NationStates Jolt Archive

The first: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/4233850.stm
More: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/4234950.stm
The response and an overview: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/4236208.stm

A brief summary:

1,000 police deployed
1,000 soldiers deployed
50 police injured
Petrol bombs thrown
Blast bombs thrown
Pipe bombs thrown
Shots fired at police (live ammunition; bullets have been recovered and analysed)
Seven firearms recovered
Up to 500 plastic bullets fired
Bomb factory found
Water cannon deployed
Cars and buses hijacked
One man shot by Army
Man critical after bomb blast

Furthermore,
In Newtownabbey just north of Belfast, a bank, video shop, fast food outlet and offices occupied by the Probation Board and DUP were burnt out at the Cloughfern Corner on the Doagh Road.

This is no political statement. People of working class backgrounds (though primarily in the protestant community, and against their own f**king community, too) are burning, attacking, killing and maiming anything they can get away with. No policeman, no armed force, no politician and no organisation can get through to quell the years' worth of pent-up rage at the system that are being released at this moment in time. Even the DUP, the middle-class voice of the protestant community, are being outed.

Any observations?

Any observations?


The irony in Northern Ireland riot situations is that we have seen time and time again that although the security forces may not be able to quell or control riot situations, all it takes is a turn in the weather and a good downpour to clear the streets.

While I can never say I fully understand the goings on in Northern Ireland, I was just wondering...Didn't the IRA "put down their weapons" and halt all terrorist activities last month?

While I can never say I fully understand the goings on in Northern Ireland, I was just wondering...Didn't the IRA "put down their weapons" and halt all terrorist activities last month?

As far as I understand those articles, the violence was neiter initiated nor related to the IRA...

As far as I understand those articles, the violence was neiter initiated nor related to the IRA...

Correct-a-mundo: the sources of violence were within the loyalist/unionist population.

As far as I understand those articles, the violence was neiter initiated nor related to the IRA...Yup; this's just a huge bunch of protestant thugs wreaking havoc. Not that it makes any difference to the people whose cars and work places are burning.

The riots began because orange walk marchers were banned from marching through a catholic area, the police barred the road and stopped the marchers.

This "annoyed" the people who were "marching" and the result is what you see now.

Correct-a-mundo: the sources of violence were within the loyalist/unionist population.

Right I understand that. I think I was more trying to relate the issue to the fact that, if the IRA can stand down, why haven't the Orange leaders asked their people to stand down?

Right I understand that. I think I was more trying to relate the issue to the fact that, if the IRA can stand down, why haven't the Orange leaders asked their people to stand down?

The Orange Order aren't a paramilitary organisation, and as such their status is very different from the IRA. Having said that there is certainly some overlap between membership of Loyalist paramilitary organisations and the Orange Order, but that kind of thing is unavoidable in this country. The Orange Order leaderships have previously attempted to place the blame for incidents such as this on unaffiliated troublemakers, insensitive policing and provocation from Nationalists.

Right I understand that. I think I was more trying to relate the issue to the fact that, if the IRA can stand down, why haven't the Orange leaders asked their people to stand down?Because there isn't any official organisation to tell to stand down. These are just people spontaneously rioting. Though, admittedly, there are probably still traces of UVF leanings below them, but you can't tell them to step down simply because they're an illegal group as it is, and we've been trying to get them arrested for the longest time anyway.

I don't know how many of you actually come from Northern Ireland, but I do so let me illuminate the situation. The anger and the fury you saw in those riots are the feelings of a community that feels isolated and sidelined, if you want a good dramatic recreation of this you should try and get a hold of BBC Northern Ireland's "Holy Cross" which is a brilliant and very judicious examination of both sides of the community in working-class Belfast.

As for middle-class Protestant sympathies being "outed" for their supposed support of this behaviour I suggest you visit Northern Ireland and realise that most middle-class Protestants don't live anywhere near the area you're talking about and they take next to no interest in their working-class co-religionists. They are two separate social groups now and they have no understanding or empathy with one another. Middle-class Catholics and middle-class Protestants have more in common both socially and economically with one another than they have with the working-classes in Belfast. The Protestant community consensus which dominated Northern Irish politics between 1921 and 1972 has entirely evaporated in the face of recent social trends and demographic shifts.

I am not condoning the rioters' behaviour, I think it was disgraceful. However, it is as nothing compared to the horrors that were wreaked upon the Northern Irish people - both Catholic and Protestant - by the IRA for 30 years. And their campaign was calculated, prolonged and brutal and it wasn't freedom fighting - one man's freedom fighter is not another man's terrorist. Northern Ireland was created in 1921 because 70% of the population expressed a wish to remain part of the United Kingdom and to abstain from an Irish republic. This was their democratic prerogative. It was not the IRA's position to undermine it with terrorist activities. Today polls indicate 75% favour the Union with Britain and this includes 45% of the Roman Catholic community.

... and we've been trying to get them arrested for the longest time anyway.

Who are the 'we' in this sentence?

I am not condoning the rioters' behaviour, I think it was disgraceful. However, it is as nothing compared to the horrors that were wreaked upon the Northern Irish people - both Catholic and Protestant - by the IRA for 30 years.

No mention of the activities of the UVF/UDA/UFF which were concurrent?

Who are the 'we' in this sentence?Well... the PSNI, surely? I was under the impression that several arrests had been made in the past simply due to membership of loyalist paramilitary groups (which is reason enough, in my opinion).

I have never understood these orange marches and never will (and no, I'm not catholic btw). They are just *ment* to rile up catholics as far as I can tell. As such, Orange order leadership putting the blame with rioting individuals is (in my mind) extremely lame. It's pretty sad these people don't put their weight behind the latest developments in N-I, and instead insist on tearing old wounds open, again and again.

What I don't understand is why those marches aren't forbidden. In every civilized country the right to demonstrate doesn't mean you can do whatever you like but that you have to co-ordinate with local police when/where/etc. Right?

Well... the PSNI, surely?


Possibly, but I personally wouldn't identify myself with the RUC/PSNI.

I was under the impression that several arrests had been made in the past simply due to membership of loyalist paramilitary groups (which is reason enough, in my opinion).

Indeed, membership of a proscribed organisation is against the law (to state a tautology).

What I don't understand is why those marches aren't forbidden. In every civilized country the right to demonstrate doesn't mean you can do whatever you like but that you have to co-ordinate with local police when/where/etc. Right?

As far as I recall legislation requiring that anyone holding a march (defined as something like more than three people in organised procession) must consult with the police and in some cases receive permission from the Parades Comission was introduced only about ten or twelve years ago here as a way of controlling both Republican and Loyalist marches.

- Snip -I do live here, and would be a member of the Middle-class Protestant community, which is precisely why I echo your statement on the separation between middle and working. However, I still feel that this is motivated by sheer thuggery, pure and simple, and the Orange Order is acting as a catalyst in this respect. People are using their status as Protestants to get away with whatever the hell they can and unleashing their years of built-up anger at society in general as opposed to explicit sectarianism. After all, if the argument was sectarian, why burn down the DUP offices?

There is no reason whatsoever to not throw the lot of them in jail other than the fact that we'd probably be taking better care of them than they do themselves and thus rewarding their behaviour...

There is no reason whatsoever to not throw the lot of them in jail other than the fact that we'd probably be taking better care of them than they do themselves and thus rewarding their behaviour...

Apart from the fact that throwing people into prison has been remarkable ineffective throughout the past 35+ years of the current events in Northern Ireland.

Apart from the fact that throwing people into prison has been remarkable ineffective throughout the past 35+ years of the current events in Northern Ireland.How about throwing them in somebody else's prison then? Put the protestant paramilitaries in Irish Jails, the catholic equivilents in jails in mainland UK. That'll shake them up a bit.

How about throwing them in somebody else's prison then? Put the protestant paramilitaries in Irish Jails, the catholic equivilents in jails in mainland UK. That'll shake them up a bit.

How about just putting them all on an island, and letting them fight it out amongst themselves?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Northern_Ireland/Story/0,2763,1568084,00.html

How about just putting them all on an island, and letting them fight it out amongst themselves?Erm...

*Looks around*

So far so good?

I am not condoning the rioters' behaviour, I think it was disgraceful. However, it is as nothing compared to the horrors that were wreaked upon the Northern Irish people - both Catholic and Protestant - by the IRA for 30 years. And their campaign was calculated, prolonged and brutal and it wasn't freedom fighting - one man's freedom fighter is not another man's terrorist.

