independence' didn't help.
But Protestants and Unionists didn't do themselves much favours either, attacking, murdering and discriminating against innocent Catholics.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> That they didn't feel secure was not entirely their fault.



It seems their insecurity is a consequence of the prospect of not being part of the UK. To such an extent that even if the people of NI were to ever vote to leave the UK there would be a violent reaction.

Someone needs to tell that it is the 21st century. Someone needs to tell them that not being in the UK does not automatically result in the sky falling in.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (1 Jun 2021)

@WolfeTone I was discussing whether choosing 6 instead of 9 was a wicked gerrymander.  It was not technically a gerrymander, though admittedly in that space.  
Was it wicked?  I presume the population of Cavan, Monaghan and Donegal did not regard as such.  Maybe it should have been 4.  The people of Fermanagh and Tyrone were certainly short changed.


----------



## WolfeTone (2 Jun 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I was discussing whether choosing 6 instead of 9 was a wicked gerrymander.



I was simply agreeing with your view that boundaries drawn after WW1 to have an ethnic majority significantly large that the majority would feel comfortable and treat the minority with generosity.
In Irelands case, after WW1, this opportunity was not afforded as the plan was to separate the minority (as highlighted in the Proclaimation) from the majority rather than foster mutual acceptance and peaceful co-existence of one another in their own country.


----------



## Purple (2 Jun 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Was it wicked? I presume the population of Cavan, Monaghan and Donegal did not regard as such.


I'd say the significant Unionist population of Cavan, Monaghan and Donegal did.


WolfeTone said:


> Of course, actions speak louder than words_, _and the mass slaughter of innocent Protestants in Dunmanway and border areas of Ulster by so called good ol' IRA in war of 'independence' didn't help.


Yep, from 1*89*0 to 1990 the Protestant population of the 26 counties of Ireland declined from 10% to 3% of the total, though it's on the rise since.

edit; typo fixed.


----------



## WolfeTone (2 Jun 2021)

Purple said:


> from 1980 to 1990 the Protestant population of the 26 counties of Ireland declined from 10% to 3% of the total, though it's on the rise since



Have you got a source for that, its sounds a little excessive to me but I open to being corrected.


----------



## Purple (2 Jun 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> Have you got a source for that, its sounds a little excessive to me but I open to being corrected.


Sorry, my typo, it's 1890 to 1990.


----------



## WolfeTone (2 Jun 2021)

Purple said:


> Sorry, my typo, it's 1890 to 1990.



No worries, I thought it may be. Indeed, according to Wiki that is the case. However, stats can often be misleading. Notably, the biggest % declined occurred between the census of 1911 and 1926 (9.92% to 6.98%). This I would suggest is broadly due to the partition of the island with the 1911 figure accounting for All-Ireland, 1926 only for the 26 counties.

The continued decline of Protestant population in the republic is not totally out of sync with the decline in the overall population which did not start to reverse until the 1960's.
The Protestant population still continued to decline right up to the 1990's despite an increasing overall population, but notably so, it has increased since then while the Catholic population continues to decline. A lot of this decline I would suggest can be put down to increasing secularism and diversity within the population rather than anything of a sinister nature to make life uncomfortable for Protestants.

Since 1991, the population of Protestants in numeric terms in the republic has risen from 107,423 to 195,797 - an 82% increase in 30yrs. 

Protestantism in the Republic of Ireland


----------



## Purple (2 Jun 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> No worries, I thought it may be. Indeed, according to Wiki that is the case. However, stats can often be misleading. Notably, the biggest % declined occurred between the census of 1911 and 1926 (9.92% to 6.98%). This I would suggest is broadly due to the partition of the island with the 1911 figure accounting for All-Ireland, 1926 only for the 26 counties.


I wondered about that and the figures are for this part of the island only.
The increase since 1991 is largely due to immigration. The "happy-clappy" brands of Born Again protestants.


----------



## WolfeTone (2 Jun 2021)

Purple said:


> I wondered about that and the figures are for this part of the island only.



The 1911 census figures are for the whole of the island.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (2 Jun 2021)

@WolfeTone, @Purple
I consulted the font of all truth:


			
				Wiki said:
			
		

> The following table shows the figures for the main Protestant denominations *in what is now the Republic of Ireland* from 1901 to 2011
> 1901 10.21%
> 1926 6.98%
> 2011 4.27%


One of the reasons cited for the sharp decline from 1901 to 2011 is that Protestant girls married British soldiers during the WoI and then relocated when the war was over.  Hard to believe that was a big factor.  Another reason is "ne temere" which required children of mixed marriages to be brought up Catholics.  Heaven forbid there was any ethnic cleansing.


----------



## Purple (2 Jun 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Another reason is "ne temere" which required children of mixed marriages to be brought up Catholics. Heaven forbid there was any ethnic cleansing.


A rose by any other name...


----------



## WolfeTone (2 Jun 2021)

@Duke of Marmalade not sure what the *bold* descript is for suffice to say that there was no Republic of Ireland (or Free State) pre-1920. The decline during 1911 to 1926 can largely be attributable a 32 county count pre 1920 and 26 county count thereafter. 

"_*After* the establishment of the Irish Free State in 1922, the Protestant population declined sharply county count pre 1921 and a 26 county count thereafter. As Wiki page cites_"

Some of reasons for decline seem valid, others nor so. The compulsory teaching of Irish in schools seems a bizarre reason to upsticks and move on. I'm sure many Catholics resented the teaching of Irish also?



Duke of Marmalade said:


> Another reason is "ne temere" which required children of mixed marriages to be brought up Catholics. Heaven forbid there was any ethnic cleansing.



Perhaps a factor for the decline, but not a significant one by any means. Given how "uncomfortable" Catholics and Protestants were to one another in the first instance, the extent of mixed marriages was surely on the fringes.

Critical to all of this however is, as in NI, the concerns and overt discriminatory policies of one religious class over the other are now a thing of the past.
No reason why Irish people of all persuasions cannot unite and govern themselves in one peaceful democratic country instead of this two state power-sharing nonsense.


----------



## Purple (2 Jun 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> @Duke of Marmalade not sure what the *bold* descript is for suffice to say that there was no Republic of Ireland (or Free State) pre-1920. The decline during 1911 to 1926 can largely be attributable a 32 county count pre 1920 and 26 county count thereafter.
> 
> "_*After* the establishment of the Irish Free State in 1922, the Protestant population declined sharply county count pre 1921 and a 26 county count thereafter. As Wiki page cites_"
> 
> ...


From the link we both cited;

_The exact numbers of migration based upon religious affiliation before 1926 is complicated by various different reasons.[5] However between the 1911 and 1926 census' it has been suggested that there was a migration of 106,456 people from minority-religions, with at least 60,000 Protestants not connected to the British administration in Ireland.[5] *During this period the number of Protestants in what became the Irish Free State dropped from 10% to 7%.[1] This represented a drop of 32% in the Protestant population compared to the 2% drop in the Catholic population*.[1] This decrease is often linked to the removal of British forces from the Free State, however the rate of decline was quite similar between native and foreign born Protestants and the drop was five times greater than the total number of Protestants in the British forces in 1911.__[1]_

On the issue of inter-marriage with Catholics;

Between 1901 and 1911, 15% of Protestant males were in mixed-marriages.[2] The 1901 census indicates that nearly 80% of mixed-marriages resulted in any children being brought up as Catholics, even before the Vatican issued _Ne Temere_ in 1907,[2] which meant that children in all mixed-marriages must be brought up as Catholics. In the following period from 1911 to 1926 it seems likely that due to an increase in contention between Protestants and Catholics, there was a decrease in mixed-marriages.[2]

It's also reasonable to suggest that in the decades after independence the rates of intermarriage increased again and, due to  _Ne Temere _just about all the children were brought up Catholic.

The Catholic Church was the main force driving the ethnic cleansing of our Protestant population after independence.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (2 Jun 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> @Duke of Marmalade not sure what the *bold* descript is for suffice to say that there was no Republic of Ireland (or Free State) pre-1920. The decline during 1911 to 1926 can largely be attributable a 32 county count pre 1920 and 26 county count thereafter.


I think you are plain wrong here.  I put it in *bold *to emphasise that in this particular table Wiki had confined the figures to a like for like of what is now RoI. Perfectly possible since the 1901 census was on a county basis.


WolfeTone said:


> Perhaps a factor for the decline, but not a significant one by any means. Given how "uncomfortable" Catholics and Protestants were to one another in the first instance, the extent of mixed marriages was surely on the fringes.


I doubt it was a  big factor.  But whilst mixed marriages were on the fringe in society at large they would be much more relevant to the small Protestant population.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (2 Jun 2021)

@Purple our posts crossed.


----------



## odyssey06 (2 Jun 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> Some of reasons for decline seem valid, others nor so. The compulsory teaching of Irish in schools seems a bizarre reason to upsticks and move on. I'm sure many Catholics resented the teaching of Irish also?
> 
> Perhaps a factor for the decline, but not a significant one by any means. Given how "uncomfortable" Catholics and Protestants were to one another in the first instance, the extent of mixed marriages was surely on the fringes.
> 
> ...


The language barrier was a discriminatory policy which made the Free State a cold house for Protestants.
It wasn't just compulsory teaching in schools, it was needed for advancement in civil service and government positions.


----------



## WolfeTone (2 Jun 2021)

odyssey06 said:


> The language barrier was a discriminatory policy which made the Free State a cold house for Protestants.



How is the Irish language a discriminatory policy for Protestants?? 


Douglas de-Íde, Irelands first President, a Protestant, was a fluent Irish speaker. Edward Carson, a fluent Irish speaker. 
Irish language is as much a part of Protestant culture and heritage as it is Catholic. 
Many of the Protestant planters from Scotland were Gaelic speakers. There was little difference in language between Scottish Gaelic speakers and Irish Gaelic speakers. 
In fact, to be able to read and write in Irish and not being of the clergy signified your Protestant status. Illiteracy levels among Catholics were a lot higher. 
This elevation of Irish language to that of an Irish Nationalist endeavour to impose discrimination against Protestants is wholly false. 
That Irish nationalism adopted a revival of the language is ond thing, to conflate it with discriminating against Protestants is false. 
There were many Protestant Irish Nationalists (see my username).


----------



## odyssey06 (2 Jun 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> How is the Irish language a discriminatory policy for Protestants??
> 
> 
> Douglas de-Íde, Irelands first President, a Protestant, was a fluent Irish speaker. Edward Carson, a fluent Irish speaker.
> ...


It's discriminatory, and obviously so. The fact that you can't see that shows how much of a blind spot you have to it.

There were many Protestant Irish nationalists, what about the other Protestants who had no interest in the language?
Put yourself in the position of those Protestants and it is obvious why they would see it was a hostile act towards them.
It's not their language, it's not part of their culture and ethos.
And they are the ones we are talking about, the ones who left and why did they leave.
The language was used as  a shibboleth of your loyalty to the new state.
Either you were on board with the ethos of the new state of you were not, no other kind could be tolerated.
Why would you stick around to go through those hoops?

In reviving the language and putting it to such a core position it was clear that the new government had zero regard for anyone with a different ethos to it.  It was a hostile act to Protestants. As I said, it was a cold house for Protestants.


----------



## WolfeTone (2 Jun 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I think you are plain wrong here.



I understand where you coming from and you may be correct. But the decline in Protestant population goes from 311,461 to 207,307 from 1911 to 1926. Or a 104,154 decline. 

The NI (average) population from 1911 to 1926 shows little increase, from 1,246,000 to 1,254,000. So if Protestants were uncomfortable in the Free State , NI did not appear to be the desired destination. 
That said, within that period, there is a notable decline in 1915 to 1,210,000 but this coincides with the outbreak of war in Europe. 
In 1919, there is a notable increase in population to 1,250,000, again, coinciding with the end of war in 1918. 

From the period of the Treaty and the establishment of the Free State, there is no notable increase in the population of NI. 

If Protestants were leaving the Free State, where did they go?


----------



## WolfeTone (2 Jun 2021)

odyssey06 said:


> It's discriminatory, and obviously so



Irish language is not a discriminatory tool against Protestants. It is simply nonsense to suggest so. Irish Protestants are as much entwined with the language in their heritage as anyone else. The conflation of the Irish language as a discriminatory tool against Protestants is borne out of ignorance of the language. 



odyssey06 said:


> what about the other Protestants who had no interest in the language?


What about Catholics who had no interest in the language, of which there are many? 



odyssey06 said:


> Put yourself in the position of those Protestants and it is obvious why they would see it was a hostile act towards them.


No different to Catholics who abhor the Irish language and hold a hostile attitude to it. 
It is not discriminatory. No more thsn French or German. 




odyssey06 said:


> It's not their language, it's not part of their culture and ethos.



It is their language. They may disassociate from it today, but their ancestors were native and fluent speakers. 
It is only out of ignorance and political contrivance that some Protestants view it with hostility. 
It is a language, first and foremost. That nationalist Ireland took on the mantle to revive it is great thing. And like I said, there were many Protestant Irish Nationalists and many Protestant Irish Unionist language enthusiasts. 
The first cumman of Conradh na Gaeilge in Ulster was established by two  Irish Protestant Unionists.
Writers Alice Milligan, a Protestant, committed to the language revival and George A Birmingham, both of Belfast. 
Robert Crawford, Unionist politician. I could go on. 

Today, Linda Ervine from East Belfast, sister-in-law to David Ervine, is the project leader for 'Turas', an Irish language based organisation which defines itself as aiming to "connect people from Protestant communities to their own history and language". 

This conflation of the Irish language as being hostile to Protestants is a political tool used by some Unionists to sow continued division. It is based on nothing but hatred of anything Gaelic.


----------



## odyssey06 (2 Jun 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> Irish language is not a discriminatory tool against Protestants. It is simply nonsense to suggest so. Irish Protestants are as much entwined with the language in their heritage as anyone else. The conflation of the Irish language as a discriminatory tool against Protestants is borne out of ignorance of the language.
> 
> What about Catholics who had no interest in the language, of which there are many?
> 
> ...


Of course it was discriminatory, how could it be otherwise?

It doesn't matter how many Protestants you list, we are talking about the ones who left and why.
What about the Protestants who had no love or connection to the language and were ignorant of it?
It was also a hostile act towards non Protestants too who had no connection with the language.
It's not their language. It's something foisted on them.
It wasn't the language of their parents, the language they thought in, or wanted anything to do with.

It was the act of a state that declared itself as tolerant of one ethos only.
It was not the act of a state which showed the slightest regard for the concerns of Protestants, or those who didn't subscribe to or become people of the book in terms of a Catholic ascendancy.

The conflation of the Irish language with Irish identity did not just extend to being anti-Protestant, but anti other forms of Irishness.
It is not some conspiracy invented by unionists.
It was the founding ethos of the Irish state to define one type of Irishness as legitimate and everything else tolerated at best if not overtly hostile.

Look up the word 'shibboleth'. That's what it was. It was a weapon of the free state to ensure conformity with their narrow vision of Irishness.
And that narrow vision of Irishness was anti-Protestant. Anti many other things too.


----------



## Purple (2 Jun 2021)

When we won our independence from Britain we'd been under British/English rule for centuries and so had to make up a version of Irishness which our leaders thought would have existed if we had never been under the English Yoke. That included the Irish Language, and a very Catholic version of nationalism. 
Suggesting that the imposition of the Irish Language as a requirement to get a Public Sector job, and many other State jobs, wasn't a barrier which disproportionately impacted on Protestants is completely bonkers.
Remember that the teaching of Irish didn't become compulsory until 1922.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (2 Jun 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> *If* Protestants were leaving the Free State, where did they go?


There is no "if" about it.
But you do raise a mildly interesting supplementary - where did they go?  Wiki suggests Protestant girls marrying British soldiers and then moving to where they were posted after WoI, can't be too many surely.
As you point out we don't know how many people were leaving NI anyway and that could confuse the arithmetic.  After all these were not great times to be in any part of Ireland.  
Similarly if you are a Protestant living in the Free State and decide to up sticks, would the dreary steeples of Fermanagh and Tyrone be your choice?  Might as well do it proper, go to GB or even US.


----------



## Purple (2 Jun 2021)

An uncle of mine did a walking tour of Rathmines a few years ago. The guide said that the area was 20% Protestant in 1900 but is less than 5% Protestant now. He asked the guide where they all went and was met with awkward silence.

Where they went is a combination of  immigration to the UK and being bred out through inter-marriage  with Catholics.
When I went to school in the 1980's our history was very much a Catholic = Irish history. The notable exception was the "Good" Protestant, Wolfe Tone.  
Protestants were Anglo-Irish, i.e. not really properly Irish.
Catholics were properly Irish. None of us were ever in favour of the Union with Britain and the minute we had the chance to be free we all took it without hesitation. Oh, and Partition was something that was imposed on us by the Brits, not something which was an inevitable consequence of the absolutist polices of Sinn Fein.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (2 Jun 2021)

We must distinguish of course with deliberate discrimination against a minority and creating an environment which as a matter of collateral damage they find discriminatory.  Irish falls into that category as do other aspects of social policy such as the ban on divorce and subsequently the ban on contraceptives.  Home Rule meant Rome Rule and the Free State was in effect the Vatican State.


----------



## Purple (2 Jun 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> No reason why Irish people of all persuasions cannot unite and govern themselves in one peaceful democratic country instead of this two state power-sharing nonsense.


History is littered with reasons but the biggest one is that they don't want to because the two tribal groups on the island fall into blind tribalism and absolutist positions at the drop of a hat.


----------



## Purple (2 Jun 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> We must distinguish of course with deliberate discrimination against a minority and creating an environment which as a matter of collateral damage they find discriminatory.  Irish falls into that category as do other aspects of social policy such as the ban on divorce and subsequently the ban on contraceptives.  Home Rule meant Rome Rule and the Free State was in effect the Vatican State.


So it was aa kind of Institutional Racism. Is that what you are saying? If so I agree with you.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (2 Jun 2021)

Purple said:


> So it was aa kind of Institutional Racism. Is that what you are saying? If so I agree with you.


Oh no, not the R word
It was a Catholic state for a Catholic people.  Protestants couldn't get johnnies (at least not legit)
NI was a Protestant state for a Protestant people.  Catholics couldn't play on the swings on Sundays (at least not legit)


----------



## Purple (2 Jun 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Oh no, not the R word
> It was a Catholic state for a Catholic people.  Protestants couldn't get johnnies (at least not legit)
> NI was a Protestant state for a Protestant people.  Catholics couldn't play on the swings on Sundays (at least not legit)


Okay, Institutional Tribalism. Is that better?


----------



## WolfeTone (2 Jun 2021)

odyssey06 said:


> Of course it was discriminatory, how could it be otherwise?


Because to discriminate is to unjustly treat a person or persons unfavourably over others. The Irish language does not such thing, whether you were Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Muslim....whatever. 
You have conflated Irish language as something that is purely Catholic. It is not. To think that suggests there is mass discrimination today against a host of people of other religions who learn Irish.
Irish language has nothing to do with religion. Far more Catholics had as much detatchment from the Irish language as any Protestant ever did. I know, I went to Catholic school.



odyssey06 said:


> we are talking about the ones who left and why.



Yes, and I am saying that the Irish language was not a reason for people to upsticks and leave. 
The Free State came into being in 1921. The Government of Ireland Act, 1920, does not even mention the Irish language. Its status as equal standing with English did not emerge until Bunreacht na hÉireann in 1937.
Irish language in 1921, while in decline, was still prevalant in many areas of Ireland with a majority of people in Ireland being one or two (at most) generations away from it being their mother tongue.
That Irish people could not decide to teach Irish in schools to their children to preserve a native language without is causing offence to Protestants says all you need to know about the mindset of those Protestants, albeit I suspect relatively few.



odyssey06 said:


> What about the Protestants who had no love or connection to the language and were ignorant of it?



What about the Catholics who had no love or connection to the language? 



odyssey06 said:


> It's not their language.



Tell that to the Protestants that clearly demonstrate their love and connection to their language.



odyssey06 said:


> It wasn't the language of their parents, the language they thought in, or wanted anything to do with.



In many instances, it was. It is a Gaelic language that encompasses different dialects like Ulster-Scots, Connacht and Munster. They are all part of the Gaelic language family tree. It being the language and heritage of Protestants.



odyssey06 said:


> It was the act of a state that declared itself as tolerant of one ethos only.



This is not true. Its not as if English was banned or discouraged. The business of government proceeded in English, daily life proceeded in English etc...this is simply not true.
Trying to promote something to preserve something does does not equate to discriminatory policy against anything else unless that policy acts unfavourably to something else. Then that is discrimination.


----------



## WolfeTone (2 Jun 2021)

Purple said:


> Suggesting that the imposition of the Irish Language as a requirement to get a Public Sector job, and many other State jobs, wasn't a barrier which disproportionately impacted on Protestants is completely bonkers.



It is absolutely bonkers! You are suggesting that Irish was alien to a Protestant family in Galway anymore that a Catholic family? That would be perposterous. What had their religion go to do with it?
As I have pointed out, some of the leading cheerleaders of the Gaelic League and the revival of the Irish language were Protestant. Douglas de hÍde was the founder of Conradh na Gaeilge. 



Purple said:


> Remember that the teaching of Irish didn't become compulsory until 1922.



Exactly. So a Protestant child going to school in Limerick, or Louth, or Laois, will have the same opportunity, the same requirement, as a Catholic child. Why on earth would Irish be a barrier to an Irish Protestant anymore than an Irish Catholic in the same circumstance?


----------



## odyssey06 (2 Jun 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> Because to discriminate is to unjustly treat a person or persons unfavourably over others. The Irish language does not such thing, whether you were Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Muslim....whatever.
> You have conflated Irish language as something that is purely Catholic. It is not. To think that suggests there is mass discrimination today against a host of people of other religions who learn Irish.
> Irish language has nothing to do with religion. Far more Catholics had as much detatchment from the Irish language as any Protestant ever did. I know, I went to Catholic school.
> 
> ...



It wasn't merely promoted, it was mandated. It was compelled.
The Irish language is not a badge of Irishness, but that is how the state deployed it.
They were the ones who conflated it, in conjunction with religion and language in their narrow concept of what it meant to be Irish.
To discriminate is also to deploy the power of the state in a manner that is hostile and contrary to how minorities live their lives in a society at a macro level. People who were already living in that society. The policy acted unfavourably to those people.
Enforced conformity.
It was also enforced conformity against those Catholics too. It was intolerant of all other forms of Irishness. That doesn't mean it wasn't discriminatory against Protesants. Such a policy has ripples.

The Irish Free State was a bigoted intolerant one, and that was how it deployed language and religion, in an exclusionist manner.

Of course a language does not have to be any of those things, but it becomes that when deployed in the manner it was in Ireland.


----------



## WolfeTone (2 Jun 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> There is no "if" about it.



I agree. Its the extent of it that I question. In any case, the Irish language would have had little impact of people upping sticks.


----------



## WolfeTone (2 Jun 2021)

odyssey06 said:


> The Irish language is not a badge of Irishness, but that is how the state deployed it.
> They were the ones who conflated it, in conjunction with religion and language in their narrow concept of what it meant to be Irish.



I do not disagree with this entirely, but my point is that the Irish language being thought in Irish schools was an extremely unlikely motivator for Protestant families to leave Ireland. It makes no sense, save any Protestants that did not identify as Irish in the first place, but rather British. But I hope you are not suggesting that most Protestants in Ireland (26 county) identified as British? They most certainly did not, they identified as Irish. The Irish language being every bit as much as their heritage as anyone else.


----------



## odyssey06 (2 Jun 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> I do not disagree with this entirely, but my point is that the Irish language being thought in Irish schools was an extremely unlikely motivator for Protestant families to leave Ireland. It makes no sense, save any Protestants that did not identify as Irish in the first place, but rather British. But I hope you are not suggesting that most Protestants in Ireland (26 county) identified as British? They most certainly did not, they identified as Irish. The Irish language being every bit as much as their heritage as anyone else.


I think it was a 'push' factor along with religion and economic prospects and social prospects ... for people who were looking at their prospects in the new state. Not saying it was the main factor but part of set.
If you were Anglo-Irish with a foot in both camps, so to speak. Identity isn't just binary... think of a 1922 version of Declan Rice or Eoin Morgan.

Not just that it was taught in schools but that it became a shibboleth for progress in the state's administration and education sector.
It is one thing for it to be part of one's heritage and approached in that manner, another thing entirely for it to be used for that purpose.

Almost more so because the language used day to day was English,  did people perceice it blatantly as a loyalty test \ conformity test?
Or perhaps a concern Irish would become the language of day to day administration, and someone trying to pick it up later in life would always be at disadvantage to those with a gra\connection to the language in terms of advancement.

Whether you agree it was discriminatory or not, or whether all Protestants should have seen the Irish language as part of their heritage, in 1922 it was not viewed that way by large numbers of them north and south. And by many Catholics too. Mandating the language politicised it unnecessarily and was a clear signal that the Free State was not putting out any bridges to such people.
That the new state would not be a place where such people had a future.


----------



## WolfeTone (2 Jun 2021)

odyssey06 said:


> Mandating the language politicised it unnecessarily and was a clear signal that the Free State was not putting out any bridges to such people.



I simply reject this. Irish is a language. A fundamental and intrinsic part of human communication. The Irish language long in decline, not least because of policies that discriminated against it, is part of this country's heritage and culture. It is as much as part of the fabric of the Irish identity and culture as anything else that identifies the Irish identity.

That some, most prominently Irish Protestants, sought to revive their language at the turn of the 20th century is to their credit. Their efforts are paying dividends. While only some 80,000 are native speakers, some 250,000 can speak the language fluently. A further 1.6m claim to be able to speak Irish. Whatever the merits of how well they can speak it, it speaks volumes to me for the regard the language is held in this country - thank you Irish Protestants!

The mindset that objects to efforts, or laws introduced, to support and revive a native language is a closed ignorant mindset.

At the end of the day, the coldhouse for Protestants is gone in the 26 counties, the population increasing by some 86% in last 30yrs. I was brought up as a Roman Catholic, but if I had the option I would have picked Protestant. I think their version of Christianity is closer to the word of JC.

Can the same be said for Catholics in NI? To all intents and purposes yes, but the reason for partition - "Rome Rule" is gone, replaced by remaining in the UK.


----------



## WolfeTone (3 Jun 2021)

Purple said:


> The 1901 census indicates that nearly 80% of mixed-marriages resulted in any children being brought up as Catholics, even before the Vatican issued _Ne Temere_ in 1907,[2] which meant that children in all mixed-marriages must be brought up as Catholics.



No doubt this is a factor. Although why the stat restricts itself to 15% of 'male' Protestants I'm not sure? Surely the same outcome for female Protestants marrying Catholic men?

In any case, assuming 15% of Protestant population marrying into mixed marriages, it would account for some decline I'm sure - far more than the Irish language being taught at schools invoking Protestant families to upsticks. Although it became compulsory under statute in 1922, Irish was taught in many Irish schools long before then, including Protestant students.

How else would an Irish Protestants like De hÍde or Carson become fluent Irish speakers?



Purple said:


> The Catholic Church was the main force driving the ethnic cleansing of our Protestant population after independence.



Perhaps, but it has nothing to do with the Irish language.



Purple said:


> When I went to school in the 1980's our history was very much a Catholic = Irish history. The notable exception was the "Good" Protestant, Wolfe Tone.



But you are talking about a Catholic and Protestant history. What has that got to do with Irish language?

You must have been asleep the day aside from the reference to my good self  . In my Catholic school history teaching there was little doubt about the greatness of Irish Protestants such as:

Parnell, Emmet, Casement, Douglas de hÍde -first President of Catholic 'coldhouse' Ireland. Maybe one day in the 21st century, there will be a Catholic First Minister in NI? Imagine that?

Sam Maguire, Erskine Childers and his son Erskine Robert (the second Protestant President of Ireland), Thomas Russell, Isaac Butt, William Shaw....

I'm stealing from Wiki now;

_"...Other Protestant Nationalist members of [British] parliament were: Sir John Gray, Stephen Gwynn, Henry Harrison, Jeremiah Jordan, William McDonald, J. G. Swift MacNeill, James Maguire, Pierce Charles de Lacy O'Mahony, Isaac Nelson, John Pinkerton, Horace Plunkett and Samuel Young."_

The point being, Irish Protestant Nationalism is very much an integral part of Irelands struggle for independence from Westminster rule.

Partition drove a knife through that sentiment.

Partition is the on-going ill on this island - London knows it, Brussels knows it, Dublin knows it, Washington knows it, dogs on the street know it.




Duke of Marmalade said:


> Irish falls into that category as do other aspects of social policy such as the ban on divorce and subsequently the ban on contraceptives. Home Rule meant Rome Rule and the Free State was in effect the Vatican State.



That is just lazy whataboutery. As if there was no such thing as a conservative Protestant or Catholic in NI in 2021.


----------



## Purple (3 Jun 2021)

odyssey06 said:


> I think it was a 'push' factor along with religion and economic prospects and social prospects ... for people who were looking at their prospects in the new state. Not saying it was the main factor but part of set.
> If you were Anglo-Irish with a foot in both camps, so to speak. Identity isn't just binary... think of a 1922 version of Declan Rice or Eoin Morgan.
> 
> Not just that it was taught in schools but that it became a shibboleth for progress in the state's administration and education sector.
> ...


Excellent post. Catholic Ireland, one Nation Gaelic and Free, was a cold place for Protestants (West Brits). They had held a dual Irish and British identity for generations but all of a sudden they had to suppress that British identity and embrace a made up version of a Gaelic Ireland that was totally alien to them in order to fit in. 

To be blunt there's absolutely no point in arguing this with Wolfie as his opinions on the subject are immutable. 

I base my opinions on my reading of Irish history and from speaking to Protestant relatives, most of whose family moved to Northern Ireland between the 30's and 50's, and elderly Protestant friends in South Wexford whose Grandparents remember the foundation of the State. It would seem, from what @WolfeTone is telling us, that their experiences were actually false, and they didn't actually feel the way they remember feeling. Their family members left their country for erroneous reasons.


----------



## Purple (3 Jun 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> What about Catholics who had no interest in the language, of which there are many?





WolfeTone said:


> What about the Catholics who had no love or connection to the language?


Indeed



WolfeTone said:


> That is just lazy whataboutery.


----------



## Purple (3 Jun 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> Erskine Childers and his son Erskine Robert (the second Protestant President of Ireland)


Remember what happened to their Father?


WolfeTone said:


> No doubt this is a factor. Although why the stat restricts itself to 15% of 'male' Protestants I'm not sure? Surely the same outcome for female Protestants marrying Catholic men?


There was a considerable amount of misogyny back then, believe it of not. When a Protestant of either gender wanted to marry a Catholic their children had to be raised Catholic. 


WolfeTone said:


> But you are talking about a Catholic and Protestant history. What has that got to do with Irish language?


It was one of the many factors which made this country an alien place for Protestants after Independence. 


WolfeTone said:


> The point being, Irish Protestant Nationalism is very much an integral part of Irelands struggle for independence from Westminster rule.
> 
> Partition drove a knife through that sentiment.


Irish Nationalism had become much more entwine with a culturally Catholic identity over the preceding decades but yes, when Michael Collins and his party partitioned the Island, after the IRA made it an inevitability, a chasm opened up between Protestant and Catholic Irish people as "Protestant" became a byword for Northern Unionism.


----------



## WolfeTone (3 Jun 2021)

Purple said:


> It was one of the many factors which made this country an alien place for Protestants after Independence.



Again, this is the myth. There are tens of thousands of Protestants in Ireland learning Irish today, as through the decades long before partition, either through education system or of their own volition. 

The only people who are "alien" to Irish in this country are those who choose to ignore, disregard or through their own narrow minded political prejudice hold Irish language in contempt. 

What next? The colour Green!


----------



## WolfeTone (3 Jun 2021)

Purple said:


> Remember what happened to their Father?



Yes, another string on the bow for the partitionists.


----------



## Purple (3 Jun 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> Again, this is the myth. There are tens of thousands of Protestants in Ireland learning Irish today, as through the decades long before partition, either through education system or of their own volition.


I am talking about the period around partition and the formation of this country.


WolfeTone said:


> The only people who are "alien" to Irish in this country are those who choose to ignore, disregard or through their own narrow minded political prejudice hold Irish language in contempt.



Or the dyslexic or the under educated or those who see Irishness in a modern inclusive way which embraces immigrants and people from other backgrounds and doesn't consider people who can't speak Irish and didn't have family in the GPO as less Irish than themselves.

Personally I find the whole Gaeilgeoir thing distasteful, regressive and narrowminded. I don't speak Irish because I'm dyslexic due to being somewhere on the autism spectrum. Does that make me less Irish than you? My black colleague of mixed Irish and Nigerian heritage doesn't speak it either. Is his Irishness in doubt? When the Shinners take over will we be sent to Chinese style re-education camps?
Is it right that I have to have an exemption, a diagnosis, to get a State job? What about him, do they have a colour chart at the interviews?



WolfeTone said:


> What next? The colour Green!


Whataboutism it?


----------



## Purple (3 Jun 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> Yes, another string on the bow for the partitionists.


Yep, Sinn Fein who made it inevitable and Collins who made it factual.


----------



## WolfeTone (3 Jun 2021)

Purple said:


> I am talking about the period around partition and the formation of this country.



Equally so. Tens of thousands of Protestants were learning Irish in schools long before the Free State got involved and made it compulsory. They were learning it because it is part of their culture, their heritage, their history. Many of their parents, or their grand-parents would also have learned Irish.
Arguably the Gaelic League would probably not have emerged and sustained without the foresight and input of Ireland's Protestants.



Purple said:


> Or the dyslexic or the under educated



True, did they leave the country because the Free State made Irish a compulsory subject in school?



Purple said:


> those who see Irishness in a modern inclusive way which embraces immigrants and people from other backgrounds and doesn't consider people who can't speak Irish and didn't have family in the GPO as less Irish than themselves.



None of which has anything to do with the Irish language itself, more to do with patronising ignorant fools. 



Purple said:


> Yep, Sinn Fein who made it inevitable and Collins who made it factual.



Yep, and his portrait hangs high in Government office.


----------



## WolfeTone (3 Jun 2021)

Purple said:


> To be blunt there's absolutely no point in arguing this with Wolfie as his opinions on the subject are immutable.



I don't disagree with a lot what you say. Bad policy, or good policy implemented badly, can have unintended consequences and in such instances the Irish nationalist movement toward independence would have been an uncomfortable place for many people who identified with the United Kingdom, a significant portion no doubt being Protestant.

My only point here is that the Irish language itself was not a significant motivator in anyway shape or form for Protestants, many of whom were already familiar with the Irish language, to upsticks and leave.


----------



## Purple (3 Jun 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> I don't disagree with a lot what you say. Bad policy, or good policy implemented badly, can have unintended consequences and in such instances the Irish nationalist movement toward independence would have been an uncomfortable place for many people who identified with the United Kingdom, a significant portion no doubt being Protestant.
> 
> My only point here is that the Irish language itself was not a significant motivator in anyway shape or form for Protestants, many of whom were already familiar with the Irish language, to upsticks and leave.


The Irish language being made compulsory and being made a requirement for State jobs was one of many small moves which made this a cold place for Protestants post independence. It certainly wasn't a major factor but equally it certainly was politically loaded and was the furthering of the vision Patrick Pearce had for the country. 

(I always thought Pearce was a bit of a weirdo but considering the deep IRA links my family have I generally keep that to myself.)


----------



## Purple (3 Jun 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> ens of thousands of Protestants were learning Irish in schools long before the Free State got involved and made it compulsory. They were learning it because it is part of their culture, their heritage, their history.


But it wasn't, not for many of them. We're not talking about those who were comfortable with it, we are talking about those who weren't.


WolfeTone said:


> True, did they leave the country because the Free State made Irish a compulsory subject in school?


Do you really think I, or anyone else, is arguing that it's that binary?


WolfeTone said:


> None of which has anything to do with the Irish language itself, more to do with patronising ignorant fools.


There's no shortage of them and they are loud and bombastic and hard to ignore and they colour the perception of the language for me. Given that I'm a former Catholic with very strong nationalist credentials and I find the whole elevation of the Irish language exclusionary I can only imagine how it must have felt for Protestants in 1922.


WolfeTone said:


> Yep, and his portrait hangs high in Government office.


As does one of Dev. Two deeply flawed but great men. The difference was that one of them wasn't accidently shot by one of his own men.


----------



## WolfeTone (3 Jun 2021)

Purple said:


> State jobs was one of many small moves which made this a cold place for Protestants post independence. It certainly wasn't a major factor



The inference being that Irish language was not something that Irish Protestants could not relate to or had no affinity to.
From Douglas de hÍde to Edward Carson to the tremendous work Linda Ervine is doing today in the heart of loyalist Belfast, this is pure myth.


----------



## WolfeTone (3 Jun 2021)

Purple said:


> Given that I'm a former Catholic with very strong nationalist credentials and I find the whole elevation of the Irish language exclusionary I can only imagine how it must have felt for Protestants in 1922.



You are of course entitled to feel that way, but why would you assume that Protestants would feel excluded, on the basis of the elevation of the Irish language, in Ireland?

The coldhouse for Protestants was the dominance of Catholicism at the centre of government, and more so, the actions of the IRA .
Not Irish language.


----------



## Purple (3 Jun 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> You are of course entitled to feel that way, but why would you assume that Protestants would feel excluded, on the basis of the elevation of the Irish language, in Ireland?


From talking to them and their families about it.


----------



## Purple (3 Jun 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> The inference being that Irish language was not something that Irish Protestants could not relate to or had no affinity to.
> From Douglas de hÍde to Edward Carson to the tremendous work Linda Ervine is doing today in the heart of loyalist Belfast, this is pure myth.


It's of note that Douglas Hyde and Edward Carson were both born in what is now this country and were both Anglicans.
Ervine is Anglican or Methodist or something but is certainly not Presbyterian.


----------



## Purple (3 Jun 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> The coldhouse for Protestants was the dominance of Catholicism at the centre of government, and more so, the actions of the IRA .


Mainly, but the imposition of the Irish language was part of it.
Do you think that most Unionists regard it as alien because they are contrarians?


----------



## WolfeTone (4 Jun 2021)

Purple said:


> Do you think that most Unionists regard it as alien because they are contrarians?



