Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
General discussion / Re: The OFFICIAL Liverpool FC thread
« Last post by gawa316 on Today at 01:31:44 AM »

https://goo.gl/images/Kq93ns

Klopp is following in Brendan Rodgers footsteps it seems.  When BR got his choppers whitened it turned out it was because he was shagging one of the sluts in LFC reception.  By the looks of Klopp he must be tag-teaming the whole office!  ;D ;D

Jeez lad football rivalry aside...this is just not funny. What was going on your head when you thought of this, never mind clicking the post button? Honest question, did you really think this is funny?
3
General discussion / Re: Brexit.
« Last post by sid waddell on Today at 01:19:53 AM »
I'd warn as well that the Brexit referendum proves that the prospect of a unification referendum in the North is an extremely worrying one.

Such a poll should not be held unless and until opinion polls show a consistent, clear majority in favour of unification. A clear majority means minimum 55-45.

The threat to peace would be too great, and peace is much more important than a united Ireland.

A 51-49 majority in favour of unification would be a nightmarish prospect which would all but condemn the North to another outbreak of bloodshed.

In practical terms, can you outline for me why a 51-49 result would result in bloodshed/carnage and a 55-45 result wouldn't?

At what point in between do unionists change from being hell bent on carnage to deciding they'll just have to accept it?

I can't tell you for certain that a 55-45 result wouldn't result in bloodshed, no more than I can tell you with 100% certainty that 50% +1 would result in bloodshed.

I can't see into the future.

What I can say is that based on a reading of history and an understanding of the siege mentality of Unionists/Loyalists, the holding of a referendum on Irish unification, in a scenario where it would be clear from opinion polling that there would be a wafer thin margin either way, is likely a recipe for serious unrest and could well result in a re-outbreak of violence and killing, and it could be extremely vicious.

For me the Brexit referendum is also a good demonstration of why the holding of a referendum where the result is likely to be very close, is a bad idea. Britain leaving the EU is an emotive issue for sure, but it pales in comparison to the visceral nationalistic emotions that would be stirred on both sides by a referendum on Irish unification.

Therefore, I feel it would be extremely unwise to hold such a referendum unless there was evidence to demonstrate that the pro-unification position had a clear and consistent lead.

The 55-45 margin is my personal call on where the line of that margin lies.

In any such future referendum, it would be better to have a clear result. 55-45 is a clearer result than 51-49. Again, I can't say with certainty whether a clear result would eliminate the prospect of violence - but it would likely lessen it.

The Good Friday Agreement was clearly a very positive development in terms of securing peace. But the principle of consent, while laudable as a principle, has stored up what is effectively a timebomb given that the long term demographic appears to be slowly but inexorably moving towards a Catholic/Nationalist/Republican majority.

How the switching of the majority to the minority and vice versa is handled vis a vis a referendum will be of huge importance in terms of staving off a potential return to violence.

It must be handled with the utmost care and the utmost respect, because the potential is there for disaster.

People shouting for a referendum now flies in the face of that.

As does Brexit.


The lessons of the past are already being unlearned.

Agree with bold.  Though, as some earlier posters mentioned, I think it does no harm to mention it from time to time, to 'normalise' it.

As for the figure, I don't think it will make a blind bit of difference what the majority is (certainly within the limits we are discussing).

So I think we have to accept that 51-49 or 55-45 (or 60-40 for that matter), there will still be a cabal of uber-staunch reprobates who will cause bother when it doesn't go their way.

We can't be beholden to them though.


EDIT.

Just re-read your post there and realised that the only half attempt at an answer to my questions could be boiled down to 'cos I think so'.

The rest is nothing more than a bunch of very noble platitudes and regurgitations of old chestnuts about respect etc...
There's every reason to think the way I do.

The only reason you wouldn't is if you buy into the old misty-eyed romantic nationalist bullshit, ie. a united Ireland any which way and to hell with the consequences.

If opinion polls put the numbers in favour/not in favour of unification at basically 50-50, and the result was on a knife edge, the division and hatred that would be stoked up by a referendum would be nightmarish. There would likely be violence before, during and after the poll.