One person's freedom fighter is another person's terrorist. You've just proven it yourself, hinting that the IRA were terrorists, when another person would say they are freedom fighters.

You conveniantly forget the Unionist paramilitaries and the horrors they commited also, at times in collusion with The British Army, the RUC, and British Secret services.

But that's your bias or ignorance clearly on display, conciously or unconciously.

I'll say this: you don't want to be trying to drive through Belfast right now. It just took me 40 minutes to do a 10 minutes drive, and that was with some cunning shortcuts.

I'll say this: you don't want to be trying to drive through Belfast right now. It just took me 40 minutes to do a 10 minutes drive, and that was with some cunning shortcuts.
Aye, my sister works in Castle Court and the peelers came in about 3 o'clock and told them all to get the fuck out.

Traffic is an absolute nightmare. Sporadic rioting about the place, schools all closed early, buses will probably be pulled at some point.


In NI people will always find something to riot about.

I'll say this: you don't want to be trying to drive through Belfast right now. It just took me 40 minutes to do a 10 minutes drive, and that was with some cunning shortcuts.Yeah, my Dad works in the Shankhill. They got told to get the hell out of there at about 3:30, and he's still on his way home.

Stay safe.

Stay safe.Will do! It's not me I'm worried about though...

I understand.

Take care, all of you.

While I can never say I fully understand the goings on in Northern Ireland, I was just wondering...Didn't the IRA "put down their weapons" and halt all terrorist activities last month?

Haha, well aren't you educated on this topic! NOT! There is more than just the IRA you know and there will always be humans who simply love destruction.

Northern Ireland was created in 1921 because 70% of the population expressed a wish to remain part of the United Kingdom and to abstain from an Irish republic. This was their democratic prerogative. It was not the IRA's position to undermine it with terrorist activities. Today polls indicate 75% favour the Union with Britain and this includes 45% of the Roman Catholic community.

In my opinion partitioning a country is never a good idea. If Israel/Palestine had remained a single state with a secular government, there would be peace there.There is no reason Jews and Muslims cannot coexist, and even call each other countrymen.
The same is true in Northern Ireland. In the beginning, the Nationalist movement had nothing to do with religion.Some of the greatest Irish patriots were Protestant, - Wolfe Tone for example.The Irish Republican brotherhood was led by a mainly Protestant council.
The Republic, at it's birth, stated clearly that all the people of Ireland would be treated equally regardless of their race, culture or religion.

Your saying the Northern Protestants had a democratic right to brake away. How is this? Isn't it true that roughly 70% of the population of the island of Ireland favoured an independant republic at that time? Why should the North be considered separate?

Your saying the Northern Protestants had a democratic right to brake away.

Whether you consider Northern Ireland to have broken away from Ireland, or to have remained part if the UK while the Republic broke away is all a question of perspective.

Your saying the Northern Protestants had a democratic right to brake away. How is this? Isn't it true that roughly 70% of the population of the island of Ireland favoured an independant republic at that time? Why should the North be considered separate?
Each county in Ireland was given the option of joining the Free State or opting out.

The 6 counties in NI were included in the Free State, but immediately opted out. Every county had the option, those were the ones that took it.

Whether you consider Northern Ireland to have broken away from Ireland, or to have remained part if the UK while the Republic broke away is all a question of perspective.

it makes no difference. my question remains the same - why should a country be split when the majority of it want to move in a new direction.

it makes no difference. my question remains the same - why should a country be split when the majority of it want to move in a new direction.
Because that's democracy. Each county was 'asked'. Any counties could have opted out.


And if you want to take the "why should a country be split when the majority doesn't want it" then what did become the Free State wouldn't have become independent...because the majority of the UK would have been opposed to Irish independence.

Each county in Ireland was given the option of joining the Free State or opting out.

The 6 counties in NI were included in the Free State, but immediately opted out. Every county had the option, those were the ones that took it.

That was a condition introduced by the UK into the peace treaty, because they knew that way they would retain control of some of the country.
This brought on the civil war - one side wanting the whole country independant, the other willing to retire with 26 counties in exchange for peace with Britain.

That was a condition introduced by the UK into the peace treaty, because they knew that way they would retain control of some of the country.
Actually, the British Government was quite prepared to not keep the 6 counties, but the threat of the violence from the UVF and the fact that the majority of the people in those counties, changed their mind.

Bear in mind it was expected that the Boundary Commission would redraw the borders to the extent that NI would not be a viable state, and would be forced to join the Free State.

It was also expected that NI, even if the Boundary Commission didn't redraw the borders to that extent, it would last 5 or 6 years, and then merge with the Free State.

This brought on the civil war - one side wanting the whole country independant, the other willing to retire with 26 counties in exchange for peace with Britain.
Actually, partition was a non-issue in the Irish Civil War. The main issue was the Pledge of Alliegence to the British Monarch and that the Free State wasn't the Republic immediately wanted by some.

Because that's democracy. Each county was 'asked'. Any counties could have opted out.

Yes, each county should have been givin it's say, and the majority decision would be enforced on all. That's democracy.


And if you want to take the "why should a country be split when the majority doesn't want it" then what did become the Free State wouldn't have become independent...because the majority of the UK would have been opposed to Irish independence.

Depends on what you regard as a "country". Governments and treaties might have classified Ireland as a mere province of the UK, but it had always been a different country being ruled by foreign power. Would you tell a Lithuanian or Estonian that he or she had no right to break away from the Soviet Union because their country didn't exist, or because most Russians would have voted against their independance?

Yes, each county should have been givin it's say, and the majority decision would be enforced on all. That's democracy.
So you would go from forcing an area to be part of a country (which is wrong) to forcing an area to be part of a country (which is OK)?



Depends on what you regard as a "country". Governments and treaties might have classified Ireland as a mere province of the UK, but it had always been a different country being ruled by foreign power. Would you tell a Lithuanian or Estonian that he or she had no right to break away from the Soviet Union because their country didn't exist, or because most Russians would have voted against their independance?
And do you have the right to tell people in Northern Ireland that their country shouldn't exist because most of the people in the Free State would have voted against it's remaining in the UK?

Actually, the British Government was quite prepared to not keep the 6 counties, but the threat of the violence from the UVF and the fact that the majority of the people in those counties, changed their mind.

Bear in mind it was expected that the Boundary Commission would redraw the borders to the extent that NI would not be a viable state, and would be forced to join the Free State.

It was also expected that NI, even if the Boundary Commission didn't redraw the borders to that extent, it would last 5 or 6 years, and then merge with the Free State.


Actually, partition was a non-issue in the Irish Civil War. The main issue was the Pledge of Alliegence to the British Monarch and that the Free State wasn't the Republic immediately wanted by some.

Remember the British governmernt did fight a war to end the rebellion.Although some elements wanted to grant independance there were also forces within it which wanted to pull something back.
The anti treaty argument in the civil war was that the treaty fell short of an independant Irish republic. The oath of allegiance was the most important point, but partition was inevitably a major issue.

Remember the British governmernt did fight a war to end the rebellion.Although some elements wanted to grant independance there were also forces within it which wanted to pull something back.
The fact that the government would happily have got rid of all of Ireland if they were going to get rid of any (an 'all or nothing' attitude) is borne out by the 1914 Home Rule Act which included all 32 counties in Home Rule.

The anti treaty argument in the civil war was that the treaty fell short of an independant Irish republic. The oath of allegiance was the most important point, but partition was inevitably a major issue.
Partition was never a particularly major issue in the Civil War. It was assumed that NI would be given to the Free State at some point in the near future. The Civil War was almost exclusively based on de Valera wanting an instant Republic, with Collins favouring a gradual evolution to Republic (which dev eventually carried out).

The argument over partition is pretty much moot anyways, most of us down South don't want the North and I, for one, am perfectly happy to leave it to the British government.

The argument over partition is pretty much moot anyways, most of us down South don't want the North and I, for one, am perfectly happy to leave it to the British government.
Well, yes, but the lack of enthusiasm in the Republic for unification is another issue. And one that Sinn Fein doesn't appear to have realised.

So you would go from forcing an area to be part of a country (which is wrong) to forcing an area to be part of a country (which is OK)?


The simple fact is that Ireland is not an "area" of Britain,as you seem to believe.Historically,northern Ireland has always been nothing more than that - the northern part of Ireland.

And do you have the right to tell people in Northern Ireland that their country shouldn't exist because most of the people in the Free State would have voted against it's remaining in the UK?