There is association with the Irish language and Irish nationalism, but the Irish language itself is no more a factor in motivating Irish Protestants to move anymore than Irish Catholics. 
British Protestants on the other hand may be more inclined to move but primarily because of other more pressing factors, sectarian disdain for Catholics and a repulsion of having to 'endure' living in a society broadly shaped and governed by them being one. Intimidation from IRA being another. 
Irish language by itself is way down the list of factors. 

The proof will be in the pudding for when an Irish language Act is passed in NI. How many Protestants will upsticks and leave because of that. I doubt if any at all.


----------



## Purple (4 Jun 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> British Protestants on the other hand may be more inclined to move


Many of the people here in 1922, Protestant and Catholic, regarded themselves as both British and Irish. That sense of dual identity was whitewashed out of our history. When you refer to "British Protestants" are you referring to those people from this country who had that dual identity?

Edwin Poots is as Irish as I am but his Irish identity is very different to mine. We will have a united Ireland when we can all acknowledge and respect that. While I acknowledge his Irishness I certainly don't respect his values and wouldn't like to see my country polluted by that bigotry. 


WolfeTone said:


> The proof will be in the pudding for when an Irish language Act is passed in NI. How many Protestants will upsticks and leave because of that.


Really?
That's well below your usual standard.


----------



## Purple (4 Jun 2021)

The Nordies are out of Lockdown well in time for Marching Season.
Given the riots they've had over the last few months this should be an absolute cracker.


----------



## WolfeTone (4 Jun 2021)

Purple said:


> Many of the people here in 1922, Protestant and Catholic, regarded themselves as both British and Irish.



I know, I never said otherwise. 



Purple said:


> When you refer to "British Protestants" are you referring to those people from this country who had that dual identity?



I'm referring to those who identify first and foremost as British. When I refer to Irish Protestants (or Catholics), I am referring to those Protestants who do not identify as British at all.



Purple said:


> Really?



Yes, really. It is my contention that the Irish language by itself had next to zero impact on the reduction of the Protestant population of the 26. It was the more profound realities of no longer being part of the UK, the prominence of Catholicism in government and fear of intimidation from IRA that were the prominent factors for Protestants, as a minority, to move.

I would suggest, that when an Irish language Act is passed in NI that it will be evident that it will have no impact on the Protestant population, by virtue that they will remain as part of the UK, remain the majority and not in fear of the IRA.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (4 Jun 2021)

The good and the bad of Irish.
Recently visited West Kerry and noted the locals speaking Irish.  I don't like the gutteral sound myself but the Duke was well pleased.  These folk deserve to access public services in the historic language of their own country, even if that is a disproportionate  use of public funds.  I doubt they see their language in any sectarian or political context.
The Duke was once attending an art gallery* in Linenhall Belfast and noticed a group of elderly women speaking in Irish.  It transpired that they were a Presbyterian bible class.  These people loved Irish for its cultural dimension, again not influenced by politics or sectarianism.  The Duke was again well pleased.
But to listen to SF politicians addressing the NI Assembly or even the Dail in their ugly faux adoption of Irish makes the Duke want to Puke.  And then they have the nerve to sneer and wag their finger  at "curry me yoghurt" as being the epitome of sectarian bigotry.
The Duke also finds it distasteful when a priest delivers the GAA All Ireland victory speech in Irish (not sure whether that still happens).

_* Not a culture vulture myself but there were family reasons._


----------



## Purple (4 Jun 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> I'm referring to those who identify first and foremost as British. When I refer to Irish Protestants (or Catholics), I am referring to those Protestants who do not identify as British at all.


What about those who struggles to know the difference?


WolfeTone said:


> Yes, really. It is my contention that the Irish language by itself had next to zero impact on the reduction of the Protestant population of the 26. It was the more profound realities of no longer being part of the UK, the prominence of Catholicism in government and fear of intimidation from IRA that were the prominent factors for Protestants, as a minority, to move.


So you don't think that it was in any way an assertion of Gaelic Irishness that was tied up in Catholicism? Sure you can't even say hello of good bye in Irish without praying to a single mother and her young fella and the Prod's don't like single mothers in general and they particularly don't like the veneration of that on one.


----------



## WolfeTone (4 Jun 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> But to listen to SF politicians addressing the NI Assembly or even the Dail in their ugly faux adoption of Irish makes the Duke want to Puke.



So the problem lies within yourself.

The idea that someone like Pearse Doherty, a native Irish speaker, is labelled as "ugly faux adoption" says all I need to know about the ignorance that prevails towards the Irish language.
And once again, the Irish language is being politicised not by SF but by those who have an inherent dislike of SF. Why else would SF be singled out from the Dáil when our Taoiseach Michéal Martin, a fluent Irish speaker, is not? Enda Kenny, another and there are many, many more both fluent, and appreciative Irish speakers in the Dáil across the political spectrum.
One such speaker being Joe McHugh (FG), of East Donegal. Mr McHugh was somewhat ridiculed by the media during his time as Minister of Gaeltacht because he admitted he knew little of Irish. He took it upon himself to study the language and by the end of his tenure, he was more than capable of holding his own in conversation.
Leo Vradakar, another prominent politician took it upon himself to take up Irish and has achieved reasonable success and qualification without proclaiming to be fluent.

So the politicisation of the Irish language is with those who are fundamentally opposed to the language, not with those who support the language which range across the political spectrum both north and south.


----------



## WolfeTone (4 Jun 2021)

Purple said:


> Gaelic Irishness



Gaelic Irishness is not the preserve of Catholicism. Many, many Irish Protestants are proud of their Gaelic heritage as I have been pointing out with aforementioned prominent leaders of the Irish Gaelic revival in the 19th century who were Protestant.


----------



## Purple (4 Jun 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> Gaelic Irishness is not the preserve of Catholicism. Many, many Irish Protestants are proud of their Gaelic heritage as I have been pointing out with aforementioned prominent leaders of the Irish Gaelic revival in the 19th century who were Protestant.


I never said otherwise.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (4 Jun 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> So the problem lies within yourself.


Michael Martin speaking Irish doesn't upset me at all.
Grisly spouting it makes me puke, as aforementioned.


----------



## WolfeTone (4 Jun 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Michael Martin speaking Irish doesn't upset me at all.
> Grisly spouting it makes me puke, as aforementioned.



Yes, I gathered that. Micheál received an education in the Irish language which allows him to speak proficiently at it. Adams had no such opportunity in his own country and as such his linguistic pronounciations vocabourly deficiencies are clear.
But it is also clear that he has has a great affinity and attachment to the language. It is part of his identity. And as a political representative he is determined to afford the opportunity to others in their country, just as Micheál was afforded the opportunity in his country.


He is not alone, outside of SF, all political parties with the exception of some unionist parties, as with the Irish and British governments, as with the majority of Irish people north and south, are agreeable to an Irish language Act in NI.



Well done Edwin, your trip to Dublin is paying off.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (4 Jun 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> And once again, the Irish language is being politicised not by SF...


You compare Micháel Martin making a speech in Irish down here with the SF routine provocative display in the NI Assembly.  The SDLP are every bit as pro Irish as SF/IRA but they do not rub it in unionist faces like they do.  
If there ever is going to be a peaceful transition to a UI it will be because of the attitude of people of goodwill like MM and Colum Eastwood and despite its weaponisation by SF/IRA.


----------



## WolfeTone (4 Jun 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> routine provocative display



what is provocative about speaking Irish?
Again, it is a language, it is of the Protestant culture and heritage.
The only provocation it appears is when SF use it.
Why is it not so provocative when British and Irish governments, the broad political spectrum openly support an Irish language Act in NI?
We have an official languages Act here. Scotland has a language act, Wales has a language Act and some of its members of parliament openly speak Welsh (broken or fluent) on a regular basis without anyone being 'provoked'.
The EU has 20+ official languages, one of them Irish. Have the Protestants of Europe been provoked?

What is so provocative about using a language that is native to that country? Poor paranoid, blinkered, head in the sand Unionism. Ulster-Scots is ok to use, but not Gaelic. How paranoid, insecure and narrow-minded do you have to be to take offence to a language.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> If there ever is going to be a peaceful transition to a UI it will be because of the attitude of people of goodwill like MM and Colum Eastwood and despite its weaponisation by SF/IRA.



What has a UI got to do with your offence at Irish being used in the Stormont assembly. Once again, it is yourself and like-minded that are politicising the language.

If Poots lives up to his word and an Irish language Act is passed, then that will be the end of it. Unionists will soon discover that the sky will not fall upon them and that they will remain as British as ever. As soon as it is passed, then the politicising of the Irish language through the refusal to honour agreements supported by broad political spectrum and the two governments will be over.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> You compare Micháel Martin making a speech in Irish down



I compared Michéal Martin making a speech in Irish down with Pearse Doherty making a speech in Irish down here. One makes you puke at the 'faux' adoption, the other is perfectly fine with you. Albeit, it is Doherty that is the native speaker and not Martin.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (4 Jun 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> What is so provocative about using a language that is native to that country?


You don't really understand NI do you?  It is a chronically divided society on which the extremes of SF and DUP thrive.  Taking the hump at a language seems so alien to your broad mind.
But it gets worse.
There are folk who take the hump at Londonderry being called by its official name and there are those who like to rub their nose in it. I guess Prodies say Derry amongst themselves, even I do that, it is easier.
There are those who take the hump at the official flag being flown on public buildings and there are those who would overdo it in that sphere compared to the mainland.
And there are those who take the hump at the Irish language and those that rub their noses in it by the stunt of way overusing it in the NI Assembly.  (SDLP do not)
If you think this theatre is entirely innocent and well intentioned then you are both nigh eve as well as ignorant of the truly rotten nature of Northern politics.


----------



## WolfeTone (4 Jun 2021)

@Duke of Marmalade I get all of that Duke, I guess I am just minded to think that to get over the humps that each side needs to facilitate the other side in their pursuit or in their expressions of identity.
In terms of the Irish language, unionism really needs to get over its hump.


----------



## Purple (4 Jun 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> Well done Edwin, your trip to Dublin is paying off.


Who says a dinosaur never changes its spots.


----------



## Betsy Og (4 Jun 2021)

I don't think there was anything objectionable about making Irish a compulsory school subject, but for access to State jobs, I'd agree that was overdoing it. 

In a UI would we ditch compulsory Irish in schools? - probably - we'd be the lesser for it - but at some point do you get sick of trying to make the horse drink?, as I get older I'm getting less tolerant of people who make no effort but will, at the drop of a hat, whinge about how they were thought - yeah lads, that's why..... Maybe we'd be better off investing in Gael Scoileanna?, but then in NI we urgently need communities educated together, so no doubt Gael Scoileanna in NI would be counterproductive in that respect. Probably go with voluntary after school classes in NI.

The Jailtacht is more SF weaponising, no point speaking Irish where you know it won't be understood, that's just acting the maggot.

What's the future for Irish?, probably posh South Dublin accented Irish, and hopefully the gaeltachts hang on. I'm not sure we've enough collective pride to make more headway like the Welsh have, but long live TG4 & R na G at least.


----------



## WolfeTone (5 Jun 2021)

@Betsy Og I agree with some of that sentiment, not so much other parts.

On the education front there is no doubt that Irish has problems the way it is thought, particularly at second level. It is treated on par with English which is silly considering it is not the native tongue of most. I learnt some French in secondary school also, I don't recall having to study French literature?

That said, the compulsory imposition in school was part of a cultural revival. Whether it was necessary or not, hard to say, maybe it was a measure in form of a 'backstop' against its decline and in that regard understandable.

100yrs on perhaps it is time to reflect on progress? I didn't like Irish at school but just got on with it as much as I could. My own interest in it was prompted after I left school, amongst other things, discovering my grandmother grew up in all Irish speaking household in Kerry. This prompted my interest in adult life and no doubt my scattered eduction in school was a help. So what I detested in school, I am grateful for today.

My own sense that compulsory Irish is a good thing, perhaps up to Junior cert, as it instills a sense of identity and culture that may otherwise be lost.
After that I think it should be optional. My own instinct is that those who excel at Irish in LC tend to be those who will excel at languages anyway. For the rest, the literature part is self-defeating. For some English literature is painful during school years, why compound the misery with Irish literature that is an understandable as an alien language from Star Wars.

I would be of the mind that there is a sufficient underbelly of support for the language amongst the population. New innovative ideas to make it more accessible and adoptable in everyday life would be preferential to the traditional ciriculum that is a love/hate (mostly hate) affair.
Hector on TG4 was a revelation all those years ago. We got to see Irish being spoken in foreign countries whereas up till then it was only in Gaeltacht areas with whining old women and fishermen.
Duolingo, on of the top language apps reports that Irish has been downloaded 2.3m times in USA alone (I figure a tiny portion of that actually study Irish).
Irish does have a growing following in the international community of language enthusiasts. I read somewhere (cannot confirm) that there are more fluent Irish speakers outside of Ireland than there are native speakers in Ireland.
Finally, the language is often thought to be redundant by many. I can assure you however that anyone with a cursory interest in the language will find ample resource and opportunity to communicate in Irish once they dip their toe in the water.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (5 Jun 2021)

Irish is like bitcoin.  Nobody needs to use it but there is a cult* which likes to use a cupla focal and a cult* that likes to buy lattes with bitcoin.

_* I exclude from this broad brush of course native Irish speakers and folk who live in the Lebanon and wherever @tecate hangs out and Ransomware professionals._


----------



## WolfeTone (5 Jun 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Nobody needs to use it



Actually the benefits of learning a second language are well known memory, problem solving, critical thinking. 
It doesn't stand that a second language needs to be Irish. French or Spanish would be useful too. 
But nobody needs to use French or Spanish here, save for some tourist hospitality positions that serve up latte.


----------



## odyssey06 (5 Jun 2021)

Half the attraction for Gaeilscoils is well known as having nothing to do with the language and to do with social sorting *

* There are less polite terms for it which could be more accurate.


----------



## odyssey06 (5 Jun 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> Actually the benefits of learning a second language are well known memory, problem solving, critical thinking.
> It doesn't stand that a second language needs to be Irish. French or Spanish would be useful too.
> But nobody needs to use French or Spanish here, save for some tourist hospitality positions that serve up latte.


French or Spanish would be 100 times more useful, not just for travelling abroad but for work purposes, which extends well beyond hospitality - including tech support centres, for example.


----------



## tecate (5 Jun 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> Actually the benefits of learning a second language are well known memory, problem solving, critical thinking


better memory, problem solving and critical thinking you say Wolfie?  Jebus we got this all wrong. Had we sent the Duke to Connemara these past four Summers, we'd be seeing results by now rather than his entrenched House of Wahhabi views. Missed opportunities.


----------



## Betsy Og (5 Jun 2021)

odyssey06 said:


> Half the attraction for Gaeilscoils is well known as having nothing to do with the language and to do with social sorting *
> 
> * There are less polite terms for it which could be more accurate.


This would only be a problem if the schools are barring non-nationals or "the wrong sort". "The wrong sort" are nothing if not dedicated in their devotion to being "the wrong sort", and couldn't be bothered to break out of it - sure let 'em at it.


----------



## odyssey06 (5 Jun 2021)

Betsy Og said:


> This would only be a problem if the schools are barring non-nationals or "the wrong sort". "The wrong sort" are nothing if not dedicated in their devotion to being "the wrong sort", and couldn't be bothered to break out of it - sure let 'em at it.


Their policies are a bar to non nationals, which is just a subtle way of barring them.
I dont mean they were setup to do that deliberately by their founders but it has had that consequence and is one of the reasons for their popularity in certain areas.


----------



## WolfeTone (5 Jun 2021)

odyssey06 said:


> French or Spanish would be 100 times



Well ok, out of the hundreds (thousands?) of languages and dialects exception made for global languages of English, Spanish, French, Chinese.
Although having said that the only time I ever used French was on holiday in France.
The only time I used Spanish, likewise, although on that occasion I got the raised eyebrows and 'easier if we just communicate in English bud', look.


----------



## odyssey06 (5 Jun 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> Well ok, out of the hundreds (thousands?) of languages and dialects exception made for global languages of English, Spanish, French, Chinese.
> Although having said that the only time I ever used French was on holiday in France.
> The only time I used Spanish, likewise, although on that occasion I got the raised eyebrows and 'easier if we just communicate in English bud', look.


Thats why having French is more important than Spanish!
Spanish speakers more likely to have English.


----------



## Betsy Og (5 Jun 2021)

odyssey06 said:


> Their policies are a bar to non nationals, which is just a subtle way of barring them.
> I dont mean they were setup to do that deliberately by their founders but it has had that consequence and is one of the reasons for their popularity in certain areas.


That's like saying the Catholic Church is a bar to Muslims. It is what it is, you are free to join no more than the next man, if for whatever reason you decide against its hardly the fault of that school.


----------



## odyssey06 (5 Jun 2021)

Betsy Og said:


> That's like saying the Catholic Church is a bar to Muslims. It is what it is, you are free to join no more than the next man, if for whatever reason you decide against its hardly the fault of that school.


Its nothing like that at all.
Children are obliged legally to attend school and there is a shortage of school places in some areas.
In such areas gaelscoils should be not be encouraged.


----------



## WolfeTone (6 Jun 2021)

odyssey06 said:


> In such areas gaelscoils should be not be encouraged



What type of schools should be encouraged? 
Gaelscoileanna are not exclusive. Students who emerge from Gaelscoileanna are as proficient in English as they are in Irish. 
Gaelscoileanna are no barrier to education for any student.


----------



## odyssey06 (6 Jun 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> What type of schools should be encouraged?
> Gaelscoileanna are not exclusive. Students who emerge from Gaelscoileanna are as proficient in English as they are in Irish.
> Gaelscoileanna are no barrier to education for any student.


Of course they are. Is someone going to transfer into Gaelscoil who has come from abroad or outside the Gaelscoileanna system?
The kids who move around a lot, whether that's country or postcode...
It is clearly a barrier to those people, trying to join the system at a later age... where do those kids end up?
So it becomes a closed system. And comes back to my point about social sorting.


----------



## WolfeTone (6 Jun 2021)

odyssey06 said:


> Of course they are.



Of course they are not. Gaelscoileanna make up less than 6% of the entire primary school network. 
If there is a shortage of school places it has little to do with Gaelscoileanna which can be as oversubscribed as non-Gaelscoileanna. 


odyssey06 said:


> Is someone going to transfer into Gaelscoil who has come from abroad or outside the Gaelscoileanna system?



I don't really understand your point. I don't know of any area in the country that does not cater for Gaelscoileanna where there is a deficit of primary school places for non-Gaelscoileanna, do you?


----------



## odyssey06 (7 Jun 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> Of course they are not. Gaelscoileanna make up less than 6% of the entire primary school network.
> If there is a shortage of school places it has little to do with Gaelscoileanna which can be as oversubscribed as non-Gaelscoileanna.
> 
> I don't really understand your point. I don't know of any area in the country that does not cater for Gaelscoileanna where there is a deficit of primary school places for non-Gaelscoileanna, do you?


And those are the numbers they should stay at. A niche in the system not something to be encouraged.

Is someone going to transfer into Gaelscoil who has come from abroad or outside the Gaelscoileanna system?     
And what kind of kids are they likely to be? Kids who move around a lot. Kids with accents.
Kids that certain types of parents don't want their kids schooling with.

And why we shouldn't presume that numbers attending Gaelscoileanna necessarily equals a great hunger for the language.


----------



## Betsy Og (7 Jun 2021)

Odyssey - there's no good reason for non-nationals to not send their kids to gaelscoileanna - they don't have english either so it's no big deal, kids thrive on multiple languages, ourselves and the Brits are the laggards in this regard.  Also, many are born in Ireland so would be starting the same as their "native" classmates at age 5.

I don't believe in discouraging a beneficial schooling because them what never could be bothered....quelle surprise.... couldn't be bothered. Maybe we shut the unis too, don't be letting people get too far ahead.....


----------



## WolfeTone (7 Jun 2021)

odyssey06 said:


> And those are the numbers they should stay at. A niche in the system not something to be encouraged.



Says who?
If there is a demand for it, why not cater for that demand?



odyssey06 said:


> Is someone going to transfer into Gaelscoil who has come from abroad or outside the Gaelscoileanna system?



I don't understand this question. I cannot think of one area (outside Gaeltacht areas perhaps) that does not cater for children whose parents wish not to attend an All-Irish speaking school, can you?
It's simply not a problem. If there is a shortage of places in schools it is in spite of Gaelscoileanna, many of which are oversubscribed, not because of Gaelscoileanna.



odyssey06 said:


> And what kind of kids are they likely to be?



I assume the same type of kids that attend non-Gaelscoileanna?



odyssey06 said:


> Kids who move around a lot. Kids with accents.
> Kids that certain types of parents don't want their kids schooling with.



If you are inferring a socio-economic prejudice by some parents in school selection it is hardly unique to Gaelscoileanna?
Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater here, parents are notorious for wanting privilege (perceived or real) for their little dotes when selecting which school they should attend.


----------



## WolfeTone (8 Jun 2021)

East Belfast pre-primary Irish school opens


----------



## Purple (8 Jun 2021)

Good article in todays Irish Times about the IRA terrorists who killed Garda Jerry McCabe. Good Republicans all, with their close links with Sinn Fein. Sinn Fein tried to have them released under the Good Friday Agreement, as they should have been since the murderers of police officers in Northern Ireland walked free under the same agreement. 
Two of them were collected from prison by a then Sinn Fein TD and one of them married a Sinn Fein activist who later became a TD.

Sinn Fein supporters are like Trump supporters, once they've joined the cult they can excuse and explain any and all reprehensible behaviour by their cult leaders. 
The reaction of the public here to the killing of Jerry McCabe really highlighted our hypocrisy when it came to what we expected the Unionists in Northern Ireland to swallow. We were indignant that a bunch of criminals who killed a police officer while committing an armed robbery should be regarded as political prisoners but were perfectly okay with the same criminals North of the Border walking free.


----------



## WolfeTone (8 Jun 2021)

Purple said:


> The reaction of the public here to the killing of Jerry McCabe really highlighted our hypocrisy



Absolutely. The conflict was waged for 25yrs, in which time British governments systematically tried to supress the political ideology of a United Ireland in favour of a partitioned island. There is little doubt that the two-state solution was/is the long term goal in many quarters. 
On one hand, standing as righteous up holders of law and order, justice and democracy, on the other hand, actively ordering mass executions of its own citizens and covering up the dirty deeds for 50yrs.

As for McCabe murderers. They are a shining example of the bankrupt and futile IRA armed struggle. 
25yrs of criminalisation, shoot to kill, censorship, torture etc against a redundant futile 'armed struggle'. The consequences demonstrated in any countless manner of events.


----------



## Purple (8 Jun 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> Absolutely. The conflict was waged for 25yrs, in which time British governments systematically tried to supress the political ideology of a United Ireland in favour of a partitioned island. There is little doubt that the two-state solution was/is the long term goal in many quarters.
> On one hand, standing as righteous up holders of law and order, justice and democracy, on the other hand, actively ordering mass executions of its own citizens and covering up the dirty deeds for 50yrs.
> 
> As for McCabe murderers. They are a shining example of the bankrupt and futile IRA armed struggle.
> 25yrs of criminalisation, shoot to kill, censorship, torture etc against a redundant futile 'armed struggle'. The consequences demonstrated in any countless manner of events.


Only one side are looking like they'll form the government of this country after the next election so I'm not worried about the things the British got up to, no, I'm worried about the terrorists and bank robbers and what they'll get up to when they are in power here. They'll be running the protection rackets and licencing the drugs while at the same time running the Justice system.  It's beyond bizarre.


----------



## WolfeTone (8 Jun 2021)

Purple said:


> I'm worried about the terrorists and bank robbers and what they'll get up to when they are in power here. They'll be running the protection rackets and licencing the drugs while at the same time running the Justice system. It's beyond bizarre.



Of course you have evidence of this? According to every Garda report going back over a decade now, the PIRA 'army council' exists in residual form engaged in exclusively political activity, including leaflet dropping. That there are no military structures or activities in place.


----------



## Purple (8 Jun 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> Of course you have evidence of this? According to every Garda report going back over a decade now, the PIRA 'army council' exists in residual form engaged in exclusively political activity, including leaflet dropping. That there are no military structures or activities in place.


I don't live in a bubble or a fantasy world. The Shinner links to the killer of Jerry McCabe are well documented. Their links to the Kinahan Hutch feud are also well documented, including a Shinner councillor who kidnapped and tortured another "interested party" in said feud. 
Both the PSNI and the Gardaí said as recently as last year that they believe that the IRA army council runs Sinn Fein. 

This article from 2005 predicted the IRA's future as a mafia style criminal organisation. I think it would require a wilful level of naivety to think they some or most of it turned out to be correct. So, given that the police in both this country and in Northern Ireland are of the opinion that the IRA runs the Shinners and that the IRA is a mafia type gang I hold the view that the Shinners are intertwined with criminality. When they run the country there'll be no stopping them and the same useful idiots who vote them in will still excuse their behaviour because once you're in the cult ou can't leave.


----------



## Peanuts20 (8 Jun 2021)

Can't ignore the fact that one of the killers of Jerry M


Purple said:


> I don't live in a bubble or a fantasy world. The Shinner links to the killer of Jerry McCabe are well documented. Their links to the Kinahan Hutch feud are also well documented, including a Shinner councillor who kidnapped and tortured another "interested party" in said feud.
> Both the PSNI and the Gardaí said as recently as last year that they believe that the IRA army council runs Sinn Fein.



One of the killers was collected from prison by a Sinn Fein TD on the day he was released.


----------



## WolfeTone (8 Jun 2021)

Purple said:


> The Shinner links to the killer of Jerry McCabe are well documented.



I know, I never suggested otherwise. Merely identifying how in the course of the conflict, some of those who take a high moral ground of righteousness are also linked to killers. 



Purple said:


> Both the PSNI and the Gardaí said as recently as last year that they believe that the IRA army council runs Sinn Fein.



Yes, but so what? Is it involved in criminality? Is it recruiting for military purposes? 
No. There is a residual IRA element engaged in wholly political activity as part of SF strategy. 
This is what the political system had been crying out for for years. For the IRA military campaign to end and to engage in wholly political activity. 



Purple said:


> I hold the view that the Shinners are intertwined with criminality.



You are of course entitled to that view but I would consider it grossly inaccurate.


----------



## Purple (8 Jun 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> This is what the political system had been crying out for for years. For the IRA military campaign to end and to engage in wholly political activity


Yes, that would involve them stopping diesel laundering, cigarette smuggling and various other criminal activities, or do you believe that they stopped all that after the Good Friday Agreement?


----------



## Purple (8 Jun 2021)

Peanuts20 said:


> Can't ignore the fact that one of the killers of Jerry M
> 
> 
> One of the killers was collected from prison by a Sinn Fein TD on the day he was released.


Martin Ferris actually collected two of them from prison. I suppose the Sinn Fein stance would be that they were volunteers on active service and Gerry McCabe was a casualty of war.


----------



## WolfeTone (8 Jun 2021)

Purple said:


> Yes, that would involve them stopping diesel laundering, cigarette smuggling and various other criminal activities, or do you believe that they stopped all that after the Good Friday Agreement?



No, as far as I know it took some period for it to stop. I'm pretty sure some of it still goes on but there is no evidence that SF are beneficiaries of it. If there was, it would be all over the news.



Purple said:


> Martin Ferris actually collected two of them from prison. I suppose the Sinn Fein stance would be that they were volunteers on active service and Gerry McCabe was a casualty of war.



That's exactly their stance. I do not agree with it, it was a crime plain and simple. No different to the stance the BA, backed by successive British governments had with the massacre of innocent civilians for 50yrs before. Who knows how much support the IRA would have been denied if the perpetrators of those crimes were dealt with in the manner that should have been appropriate rather than covering up for so long.


----------



## Purple (8 Jun 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> That's exactly their stance. I do not agree with it, it was a crime plain and simple. No different to the stance the BA, backed by successive British governments had with the massacre of innocent civilians for 50yrs before. Who knows how much support the IRA would have been denied if the perpetrators of those crimes were dealt with in the manner that should have been appropriate rather than covering up for so long.


I love the way you interduce what-about-ism every chance you get.
Given that the British Army and British government are not in power in this country they are, for the purposes of a discussion about the Shinners in power in this country, irrelevant.


----------



## WolfeTone (8 Jun 2021)

Purple said:


> Given that the British Army and British government are not in power in this country they are,



I think you find that they are in power in this country, hence alot of what the violence was about in the 20th century. 



Purple said:


> for the purposes of a discussion about the Shinners in power in this country, irrelevant.



For the purposes of Shinners in power in this State i think you will find that the IRA has stood down and poses no threat to the security of this State in military terms.


----------



## Betsy Og (8 Jun 2021)

The problem with SF is that everything is done on their terms for their benefit - Ourselves Alone could hardly be a more fitting name/slogan, are they still Provisional SF? or would that put the mockers on the 1916 fairytale they sell to the eejits.

Anyway, they'll keep objecting to housing to keep everyone in a lather, they'll try to make FG the DUP bogeyman they constructed in the North (by hollowing out UUP over decommissioning), attrition is their only game, the only snag is that they might actually get their go in the South, and then the sheen will come right off... twould nearly be worth it (if can avoid being pushed against the wall.....)


----------



## Purple (8 Jun 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> I think you find that they are in power in this country, hence alot of what the violence was about in the 20th century.
> 
> 
> 
> For the purposes of Shinners in power in this State i think you will find that the IRA has stood down and poses no threat to the security of this State in military terms.


My worry is just plain old criminality. The IRA are a crime gang.  The problem is that they have their own political party.


----------



## WolfeTone (8 Jun 2021)

Purple said:


> The IRA are a crime gang. The problem is that they have their own political party.



The IRA, or PIRA, as associated with the political party Sinn Fein have been stood down and pose no threat to the security of this State. The Gardai  are clear that the IRA remains in residual form with all activities pertaining to political activity, such as leaflet dropping.


----------



## Purple (8 Jun 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> The IRA, or PIRA, as associated with the political party Sinn Fein have been stood down and pose no threat to the security of this State. The Gardai  are clear that the IRA remains in residual form with all activities pertaining to political activity, such as leaflet dropping.


That's your opinion and you are entitled to it.
Given the frequent connections with SF/IRA members and criminality I'm of the "if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it's a duck" view. The stories I've heard in work from people who live in Finglas, Cabra and Ballymun would also support that view.


----------



## WolfeTone (8 Jun 2021)

Purple said:


> That's your opinion and you are entitled to it.



It is the opinion of the Garda Commissioner.


----------



## WolfeTone (8 Jun 2021)

Purple said:


> The stories I've heard in work from people who live in Finglas, Cabra and Ballymun would also support that view.



I'm from Cabra originally. Ive heard no such stories I have to say.


----------



## Purple (9 Jun 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> It is the opinion of the Garda Commissioner.


It's his opinion that they are no threat to the security of the State but he is of the opinion that the Shinners are run by the IRA and senior IRA members are involved in criminality.


----------



## Purple (9 Jun 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> I'm from Cabra originally. Ive heard no such stories I have to say.


I'm talking to people who still live there.


----------



## WolfeTone (9 Jun 2021)

Purple said:


> I'm talking to people who still live there.


I talk to people who live there also.


----------



## WolfeTone (9 Jun 2021)

Purple said:


> It's his opinion that they are no threat to the security of the State but he is of the opinion that the Shinners are run by the IRA and senior IRA members are involved in criminality.



Have you a source for that? It differs from this article

Drew Harris says he agrees with PSNI assessment about IRA Army Council and influence on Sinn Féin

_It also found that PIRA members “have been directed to actively support Sinn Féin within the community including activity like electioneering and leafleting”.

However, the report added that this strategy has “a wholly political focus”. 

It also stated that the “PIRA leadership remains committed to the peace process and its aim of achieving a united Ireland by political means”. _

There is this caveat

_That Garda report found that a significant number of people who have associated with the PIRA remain criminally active. _

But 'having associated with' and being an active member under the instruction of are two entirely different things.


----------



## Peanuts20 (9 Jun 2021)

Purple said:


> Yes, that would involve them stopping diesel laundering, cigarette smuggling and various other criminal activities, or do you believe that they stopped all that after the Good Friday Agreement?



Of course they stopped, after all, wasn't that what the Danske Bank robbery was all about?- their pension fund 

and there goes those flying pigs again.............


----------



## Betsy Og (9 Jun 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> _That Garda report found that a significant number of people who have associated with the PIRA remain criminally active. _
> 
> But 'having associated with' and being an active member under the instruction of are two entirely different things.


Sure lovely people.....

The armalite and the ballot box has been replaced by The sneer and the Fear. So MLMCD will do the sneering in the Dáil while some "criminally active" henchman will have your windows in.

Wouldn't vote for them in a fever dream.


----------



## Purple (9 Jun 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> _That Garda report found that a significant number of people who have associated with the PIRA remain criminally active. _
> 
> But 'having associated with' and being an active member under the instruction of are two entirely different things.


How very Jesuitical of you. In your opinion how many angles can dance on the head of a pin?


----------



## WolfeTone (9 Jun 2021)

Seriously, how can PIRA be "wholly political" while associated with criminal activity? It makes no sense to me. 
The logic being some people who have associated with PIRA remain criminal active but are no longer part of, or under instruction from PIRA. 
In other words, the remnants of PIRA are nothing more than an ageing political talking shop. It gives them a sense of purpose into retirement. 
But anyway using IRA as a banner for criminal activity has nothing to do with SF.


----------



## Purple (9 Jun 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> Seriously, how can PIRA be "wholly political" while associated with criminal activity? It makes no sense to me.
> The logic being some people who have associated with PIRA remain criminal active but are no longer part of, or under instruction from PIRA.
> In other words, the remnants of PIRA are nothing more than an ageing political talking shop. It gives them a sense of purpose into retirement.
> But anyway using IRA as a banner for criminal activity has nothing to do with SF.


Or... the PIRA are running Sinn Fein from the background while they run what has become an exclusively criminal enterprise, as in they no longer blow up kids for the cause but they still have their protection rackets, smuggling etc.
"Wholly political" just means they aren't killing those children for the cause.
They turned over £12 million a year through their criminal activities while engaged in the "armed struggle" with overheads of £2.2 million. Even without the gullible Yanks and useful idiots donating to the cause their smuggling and racketeering would still generate a healthy wedge of cash. Why would they walk away form that?


----------



## WolfeTone (9 Jun 2021)

Purple said:


> Or...



Yes, but no.



Purple said:


> Why would they walk away form that?



Anyone engaged in criminal activity has no part to play in SF. Whether they consider themselves in IRA or not. SF are not beneficiaries and the Eoghan Harris paranoia of Provos under the bed doesn't wash anymore. 
Even the recent Abú database 'controversy' turned out to be a damp squib. Here was certain elements of the media trying to sinister up some detail about personal information being held on servers in foreign countries. As it turned out the same publication that 'broke' the story also holds personal data of its customers on databases in foreign countries in the EU. In the end, all that was discovered was that administrative procedures need to catch up with legal requirements insofar as the storing of personal data in digital form is concerned. Welcome to the 21st century.


----------



## WolfeTone (9 Jun 2021)

Betsy Og said:


> So MLMCD will do the sneering in the Dáil while some "criminally active" henchman will have your windows in.



The point is lost, the so-called 'henchmen', if they are still engaged in criminal activity have nothing to do with SF. The last 'henchman' was the 'scandal' earlier in the year where a young member of SF quit after disagreeing with the policy on some thing or other and made an issue of it out on social media. 
The 'henchman' who called happened to be her next door neighbour who lived a short distance away in the same country lane. Calling to each others houses was a regular occurrence.


----------



## Purple (10 Jun 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> Anyone engaged in criminal activity has no part to play in SF. Whether they consider themselves in IRA or not.


That sounds incredibly, even wilfully, naive. 


WolfeTone said:


> The last 'henchman' was the 'scandal' earlier in the year where a young member of SF quit after disagreeing with the policy on some thing or other and made an issue of it out on social media.


Don't forget Patrick and Jonathan Dowdall. Jonathan was a Shinner Councillor. Are you seriously suggesting that all of his criminal links and activities were established after he lost his seat?


----------



## WolfeTone (10 Jun 2021)

Purple said:


> Jonathan Dowdall



Dowdall resigned from SF in 2015 as soon as it was suspected that he was in involved in criminal activity. He jumped before he was pushed.


----------



## Purple (10 Jun 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> Dowdall resigned from SF in 2015 as soon as it was suspected that he was in involved in criminal activity. He jumped before he was pushed.


Exactly... kind of. To me it looks like his offence was that his criminality became public.


----------



## WolfeTone (10 Jun 2021)

Purple said:


> To me it looks like his offence was that his criminality became public.



Yeh, like I said, once it became known. The only other aspersion is that SF leadership knew all along that he was engaged in criminal activity but turned a blind eye?

I think that is preposterous notion at this point. That MLMcD and prominent TD's such as Pearse Doherty, Eoin O Brion, Louise O'Reilly, et al would want to jeopordise their political standing in this country by turning a blind eye, or covertly supporting such activity.

It is in the realm of Harris paranoia at this stage. The truth of the matter is SF's 'sinister' activities amount to dubious polling data tricks, which as it turns other political parties engage in also.


----------



## Purple (10 Jun 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> I think that is preposterous notion at this point. That MLMcD and prominent TD's such as Pearse Doherty, Eoin O Brion, Louise O'Reilly, et al would want to jeopordise their political standing in this country by turning a blind eye, or covertly supporting such activity.


That assumes that they are really running things or that the problem isn't so endemic within the ranks of the party activists that they simply can't fix it.

If I was in a pub and got into a discussion with an FF, FG, Labour, Solidarity or other party member I'd be happy to have a frank exchange of views. If it was a SF member I'd be far more cautious as a family member was beaten up shortly after such a discussion. He also had his car vandalised. Admittedly it was 7-8 years ago but all the same players were fronting the Party then.


----------



## WolfeTone (10 Jun 2021)

Purple said:


> If it was a SF member



I was physically assaulted by a drunken Labour Party member. My crime? For suggesting the murder of Constable James O'Brien by ICA in 1916 was a war crime. 
Admittedly the 'assault' was nothing more than handbags, but the intent was certainly there.


----------



## Purple (10 Jun 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> I was physically assaulted by a drunken Labour Party member. My crime? For suggesting the murder of Constable James O'Brien by ICA in 1916 was a war crime.
> Admittedly the 'assault' was nothing more than handbags, but the intent was certainly there.


There was more than one person involved in the assault of my family member. The smashed windows and paint poured into the car was a few days later. The person who stopped him in the street and asked him if he'd learned his lesson was a not one of the people in the pub.