It would be utterly irresponsible to hold a poll which would be a carte blanche for the headbangers to cause violent mayhem.

If you had a period of, say, two years where opinion polls were consistently showing 55-45 or more in favour of unification, a border poll would become inevitable because of the clear and consistent majority in favour, the result wouldd become inevitable, and the Protestant/Unionist/Loyalist community would at least have time to come to terms with what was happening.

Time, acceptance and respect are the keys to unification ever happening.

There may well be some Loyalists who would still be intent on violence with a 55-45 result for unification, or 60-40, or an even greater margin. It could be that no margin, no matter how big, would make certian people accept that being taken out of the United Kingdom in a referendum was legitimate. But the greater the margin, the less would be the legitimacy of any violence in the eyes of the Protestant/Unionist/Loyalist community as a whole. I think that's unarguable.

I'd like to see unification but I'd be more than prepared to wait an extra 30 or 40 years for it to happen if it meant there was a better chance that people wouldn't be killed.

Here's another thing. When people voted for Brexit they didn't know what they were voting for. Those who would vote for a united Ireland might think they would know what they would be voting for. But would they?

Because there would be those who would expect all the trappings and official culture of the 26 county state to be immediately extended to the six counties - the tricolour to fly over City Hall in Belfast etc., that unionist culture be basically be obliterated. That we'd "stick it to them once and for all".

Then, there would be those, like myself, who would be prepared to see a united Ireland as being effectively the creation of new state rather than it merely being a case of the six counties being subsumed into the Republic. A new state with a new flag and a new anthem etc., with Britain having some say over the six counties in a similar way to how the Republic has some say over the North now.

There would be hard united Irelanders and soft united Irelanders. The hard united Irelanders mightn't particularly like the ideas of the soft united Irelanders, never mind the ideas of those who opposed a united Ireland. The united Ireland that occurred in practice would likely not be the united Ireland they imagined.

Don't know how you reconcile the earlier 'I can't see into the future' statement with the bit in bold.  It would seem that this is a selective ability.

Anyway.  Your last few paragraphs are again a regurgitation of old tropes which are endlessly thrown around here.  There's nothing new in any of it.  It's a very foolish person who would think that a new Ireland would be merely an enlarged version of the 26 counties.  It doesn't need repeated.

And I can't agree that we need to wait until we see a clear majority before conducting a poll.  You've yet to produce any tangible evidence as to why we should wait.  Your 55-45 figure is unbelievably arbitrary - at very best!  What's to say that when we get to 55-45, some don't just decide that it would need to be 60-40?  It's just another makey-uppy figure after all with no logical basis other than 'I think it sounds right'.  It doesn't matter if we waited until it was 99-1 - you still couldn't guarantee that a reaction from the lunatic fringe of loyalism/unionism wouldn't get someone killed.

On the other hand, we have an international agreement made between both sides, and voted for by a huge majority of the population.  An agreement which has formed the basis for the running of this annex for two decades and indeed, which might be the only thing saving us from being torn out of the EU against our will by a bunch of racists from Eton.  The figure in this agreement is 50% +1.  It's not hidden, it's been front and centre for 20 years.  Unionism has had more than enough time to come to terms with it.  If we're going to change that it's going to need a more solid basis than 'I reckon that sounds aboout right'.
Using the word "tropes" doesn't confer your post with any insight.

I've already said I can't see into the future with certainty. Nobody can.

The "tangible evidence" is history. The history of the six counties is an extremely dark one, marred with appalling sectarian murder. Very recent history. It's an extremely unwise thing to go poking those ghosts for kicks before they've even rested. If they are going to be poked, people need to be as sure as they can be that they won't come back to bite.

Yet we have a generation now who don't remember the Troubles, so don't remember the horrors of it. And we have a generation in loads of countries who are seemingly entirely willing to reawaken old prejudices and hatreds, and new ones, based on ignorant populist nonsense. We live in an unheroic age. There are plenty of gullible, stupid young men around who might be only too willing to be "heroic" in the name of a "glorious cause".

These are very dangerous forces and it seems far too many people don't understand what they're playing with.