The issue was Irish independance. That is, the island of Ireland. So, a democratic decision should have been made by the population of that island. Also bear in mind Protestants were never going to be discriminated against by the republic. The reason the 6 counties abstained from the republic was that they believed they would be bullied as a minority group in the new government.

Yes, each county should have been givin it's say, and the majority decision would be enforced on all. That's democracy.Whether or not partition was a good idea, it's happened and that's that. All we can do now in relation to the Irish problem is look at the state of play today. My understanding is that those in the majority of the counties in the North do want to remain part of the UK. The Northern Ireland 2001 Census (http://www.nicensus2001.gov.uk/nica/browser/profile.jsp?profile=Cultural&mainArea=&mainLevel=) (being the last main survey done of Northern Ireland culture and demography) indicates that 895,377 were at that point Protestant (or at least non-Catholic Christian) compared to 737,412 Catholics. The vast majority of Protestants are unionists. It's a small majority, and I am very sure it will change in a few years, but it's still there. Therefore, at present the NI situation is democratic.

Oh, and by the way, no, I am not a Protestant; I'm not 'taking their side', I am just presenting the facts as we have them. At the same time, I'm disgusted by this bullshit. It took me an hour and a half on a packed bus to get home - ordinarily a 20/25 minute journey. My mother has been stuck in traffic for two hours in the centre of Belfast, and still has a long way to go.

Even more annoying from a personal perspective however is the fact that one of my boyfriend's mates is a policeman and was prevented from going to his best mate's wedding on Saturday, having had his leave cancelled because of this. Even worse again is the fact he got injured. In comparitive terms, he was lucky as it's only a relatively minor cut, but it's still disconcerting. The man has a wife and three year old kid.

What this rioting achieves is quite beyond me. Even if you manage to close down the whole of the Northern Ireland infrastructure, what good does it do? The Parades Commission aren't exactly going to look favourably on you cos of that. And why such outrage at this parade in particular? I thought there were many much more contentious parades over the marching season.

it makes no difference. my question remains the same - why should a country be split when the majority of it want to move in a new direction.

On that basis, the majority of the United Kingdom didn't want the 26 counties to split off from the UK. Why should a country be split when the majority don't want it to move in a new direction?

The simple fact is that Ireland is not an "area" of Britain,as you seem to believe.Historically,northern Ireland has always been nothing more than that - the northern part of Ireland.
Between 1801 and 1921 Ireland was (reluctantly) an "area" of the UK. One of the Home Nations. Historically, NI didn't exist until 1920.

The issue was Irish independance. That is, the island of Ireland. So, a democratic decision should have been made by the population of that island.
The fairest way of doing Irish independence was on a county by county basis. Let the people decide what they want to be a part of. 26 of those counties desired independence and got it. 6 of them desired to remain part of the UK and got it.

If Galway had decided to remain in the UK it would have. If Tyrone had wanted to join the Free State it would have.

That is the absolute fairest way to do it.

Also bear in mind Protestants were never going to be discriminated against by the republic. The reason the 6 counties abstained from the republic was that they believed they would be bullied as a minority group in the new government.
The tendency of the Free State to be heavily influenced by Roman Catholocism suggests otherwise.

On that basis, the majority of the United Kingdom didn't want the 26 counties to split off from the UK. Why should a country be split when the majority don't want it to move in a new direction?
I tried that earlier but didn't get a satisfactory answer.

I tried that earlier but didn't get a satisfactory answer.
Well I'm sorry if it this isn't satisfactory, but who rules a piece of land dosn't define what country it is. There's a lot more to it than that.
Can I just say I am not saying Catholics should be able to boss Protestants around because of their majority, my point is there should be no split. A Catholic Irishman and a Protestant Irishman are just two Irishmen.

I tried that earlier but didn't get a satisfactory answer.

Lack of satisfactory answers to aspects of 'the Irish question' should surprise none of us.

Well I'm sorry if it this isn't satisfactory, but who rules a piece of land dosn't define what country it is. There's a lot more to it than that.
That still doesn't answer the question.

You say NI shouldn't be part of the UK because the majority of Ireland is opposed to that.

We've said that in that case the Republic shouldn't be independent because the majority of the UK was opposed to that.

How are they different things?

In both cases it's the majority of a country being opposed to part of that countries 'land' not being in the country, while the majority of the people in that 'land' are in favour of it.

Can I just say I am not saying Catholics should be able to boss Protestants around because of their majority, my point is there should be no split. A Catholic Irishman and a Protestant Irishman are just two Irishmen.
While I may agree with you that they are both Irishmen, many would disagree. And, even though they are both 'Irish', it doesn't mean that they have to want to be ruled by the same government.

Lack of satisfactory answers to aspects of 'the Irish question' should surprise none of us.
Very true.

Can I just say I am not saying Catholics should be able to boss Protestants around because of their majority, my point is there should be no split. A Catholic Irishman and a Protestant Irishman are just two Irishmen.

Possibly, but this just enters the thorny territory of having to define what constitutes an Irish person: are you going by the principles of citizenship as currently operated by Eire?

Forgive me if I sound naive and ignorant, (an American, heh) but reading this forum has been a bigtime eye opener. I've been to the Republic of Ireland twice, a long time ago, as a kid, read up (a little bit) on what happened in 1916 and Bobby Sands etc., but I never heard once about this county by county vote thing. (Refer above) I realize it's spilt milk, as was said earlier, but I can't help but look at that action and wonder, What the hell were they thinking? If you're going to base any countrys' opinion on a county by county vote, you're inviting chaos. And there's no turning back....lovely.

That still doesn't answer the question.

You say NI shouldn't be part of the UK because the majority of Ireland is opposed to that.

We've said that in that case the Republic shouldn't be independent because the majority of the UK was opposed to that.

How are they different things?

In both cases it's the majority of a country being opposed to part of that countries 'land' not being in the country, while the majority of the people in that 'land' are in favour of it.

You could split hairs on this right down to Protestant and Catholic neighbourhoods being part of the UK or the Republic. Like you've said people will take the democracy argument either way. I take my stance on it because historically "Ireland" has always meant the whole island, and basically because there is no good reason not to have a united Ireland - there is no disadvantage for a Protestant living in the republic.

Off topic for a second - most NI Protestants have Scottish ancestry. Scotland may pursue nationalism in the future, where would that leave the North? It has no more reason to be loyal to London than Scotland does.


While I may agree with you that they are both Irishmen, many would disagree. And, even though they are both 'Irish', it doesn't mean that they have to want to be ruled by the same government.

The way I see it, a single secular government of this island is the best way to end the "us and them" attitude. Germany is a good example of a country of mixed Protestant/Catholic population. A German Protestant would regard a German Catholic as no more or less German than himself, and vice versa.Rightly so.

Possibly, but this just enters the thorny territory of having to define what constitutes an Irish person: are you going by the principles of citizenship as currently operated by Eire?

I am a Catholic with Gaelic/Norman ancestry living in the Republic. To my mind anyone born on this island is as Irish as I am.

Forgive me if I sound naive and ignorant, (an American, heh) but reading this forum has been a bigtime eye opener. I've been to the Republic of Ireland twice, a long time ago, as a kid, read up (a little bit) on what happened in 1916 and Bobby Sands etc., but I never heard once about this county by county vote thing. (Refer above) I realize it's spilt milk, as was said earlier, but I can't help but look at that action and wonder, What the hell were they thinking? If you're going to base any countrys' opinion on a county by county vote, you're inviting chaos. And there's no turning back....lovely.It wasn't really county-by-county as such... It was just that counties were given the option of remaining if they wanteded to opt out of the succession, and some counties in the north chose to due to what was then a strong unionist majority.

I am a Catholic with Gaelic/Norman ancestry living in the Republic. To my mind anyone born on this island is as Irish as I am.

Fair enough, but merely being born on this island leaves out many who would be eligible for Irish Citizenship according to other criteria - by mother, for example, who despite being born to a couple from Ulster was actually born in the Far East - would she qualify as Irish?

look terrorists are cunts and rioters are wankers all should be shot but i must say protestants in ni know how catholics felt 40 yrs ago but if the people of ni want to be british thats good finally the british army kick arse

You could split hairs on this right down to Protestant and Catholic neighbourhoods being part of the UK or the Republic. Like you've said people will take the democracy argument either way. I take my stance on it because historically "Ireland" has always meant the whole island,
You seem to forget that there has never been a united, independent, Irish state. Not even before the British. Ireland still does mean the whole island, but there was never a united Irish people with one sense of 'Irishness'

and basically because there is no good reason not to have a united Ireland
There are several good reasons. The most important being that the people of Northern Ireland simply don't want to be part of a united Ireland.