----------



## WolfeTone (10 Jun 2021)

Purple said:


> He also had his car vandalised.



I'm not denying there was a thuggish element to SF. But I don't think it's fair to say that is the case now.
SF north and south combined, is the largest party in the country.
One of the most important factors of the GFA, which I don't think is given enough attention, is that for the first time in Irelands history the 'right' to assert self-determination is by exclusively peaceful and democratic means only. The people have spoken, whatever our differences the gun has no place anymore.
And with that, any sort of criminal enterprise.


----------



## Purple (10 Jun 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> One of the most important factors of the GFA, which I don't think is given enough attention, is that for the first time in Irelands history the 'right' to assert self-determination is by exclusively peaceful and democratic means only. The people have spoken, whatever our differences the gun has no place anymore.


I agree with you and I acknowledge SF?IRA's role in that. 


WolfeTone said:


> And with that, any sort of criminal enterprise.


In my view the IRA is no longer a criminal organisation, it is now exclusively a criminal organisation. The issue is what influence, what control, they have over SF and how much they will access sensitive information and influence decision making when SF are in government. 
I simply don't believe that there is blue water between SF and the IRA.


----------



## WolfeTone (10 Jun 2021)

Purple said:


> it is now exclusively a criminal organisation



That goes against the opinion of Garda Commissioner and Chief Constable of PSNI in whose opinion IRA (as associated with SF) are engaged in "wholly political activity".


----------



## Purple (10 Jun 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> That goes against the opinion of Garda Commissioner and Chief Constable of PSNI in whose opinion IRA (as associated with SF) are engaged in "wholly political activity".


They were talking in the context of terrorism.


----------



## WolfeTone (10 Jun 2021)

Purple said:


> They were talking in the context of terrorism.



No they were not. Otherwise they would have said something like "partially political and partially criminal activity". They did not, they said "wholly political". 
"Wholly" being the substantive word here, meaning, entirely.


----------



## Purple (10 Jun 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> No they were not. Otherwise they would have said something like "partially political and partially criminal activity". They did not, they said "wholly political".
> "Wholly" being the substantive word here, meaning, entirely.


That's your view and you're entitled to it.


----------



## Betsy Og (10 Jun 2021)

Purple said:


> The person who stopped him in the street and asked him if he'd learned his lesson was a not one of the people in the pub.


Has the leopard changed its spots?, if we get through a few years without bullying allegations etc then maybe, but I don't think we're there yet. Also, if they bully their own, what hope for the rest of us, or the justice system. That'll be the real test, will they run with the hare and hunt with the hounds??


----------



## Purple (10 Jun 2021)

Betsy Og said:


> Has the leopard changed its spots?, if we get through a few years without bullying allegations etc then maybe, but I don't think we're there yet. Also, if they bully their own, what hope for the rest of us, or the justice system. That'll be the real test, will they run with the hare and hunt with the hounds??


Or, for me, it's a case of will they stop running with the hare and hunting with the hounds when they become the hunt masters.


----------



## WolfeTone (10 Jun 2021)

Betsy Og said:


> Has the leopard changed its spots?,



Irelands political spectrum is synonymous with party formation out of thuggery. FF, FG, Labour, all have their histories of jackboot politics. 
The transition into democratic political parties is similar to the transition SF have made. 
One significant difference, SF are doing it on the back of the Irish people north and south endorsing the principle of self-determination through exclusively peaceful and democratic means. Meaning whatever our differences, violent insurrection is now accepted as a redundant, or more precise, having no basis in legitimacy. Something like 1916 can never be tolerated or justified again, as long as the principle of self-determination and exclusively peaceful and democratic paths remain open. 

The biggest threat to this is not SF but Ulster unionism flirting with masked paramilitaries once again.


----------



## Betsy Og (11 Jun 2021)

Wolfie, I'm not fearing the RA starting up again, just that SF are laced with scumbags and there'll be no talking to them if they get into power. Anyway, maybe the snowflakes need a dose of that to come to their senses.


----------



## Purple (11 Jun 2021)

Betsy Og said:


> Wolfie, I'm not fearing the RA starting up again, just that SF are laced with scumbags and there'll be no talking to them if they get into power. Anyway, maybe the snowflakes need a dose of that to come to their senses.


Exactly. I don't think they are terrorists. I think they are criminals.


----------



## WolfeTone (11 Jun 2021)

Betsy Og said:


> just that SF are laced with scumbags and there'll be no talking to them if they get into power.



I suppose depending on what your definition of a 'scumbag' is you could plausibily say that all political parties are laced with them. Certainly the drunken Labour Party member that assualted me, I would contest falls into the 'scumbag' territory. 



Purple said:


> I think they are criminals.



Whatever evidence of criminality you have you should forward it onto the Gardai, they appear to have little these days.


----------



## Purple (11 Jun 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> Whatever evidence of criminality you have you should forward it onto the Gardai, they appear to have little these days.


Right, because conversations in the canteen stand up in court and the guys who live on the same street as the Shinner activist will be happy to make a statement to the police.
I get that you are a SF supporter, possibly as activist. If they were all like you I'd be happy but it's my opinion, based on anecdotal evidence, that a significant proportion aren't. I've frequently described SF and 1970's FF; populist, pseudo-socialist, self serving, more than happy to bend or break the rules and having an excellent community infrastructure.


----------



## WolfeTone (11 Jun 2021)

Purple said:


> Right, because conversations in the canteen stand up in court and the guys who live on the same street as the Shinner activist will be happy to make a statement to the police.



I'm not sure what you are talking about, I was assaulted in a pub by a drunken scumbag member of the Irish Labour Party.


----------



## Purple (11 Jun 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> I'm not sure what you are talking about, I was assaulted in a pub by a drunken scumbag member of the Irish Labour Party.


I said that I thought that the IRA puppet masters running SF were criminals, not terrorists.
You said;


WolfeTone said:


> Whatever evidence of criminality you have you should forward it onto the Gardai, they appear to have little these days.


I responded to that.


----------



## Purple (16 Jun 2021)

Leo thinks that Irish Unification can happen in his lifetime. 
He rejected what he called the “crude vision espoused by Sinn Féin”, which he described as “a cold form of republicanism, socialist, narrow nationalism, protectionist, anti-British, euro-critical, ourselves alone, 50 per cent plus one and nobody else is needed”.
He said that “unification must not be the annexation of Northern Ireland. It means something more, a new state designed together, a new constitution and one that reflects the diversity of a bi-national or multi-national state in which almost a million people are British. Like the New South Africa, a rainbow nation, not just orange and green.”.

I take it that @WolfeTone is in total agreement with him, considering his posts on this thread.


----------



## WolfeTone (16 Jun 2021)

Purple said:


> I take it that @WolfeTone is in total agreement with him, considering his posts on this thread.



I agree in general with his vision of what a united Ireland should be, or will have to be.
I don't agree with his assertion of what he considers SF version of a UI to be. Vradakar was on a panel discussion in West Belfast with MLMcD a couple of years back where he espoused similar views, the response from MLMcD was to invite him to start talking about it.
He seems to be coming around to the idea.
His SF descript is typical political trite on his part. There is no scope for 'annexation' and he knows this. Its 25yrs since SF signed up to GFA, 'cold republicanism' as he describes it, has no future. SF are clearly geared to a rights based society built on equality and respect and tolerance for all traditions and culture. The crude element of SF policy is to break the bigoted mindset within unionism that will not tolerate cultural diversification. They have my full support in that regard.

He would do well for a start, for FG to contest elections in the North, like SF, like PBP, like Green Party. His party needs to put their money where their mouth is, otherwise it just looks like it is populist pandering to recent poll data that show the overwhelming sentiment on this island is for a UI. FG, FF need to play their hurling on a 32 county pitch. Promoting a vision of UI while only 26 counties voters can have a say is next to meaningless.

As for 50% plus one. If not that, what then? I don't think the terms of GFA are for FG to alter unilaterally.


----------



## Purple (16 Jun 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> I agree in general with his vision of what a united Ireland should be, or will have to be.
> I don't agree with his assertion of what he considers SF version of a UI to be. Vradakar was on a panel discussion in West Belfast with MLMcD a couple of years back where he espoused similar views, the response from MLMcD was to invite him to start talking about it.
> He seems to be coming around to the idea.
> His SF descript is typical political trite on his part. There is no scope for 'annexation' and he knows this. Its 25yrs since SF signed up to GFA, 'cold republicanism' as he describes it, has no future. SF are clearly geared to a rights based society built on equality and respect and tolerance for all traditions and culture. The crude element of SF policy is to break the bigoted mindset within unionism that will not tolerate cultural diversification. They have my full support in that regard.
> ...


So you're still drinking the Shinner Koolaid.
I see the SF position as being just as triumphalist as the Unionists. They certainly aren't courting the moderate Unionist vote.


----------



## WolfeTone (16 Jun 2021)

Purple said:


> They certainly aren't courting the moderate Unionist vote.



And FG are? By actively not engaging in grassroots politics in NI? 
Give me a break. Vradakar is realising, in his own words, that the 'tetonic plates are shifting', he is starting to react. This is welcome, but he is a follower not a leader in these matters. 
As for his translation of SF to "ourselves alone", this is in correct. Sinn Fein is "we ourselves", a party set up by Arthur Griffith who has many admirers in FG. "We ourselves" comes from concept of the Irish people ourselves forging our own way in the world. 

If Vradakar is genuine about a UI that is to be welcome. But his almost automatic reflex to deride on his political opponents tells me it is little more than populist rhetoric. 
When FG put some meat on the bones of this stuff I will gladly consider the prospect of voting for them.


----------



## Purple (16 Jun 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> Sinn Fein is "we ourselves", a party set up by Arthur Griffith who has many admirers in FG. "We ourselves" comes from concept of the Irish people ourselves forging our own way in the world.


Modern Sinn Fein dates from 1971.
The Sinn Fein party founded by Arthur Griffith became Fianna Fail in the 1930's. In 1932 and 1933 the IRA supported De Valera's Fianna Fail which had won 77 seats. Most of those seats were occupied by TD's who were former SF. 
Modern SF was founded as the political wing of the Provisional IRA when they split from the old IRA. Claiming a name doesn't mean they get to claim a history. 
So no, it is not a Party founded by Arthur Griffith. It is a party founded by Gerry Adams, Martin McGuinness and the rest of the Army Council of the PIRA during Internment in 1971.


----------



## WolfeTone (16 Jun 2021)

Purple said:


> Claiming a name doesn't mean they get to claim a history.



I'm talking about the translation of Sinn Féin (we ourselves) being used incorrectly and for nothing more than political spin as (ourselves alone).

It just adds to my view that what Vradakar is saying is nothing more than a reaction to populist sentiment rather than any sort of real conviction if he needs to spin porkies about 'annexation' etc.


----------



## WolfeTone (16 Jun 2021)

Vradakar defends comments against Unionist criticism

UUP attacks FG. So much for 'courting the moderate Unionist vote'.


----------



## Purple (16 Jun 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> Vradakar defends comments against Unionist criticism
> 
> UUP attacks FG. So much for 'courting the moderate Unionist vote'.


Doug Beattie said thaat his comments were unhelpful in the current context.
I agree with him; all talk of a united Ireland is unhelpful in the current context.


----------



## Purple (16 Jun 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> I'm talking about the translation of Sinn Féin (we ourselves) being used incorrectly and for nothing more than political spin as (ourselves alone).


I though Sinn Fein just meant "Ourselves".


WolfeTone said:


> It just adds to my view that what Vradakar is saying is nothing more than a reaction to populist sentiment rather than any sort of real conviction if he needs to spin porkies about 'annexation' etc.


Is it a case that your ideology forces you to play the man and not the ball, attack the messenger when you can't attack the message? 
Hardly helpful if your lot want to create a new Ireland with a bunch of Sash-wearing, drum-beating, God-bothering Unionists with whom the only thing you have in common is a hatred of the other side. You'll have to learn to listen to the substance of what's being said rather than only seeing the person who is saying it.
I know that your side is on the side of the pure and the virtuous but try to see through the clouds between the moral high ground and the rest of us down here and realise that we are flawed creatures who lack the clarity of thought and purpose, not to mention the pure bred Celtic intellect possessed by you guys. We'll never live up to your standards so, please, make allowances for us. 

Leo and Michael haven't been purified in the fires of, well, whatever fires you are purified in by blowing up children for 40 years. They'll stumble and fall along the way but eventually we'll all be one big Shinner family*. 

(*I'll have spent a few years in one of those Uighur type re-education camps, probably in a compound in Donegal which used to be the holiday home/ safe house of a good republican but I'll be alright in the end).


----------



## WolfeTone (16 Jun 2021)

Purple said:


> Doug Beattie said thaat his comments were unhelpful in the current context.



Well he has certainly changed his tune since eh...since, erm... since the last time a leading Unionist politician announced it _was_ _helpful_ to talk about a United Ireland.  



Purple said:


> Is it a case that your ideology forces you to play the man and not the ball, attack the messenger when you can't attack the message?



I don't know what you are talking about. Clearly I welcomed Vradakar comments and FG approach



WolfeTone said:


> If Vradakar is genuine about a UI that is to be welcome.





WolfeTone said:


> When FG put some meat on the bones of this stuff I will gladly consider the prospect of voting for them.



I have yet to be convinced that FG are sincere. I would gladly accept being proven wrong, in which case,



WolfeTone said:


> I will gladly consider the prospect of voting for them.



I think that is a reasonable 'ideology' to have.


Purple said:


> if your lot



I don't have 'a lot' , I'm open to persuasion by one and all. If DUP want to stand a candidate in my constituency I will consider voting for them also.


----------



## WolfeTone (16 Jun 2021)

SF hits record high, FG drops among voters

With a by-election coming up before October, a FG leader announces its time to talk about a UI!

Forgive me for being somewhat sceptical of the real intentions here. As Doug Beattie shows in his comments, it's hardly for 'courting the moderate Unionist vote' ?

I am open to persuasion.


----------



## WolfeTone (17 Jun 2021)

If I'm not mistaken, "tectonic plates" shifting tonight.

Sinn Féin asking British government to legislate for Irish affairs (specifically Irish language Act) and British government responding positively, with agreement of Unionists!
It somewhat dispels Leo's "cold Republicanism, anti-British, protectionist, annexation " jargon about SF.
Instead it more reflective of a new state being designed together.

Well done Leo, great call!

_Curry my yoghurt! _is the new Tiocfaidh ár lá.


----------



## Purple (17 Jun 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> If I'm not mistaken, "tectonic plates" shifting tonight.
> 
> Sinn Féin asking British government to legislate for Irish affairs (specifically Irish language Act) and British government responding positively, with agreement of Unionists!
> It somewhat dispels Leo's "cold Republicanism, anti-British, protectionist, annexation " jargon about SF.
> ...


... and they aren't you lot? 
and you'd consider voting for a DUP candidate?

Yea, right.


----------



## Peanuts20 (17 Jun 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> If I'm not mistaken, "tectonic plates" shifting tonight.
> 
> Sinn Féin asking British government to legislate for Irish affairs (specifically Irish language Act) and British government responding positively, with agreement of Unionists!
> It somewhat dispels Leo's "cold Republicanism, anti-British, protectionist, annexation " jargon about SF.
> ...



it is interesting that Sinn Fein went to a Government who lead a parliament they refuse to sit in to try and get something sorted when they could not get an agreement done with the DUP themselves. Some people might call it pragmitism but maybe it is cynicism?? After all,  Sinn Fein are quite capable of using the UK Govt to get something when it suits them and get the begging bowl out for more money. Maybe I'd believe a little more in SF if they dropped their absenteeism and sat in Westminster. 

As for the "agreement of unionists"?  DUP can quite legitimately say now that this is being enforced on them and that they couldn't stop it. it also reduces the influence of the assembly which is probably something the DUP favour as well since it brings then closer to the "mainland".


----------



## WolfeTone (17 Jun 2021)

Peanuts20 said:


> when they could not get an agreement done with the DUP themselves



The agreement with the DUP for an Irish language act was already done, Poots himself a negotiator for DUP. It was the implementation of the deal that was agreed to that they couldn't stomach. Nothing unusual there from DUP.



Peanuts20 said:


> it also reduces the influence of the assembly which is probably something the DUP favour as well since it brings then closer to the "mainland".



That makes no sense. The DUP are willing participants in the Stormont Assembly. How could say something is being "forced upon" them on the one hand by Westminister, but have a preference for Westminster governing their affairs?


----------



## Purple (17 Jun 2021)

Peanuts20 said:


> it also reduces the influence of the assembly which is probably something the DUP favour as well since it brings then closer to the "mainland".


I think that is the objective of the DUP. They see that Nationalism has demographics on its side so devolved government isn't Unionisms friend. It's telling that Poots has chosen not to be First Minister, despite being an MLA.


----------



## WolfeTone (17 Jun 2021)

Purple said:


> and you'd consider voting for a DUP candidate?



I consider all candidates on the ballot paper, always do.


----------



## Peanuts20 (17 Jun 2021)

The DUP policy for the 2019 general election clearly stated the following


WolfeTone said:


> The agreement with the DUP for an Irish language act was already done, Poots himself a negotiator for DUP. It was the implementation of the deal that was agreed to that they couldn't stomach. Nothing unusual there from DUP.
> 
> 
> 
> That makes no sense. The DUP are willing participants in the Stormont Assembly. How could say something is being "forced upon" them on the one hand by Westminister, but have a preference for Westminster governing their affairs?


So if it makes no sense, why is it a stated policy of the DUP to have "National UK Departments to carry out administrative operations in Northern Ireland." .? Why do their policies call out for a fundamental reform of the NI Civil Service with closer ties to the Home Civil service?

In effect, the DUP just want the Assembly to be a talking shop with no real powers as such. Those powers to sit in London where SF won't play


----------



## WolfeTone (17 Jun 2021)

Peanuts20 said:


> In effect, the DUP just want the Assembly to be a talking shop with no real powers as such. Those powers to sit in London where SF won't play



Yes, so it is a bit rich to be claiming that the Irish language Act is being "forced upon them". That is my point, they are trying to have it both ways. If they want to ruled by London then there is no "forcing upon". If they want the Assembly to govern then get on with what they have already agreed.


----------



## Purple (17 Jun 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> Yes, so it is a bit rich to be claiming that the Irish language Act is being "forced upon them". That is my point, they are trying to have it both ways. If they want to ruled by London then there is no "forcing upon". If they want the Assembly to govern then get on with what they have already agreed.


It looks like DUP members are still trying to scupper the deal and have urged Poots to delay nominating a First Minister.


----------



## WolfeTone (17 Jun 2021)

Purple said:


> It looks like DUP members are still trying to scupper the deal and have urged Poots to delay nominating a First Minister.



Looks like Leo's vision is just a bit of pipe dream after all.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (17 Jun 2021)

Rather an ingenious little way of squaring the circle.  Perhaps the British Government should have a continuing role in a future UI as legislator of last resort for unpopular laws.
I note that SF are being anything but friendly towards the DUP in their press comments, which is of course how they both like it, SF/DUP becoming palsy-walsy like the chuckle brothers would never do these days.


----------



## WolfeTone (17 Jun 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I note that SF are being anything but friendly towards the DUP in their press comments, which is of course how they both like it,



For a minute there I thought you were referring to FG comments about SF at their Ard Fheis.

Givan and O'Neill have accepted their nominations as First and DFirst Minister. I suppose its up to the DUP members who tried to delay this to take the action they deem necessary now and quit the DUP. Otherwise it just comes across as a bit of drum-beating to play to the grassroots.


----------



## WolfeTone (17 Jun 2021)

Speculation on Emma De Souza twitter feed about a possible heave against Edwin Poots as leader of DUP.


----------



## Purple (17 Jun 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> Looks like Leo's vision is just a bit of pipe dream after all.



Is his vision much different to the Shinner one or is he right about them?

Personally I'm not a fan of Leo's vision of a united Ireland at all. If they want in it should be on our terms. No Queen, no bigoted extremism, no Scripture based politics, no homophobia, no racism, no Union Jack and a functioning economy that doesn't rely on bribes, sorry, a Peace Dividend, to pay for things.


----------



## WolfeTone (17 Jun 2021)

Purple said:


> Is his vision much different to the Shinner one or is he right about them?



Not much different except Leo's vision is wholly wishful thinking without putting in the hard graft of standing up against bigotry, homophobia and racism. 
FG need to put in some serious mileage on political campaigning front at grassroots level before any notions of a shared United Ireland as seen through their eyes is concerned.


----------



## Purple (17 Jun 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> Not much different except Leo's vision is wholly wishful thinking without putting in the hard graft of standing up against bigotry, homophobia and racism.


Yep, sure what would the gay dark skinned son of an immigrant know about bigotry, homophobia and racism? The people in a Party who talk about opposing it while excusing extreme racism and homophobia amongst their elected representatives and members are a much better example. Sure just look at the dark skinned and LGBT+ members on their front bench... oh, wait...

You guys will find that talk is cheap when in opposition but when you have to make decisions it's a different story. To quote Johnny Caspar in Miller's Crossing, "Runnin’ things.  It ain’t all gravy.” 
And you won't be able to whine like little girls about how it's not your fault like you do in Northern Ireland. 



WolfeTone said:


> FG need to put in some serious mileage on political campaigning front at grassroots level before any notions of a shared United Ireland as seen through their eyes is concerned.


Does that include kneecappings or just making promises they can't keep?


----------



## WolfeTone (17 Jun 2021)

Purple said:


> Yep, sure what would the gay dark skinned son of an immigrant know about bigotry, homophobia and racism?



I'm not questioning Vradakars record of standing up against bigotry, homophobia and racism. I'm questioning FG ability to stand up against it in NI while they hold an abstentionist policy from grassroots political activism in NI.
I'm pretty sure it was NI you were referring to when you said



Purple said:


> If they want in it should be on our terms. No Queen, no bigoted extremism, no Scripture based politics, no homophobia, no racism, no Union Jack



... please forgive me if I misconstrued the meaning of this comment.

NI could do with Vradakars and FG political activism. I've been saying this for some time.


----------



## Purple (17 Jun 2021)

Plots is gone, didn’t last long. The dinosaur is extinct again.


----------



## Peanuts20 (18 Jun 2021)

If there ever was a United Ireland then the make up of the new Dail would be interesting. Based on the maths and assuming PR extended to NI we'd have around an additional 50 seats in the Dail

No getting past the fact that SF would be the largest party based on the election results and polls over the last couple of years but they'd probably be a distance away from a majority
FF&SDLP (merged or in an agreement) would be second
FG would be a distant 3rd unless they entered into some sort of an agreement with the likes of the Alliance party
Combined Unionists would be 4th but would probably play a key role as "kingmakers" and it would be hard to see any coalition govt wanting to exclude them
Greens and Alliance would be next
hard socialists, independents etc could lose influence as keeping the Unionist on side as a block may be easier then a disparate bunch. 
Labour would be largely irrelevant.


----------



## Purple (18 Jun 2021)

Watching TV last night, with the cocktail of politics, personality, history and religion, mixed together and swilled down by all I was reminded of the words of Abraham Lincoln that "We cannot escape our history".

I'd expand that to "We cannot escape our unresolved history" but I suppose in the context of Northern Ireland the very fact that there is a Northern Ireland, it's the same thing. 
I'd also say that Northern Ireland, more than anywhere else in Western Europe, is a prisoner to it's history and because it faces backwards it has no path into the future. 

For me the prospect of a united Ireland is like having a loved family member with addiction and behavioural issues; you'd like to invite them to live with you but you know there's a very high likelihood that they'll wreck your house and beat up your kids.


----------



## Purple (18 Jun 2021)

Peanuts20 said:


> No getting past the fact that SF would be the largest party based on the election results and polls over the last couple of years but they'd probably be a distance away from a majority


True, but an FF/SF coalition is likely in the future.


Peanuts20 said:


> FF&SDLP (merged or in an agreement) would be second


FG&SDLP is also possible. 


Peanuts20 said:


> FG would be a distant 3rd unless they entered into some sort of an agreement with the likes of the Alliance party


See above. An FF-FG merger is also quite possible. They are both socially liberal centre-left parties with nothing but history between them. 


Peanuts20 said:


> Combined Unionists would be 4th but would probably play a key role as "kingmakers" and it would be hard to see any coalition govt wanting to exclude them


There'd have to be some power sharing type arrangement which gave extra powers to Unionist. The last time there was a sizable Protestant minority in this country we ethnically cleansed them in 3 generations. 


Peanuts20 said:


> Greens and Alliance would be next


Yep. 


Peanuts20 said:


> hard socialists, independents etc could lose influence as keeping the Unionist on side as a block may be easier then a disparate bunch.


No real harm there, though the more voices in the room the better. 


Peanuts20 said:


> Labour would be largely irrelevant.


No change there then.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (18 Jun 2021)

In a UI would not the concept of Unionism fairly quickly disappear?    I don't see it morphing into a crudely Protestant party.  There would be similar though less pronounced obsolescence of republican aspirations.  In this context all political views would realign along more conventional lines although the historic baggage of sectarianism would linger for some time.  Nonetheless I would see fairly quickly that there would not be parties that one side or other of the sectarian divide would not touch with a barge pole.


----------



## WolfeTone (18 Jun 2021)

Peanuts20 said:


> No getting past the fact that SF would be the largest party based on the election results and polls over the last couple of years but they'd probably be a distance away from a majority



True, but assuming a UI is on agreed and peaceful terms, would there be a need for SF to exist? 
A major realignment of all political parties would occur. What point in unionism if the union with Britain is gone? 

Alternatively, a UI based closely to the democratically achieved, through exclusively peaceful means, Home Rule Act of 1914, could see rights and entitlements of the British identity and loyalty to the Crown maintained while the business of government - dealing with the social and economic welfare of the country could proceed on an All Island basis.


----------



## Purple (18 Jun 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> In a UI would not the concept of Unionism fairly quickly disappear?    I don't see it morphing into a crudely Protestant party.  There would be similar though less pronounced obsolescence of republican aspirations.  In this context all political views would realign along more conventional lines although the historic baggage of sectarianism would linger for some time.  Nonetheless I would see fairly quickly that there would not be parties that one side or other of the sectarian divide would not touch with a barge pole.


It took 90 years, an economic crash and the rise of Sinn Fein for the FF/FG Civil War political divide to start to close. There's still a big gap between the two more traditional wings of the parties.
There is a much bigger gap between what is ultra-conservative, scripture base Unionist Protestantism and and any of the current parties in the "Soyth".


----------



## Peanuts20 (18 Jun 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> True, but assuming a UI is on agreed and peaceful terms, would there be a need for SF to exist?
> A major realignment of all political parties would occur. What point in unionism if the union with Britain is gone?
> 
> Alternatively, a UI based closely to the democratically achieved, through exclusively peaceful means, Home Rule Act of 1914, could see rights and entitlements of the British identity and loyalty to the Crown maintained while the business of government - dealing with the social and economic welfare of the country could proceed on an All Island basis.


An interesting point on SF, would they then simply become a left of centre party with a chequered history? Of course, they might still be able to wave the nationalist flag if, for example, as part of the compromise for a united Ireland, the island had rejoined the Commonwealth?. Would there still be RAF and Royal Navy bases in the North like we had in Cobh after independence? Who know what else may come out of any deal

The other interesting question would be how many Unionists would migrate to "the mainland" as Arlene Foster has said she would do.? 

Could we end up with the following as our political parties (in no particular order)

Hard left
Sinn Fein and some of FF
Rest of FF, FG and the SDLP
Alliance & Social Democrats
Unionist/right of centre "Conservative"  party
Greens
Labour
The rest


----------



## WolfeTone (18 Jun 2021)

Loyalist Community Council has a message for Dublin. 

"_Until they accept and repair the damage they have created Irish government ministers and officials are no longer welcome in Northern Ireland" _

A terrorist organisation with no mandate to represent anyone making sinister threats to officers of the democratic institutions of this State, supposedly on behalf of the people of NI. 

Silence from Unionist leaders.


----------



## WolfeTone (19 Jun 2021)

"_It is not for the LCC or anyone else to dictate who is and who is not welcome here – they speak for no-one but loyalist paramilitaries," Mrs Long told The Irish News. _

- Minister for Justice, Naomi Long.


----------



## WolfeTone (20 Jun 2021)

Well played Leo, dismissing the "_now is not the right time_" brigade for talk of a UI. In a democratic Republic, who fears to speak?


----------



## Purple (21 Jun 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> Well played Leo, dismissing the "_now is not the right time_" brigade for talk of a UI. In a democratic Republic, who fears to speak?


Does that mean you agree with him?


----------



## WolfeTone (21 Jun 2021)

Purple said:


> Does that mean you agree with him?



On ending partition and re-unifying the country? Yes.


----------



## Purple (21 Jun 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> On ending partition and re-unifying the country? Yes


Great!


----------



## Betsy Og (21 Jun 2021)

Sounds like there is general agreement that in a UI there would be no Stormont?, I think thats a must. The medieval bunfight must be no more. 

I'm kinda gone off the idea of the Commonwealth, isn't it a bit 'pat on the head for the noble savage'? Any supranational attachment is surely with the EU, and can you have more than 1 going at the same time? Probably not a deal breaker but would stick in the craw a bit. Absolute no to British army/Navy installations. They can send over Tom Cruise to piroutte with the Ruskies if it comes to it. Fleg/anthem/symbols - am ok with these, accepting that the union flag will still no doubt fly, as probably will the tricolour - none of these things butter any parsnips as Ivan Yeats might say.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (21 Jun 2021)

Young Betsy, a Twelfth holiday celebrating the victory of King Billy?


----------



## Betsy Og (21 Jun 2021)

I've some detailed thoughts on this subject Duke. The south should now initiate a United Irishmen Day, a new bank holiday on the 12th, celebrating what brings us together and the diversity of Irish culture. 

Free concert on the evening of the 11th.  Parade on O'Connell Street on the 12th, St. Patricks Day style, get the yanks back over, invite a few from the Orange Order. Bit of pagentry in Croke Park (height of new inter-county season) during a double header.

That way it'll be well established (& a wee bit detoxified...we hope) by the time of a UI. Sure who doesn't like an extra bank holiday in the middle of summer....and an excuse for street drinking in Dublin.


----------



## Purple (21 Jun 2021)

Betsy Og said:


> Bit of pagentry in Croke Park (height of new inter-county season) during a double header.


A game of Paintball in the Hogan Stand?


----------



## Betsy Og (21 Jun 2021)

Purple said:


> A game of Paintball in the Hogan Stand?


, no, I was thinking more along the lines of Macnas big heads, swirly flags, Caithlín Ní Houlihán emerges from a polystyrene crypt, all that type of auld guff.


----------



## Purple (21 Jun 2021)

Betsy Og said:


> , no, I was thinking more along the lines of Macnas big heads, swirly flags, Caithlín Ní Houlihán emerges from a polystyrene crypt, all that type of auld guff.


Oh alright... could the Macnas big heads, be wearing bowler hats?


----------



## Betsy Og (21 Jun 2021)

Purple said:


> Oh alright... could the Macnas big heads, be wearing bowler hats?


Only if they are carrying pikes..... #compromise


----------



## Purple (21 Jun 2021)

Betsy Og said:


> Only if they are carrying pikes..... #compromise


Huge big Bowler Hats and tiny little pikes?


----------



## Peanuts20 (21 Jun 2021)

Purple said:


> Huge big Bowler Hats and tiny little pikes?


 
I've always thought that if I was a nationalist and an Orange parade was marching down my "traditional route" street, I'd get everyone in the street to dress up as Charlie Chaplin and Laurel and Hardy and just join in. 

King Billy never wore a bowler


----------



## Betsy Og (21 Jun 2021)

Nah, gotta be big pikes. and we'll make Kelly from Killane out of the HUGE woman that went through the streets of Limeirck - "who is that giant with the gold curling hair......and the dress....."


----------



## Purple (21 Jun 2021)

Betsy Og said:


> Kelly from Killane


Yes, the man who disobeyed specific orders from his commander and launched a failed attack on Ross which got loads of his men killed, got shot in the leg and, as a result of his injury, got himself captured in Wexford when it was retaken by the British and was executed.

I always thought he epitomised all the bull and hot air that goes with misty-eyed nationalism. 
Of course misty-eyed Unionism is as bad or worse; the Unionists celebrate a battle between two foreign Kings, fought in what to them is a foreign land.


----------



## Betsy Og (21 Jun 2021)

It's a BANG-GIN tune though innit fam!!


----------



## Purple (21 Jun 2021)

Betsy Og said:


> It's a BANG-GIN tune though innit fam!!


Yea, t'is. 

Is it as good as Boolavogue?

If we do end up with a United Ireland we should adopt Franz, Duke of Bavaria, as our head of State. He's the Heir to the Jacobite line and, unlike the ones in charge in the UK now, his family actually opposed the Nazis. It would also be a great way to suck up to the Germans.


----------



## Betsy Og (21 Jun 2021)

I like Boolavogue, but it's not very tub thumping. As regards your other suggestion - Up the Republic....


----------



## Purple (21 Jun 2021)

Betsy Og said:


> I like Boolavogue, but it's not very tub thumping. As regards your other suggestion - Up the Republic....


Don't you mean "Irland über alles"?
The Shinners could have a "Our German is better than your German" slagging match instead of murdering children. It would be great!


----------



## Betsy Og (21 Jun 2021)

Purple said:


> Don't you mean "Irland über alles"?


Ze deutschlander vill be heving quite zenuf influence already - ich danke Ihnen sehr   (& if that last bit is wrong blame google translate)


----------



## Purple (21 Jun 2021)

Betsy Og said:


> Ze deutschlander vill be heving quite zenuf influence already - ich danke Ihnen sehr   (& if that last bit is wrong blame google translate)


Marvellous people the Germans, marvellous. 
The one leader in the UK that has a consistently high approval rating is a German.


----------



## Peanuts20 (22 Jun 2021)

Purple said:


> Marvellous people the Germans, marvellous.
> The one leader in the UK that has a consistently high approval rating is a German.



As opposed to their American Prime Minister?  

And of course the former UKIP leader descended from Germans

not forgetting the former leader of the English Defence League who had Irish parents?


----------



## Betsy Og (22 Jun 2021)

Anyway, are we having United Irishmen Day or not?, all I'm getting is slagging over Macnas bowler hats.


----------



## Betsy Og (22 Jun 2021)

Also, did anyone see Miriam's show about the border? A bit 'light touch' I thought. For instance the lady in Drum, Co Monaghan (the South's most protestant village....appropriate name....) talking about how awful it was to go around and see empty houses of families gone to England or US or Canada - hello lads, the entirely country is full of derelict houses of families long gone, its called emigration. But it was just left hanging there.... 'were they ran out of the place?' was the implied question - No is the answer but anyway, maybe its better TV to have us all wondering..... 

A bit of detail about the few changes the Boundary Commission actually made would have been interesting, or, based on population voting, what the border could/should have been. All that said it was watchable and interesting but could have used a bit more rigour.


----------



## Purple (22 Jun 2021)

Betsy Og said:


> Also, did anyone see Miriam's show about the border? A bit 'light touch' I thought. For instance the lady in Drum, Co Monaghan (the South's most protestant village....appropriate name....) talking about how awful it was to go around and see empty houses of families gone to England or US or Canada - hello lads, the entirely country is full of derelict houses of families long gone, its called emigration. But it was just left hanging there.... 'were they ran out of the place?' was the implied question - No is the answer but anyway, maybe its better TV to have us all wondering.....


RTE did a program called "If Lynch had invaded". It was appallingly badly made and just rubbish from start to finish. It was presented by the usually excellent Keelin Shanley (RIP) so if that's the bar from her then I just couldn't face anything presented by Miriam.


Betsy Og said:


> A bit of detail about the few changes the Boundary Commission actually made would have been interesting, or, based on population voting, what the border could/should have been. All that said it was watchable and interesting but could have used a bit more rigour.


The Boundary Commission report was suppressed and then ignored. It's a great piece of history that makes a lie of the narrative I learned in school about the period.


----------



## Purple (22 Jun 2021)

Betsy Og said:


> Anyway, are we having United Irishmen Day or not?


Absolutely!


Betsy Og said:


> , all I'm getting is slagging over Macnas bowler hats.


Can't we have that too?


----------



## Betsy Og (22 Jun 2021)

Purple said:


> Can't we have that too?


Well, if my fellow patriots endured The craic we had the day we died for Ireland, then I shall stoically bear this slagging so that Mother Eireann might be at peace.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (22 Jun 2021)

Betsy Og said:


> Anyway, are we having United Irishmen Day or not?, all I'm getting is slagging over Macnas bowler hats.


Young Betsy, I seem to recall that you may suffer from some gender confusion yourself but I have to say that these days the concept of a public holiday devoted to one gender is so, so non PC.


----------



## Peanuts20 (22 Jun 2021)

Betsy Og said:


> Anyway, are we having United Irishmen Day or not?, all I'm getting is slagging over Macnas bowler hats.


Can we have a United Irishmen day in this day and age?. Surely it should be a United Irish pick whatever gender you like day? oh hang on, DUP might have an issue with that?


----------



## Purple (22 Jun 2021)

Peanuts20 said:


> Can we have a United Irishmen day in this day and age?. Surely it should be a United Irish pick whatever gender you like day? oh hang on, DUP might have an issue with that?


We can only pick Scripture based genders. Save Ulssss-ter from sodomy/non-binary/trans/liberal/atheists/Papists/rationalists.


----------



## Betsy Og (22 Jun 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Young Betsy, I seem to recall that you may suffer from some gender confusion yourself but I have to say that these days the concept of a public holiday devoted to one gender is so, so non PC.


I think the problem is Duke that you have gendered Betsy - I shall now have you cancelled.....

That had occurred to me alright, but surely there's a historical exemption?? It's the only moment in our history where we can tenuously cling onto "cross community" shared cause. Righteous feminist anger will give it worldwide exposure, just like the time the Feds threatened NWA.

On year 2 we'll call it United Irishmen & Women's Day, our very own "Legenderry" contortion to please all yez cantankerous ___________ (obv I wont be on the PR committee for this thing.......)


----------



## Purple (22 Jun 2021)

Betsy Og said:


> I
> 
> On year 2 we'll call it United Irishmen & Women's Day, our very own "Legen*London*derry" contortion to please all yez cantankerous ___________ (obv I wont be on the PR committee for this thing.......)


You'll have to change that as well.