The margin needs to be clear and it needs to be consistent. 10 is a clear margin and well outside the margin of error. 1 or 2 is not.

Brexit is not an excuse for a border poll based on absolutely wafer thin figures in favour of unification at best, and which could easily restart violence.

Brexit is a lesson against holding such a poll.



4
General discussion / Re: Brexit.
« Last post by Franko on Today at 12:56:14 AM »
I'd warn as well that the Brexit referendum proves that the prospect of a unification referendum in the North is an extremely worrying one.

Such a poll should not be held unless and until opinion polls show a consistent, clear majority in favour of unification. A clear majority means minimum 55-45.

The threat to peace would be too great, and peace is much more important than a united Ireland.

A 51-49 majority in favour of unification would be a nightmarish prospect which would all but condemn the North to another outbreak of bloodshed.

In practical terms, can you outline for me why a 51-49 result would result in bloodshed/carnage and a 55-45 result wouldn't?

At what point in between do unionists change from being hell bent on carnage to deciding they'll just have to accept it?

I can't tell you for certain that a 55-45 result wouldn't result in bloodshed, no more than I can tell you with 100% certainty that 50% +1 would result in bloodshed.

I can't see into the future.

What I can say is that based on a reading of history and an understanding of the siege mentality of Unionists/Loyalists, the holding of a referendum on Irish unification, in a scenario where it would be clear from opinion polling that there would be a wafer thin margin either way, is likely a recipe for serious unrest and could well result in a re-outbreak of violence and killing, and it could be extremely vicious.

For me the Brexit referendum is also a good demonstration of why the holding of a referendum where the result is likely to be very close, is a bad idea. Britain leaving the EU is an emotive issue for sure, but it pales in comparison to the visceral nationalistic emotions that would be stirred on both sides by a referendum on Irish unification.

Therefore, I feel it would be extremely unwise to hold such a referendum unless there was evidence to demonstrate that the pro-unification position had a clear and consistent lead.

The 55-45 margin is my personal call on where the line of that margin lies.

In any such future referendum, it would be better to have a clear result. 55-45 is a clearer result than 51-49. Again, I can't say with certainty whether a clear result would eliminate the prospect of violence - but it would likely lessen it.

The Good Friday Agreement was clearly a very positive development in terms of securing peace. But the principle of consent, while laudable as a principle, has stored up what is effectively a timebomb given that the long term demographic appears to be slowly but inexorably moving towards a Catholic/Nationalist/Republican majority.

How the switching of the majority to the minority and vice versa is handled vis a vis a referendum will be of huge importance in terms of staving off a potential return to violence.

It must be handled with the utmost care and the utmost respect, because the potential is there for disaster.

People shouting for a referendum now flies in the face of that.

As does Brexit.


The lessons of the past are already being unlearned.

Agree with bold.  Though, as some earlier posters mentioned, I think it does no harm to mention it from time to time, to 'normalise' it.

As for the figure, I don't think it will make a blind bit of difference what the majority is (certainly within the limits we are discussing).

So I think we have to accept that 51-49 or 55-45 (or 60-40 for that matter), there will still be a cabal of uber-staunch reprobates who will cause bother when it doesn't go their way.

We can't be beholden to them though.


EDIT.

Just re-read your post there and realised that the only half attempt at an answer to my questions could be boiled down to 'cos I think so'.

The rest is nothing more than a bunch of very noble platitudes and regurgitations of old chestnuts about respect etc...
There's every reason to think the way I do.

The only reason you wouldn't is if you buy into the old misty-eyed romantic nationalist bullshit, ie. a united Ireland any which way and to hell with the consequences.

If opinion polls put the numbers in favour/not in favour of unification at basically 50-50, and the result was on a knife edge, the division and hatred that would be stoked up by a referendum would be nightmarish. There would likely be violence before, during and after the poll.

It would be utterly irresponsible to hold a poll which would be a carte blanche for the headbangers to cause violent mayhem.