Off topic for a second - most NI Protestants have Scottish ancestry. Scotland may pursue nationalism in the future, where would that leave the North? It has no more reason to be loyal to London than Scotland does.
That is an irrelevent point.


The way I see it, a single secular government of this island is the best way to end the "us and them" attitude. Germany is a good example of a country of mixed Protestant/Catholic population. A German Protestant would regard a German Catholic as no more or less German than himself, and vice versa.Rightly so.
Well, I don't agree.

look terrorists are cunts and rioters are wankers all should be shot but i must say protestants in ni know how catholics felt 40 yrs ago but if the people of ni want to be british thats good finally the british army kick arsegowaykplzthx

Seriously, though, this has nothing to do with wanting to be part of Britain. If anything, it's more likely to persuade the British government to try to offload them (as if they haven't been trying like crazy for the past 8 years anyway).

Cretin Unionists. It's not enough their solution went agaist any form of settlement (not an Irish identity, though many nationalist leaders in the beginning were Protestant as well), not only have they been privileged in all ways: they are fighting against Great Britain!
(I don't aim to excuse the Provisional IRA, but this is just idiotic)

just when we thought there was a light at the end of this tunnel known as the troubles it turns out to be a fire lit by rioters.

just when we thought there was a light at the end of this tunnel known as the troubles it turns out to be a fire lit by rioters.

If nothing else it makes a change from the traditional oncoming train.

If nothing else it makes a change from the traditional oncoming train.

ah i remember back in the day when we weren't allowed on a train once cos of a bomb threat.ah yes,'feckin IRA' i grumbled and went to find somewhere to sit down.

at the time i didnt realise the IRA were not really going to put a bomb on a train in kildare,nowhere near the north at all,or even going in that direction.

at the time i didnt realise the IRA were not really going to put a bomb on a train in kildare,nowhere near the north at all,or even going in that direction.

Their standard tactic up here was just to leave a suspect device on the lines, rather than on the actual train - very little effort, very little risk, but a reasonable amount of disruption.

...there is no good reason not to have a united Ireland...Aside of unionism/nationalism/whatever, that really depends on how you feel about European integration.

You seem to forget that there has never been a united, independent, Irish state. Not even before the British. Ireland still does mean the whole island, but there was never a united Irish people with one sense of 'Irishness'.

Ireland was an emerging kingdom in the dark ages, similar in many respects to England for example,divided but still a cultural/linguistic unit. The difference is Ireland remained divided. It may never have experienced uniform government,but it was still a distinct nation. A nation being a people united by a common homeland, culture, language and history. The Gaelic Irish were united in all these things, though not politically.
That is not to say Gaelic Irish people are the only ones with a right to live here. The point is it has a history of being seperate and distinct.

You are quite right that this island has never been a political unit,but that is not a reason to keep it divided today.

There are several good reasons. The most important being that the people of Northern Ireland simply don't want to be part of a united Ireland.

And I don't deny it. I'm just saying it's a pity that people think that way.


That is an irrelevent point.
Well I did say off topic.

Ireland was an emerging kingdom in the dark ages, similar in many respects to England for example,divided but still a cultural/linguistic unit. The difference is Ireland remained divided. It may never have experienced uniform government,but it was still a distinct nation. A nation being a people united by a common homeland, culture, language and history. The Gaelic Irish were united in all these things, though not politically.
That is not to say Gaelic Irish people are the only ones with a right to live here. The point is it has a history of being seperate and distinct.

It wasn't though. There was no single "culture" or defining feeling of being Irish. It was a series of warring kingdoms, each with their own individual identity, even if they were very similar. The north east was always very close to Scotland, possibly closer to Scotland than it was to the rest of Ireland. Take a look at Dalriada, and the Scot invasion of what we now know as Scotland, but was at that time inhabited by the Picts.

You are quite right that this island has never been a political unit,but that is not a reason to keep it divided today.
It has never been a single political, social, or economic unit, so what are the reasons for unity, other than the fact that it is one island?

Give Ireland back to the Irish.

I, for one, don't want it.

Give Ireland back to the Irish.

I, for one, don't want it.
Thanks for that enlightened comment, now please go and read something about the situation on the off chance that you may pick up the tiniest bit of knowledge before entering into threads like this.

If I really wanted I could really highlight your ignorance of the matter, but I don't care to.

Thanks for that enlightened comment, now please go and read something about the situation on the off chance that you may pick up the tiniest bit of knowledge before entering into threads like this.

If I really wanted I could really highlight your ignorance of the matter, but I don't care to.

This has been going on since well before I was born. Why should I have any interest in it. You want to fight your little sordid intermural battles with your other irish buddies, fair enough. What I don't see is why it should involve anyone else. If you actually wanted to be English, then that would be one thing, but you don't, so why should you drag the rest of us into it?

Either make peace, fight on your own, or whatever.

In any case, its about time it stopped.

If you actually wanted to be English, then that would be one thing
Ah, a common mistake. At least with the English anyway. I haven't seen any Scots or Welsh make it.

British =/= English.

We (we, as in the Unionist community) are perfectly happy being Northern Irish, thanks. But we are British (and some, including me, would identify as Irish as well, but predominantly British.)

If you actually wanted to be English, then that would be one thing, but you don't, so why should you drag the rest of us into it?

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but it was you proto-English chaps that dragged 'us' into it, rather than the other way round. The Norman Invasion was an east-to-west-across-the-Irish-Sea affair, no?

It wasn't though. There was no single "culture" or defining feeling of being Irish. It was a series of warring kingdoms, each with their own individual identity, even if they were very similar. The north east was always very close to Scotland, possibly closer to Scotland than it was to the rest of Ireland. Take a look at Dalriada, and the Scot invasion of what we now know as Scotland, but was at that time inhabited by the Picts.

Ireland was divided into about 150 "tuaths" in the later middle ages. Further back in history there were High Kings who at least claimed to rule the whole country.
You are mistaken,the Gaelic people all belonged to the same race, practiced the same religion,spoke the same language and followed the same customs. They were divided in leadership only.
The Dal Riada were a Gaelic tribe, and Scotland today is still a Gaelic country. Scots culture and language developed on their own, and absorbed the Picts, and so the Irish and Scots are related but far from identical.
North Eastern Ulster was close to Scotland in the later middle ages onward because Scots had resettled there.

It has never been a single political, social, or economic unit, so what are the reasons for unity, other than the fact that it is one island?

It is the homeland of a distinct race.
Again,this is not to say that only that race have a right to live there.
My point is this island has an identity,and a history as a a seperate unit - a "country". This unit should not have been split.

All you have said is there is no reason FOR unity.What are your reasons AGAINST it?

Ah, a common mistake. At least with the English anyway. I haven't seen any Scots or Welsh make it.

British =/= English.

We (we, as in the Unionist community) are perfectly happy being Northern Irish, thanks. But we are British (and some, including me, would identify as Irish as well, but predominantly British.)

Yes, I know you don't want to be English.God knows, your bang on enough about it. Fine, don't be English, it's not mine, or any other Englishman's job to make you so. (And of course, the obvious implication from your attitude is that we would welcome you as Englishmen with open arms, which is not true either.)

Same for the Scots, if they want independence, well then, good riddance to bad labour government rubbish.

The Welsh are different, they are our bitches, and bona-fide belong to us. But that's beside the point.

The point is, either make peace with whomever, or don't. I cannot see why these things should involve the English, other than you need us to enforce your non-Irish Irishness, with our army at the costs of billions of pounds. It's not even like you try to participate in being British, just look at your MP selection. Obviously you make it with a view to overall national policy: Right?

You accuse me of not knowing the situation, but you just blithely assume that everyone in England is going to support your little crusade. I put it to you that you need to review the situation, and start to face facts.

It is the homeland of a distinct race.

'sfunny, I seem to remember that the European Court rejected the case that was brought to it hinging on the cliam that Irish were in fact a distinct race, in fact I can't think of any official body (even an Irish one) that recognises the Irish as a race in anything other than the loosest and most poetic sense.

It's not even like you try to participate in being British, just look at your MP selection. Obviously you make it with a view to overall national policy: Right?