----------



## Purple (23 Jun 2021)

Michael McDowell has a good piece in the IT today on the subject of a United Ireland.
He shows his political experience and highlights the political naivety of those who call for a 50%+1 vote for a German style unification.


----------



## cremeegg (23 Jun 2021)

Purple said:


> Personally I find the whole Gaeilgeoir thing distasteful, regressive and narrowminded.


Well that's your opinion and everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Though to be honest in my opinion this says more about you than 'the Gaeilgoir thing'


Purple said:


> Or the dyslexic or the under educated or those who see Irishness in a modern inclusive way which embraces immigrants and people from other backgrounds and doesn't consider people who can't speak Irish and didn't have family in the GPO as less Irish than themselves.


The Irish language movement embraces anyone and everyone who wishes to be involved.

Here is Seachtain na Gaeilge ambassador Imelda May's thoughts on the topic  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYluS5kLit0

Or here is Foras na Gaeilge board member Wuraola Majekodunmi's short film "What does Irishness look like" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqWKR7eq-CQ

I am sorry if you had a bad experience with Irish at school, but if you are going to comment on it in public, perhaps you should take a fresh look.


----------



## Betsy Og (23 Jun 2021)

Purple said:


> Michael McDowell has a good piece in the IT today on the subject of a United Ireland.
> He shows his political experience and highlights the political naivety of those who call for a 50%+1 vote for a German style unification.


The problem with anything other than a 50% + 1 is that the question becomes "how much of a unionist veto do we want to build into this yoke?". 

So 2 quick points 
1) only without a unionist veto will unionists start working with all in NI to sell the idea of the union - if they've a veto why bother (this is mostly aimed at the DUP). If they get NI working so well we never get to 50% +1 then that's fine by me & 
2) if there was a 50% +1 vote then you have 1 island with probably 75%+ support for a UI, the artificial construct of 1921 is lifted from us.


----------



## Purple (23 Jun 2021)

cremeegg said:


> Well that's your opinion and everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Though to be honest in my opinion this says more about you than 'the Gaeilgoir thing'
> 
> The Irish language movement embraces anyone and everyone who wishes to be involved.
> 
> ...


Undoubtedly there is a big effort to make Irish more inclusive but there is an older generation, and a good chunk of a younger generation, who consider Irish speakers more Irish and non Irish speakers. That's what I find distasteful. 
I also have a problem with the elitism of Gaelscoils but that might just be an urban Dublin thing where you get the social filtering that's usually confined to private schools but without the fees.


----------



## Purple (23 Jun 2021)

Betsy Og said:


> The problem with anything other than a 50% + 1 is that the question becomes "how much of a unionist veto do we want to build into this yoke?".


I agree. There's no easy answers. We are trying to unpick a sectarian knot and we don't have the sectarian tools anymore to do it. 


Betsy Og said:


> So 2 quick points
> 1) only without a unionist veto will unionists start working with all in NI to sell the idea of the union - if they've a veto why bother (this is mostly aimed at the DUP). If they get NI working so well we never get to 50% +1 then that's fine by me &


I agree.


Betsy Og said:


> 2) if there was a 50% +1 vote then you have 1 island with probably 75%+ support for a UI, the artificial construct of 1921 is lifted from us.


The Unionists would consider the establishment of the Free State an artificial construct, just as they would a united Ireland.


----------



## WolfeTone (23 Jun 2021)

Betsy Og said:


> 2) if there was a 50% +1 vote then you have 1 island with probably 75%+ support for a UI, the artificial construct of 1921 is lifted from us.



I think this is the point that debunks anything MMcD has to say. NI is the original backstop, or protocol. A backstop for a minority people not willing to accept the wishes of the majority living on the island. 
The acceptance of two legal jurisdictions on the island through the Irish constitution was in no small part achieved by the acceptance of a simple majority that expressed otherwise would be accepted, respected and implemented by both governments and all signatories of the GFA. Notably DUP still have not signed up to that.


----------



## Purple (23 Jun 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> I think this is the point that debunks anything MMcD has to say.


Wow, one point you disagree with negates anything else he has to say.


WolfeTone said:


> NI is the original backstop, or protocol. A backstop for a minority people not willing to accept the wishes of the majority living on the island.


The unionists would say that the Islands of britain and Ireland were one country and a minority weren't willing to accept the wishes of the majority living on those islands. I disagree with them but if we want unity through some sort of agreement, grudgingly or otherwise, an appreciation of the perspective of the other side would conducive to that end.  I find the conciliatory rhetoric of the Shinners is only a veneer and when you scratch the surface their true absolutist and intolerant triumphalism is there to be seen.


WolfeTone said:


> The acceptance of two legal jurisdictions on the island through the Irish constitution was in no small part achieved by the acceptance of a simple majority that expressed otherwise would be accepted, respected and implemented by both governments and all signatories of the GFA. Notably DUP still have not signed up to that.


Meanwhile in the real world the devil is in the details. This does have the makings of an O'Casey play though.


----------



## WolfeTone (23 Jun 2021)

Purple said:


> Wow, one point you disagree with negates anything else he has to say.



Negates the _substantive_ point of what he has to say about 50%+1 majority... just to clarify. 


Purple said:


> I find the conciliatory rhetoric of the Shinners is only a veneer



The Shinners are only a minority themselves, why such emphasis on what they say or do over any other party? 
Is it because there is little of substance to what any other party says or does on the issue of re-unification? 
I would think so.


----------



## Betsy Og (23 Jun 2021)

Purple said:


> Meanwhile in the real world the devil is in the details. This does have the makings of an O'Casey play though.


In fairness to Wolfie, that particular devil got detailed in the GFA, simple majority poll. Calls for reinterpretation of that are naive, it was an absolute cornerstone of the GFA and rightly so - the principle of consent. The bit that was "constructive ambiguity" was the NI SoS having the right (absolute it seems) to call or not call for a border poll. I'm not so worried about that, on the basis that I don't believe the UK really wants NI any longer (did it ever?), and that this will be a slam dunk no brainer if/when Scotland extracates itself from the artist formely know as the union. I can well imagine an English nationalist WM (even more than now) wondering why on earth they are writing cheques for NI. So if you get a years worth of polls saying (say) 56% for UI then I don't see a NI SoS holding out. That said it'll probably have to be a Labour NI SoS #nevertrustaTory


----------



## Purple (23 Jun 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> Negates the _substantive_ point of what he has to say about 50%+1 majority... just to clarify.


Okay, that's fair enough. I disagree of course.


WolfeTone said:


> The Shinners are only a minority themselves, why such emphasis on what they say or do over any other party?
> Is it because there is little of substance to what any other party says or does on the issue of re-unification?


Maybe it's because they play to the gallery so much on the topic. That and the fact they are a front for a terrorist organisation which has chosen to stop murdering people (unless it's business related, then it's still okay). 
Maybe I'm also sick of hearing Leo making a show of himself bringing the Shinners into just about any issue so that he can have a go at them. 
But probably it's mostly a realisation that if we end up with a half-baked united Ireland and along with the associated economic, social and political problems that will go with it the reality is that the Shinners will have been the driving force. We've enough nutters in the Dáil without a bunch of extremist Christian unionists thrown into the mix. 


WolfeTone said:


> I would think so.


Yes, I know you would.


----------



## Purple (23 Jun 2021)

Betsy Og said:


> In fairness to Wolfie, that particular devil got detailed in the GFA, simple majority poll. Calls for reinterpretation of that are naive, it was an absolute cornerstone of the GFA and rightly so - the principle of consent. The bit that was "constructive ambiguity" was the NI SoS having the right (absolute it seems) to call or not call for a border poll. I'm not so worried about that, on the basis that I don't believe the UK really wants NI any longer (did it ever?), and that this will be a slam dunk no brainer if/when Scotland extracates itself from the artist formely know as the union. I can well imagine an English nationalist WM (even more than now) wondering why on earth they are writing cheques for NI. So if you get a years worth of polls saying (say) 56% for UI then I don't see a NI SoS holding out. That said it'll probably have to be a Labour NI SoS #nevertrustaTory


Yes, the reality bit was the NI SoS having the power to call or not call a referendum.
I'm far from convinced that a majority in NI would vote for unification, that presumes they can manage to agree on what they are voting for.
What sort of a united Ireland would they be talking about?

Would they continue to get the handouts from Her Majesty's Government?
Would they continue to get their UK pensions?
Would we all be in the EU?
Would we be in the commonwealth?
Would we impose our better funded but rubbish healthcare system on them?
Would we impose our superior education system on them?
Would they get a larger proportion of seats in the Dáil? Would it be a Dáil?

All that and hundreds of other things. 

And that's not even considering the cultural devastation caused by the loss of the traditions of smuggling and Diesel laundering on the border. 

Much and all as it puts a smile on the face watching the old enemy dismember itself in the ned it always comes down to money and a diminished UK isn't good on that front. If the Unionists traditions have to be respected, all that god and bigotry and whatnot, where will we send our homosexuals if England is closed?


----------



## Betsy Og (23 Jun 2021)

Purple said:


> Maybe I'm also sick of hearing Leo making a show of himself bringing the Shinners into just about any issue so that he can have a go at them.


Leo's problem is that he's a class warrior, and can't hide his disdain for the working classes - "welfare cheats cheat everyone". He occupies, in the South, the role that the DUP do in the North - the canvass is simple, "we're the only thing between you and Leo/DUP". So I wish he'd stop fulfilling that role so splendidly. We might as well join the conspiracy of silence about the 'RA cos the young uns don't give a toss - there's a man promising them all they want and that's all they want to hear, and sure "the rich" will pay for it. There's an appointment with reality coming when SF come to power.


----------



## Betsy Og (23 Jun 2021)

Quick fire buzzer round:



Purple said:


> Yes, the reality bit was the NI SoS having the power to call or not call a referendum.
> I'm far from convinced that a majority in NI would vote for unification, that presumes they can manage to agree on what they are voting for.
> What sort of a united Ireland would they be talking about? *TBD*
> 
> ...


----------



## Purple (23 Jun 2021)

Betsy Og said:


> Leo's problem is that he's a class warrior, and can't hide his disdain for the working classes - "welfare cheats cheat everyone".


I don't think that's fair. He just can't keep his mouth shut.
That said I've a distain for the whole "Classes" thing. This isn't 1840's England and just about everyone in this country with an income works. 
Tony Benn, the great British Labour politician, was asked what made someone working class. He said that anyone who derives their income from their labour was working class. I'd go with that. This is a Republic so we should be rejecting all that antediluvian guff.


----------



## Purple (23 Jun 2021)

Betsy Og said:


> *We'll all be in the 21st century, ne'er a backward glance*


With Brexit they have to look over their shoulder to see what's in front of them.

More generally though, have you made your plans known to the bowel hat wearers and are they in agreement?
As McDowell pointed out, all the Unionists have to do is refuse to have the conversation and we won't even be agreeing on anything to vote on.  
Of course the shift amongst young Unionists to the Alliance Party may continue but when the reality of the Unification wolf is at the door the Unionist family may unite again. 

It is ironic that the Presbyterians are the most vociferous opponents of a United Ireland since they were the ones who started the whole nationalist thing because the Anglicans were treating like the Papists.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (23 Jun 2021)

A very interesting observation of McDowell is that whilst the sectarian headcount has at last equalised, polls show a 60/40 or even 2/1 support for the union.  That is massive, for example compared with the 54/46 against Scottish Indy which itself was regarded as very convincing.  SF/IRA are fantasising with any talk of border polls, they can't understand that their sectarian calculations are no longer valid.
This is an ironic result of the GFA and indeed changes wrought by direct rule before that.  The days of feeling second class citizens and MOPEs is long gone.  The irony will increase if there is an Acht na Gaelge - they will ask just in what way would we better off in a UI? The instinctive belief up there even amongst nationalists is and always was that a UI is a much riskier economic prospect than the status quo.  This national inferiority complex was maybe declining during the Celtic Tiger years but the goings on of Drummer et al just reaffirmed that they were right all along - Paddies just can't be trusted to run the show.
Sorry Leo, unless there are enormous medical breakthroughs there will not be a UI in your lifetime.


----------



## WolfeTone (23 Jun 2021)

Purple said:


> Maybe it's because they play to the gallery so much on the topic.



Well it's up to everyone else to play their tune to the gallery so with regard to what they believe a UI will look like. Stop leaving it to SF.
In fairness to Leo he has broken the mould in that regard in the last week. Dismissing, rightly, the "now is not the right time" brigade. He will need to sustain it however to show it is not just an election time photo-bomb on the SF stage. I get the sense he was genuine in his expressions, remains to be seen if thd rest of his party responds accordingly and put the issue of a UI more front and centre and add meat to the bone - contest elections in NI.


----------



## Betsy Og (23 Jun 2021)

Purple said:


> More generally though, have you made your plans known to the bowel hat wearers and are they in agreement?
> As McDowell pointed out, all the Unionists have to do is refuse to have the conversation and we won't even be agreeing on anything to vote on.


That is precisely why there isn't and shouldn't be a veto. My view is we plan for a UI, if they don't want to be part of the conversation so be it, we drive on. With the DUP types asking them to participate is encouraging them to think that have control of the process. At the end of the process we have a shovel ready/oven ready proposed UI, we make any changes now that dont cost us anything (like a BH on the 12th). After that it happens or it doesn't, as mentioned my A position is that, taking fright at the feasibility of a UI, unionists decide to make NI such that the pro UI camp never get to 50%, coercion won't give that, parity of esteem should.


----------



## Betsy Og (23 Jun 2021)

Purple said:


> I don't think that's fair. He just can't keep his mouth shut.


Even his own lads called him Tory boy, long before he came to power. SF thrive off attrition, pitting sections of society against each other, Leo just cant resist taking the bait and dragging us all into the squabble. While we haven't had the greatest politicians, the "all things to all men" approach has kept the country stable and centrist.


----------



## WolfeTone (23 Jun 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> polls show a 60/40 or even 2/1 support for the union. That is massive, for example compared with the 54/46 against Scottish Indy which itself was regarded as very convincing.



True, but the Scottish ref was a result whereas 60/40 is a pre-campaign poll. Once a poll is called, the result can swing significantly in either direction. 

Anyway the SF pursuit of a border poll is not in the expectation that they would actually succeed, rather to establish the border poll and principle of consent as the means with which the future of Ireland is to be decided. It will reduce the sovereignty of the British monarch to secondary position to the will of the people. Its why DUP cannot countenance there ever being a border poll and why Arlene would leave if a UI were to occur through consent of the people.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (23 Jun 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> True, but the Scottish ref was a result whereas 60/40 is a pre-campaign poll. Once a poll is called, the result can swing significantly in either direction.


Polls would tend to follow tribal identities since there is nothing else at stake.  The real thing would be even more against a UI.  


WolfeTone said:


> Anyway the SF pursuit of a border poll is not in the expectation that they would actually succeed,


Yes they're not thick.  It is purely to wind up sectarian tensions.


----------



## WolfeTone (23 Jun 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Yes they're not thick. It is purely to wind up sectarian tensions.



How does implementing what was agreed by 70%+ population invoke sectarian tensions? 
Many Protestants voted for GFA, including the leading Unionist party at the time, the UUP. 
Unionists need to get their head out of the sand.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (23 Jun 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> How does implementing what was agreed by 70%+ population invoke sectarian tensions?


I think what you mean is "how silly is that?" which  is fair comment.  But if you really mean "how" then you have no understanding of current NI mindsets.


----------



## WolfeTone (23 Jun 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> you have no understanding of current NI mindsets



Ok, let me put it another way. How does implementing what was agreed politically and endorsed by the electorate invoke sectarian tensions?

Surely what you mean is that the sectarianism is invoked and sustained by a deep-seated insecurity and paranoia that insists if everything is not cloaked in a union jack then the sky will fall in and Arlene & Friends will have to leave because they cannot fathom the notion of living with their neighbours on this island to advance the social and economic order of the day.
That is why, under no circumstances, can the DUP accept that the people of NI ever have a say, or determine their own future.

I think they call it "No Surrender", everyone else calls it self-determination.


----------



## Purple (24 Jun 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> That is why, under no circumstances, can the DUP accept that the people of NI ever have a say, or determine their own future.


I agree with that. I've said before that no matter who wins traditional Unionism loses because it's a dinosaur it's defined by what it isn't, not what it is. Not for a moment do I think that the DUP will ever respect a democratic vote for a united Ireland. 


WolfeTone said:


> Many Protestants voted for GFA, including the leading Unionist party at the time, the UUP.
> Unionists need to get their head out of the sand.


Many have their heads out of the sand. They are voting for the Alliance Party.


----------



## Purple (24 Jun 2021)

Betsy Og said:


> Even his own lads called him Tory boy, long before he came to power.


People call other people all sorts of things but looking at his track record in office he's firmly on a socially liberal side and every party in Ireland is left of centre by international standards. 


Betsy Og said:


> SF thrive off attrition, pitting sections of society against each other, Leo just cant resist taking the bait and dragging us all into the squabble.


I do agree with you there. The man is very fond of the sound of his own voice. His habit of actually answering the question he was asked is usually refreshing but can cause problems. Simon Coveney is far more measured.  


Betsy Og said:


> While we haven't had the greatest politicians, the "all things to all men" approach has kept the country stable and centrist.


I agree with that as well. The up side of Civil War politics was two parties which were a broad church and very centralist.


----------



## Purple (24 Jun 2021)

Betsy Og said:


> That is precisely why there isn't and shouldn't be a veto. My view is we plan for a UI, if they don't want to be part of the conversation so be it, we drive on. With the DUP types asking them to participate is encouraging them to think that have control of the process. At the end of the process we have a shovel ready/oven ready proposed UI, we make any changes now that dont cost us anything (like a BH on the 12th). After that it happens or it doesn't, as mentioned my A position is that, taking fright at the feasibility of a UI, unionists decide to make NI such that the pro UI camp never get to 50%, coercion won't give that, parity of esteem should.


That all sounds fine in theory but it doesn't take many to cause a serious amount of trouble. I've no doubt that if there was a united Ireland on the horizon there'd be bombs going off in Dublin. SF/IRA kept the sectarian pot boiling for 40 years with a few dozen active terrorist members. The Unionists are more than capable of doing the same thing.


----------



## Betsy Og (24 Jun 2021)

Purple said:


> That all sounds fine in theory but it doesn't take many to cause a serious amount of trouble. I've no doubt that if there was a united Ireland on the horizon there'd be bombs going off in Dublin. SF/IRA kept the sectarian pot boiling for 40 years with a few dozen active terrorist members. The Unionists are more than capable of doing the same thing.


Possibly, but maybe we can take heart that Dissident Republicans seem unable to operate to any great extent. I've no doubt that any UI would be phrased in with substantial bribes <cough> I mean community funding for stakeholders & all manner of guarantees. It tends to be the DUP who make most noise but do no fighting, loyalists had their number back at the time of the GFA "Where will you lead us?" they heckled Paisley. So it'll depend on whether there's A) appetite among loyalists (Jamie Bryson would talk for (United) Ireland but I don't think he's any great leader of men & B) capability - one hopes they would not be aided and abetted by state security forces in the future. If the Shankill, East Belfast, Portydown can be lifted out of the worst of their sityeation then maybe that'll take heat out of it -again something that should be happening now in ghettos of all description.

Anyway, we can only do that which is within our control, we should do it now so that the dust will have settled before this becomes a very live issue - if we wait we'll be told by pearl clutchers that we're inflaming a delicate situation. After that its a case of "give us a shout whenever (if ever) ye are ready lads".


----------



## Purple (24 Jun 2021)

If we want the Unionists (and nominal Nationalists) to want aa United Ireland, or a sufficient number of them to carry a vote, then the first thing we need to do is get our State sector in order and lower income taxes. In the end it will come down to money, as it always does.


----------



## WolfeTone (24 Jun 2021)

Purple said:


> I've no doubt that if there was a united Ireland on the horizon there'd be bombs going off in Dublin



The only logic behind that would be to try provoke a civil war. Without the aid of British military intelligence it is hard to see to what end violence would achieve. With the aid of MI5 a civil war would erupt and Britains dirty tricks would be exposed once again.


----------



## WolfeTone (24 Jun 2021)

Purple said:


> In the end it will come down to money, as it always does.



I agree, but I dont think its as simple as income taxes. I'm not a hundred per cent sure, but I would confident that the overall standard of living here is comparable, if not higher, than Northern Ireland?


----------



## Purple (24 Jun 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> I agree, but I dont think its as simple as income taxes. I'm not a hundred per cent sure, but I would confident that the overall standard of living here is comparable, if not higher, than Northern Ireland?


No, despite their much lower levels of earned income the "please don't kill each other" bribes they get actually give them a higher standard of living. 
Marginal rates of income tax are lower, property is cheaper and, despite the fact that we have higher levels of per capita funding in our health service (adjusted for PPP) their healthcare is better.


----------



## WolfeTone (24 Jun 2021)

@Purple well if the standard of living is higher, it does go someway to why many nationalists prefer to remain in the UK. That is a challenge for prospective UI in improving the standard of living here and convincing northerners of that improvement.


----------



## Betsy Og (24 Jun 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> @Purple  and convincing northerners of that improvement.


Do we really need to sell the union (of Ireland)? Other than misty eyed sentimentality I'm not lusting after the 4th green field, and feel it'll cost me dearly if I do get it. Now, it's a price I'm willing to pay if its for the peaceful resolution of matters on this island, for example if WM pulls the plug or they otherwise can't run the 6 properly, and while I want to be ready for that eventuality I'm not wishing for it as such. So should we be supporting Northern Nationalists on matters such as the ILA, and presuming that does get over the line shouldn't we go with "sure aren't you grand now (thumbs up)"?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (24 Jun 2021)

@Betsy Og You hit the nail on the head there.  To listen to @WolfeTone it seems he would do anything (peaceful of course) to have a UI, maybe even bribe the orangies.  It is as if the concept of UI itself is a Holy Grail, even if everybody had emigrated. 
An interesting barrier to political UI, which is of RoI making, is the separate currency.  I think even Northern Nationalists would be loathe to be forced onto the €.  I know El Sal has a dual currency but I don't think there is any political entity in the world where the legal tender is different between two parts of its jurisdiction.


----------



## Purple (24 Jun 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> @Purple well if the standard of living is higher, it does go someway to why many nationalists prefer to remain in the UK. That is a challenge for prospective UI in improving the standard of living here and convincing northerners of that improvement.


Yes, and that, more than anything, involved improving efficiency within the State sector.
I never got why the people who are advocates of big government aren't also ruthless about efficiency.


----------



## Purple (24 Jun 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> An interesting barrier to political UI, which is of RoI making, is the separate currency. I think even Northern Nationalists would be loathe to be forced onto the €.


Yea, see that's not something I'd be willing to give up. I like this country as it is. I don't want it to change to suit the Nordies. I know that's selfish and I know we sold out the Northern Catholics in 1921/22 but we've emerged from our past and are relatively free from it. getting shackled to the past again doesn't make me feel warm and fuzzy.


----------



## WolfeTone (24 Jun 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> to listen to @WolfeTone it seems he would do anything (peaceful of course) to have a UI



Far from it. I would be at one with @Betsy Og on that front. Unfortunately the "_why can't we all just get along_" sentiment hasn't really resonated yet with everyone.
So in trying to figure out why that is, the matter of a divided country that is steeped in violent sectarian conflict going back through the centuries and up to as recent as the end of the last century comes to the fore. Who knew?

I don't have a resolution to it other than to allow the people who live on this island to decide what is best for themselves. I personally think a unified country that enshrines religious and political identities for all the best way forward. I support all those who actively pursue this.
That said, unlike most united Irelanders I know I would be prepared to rejoin the commonwealth in exchange for end to partition and an All Ireland parliament. I don't really care much for flags or whose sits as head of the country. If I am to expect that northern nationalists should accept their lot under the Crown and get on with it, then I don't see why I should not be prepared to do the same?

Home Rule for slow learners, if you will.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (24 Jun 2021)

@WolfeTone
Sorry, I don't believe you.
I mentioned that McD commented that support for the Union in NI was 2/1 according to polls and you sought to question the validity of such polls.
I think you would be unhappy if an actual border poll turned out that way and that you would prefer a 50%+1 for UI.  The former would give real hope for reconciliation in NI and would be welcomed by all except SF in RoI as well; the latter could spell a period of very serious conflict on the whole island.
So simple question, if there was a border poll in NI which would you prefer:  An overwhelming support for the Union or a 50%+1 for a UI?


----------



## WolfeTone (24 Jun 2021)

@Duke of Marmalade I didn't question the validity of any poll. Merely made the observation that once an election campaign, or referendum campaign kicks-off polls can, and do regularly, swing significantly in either direction. Here is what I said.



WolfeTone said:


> Once a poll is called, the result can swing significantly in either direction



I would of course prefer a majority vote in favour of a UI, the larger the vote in favour the better. But 50%+1 is a majority, there is no getting around this. Backed (presumably) by resounding majority in South from a much larger electorate, the message will be clear - the people of Ireland, All Ireland, want to reunify the country.

If reconciliation can be found with, or without a United Ireland, then there is nothing to discuss. If a majority voting for a UI is the source of further conflict, then the fundamental reason for conflict through the centuries will be laid bare for the world to see.

Again, I reiterate, the SF push for a border poll is not first in the expectation of winning that poll (although that would be the icing on the cake) but rather to establish the principle of consent, the principle of self-determination, in practice.

The DUP hostility to a border poll derives from their belief that sovereignty rests with in the Crown, and only the destruction of the monarchy can sever the link to the British Crown.
The people are not permitted, under this religious zealotry, to determine otherwise.

Adams was right when he said "we need to break these ********"


----------



## Betsy Og (24 Jun 2021)

Did Cullinane not already break them?....oh sorry, that was the Free State ******* he broke

The repeated need to break people does not bode well tbh....


----------



## WolfeTone (24 Jun 2021)

Betsy Og said:


> The repeated need to break people does not bode well tbh....



Yes, the language is undiplomatic for sure. But it is the sentiment of breaking the mindset that sets to deny others the pursuit of their goals that is in mind here.
The whole purpose of a Republic is to bestow civil and religious liberty to all. Even in Britain, under the monarchy, that is as evident there as well.
It is in NI, in that quarter of unionism, that is not prepared to tolerate the diversity of all the people here that needs to be broken. I support that endeavour.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (24 Jun 2021)

@WolfeTone
Your reaction to the suggestion of a 2/1 poll suggested to me that you would be unhappy if that were an accurate assessment of opinion in NI.
Just to draw extreme pictures, I think you have admitted that you would prefer a 50%+1 for a UI rather than 100% against a UI.  The latter would suggest a very contented position all round, the former would precipitate a very unhappy period for the whole island - except those like your good self who seem to have some sentimental attachment to the concept and of course except those like SF/IRA who would wallow in the triumphalism and mayhem.
Since I am hypothesising extreme situations which would I prefer:  a UI with 100% contentment all round or partition with a similar 100% contentment all round?  Other than the possibility of an all Ireland soccer team  I couldn't care between the two.


----------



## Purple (24 Jun 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> Even in Britain, under the monarchy, that is as evident there as well.
> It is in NI, in that quarter of unionism, that is not prepared to tolerate the diversity of all the people here that needs to be broken. I support that endeavour.


So would a more complete union with Britain, or more specifically England, solve that problem?


----------



## Betsy Og (24 Jun 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> sentiment of breaking the mindset


...or the knees..... #cudgel 

I'm only winding you up Wolfie, but seriously, mindsets are "risen above" more than broken, and unfortunately SF are not the types to make us aspire to higher motives. If we had SDLP & UUP running NI since GFA I think we'd be closer to a UI, and it would be less of an issue anyway, the temperature would be a lot more comfortable and there'd probably be an ILA in place at least a decade ago. So, fair play to them for no longer shooting and bombing us, but beyond that it seems they just can't get things done. #highpointwasGFA #revivededamonster(DUP)


----------



## WolfeTone (24 Jun 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> suggested to me that you would be unhappy if that were an accurate assessment of opinion in NI.



Why did it suggest that to you? If polls can swing significantly EITHER way it means that I'm open to the prospect of 70/30 even 80/20 result.


Duke of Marmalade said:


> I think you have admitted that you would prefer a 50%+1 for a UI rather than 100% against a UI



No I have not. A 100% against a UI is end of discussion.
But to play around a bit with your examples, let's use 99% against and 1% in favour. The only legitimate outcome of that is for NI to remain in the UK with the right of the 1% to pursue a UI through exclusively peaceful and democratic means until it reaches 50%+1, if ever.



Purple said:


> So would a more complete union with Britain, or more specifically England, solve that problem?



Its possible,  but in my opinion it would not, as I was prone to say once upon a time "England is the source of all our ills", or something to that effect. England manages itself just fine, its its management of Ireland that is a failure. Brexit the most recent example.



Betsy Og said:


> mindsets are "risen above" more than broken, and unfortunately SF are not the types to make us aspire to higher motives



Yes, definitely a more diplomatic tone in that.
If SF can't do it, who can? I mean in a sense, that the aspiration for a UI is live and embedded in the fabric of our constitution. It is a political obligation of the elected members of our parliament that legislate within the framework of that constitution. If SF are not providing the aspiration, who is providing it?



Betsy Og said:


> If we had SDLP & UUP running NI since GFA I think we'd be closer to a UI



I would disagree. The UUP and SDLP were the prominent parties during the times of the conflict. They sought at all times to continually marginalise and exclude those who already had a disdain for the political system and saw only conflict as the answer. Their ineptitude in the face of what was in front of them only helped to prolong the conflict.
Only when John Hume took the great leap forward, against the rage of the great and good of 'moderate' Irish society, including his own party, did peace come dropping slow. He showed how dialogue, inclusivity, tolerance, could pay dividends. He showed the politicians what being a politician was all about. 

It's easy to think that the SDLP and UUP represented the moderate, law-abiding, civil electorate - but in the face of a sectarian conflict, with British Army on the streets, with police officers being shot and blown-up, with cover-ups of mass murder by state agents and paramilitaries, with censorship, shoot-to-kill, indiscrimanate bombing etc, for 25yrs! 
Their overall record of managing NI is abysmal.

Instead we have the two hard extremists at the political dining table now. Instead of bombs and bullets they are fighting over the Irish Language Act and the British sausage. 

My view is best to keep them there a while yet longer.


----------



## Betsy Og (24 Jun 2021)

The UUP had their hands on the levers of power historically, so I certainly don't absolve them, but I do give them credit for getting to the GFA - at huge "personal" cost. Tbh I don't think the SDLP shoulder the blame for the mayhem, they commanded the bulk of the nationalist vote, it was only the silence of the gun brought SF to the fore (now that's not entirely fair to them, but a fair chunk of it). Gotta dash, more of this anon (as George might say)


----------



## WolfeTone (24 Jun 2021)

Betsy Og said:


> Tbh I don't think the SDLP shoulder the blame for the mayhem,



Neither do I. Just to be clear, it was the ineptitude of political intrangience across the board. From SDLP to UUP to successive British and Irish governments.
There is little point in including SF in that as they were politically destitute until Adams took the reigns in mid '80s. Even then, they did not emerge as a political force until early' 90's

I'm not trying to lay blame. Politics had failed, it survives on trust. In the circumstances of' 70's and '80's in NI, it was an abysmal place.
I don't pour scorn on those who were genuine in their intent but failed.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (24 Jun 2021)

@WolfeTone 
I am just teasing out the extent of your "sentimental/emotional" attachment to a UI.  Nothing wrong with such sentiments I assure you, it is boasted by every political party down here and the nationalist ones up there.  
I presume you would accept that a 50%+1 result could be very destabilising for the whole island whilst a resounding  rejection would have the opposite effect.  I suspect, but I may be wrong, that you would prefer the 50%+1 *despite *the instability.  I am not claiming you would be like SF/IRA who would welcome the 50%+1 *because *of the instability.


----------



## WolfeTone (24 Jun 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I presume you would accept that a 50%+1 result could be very destabilising for the whole island whilst a resounding rejection would have the opposite effect. I suspect, but I may be wrong, that you would prefer



50%+1 could be destabilising, but personally I don't so much if backed by a likely resounding 70%+ vote in the much larger Southern electorate.
The message will be clear, to the world over, that Ireland has voted to unify. Even the hardest of loyalist hearts may have to swallow pride.
Whatever destabilising effect (I assume you are talking specifically about outbreak of violence) I cannot see it being sustained unless deliberately and intentionally aided by British State.

In the end, what I prefer is, the right to freely express one's intentions without fear or favour and for everyone to respect the outcome.
Sinister threats of violence are what led to the division of the country in the first place, and the last 100yrs are an example of why not to succumb to such threats ever again.


----------



## Betsy Og (25 Jun 2021)

In other news Matt's been givin it the large one, so to speak. Morally corrupt collective.


----------



## Purple (25 Jun 2021)

Betsy Og said:


> In other news Matt's been givin it the large one, so to speak. Morally corrupt collective.


There's a long tradition of that sort of thing in the Tory Party.


----------



## Betsy Og (25 Jun 2021)

Even John and Edwina - just to prove that frightfully dull people can get up to this sort of thing too y'know....


----------



## WolfeTone (25 Jun 2021)

Down with this sort of thing.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (25 Jun 2021)

It is not as much fun 2 metres apart.
Have you seen the video released by The Sun overnight?
Unbelievable.  Is he taking the p*ss apologising for not social distancing.
Forget Covid. If anybody had that video public they would be too embarrassed to turn up for work.  How can a Minister have any credibility after that?


----------



## WolfeTone (14 Jul 2021)

British government to end Troubles era prosecutions

Hardly as a goodwill gesture to the IRA, UDA or UVF? 

No, only one one plausible reason - that as the truth of the British State actors involved in murder and cover up in Ireland over 25yrs comes more apparent the preferable option for the British State is to close the book on the period. 

Bloody Sunday, Ballymurphy, Dublin, Monaghan, Beltubert, Miami Showband, Reavey Bros, Finucane, Loughinisland...and many others.


----------



## Purple (14 Jul 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> British government to end Troubles era prosecutions
> 
> Hardly as a goodwill gesture to the IRA, UDA or UVF?
> 
> ...


You have to let it go Wolfie. It's in the past. We have to move on. The Brits don't have to acknowledge the people thy killed and the Shinners don't have to condemn the children they murdered. There can be no hierarchy of suffering.  The Nuns and the children blown up by the IRA were just as deserving or death as the SAS men that were torn apart by the mob in Belfast.
The children shot by the British Army were just as deserving of death as the IRA men killed in shootouts. Everyone was the same. There was no moral difference between any of them.
The Nordies understand that so we in the Soyth have to do the same.


----------



## Betsy Og (14 Jul 2021)

Purple, I hope you didn't dislocate your tongue there planting it so firmly in cheek.

A sad day, if this sticks then it's the final nail in the coffin (pardon the pun) of any hope that families had of justice, and so blatantly done to spare the blushes of the UK government.

To force myself to be optimistic for a moment, does it move the chances of a Truth and Reconciliation Process 1% closer if, basically, anyone ever involved now has an "on the run" letter??


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (14 Jul 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> Bloody Sunday, Ballymurphy, Dublin, Monaghan, Beltubert, Miami Showband, Reavey Bros, Finucane, Loughinisland...and many others.





			
				Wiki said:
			
		

> (On the Bosnian conflict) The most recent estimates suggest that around 100,000 people were killed during the 3 year war.  Over 2.2 million people were displaced.  In addition, an estimated 12,000–50,000 women were raped.


Bosnia has a population of 3.3 million.  Garret Fitzgerald was oh so right to have been very fearful of a British withdrawal.  This does not mean Garret supported Bloody Sunday and Ballymurphy or for that matter Internment.
I am sure the Allies of WWII were no saints (e.g. Australians went on a rampage of rape and pillage in Japan after Japan had surrendered).  But I am sure glad the Allies won (possibly _Wolfie _disagrees).  How many Allied soldiers were punished for war crimes?  And there was no universal amnesty.
Perspective, my dear _Wolfie_, perspective.


----------



## Purple (14 Jul 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Bosnia has a population of 3.3 million.  Garret Fitzgerald was oh so right to have been very fearful of a British withdrawal.  This does not mean Garret supported Bloody Sunday and Ballymurphy or for that matter Internment.
> I am sure the Allies of WWII were no saints (e.g. Australians went on a rampage of rape and pillage in Japan after Japan had surrendered).  But I am sure glad the Allies won (possibly _Wolfie _disagrees).  How many Allied soldiers were punished for war crimes?  And there was no universal amnesty.
> Perspective, my dear _Wolfie_, perspective.


Somewhere between 350,000   (the Russian figure) and a Million (the German figure) German POW's died in the Soviet Union after the Second World War ended. No Soviet faced sanctions for that.
Somewhere between 500,000 and 1,500,000 Algerian civilians and soldiers were killed by the French during Algeria's war of independence in the 1950's and 60's. The Algerians aren't still going on about it.


----------



## WolfeTone (14 Jul 2021)

Victims 'let down' over decision to end prosecutions

No consultation with families of victims.

This decision is rejected by all those across political spectrum. 

Opposed by Irish government

Rejected by international human rights organisations

A new low in Britain's history of 'governance' of Ireland.


----------



## WolfeTone (14 Jul 2021)

Young Ned of the Hill


----------



## Purple (14 Jul 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> A new low in Britain's history of 'governance' of Ireland.


Really?
Worse than the Siege of Drogheda?
Worse than the Ulster Massacre of 1641? (Actually that one doesn't count as it was Papists killing Proddies).
Worse than the executions during 1798?
Worse than the plantations?
Worse than the Dublin and Monaghan bombings?


----------



## Purple (14 Jul 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> Young Ned of the Hill


Ah the Pogues. I saw them many a time in their prime (I'm still in my prime). The best gigs were in the Olympia. You had to be in the full of your health to jump around up front with all the sweaty culchies.


----------



## WolfeTone (14 Jul 2021)

Purple said:


> Really?
> Worse than the Siege of Drogheda?
> Worse than the Ulster Massacre of 1641? (Actually that one doesn't count as it was Papists killing Proddies).
> Worse than the executions during 1798?
> ...



No, just another 'new' low to add to the collection.


----------



## Purple (14 Jul 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> No, just another 'new' low to add to the collection.


A new low but not a very low low, not by the standards of the low lows they have sunk to in the past. In fact as lows go it went over my head.


----------



## WolfeTone (14 Jul 2021)

Purple said:


> In fact as lows go it went over my head.



Really?

That after 50yrs since the Troubles started with all the death and carnage I have being listening to righteous great and good about the evil monsters of terrorism.

