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?
"Belfast" vs "Good Friday" agreement
- Thread starter Thirsty
- Start date
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,483
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.
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.
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.......)
You'll have to change that as well.
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.
He shows his political experience and highlights the political naivety of those who call for a 50%+1 vote for a German style unification.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I agree.
The Unionists would consider the establishment of the Free State an artificial construct, just as they would a united Ireland.
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.
Wow, one point you disagree with negates anything else he has to say.
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.
Meanwhile in the real world the devil is in the details. This does have the makings of an O'Casey play though.
Negates the substantive point of what he has to say about 50%+1 majority... just to clarify.
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.
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