It was only in 2001 and that the Labour Party lifted its ban on accepting membership from those resident in Northern Ireland, and the Conservative party have stood in only a handful of constituencies... it is hardly as if we have had a chance to affect mainstream national policy.

All you have said is there is no reason FOR unity.What are your reasons AGAINST it?

Taking a wild guess here: it may just have something to do with the fact that it would be pushed through against the express will of the majority of people who are going to be most directly affected by it. We'll just leave aside the matter that it would very likely cause an explosion of violence from Loyalists which would likely match if not exceed the violence which had its source in the Republicans during the early seventies.

Ireland was divided into about 150 "tuaths" in the later middle ages. Further back in history there were High Kings who at least claimed to rule the whole country.
Yup, the claimed to rule the whole country. But the point that there has never been a fully independent Irish state, with control over the whole island, still stands.

You are mistaken,the Gaelic people all belonged to the same race, practiced the same religion,spoke the same language and followed the same customs. They were divided in leadership only.
The Dal Riada were a Gaelic tribe, and Scotland today is still a Gaelic country. Scots culture and language developed on their own, and absorbed the Picts, and so the Irish and Scots are related but far from identical.
North Eastern Ulster was close to Scotland in the later middle ages onward because Scots had resettled there.

Same language and probably religion, yes. But leadership is a hugely important factor, and you seem to downplay it somewhat. Bear in mind that the Dalriadans moving to control land in Scotland were in the dark ages, and the north east of Ireland was close to them from that point on.

Scots language and culture descended from the Dalriada, mixed with the Picts, and then, in turn, went on to heavily influence the north eastern part of Ulster.

It is, of course, mildly ironic that before the Flight of the Earls and plantation Ulster was the one provence that was still beyond English control, and now it is the one that, at least part of, is still under British control. This does not, however, provide a case for unification.

Ireland never existed as a single nation, and the Irish people have never existed as a single people.

And no matter what it may have been like in the past, that is no basis for arguing for unification today, as the situation is so different it is like comparing chalk and cheese.

It is the homeland of a distinct race.
Again,this is not to say that only that race have a right to live there.
My point is this island has an identity,and a history as a a seperate unit - a "country". This unit should not have been split.
And my point is that I believe this 'unit' never existed as a whole, single. Several similar and loosely aligned units, probably, but never one. Ireland never united into one in the way that England did.

All you have said is there is no reason FOR unity.What are your reasons AGAINST it?
Aside from what has been pointed out several times already?

It was only in 2001 and that the Labour Party lifted its ban on accepting membership from those resident in Northern Ireland, and the Conservative party have stood in only a handful of constituencies... it is hardly as if we have had a chance to affect mainstream national policy.

Oh rubbish. You never took and interest in anything outside of Ian Paisley's latest dog collar until recently. Labour party ban? Don't make me laugh, had you all been staunch socialists, Ramsey would have embraced you in the twenties. Moreover, you were never "banned" by the conservatives.

If you want to be an independant nation, then fine. Become one. If you don't, then I think it is about time you started to join the rest of the community.

Is that fair?

Edit: And most of this disscussion is beyond the pale anyway.

Taking a wild guess here: it may just have something to do with the fact that it would be pushed through against the express will of the majority of people who are going to be most directly affected by it.

Yes, but i want to know WHY it would be against their will.

Oh rubbish. You never took and interest in anything outside of Ian Paisley's latest dog collar until recently.

The DUP have only recently become the largest party. :rolleyes: Before then Paisley was definitely on the margins.

Labour party ban? Don't make me laugh, had you all been staunch socialists, Ramsey would have embraced you in the twenties. Moreover, you were never "banned" by the conservatives.
No 'British' party stands in my constituency. So how do I have the opportunity to become involved in mainstream national politics?

Believe me, there are many people who would if they could, as they hold a desire to get away from the old tribal crap.

If you want to be an independant nation, then fine. Become one. If you don't, then I think it is about time you started to join the rest of the community.
Give us the opportunity to then.

Edit: And most of this disscussion is beyond the pale anyway.
Well, we are talking about Northern Ireland, after all, not Dublin.

Oh rubbish. You never took and interest in anything outside of Ian Paisley's latest dog collar until recently.

I think the fact that Northern Ireland sent a higher proportion of volunteers to the two World Wars per capita than the rest of the UK without the introduction of conscription here shows that we are not as insular as you might think.

Labour party ban? Don't make me laugh, had you all been staunch socialists, Ramsey would have embraced you in the twenties.

Regardless, the ban existed until four years ago, despite repeated calls for amendment.

Moreover, you were never "banned" by the conservatives.

I never claimed we were, the situation is rather that we have a specific problem here, and the local parties are the only ones that are responding to the particular desires of the constituents in seeking to resolve it in accordance with those desires. The major parties have shown time and time again a marked tendency not to listen to the people who actually live in the 6 counties and to address their concerns, so why should the populace here support them?

If you want to be an independant nation, then fine. Become one. If you don't, then I think it is about time you started to join the rest of the community.

Is that fair?

Hey, I lean towards the anarchist side of things and give support to none of the elected politicians whether they be from NI or the rest of the UK, and setting up yet another fractured independent state is far from what I want. I'm hoping for a world without borders myself... but that is a matter for another time.

Edit: And most of this disscussion is beyond the pale anyway.

Hilarious.

So how do I have the opportunity to become involved in mainstream national politics?

Hey, you could always move from South Belfast to North Down and vote for the beloved Tories.

Yup, the claimed to rule the whole country. But the point that there has never been a fully independent Irish state, with control over the whole island, still stands.

I have not denied that. What I am trying to say is that a common leader is not a core factor of a nation.

Ireland never existed as a single nation, and the Irish people have never existed as a single people.

That is,quite simply,wrong. I have already explained why the opposite is true.


And no matter what it may have been like in the past, that is no basis for arguing for unification today, as the situation is so different it is like comparing chalk and cheese.

You were the one who brought up the topic of the Irish past.


Aside from what has been pointed out several times already?

No, you have said my reasons FOR unity are invalid. I want to hear a reason AGAINST unity. Why you would not enjoy living in a united Ireland. I am not saying there are no such reasons, I'd just like to hear it from your perspective.

Hey, you could always move from South Belfast to North Down and vote for the beloved Tories.
I think I'll skip that, thanks...

No, you have said my reasons FOR unity are invalid. I want to hear a reason AGAINST unity.
Because the majority of the people of Northern Ireland do not wish for a united Ireland. I really cannoy say it any simpler and plainer than that. To impose a united Ireland would be going directly against any idea of democracy.

Why you would not enjoy living in a united Ireland. I am not saying there are no such reasons, I'd just like to hear it from your perspective.
I have never said that I wouldn't enjoy living in a united Ireland. I wouldn't say I would enjoy it, and I couldn't say I wouldn't enjoy it. I just, simply, would rather we were a part of the UK rather than the Republic, as that is where I feel I have a greater connection with.

A similar question could be asked of nationalists.

The DUP have only recently become the largest party. :rolleyes: Before then Paisley was definitely on the margins.

And by on the margins, you mean annoying everyone in England since before I was born. :rolleyes: See I can roll eyes too. You are not speaking to some yank now, so stop trying to obfuscate.

No 'British' party stands in my constituency. So how do I have the opportunity to become involved in mainstream national politics?

Have you stood representing a "british" party? No. Thought not. That's why. There is no interest.

But typically, in as much as you expect a "british" army to protect you, you also expect a "british" politician to come over and stand. Which really means you want an english person to do it for you. But if that happened you would only complain about how they were "english" and not irish in any case. If you want to get involved, get involved! But don't complain because no-one else does it for you.

Believe me, there are many people who would if they could, as they hold a desire to get away from the old tribal crap.

No. They wouldn't. If they wanted to, they would do it. No-one is forcing anyone to do anything in that respect.

Give us the opportunity to then.

Then start a petition for a plebicite. Believe me, there is nothing that would make most of us happier than you independence. That would be a vote winner.


Well, we are talking about Northern Ireland, after all, not Dublin.

Well I am glad to see we can agree on some things.

I just, simply, would rather we were a part of the UK rather than the Republic, as that is where I feel I have a greater connection with.

I suppose this answers my question.


A similar question could be asked of nationalists.

If you were to ask me what would be so great about a united Ireland, I'd refer to the Irish Flag. People seem to forget what it means. Green - Catholic Irish, Orange - Protestant Irish, and white - peace - between them.