But now that the light is being shone on the activities of the righteous it is another typical attempted side-step. A 'nothing to see here'. It's nothing short of a Vatican order to absolve all sinners of the crimes of paedophilia and the circle of authority that protected and covered up these crimes for decades. 

How convenient. 

These people have the legal authority to govern over a part of Ireland, they have no moral authority. 
The entire Irish political spectrum, North and South, opposes what these Tories are doing. 
And just to recap, the entire Tory mandate in Ireland is zero. Always has been.

In my view what they are doing is effectively opening the door to the next generation of Irish Republican militants.

Shame on them. Unite Ireland.


----------



## Purple (15 Jul 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> Really?
> 
> That after 50yrs since the Troubles started with all the death and carnage I have being listening to righteous great and good about the evil monsters of terrorism.
> 
> ...


If I ignore the hyperbole I agree with you but I still don't think it's a new low.

The GFA effectively gave an amnesty anyway so this is just acknowledging that reality. You can't pardon the terrorists and murderers that were caught, which is what prisoner release was, and then go after the ones that weren't caught. 


WolfeTone said:


> These people have the legal authority to govern over a part of Ireland, they have no moral authority.


Well they were elected to run that country and that's the way democracy works, however despicable the Tories may be. 


WolfeTone said:


> The entire Irish political spectrum, North and South, opposes what these Tories are doing.
> And just to recap, the entire Tory mandate in Ireland is zero. Always has been.


Their Mandate in Northern Ireland, which is part of a different country, is legitimate. 


WolfeTone said:


> In my view what they are doing is effectively opening the door to the next generation of Irish Republican militants.
> 
> Shame on them.


Quite possibly and I agree it is shameful.


WolfeTone said:


> Unite Ireland.


...maybe, once the Nordies ditch the tribalism, fix their economy, dial down the bigotry and god-bothering and generally get with the program that this is the 21st century.


----------



## WolfeTone (15 Jul 2021)

Purple said:


> The GFA effectively gave an amnesty



It gave no such amnesty. Prisoners still have convictions, rightly, recorded against them. They are released from prison under licence. 

What the British government is doing is effectively dismissing the rights of victims of their pursuit of justice. Many of whom were never afforded a proper investigation into the deaths of their loved ones in the first place. 
And now that a light is being shown on the truth of Britains dirty war in Ireland they are moving to shut down, once more, any chance of the victims getting justice. 

They are morally bankrupt. And they have given a shot in the arm to those who see the only way to unite Ireland is to force Britain to withdraw through the gun. 

As a side, I see some Tory MPs are pining for the prospect of an English devolved parliament. Forget about Scottish independence, English independence from the UK is the way to bring this wretched British rule in Ireland to an end once and for all.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (15 Jul 2021)

Newton Emerson in today's IT said:
			
		

> Everything was meant to be tidied up with a formal amnesty for terrorists and security forces, agreed between Sinn Féin and the British government in 2004.  A Bill reached the Commons the following year before the SDLP embarrassed both sides into abandoning it.


The hypocrisy of SF and its supporters in condemning such a blanket amnesty today is breath taking.


----------



## Purple (15 Jul 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> The hypocrisy of SF and its supporters in condemning such a blanket amnesty today is breath taking.


But that no longer suits SF so now it's wrong. 
Being preached at about justice by the shinners is like being preached at about the evils of child abuse by the RC Church.


----------



## WolfeTone (15 Jul 2021)

@Duke of Marmalade of course the truth of the matter is somewhat more complicated

On the runs

I think this is a reasonable summary of the whole affair. 
For the record, the secret nature of this affair was despicable. You will note that, along with SF, the British and Irish governments paw prints are all over this. The legal position was that those convicted pre 1998 were eligible for release under licence the GFA. 
The legal position of those not yet convicted was less clear. SF wanted legal assurances that anyone (the otr's) would be eligible for release under GFA terms. This was part of the decommissioning negotiations. As well as that, any prospective prosecution could be a lengthy protracted affair as everyone has an entitled to plead not guilty. Tieing up cases, possibly for years, with net result of automatic prison release seems futile. 
So a form of legal assurance was sought. 

It became apparent to British government that there was a possibility that its officers could be caught up in prosecution legacy cases facing long-term prison sentences the murky proposal of amnesty was contrived. SF opposed such an amnesty. At least that is what is says here from BBC report

_In 2006, an attempt to introduce legislation was shelved in the face of widespread opposition. Sinn Féin's rejection of it, because it would have also covered the Army and police and those guilty of collusion in crimes, made it unworkable._

So amnesty was off the table. SF opposed it. Yes, they would accept it for their own members, which is hypocritical, but not at the cost of letting British agents off the hook. 
In the end, SF got the letters for their members while British agents remained on the hook. But not because of any open accountable political process, but because the British government operate a secretive, nefarious political administration in Ireland. 

All this huffing and puffing and 'concern' about SF ever getting into power, all the while those in power are at every bit the same game as SF. 

_"Adulterers in churches and pornography in the schools
You got gangsters in power and lawbreakers making rules
When you gonna wake up! When you gonna wake up!" _

- Bob Dylan, 1979.


----------



## Purple (15 Jul 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> but because the British government operate a secretive, nefarious political administration in Ireland.


I think you're about 10 posts from writing a ballad for the Wolfe Tone's. 
The British army have an Army that sometimes operated in secret but they were ultimately accountable to the people. 
Sinn Fein had a secret army which was never accountable to anyone.


----------



## WolfeTone (15 Jul 2021)

Purple said:


> but they were ultimately accountable to the people.



You are actually writing that in a topic where the discussion is centred on an amnesty for British army officers and agents from being held accountable.

On the other hand, thousands of IRA members were held accountable by either execution or prison time.


----------



## Purple (15 Jul 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> You are actually writing that in a topic where the discussion is centred on an amnesty for British army officers and agents from being held accountable.
> 
> On the other hand, thousands of IRA members were held accountable by either execution or prison time.


The British didn't execute any PIRA members.
The British government is accountable to the British people. Are you suggesting that it is not?


----------



## WolfeTone (15 Jul 2021)

Purple said:


> The British army have an Army that sometimes operated in secret but they were ultimately accountable to the people.



British Army officers are not being held accountable for their criminal actions, including the murder and attempted murder of innocent Irish civilians, in Ireland. 
They are getting away with murder by virtue of their masters in the British government that collude with the continued cover up.


----------



## WolfeTone (15 Jul 2021)

Purple said:


> The British didn't execute any PIRA members.



Absolutely they did. Gibraltar probably being the most obvious case.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (15 Jul 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> You are actually writing that in a topic where the discussion is centred on an amnesty for British army officers and agents from being held accountable.
> 
> On the other hand, thousands of IRA members were held accountable by either execution or prison time.


Wikipedia stats:
British security forces killed in Troubles  1,114
Republican paramilitaries killed 396
I think SF/IRA would disagree with you that British soldiers were not held accountable for their actions.

Consider those statistics.  One of the most powerful military forces on planet Earth versus  a band of urban guerrillas and they "lost" in headcount by 1,114 to 396.  Two takeaways.  The British forces were in fact extremely disciplined, compared to for example the French equivalent in Algeria as alluded to by _Purple_.  Secondly, everybody on this island owes an immense debt of gratitude to the sacrifice of British lives that saved this country from a Bosnian style meltdown.
But heck Soldier F is getting off, Ireland should use its position on the UN Security Council to rectify this gross injustice.


----------



## WolfeTone (15 Jul 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Consider those statistics.



Really? Your using statistics as a means to defend a Tory government policy (which is what you are doing) that all political parties across the spectrum, North and South have opposed? 



Duke of Marmalade said:


> But heck Soldier F is getting off



with murder, yes. Along with his colleagues. Along with agents used by British government to target innocent civilians.


----------



## WolfeTone (15 Jul 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> everybody on this island owes an immense debt of gratitude to the sacrifice of British lives that saved this country from a Bosnian style meltdown.



Except of course those, like Daniel Hegarty, Majella O'Hare, children who were gunned down by British State forces for no reason. 
Please don't tell me you think the Hegartys and O'Hare's owe a debt of gratitude to British Army? 

Personally speaking, Irish Defence Forces reputation of peace-keeping stands on par, if not higher, than British State forces.


----------



## WolfeTone (15 Jul 2021)

Britain destroyed records of colonial crimes

It would appear that what the British government is doing in Ireland is just standard practice.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (15 Jul 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> Britain destroyed records of colonial crimes
> 
> It would appear that what the British government is doing in Ireland is just standard practice.


I’m not terribly interested in what the British did in the 19th century. Or for that matter the French, Germans, Spanish, Belgians, Dutch, Italians, Portuguese possibly even the Chinese and Japanese, I don’t care.  But I can see you have a shelf full of British misdemeanours back to William the Conqueror.


----------



## WolfeTone (15 Jul 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I’m not terribly interested in what the British did in the 19th century.



Neither am I. Im just intrigued by the similarities. 
It reminds me of the similarities of Irish Republicans who planted bombs indiscriminately in 1880's and 1980's in killing innocent children. 

If you did it in 1880's you still get to have train stations and bridges named after you, with official ceremonies and Presidental recognition. 
I suppose its only right, because it was done in the name of 'our' freedom?


----------



## Purple (16 Jul 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> Neither am I. Im just intrigued by the similarities.
> It reminds me of the similarities of Irish Republicans who planted bombs indiscriminately in 1880's and 1980's in killing innocent children.
> 
> If you did it in 1880's you still get to have train stations and bridges named after you, with official ceremonies and Presidental recognition.
> I suppose its only right, because it was done in the name of 'our' freedom?


So is that the Irish State glorifying murder and protecting the reputation of murderers?
Should we take Tom Clarke's name off our Train Stations and Bridges and cancel the other "terrorists" from the bygone age before we look for a prosecution of Soldier F?


----------



## WolfeTone (16 Jul 2021)

Purple said:


> So is that the Irish State glorifying murder and protecting the reputation of murderers?



Yes. 



Purple said:


> Should we take Tom Clarke's name off our Train Stations and Bridges and cancel the other "terrorists" from the bygone age before we look for a prosecution of Soldier F?



Of course. Why do we put up with this hypocrisy?


----------



## Purple (16 Jul 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> Yes.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course. Why do we put up with this hypocrisy?


I've no problem with that but I don't understand how you can hold that view and still support a political party run by unrepentant former terrorists which glorifies and commemorates recent acts of terror.


----------



## WolfeTone (16 Jul 2021)

Purple said:


> I've no problem with that but I don't understand how you can hold that view and still support a political party run by unrepentant former terrorists which glorifies and commemorates recent acts of terror.



Whats to understand? 
How can you (or anyone else) agree with that view and still support political parties that glorify Thomas Clarke and continue to commemorate his, and his associates, acts of terror?


----------



## Purple (16 Jul 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> Whats to understand?
> How can you (or anyone else) agree with that view and still support political parties that glorify Thomas Clarke and continue to commemorate his, and his associates, acts of terror?


If the Tom Clarkes of this world were still alive and the immediate families of their victims were still alive then it would of course be different. Tom Clarke's actions are history. The PIRA's actions are politics.
Time turns history into politics and changes the perspective we have on events.
Nobody protsts when the Black Death is used as a comedy vehicle but I don't think we'll see a comedy about Auschwitz (though Primo Levi did recount some humorous stories in Moments of Reprieve).


----------



## WolfeTone (16 Jul 2021)

Purple said:


> Time turns history into politics and changes the perspective we have on events.



So the moral outrage and indignation cast at PIRA may one day become a cause of commemoration and glorification? 

This is just a pure cop-out...



Purple said:


> If the Tom Clarkes of this world were still alive and the immediate families of their victims were still alive then it would of course be different.



...that what he did was outrageous and and an act of criminal terrorism, but, he is dead, his associates are dead, his victims are dead, his victims families are dead... so now we can show our true feelings for Thomas Clarke and glorify what he did. 
Why not glorify the lives of his victims instead? 

If this is not the most bare-faced hypocrisy then I do not know what is.


----------



## Purple (16 Jul 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> So the moral outrage and indignation cast at PIRA may one day become a cause of commemoration and glorification?
> 
> This is just a pure cop-out...
> 
> ...


I'[m not talking about glorifying anything. Most history is grubby and most victors are the people who were willing to stoop lowest. There's no glory is war. None. Ever. Wars are when rich old men send poor young men off to die. 
Terrorism is worse than war and what the PIRA did was terrorism, not war. They were not a state. They had no democratic mandate, unlike the real Sinn Fein, the one that became Fianna Fail. The PIRA were a minority of murderous extremists who ignored the will of the majority and killed children in order to perpetuate a tribal conflict. Their new found commitment to democracy is skin deep. We can agree that the actions of the IRA and Sinn Fein (the real, original, versions of both) were bloody and brutal and shouldn't be glorified but your attempts to conflate them with the PIRA, are laughable.


----------



## WolfeTone (16 Jul 2021)

Purple said:


> Terrorism is worse than war


Please... stop! You are better than this. 



Purple said:


> They had no democratic mandate,


1916. An event commemorated annually to this day. 
What is to stop any armed grouping taking over Belfast City Hall for a good ol' shoot up of the town in the pursuit of an Irish Republic as set out in the 1916 Proclamation? 



Purple said:


> The GOIRA were a minority of murderous extremists who ignored the will of the majority and killed children in order to perpetuate a tribal conflict.


----------



## Purple (16 Jul 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> 1916. An event commemorated annually to this day.


Yep, no mandate in 1916 but a massive one by 1922. Tom Clarke was murdering people long before that but we've a long history of British people coming here and causing trouble, sure just look at James Connolly and Jim Larkin and all the trouble they caused!


WolfeTone said:


> What is to stop any armed grouping taking over Belfast City Hall for a good ol' shoot up of the town in the pursuit of an Irish Republic as set out in the 1916 Proclamation?


Nothing. There's also nothing stopping anyone doing the same thing in pursuit of a republic as set out in whatever proclamation the Iranians used in 1979.

And please don't edit what I said and present it as a quote.


----------



## Betsy Og (16 Jul 2021)

1916 was suicide bomber stuff, but the 1918 election was a clear mandate for independence. The UK had failed to deliver home rule, allowed "Ulster" to arm. The UK could take itself off whenever it liked, eventually it did, not before the Black & Tans disgraced themselves. So there was an outcome for the GOIRA that was foreseeable and achieved. It wasn't all Queensbury rules but then war never is.

In NI through the late 70s, 80s, 90s what was the foreseeable outcome?, if the British Army went home then what then? Did the 6 counties not require a police force? The 'Long War' was a totally futile sectarian exercise, killing protestant farmers along the border in low level ethnic cleansing, never an endgame in sight. All war is horror, sometimes it is necessary, from '69 to '73 you could argue that the IRA had a role to play in community defenderism, but once you had the Sunningale Agreement with powersharing then the means were there end the conflict (votes, housing, powersharing - Civil Rights aims achieved). The RA terrorised for another 25 years to achieve nothing - the GFA that a vote for a UI would be carried, that was always going to be the de facto position anyway & the PIRA could have negotiated that at Sunningdale if they'd joined in.  As the former IRA man said crying on the documentary "What was it for, what the __ was it all about".

As for the "you like the GOIRA but not the Provos" argument, lets move on from the GOIRA, change the train station names, take down the portraits, far better to do that than sully our name with the crimes of the Provos. That won't do SF though, so vigilant we must be.


----------



## WolfeTone (16 Jul 2021)

Betsy Og said:


> 1916 was suicide bomber stuff, but the 1918 election was a clear mandate for independence



It was a clear mandate for independence, but there was never any mandate to go to war. 
The Dáil, which presumably GOIRA were answerable to, never endorsed military force against the British. In fact, the only time the Dáil voted on a motion to declare the country at war with Britain was in January 1921. And that motion was defeated. 
GOIRA never commanded the support of the majority of people. This is reflected in the paltry numerous, estimated at 15,000 relative to the Irish Volunteers before them of some 150,000+.

GOIRA had no mandate to carry out its sectarian massacres, its summary executions, its litany dead disappeared bodies. 
It's an inconvenient truth that most across the political spectrum cannot fathom. So Dev and Collins are painted as war hero's. In reality, they sowed the seeds of further conflict in this country through their bloody campaign of murder.


----------



## Purple (16 Jul 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> GOIRA had no mandate to carry out its sectarian massacres, its summary executions, its litany dead disappeared bodies.
> It's an inconvenient truth that most across the political spectrum cannot fathom. So Dev and Collins are painted as war hero's. In reality, they sowed the seeds of further conflict in this country through their bloody campaign of murder.


The PIRA regarded the  government of this Country, our Judges, our Police and our Army as their emeries and as legitimate targets. Their political wing has not disavowed that position but now they want to run this country and be in charge of our Police and our Army. When their members murder our Police and our Army they consider the murderers to be heroes and collect them from prison. It takes wilful blindness not to see the difference between the IRA that was killing people before this country existed and the PIRA who fought against this country.


----------



## WolfeTone (16 Jul 2021)

Constable James O'Brien of Dublin Metropolitan police officer was on duty at Dublin Castle when the Rising commenced. His authority as a police officer derived from his appointment by Government, the legal lawful authority, British government, as mandated by the people of Ireland. Ably represented at Westminster by duly elected representatives of both Orange and Green persuasion. 
The rebels of 1916 regarded him as an enemy and blew his head off. 
For this, our President stands to salute the men and women of 1916 each year. 

Stop the feigned outrage, you cannot be a supporter of the institutions of this 26 county state without acknowledging its origins are from a murderous, indiscriminate, sectarian campaign of violence that had no mandate in 1916 or in 1919.
If the institutions of the State, and the political pillars that support them, acknowledge their murderous past, take down the portraits of Dev and Collins, stop naming bridges after Clarke etc... then perhaps I can take moral outrage seriously. 
But it is total hypocrisy in my view that those who were under siege from loyalist mobs, interned by British Army, living in a sectarian discriminate State, could not defend themselves and pursue the same goals as their predecessors of 1916-1921.

The difference being today that in 1998, the people of Ireland as a whole, voted overwhelmingly that from that point on the gun is out of Irish politics. It has made the PIRA conflict redundant, it has made 1916 redundant, save the attempts by some to overthrow that mandate.


----------



## WolfeTone (16 Jul 2021)

@Purple I don't expect we will change minds here. So it's too sunny outside to be at this crack. 
Enjoy the weekend.


----------



## Purple (16 Jul 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> Constable James O'Brien of Dublin Metropolitan police officer was on duty at Dublin Castle when the Rising commenced. His authority as a police officer derived from his appointment by Government, the legal lawful authority, British government, as mandated by the people of Ireland. Ably represented at Westminster by duly elected representatives of both Orange and Green persuasion.
> The rebels of 1916 regarded him as an enemy and blew his head off.
> For this, our President stands to salute the men and women of 1916 each year.


Yes. No argument there.


WolfeTone said:


> Stop the feigned outrage, you cannot be a supporter of the institutions of this 26 county state without acknowledging its origins are from a murderous, indiscriminate, sectarian campaign of violence that had no mandate in 1916 or in 1919.


There's no feigned outrage, I'm just pointing out that you support the enemies of this country.
I take it that when you refer to the 26 county state you are talking about the country called Ireland?


WolfeTone said:


> If the institutions of the State, and the political pillars that support them, acknowledge their murderous past, take down the portraits of Dev and Collins, stop naming bridges after Clarke etc... then perhaps I can take moral outrage seriously.


I think most politicians acknowledge the crimes committed during our war of independence and the period leading up to it. They also realise that the political, legal and social structures in place now, a hundred years later, are vastly different and therefore that what is acceptable and unacceptable are also different. 


WolfeTone said:


> But it is total hypocrisy in my view that those who were under siege from loyalist mobs, interned by British Army, living in a sectarian discriminate State, could not defend themselves and pursue the same goals as their predecessors of 1916-1921.


I don't think anyone thinks that  those who were under siege from loyalist mobs, interned by British Army, living in a sectarian discriminate State, could not defend themselves. The issue is thinking that they are the descendants of those who fought in 1916. They simply aren't. FF and FG are the descents of those people.  The PIRA criminal gang which perpetuated sectarianism for 40 years by murdering children, Nuns, Farmers, builders and members of the British and Irish security forces are the issue. 


WolfeTone said:


> The difference being today that in 1998, the people of Ireland as a whole, voted overwhelmingly that from that point on the gun is out of Irish politics. It has made the PIRA conflict redundant, it has made 1916 redundant, save the attempts by some to overthrow that mandate.


Yes, and the unrepentant political wing of the PIRA are unrepentant about their crimes.


----------



## WolfeTone (16 Jul 2021)

Purple said:


> I think most politicians acknowledge the crimes committed during our war of independence and the period leading up to it.



And they still continue to commemorate those crimes and the perpetrators of those crimes. 

The Stanley affair comparing Warrenpoint and Kilmichael was met with wrath from the righteous about the 'glorification' of Warrenpoint. None of whom could bring themselves to speak of Kilmichael. 



Purple said:


> They also realise that the political, legal and social structures in place now, a hundred years later, are vastly different and therefore that what is acceptable and unacceptable are also different.



I would beg to differ. Now, and at the outbreak of the conflict in 1969 the political and legal structures remain very much the same.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (16 Jul 2021)

The two schools of Stanleyism.  The orthodox school holds that the PIRA are just as heroic as the GOIRA.  The _Wolfie _school holds that that they are equally despicable.  Grisly, who is a broad minded sort of individual, would accept either school.  In fact his main mantra is that PIRA Volunteers and their activities were on a par with that of British Army in the "Troubles".  It always struck me that anyone looking for parity of respect in a dirty conflict must know  deep down that they are the baddies.


----------



## WolfeTone (16 Jul 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> It always struck me that anyone looking for parity of respect in a dirty conflict must know deep down that they are the baddies.



Yes, and that is how I view the British State and its agents in all of this. 
They want immunity from prosecution, for hideous crimes no less than murder. 

They want to hide the truth of the extent of their involvement in prolonging the conflict. 
They want to sell an official narrative, just as 26 county State sells the official narrative of the hero's of 1916. To large extent they have succeeded. 

But the hypocrisy is so glaring, so bare-faced that it is prompting the British government to try and bury the past - like in Kenya, and perhaps many, many other places.


----------



## Betsy Og (16 Jul 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> Yes, and that is how I view the British State and its agents in all of this.
> They want immunity from prosecution, for hideous crimes no less than murder.
> 
> They want to hide the truth of the extent of their involvement in prolonging the conflict.


Johnson is a rogue under any heading you want to pick. I don't agree with whitewashing what happened - people should be held accountable for their actions - maybe they won't serve prison sentences but it still matters to victims that the culpable are brought to account. Many feel it is lumping all security forces into the same bin as terrorists. Was every RUC man a sectarian bigot out to kill CNR people and therefore a legitimate target?, no, not in my view. Nor was the cook at the army base, the builders doing some work, the guy teaching leatherwork in a Derry prison, the innocent shoppers in Belfast.

Absolutely there was instances of state murder, and collusion, & loyalist paramilitaries, but would the death toll be worse if the Brits never came? - no question about it. So the charge against the Provos is that they instigated a Long War (& could've stopped at any time) which had no prospect of succeeding, picking off defenceless people in a mindless sectarian campaign, and now they want to gaslight us into accepting these actions, whether by a) drawing parallels to 1916-1921 or b) saying "sure they were at it too", we're all equally innocent or guilty. It was a mistake lads, ye may never admit it, we will never accept it, SF would be wise to let sleeping dogs lie.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (16 Jul 2021)

SF are desperate for parity of respect with the "constitutional" parties down here (less need up there).  Without that parity of respect they will not break into the middle and public service classes which would be necessary for any hard leftist movement to achieve power.
They are thus very keen to seek parity between PIRA, GOIRA and BA.  In a sense the PIRA baggage of SF is something of a guarantee that the hard left will not gain or even share power in the South.


----------



## WolfeTone (16 Jul 2021)

Betsy Og said:


> Absolutely there was instances of state murder, and collusion, & loyalist paramilitaries,


Terrorism. Call them for what they are, terrorists. 



Betsy Og said:


> So the charge against the Provos is that they instigated a Long War (& could've stopped at any time) w



Provos didn't even exist at outset of Troubles. IRA was an old man's thinking club, predominantly in Dublin and clueless how to react to attacks on civilian population by loyalist mobs aided and abetted by organs of the British State, namely the RUC. 



Betsy Og said:


> which had no prospect of succeeding,



As did the leaders of 1916 recognise in advance of their decision to shoot up the city wreaking carnage that would ultimately divide the country. 
An utter failure by any measurement, but hey, they are 'our heros' 



Betsy Og said:


> picking off defenceless people



Derry, Ballymurphy, Dublin, Monaghan, Beltubert.... 




Betsy Og said:


> drawing parallels to 1916-1921



It's impossible not to - the sectarian massacres, the disappearing of bodies, no mandate from the people. 

It's impossible not to equate GOIRA and PIRA.


----------



## Betsy Og (16 Jul 2021)

Briefly;
- I don't think the RUC were terrorists, as a force. Loyalists obv were. The British Army were an army, over 35 years there were, what, 20 separate occasions of murder of civilians, we could name most of them off - certainly "our" ones. None justified, all should be prosecuted. You'd want an encyclopedic knowledge for the IRA ones. On this Day the IRA wouldn't be bad start. 
-The Long War was a mid 70s "strategy" - as I said you could make an argument for 1969 & early 70s.
-As you can tell I'm not into lauding 1916.
-Yes, security forces and loyalist murders are acknowledged. "Once the IRA stopped it all stopped" - the Book of Duke 
-Re GOIRA & PIRA, I refer to my earlier post drawing some crucial differences.


----------



## Betsy Og (16 Jul 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> In a sense the PIRA baggage of SF is something of a guarantee that the hard left will not gain or even share power in the South.


They could have formed a government of headbangers last time but they collectively soiled themselves at the prospect of needing something other than slogans to get themselves through the week. While the toxicity of the RA & the gaslighting is something that turns off older voters, the young care not a jot, so I'll be surprised if SF don't get one tilt at it in the next decade, just keep 'em away from justice and finance. I think once will be enough to show the electorate that there's not much going on beyond self serving commemorations.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (16 Jul 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> But it is total hypocrisy in my view that those who were under siege from loyalist mobs, interned by British Army, living in a sectarian discriminate State, could not *defend themselves *and pursue the same goals as their predecessors of 1916-1921.


I don't like to play the "I wuz there card" but really when I hear this nonsense from armchair 26 county republicans it makes me want to scream.
I lived in Andersonstown as a young man in 1972.  For 9 months the PIRA were in control of our estate.  You had to pass PIRA barricades to enter and show ID.  These barricades were supposedly to protect ourselves from a pogrom by the BA.  For about a day or two in 1969 barricades were also mounted to protect against the loyalist mob.  They were arguably justified but the quick deployment of the BA made them redundant as indeed was acknowledged by the residents including the IRA.
But in 1972 the idea that the BA might launch a civilian massacre was as ludicrous as the idea that the barricades would stop them if that was their intention.  Nobody including myself thought that there was such a threat to be defended against.  The PIRA were first and last an offensive terrorist army, they had no defensive role whatsoever.
The No Go areas gave the PIRA the chance to strut their stuff.  I didn't feel threatened by them.  Indeed ironically these were the sort of hard hombrés that I would normally cross the street to avoid (I had been beaten up a couple of times pre Troubles but I guess that is par for the course in working class estates) but now that they could openly prance around brandishing their guns (firing machine guns into the air outside our home was a regular occurrence) they couldn't be bothered picking on little ol' me.  Though I am sure anyone with an ASBO disposition would not have such a favourable view of their new guardians of the peace, and presumably had their chance for Olympic glory permanently compromised.
Nonetheless, as I watched BBC and saw the highly publicised plans for an imminent dismantling of the barricades - Operation Motorman, I was looking forward to being parted from my defenders.  The PIRA also watch BBC (no RTÉ in our area) and duly took the hint to escape across the Border.
Operation Motorman was the biggest military operation in Ireland since the WoI.  It involved 22,000 British troops in an effective invasion of Catholic estates such as mine.  If I were to believe the @WolfeTone narrative I should have been mightily terrified, _au contraire_ I was mightily relieved.  The operation had an unbelievably low casualty rate but a couple of people were killed, including Daniel Hegarty in Derry.  In revenge that afternoon the PIRA, as led by their quartermaster the local priest, exploded car bombs in Claudy, killing 9 innocent people including a child.  We hear a lot about Daniel (he shouldn't have been killed) from @WolfeTone but we hear nothing about the Claudy bombs.


----------



## WolfeTone (16 Jul 2021)

@Betsy Og i appreciate the sincerity of your post. I simply cannot agree, mostly.



Betsy Og said:


> I don't think the RUC were terrorists



We have to define terrorist? As an organisation, they were the legal authority under British law for policing. So not classed as a terror organisation. Yet, they killed innocent civilians. Their crimes were not investigated. They failed to investigate crimes of loyalist terrorists. Some of its members colluded with loyalist terrorists.
So while not classed officially (unsurprisingly) as a terrorist organisation, they did have terrorists within their ranks and they did collude with terrorists.

This is supposed to be the police force.
 No wonder on 7% of its members were Catholic. That stat should sound alarm bells in a region with some 40% + Catholic.


Betsy Og said:


> The British Army were an army, over 35 years there were, what, 20 separate occasions of murder of civilians, we could name most of them off - certainly "our" ones



I do not know where to begin with this. British Army alone were responsible for some 300 deaths. Some 80% of those were Catholic. I think, but I will have to look it up, some 20+ children 17ys old and younger. 


Betsy Og said:


> None justified, all should be prosecuted.



Well, we are agreed on that.




Betsy Og said:


> The Long War was a mid 70s "strategy"



The Long War was a strategy adopted in response to the low level covert dirty war being applied by Britain. The massacres at Derry and Ballymurphy were to cease, instead a policy of criminalisation was adopted. This policy would include covert operations colluding with loyalist paramilitaries to attack Catholic areas to try get Catholic communities turning on the IRA. It failed.


Betsy Og said:


> As you can tell I'm not into lauding 1916



No, but you must be put off by our political class, right up to the President who lauds these terrorists every year?



Betsy Og said:


> Yes, security forces and loyalist murders are acknowledged. "Once the IRA stopped it all stopped" - the Book of Duke



Once the British ending the policies of criminalisation, collusion, internment, shoot to kill, and opened the door to political negotiation, did the political impetus take the ascendency. 
The policy of the British and Irish governments was to criminalise the Republican movement and to discredit it amongst nationalist communities in the North. Do you remember the mantra of "we will never negotiate with terrorists"? 
How long did this policy add to the conflict? 

This policy was an abject failure and in turn it was when the two governments conceded that they would negotiate that the conflict started coming to an end. 

It is not a credible insight to think that the IRA could have stopped at 'anytime'. 
Who was going to give the order to stop? Unconditionally? This is not credible, there are grave injustices inflicted on nationalist Community over the period. The idea that the IRA would stop unconditionally is simply a bullet in the head for anyone trying to push that to be replaced by more hardliners.


----------



## WolfeTone (16 Jul 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> I'm happy to discuss the disappeared or any other injustice inflicted on innocent people by the IRA.





Duke of Marmalade said:


> We hear a lot about Daniel (he shouldn't have been killed) from @WolfeTone but we hear nothing about the Claudy bombs.



On the contrary Duke. I have already set out my stall on this as shown above. 

We hear a lot about Daniel Hegarty because the events surrounding his murder are topical. 
It's the constant pushback against highlighting any injustice inflicted by BA or British agents against innocent Irish people on these pages that is puzzling. 
I get which side of the fence you stand on when it comes to your perspective of matters. That is fair enough, but why the constant "but look over here at what IRA did?" 

Daniel Hegarty was 15. He was unarmed, he no threat, they shot him dead in cold blood. There is not much else to add to it other than the person(s) responsible be held to account. If not, what moral authority does the British government, or anyone else have over the IRA for any of their cover-ups?


----------



## WolfeTone (16 Jul 2021)

Betsy Og said:


> On this Day



Well, 15th July 1969 to be precise. 

Francie McCloskey remembered 50yrs on. 

The police said he was hit by a stone. The cover-ups were from the outset.


----------



## WolfeTone (16 Jul 2021)

Samuel Devenney was next

RUC officers may not face prosecution 

In 2001! 

This is the police.


----------



## Betsy Og (16 Jul 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> @Betsy Og
> 
> 
> Once the British ending the policies of criminalisation, collusion, internment, shoot to kill, and opened the door to political negotiation, did the political impetus take the ascendency.
> ...


Wolfie - sure we know for a fact they "negotiated with terrorists" pretty much from the get go. That was just a slogan.

Surely the IRA were the most highly skilled disciplined wahh wahhh (insert whatever chest beating tripe you want) force, would they not have respected the authority of the army council?? Fair enough, there's always going to being the sectarian luncatics who won't rest until there's ethnic cleansing but the notion that you continue for another 25 years to keep them on side is just not good enough. The IRA took it upon themselves to conduct a campaign of terror with no political mandate, because they were the legitimate government of Ireland, keepers of the 2nd Dail - it would be laughable were it not so deadly. If they had shut up shop in the early 70s then NI would have been spared most of the butchery - they didn't, it wasn't, the reasons for continuing were not justifiable, as Duke has said their continuing of the campaign did nothing to help their community, the opposite in fact.


----------



## WolfeTone (16 Jul 2021)

And it goes on and on.


----------



## WolfeTone (16 Jul 2021)

Betsy Og said:


> they didn't, it wasn't, the reasons for continuing were not justifiable,



I'm not saying it was justifiable.
I'm saying it is ludicrous to think they could have stopped 'anytime'.

It is not a regular army. The only way to get the campaign to stop was to enter political negotiations (by the front door, not the back door).

As I'm highlighting above the RUC was a discredited police force in nationalist areas. I doubt even the Duke dare contradict that?

The evidence is there to see. Interventions by Hume, an intervention by Clinton in the US. Intervention by Reynolds, even John Major moved from the Thatcher hardline. Once that happened, the political side of the Republican movement took the ascendency at leadership level and we are where we are now.

How soon would the conflict had ended if at the Sunningdale Agreement, prisoners were to be released?
Impossible to say, but it surely would have given impetus to a possible early end of the conflict?

Instead, the political centre and the British government sought to exclude, isolate, criminalise, etc the paramilitaries. This is understandable, but in the end, it undoubtedly prolonged the conflict and ultimately they ended up negotiating with the paramilitaries 25yrs later, releasing prisoners.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (16 Jul 2021)

@WolfeTone 
Perspective my dear _Wolfie_, perspective.
There are two threads to this discussion - (1) the culpability of the BA - (2) the respectability of current SF given their PIRA baggage.
The BA were tasked over about 30 years with containing an urban guerrilla war and a potential for sectarian divisions to morph into civil war.  Not a task for which they or anybody else are particularly well trained.  But I am with Garret that despite the unforgivable lapses by rogue elements we are mightily grateful that they got the job done.  I have conceded their grave lapses, I sense you will never concede that on balance their intervention saved us from ourselves.
On the other hand I will never buy into your argument that SF's PIRA baggage is on a par with the historical baggage of FF/FG.


----------



## Betsy Og (16 Jul 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> I'm not saying it was justifiable.
> I'm saying it is ludicrous to think they could have stopped 'anytime'.


Yes, unjustifiable which is why I'm declining the SF invitation to worship at their altar - now we're getting somewhere. It was within the gift of the Republican movement to stop - are we to believe the "securicrats" would forever goad them into further violence?, that's a handy excuse isn't it...... giz a break.


WolfeTone said:


> It is not a regular army. The only way to get the campaign to stop was to enter political negotiations (by the front door, not the back door).


Gunmen with no votes, and they wanted to be brought in the front door to issue their demands. The arrogance of the Provos was outstanding, and it hasn't gone away y'know.... They had talks in 72, they could've had talks any day of the week if they were serious.


WolfeTone said:


> As I'm highlighting above the RUC was a discredited police force in nationalist areas. I doubt even the Duke dare contradict that?


You posed that they were terrorists - to legitimise every off duty RUC man killed. I'm saying that's OTT. Sure ye'll shoot guards in the South too, equal opportunity murderers. A SF minister for justice - make your blood run cold. 


WolfeTone said:


> The evidence is there to see. Interventions by Hume, an intervention by Clinton in the US. Intervention by Reynolds, even John Major moved from the Thatcher hardline. Once that happened, the political side of the Republican movement took the ascendency at leadership level and we are where we are now.


Hurrah they cried on the Falls. Are they an undefeated army or a raggle taggle of terrorists who had to be lied to to get them into the peace process?, quite hard to ride those two horses. This could have been wrapped up before Thatcher ever came to power - demands that could never be met were never met - isn't that a shocker.....


WolfeTone said:


> How soon would the conflict had ended if at the Sunningdale Agreement, prisoners were to be released?
> Impossible to say, but it surely would have given impetus to a possible early end of the conflict?


Well the PIRA were blowing up the town, a 32 county socialist republic was not being dished up to them. Of course they settled for less in 1998, just the 25 years of pointless killing. As keepers of the Second Dail I know this burden weighed heavy on them......   


WolfeTone said:


> Instead, the political centre and the British government sought to exclude, isolate, criminalise, etc the paramilitaries. This is understandable, but in the end, it undoubtedly prolonged the conflict and ultimately they ended up negotiating with the paramilitaries 25yrs later, releasing prisoners.


Any....day.....of....the.....week they could have negotiated - even Dev had to lock up the lunatics in the Curragh eventually, are you telling me we had 25 years of killing in case, what, 100?, hardliners wouldn't like it?? We still have dissident republicans now, we had the Real IRA & Omagh, there's no clean way of making the break, poor show from the undefeated army that this is the best they could offer the people.


----------



## WolfeTone (16 Jul 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> But I am with Garret that despite the unforgivable lapses by rogue elements we are mightily grateful that they got the job done.





Duke of Marmalade said:


> I have conceded their grave lapses, I sense you will never concede that on balance their intervention saved us from ourselves.





WolfeTone said:


> There is no doubt that the BA deployment was a benefit for all at the outset.





WolfeTone said:


> And while it was a relief for Catholics when BA arrived, how must it have felt when they turned their guns on those the set out to protect?
> 
> From one perspective, the BA allowed themselves to be played naively right into the hands of the IRA. No doubt influenced in no small part by directions and information from their friends in the RUC.



Once again - on the contrary Duke.