If you had a period of, say, two years where opinion polls were consistently showing 55-45 or more in favour of unification, a border poll would become inevitable because of the clear and consistent majority in favour, the result wouldd become inevitable, and the Protestant/Unionist/Loyalist community would at least have time to come to terms with what was happening.

Time, acceptance and respect are the keys to unification ever happening.

There may well be some Loyalists who would still be intent on violence with a 55-45 result for unification, or 60-40, or an even greater margin. It could be that no margin, no matter how big, would make certian people accept that being taken out of the United Kingdom in a referendum was legitimate. But the greater the margin, the less would be the legitimacy of any violence in the eyes of the Protestant/Unionist/Loyalist community as a whole. I think that's unarguable.

I'd like to see unification but I'd be more than prepared to wait an extra 30 or 40 years for it to happen if it meant there was a better chance that people wouldn't be killed.

Here's another thing. When people voted for Brexit they didn't know what they were voting for. Those who would vote for a united Ireland might think they would know what they would be voting for. But would they?

Because there would be those who would expect all the trappings and official culture of the 26 county state to be immediately extended to the six counties - the tricolour to fly over City Hall in Belfast etc., that unionist culture be basically be obliterated. That we'd "stick it to them once and for all".

Then, there would be those, like myself, who would be prepared to see a united Ireland as being effectively the creation of new state rather than it merely being a case of the six counties being subsumed into the Republic. A new state with a new flag and a new anthem etc., with Britain having some say over the six counties in a similar way to how the Republic has some say over the North now.

There would be hard united Irelanders and soft united Irelanders. The hard united Irelanders mightn't particularly like the ideas of the soft united Irelanders, never mind the ideas of those who opposed a united Ireland. The united Ireland that occurred in practice would likely not be the united Ireland they imagined.

Don't know how you reconcile the earlier 'I can't see into the future' statement with the bit in bold.  It would seem that this is a selective ability.

Anyway.  Your last few paragraphs are again a regurgitation of old tropes which are endlessly thrown around here.  There's nothing new in any of it.  It's a very foolish person who would think that a new Ireland would be merely an enlarged version of the 26 counties.  It doesn't need repeated.

And I can't agree that we need to wait until we see a clear majority before conducting a poll.  You've yet to produce any tangible evidence as to why we should wait.  Your 55-45 figure is unbelievably arbitrary - at very best!  What's to say that when we get to 55-45, some don't just decide that it would need to be 60-40?  It's just another makey-uppy figure after all with no logical basis other than 'I think it sounds right'.  It doesn't matter if we waited until it was 99-1 - you still couldn't guarantee that a reaction from the lunatic fringe of loyalism/unionism wouldn't get someone killed.

On the other hand, we have an international agreement made between both sides, and voted for by a huge majority of the population.  An agreement which has formed the basis for the running of this annexe for two decades and indeed, which might be the only thing saving us from being torn out of the EU against our will by a bunch of racists from Eton.  The figure in this agreement is 50% +1.  It's not hidden, it's been front and centre for 20 years.  It has been discussed to death in the media and frankly, Unionism has had more than enough time to come to terms with it.  For those reasons, I say we stick with the figure we have.  But... if we're going to have to change it,  we're going to need a more solid justification than 'Go 55-45, I reckon that sounds about right'.

5
General discussion / Re: The Offical Glasgow Celtic thread
« Last post by marty34 on Today at 12:10:58 AM »
These are the teams Celtic could face;

Arsenal, Chelsea, Dinamo Zagreb, Dynamo Kiev, Eintracht Frankfurt, Zenit St Petersburg, Villarreal, Genk, Sevilla, Bayer Leverrkusen, Real Betis

(from the Champions League)

Inter Milan, Napoli, Valencia, Benfica

Big problem is the away form - very poor. Outclassed by a good team tonight.
6
General discussion / Re: Brexit.
« Last post by screenexile on December 13, 2018, 11:48:53 PM »
Good job that no confidence vote wasn’t tomorrow or Monday!

Terrsa’s completely blown it in Brussels!! She seems to have asked them to look at the backstop and they’ve said they can’t but what else can we do for you and she hasn’t a clue so they’ve just told the world as much!!