A united Ireland is not about the Republic taking the 6 counties from the people who live there, a territorial dispute. It is about the unity of all the people of this island.

You have said you feel more of a connection with the UK.Could a connection be built with the south? It seems only natural, it is afterall another part of the same island.

Anyway Im going to bed, nice arguing with you. :)

'sfunny, I seem to remember that the European Court rejected the case that was brought to it hinging on the cliam that Irish were in fact a distinct race, in fact I can't think of any official body (even an Irish one) that recognises the Irish as a race in anything other than the loosest and most poetic sense.

If that's what you think, then you are pretty ignorant of history as well as obvious facts.That is not only wrong, that is highly bloody insulting.
As far as I know, the issue with the EU was whether or not Irish would be recognised as an official language of the Union.Since it has few speakers and to avoid hassle, the Irish government decided there was no need for this.

If that's what you think, then you are pretty ignorant of history.
As far as I know, the issue with the EU was whether or not Irish would be recognised as an official language of the Union.Since it has few speakers and to avoid hassle, the Irish government decided there was no need for this.

Even I know there is no such language as Irish. Really now, you're as bad as the one who wants dependant independence.

Even I know there is no such language as Irish. Really now, you're as bad as the one who wants dependant independence.

If that's a joke, I don't get it. Not only does the Irish language exist, it is older than English, and I think sounds a lot better.Amadán. :p

If that's a joke, I don't get it. Not only does the Irish language exist, it is older than English, and I think sounds a lot better.Amadán. :p

Those Scottish people in the Hebrides speak it too. Therefore it cannot be Irish. Unless Ireland now claims the Hebrides, which is frankly hypocritical.

So no. No Irish for you. I don't believe you are Irish anyway.

can anyone help me out please... i need to know how to start a new thread!!!

If that's what you think, then you are pretty ignorant of history as well as obvious facts.That is not only wrong, that is highly bloody insulting.

I'll leave that for a moment, because I think we're talking at cross purposes.


As far as I know, the issue with the EU was whether or not Irish would be recognised as an official language of the Union.Since it has few speakers and to avoid hassle, the Irish government decided there was no need for this.

You and I are talking about entirely different things here - Irish will become one of the official laguages of the EU at the start of 2007, but will be handled in a slightly different way to most of the other official languages.

I am talking about a case which was an attempt to get the Irish recognised as a race, and thus to give discrimination against the Irish the status of racism. I seem to recall this taking place in the late eighties, and the case being rejected.

Returning to the question of whether the Irish are in fact a race directly: there have only been people living on Ireland for less than 10,000 years, and this does not give time for a separate race to develop. Any claim that the Irish are a race in anything but the most poetic context is as watertight as claiming that the English are a race (ie. not watertight at all).

I hope for a Unified Ireland.

Amadán.

Calling people an idiot, even if it is n a language they don't understand, is probably best avoided on this forum.

Wow thats harsh man.

Hey, you could always move from South Belfast to North Down and vote for the beloved Tories.Hehe... No way. I'm proud to be a member of a unionist-dominated constituency represented by a nationalist MLA. Besides, regardless of my political leanings, I'd rather be represented by Durkin than Paisley.

Flintoff gives you the sort of perspective the average Jonny English has on the whole issue. Someone else gave the same perspective from the Republic. The thing is, one of you has to take us. Either that or you give us to the Americans, and I don't think either of you really want that...

Returning to the question of whether the Irish are in fact a race directly: there have only been people living on Ireland for less than 10,000 years, and this does not give time for a separate race to develop. Any claim that the Irish are a race in anything but the most poetic context is as watertight as claiming that the English are a race (ie. not watertight at all).

Well, that's an argument about the definition of race. I thought you meant since Ireland is mainly English speaking, it is basically English.
The Gaelic people are have mainly Celtic ancestry, and so have are closely related to the Scots, Welsh, Bretons ,Cornish etc. England is Anglo-Saxon, with mainly Germanic ancestry. Germans and Celts could be called races.

Calling people an idiot, even if it is n a language they don't understand, is probably best avoided on this forum.

Amadán generally is not very offensive, it's the same as calling someone foolish.

Those Scottish people in the Hebrides speak it too. Therefore it cannot be Irish. Unless Ireland now claims the Hebrides, which is frankly hypocritical.

So no. No Irish for you. I don't believe you are Irish anyway.

Scotts Gaelic is different,though closely related to Irish Gaelic. If you don't believe Im Irish, well, is cuma liom (I don't care).

Well, that's an argument about the definition of race. I thought you meant since Ireland is mainly English speaking, it is basically English.

No, not at all: the English are such a mongrol race anyhow.

The Gaelic people are have mainly Celtic ancestry, and so have are closely related to the Scots, Welsh, Bretons ,Cornish etc. England is Anglo-Saxon, with mainly Germanic ancestry. Germans and Celts could be called races.

If you are using race in that sense - to mean a 'people' - fair enough, but you must recognise that the vast majority of Northern Ireland Protestants (those who generally don't want a Unified Ireland) are of Scots extraction, and so also fall into the same 'Celt' race as your Irish (ignoring the Picts for the moment, if only because they always get ignored). To say nothing of the fact that the Scots themselves mainly came from Ireland originally...

The thing is, one of you has to take us. Either that or you give us to the Americans, and I don't think either of you really want that...

I heard the Israelis were looking for a new homeland...

After reading through this- you've kinda gone off the point. This was reactions to Loyalist rioters. Its the other side of the coin.

On UTV last night interviewees seemed to defend the actions of the rioters saying- well if the IRA used violence to get what they want, why shouldn't we?

Thats a dangerous statement.

Even I know there is no such language as Irish

I wish you would refrain from making foolish statements- it does not help your case. Irish, Cornish, Manx, Breton, Scots Gaelic and Welsh all came from the same linguistic family (although Welsh split off later then the others) in the Celtic/Germanic branch.

Irish does exist- it is dwindling that is true- but to say it doesn't exist is offensive to those gaelgors and the culture that surrounds it. I'm ashamed that i have lost a lot of my natural tonuge and i am resolving to re educate myself in it. It is a beautiful language and i am proud of it.

If you are using race in that sense - to mean a 'people' - fair enough, but you must recognise that the vast majority of Northern Ireland Protestants (those who generally don't want a Unified Ireland) are of Scots extraction, and so also fall into the same 'Celt' race as your Irish (ignoring the Picts for the moment, if only because they always get ignored). To say nothing of the fact that the Scots themselves mainly came from Ireland originally...

Yes exactly, which I think only strengthens the argument for unification.
North and South have far more in common than they are different.


I wish you would refrain from making foolish statements- it does not help your case. Irish, Cornish, Manx, Breton, Scots Gaelic and Welsh all came from the same linguistic family (although Welsh split off later then the others) in the Celtic/Germanic branch.

one thing - Celtic and Germanic are serperate branchs in the Indo-European family.


Irish does exist- it is dwindling that is true- but to say it doesn't exist is offensive to those gaelgors and the culture that surrounds it. I'm ashamed that i have lost a lot of my natural tonuge and i am resolving to re educate myself in it. It is a beautiful language and i am proud of it.

you're damn right, fair play to you.

After reading through this- you've kinda gone off the point. This was reactions to Loyalist rioters. Its the other side of the coin,

Yea, we have gone off on a bit of a tangent alright...

Yes exactly, which I think only strengthens the argument for unification.
North and South have far more in common than they are different.Ireland, Scotland and Wales have far more in common than they are different. What's to stop you annexing them too, on that basis? After all, we're all Celts...

Yes exactly, which I think only strengthens the argument for unification.
North and South have far more in common than they are different.




Speaking as a ....Southerner.. though i dislike that term- there is also an issue of whether 'we' (.ie. the 'South') actually want a unified island...

Politically speaking, if it does occur then the 2nd largest political party would be Unionist, how do you think the Southern political spectrum would fare?

Economically, would it be worth it? The economic heartland of the North East isn't as true these days- as can be seen with the down turn in the dock yards.

There is too much baggage to be honest. It wouldn't make a blind bit of difference in my every day life whether Norn Iron became part of a 'united' Ireland, remained part of Britain or (more likely in my opinion) became a seperate entity in itself.

Ireland, Scotland and Wales have far more in common than they are different. What's to stop you annexing them too, on that basis?

I was about to make that point myself, however...

After all, we're all Celts...

...some of us look more like Picts.