The BA were instrumental in preventing a sectarian bloodbath, that much was certain.
But they were also instrumental in prolonging the conflict. As mentioned above, it became soon apparent which community were the 'trouble makers', no doubt heavily influenced by information supplied by the RUC... no doubt you accept that the RUC was a discredited police force in Nationalist areas?

So terrific, well done the BA from preventing the sectarian meltdown. But their mere presence did not taper the anger of two communities wanting to tear each other apart.
By the time BA were deployed the RUC had already killed three people including 9yr old Patrick Rooney, and the cover-ups and lack of investigation were in full flow.
Along with RUC baton charges of civil rights marches etc, how long did it take for BA (taking information from RUC) to become distrusted in Nationalist areas?

That the conflict raged for so long is not solely down to one side although that is the narrative being peddled. Even after the Hunger Strikes, it was obvious that some form of political intervention was needed, yet when Hume entered talks with Adams he was pilloried by media, political opponents as they set to destroy any and all peace initiatives.


----------



## WolfeTone (16 Jul 2021)

Betsy Og said:


> are we to believe the "securicrats" would forever goad them into further violence?



Attacking civil rights matches, internment, torture, shoot to kill, collusion with loyalist paramilitaries, house raids, framing innocent people for murder, massacres, cover-ups, criminalisation, summary executions, censorship - these were the policies and practices that 'goaded' people to join the IRA right up tíl 1994.

It was political interventions, first by Hume, then others that brought the conflict to an end.

You are talking to someone here who thinks that none of the political violence in the pursuit of an Irish Republic was justified.
It has been an abject failure and pointless loss of life at every turn. Even in 1916 they should have figured how useless violence would be, they even admitted it in the Proclaimation "_In every generation the Irish people have asserted their right to national freedom and sovereignty; *six times *during the past three hundred years they have asserted it in arms." _

Surely thats a clue? Six times! Surely, hey it doesn't work? It's never worked, but they still went ahead anyway. 
Some like to put GOIRA on a pedestal as having achieved Irish independence. Rubbish! It was transport workers that refused to carry BA personnel and equipment, it was the collapse of court system, it was non-payment of taxes, it was ostricisation of RIC personnel, it was the overwhelming vote for SF - these were the peaceful actions of the Irish people that let Britain know Ireland was lost. 
Collins and GOIRA just inflamed sectarian tensions with mass murder and ethnic cleansing of Protestants, ensuring that the country ended up divided. 
Cemented further by the recent conflict that followed as a consequence of establishing two sectarian states.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (16 Jul 2021)

@WolfeTone As expected you were not to be changed from your central credo - British bad. 
But to be fair to you, the British should not take the hump at this.  You also believe:  Padraig Pearse and his pals bad, GOIRA bad, Dev bad, that Cork Fella bad, PIRA bad, FF bad, FG bad, Michael D bad.  
Though come to think of it I don't think I have heard "SF bad".  Come on, givuz a full hand.


----------



## WolfeTone (16 Jul 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Come on, givuz a full hand



 No problem Duke - SF Bad!

So what now?

The premise of yours, and others point of view, is that I'm some hardcore Shinner!
Yet my clear and obvious derision of all violent Irish Republicanism has clearly passed you by.

I'm open to vote for any party. I do set some conditions, that they are active on an All Ireland basis and I agree in general with their social and economic programmes.

I just don't buy into the "it was all the PIRA's fault, they could have stopped anytime" mantra. This is just lazy analysis that has been propagated to the point of absurdity at this stage. While simultaneously those that proffer this view cannot see the hypocrisy of the President of the 'Republic' still fawning over the deeds of someone like Thomas Clarke whose organisation planted bombs indiscriminately in public places killing a child in the process.
If they could have stopped "anytime", what was it that happened that did actually make them end the armed campaign? Just a random notion? Gerry woke one morning made a few phones calls to the Army Council and said "that's it, we're finished now". To which the others on the AC replied "yeah! We were just thinking the same thing! What a coincidence!!"
And having randomly declared a ceasefire why did the British government feel the need to release paramilitaries from prison?
Why did they disband the RUC and introduce policing reforms?
Why did they agree a power-sharing arrangement for government? The IRA had stopped, why not just revert to the Unionist led government?

Nah!, I happen to think its a little more complicated than what is being proffered here.
The cycle of violence is hard to break, it is not something that occurs out of random notions that may occur at "anytime".

Not prosecuting those in authority for heinous crimes of murder doesn't help matters.


----------



## WolfeTone (16 Jul 2021)

@Duke of Marmalade



WolfeTone said:


> I personally think a unified country that enshrines religious and political identities for all the best way forward. I support all those who actively pursue this.
> That said, unlike most united Irelanders I know I would be prepared to rejoin the commonwealth in exchange for end to partition and an All Ireland parliament.



Lest anyone think I am a hardcore Shinner and not open to alternatives, how would my previously expressed view, above, sit at a SF Ard Comhairle meeting?

I'm a Home Ruler.


----------



## Betsy Og (17 Jul 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> I just don't buy into the "it was all the PIRA's fault, they could have stopped anytime" mantra. This is just lazy analysis that has been propagated to the point of absurdity at this stage.


It's not that it was all their fault, but that fairly quickly anything they had to bring was achieved; i.e. most of the Civil Rights aims were achieved, unionist domination was over (powersharing), there was no longer a threat of being burned out by your neighbours. The point is that zero extra was achieved in the following 25 years, that demands to be handed a 32 county socialist republic were never going to happen, and so it proved.


WolfeTone said:


> While simultaneously those that proffer this view cannot see the hypocrisy of the President of the 'Republic' still fawning over the deeds of someone like Thomas Clarke whose organisation planted bombs indiscriminately in public places killing a child in the process.


Simultaneously nothing, they are separate arguments, you don't have to hold one to hold the other. I'd prefer we look to the future as a European nation, leave the events of 100 years ago to history books, I'd even leave events pre 1998 to the history books but it looks like thats not an option either.... 


WolfeTone said:


> If they could have stopped "anytime", what was it that happened that did actually make them end the armed campaign? Just a random notion? Gerry woke one morning made a few phones calls to the Army Council and said "that's it, we're finished now". To which the others on the AC replied "yeah! We were just thinking the same thing! What a coincidence!!"


This would be a reasonable argument if I was making out Grisly was the devil incarnate, it was all his fault - you might say "ah but what about the hawks". I'm saying the RA and they alone are responsible for their actions (cos it weren't the bleedin' tea ladies were planting the bombs was it??), they collectively could have stopped....guess what, they eventually did....hows about that then. If they'd come to J*sus 25 years earlier that would have been fantastic.

So if SF want to collectively lionise the RA, we can collectively call them out. Are we supposed to have sympathy that the sectarian nutters in their ranks made it difficult?, undefeated army or raggle taggle terrorists........ 


WolfeTone said:


> And having randomly declared a ceasefire why did the British government feel the need to release paramilitaries from prison?
> Why did they disband the RUC and introduce policing reforms?
> Why did they agree a power-sharing arrangement for government? The IRA had stopped, why not just revert to the Unionist led government?
> 
> ...


Use your loaf, no-one is saying that would cease for nothing, God knows they tore the absolute out of it in the end. All they needed to do was get over themselves with the 32 county demand, everything else was on the table. Their arrogance gave us an extra 25, that's the main mark against them. No-one is saying it would have been easy, but killing more was not going to bring back the dead of Derry, Ballymurphy and everwhere else. When we did the deal in '98, prisoners streamed out and the relatives of the dead just had to suck it up, maybe the RA could have sucked it up in the mid 70s and spared us all this, but no, everything must be on their terms, their dead, their heroes. Is it any wonder that so little has been achieved nearly 25 years on from a peace deal. #toxicshower


----------



## WolfeTone (17 Jul 2021)

Betsy Og said:


> that fairly quickly anything they had to bring was achieved; i.e. most of the Civil Rights aims were achieved, unionist domination was over (powersharing), there was no longer a threat of being burned out by your neighbours. The point is that zero extra was achieved in the following 25 years, that demands to be handed a 32 county socialist republic were never going to happen, and so it proved.



- police reform?
- ending of internment?
- criminalisation? Are you saying that in return for ending the violence those caught up in prison (prisoners of war) were being offered release, or were they to serve out the rest of their time as ordinary decent criminals?
- Flags and emblems Act, 1954. In case you hadn't noticed, that thing tends to provoke people up there.

This is an absurdity. The genie was out of the bottle, the sectarian statelet was exposed and, unsurprisingly some were determined to tear it down. Without political negotiation then violence would perpetuate. It wasn't one-sided.



Betsy Og said:


> I'd prefer we look to the future as a European nation, leave the events of 100 years ago to history books,



How convenient for you. I'd prefer that too but every Easter my President keeps digging up the past acts of terrorism and tries to glorify it to me as some heroic noble deed.

Unfortunately, the events of 100yrs ago tie in very much to the events of 50yrs ago. Without partition, civil rights movement may not have been a thing.



Betsy Og said:


> they collectively could have stopped....guess what, they eventually did....hows about that then



Yes, and I'm asking why? How was it that it happened in August 1994 and not 1984, or 1974 as you seem to think it could have done?
I'm thinking the absence of any real political negotiation, policies of internment, criminalisation, censorship, torture, framing innocent people, shoot to kill, collusion with paramilitaries were still all the rage.
Perhaps that had something to do with it? Take your pick.

Maybe because the police were not trusted in nationalist areas, with good cause?
Even the Flags and Emblems Act 1954 was not repealed until 1987. I don't know about you but they tend to get touchy about that up there. The Irish tricolour being on display once being a source of some serious street disturbances.
And I'm reminded of Gerrys infamous "they haven't gone away ye know" quip at a rally in Belfast. While the righteous went into hyperbolic hysteria over such a quip what went unnoticed mostly was that the rally, designated an Irish Republican rally for All party peace talks.
It was the first rally with an Irish Republican designation, in the hisory of the NI statlet, that was permitted by authorities to rally in the centre of Belfast.
That was 1994/5. It took 70yrs for anyone of an Irish Republican political persuasion to be permitted to march in the centre of their own city expressing that political persuasion.



Betsy Og said:


> All they needed to do was get over themselves with the 32 county demand,



Yeh, maybe we all need to get over that? Unfortunately it appears from recent polling that a 32 county demand is still the preferred option by overwhelmingly majority on this island.



Betsy Og said:


> no-one is saying that would cease for nothing,



Then cease for what?



Betsy Og said:


> Their arrogance gave us an extra 25,



Rubbish. Name a point in time in the period from 1972 (the collapse of first ceasefire) to 1994 where they could have just stopped?
I'll start, January 1976

- starts with UVF sectarian slaughter of SDLP members O'Dowds and also Reavey brothers.
This would have been a good time for IRA to call a halt to the violence as it was in danger of spiralling out of control.
But human nature being human nature, revenge was also in the air, and there followed the Kingsmill massacre.

The Kingsmill massacre would have been a good time for UVF to call a halt to their campaign of violence as it was in danger of spiralling out of control, but alas, human nature being human nature, revenge was in the air...

As I mentioned before, the cycle of violence is hard to stop once the genie was out of the bottle. Political intervention was needed, sadly, it was not to be forthcoming until the Hume/Adams initiative. An initiative that was pilloried by many.

The same people who bemoan that the IRA could have stopped sooner were berating Hume for an initiative aimed at stopping the violence!


----------



## Betsy Og (17 Jul 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> - police reform?
> - ending of internment?
> - criminalisation? Are you saying that in return for ending the violence those caught up in prison (prisoners of war) were being offered release, or were they to serve out the rest of their time as ordinary decent criminals?
> - Flags and emblems Act, 1954. In case you hadn't noticed, that thing tends to provoke people up there.
> ...


Yes, so negotiate then. It had gone from a one party state to power sharing even without the IRA on board, imagine what else could have been achieved. The Brits were talking in terms of timeframe for withdrawal, you're telling me Flags & Emblems would have been the rock on which a peace settlement perished??


WolfeTone said:


> How convenient for you. I'd prefer that too but every Easter my President keeps digging up the past acts of terrorism and tries to glorify it to me as some heroic noble deed.


How convenient for you that you insist it was all equivalent - did the GOIRA wage a 25 year campaign for absolutely nothing?, No, they didn't, I've already covered this. I'm sure Michaeldy is burnt from all the letters you're writing to him berating him.......


WolfeTone said:


> Unfortunately, the events of 100yrs ago tie in very much to the events of 50yrs ago. Without partition, civil rights movement may not have been a thing.


The UVF had already armed, 'Ulster' was not going into a Free State. You'll have to go back the the 1500s if you want to tie Ireland into a nice neat bow. After that you either accept that there's a people to be worked with or you go for ethnic cleansing - which is why, on their own doorstep, the UK government was never going to hand them to the IRA (the legitimate government of Ireland you understand.......). Brits Out is all well and good if it means you want a colonial army to go home, but what about all those who want to remain British who are left behind, upwards of a million of them at one time.


WolfeTone said:


> Yes, and I'm asking why? How was it that it happened in August 1994 and not 1984, or 1974 as you seem to think it could have done?
> I'm thinking the absence of any real political negotiation, policies of internment, criminalisation, censorship, torture, framing innocent people, shoot to kill, collusion with paramilitaries were still all the rage.
> Perhaps that had something to do with it? Take your pick.


Or maybe it was that the RA was riddled with informers and any pretence of possible victory was gone. Maybe Gerry fancied chilling out in the Donegal villa. Are you seriously telling me that if the RA had negotiated a settlement that all the dark state activity above would have continued?


WolfeTone said:


> Yeh, maybe we all need to get over that? Unfortunately it appears from recent polling that a 32 county demand is still the preferred option by overwhelmingly majority on this island.


Well lucky enough there's this thing called democracy, been around a long time, if only we'd embraced it a bit more.......so we'll either vote for it or we wont.


WolfeTone said:


> Rubbish. Name a point in time in the period from 1972 (the collapse of first ceasefire) to 1994 where they could have just stopped?


If they had rowed in with Sunningdale they could have gotten powersharing that would have stuck - yes Paisley and Loyalists were against it but maybe the RA had something to do with that, what with blowing up the town. But not having any votes meant they weren't calling the ..errr.. shots in a democratic process, the RA don't respect democracy, they are they government, do what you're told....old habits die hard and even SF reps get the auld 'do what you're told', ah sure they're gas..... Shinners eh???


WolfeTone said:


> As I mentioned before, the cycle of violence is hard to stop once the genie was out of the bottle.


Agreed, probably not as hard as for those yet the die, or get maimed, or those belonging to them.


WolfeTone said:


> Political intervention was needed, sadly, it was not to be forthcoming until the Hume/Adams initiative. An initiative that was pilloried by many.
> 
> The same people who bemoan that the IRA could have stopped sooner were berating Hume for an initiative aimed at stopping the violence!


Ah, I see, the poor RA felt 'no-one likes us so we'll go bombing'. We're back to rhyming couplets again, "the same people said A & B". I supported Hume at the time. How was there every going to be peace without talks. At a government level you can't officially sit at a table with someone still bombing you, but of course there are always back channels - are you telling me that the RA were pacifists in waiting except no-one would talk to them? Even though they had talked to them before and did do again?  Any....day.....of.....the......week.


----------



## WolfeTone (17 Jul 2021)

Betsy Og said:


> you're telling me Flags & Emblems would have been the rock on which a peace settlement perished??


Of course not, its just symbolic of the divided mindsets that sought to promote Ulster as entirely British in the face of a significant minority that see themselves as entirely Irish.



Betsy Og said:


> did the GOIRA wage a 25 year campaign for absolutely nothing



No, because the British government had the foresight to negotiate with them, instead of adopting the policies of 70's and 80's of a low level covert war.



Betsy Og said:


> The UVF had already armed, 'Ulster' was not going into a Free State.



And who were the UVF to decide that Ulster was theirs? Ulster is an ancient Irish province that is majority Catholic, majority nationalist.
But you know that already don't you? Lest you have bought into the incessant pounding of "Ulster is British!" propaganda.



Betsy Og said:


> You'll have to go back the the 1500s if you want to tie Ireland into a nice neat bow.



Actually no, you just have to go back to pre-partition.
Ireland was a country where the Queen of England was welcomed onto the streets of Dublin in 1909. It was a country that was represented by political representatives in Westminster of both Orange and Green. It was a country where tens of thousands of men would fight for Britain's cause in Europe, far more than would ever take up arms to fight for the 'Republic'.
British government succumbed to threats of violence from UV and usurped the Home Rule parliament that was achieved through exclusively peaceful and democratic means.
When it became known that the British intended to suspend the HR Act, the IRB saw that Britain only answers to the gun and duly set about to plan the Rising.
They had no mandate, but they saw the will of the Irish people, represented at Westminster being shafted once more.



Betsy Og said:


> Are you seriously telling me that if the RA had negotiated a settlement that all the dark state activity above would have continued?



How can you negotiate if there is no one to negotiate with? It was Britains intention to try defeat the IRA. Billy Hutchinson testifies that loyalists were usec by British State agents to attack Catholic communities in the futile hope that those communities would turn against the IRA. It had the opposite effect.
In 1989 NI Secretary of State admitted that it was unlikely that they could defeat the IRA, so why did negotiations take so long to start?




Betsy Og said:


> If they had rowed in with Sunningdale



They couldn't 'row in' with Sunningdale because they were not part of the negotiations. Had they been invited then perhaps issues around police reform anx prisoner releases - pivotal to Republican agenda - may have been a feature to disarm the conflict.
Instead it was an agreement negotiated by the centre parties, for the benefit of the centre parties, while those who were at each others throats, loyalist and republican, were to be excluded and criminalised.
In the end it loyalism that crashed the agreement. The offensive part being the Council of Ireland which gave the Irish state a say in matters. Similar large scale protests would repeat after Anglo Irish Agreement, Paisley "Never, never, never, never"...yet, 20yrs later he sat in a government as part of a political agreement that gives Irish government a say on matters. Imagine if loyalists had  allowed Sunningdale a chance to work... so much more may have been achieved. 




Betsy Og said:


> How was there every going to be peace without talks.



Exactly. So you point to me the period where meaningful talks were initiated and I will point to you the end of the conflict.


----------



## Betsy Og (17 Jul 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> Exactly. So you point to me the period where meaningful talks were initiated and I will point to you the end of the conflict.


They were talking in 1972, Sunningdale was done in 1973. It wasn't that there was no-one to talk to it was what there was to talk about. There never was, before or after, the delivery of a 32 county republic. Until the RA could get their heads around that, there could never be a deal. I think anything else was on the table. It wasn't that the RA had amassed such military strength by 1998 that it hammered out a deal that could only be done then.


----------



## WolfeTone (17 Jul 2021)

Betsy Og said:


> They were talking in 1972,



Yep. From wiki

"_The IRA leaders refused to consider a peace settlement that did not include a commitment to British withdrawal to be completed by 1975, a retreat of the British Army to barracks and a release of republican prisoners. The British refused and the talks ended."_

In 1972 the IRA, with some justification, thought they could force a British withdrawal. It was an incorrect analysis but it is wrong to think that they themselves did not believe they could force this.



Betsy Og said:


> Sunningdale



was crashed by loyalists, not by the IRA. The "offending" article of a Council of Ireland that gave Republic a say on internal matters of NI. Similar protests in 1985 with Paisleys "never, never, never...", except 20yrs later he would sit in government supporting institutions that included a Council of Ireland. 

If only loyalists had given Sunningdale a chance it may have disarmed support for the IRA. 



Betsy Og said:


> think anything else was on the table.



Prisoner releases and police reform were never on the table until the negotiations leading to GFA. These two factors were pivotal to any negotiation. 
Just a pity it took so long for political establishment to recognise this.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (17 Jul 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> But human nature being human nature, revenge was also in the air, and there followed the Kingsmill massacre.


Never thought of it like that.  Kingsmills was just human nature.  Who hasn't at some stage in their lives wanted to go out and riddle all round them?  All this hypocrisy about Kingsmills.  Michael D - put a loaf of bread on your head.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (17 Jul 2021)

Recent history lesson (this is a repeat of a repeat).
There wasn't a snowball's chance that PIRA would lay down arms following Sunningdale.  Sunningdale was anathema to them.  To the big boys, Danny, Grisly and Marty it was a negation of everything they stood for - a partitionist settlement.  The prospect was that their Trojan horse of nationalist rights would also be doomed.  And they would have no part in the future - the electorate soundly rejected them.
For the foot soldiers the prospects were even worse.  Just a few short months since they were cock of the walk in the No Go areas they would be condemned to a boring life of picking up that apprenticeship that they dropped or more likely unemployment.  So I don't blame the PIRA for rejecting Sunningdale - it was human nature.  I doubt it was a conviction against that grotesque injustice, the Flags and Emblems Act (MOPE).
As Young Betsy has explained, what changed in the next 25 years was the realisation that the campaign was doomed or what Danny somewhat flatteringly described had reached a stalemate.  But more important the Hunger Strike had catapulted the big boys of the PIRA movement into the electoral mainstream.  They now saw a much brighter future in the ballot box than the Armalite.  As I have said before Mrs T was the unsung heroine of the Peace Process.


----------



## WolfeTone (17 Jul 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Kingsmills was just human nature. Who hasn't at some stage in their lives wanted to go out and riddle all round them?



Don't be silly Duke, you know only too well that if your family, or community comes under violent attack that there will be some who will want to extract revenge. And no amount of pleading for peace and calm will stop it, regrettably.


----------



## WolfeTone (17 Jul 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Sunningdale was anathema to them. To the big boys, Danny, Grisly and Marty it was a negation of everything they stood for - a partitionist settlement.



No doubt about it, but had loyalists been prepared to let it work it may have had the cause of disarming the underbelly community support for IRA.
Certainly, prior to CRM the vast bulk of northern nationalists were not aiming for a resurgent IRA. They wanted social and economic order with sound policing content within the UK with Irish government acting as some sort of guardian. The IRA was an also-ran.

How did unionism and British government manage to cock things up so much that it drove many nationalist communities back to supporting to the IRA?
Can you answer me that?



Duke of Marmalade said:


> As I have said before Mrs T was the unsung heroine of the Peace Process.





Personally I put it down to the Brighton bomb myself. She may have shown steely resolve but her "that is out, out, out" message to Irish government shortly before the attack, became the Anglo Irish Agreement within a year after the attack.

It may also be worth noting, according to journalist Peter Taylor, that within a year of the shooting of Adams, the words 'peace process' were to appear on SF literature for the first time.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (17 Jul 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> Don't be silly Duke, you know only too well that if your family, or community comes under violent attack that there will be some who will want to extract revenge. And no amount of pleading for peace and calm will stop it, regrettably.


And yet you don't seem to allow this "human nature" defence to British soldiers who a couple of days after their mate has been murdered are asked to police a crowd who would wallow in that murder and pull them from limb to limb if they only got the chance as they subsequently did in Andersonstown.  But I guess you hold British soldiers to be sub human and therefore not entitled to the defence of "human nature".
For avoidance of doubt I am not in any way excusing what some British soldiers did on Bloody Sunday as you seem to be excusing the Kingsmills massacre.


----------



## WolfeTone (17 Jul 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> The Kingsmill massacre was a dreadful atrocity. You won't find me excusing or apologising these war crimes.



@Duke of Marmalade I can only assume that you are so entrenched in your views that you are blinded to any commentary that does sit with your ingrained views. Somehow I'm excusing the Kingsmill massacre but you conveniently leave out the O'Dowd and Reavey massacres - was i excusing that too?
The O'Dowds, active members of the SDLP, excuted for the heinous crime of being moderate Nationalists.

From wiki

_The shootings were part of a string of attacks on Catholics and Irish nationalists by the "Glenanne gang"; an alliance of loyalist militants, British soldiers and Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) police officers. Billy McCaughey, a police officer from the RUC Special Patrol Group, admitted taking part and accused another officer of being involved.[2] His colleague John Weir said that those involved included a British soldier, two police officers and an alleged police agent: Robin 'the Jackal' Jackson._

Yeh, it was just the 'Ra that was waging the war. Give me a break.  

I have no doubt at all that BA soldiers would want to extract revenge killing, they are after all paid professionals trained to kill.

It doesn't make it right though does it?
And should someone licensed by the State to carry loaded weapons not bear some responsibility for their actions if it results in a deliberate death?

What you seem to be advocating for is for this amnesty that is proposed by the Tories. That is your perogative, I'm against it, that's mine.
I stand with the broad political consensus in Ireland, North and South, orange and green, you stand with 'unsung heros' Maggie and the Tories.

I get that now.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (17 Jul 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> What you seem to be advocating for is for this amnesty that is proposed by the Tories.


You claim I misrepresent you.  Well this very clearly misrepresents me.  I am with the only consistent party on this theme, the DUP*.  I was against the moral squalor of the GFA and I am against nods and winks and letters to "on the runs" and I am against any amnesty.
I am questioning your perspective which seems to see the amnesty for Soldier F 50 years later as a war crime of holocaust proportions (not quite holocaust but in that litany of British war crimes that you drag along with you.)

On a separate point I note that SF are also in your "bad" books.  I also note the requirements to get your vote.  Considering the few remaining candidates not in your bad books who meet your requirements I get dangerously close to the.......Green Party   Get on yer bike!

_* For avoidance of doubt I generally do not support the DUP.  I think their views on creationism are questionable._


----------



## WolfeTone (17 Jul 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I am questioning your perspective which seems to put the amnesty for Soldier F 50 years on as a war crime of holocaust proportions



Well if we are in the field of misrepresentation then surely we can have no better example than this exaggeration, a tendency of yours when anyone dare question the decisions of authority. 

As it transpires we both share the same view when it comes to this amnesty, yet I'm the one crying 'holocaust'? I don't think so. 

As a side, I was never in favour of prisoner releases either but I accepted it was part of the agreement. It was negotiated up front and it was ultimately endorsed by the people. 
I have already agreed with the hypocritical stance of SF with regard OTR's, but it's the grubby nature of how the British government went about this business that I object to. 
Ditto the manner in which this amnesty is being driven. If an amnesty had been agreed through open political dialogue and negotiation I might still disagree with it, but I would accept it. 
What Tories are doing now is an affront to victims, and a slap in the face to the political institutions and agreements still in place. 
There is only one reason for this, to continue to cover up the extent of the British State involvement in its covert dirty war in Ireland. 

As for the Greens, they are an option but their track record in actively pursuing an end to partition is negligible. They also have a poor record when in power for their social and economic policies relative to their stated position. Still, probably get a no2 here.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (17 Jul 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> I have already agreed with the hypocritical stance of SF with regard OTR's, but it's the grubby nature of how the British government went about this business that I object to.


_Wolfie _that neatly sums up your position. Ultimately all blame points back to the British.  You might argue that others have the same syndrome with regards to SF. 
In fact one could even argue that Mother Therése is to blame.  Less time in Calcutta and more in Belfast and we might have been spared all this.  
I challenge you to implicate Mr. Tayto.


----------



## WolfeTone (17 Jul 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Ultimately all blame points back to the British.



I don't see how you have come to that conclusion other it your blinded ingrained perspective. 

I don't know but I think in that last quote I am critical of SF for their role in the affair?
Perhaps if you read a bit further back you can pick up on my criticisms of our nations hero's GOIRA and 1916? Heck I'm sure I've pointed out the sheer hypocrisy of glorifying a indiscriminate bomber like Thomas Clarke while condemning an indiscriminate bomber like Thomas Begley.

That's the difference Duke, I recognise the atrocities of PIRA for what they were, Kingsmill, Claudy, Warrington, Mullaghmore, Enniskillen etc criminal acts.
But I also recognise the criminal acts of the British government. They are big boys and girls Duke, you shouldnt have to hide behind the atrocities of PIRA as an excuse for the gunning down unarmed 15yr old boys and slaughtering families of O'Dowd and Reavey.

And the proclaimers of law and order, justice and democracy are still at the bare-faced cover up of their own crimes.
And some worry about the Shinners ever getting into power!


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (17 Jul 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> As for the Greens, they are an option but their track record in actively pursuing an end to partition is negligible. They also have a poor record when in power for their social and economic policies relative to their stated position. Still, probably get a no2 here.


Got it!  Your No 1 goes to People before Logic.  That is a harmless bit of virtue signalling to yourself and _TheBigShort_, won't ever come to anything.  But your No 2 - now that is dangerous, those nutters can and do get into power.


			
				theo said:
			
		

> Somehow I'm excusing the Kingsmill massacre but you conveniently leave out the O'Dowd and Reavey massacres - was i excusing that too?


Don't get your point here.  Clearly you were not excusing the latter.  But you were contextualising the former.  Heck you went as far as to ask what can you expect? that's just human nature.  That is excusing in my book.
Of course that's what Truth and Reconciliation will involve, contextualising every atrocity, even the Brits will be at it, pointless exercise.


----------



## WolfeTone (17 Jul 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> But you were contextualising the former. Heck you went as far as to ask what can you expect? that's just human nature.



Here, let me do some more 'contextualising'.
IRA explodes a bomb in a Fish shop on Shankill.
Does that excuse subsequent reprisals of 14 Catholic civilians being murdered in the following week? No.
But were the reprisals to be expected?

Here is what journalist Peter Taylor recorded leading loyalist Billy McQuiston saying

 "_anybody on the Shankill Road that day, from a Boy Scout to a granny, if you'd given them a gun they would have gone out and retaliated". _

I don't think you are giving my theory of 'human nature' enough consideration Duke. I think I may be onto something here.
Albeit you do appear to have empathy for the British squaddies who lost their comrades and let loose on Bloody Sunday.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (17 Jul 2021)

@WolfeTone I don't think you have a future on the after dinner speech circuit.  "GOIRA every bit as bad as PIRA, Michael D a hypocrite, Kingsmills a perfectly understandable human nature response."  Even the shinners would give faux boos at that last one.


----------



## WolfeTone (17 Jul 2021)

Purple said:


> The PIRA regarded the government of this Country, our Judges, our Police and our Army as their emeries and as legitimate targets. Their political wing has not disavowed that position but now they want to run this country and be in charge of our Police and our Army. When their members murder our Police and our Army they consider the murderers to be heroes and collect them from prison. It takes wilful blindness not to see the difference between the IRA that was killing people before this country existed and the PIRA who



The GOIRA regarded the government of this country, our Judges, our Police force (RIC) and our Army (British Army, Irish Battalions) as legitimate targets. Their political wings have never disavowed that position and now they run the country... 
When their members murdered our police and our Army they considered the murderers to be heroes... 

It's the same story @Purple. I don't expect I will convince you, decades of proscribed propaganda is a hard shift.


----------



## WolfeTone (17 Jul 2021)

Betsy Og said:


> 1916 was suicide bomber stuff



I missed this bit. 

I got to watch my 10yr old son dress up in a re-enactment of this suicide mission during the 100yr old commemorations. 

His class were dressed up in military regalia and commoner tweed flat caps and jackets. 
They were armed with individual imitation pistols and organised to pose in military stance by their school teacher. 
Then, one unfortunate soul was selected to read the Proclaimation from the steps of the 'GPO'. A good reader no doubt, and the collective of adoring parents clap-happy as this suicide ritual of abject failure was read out. They hoisted the flag and the uileann pipes were played as the Headmaster read a poignant message from our President underpinning the righteousness of this suicide mission.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (17 Jul 2021)

One of the reasons I am against an amnesty for British soldiers is that I think it pays a huge disservice to the thousands of British soldiers that risked their lives and the 1,100 that gave their lives to keep us Paddies from tearing each other limb from limb.  It suggests internationally that they all need an amnesty.
@WolfeTone I know you like to challenge conventional wisdom on the rights and wrongs of our troubled past but excusing Kingsmills as understandable human nature is a step too far.


----------



## WolfeTone (18 Jul 2021)

@Duke of Marmalade your diversionary tactics are admirable, but I made no such excuse for Kingsmill, as I said on July 20, 2020


WolfeTone said:


> The Kingsmill massacre was a dreadful atrocity. You won't find me excusing or apologising these war crimes.



It's clear you attempting to goad at this point. It reinforces my belief that some, including yourself, do place a hierarchy on victims. Your repeated reference to Kingsmill while trying to divert from O'Dowd/Reavey. I note you now pay homage to the British soldiers that took part in those attacks.

I estimate the British Army, in their impartial peace-keeping role, had overtly killed up near 100  mostly Catholic civilians by 1976. It is the covert operations that don't tally in the official figures. We know their involvement in O'Dowd/Reavey, Miami Showband and the 'Glenanne Gang' in general.
Perhaps these were just some rogue officers, afflicted by my theory of human nature, reacting adversely to the deaths of their own comrades from IRA? Its hard to imagine how such rogue officers would remain at large without the cover of higher authorities. The consistent refusal of our dear neighbour and friend to assist our investigating officers into mass atrocities Dublin/Monaghan is a bit of a giveaway.

Two points,

First, there is sometimes a tendency to relate to events of the revolutionary period of 100yrs ago as a having some sort different set of values and morals.
When it comes to the crime of murder there is no difference between 100yrs ago and today. So I squirm somewhat when I hear the "_that was a different time"_ excuse that is oft peddled to justify murderous atrocities.

The Stanley affair is a classic example - the outrage, the horror, the disdain of the righteous towards the IRA attack on BA at Warrenpoint, compared with the absolute silence from same of the savagery of the IRA attack at Kilmichael.
"_Local Coroner Dr Jeremiah Kelleher told the military Court of Inquiry at Macroom on 30 November 1920 that he carried out a "superfical examination" on the bodies. He found that one of the dead, named Pallister, had a "wound ... inflicted after *death by an axe* or some similar heavy weapon". He stated that three suffered shotgun wounds at close range. The subsequently publicised term 'butchered' was derived from a military witness, Lieut. H.G. Hampshire, who said, "From my experience as a soldier I should imagine that about four had been killed instantaneously and the others *butchered*"_

Our hero's! 
Not one of the morally righteous of our national commemtariat could bring themselves to reference Kilmichael, it was all about Warrenpoint. Just as to you, the conflict was all about atrocities like Kingsmill. The slaughter of innocent civilians, members of the SDLP, by British agents is to be whitewashed.

How many innocent civilians did the BA had to kill before it was accepted that they were here for our own good?

Second point, to which I probably owe you a debt of gratitude, genuinely.
You wrote...



Duke of Marmalade said:


> you don't seem to allow this "human nature" defence to British soldiers who a couple of days after their mate has been murdered are asked to police a crowd who would wallow in that murder and pull them from limb to limb if they only got the chance as they subsequently did in Andersonstown.



On the contrary, once again, I have little doubt that fallen comrades invoke no less the same emotions in army personnel as much as civilians. I would expect, that as a professional soldier, those emotions to be kept in check.

I use https://cain.ulster.ac.uk/sutton/chron/1972.html as a great resource for understanding matters relating to the conflict.

As it happens, 15 people died from violent attack on Bloody Sunday. I was not aware of this until now.

Robin Alers-Hankey, a British soldier died that day 4 months after being shot by IRA sniper.
He was based in Derry.
Would news of his death, a soldier based in Derry, have affected the emotions of BA personnel that day?
It's not implausible to think that emotions were high within the ranks of BA in Derry that day, is it?
Human nature Duke, human nature.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (18 Jul 2021)

Wolfie said:
			
		

> The Kingsmill massacre was a dreadful atrocity. You won't find me excusing or apologising these war crimes.





WolfeTone said:


> But human nature being human nature, revenge was also in the air, and there followed the Kingsmill massacre.


That walks and quacks like an excuse to me.


----------



## WolfeTone (18 Jul 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> That walks and quacks like an excuse to me.



Well it's not, so I would ask you to retract the inference that I give any excuse for a mass criminal act such as Kingsmill.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (19 Jul 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> Well it's not, so I would ask you to retract the inference that I give any excuse for a mass criminal act such as Kingsmill.


I will not retract.


----------



## WolfeTone (19 Jul 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I will not retract.



That's big of you.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (19 Jul 2021)

Professor Liam Kennedy said:
			
		

> Orange paramilitary factions...have been sidelined by the unionist electorate.  There is no appetite to valorise and elect to public-office ex-combatants who have decommissioned their balaclavas.
> Not so on the other side of the house. Sinn Féin's founding members were intimately involved with the Provisional IRA.  Some of its most influential members are graduates of the Maze and other prisons on this island.  It is, therefore, uniquely placed to offer a public apology for its vital role in reproducing the Troubles, year in and year out, decade after decade since 1970.   A unity drive (by SF) needs to face up to the challenge of repudiating the "armed struggle" and ending the celebratory commemorations of bombers, hunger-strikers, political prisoners and killers.


@Purple how much did the IT pay you for that excellent article in today's edition?


----------



## Purple (19 Jul 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> First, there is sometimes a tendency to relate to events of the revolutionary period of 100yrs ago as a having some sort different set of values and morals.


The problem with your moral contortionism is that it is irrelevant in the context of the political ambitions of your Party as what happened 100 years ago is not an obstacle to Irish Unity. What happened 20-50 years ago is. 
In any negotiations about a united Ireland FF or FG having a heritage of insurrection and conflict doesn't matter. SF having a leadership which engaged in conflict and terrorism does.
Seamus Mallon said we should hasten slowly towards a united Ireland so that we don't do to the Unionists what the Unionists did to the Nationalists.


----------



## WolfeTone (19 Jul 2021)

Purple said:


> as what happened 100 years ago is not an obstacle to Irish Unity.



You are kidding right? 
The events of 100yrs that partitioned the country is not an obstacle to Irish Unity. 
This is just ridiculous. 



Purple said:


> In any negotiations about a united Ireland FF or FG having a heritage of insurrection and conflict doesn't matter.



Says who? Unionists? Take a day off will ya! 



Purple said:


> SF having a leadership which engaged in conflict and terrorism does.



Michelle O'Neill, Martin McGuinness, is that the leadership that Unionists share power with in NI? 

Amazing really isn't it, Unionists share power with SF but it is anathema to them to share power with FF or FG on an All Ireland basis, and you think SF is the obstacle.


----------



## Purple (19 Jul 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> You are kidding right?
> The events of 100yrs that partitioned the country is not an obstacle to Irish Unity.
> This is just ridiculous.


You're being obtuse, at best.
In a negotiation for a united Ireland the historical events of 100 years ago will not be an obstacle to progress. The political events of 20-50 years ago will, especially when the people who ordered the bombs and the shootings are seeking to pull the strings on one side of the table.



WolfeTone said:


> Michelle O'Neill, Martin McGuinness, is that the leadership that Unionists share power with in NI?
> 
> Amazing really isn't it, Unionists share power with SF


Yes, it is. It's aa great testimony  to the Unionists.  


WolfeTone said:


> but it is anathema to them to share power with FF or FG on an All Ireland basis, and you think SF is the obstacle.


Knowing the SF will probably be in power soon is an obstacle.


----------



## WolfeTone (19 Jul 2021)

Purple said:


> In a negotiation for a united Ireland the historical events of 100 years ago will not be an obstacle to progress.



Please, the events of 100yrs ago that brought about partition are no longer an obstacle!    
The naivety of this view is beyond comprehension. 
The inference is that Unionists would be quite willing to engage in a UI if it were not for those nasty Shinners (that they already share power with). 

The ingrained bigotry of being governed in a country that is predominantly Catholic has evaporated has it? Because I'm pretty sure you have cited that bigotry on a number of occasions in this thread?


----------



## Purple (19 Jul 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> Please, the events of 100yrs ago that brought about partition are no longer an obstacle!


Is that what you think?


WolfeTone said:


> The naivety of this view is beyond comprehension.


I agree.


WolfeTone said:


> The inference is that Unionists would be quite willing to engage in a UI if it were not for those nasty Shinners (that they already share power with).


Maybe to you and others who have been brainwashed by the Shinner cult.


WolfeTone said:


> The ingrained bigotry of being governed in a country that is predominantly Catholic has evaporated has it? Because I'm pretty sure you have cited that bigotry on a number of occasions in this thread?


This country is predominantly secular. I think that's more of a problem for the DUP but not for younger liberal protestants. Having some criminal who killed or tried to kill your parents grinning at you from the other side of the table is more of a problem for Unionists.


----------



## WolfeTone (19 Jul 2021)

Ah @Purple you are 23yrs behind the times. The All Party talks that led to GFA had all sorts on either side of the table that were part of the murderous conflict. I figure you can point to Adams & Co, but there was also UVF bomber David Ervine and his associates and serial murderer Billy Hutchinson sitting around the table. 

But they somehow managed to cobble together an agreement towards taking the gun out of Irish politics. 

I appreciate you are entitled to your view but the 'obstacle' you cite has no standing when Martin McGuinness and Ian Paisley were quite capable of governing together. 
Then Michelle O'Neil and Arlene Foster. Now Jeffrey Donaldson. 
If there is one person I admire greatly on the Unionist camp it is Jeffrey. I didn't like him when he walked out of talks over IRA weapons but in hindsight we owe him a debt of gratitude for making this a cornerstone of any power-sharing agreement. 

Nowadays it is the profound matters of the British sausage, and invisible sea borders washing around as 'identity politics'. It provokes the ire of loyalism who cannot fathom what the Dublin government have done to them. Poor Leo and Simon, they did not see this coming at all. 

But I see Jeffrey has not walked away yet. I'm inclined to think if Jeffrey can stomach it, then as the leader of Unionism, so can his followers.


----------



## Purple (19 Jul 2021)

@WolfeTone we aren't quite on different sides of this merry-go-round I think we are sufficiently distant that there's not much common ground so maybe we should stop the ride and go on our merry way...


----------



## WolfeTone (19 Jul 2021)

@Purple for sure.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (20 Jul 2021)

Emma de Souza in the Irish Times today said:
			
		

> Voicing support for the preservation of the United Kingdom is not condemned as "divisive" or "unhelpful".  So too should support for Irish unification be considered equivalently legitimate.  The call to silence such views under the veil of "not now" is no more than an attempt to undermine a key principle of the Belfast Agreement.


@WolfeTone How much did the IT pay you for this article?


----------



## WolfeTone (25 Jul 2021)

The Irish language is an important part of Protestant heritage

Linda Ervine gives a brief summary of how intertwined the Irish language is with Protestant culture.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (26 Jul 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> The Irish language is an important part of Protestant heritage
> 
> Linda Ervine gives a brief summary of how intertwined the Irish language is with Protestant culture.


A fascinating lady, _Wolfie_.  
You know me and my takeaways.  Well my takeaway is that the Irish Language, even a UI these days, should not elicit such fierce rejection by the unionist community that even their leader can't bring himself to say Teashop.  Why so?  Linda herself states the obvious - SF weaponisation, such as currying me yoghurt all over the floor of the Assembly.


----------



## WolfeTone (26 Jul 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Why so? Linda herself states the obvious - SF weaponisation, such as currying me yoghurt all over the floor of the Assembly.



Ah Duke, you are missing the salient point in all of this.
Why would the expression of Protestant culture and heritage in the Assembly by the Shinners be taken as weaponisation of that culture?

The reality is of course, it is only weaponised by those who are blinkered into thinking it is, as Ervine says, an affront to their Britishness.

The cúpla focal is routinely bandied about in the Dáil and has on occasion reared its head in the European Parliament. Everyone just gets on with it, no offence taken by anyone. Only in the small European enclave of the North East of Ireland is such resistance shown to the expression of Gaelic culture. A culture that at its core is as Protestant as it is Catholic.

"_When people denigrate Irish as a republican interest, they are showing profound ignorance of the complexities of their own history, and that honestly makes me sad and frustrated.”
" for me it is not only a journey into a language but also a journey of healing and reconciliation”._
- Ervine

Could you imagine Duke, if greater tolerance and respect were afforded to everyones traditions and cultures at high political office how that may begin to chip away at the ancient tribal divisions?


----------



## Purple (19 Aug 2021)

Good Article by Newton Emerson in today's Irish Times on what the political posturing and rhetoric around a United Ireland actually means.  
It strikes me that aa "Should we have a United Ireland" referendum would be like the British one  asking "Should we leave the EU".

As long as the options are as follows I'd be all for it;

Yes
No
It depends


----------



## WolfeTone (19 Aug 2021)

Any notions of a United Ireland with the Tricolour, Bunreacht na hÉireann and Amhrán na bhFiann as official symbols and law are pie in the sky. 
Not without bloodshed anyway. And perhaps before any prospective referendum on a UI it needs to be reaffirmed by everyone that flags and anthems and constitutional arrangements, whatever form they take, are not worth shedding one more drop of blood. 
I think it's actually written somewhere that a UI can only be achieved _through exclusively peaceful and democratic means  _that has been resoundingly endorsed by the Irish people. 

I don't have the Emerson article but I accept it is reasonable. One thing I don't accept is this persistent focus on SF when it comes to a UI. SF has a base of 15% of electoral support north and south. They may be the loudest voice in the room as far as a UI go, but it's the other 85% that need to plug into the discussion. 
Unionism can put its head in the sand if it wants but make no mistake, it is the political strategy of Unionists, not SF, that has propelled the UI discussion to top of the political charts by their persistence in seeking a hard Brexit that the people of NI never voted for. 
Unionists destabilised the UK by refusing to accept the HR parliament, achieved through exclusively peaceful and democratic means, in 1914. Unleashing a century of militant Irish Republicanism. 

They are destabilising it further by pursuing a hardline on NI Protocol. They are ready to resist constitutional change further having not signed up to the principle of self-determination (DUP). 

The other parties FF/FG/SDLP/Labour, and the trade union movement, civil society and religious orders, the business sector, volunteer sector, sporting organisations etc, etc need to get on board the discussion and ask themselves, are they prepared to change the flag, change the anthem?


----------



## Purple (19 Aug 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> Any notions of a United Ireland with the Tricolour, Bunreacht na hÉireann and Amhrán na bhFiann as official symbols and law are pie in the sky.


I agree with you. In that case my vote would change from "It depends" to "No".


WolfeTone said:


> Not without bloodshed anyway. And perhaps before any prospective referendum on a UI it needs to be reaffirmed by everyone that flags and anthems and constitutional arrangements, whatever form they take, are not worth shedding one more drop of blood.
> I think it's actually written somewhere that a UI can only be achieved _through exclusively peaceful and democratic means  _that has been resoundingly endorsed by the Irish people.


Yep. But if it's just down to talking until everyone agrees then it will never happen.


WolfeTone said:


> I don't have the Emerson article but I accept it is reasonable. One thing I don't accept is this persistent focus on SF when it comes to a UI. SF has a base of 15% of electoral support north and south. They may be the loudest voice in the room as far as a UI go, but it's the other 85% that need to plug into the discussion.


Emerson's article points out that the Parties are dancing around the black hole that is the details of what a United Ireland will look like and are all attempting to push each other in. The Shinners are the Sumo masters in that context. They are the most vociferous but refuse to get into details, saying only that everything must be on the table but refusing to say what their position is on specific issues.


WolfeTone said:


> Unionism can put its head in the sand if it wants but make no mistake, it is the political strategy of Unionists, not SF, that has propelled the UI discussion to top of the political charts by their persistence in seeking a hard Brexit that the people of NI never voted for.
> Unionists destabilised the UK by refusing to accept the HR parliament, achieved through exclusively peaceful and democratic means, in 1914. Unleashing a century of militant Irish Republicanism.
> 
> They are destabilising it further by pursuing a hardline on NI Protocol. They are ready to resist constitutional change further having not signed up to the principle of self-determination (DUP).


Does anyone expect anything different? They would be crazy to engage.



WolfeTone said:


> The other parties FF/FG/SDLP/Labour, and the trade union movement, civil society and religious orders, the business sector, volunteer sector, sporting organisations etc, etc need to get on board the discussion and ask themselves, are they prepared to change the flag, change the anthem?


Why would vested interest groups in the business and employment sectors be in the conversation?


----------



## WolfeTone (19 Aug 2021)

Purple said:


> Yep. But if it's just down to talking until everyone agrees then it will never happen.



True, that is why a referendum in favour of a UI should merely set the principle of a UI. It would obligate London and Dublin to prepare for reunification. Whoever wanted a stake in what it would look like would need to pitch their tent in negotiations. 


Purple said:


> They are the most vociferous but refuse to get into details, saying only that everything must be on the table but refusing to say what their position is on specific issues.



Standard political posturing for any negotiation. You don't start conceding your position before your opposition has even agreed to enter negotiation.
They did this to great effect with IRA arms decommissioning. Not until the DUP, bringing the broad consensus of Unionism (something that Sunningdale and Anglo Irish Agreement failed to do) had agreed a deal to enter government were any weapons to be put beyond use.



Purple said:


> Why would vested interest groups in the business and employment sectors be in the conversation?



Because a smooth transition to a UI is in everyone's interests.
As an example, I know a fair few non-politically alinged people. Anti-Shinners, but no allegiance to any party. Put them in Croke Park or Aviva when Ireland are playing and they are practically bible-belting the national anthem. They are repulsed at the idea that Amhrán na bhFiann would ever be replaced as the national anthem.
These people need to be engaged to prepare for inevitable changes. The last thing we want is to stoke nationalist flames. Won't be easy, but getting past flags and anthems would be a start.


----------



## Betsy Og (19 Aug 2021)

I think to get a majority vote in the 6 there will have to be some "concessions" up front. I use " " because tbh I don't think its a big deal to change the flag and anthem. The union flag will still fly where it currently files, likewise the tricolour. In 2021 does it really matter???, from anything i hear our northern friends are more bothered about the NHS and free at the point of access healthcare, maybe personal tax rates. If you say the unionist tradition will be respected then you can't turn around and say....but of course you'll have our flag and anthem...in a language you have recently been conditioned to fear....

If this is some great negotiation, what have unionists to offer us? The vote will either go for or against (we make the changes to get to that 50% +1), if its for then that's that innit, 32 county bye bye UK. I'd say that's as much as we can ask them to put up with. I'd set up a repatriation scheme - that might be seen as provocative - but it's basically "if you want to go go, if you're staying then row in with the rest of us cos we're not humouring this nonsense ("stakeholders" - i.e. giving a voice to paramilitaries who have no electoral support) in perpetuity".

Other than 4th green field and a sense of obligation/guilt to northern nationalists I see nothing in it for the 26 to take on the 6. This palaver about "only when Ireland is united will our country flourish" is pure horse manure, the 6 as they currently exist are a dead weight, and while I'd vote to take it on (because it's the only long lasting resolution) I'll be praying it doesn't drag us under.


----------



## Purple (20 Aug 2021)

Betsy Og said:


> Other than 4th green field and a sense of obligation/guilt to northern nationalists I see nothing in it for the 26 to take on the 6. This palaver about "only when Ireland is united will our country flourish" is pure horse manure, the 6 as they currently exist are a dead weight,


I agree. They are a social, economic and political basket case. I think to get a majority vote in the 6 there will have to be some "concessions" up front. I use " " because tbh I don't think its a big deal to change the flag and anthem. The union flag will still fly where it currently files, likewise the tricolour. In 2021 does it really matter


Betsy Og said:


> I think to get a majority vote in the 6 there will have to be some "concessions" up front. I use " " because tbh I don't think its a big deal to change the flag and anthem. The union flag will still fly where it currently files, likewise the tricolour. In 2021 does it really matter
> ???


Same here. The National Anthem was actually written in English. Singing it in Irish was part of the makey-up Irishness we invented after Independence in order to create a non-British national identity.


Betsy Og said:


> from anything i hear our northern friends are more bothered about the NHS and free at the point of access healthcare, maybe personal tax rates.


Yep, if the Shinners were really interested in a united Ireland they'd put structural reform of the Health Service which reduced waste and overall spending while improving services at the heart of their agenda, along with committing to reducing the higher rate of marginal tax.


----------



## Peanuts20 (20 Aug 2021)

Hang on, Sin


Purple said:


> Yep, if the Shinners were really interested in a united Ireland they'd put structural reform of the Health Service which reduced waste and overall spending while improving services at the heart of their agenda, along with committing to reducing the higher rate of marginal tax.



hang on, would that not require Sinn Fein to make some decisions and take ownership of a problem instead of constantly giving out and moaning??


----------



## WolfeTone (20 Aug 2021)

I will throw this out there. 

The best way to a UI, imo, through exclusively peaceful and democratic means, is to revert back to the last time the country was united as one political and economic entity and there was no such thing as paramilitaries and the talk of violent insurrection was practically non-existent or extreme fringe thinking of little relevance. 

I revert to 1909 when Queen Victoria was paraded through the packed streets of Dublin, of native admirers and loyal subjects in one United Ireland. 

The usurpation of the democratically achieved parliament for Ireland, through threats of violence from newly formed paramilitary of Ulster Volunteers, was the catalyst of rebellion, guerrilla warfare, partition, civil war, social disorder, and the 25yr conflict. 
Good riddance 20th century Ireland. 

Personally I think sectarianism is the root of all this conflict. Partition has only served to perpetuate that sectarianism, on both sides of the conflict. 

A UI, one political parliament, with fundamental guaranteed constitutional ties to the British monarch, as members of the EU, with constitutional protections for identity and culture, traditional flags and emblems. 

An Irish national anthem - Danny Boy
Irish national flag - Harp, Shamrock and Crown. 


After that, we all just get on with the normal business of managing our social and economic affairs through normal parliamentary affairs. 

Whats not to like?


----------



## WolfeTone (20 Aug 2021)

Purple said:


> Singing it in Irish was part of the makey-up Irishness we invented after Independence in order to create a non-British national identity.



Not wanting to go down the rabbit-hole of Irish identity, or 'non-British' identity, but there was nothing "makey-up" about it all. 
A mere 50yrs before partition (1970's in our time) there was still a near 1m native Irish speakers on the island. 50yrs before that, a near 4 million speakers. 
Many of those who led the charge for Irish independence were native speakers and many more were inspired to take the fight for independence as a consequence of seeing their native language, their culture and heritage in decline. 

Nothing "makey-up" about it all.


----------



## Purple (20 Aug 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> I will throw this out there.
> 
> The best way to a UI, imo, through exclusively peaceful and democratic means, is to revert back to the last time the country was united as one political and economic entity and there was no such thing as paramilitaries and the talk of violent insurrection was practically non-existent or extreme fringe thinking of little relevance.
> 
> ...


I don't think it would have a snowball's chance in hell of gaining popular support. The majority in Northern Ireland might eventually support it but not in this country.



WolfeTone said:


> After that, we all just get on with the normal business of managing our social and economic affairs through normal parliamentary affairs.
> 
> Whats not to like?


I read that the first time as, "After that, we all just get on with the normal business of managing our social and economic affairs through normal *paramilitary *affairs.".


----------



## WolfeTone (20 Aug 2021)

Purple said:


> The majority in Northern Ireland might eventually support it but not in this country.



May I ask, why you would think that? I'm pretty sure the vast majority in this country are in favour of a UI.


----------



## Purple (20 Aug 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> Not wanting to go down the rabbit-hole of Irish identity, or 'non-British' identity, but there was nothing "makey-up" about it all.
> A mere 50yrs before partition (1970's in our time) there was still a near 1m native Irish speakers on the island. 50yrs before that, a near 4 million speakers.
> Many of those who led the charge for Irish independence were native speakers and many more were inspired to take the fight for independence as a consequence of seeing their native language, their culture and heritage in decline.
> 
> Nothing "makey-up" about it all.


We'll have to agree to disagree.
The fact remains that the song was written in English.


----------



## Purple (20 Aug 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> May I ask, why you would think that? I'm pretty sure the vast majority in this country are in favour of a UI.


They are in favour of a UI but I don't think that holds if it requires membership of the Commonwealth, the Union Flag in the corner of our flag, the British Monarch as our head of State etc. That's why the specifics are important. The principle of a UI has been established with the GFA so there's no need for a vote based on a vague aspiration.


----------



## WolfeTone (20 Aug 2021)

Purple said:


> The fact remains that the song was written in English.



I'm not disputing that at all. Why wouldn't it be written in English? A language profoundly part of our culture and identity. 
What I dispute is the notion that the Irish language was being used as part of some concerted effort to "makey-up" an Irish identity.


----------



## Purple (20 Aug 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> I'm not disputing that at all. Why wouldn't it be written in English? A language profoundly part of our culture and identity.
> What I dispute is the notion that the Irish language was being used as part of some concerted effort to "makey-up" an Irish identity.


It was part of it but when I was in school we learned a very one-eye's version of Irish history. The political, cultural and civic contribution made by the Protestant Anglo-Irish was largely ignored.


----------



## WolfeTone (20 Aug 2021)

Purple said:


> when I was in school we learned a very one-eye's version of Irish history. The political, cultural and civic contribution made by the Protestant Anglo-Irish was largely ignored



I don't dispute that, but what you are talking about is more about bad teaching of history rather than anything else. 
The exclusion of culture and civic contribution is not restricted to Protestant Anglo-Irish. 
Sport, music, art, science, business were also broadly ignored and if I understand correctly still are. It seems only what is happening is the political and military arena is fit for purpose. 
Where is the recognition for Éamonn Coughlan? Putting a bankrupt economic basket case back on the international map. Barry McGuigan, a world champion fighter (his fight against Pedroza was a masterclass performance. That Pedroza was also a magnificent champion made the fight so special) in the midst of civil strife NI rose above it uniting friend and foe. NI football team in Espana 82, Jacks Army, Kerry football of the 1970's and '80s. Kilkenny hurlers. The Chieftains, U2, Christy, Phil Lynott, Dubliners, Undertones, etc, etc

These are people, the events, that transcend the normal humdrum of ordinary life and propel our sense of pride in who we are and where we come from, this is our identity and culture every bit as much as anything or anybody else. The propelling of Gaelic culture above almost everything else is just bad teaching, derived from bad policy makers.


----------



## cremeegg (21 Aug 2021)

Purple said:


> It was part of it but when I was in school we learned a very one-eye's version of Irish history.


That was also my experience


Purple said:


> The political, cultural and civic contribution made by the Protestant Anglo-Irish was largely ignored.


Parnell, Douglas Hyde, Yeats were certainly well covered where I went to school. Looking back a little further Grattan, Castlereagh, Emmet and of course above all our friend's name sake.

I am sorry you feel that your schooling failed you but I think you are overcompensating here and becoming just a little cranky with it. 


Purple said:


> the makey-up Irishness we invented after Independence in order to create a non-British national identity.


----------



## WolfeTone (21 Aug 2021)

cremeegg said:


> Parnell, Douglas Hyde, Yeats were certainly well covered where I went to school. Looking back a little further Grattan, Castlereagh, Emmet and of course above all our friend's name sake.



Very good point.


----------



## Purple (23 Aug 2021)

cremeegg said:


> Parnell, Douglas Hyde, Yeats were certainly well covered where I went to school. Looking back a little further Grattan, Castlereagh, Emmet and of course above all our friend's name sake.


I certainly remember covering poets but not in my history class. Grattan and Castlereagh didn't get much coverage and certainly not in the context of their Anglo-Irish identity.
We covered writers and poets in English class, though strangely ignoring the most successful Irish writer ever, Bram Stoker.

We didn't learn anything about Irish people who took the Kings Shilling and went around the world cracking heads for the Crown. The history I learned ignored the reality that for generations a sizable proportion of people here, possibly the majority, considered themselves British. My family certainly wasn't in that group but many were. Maybe if my family weren't dirt poor they would have embraced the status quo as well.


cremeegg said:


> I am sorry you feel that your schooling failed you but I think you are overcompensating here and becoming just a little cranky with it.


I'm just a little cranky for lots of reasons.


----------



## Betsy Og (23 Aug 2021)

Every nation has its "creation myths" - we emerged for a misty bog with Clannad playing, pure born celts spontaneously spawned, thereafter we fought to overthrow the evil empire next door in a job not yet finished.

The Brits had their magnificent empire on which the sun never set, before either scramling into a Spitfire to save humanity or exhibiting 'Blitz spirit'.

Both are fairytales, both have bits of truth. I wouldn't go beating ourselves up over the lack of purity of our myths - in fact purity leads people down the racist route. Overall I think its fair to say we were badly served by the British empire - they were happy enough to let millions of us starve or get displaced after all - and while our little country has never been perfect in its 100 years to date it has improved quite a bit in the last 50 (thank you EU), of that we should be proud and there'll be no hankering back to the (fairly battered) UK. A modern European nation that will welcome all from the 6, and if that's not good enough then there's always the boat. Accommodation and welcome, but not tail wagging dog.


----------



## cremeegg (24 Aug 2021)

Purple said:


> We covered writers and poets in English class, though strangely ignoring the most successful Irish writer ever, Bram Stoker.


I'm fairly sure that the most successful Irish writer ever, in terms of single volume sales at least, was Eamon Dunphy.


----------



## cremeegg (24 Aug 2021)

Purple said:


> The history I learned ignored the reality that for generations a sizable proportion of people here, possibly the majority, considered themselves British. My family certainly wasn't in that group but many were. Maybe if my family weren't dirt poor they would have embraced the status quo as well.


Actually, I think this is the most interesting question in Irish history, and its not just a matter of history, what part of the Irish people considered themselves British or not and how that changed over time. Maybe we can open a thread on that at some point.


----------



## Purple (24 Aug 2021)

cremeegg said:


> I'm fairly sure that the most successful Irish writer ever, in terms of single volume sales at least, was Eamon Dunphy.


I think Bram Stoker might pip him on that. Certainly when it comes to TV and Movie adaptations.


----------



## cremeegg (26 Aug 2021)

Purple said:


> I think Bram Stoker might pip him on that. Certainly when it comes to TV and Movie adaptations.


A good writer, not a great writer, but a good writer.


----------



## Purple (26 Aug 2021)

cremeegg said:


> Actually, I think this is the most interesting question in Irish history, and its not just a matter of history, what part of the Irish people considered themselves British or not and how that changed over time. Maybe we can open a thread on that at some point.


I dunno, 33 pages of this... have you the energy?


----------



## Purple (7 Sep 2021)

We can't hold a commemoration for the former police force of this Island. Now it's being held in London. The Shinners won't attend a commemoration for two Gardaí murdered by the IRA. It speaks volumes about the gulf between our supposed aspiration to have a united Ireland and the reality of what would be involved. 
Mick Clifford has a good take on it here.


----------



## Peanuts20 (7 Sep 2021)

Betsy Og said:


> Every nation has its "creation myths" - we emerged for a misty bog with Clannad playing, pure born celts spontaneously spawned, thereafter we fought to overthrow the evil empire next door in a job not yet finished.
> 
> The Brits had their magnificent empire on which the sun never set, before either scramling into a Spitfire to save humanity or exhibiting 'Blitz spirit'.
> 
> Both are fairytales, both have bits of truth. I wouldn't go beating ourselves up over the lack of purity of our myths - in fact purity leads people down the racist route. Overall I think its fair to say we were badly served by the British empire - they were happy enough to let millions of us starve or get displaced after all - and while our little country has never been perfect in its 100 years to date it has improved quite a bit in the last 50 (thank you EU), of that we should be proud and there'll be no hankering back to the (fairly battered) UK. A modern European nation that will welcome all from the 6, and if that's not good enough then there's always the boat. Accommodation and welcome, but not tail wagging dog.



Funny how our friends across the pond forget they were invaded by the Italians, Germans, Norwegians and French (AKA the Romans, Saxons, Vikings and Normans) not to mention having to go to the Dutch to see if they could borrow a Prince to make him King. 

Converse of that is that St Patrick would probably be a British citizen if he was alive today.


----------



## Purple (7 Sep 2021)

Peanuts20 said:


> Funny how our friends across the pond forget they were invaded by the Italians, Germans, Norwegians and French (AKA the Romans, Saxons, Vikings and Normans) not to mention having to go to the Dutch to see if they could borrow a Prince to make him King.
> 
> Converse of that is that St Patrick would probably be a British citizen if he was alive today.


They forget that they were conquered by the French. They choose to call them the Normans but they were French. They spoke French and had lived in France for over a hundred years. They forget that Richard the Lionheart was French, spoke French and only spent two years of his life in England. Their fans go to football and rugby matches dressed as Crusaders (which would be like the Germans going dressed as the SS)  but the red cross on a white background is what the French wore. The English wore a white cross on a red background. 
Yes, the Brit's are brilliant at historical selectivism. We should take a leaf out of their book because our version creates more division and disunity.


----------



## Peanuts20 (7 Sep 2021)

Purple said:


> We can't hold a commemoration for the former police force of this Island. Now it's being held in London. The Shinners won't attend a commemoration for two Gardaí murdered by the IRA. It speaks volumes about the gulf between our supposed aspiration to have a united Ireland and the reality of what would be involved.
> Mick Clifford has a good take on it here.



it is slowly starting to change, not uncommon now to see commemerations and memorials to those who died in the First World War. Midleton is a case in point, it has a mass grave to 13 IRA men killed in Clonmult and elsewhere in the War of Independence, a few hundred yards away in the main town park is a memorial to locals who fought and died in WW1. 

I've the same level of "schizophrenia" in my family. My granduncle headed off in 1916 for the aborted rising in Cork, 2 years later he walked his younger sister down the aisle in Cobh  when she married a Chief Petty Officer from Windsor. Another sister emigrated and married a Captain who subsequently served with the Chindits in Burma. In my house growing up, we had a styleised picture of the GPO on one wall whilst in a tin box sat some old IRA medals and some trench art that some other family member brought back in 1917. 

I've heard IRA bombs go off, Canary Wharf being one of them when I lived in England where for the most part I was openly welcomed and I love London and it's people as a result. And yet, when it comes to commemerating the RIC, I can't help but think of the family story of the Tans and RIC men who raided the family farm (twice) and threatened to shoot my Granny if she didn't show them where the guns were (she didn't, they were in the hayshed, or so our story goes)

It's not straightforward and black and white.


----------



## Purple (7 Sep 2021)

I agree @Peanuts20 , history is never binary and when we try to present it as such we lose any chance to reconcile our differences.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (7 Sep 2021)

Purple said:


> We can't hold a commemoration for the former police force of this Island. Now it's being held in London. The Shinners won't attend a commemoration for two Gardaí murdered by the IRA. It speaks volumes about the gulf between our supposed aspiration to have a united Ireland and the reality of what would be involved.
> Mick Clifford has a good take on it here.


I think the absence of the Shinner from the commemoration of the two Gardai murdered by the 'RA in 1940 is much more sinister.  Can there be any doubt that his attendance would have incurred the wrath of Army Council on the Falls Road?


----------



## Purple (8 Sep 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I think the absence of the Shinner from the commemoration of the two Gardai murdered by the 'RA in 1940 is much more sinister.  Can there be any doubt that his attendance would have incurred the wrath of Army Council on the Falls Road?


Yes, I think we got to peek behind the curtain there. I do think that Mary Lou and even Fierce Doherty are democrats but their strings are still being pulled by the real leadership.


----------



## WolfeTone (8 Sep 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I think the absence of the Shinner from the commemoration of the two Gardai murdered by the 'RA in 1940 is much more sinister.



That's interesting, I'm intrigued why you would think the failure of a SF rep to attend the commemoration of two murdered Irish police officers is more sinister than the entire political establishment being incapable of holding a commemoration, in this State, for murdered Irish police officers?


----------



## Purple (8 Sep 2021)

@WolfeTone, were you in favour of the RIC commemoration and would you attend if it took place?


----------



## WolfeTone (8 Sep 2021)

Purple said:


> @WolfeTone, were you in favour of the RIC commemoration and would you attend if it took place?



I had no objection to it. I wouldnt attend but only because I have no linkage to the RIC not because of any principle. 
The families of officers who died or were killed in the course of their duties deserve to be remembered.


----------



## WolfeTone (8 Sep 2021)

Wriggle me this @Duke of Marmalade 


WolfeTone said:


> That's interesting, I'm intrigued why you would think the failure of a SF rep to attend the commemoration of two murdered Irish police officers is more sinister than the entire political establishment being incapable of holding a commemoration, in this State, for murdered Irish police officers?


----------



## Purple (9 Sep 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> That's interesting, I'm intrigued why you would think the failure of a SF rep to attend the commemoration of two murdered Irish police officers is more sinister than the entire political establishment being incapable of holding a commemoration, in this State, for murdered Irish police officers?


In my view the issue is that while we should commemorate the dead of a police force which was an instrument of colonial rule it was not the police force of this country. The Shinners want to run the country and be in charge of the Gardaí but they refuse to commemorate two murdered members of that police force because the IRA's army council, which runs SF, told them they can't. I don't want any political party which is run from a foreign country running this country. I find that sinister.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (9 Sep 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> Wriggle me this @Duke of Marmalade


@Purple has already given an adequate response.  But I will give more colour on my own position.
Firstly on the RIC commemoration thing I think it is all a bit contrived.  Though I suspect that if I had been around in those days I would have been an RIC supporter, the fact is that we celebrate our gaining of independence 100 years ago.  My understanding is that the RIC were a major obstacle to gaining that goal.  Honouring their efforts sounds oh so mature but for many a tad too far and not really honest
But the 'RA murdering the Gardai of our independent state is a very different kettle of fish.  The SF attitude suggests that McDowell is right.  At its core that organisation does not respect our constitution and believes that it is the legitimate army of this country and that the Gardai are the enemy.


----------



## WolfeTone (9 Sep 2021)

Purple said:


> it was not the police force of this country.



It was the police force of this country. A police force made up almost exclusively of Irish people, with families in Ireland. 

Try again. 


Duke of Marmalade said:


> Firstly on the RIC commemoration thing I think it is all a bit contrived



Contrived by who? The relatives of those whose ancestors were members of the RIC? 
Take a day off will ya? 
The commemoration was not about propelling the institution of the RIC as some gallant and noble organisation that has regretfully ceased to be. 

It was part of a series of commemorations of the lives lost during the bloody period. An acknowledgement, that regardless which side of the fence you sit, lives were lost, families torn apart. 
The commemoration was part of the States effort to heal wounds and move on from the bloody and divisive past. 
So I ask again, how sinister is it that this State cannot hold such a commemoration within its own borders? 




Duke of Marmalade said:


> the fact is that we celebrate our gaining of independence 100 years ago.



Point to me one single State celebration of our 'independence'.


----------



## Purple (9 Sep 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> It was the police force of this country.


No, it wasn't. This country didn't exist back then. We were part of the United Kingdom of great Britain and Ireland. The RIC was a police force of that country and, as has been pointed out, as well as being a police force were an instrument of British control and were protagonists on the side of the Crown forces during the War of Independence. 
The Gardaí are the police force of this country. Commemorating their members who were murdered by terrorists who were attacking this country is not a political or controversial act except to those who still support those terrorists and their view that the police, armed forces and judiciary of this country are their enemies. 

Try again.


----------



## Purple (9 Sep 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> The commemoration was part of the States effort to heal wounds and move on from the bloody and divisive past.


It was organised at the request of members of the Gardaí. I think they should have gone ahead, in the interests of sucking up to the Unionists. It's still a world away from elected politicians refusing to commemorate murdered members of the Gardaí.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (9 Sep 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> Point to me one single State celebration of our 'independence'.


I always wondered about that.  We have chosen instead the suicidal failure of the Easter Rising.  I guess a terrorist war is less romantic (except for Brian Stanley et al).  Or maybe given the civil war aftermath it was difficult to chose which terrorist act to glorify.
But you know what I meant.  The State and in general its citizenry are very grateful for the achievement of independence.  The RIC were a major impediment to that achievement.  So to me it seems contrived for the State to commemorate them In a sort of balancing act.
I see you resort to your usual trick of invoking those for whom it obviously is not a contrivance - the relatives of said RIC men.  A follow through from earlier implications that I am a callous old Duke uncaring of the feelings of others.  It is getting tiresome.


----------



## WolfeTone (9 Sep 2021)

Purple said:


> This country didn't exist back then.



Ah, please!! Seriously? Should we commemorate the lives of those in 1916? The famine?
When you think about it, going by your logic, these were all events that occurred in a different country.



Purple said:


> It was organised at the request of members of the Gardaí.



Which is why it's abandonment in this State appears to be quite sinister in my opinion.
I'm hoping the Duke will provide an explanation, but I'm still waiting.


Duke of Marmalade said:


> We have chosen instead the suicidal failure of the Easter Rising





Duke of Marmalade said:


> I always wondered about that.



So we don't actually celebrate our independence. Somewhat an oddity?

No need to wonder Duke. I will explain.
Up until 1998 this State laid claim under its Constitution to the territory of the whole island. In effect, the State deemed the presence of British military and political institutions as a foreign occupation.
Under the Constitution of this State there was no full independence to celebrate.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> But you know what I meant.



I know what you meant. Its your inability to extend some understanding of what others mean, in particular those who you disagree with, that I think is a fault of yours.
In fairness, you are not alone.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> A follow through from earlier implications that I am a callous old Duke uncaring of the sufferings of others



I don't think you are callous or uncaring, I just think you are the same side of the coin of those who you criticise as being callous and uncaring. The Brian Stanleys of the world, you are in the same camp.
There can be no more obvious example of your continued reference to Kingsmill massacre (a callous and sinister act) and your by-passing of the slaughter of six innocent Catholics in days leading up to Kingsmill. If I'm not mistaken, you brushed it off referring to the murderers as a "few bad apples".

You and Brian Stanley, kindred spirits.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (9 Sep 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> No need to wonder Duke. I will explain.
> Up until 1998 this State laid claim under its Constitution to the territory of the whole island. In effect, the State deemed the presence of British military and political institutions as a foreign occupation.
> Under the Constitution of this State there was no full independence to celebrate.


Yes that explains that one.  Now that we have a "final settlement"  is it not time that we had our 4th July?
Getting back to the original source of this rabbit hole.  I do not think it is hypocrisy at all on my part to be totally opposed to SF getting their hands on government in this country (even if democratically) and yet to encourage their participation in power sharing up there, when we consider the alternative that was visited on us over 30 years.  I see you will not retract the "hypocrisy" allegation so maybe time to close this rabbit hole.


----------



## Purple (9 Sep 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> Ah, please!! Seriously? Should we commemorate the lives of those in 1916? The famine?
> When you think about it, going by your logic, these were all events that occurred in a different country.


I say this with genuine regard for you and your posts but the deflection when it comes to SF and the IRA is really tiresome.


----------



## WolfeTone (9 Sep 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I do not think it is hypocrisy at all on my part to be totally opposed to SF getting their hands on government in this country (even if democratically) and yet to encourage their participation in power sharing up there, when we consider the alternative that was visited on us over 30 years.



And that alternative also resulted in the IRA shooting dead Gardai in this State as well as police officers in the North. 
So yes, I do think it is hypocrisy to encourage their participation in government while simultaneously being opposed to their participation in government. 
But I've made the point. Whether you or anyone else agrees with it or not doesn't really matter.


----------



## WolfeTone (9 Sep 2021)

Purple said:


> I say this with genuine regard for you and your posts but the deflection when it comes to SF and the IRA is really tiresome.



I'm not really sure what you are talking about here? I mentioned 1916 and the famine... where does SF and IRA come in to that? 

To close off this rabbit hole, the comment was made that a SF rep failing to commemorate the lives of two Gardai murdered by IRA was _*more*_ sinister than the abandonment of a commemoration of police officers murdered by the IRA. Not least because of public declarations by elected officials openly stating they would not attend the commemoration. 

I fail to see how one is more sinister than the other. 
But I'm tired of waiting for a reasonable explanation so I will park it there.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (9 Sep 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> And that alternative also resulted in the IRA shooting dead Gardai in this State as well as police officers in the North.
> So yes, I do think it is hypocrisy to encourage their participation in government while simultaneously being opposed to their participation in government.
> But I've made the point. Whether you or anyone else agrees with it or not doesn't really matter.


Oh you nearly match tecate in stubbornness.  I encourage the DUP to participate in power sharing in the North.  Totally opposed to them having any say in government here.  I encourage the Taliban to behave themselves now that they are in power in Afghanistan but etc. etc.  No hypocrisy my dear Wolfie.


WolfeTone said:


> To close off this rabbit hole, the comment was made that a SF rep failing to commemorate the lives of two Gardai murdered by IRA was _*more*_ sinister than the abandonment of a commemoration of police officers murdered by the IRA. Not least because of public declarations by elected officials openly stating they would not attend the commemoration.


That was my comment.  There is nothing sinister at all about the latter.  Worst case is that they have decided that such a ceremony would not be universally popular and potentially open to demonstrations which would greatly detract from the purpose and in particular be upsetting to the RIC descendants (see I do care).
By contrast the SF act of omission points to a very sinister fact, that potential participants in government in the South are in fact answerable to the IRA Army Council and are only feigning acceptance of our constitution as a tactic.  The fact that said SF councillor denies this interpretation only increases its sinistericity in my book.


----------



## WolfeTone (9 Sep 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Worst case is that they have decided that such a ceremony would not be universally popular and potentially open to demonstrations which would greatly detract from the purpose and in particular be upsetting to the RIC descendants (see I do care).



And you don't think that's an issue?

Once upon a time we criminalised homosexuality, we shunned and ostracised unmarried mothers, etc.