Economically, would it be worth it? The economic heartland of the North East isn't as true these days- as can be seen with the down turn in the dock yards.Have you been to Belfast recently? The economy is thriving. Lots of multi-national companies are setting up branches here - viz PWC, Allstate et al. Plenty of new businesses open every day. From an entirely selfish point of view, the new trendy establishments and the American corporations' presence annoys me (loss of locally run businesses etc), but I am glad of it for the sake of the country. Yes, the shipyard has all but gone (sadly), but it is no longer the backbone of the NI economy.

On a different note, relating somewhat to the original point of the thread. Someone said that all Orange marches should simply be banned. As a pretty non-aligned Belfast resident, I don't give a flying fuck whether they are banned or whether they happen all the time - honestly. But I would be interested to establish whether people who really think they ought to be banned outright think we should also ban Hibernian parades, Gay Pride parades, ethnic minority rights parades etc etc etc.

Have you been to Belfast recently? The economy is thriving. Lots of multi-national companies are setting up branches here - viz PWC, Allstate et al. Plenty of new businesses open every day. From an entirely selfish point of view, the new trendy establishments and the American corporations' presence annoys me (loss of locally run businesses etc), but I am glad of it for the sake of the country. Yes, the shipyard has all but gone (sadly), but it is no longer the backbone of the NI economy.



I have actually, was up there a few months ago. Tis a lovely city mind, felt slightly intimidated walking through East Belfast late on a Friday night :eek: but that was just prejudice on my part i'm afraid to say.

I'm happy to see that the economy is thriving- but my point was it used to be the economic heartland of the entire island, especially when partition came along. Not anymore. The 'South' is doing fine and dandy these days without the industrial north east.

Would it be in the interest of the 'South' to include Norn Iron in a unified state? Economically speaking, i think the prospect is not as tempting as it once was.

Thoughts?

Oh, and i agree with the marches. Ban everything- at least then everyones equal. Everyone can moan then :p :p

I'm happy to see that the economy is thriving- but my point was it used to be the economic heartland of the entire island, especially when partition came along. Not anymore. The 'South' is doing fine and dandy these days without the industrial north east.

Would it be in the interest of the 'South' to include Norn Iron in a unified state? Economically speaking, i think the prospect is not as tempting as it once was.

Thoughts?My apologies, I misunderstood you. I thought you meant that the economy here was shit rather than not-as-good-as-down-South, which clearly is not the case. I think that, yes, Eire's economy is not excellent these days, and in some ways it would be in Norn Iron's (as opposed, perhaps, to the Republic's) economic interest to be part of that. Would it effect the Republic detrimentally, however? I know very little about economics, so I can't give an educated answer. However, I know that a lot of money from Europe has been pumped into the Irish economy and I can't really see them cutting out 6 counties if the said 6 counties were politically and economically part of the country receiving the money.

However, that's only part of the Republic's economy, I am quite sure. Globalisation and the (relative) peace we now enjoy has brought many more business endeavours to the place. That of course is true of the 'South' too - I know that in Dublin, at least, business is booming.

But in short, I don't know. Things here are economically pretty good at present, but that's true of the rest of Ireland also. As you say, some years back it may actually have been beneficial for the South and the North to be one state, but it's improbable that there would be any clear economic advantage now. However, I'm not sure that it would be especially disadvantageous either; I suppose I can't really see a massive downturn in the Republic's economy were we to unify, but I suppose it is possible that there would be some kind of (relatively minor?) knock-on effect.

Oh, and i agree with the marches. Ban everything- at least then everyones equal. Everyone can moan then :p :pExactly. I don't object to any of them per se, but I don't really see what marching - whether in an Orange march or in anything else - actually achieves. I'm all for letting people celebrate their culture, I suppose, but if one's allowed to do it, then so should everyone else. If one isn't allowed to do it, then stop everyone else too in the interests of equity.

...felt slightly intimidated walking through East Belfast late on a Friday night...Much as Belfast is in pretty good shape these days, there's still areas I would avoid if possible too - you're far from alone there ;)

Exactly. I don't object to any of them per se, but I don't really see what marching - whether in an Orange march or in anything else - actually achieves. I'm all for letting people celebrate their culture, I suppose, but if one's allowed to do it, then so should everyone else. If one isn't allowed to do it, then stop everyone else too in the interests of equity.

Ah, so the Mexican Day of the Dead parade that we had at Halloween should have been banned because a load of alcopop swilling teenagers and bitter old men are in the habit of shitting on their own doorsteps every time they have an Orange parade?

Ah, so the Mexican Day of the Dead parade that we had at Halloween should have been banned because a load of alcopop swilling teenagers and bitter old men are in the habit of shitting on their own doorsteps every time they have an Orange parade?Don't know anything about it, but yeah, why not? What's the point in it? All parades or organised public gatherings cause disturbance of one form or another, largely in terms of commuting. As a commuter, I (and many others, I am quite sure) find this most irritating. Also, prior to the clean-up operations the whole place is a mess, and the operations in question cost a lot. Occasionally they are privately funded, but by and large they are performed by the Council, and thus are at the expense of the tax payer.

NB: I am not making a comparison between people who behave in a respectable fashion and those members of the Orange Order (and their supporters) who behave in the way you describe. Fair play to those who parade in an acceptable manner. I just don't see what the point in their exercises is, whatever their purpose and however they're conducted, and I further don't see why I and other tax payers should, in part, have to fund them (or at least the results of them).

As a commuter, I (and many others, I am quite sure) find this most irritating. ... I just don't see what the point in their exercises is, whatever their purpose and however they're conducted, and I further don't see why I and other tax payers should, in part, have to fund them (or at least the results of them).

As a non-commuter I don't see why I and other tax payers should in part have to fund your transit from place of residence to place of work. I fail to see the point in the exercise of all this scurrying about from point A to point B, only to return back to point A again, and then to repeat this bizarre ritual five or six days every week.

<snip>

Thanks for your insight :p

Interesting points of view- and when it resettles again i'll probably be meandering through that fine city soon enough :p

The Orange Order aren't a paramilitary organisation, and as such their status is ...
I dont care what thier status is...They are still terrorists...

One mans terrorist...(aplies every time)

OD2, the Orange Order isn't a terrorist organisation; officially, some members of it now are, though.

Just as an update from the BBC (it's also on Reuters and Sky, if you need extra sources), the UVF ceasefire has been declared officially over. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/4243652.stm) But the declaration has little real consequence; violent action is no more illegal now than it was prior to the rioting...

I dont care what thier status is...


Nothing like being open to the facts.

As a non-commuter I don't see why I and other tax payers should in part have to fund your transit from place of residence to place of work. I fail to see the point in the exercise of all this scurrying about from point A to point B, only to return back to point A again, and then to repeat this bizarre ritual five or six days every week.You don't have to fund it - this is done privately. Translink is a private company, not supported by public bodies. My car was purchased privately by me, as is the tax, insurance and petrol needed to run it. Whether you see the point in commuting in order to make a living and make something of oneself (as opposed to scrounging off the State, presumably) is irrelevant since you don't have to contribute anything to it nor does it strongly affect you, economically or otherwise.

Interesting points of view- and when it resettles again i'll probably be meandering through that fine city soon enough :pWe look forward to welcoming you back :)

You don't have to fund it - this is done privately. Translink is a private company, not supported by public bodies.

Incorrect. It is a public corpoartion that receives capital grant from the Department of Regional Development. The only real difference between Translink and early incarnations of NITHC is that it is an attempt to integrate both rail and bus services.

"Northern Ireland Transport Holding Company (NITHC) is a public corporation established under the Transport Act (NI) 1967 to oversee the provision of public transport in Northern Ireland. It took over the railway and bus activities of the Ulster Transport Authority (UTA), thus, Northern Ireland Railways and Ulsterbus were incorporated. In 1973 Citybus (now Metro) was incorporated to take over the bus services of the Belfast Corporation Transport Department.

Translink is a brand name which was introduced in late 1996 to cover the integrated services of Ulsterbus, Citybus (now Metro) and Northern Ireland Railways."

http://www.translink.co.uk/nithco.asp

Of course, the company itself could be lying to us.

My car was purchased privately by me, as is the tax, insurance and petrol needed to run it.

The road upon which it drives was, however, not, nor were the systems of administation or enforcement of legislation regarding traffic.

Whether you see the point in commuting in order to make a living and make something of oneself (as opposed to scrounging off the State, presumably)...