Nowadays we just pour scorn on the memories of long dead Irish police officers who, in the main, their biggest crime was following the orders of their paymasters.
That there is a more than significant element of our political class that still cannot move to try shed our bloody and divisive past is sinister.
I wouldnt be so much worried about SF getting into power on that regard, the people who think this way are already in power.
You must be worried? Although somehow I don't get that from you.


----------



## PMU (9 Sep 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> Up until 1998 this State laid claim under its Constitution to the territory of the whole island. In effect, the State deemed the presence of British military and political institutions as a foreign occupation.


No. It regarded, and unfortunately many still do, the Protestant people of Northern Ireland as foreign occupiers.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (9 Sep 2021)

@WolfeTone getting back to the hypocrisy slur.  Of course as a duke I get many offensive comments so it is water off a duke's back.  But, more seriously, I see big dangers in your argument.  I see many in FF in particular who will be seduced by the faux moral comfort in this line of thought as they position for coalition with SF.  This to me is the greatest threat to our democracy; I can't see SF and the Looneys* ever mustering enough strength without FF.

* note of clarification.  By Looneys I refer to the People before Logic folk and their ilk but I definitely do not include SF.  Nothing looney at all about the SF/IRA machinations.


----------



## WolfeTone (9 Sep 2021)

PMU said:


> No. It regarded, and unfortunately many still do, the Protestant people of Northern Ireland as foreign occupiers.



Really? Can you point to the part of the Constitution that states that or infers that?


----------



## Purple (9 Sep 2021)

@WolfeTone, do you see the Shinners refusal to attend a commemoration for two murdered members of the Gardaí as a positive or negative development? 
Do you think there was more to it than one member just not turning up?


----------



## Purple (9 Sep 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> Really? Can you point to the part of the Constitution that states that or infers that?


@PMU should have added 'in effect' to their comment.


----------



## WolfeTone (9 Sep 2021)

Purple said:


> do you see the Shinners refusal to attend a commemoration for two murdered members of the Gardaí as a positive or negative development?



It's a negative.



Purple said:


> Do you think there was more to it than one member just not turning up?



Not really. I'm guessing the individual is of the same frame of mind as the FF TD who announced he would not attend a commemoration for RIC.

I'm pretty used to seeing SF elected representatives attend commemorations for British War dead.
The RIC commemoration was badly managed, it rolled into a big hot potato and all the media headlines about attending or not attending is pure bluster by politicians, including SF, trying to hold political ground in the republican base.
It's part of the political immaturity of the Irish political class down here. They are all for peace and reconcilliation up north, but cannot put away a 100yr grudge.


----------



## WolfeTone (9 Sep 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> getting back to the hypocrisy slur.



Well let me extend you an olive branch, Im not calling you a hypocritical person. I'm saying the viewpoint of encouraging SF into government up north, but 'they are not fit for government' in South is a hypocritical position. 
Obviously, from a purely political point of view, they 'not being fit' is a legitimate view to hold if one thinks that.
But if the electorate does ever give them that mandate into power I expect that political opposition will accept that mandate.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (9 Sep 2021)

It occurs to me that I have been getting my files mixed up as recent posts probably belong to the Zapponegate thread.

The more I think of it the more ridiculous this State commemoration of the RIC just to balance the books seems.  Why not the UVF?  Weren't they Irishmen caught up in the torment of the times and fighting for a cause they believed in?


----------



## cremeegg (13 Sep 2021)

PMU said:


> No. It regarded, and unfortunately many still do, the Protestant people of Northern Ireland as foreign occupiers.


Many of the Protestant people of NI regard themselves this way.

Many (though by no means all) see themselves as British and not Irish, and they regard their attachment to their place as arising out of military victory. The occupation at the time of the plantations, defeat of the 1641 rebellion against that, and the copper fastening of their position at the Battle of The Boyne.


----------



## Purple (14 Sep 2021)

cremeegg said:


> Many (though by no means all) see themselves as British and not Irish, and they regard their attachment to their place as arising out of military victory. The occupation at the time of the plantations, defeat of the 1641 rebellion against that, and the copper fastening of their position at the Battle of The Boyne.


The same can be said for white people in the America's and Australia. They arrived there and took the land from the locals. The American's even have Columbus Day. Should they all go 'home'?
I'm of Norman descent. My Irishness started with a military victory and the conquest of the locals. My ancestors fundamentally changed what it was to be Irish.
A Welshman called Patrick changed what it is to be Irish more than anyone else in history. How do unpick that one?


----------



## WolfeTone (14 Sep 2021)

Purple said:


> Should they all go 'home'?



??


----------



## Purple (14 Sep 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> ??


??


----------



## kinnjohn (14 Sep 2021)

The staggered break must be over,


Purple said:


> ??





Purple said:


> ??


----------



## WolfeTone (14 Sep 2021)

Purple said:


> ??



I didn't understand question, or rather the context that you derived it from.


----------



## WolfeTone (14 Sep 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> I didn't understand question, or rather the context that you derived it from.



On second thoughts it doesn't really matter. This is already page 35....and I'd hate it if AAM ran out of cyberspace


----------



## Purple (15 Sep 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> I didn't understand question, or rather the context that you derived it from.


The Unionists have been here for hundreds of years. They are just as Irish as the rest of us but their Irishness is different from ours. Theirs includes a British identity. I've no problem with that identity (it's god-bothering and bigotry that I don't like) but I don't share it.


----------



## WolfeTone (15 Sep 2021)

Purple said:


> The Unionists have been here for hundreds of years. They are just as Irish as the rest of us but their Irishness is different from ours. Theirs includes a British identity. I've no problem with that identity (it's god-bothering and bigotry that I don't like) but I don't share it.



I know, they question was "should they all go home?". 
This is their home.


----------



## Purple (15 Sep 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> I know, they question was "should they all go home?".
> This is their home.


That's why home as written as 'home'.


----------



## cremeegg (15 Sep 2021)

Purple said:


> The Unionists have been here for hundreds of years. They are just as Irish as the rest of us but their Irishness is different from ours.


Many  of the Unionist people in NI would not agree with you.

Many consider themselves British and not Irish.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (15 Sep 2021)

I see our Presie is snubbing the "celebration" of the 100 years of partition even though Queenie will be there and all the churches.  It's a difficult one but on balance I don't agree with totally contrived and disingenuous gestures like commemorating the RIC.  But it's a pity to see him falling out with Queenie, they seemed so suited to each other.


----------



## Purple (15 Sep 2021)

cremeegg said:


> Many  of the Unionist people in NI would not agree with you.
> 
> Many consider themselves British and not Irish.


They consider themselves British from Ireland. They are British and Irish just as loyalist Welsh and Scottish people are Welsh and Scottish as well as British.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (15 Sep 2021)

Purple said:


> They consider themselves British from Ireland. They are British and Irish just as loyalist Welsh and Scottish people are Welsh and Scottish as well as British.


I think on balance I'm with @cremeegg on this sideshow.  I think for example that Scots who vote for the union still regard themselves as first and foremost Scottish with a minor attachment to Britishness, their unionism is purely pragmatic.
I know we are all descended from Adam and Eve but none of us feel any remaining attachment to Mesopatamia (Iraq) on that count.  The milliion French people in Algeria did not see themselves as Algerians.  Although northern  protestants are not quite in that bracket most do not feel an attachment to Ireland.  And this attitude has been hardened many fold by the pointless and deeply immoral sectarian campaign waged against them and the puerile posturing over curry me yoghurt.


----------



## joe sod (16 Sep 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I see our Presie is snubbing the "celebration" of the 100 years of partition even though Queenie will be there and all the churches.  It's a difficult one but on balance I don't agree with totally contrived and disingenuous gestures like commemorating the RIC.  But it's a pity to see him falling out with Queenie, they seemed so suited to each other.


Really stupid of him, it's a fact anyway whether he likes it or not, it's inextricably linked with the foundation of this country and the civil war that followed. If de Valera and Collins in all their youthful prime were not able to change that fact a small old man president a century later is certainly not going to change anything, completely futile and stupid.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (16 Sep 2021)

joe sod said:


> Really stupid of him, it's a fact anyway whether he likes it or not, it's inextricably linked with the foundation of this country and the civil war that followed. If de Valera and Collins in all their youthful prime were not able to change that fact a small old man president a century later is certainly not going to change anything, completely futile and stupid.


I am presuming Mickie had no say in the matter, no more than Queenie.  Mickie attending a celebration of partition would be speaking for this Government and its people.  I am all for the 6 counties having the right to split off from the 26 but it would be the height of disingenuousness for representatives of the 26 to celebrate that parting.


----------



## Purple (16 Sep 2021)

I presume Lizzie won't be in the Pro Cathedral with a Easter Lillie any time soon so wee Mickie D shouldn't be stepping out in Belfast for their equivalent bash.
It is possible that if the people of Belfast were exposed one of our greatest ever thinkers, philosophers and poets and pound for pound the greatest living Irishman, they will flock to the Nationalist cause.

It's also possible that his reasons for going would be politicised, and god knows he's never politicise the office, and Mickey would be lost in the long grass (in his case literally).


----------



## WolfeTone (16 Sep 2021)

I would suggest that it is Gaelic culture, a culture which is intrinsically linked with the Catholic natives that is anathema to Northern Unionist Protestants rather than Ireland or being 'Irish'. 
No doubt the most recent conflict has done damage to the identification of 'Irish' in the eyes of many Protestant Unionists but it has not dispelled it. Nor more than brow beating of 'Ulster is British!' and British government rule has for 100yrs has abjectly failed to quash the sense of Irish identity for those living in NI. 

Ian Paisley Snr admitted himself he was an Irishman and leaders like Peter Robinson have also said it. Faced with the bare-faced fact that the giant of Unionism, Edward Carson, was a proud Dublin Irishman, it is puerile for some of the Northern Irish Unionists to deny their Irishness. But deny it they do. 

The root cause of this denial lays with partition. A border borne out of nothing but a supremacist belief of the Protestant faith, a sectarian hatred of Catholics and by association a contempt for Gaelic culture (their own culture that their ancestry is entwined with) that they deny it. A century of futile 'Ulsterisation' followed.


----------



## WolfeTone (16 Sep 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I am all for the 6 counties having the right to split off from the 26 but it would be the height of disingenuousness for representatives of the 26 to celebrate that parting.



I agree. And as we have mentioned before, we don't even celebrate the coming into being of the 26. 



Purple said:


> I presume Lizzie won't be in the Pro Cathedral with a Easter Lillie any time soon



In fairness to her, she did attend the Garden of Remembrance and bowed her head to our patriot dead. All those who gave their lives for the cause of Irish freedom. 
I'm sure Bobby Sands enjoyed that.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (16 Sep 2021)

I am reminded of a quip on a gable wall in Londonderry in the '60s.  It read "to hell with the pope and Arkle".  It was the Arkle bit that amused me.  Arkle was actually owned by an English aristocrat but "gaelic" Ireland was wallowing in the exploits of our greatest ever athlete.  Many years later the gable walls of protestant Belfast mocked "Cry Babies" referring to Englishman, John Aldridge crying after the ROI defeat by Mexico in a World Cup match.
Whilst respectable protestant areas would not resort to writing on their gable walls they harboured the same disdain for their Southern neighbours.  Also a sense of superiority borne out of the economic track record of the basket case free state. They also ask with a sense of their own superiority "where would the Titanic be today if it was not for the good protestant working men of Belfast?".   They never really believed in the Celtic Tiger, thought it was just cute hoorism milking the Common Market,  I am not sure they were entirely wrong.


----------



## Purple (16 Sep 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> They also ask with a sense of their own superiority "where would the Titanic be today if it was not for the good protestant working men of Belfast?".


That one always amuses me. The obvious answer is 'floating'.


----------



## Purple (16 Sep 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> I would suggest that it is Gaelic culture, a culture which is intrinsically linked with the Catholic natives that is anathema to Northern Unionist Protestants rather than Ireland or being 'Irish'.
> No doubt the most recent conflict has done damage to the identification of 'Irish' in the eyes of many Protestant Unionists but it has not dispelled it. Nor more than brow beating of 'Ulster is British!' and British government rule has for 100yrs has abjectly failed to quash the sense of Irish identity for those living in NI.
> 
> Ian Paisley Snr admitted himself he was an Irishman and leaders like Peter Robinson have also said it. Faced with the bare-faced fact that the giant of Unionism, Edward Carson, was a proud Dublin Irishman, it is puerile for some of the Northern Irish Unionists to deny their Irishness. But deny it they do.
> ...


And you want them in our country? Are you mad?


----------



## WolfeTone (16 Sep 2021)

Purple said:


> And you want them in our country? Are you mad?



The ending of partition is best way forward to bringing these ancient mindsets into the 21st century. 
Bringing this Catholic / Protestant division to an end over time. Partition just perpetuates it.


----------



## Purple (16 Sep 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> The ending of partition is best way forward to bringing these ancient mindsets into the 21st century.
> Bringing this Catholic / Protestant division to an end over time. Partition just perpetuates it.


But sure they're happy, leave them as it.


----------



## WolfeTone (16 Sep 2021)

Purple said:


> But sure they're happy, leave them as it.



I'm quite happy to leave them at it.

Far from their mantra of wanting to strengthen the union with UK, their blind indulgence of their own self-importance is what destabilised the union with Britain in 1914, leading to partition and the unleashing of fringe Irish Republican ideals as the predominant political sentiment of Irish people.

And now they are doing it again, propelling invisible sea borders and the lack of sausages from England as an attack on sovereignty. Personally, I think it is an obvious attack on NI sausage makers, but there you go - it's their call.

It all feeds into exposing the demise of outdated and bankrupt ideology of Irish Unionism.

I'm quite happy to let them at it.


----------



## Purple (16 Sep 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> I'm quite happy to leave them at it.
> 
> Far from their mantra of wanting to strengthen the union with UK, their blind indulgence of their own self-importance is what destabilised the union with Britain in 1914, leading to partition and the unleashing of fringe Irish Republican ideals as the predominant political sentiment of Irish people.
> 
> ...


I'd agree except I don't want us to have to deal with them. I like this place the way it is, faults and all.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (16 Sep 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> And now they are doing it again, propelling invisible sea borders...


Yeah, what's their big problem?  A few teenage yobos having fun throwing petrol bombs.
Now if they had put the paperwork where it should be - at the border between the EU and the UK, then we would have seen some serious action as Leo graphically explained to his EU counterparts by showing pictures of bombed out border posts.  He probably also reminded them as an aside of atrocities like Kingsmills which would naturally follow such a grotesque affront to nationalist sensibilities.


----------



## WolfeTone (16 Sep 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Yeah, what's their big problem? A few teenage yobos having fun throwing petrol bombs.



Yes, about sums it up. 

I see there was an anti-Irish language protest in the North also. 
5 people turned up. Was that you?


----------



## cremeegg (16 Sep 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> fringe Irish Republican ideals as the predominant political sentiment of Irish people.


Only, you, The Duke, and Ruth Dudley Edwards, oh and how could I forget Eoghan Harris, believe that.


----------



## WolfeTone (16 Sep 2021)

cremeegg said:


> Only, you, The Duke, and Ruth Dudley Edwards, oh and how could I forget Eoghan Harris, believe that.



I can only go by what the people voted for in general elections. What would you go by?

In 1910 one year after the massive welcome on the streets of Dublin to the visit of Queen Victoria, the Irish Parliamentary party, whose mandate was for a limited form of independence from Britain through a Home Rule parliament, won 85 seats in Westminster and duly took those seats swearing allegiance to the British Crown.
By 1914, in the height of the Home Crisis, the leader of the Irish Parliamentary Party John Redmond committed to secure Irish borders in defence of the British realm and advocated for Irish men to support Britains war effort in Europe.
Many answered the call, dwarfing any numbers that would answer the call for Irelands fight for full independence from Britain.

By 1918, this was reduced to 6. SF, took 73 seats and this is broadly interpreted as the people of Irelands endorsement of full independence from Britain.

If 73 seats for SF in1918 is an endorsement for full independence. Then 85 seats in 1910 for IPP was surely an endorsement to remain wedded to biggest Empire in the world?

And in between, the Home Rule parliament for Ireland, achieved through exclusively peaceful and democratic means was usurped by the refusal of Irish Unionists to accept the will of the British Parliament. Instead they formed an armed paramilitary organisation and threatened civil war.
In doing so, they destabilised the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Unleashing the 1916 rebellion and ultimately the partition of the country and a century littered with violence.


----------



## cremeegg (16 Sep 2021)

You make your point well, but there are some other considerations.

In 1910 no women and only men who met the property qualification could vote. The total poll was just over 200,000 votes.

In 1918 all women over 30 and all men over 21 could vote.  The total poll was just over 1 million votes. Despite there being no poll in 25 constituencies where SF were unopposed.

In 1910 the IPP still held the loyalty of a large section of the population. It achievements during the 'land war' were enormous and that gave it huge residual support. 

There was almost no organised Republican political movement. Most people would simply not have seen an Independent Republic as within the realm of the possible.

When Clarke, Pearse and Connolly put Republicanism on the stage the people responded enthusiastically.

The welcome given Victoria and the jeering of the defeated in 1916 I put down to a Dublin thing


----------



## WolfeTone (16 Sep 2021)

cremeegg said:


> In 1910 no women and only men who met the property qualification could vote. The total poll was just over 200,000 votes.



Interesting point. I will concede that 'fringe' sentiment for a Republic and full independence is an inapt description. 
Let me say therefore that there was a significant underbelly of that sentiment for a Republic but as you point out it was not organised and as such remained effectively dormant. A sleeping dog so to speak. 
It was the actions of Irish Unionists and the British government in usurping the Home Rule Act, that kicked the sleeping dog. The Suspensory Act, introduced on the same day to suspend Home Rule, on 18 September 1914. It was debated in House of Commons on 31st August 1914 and it was clear then that Home Rule parliament would be suspended to avoid "_any controversial matter... to place any parties in worse position than before the War broke out"_ - Asquith, succumbing to Ulster Volunteers threats of violence, in my opinion. 

Following this, on 5th September 1914 the IRB Supreme Council met and agreed to plan for a rebellion.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (16 Sep 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> In 1910 one year after the massive welcome on the streets of Dublin to the visit of Queen Victoria,


And no wonder the welcome was massive.  QV died in 1901 and resurrections are rare enough.


----------



## WolfeTone (16 Sep 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> And no wonder the welcome was massive.  QV died in 1901 and resurrections are rare enough.



Ooops!


----------



## Purple (23 Sep 2022)

So now the Papists outnumber the Prod's. Does it matter?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (23 Sep 2022)

Purple said:


> So now the Papists outnumber the Prod's. Does it matter?


Tiocfaidh ár lá
"Lapsed" Prods would outnumber lapsed Taigs.  A more relevant question would be "who do you support Celtic or Rangers?"


----------



## Purple (23 Sep 2022)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Tiocfaidh ár lá


More like "tá ár lá ag teacht"


----------



## Leo (23 Sep 2022)

Purple said:


> So now the Papists outnumber the Prod's. Does it matter?


Unlikely with only 29.1% identifying as Irish-only (31.9% British-only, 19.8% Northern Irish-only, the rest some combination).


----------



## Purple (27 Oct 2022)

It looks like there's going to be an assembly election in Northern Ireland. It will change nothing. Neither the DUP or SF are honest players in this and both have shown their willingness to undermine democracy for their own ends. In the case of the DUP it's an existential threat to the existence of  Northern Ireland. In the case of the Shinners it was having signs in Irish.


----------



## cremeegg (31 Oct 2022)

Purple said:


> It looks like there's going to be an assembly election in Northern Ireland. It will change nothing. Neither the DUP or SF are honest players in this and both have shown their willingness to undermine democracy for their own ends. In the case of the DUP it's an existential threat to the existence of  Northern Ireland. In the case of the Shinners it was having signs in Irish.


Actually I would suggest that both the DUP and SF are the honest players here. 

The DUP says NO, it might be despicable but it is a long-standing, honest expression of their nature and their intentions.

SF want Brits out, they never suggest otherwise. They pursue that goal by whatever means they consider best suited to achieve their goal.

Alliance, SDLP and perhaps even the UUP may be more committed to seeking solutions which can gain broad support, but to a greater or lesser extent they all seek to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds.

IIRC SF walked away from the Assembly over the Ash for Cash scandal and specifically Arlene Foster's role and position as FM, and their issue over Irish was not that signs were not in Irish but that the Irish Language legislation which was specifically committed to was not introduced.

Collapsing the Assembly because you can't get what you want is not the same thing as collapsing the Assembly because your counterparts will not keep to agreements they enter into. The inspiration for the UK govt legislating to override the protocol the negotiated with the EU perhaps.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (31 Oct 2022)

The natural border between Ireland and the UK is the land border just as it was up until Ireland and the UK joined the EEC.  Is there anywhere else on the planet that has a trade border in its own jurisdiction?  Unionists have been shafted for sure because Leo’s threats of border posts being blown up trumped a few loyalist teenagers having a riot.


----------



## Purple (1 Nov 2022)

cremeegg said:


> Actually I would suggest that both the DUP and SF are the honest players here.
> 
> The DUP says NO, it might be despicable but it is a long-standing, honest expression of their nature and their intentions.
> 
> SF want Brits out, they never suggest otherwise. They pursue that goal by whatever means they consider best suited to achieve their goal.


Have the DUP or SF ever been honest about anything?
Both had links to terrorists, one was/is run by the same people who used to run/still run that terrorist organisation. 
That trumps their duplicitous public utterances about policy and objectives.  


cremeegg said:


> Alliance, SDLP and perhaps even the UUP may be more committed to seeking solutions which can gain broad support, but to a greater or lesser extent they all seek to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds.


Both are honest and committed to peace. They are really democratic, unlike the DUP and SF.


cremeegg said:


> IIRC SF walked away from the Assembly over the Ash for Cash scandal and specifically Arlene Foster's role and position as FM, and their issue over Irish was not that signs were not in Irish but that the Irish Language legislation which was specifically committed to was not introduced.


There's lots of legislation that is committed to and ignored. If the DUP can get over the Shinner's links to terrorism and criminality then the Shinners should be able to get over the Cash for Ash debacle. 


cremeegg said:


> Collapsing the Assembly because you can't get what you want is not the same thing as collapsing the Assembly because your counterparts will not keep to agreements they enter into. The inspiration for the UK govt legislating to override the protocol the negotiated with the EU perhaps.


The DUP collapsed the Assembly because they were complete and utter idiots when they supported Brexit and believed the Tories. They are now in a position where there is a real threat to the existence of the Union with Britain because of Brexit and they know that. Their problems are of their own making but they are real and the threat to the Union is real. They collapsed the Assembly because of an existential threat to their identity, not just because they didn't get what they want.


----------



## Purple (1 Nov 2022)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> The natural border between Ireland and the UK is the land border just as it was up until Ireland and the UK joined the EEC.  Is there anywhere else on the planet that has a trade border in its own jurisdiction?


And we accepted that border when we joined the UN and again when we joined the EEC. 


Duke of Marmalade said:


> Unionists have been shafted for sure because Leo’s threats of border posts being blown up trumped a few loyalist teenagers having a riot.


They have been shafted by themselves due to their staggering political ineptitude and complete misreading of their own place in the world. Leo's comments about  border posts being blown up were of no consequence one way or the other. 
The Unionism of the DUP is an anachronistic embarrassment to the vast majority of the minority of British people who spare it a thought. They are like some weird relation who dresses in Victorian clothing and keeps turning up at family events. The irony is that the only family members who are willing to put up with them are us.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (1 Nov 2022)

Purple said:


> They have been shafted by themselves due to their staggering political ineptitude and complete misreading of their own place in the world. Leo's comments about  border posts being blown up were of no consequence one way or the other.


I was citing Leo's comments more as a proxy for the overwhelming pan nationalist strategy on Brexit.  It got to the stage were even Greek peasants became aware of the GFA.  And it meant only one thing to continental Europeans - a hard border in Ireland means a return to IRA violence and comments from Simon Varadkar were thinly veiled indications that they believed the IRA would be right to so react,
Nobody seemed to understand that the GFA was meant to be a two way thing - unionists would be guaranteed no change in the constitutional position of NI within the UK.  The unique and grotesque NI protocol's internal sea border is a grosser affront to the GFA than a land border ever would have been.
Opposition to the protocol is almost universal amongst NI unionists and is not the preserve of the creationists. 
Having said that, the refusal to enter government has nothing to do with the protocol and is simply that they can't stomach having a Taig on top.


----------



## cremeegg (1 Nov 2022)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Nobody seemed to understand that the GFA was meant to be a two way thing - unionists would be guaranteed no change in the constitutional position of NI within the UK.


Really, I thought there was something in there about a border poll. must be my mistake.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> The unique and grotesque NI protocol's internal sea border is a grosser affront to the GFA than a land border ever would have been.


How could additional airport checks be a 'grosser affront' than border posts on the way to school or work. You really are completely out of touch.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> Opposition to the protocol is almost universal amongst NI unionists and is not the preserve of the creationists.


Unionists were in favour of the protocol before they were against it. The DUP recognised the unique advantages it gave NI being able to trade freely with the EU and UK. They suddenly they realised it could be better used as a goad to rile up their more excitable supporters. Their opposition to the Protocol is entirely cynical posturing.


Duke of Marmalade said:


> Having said that, the refusal to enter government has nothing to do with the protocol and is simply that they can't stomach having a Taig on top.


Indeed.


----------



## Purple (1 Nov 2022)

cremeegg said:


> They suddenly they realised it could be better used as a goad to rile up their more excitable supporters. Their opposition to the Protocol is entirely cynical posturing.


I think they realised that countries that are economically aligned usually become politically aligned. To stay in the Union NI needs to have more trade with Britain than it does with Ireland because the bottom line is it's mostly about economics for the majority.


----------



## Purple (1 Nov 2022)

cremeegg said:


> Really, I thought there was something in there about a border poll. must be my mistake.


But there was no border poll before the border was moved. Unionism is fighting against the dying of the light. They will lose, the only question is when. That must be very hard to deal with.


----------



## Purple (1 Nov 2022)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I was citing Leo's comments more as a proxy for the overwhelming pan nationalist strategy on Brexit.  It got to the stage were even Greek peasants became aware of the GFA.  And it meant only one thing to continental Europeans - a hard border in Ireland means a return to IRA violence and comments from Simon Varadkar were thinly veiled indications that they believed the IRA would be right to so react,


I disagree with you there. I think there was a fair bit of histrionics from the usual suspects when those comments were made. 


Duke of Marmalade said:


> Nobody seemed to understand that the GFA was meant to be a two way thing - unionists would be guaranteed no change in the constitutional position of NI within the UK.  The unique and grotesque NI protocol's internal sea border is a grosser affront to the GFA than a land border ever would have been.


I also disagree there. Having customs checks is not the same as having people checks. When the British Government, with the support of the DUP, left the EU they changed the constitutional position of NI within the UK so, as they say in school yards, they started it. 


Duke of Marmalade said:


> Opposition to the protocol is almost universal amongst NI unionists and is not the preserve of the creationists.


Less than 12% of Unionists said it was a priority before the last elections.


Duke of Marmalade said:


> Having said that, the refusal to enter government has nothing to do with the protocol and is simply that they can't stomach having a Taig on top.


Just like the Shinners throwing their toys out of the pram had nothing to do with Cash for Ash or the Irish Language Act. Neither the DUP or SF are really democrats, neither are honest brokers.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (1 Nov 2022)

Purple said:


> I also disagree there. Having customs checks is not the same as having people checks.


Well yes, I agree that sea borders are less intrusive than land borders e.g. US/Ireland vs US/Mexico.  I think this aspect fed a wishful thinking on the likes of Boris that they might get away with the grotesque idea of a trade border in the same country.  If there wasn't such sensitivity around constitutional issues in NI, they might have, might still, got away with it.  It remains that this bizarre construct is a much greater affront to the GFA than reinstating the trade borders between Éire and NI which I grew up with.  The threat of republican violence was openly referred to by the likes of continental and US leaders.  Terrorism can win. 


Purple said:


> When the British Government, with the support of the DUP, left the EU they changed the constitutional position of NI within the UK so, as they say in school yards, they started it.


I agree with the swipe at the creationists. But I don't understand the second point.  I agree that the constitutional position of NI has been changed by agreement of the  British Government, though I think the courts in Belfast have rejected this.  So yes, the BG are primarily to blame.  So by "they started it" do you mean by "they" the combination of the unionists and the BG?


----------



## Purple (1 Nov 2022)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Well yes, I agree that sea borders are less intrusive than land borders e.g. US/Ireland vs US/Mexico.  I think this aspect fed a wishful thinking on the likes of Boris that they might get away with the grotesque idea of a trade border in the same country.  If there wasn't such sensitivity around constitutional issues in NI, they might have, might still, got away with it.


Boris and the English Nationalists who owned the Bandwagon he jumped onto didn't give the "Oirish" a second thought. That's what the DUP don't get; we're all the same to them. 


Duke of Marmalade said:


> It remains that this bizarre construct is a much greater affront to the GFA than reinstating the trade borders between Éire and NI which I grew up with.  The threat of republican violence was openly referred to by the likes of continental and US leaders.  Terrorism can win.


Since we are speaking in English the name of this country is Ireland, not Éire. The Republic of Ireland is the name of aa football team, not a country. This is a country, not a jurisdiction. The British Isles is not a place and Ireland certainly isn't part of it. The GFA cleared all that up too. 


Duke of Marmalade said:


> I agree with the swipe at the creationists. But I don't understand the second point.  I agree that the constitutional position of NI has been changed by agreement of the  British Government, though I think the courts in Belfast have rejected this.  So yes, the BG are primarily to blame.  So by "they started it" do you mean by "they" the combination of the unionists and the BG?


Yes, the GFA is underpinned by the EU and the ECJ. In that it is a Constitutional Document in the UK. The Brits chose to ignore that but by any reasonable standard it is. Therefore Brexit and the removal of the UK from the jurisdiction of the ECJ altered the UK's Constitution. 
The Protocol and everything else that followed is an an impossible attempt to square that circle. I said on this forum when Brexit was first proposed that if it happened a hard border between Ireland and the UK was inevitable. What we have has since is an attempt to avoid that inevitability.


----------



## cremeegg (1 Nov 2022)

Purple said:


> I said on this forum when Brexit was first proposed that if it happened a hard border between Ireland and the UK was inevitable. What we have has since is an attempt to avoid that inevitability.


This is the heart of the matter. I would not go so far as 'inevitable' but certainly really difficult to avoid.

When the UK's exit agreement with the EU was being negotiated the EU agreed to make this issue one of 3 fundamental issues, huge success for Irish diplomacy. The Therese May nearly agreed a solution involving the entire UK, that would have worked but the DUP stopped her. Boris with his majority agreed a NI only solution, the DUP don't want that either, not because its bad economics, but because they can make political hay opposing it.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (1 Nov 2022)

Purple said:


> Therefore Brexit and the removal of the UK from the jurisdiction of the ECJ altered the UK's Constitution.


The GFA has no relevance for the UK constitution as it affects mainland Britain. There was no referendum in mainland Britain on the GFA.  The GFA did guarantee NI the veto on any changes of its constitutional position *within *the UK.  I take it that you agree that this has happened.  The arch GFA worshippers such as Simon Varadkar seem to have no issue with this blasphemy.
There was nothing inevitable about this even after the Brexit vote.  Theresa May's way would have avoided any issues with trade borders.  It finished the way it did simply because Bojo left himself in a position where he felt he had to "get Brexit done" at any cost.  And if that cost was shafting NI unionists that wouldn't bother him.  The EU milked that for all its worth and forced a protocol which even they now concede was 80% OTT.  And Simon Varadkar laughed up their sleeves.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (1 Nov 2022)

cremeegg said:


> When the UK's exit agreement with the EU was being negotiated the EU agreed to make this issue one of 3 fundamental issues, huge success for Irish diplomacy.


Maybe, or just maybe the EU saw a really good bargaining tool.  It very nearly worked as May's deal was not Brexit.  But in the end it backfired as May could not carry the humiliation with her own parliament.  The replacement was at the hard Brexit end. 


cremeegg said:


> The Therese May nearly agreed a solution involving the entire UK, that would have worked but the DUP stopped her.


Yep, the DUP really overplayed their hand here.  They thought they would always be the power brokers.


cremeegg said:


> Boris with his majority agreed a NI only solution, the DUP don't want that either, not because its bad economics,


I haven't checked but I suspect that the independence of Ireland 100 years ago was not the smartest economic policy.  For unionists the clear weakening of their union with Britain trumps any economic benefit.


cremeegg said:


> but because they can make political hay opposing it.


I agree that the protocol issue has been greatly overplayed by the DUP, in particular to save them from the anathema of being second fiddle to SF.


----------



## Purple (2 Nov 2022)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> The GFA has no relevance for the UK constitution as it affects mainland Britain.


What other part of Britain is there other than the mainland? Are you talking about the islands off Scotland?
The GFA was and is a Constitutional Document in that it limits and informs other legislation. It also binds any legislation which effects Northern Ireland to the jurisdiction of the ECJ. Brexit changed that and so it was unconstitutional. The Tory establishment chose to ignore that. 


Duke of Marmalade said:


> There was no referendum in mainland Britain on the GFA.


There was no referendum in any part of Britain on the GFA. Do some people think that British islands got a vote along with Northern Ireland? Referendums have no legal or constitutional standing in the UK. Their Monarch in Parliament is Sovereign. Their Parliament voted for it, in breach of their constitution. 


Duke of Marmalade said:


> The GFA did guarantee NI the veto on any changes of its constitutional position *within *the UK.


Correct.


Duke of Marmalade said:


> I take it that you agree that this has happened.


Yes, the GFA changed it. 


Duke of Marmalade said:


> The arch GFA worshippers such as Simon Varadkar seem to have no issue with this blasphemy.


Simon Coveney has shown remarkable restraint and considerable diplomatic skill in his handling of the British and Northern Irish politicians over the past number of years. I didn't think he's be so good. Leo is certainly prone to saying more than he should, but both have maintained the alignment with the broader EU position. Brexit is a nonsense and the outcome that its proponents promised is, and always was, a lie. The Irish and EU politicians and negotiators have simply confronted that lie with the truth. 


Duke of Marmalade said:


> There was nothing inevitable about this even after the Brexit vote.  Theresa May's way would have avoided any issues with trade borders.  It finished the way it did simply because Bojo left himself in a position where he felt he had to "get Brexit done" at any cost.  And if that cost was shafting NI unionists that wouldn't bother him.


So how could it have been done? There is no Brexit without control of their borders and there's no control of their borders without a hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland or NI out of the Union. The UK cannot leave the Single Market without breaking the GFA.


Duke of Marmalade said:


> The EU milked that for all its worth and forced a protocol which even they now concede was 80% OTT.


The EU had been completely consistent from day one. Their position hasn't changed. The supreme arrogance of the Little Englanders, Racists, Xenophobes', English Nationalists, Sheep and Idiots who voted for Brexit was that they thought that Jonny Foreigner would crumble and the Great British would get their way.


----------



## Purple (2 Nov 2022)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I haven't checked but I suspect that the independence of Ireland 100 years ago was not the smartest economic policy.


In the longer term it's been a tremendous success. By almost every measure this country is a better place to live for the vast majority of its people. That just wouldn't have happened if we'd remained an economic colony of London.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (2 Nov 2022)

Purple said:


> In the longer term it's been a tremendous success.


You’re missing my point.  Economic considerations were not relevant to the struggle for independence in Ireland 100 years ago.  Didn’t Dev even wax about a nation living in bliss without any care for crude material success.  Even if Ireland was the land of milk and honey you profess unionists would put that secondary to their political aspiration.  In any case even nationalists in NI are not so convinced as yourself of the utopia south of the border when they consider the cost of housing, a two tier health system, a two tier education system and a cost of living on a different scale.


----------



## Purple (2 Nov 2022)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> You’re missing my point.  Economic considerations were not relevant to the struggle for independence in Ireland 100 years ago.  Didn’t Dev even wax about a nation living in bliss without any care for crude material success.


I agree, and Dev was a bit if a nutter, not in the same league of crazy as Pearce who was as mad as it gets, but he did have some very strange ideas. 


Duke of Marmalade said:


> Even if Ireland was the land of milk and honey you profess unionists would put that secondary to their political aspiration.


I don't think it's the land of milk and honey but by almost every economic measure for the vast majority of people it's better than the UK.


Duke of Marmalade said:


> In any case even nationalists in NI are not so convinced as yourself of the utopia south of the border when they consider the cost of housing, a two tier health system, a two tier education system and a cost of living on a different scale.


I agree, but Northern Ireland is very dependent on handouts from the UK exchequer, the Peace Dividend or "Please don't kill each other money" and the disproportionate number of State employees etc. The education system in Ireland is vastly better than that in Northern Ireland. Our healthcare system is much better funded and our primary care system is better but I don't know about waiting lists etc. Their cost of living is much lower but that's because it's an economic basket case.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (2 Nov 2022)

On Simon Coveney, I agree he has played a blinder.  But surely @Purple is not taken in by his epitome of diplomacy stance.  Simon despises the creationists every bit as much as you or I.  And they know it.  They would much prefer dealing with Maty Lou than with Simon.


----------



## Purple (2 Nov 2022)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> On Simon Coveney, I agree he has played a blinder.  But surely @Purple is not taken in by his epitome of diplomacy stance.  Simon despises the creationists every bit as much as you or I.  And they know it.  They would much prefer dealing with Maty Lou than with Simon.


Of course they would rather deal with Mary Lou. She also deals in hyperbole and fanciful populism rather than reality.


----------



## Purple (5 Dec 2022)

More evidence that the populations of Ireland and Northern Ireland don't want to unite.
Who knew that it was the nurses causing the biggest problem for the Nordies; our health service is cited as one of their biggest concerns.


----------



## odyssey06 (13 Dec 2022)

EVEN hardline nationalists living in Northern Ireland have paused to reconsider their stance on a United Ireland, after Taoiseach Micheál Martin made grave warnings about the loss of things like Sainsbury’s, Asda, B&M and ‘really big Tescos’ should unification become a thing...









						Taoiseach Cannot Guarantee Northern Ireland Would Keep Asda After Unification
					

EVEN hardline nationalists living in Northern Ireland have paused to reconsider their stance on a United Ireland, after Taoiseach Micheál Martin made grave warnings about the loss of things like Sainsbury's, Asda, B&M and 'really …




					waterfordwhispersnews.com


----------