Nope, I travel to work and often by road, but as I work at a fairly varied set of locations it wouldn't be termed as 'commuting', along with the fact that when travelling to a place of work by car the car is primarily being used to transport the tools of my trade, rather than just myself.

... is irrelevant since you don't have to contribute anything to it nor does it strongly affect you, economically or otherwise.

As I have shown commuters do affect me economically, and as far as otherwise goes - living in close proximity to one of the main arterial routes of Belfast is not without its effects, both healthwise and environmental.


Anyhow... to get back to my point of the Day of the Dead parade: you asked what the point of it was - to educate and entertain children while also bringing a spark of colour and exoticism to the far too often drab streets of this city. Should it still have been banned on the basis of the inability of people in attendance at other parades to control themselves when they feel like venting their spleen?

What's the Orange Order?

What's the Orange Order?

If only we had some kind of global system of computers full of information which were linked together by cunning means and had some kind of searchable feature. Nah, it'd never work.

If only we had some kind of global system of computers full of information which were linked together by cunning means and had some kind of searchable feature. Nah, it'd never work.
Seriously, why do you have to be a jerk like that?

It was in the news article and since everyone here should be discussing the news article, then I figured somebody here would know and that would mean that I wouldn't have to sift through mountains of crap to find useful information.

Seriously, why do you have to be a jerk like that?

It was in the news article and since everyone here should be discussing the news article, then I figured somebody here would know and that would mean that I wouldn't have to sift through mountains of crap to find useful information.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange_Order

Incorrect. It is a public corpoartion that receives capital grant from the Department of Regional Development. The only real difference between Translink and early incarnations of NITHC is that it is an attempt to integrate both rail and bus services.

"Northern Ireland Transport Holding Company (NITHC) is a public corporation established under the Transport Act (NI) 1967 to oversee the provision of public transport in Northern Ireland. It took over the railway and bus activities of the Ulster Transport Authority (UTA), thus, Northern Ireland Railways and Ulsterbus were incorporated. In 1973 Citybus (now Metro) was incorporated to take over the bus services of the Belfast Corporation Transport Department.

Translink is a brand name which was introduced in late 1996 to cover the integrated services of Ulsterbus, Citybus (now Metro) and Northern Ireland Railways."

http://www.translink.co.uk/nithco.asp

Of course, the company itself could be lying to us.OK, fair enough. I still feel the DRD is better placed in providing funds for the public infrastructure than pointless gatherings. These are usually done by the Councils, of course - but either way it's public money. Translink, public company or otherwise, still make a profit that is ploughed back into public service, and provide a useful service for the public in question, whether some people like it or not.

Of course, I wouldn't be totally shocked if they were lying to us, since I've consistently found them to be completely unreliable :)

The road upon which it drives was, however, not, nor were the systems of administation or enforcement of legislation regarding traffic.But the road on which it drives was build before I, and I'm guessing you, was/were even born. Therefore to claim that you have in part financed my driving is erroneous. Furthermore, when the roads in question were built, things cost considerably less money, even taking into account inflation. Therefore, the cost is not as immense as you make it out to be.

Nope, I travel to work and often by road, but as I work at a fairly varied set of locations it wouldn't be termed as 'commuting'.As do I, but I still have to get there. While the offical definition of 'commuter' is "One that travels regularly from one place to another, as from suburb to city and back" (dictionary.com), I have yet to find a more accurate word to describe the kind of daily travelling both you and I do. To call it travelling would be, in all but the most technical of semantic senses, incorrect.

As I have shown commuters do affect me economically, and as far as otherwise goes - living in close proximity to one of the main arterial routes of Belfast is not without its effects, both healthwise and environmental.I don't think you have shown particularly that commuters effect you economically, and even if you have, as you commute/travel/whatever yourself, you can hardly criticise! You have a point, of course, that the points raised can have detrimental effects, but that is beside the point. Every city in the world is going to have similar effects to some extent, and even living in the arse of nowhere is no guarantee you can avoid pollution of some form or another.

Anyhow... to get back to my point of the Day of the Dead parade: you asked what the point of it was - to educate and entertain children while also bringing a spark of colour and exoticism to the far too often drab streets of this city. Should it still have been banned on the basis of the inability of people in attendance at other parades to control themselves when they feel like venting their spleen?Yes. Children are not the public's problem; they're their parents'. They should be educated at school, and I disagree that there is nothing for them to do in this city and that it is drab. There are copious leisure facilities all over inner and greater Belfast.

In short, if we're going to have parades at all, then allow them all. Shoot those members of the Orange Order who cause trouble for all I give a damn, but let the peaceful ones get on with it if they really must. It's unfair to have one rule for one and one rule for another, as long the people in question are not behaving unreasonably. Dispose of the ones who are. And that includes the children misbehaving at the Day of the Dead parade, of whom I am sure there were many (since that's all the minature people ever seem to do).

OK. Rant over. We come from the same area, can we be nice to each other now? ;) :fluffle:

But the road on which it drives was build before I, and I'm guessing you, was/were even born.

It does however require maintenance, administration and policing.

Therefore, the cost is not as immense as you make it out to be.

Where did I indicate any amount?

I don't think you have shown particularly that commuters effect you economically, and even if you have, as you commute/travel/whatever yourself, you can hardly criticise!


Ah, no, even though I am some part complicit in a system, I am still able to criticise it

Yes. Children are not the public's problem; they're their parents'. They should be educated at school, and I disagree that there is nothing for them to do in this city and that it is drab. There are copious leisure facilities all over inner and greater Belfast.

If you claim that children should be educated at school - institutions which are funded by the public and not the parents alone - then your claim that chidlren aren't the public's 'problem' falls down somewhat.

In short, if we're going to have parades at all, then allow them all. Shoot those members of the Orange Order who cause trouble for all I give a damn, but let the peaceful ones get on with it if they really must. It's unfair to have one rule for one and one rule for another, as long the people in question are not behaving unreasonably. Dispose of the ones who are.

Back to the matter at hand: I'm not in favour of banning parades, but rathe the marchers and residents entering into dialogue in an attempt to work out some kind of compromise. Of course, this doesn't address what should be done when a compromise cannot be reached.


And that includes the children misbehaving at the Day of the Dead parade, of whom I am sure there were many (since that's all the minature people ever seem to do).

Actually no. It was an event unmarred by the kind of excesses that kind. Small children bopping about to a St. Louis style jazz band and staring in awe at all the skulls that they were surrounded by.


OK. Rant over. We come from the same area, can we be nice to each other now? ;) :fluffle:

Would I ever be mean to you?

If you claim that children should be educated at school - institutions which are funded by the public and not the parents alone - then your claim that chidlren aren't the public's 'problem' falls down somewhat.I phrased that improperly, for which I apologise. I meant that in the children's free time they are not the public's problem. They are only the public's problem at other points because there are certain minimums the State must provide for its citizens. If I were in government, I'd rather not provide money for the brats to get educated. It was their parents' choice to have them, not mine, not the government's and not the public's.

Actually no. It was an event unmarred by the kind of excesses that kind. Small children bopping about to a St. Louis style jazz band and staring in awe at all the skulls that they were surrounded by.I'm sorry, but that still sounds like an utterly appalling waste of time, resources and money. I freely admit that I despise children, but even objectively I cannot see the merit in it at all.

Back to the matter at hand: I'm not in favour of banning parades, but rathe the marchers and residents entering into dialogue in an attempt to work out some kind of compromise. Of course, this doesn't address what should be done when a compromise cannot be reached.That's the problem of course. In reality, I'm not in favour of actually banning them per se either (so really, this whole discussion has been a bit academic), but rather I favour it by default because it is all too often to nigh impossible to reach any suitable compromise that allows the parades in question to proceed in a peaceful fashion. When they're rerouted or banned, the Orange Order cry "Human Rights" - unfairly, in some ways, I think - but under the ECHR and the HRA they can make that argument. That is why I think if we ban them, we should probably ban others. That way the Order can't scream discrimination and deprivation of human rights, because every organisation that would be doing something akin to what they do would be in the same boat. if we're balancing the human rights of those that don't want them with those that do in one circumstance, then (on the face of it, at least) it is fair to do so in other circumstances.

I'm sorry, but that still sounds like an utterly appalling waste of time, resources and money.

Music is a waste of time, resources and money?

Music is a waste of time, resources and money?Not when it's made privately, doesn't require diversions and takes up the time of the artists making it thought their own choice.