The only upside is maybe we’ll get the people’s vote. I don’t think remain will be as complacent again!!
7
General discussion / Re: Brexit.
« Last post by sid waddell on December 13, 2018, 11:43:36 PM »
I'd warn as well that the Brexit referendum proves that the prospect of a unification referendum in the North is an extremely worrying one.

Such a poll should not be held unless and until opinion polls show a consistent, clear majority in favour of unification. A clear majority means minimum 55-45.

The threat to peace would be too great, and peace is much more important than a united Ireland.

A 51-49 majority in favour of unification would be a nightmarish prospect which would all but condemn the North to another outbreak of bloodshed.

In practical terms, can you outline for me why a 51-49 result would result in bloodshed/carnage and a 55-45 result wouldn't?

At what point in between do unionists change from being hell bent on carnage to deciding they'll just have to accept it?

I can't tell you for certain that a 55-45 result wouldn't result in bloodshed, no more than I can tell you with 100% certainty that 50% +1 would result in bloodshed.

I can't see into the future.

What I can say is that based on a reading of history and an understanding of the siege mentality of Unionists/Loyalists, the holding of a referendum on Irish unification, in a scenario where it would be clear from opinion polling that there would be a wafer thin margin either way, is likely a recipe for serious unrest and could well result in a re-outbreak of violence and killing, and it could be extremely vicious.

For me the Brexit referendum is also a good demonstration of why the holding of a referendum where the result is likely to be very close, is a bad idea. Britain leaving the EU is an emotive issue for sure, but it pales in comparison to the visceral nationalistic emotions that would be stirred on both sides by a referendum on Irish unification.

Therefore, I feel it would be extremely unwise to hold such a referendum unless there was evidence to demonstrate that the pro-unification position had a clear and consistent lead.

The 55-45 margin is my personal call on where the line of that margin lies.

In any such future referendum, it would be better to have a clear result. 55-45 is a clearer result than 51-49. Again, I can't say with certainty whether a clear result would eliminate the prospect of violence - but it would likely lessen it.

The Good Friday Agreement was clearly a very positive development in terms of securing peace. But the principle of consent, while laudable as a principle, has stored up what is effectively a timebomb given that the long term demographic appears to be slowly but inexorably moving towards a Catholic/Nationalist/Republican majority.

How the switching of the majority to the minority and vice versa is handled vis a vis a referendum will be of huge importance in terms of staving off a potential return to violence.

It must be handled with the utmost care and the utmost respect, because the potential is there for disaster.

People shouting for a referendum now flies in the face of that.

As does Brexit.


The lessons of the past are already being unlearned.

Agree with bold.  Though, as some earlier posters mentioned, I think it does no harm to mention it from time to time, to 'normalise' it.

As for the figure, I don't think it will make a blind bit of difference what the majority is (certainly within the limits we are discussing).

So I think we have to accept that 51-49 or 55-45 (or 60-40 for that matter), there will still be a cabal of uber-staunch reprobates who will cause bother when it doesn't go their way.

We can't be beholden to them though.


EDIT.

Just re-read your post there and realised that the only half attempt at an answer to my questions could be boiled down to 'cos I think so'.

The rest is nothing more than a bunch of very noble platitudes and regurgitations of old chestnuts about respect etc...
There's every reason to think the way I do.

The only reason you wouldn't is if you buy into the old misty-eyed romantic nationalist bullshit, ie. a united Ireland any which way and to hell with the consequences.

If opinion polls put the numbers in favour/not in favour of unification at basically 50-50, and the result was on a knife edge, the division and hatred that would be stoked up by a referendum would be nightmarish. There would likely be violence before, during and after the poll.

It would be utterly irresponsible to hold a poll which would be a carte blanche for the headbangers to cause violent mayhem.

If you had a period of, say, two years where opinion polls were consistently showing 55-45 or more in favour of unification, a border poll would become inevitable because of the clear and consistent majority in favour, the result wouldd become inevitable, and the Protestant/Unionist/Loyalist community would at least have time to come to terms with what was happening.

Time, acceptance and respect are the keys to unification ever happening.

There may well be some Loyalists who would still be intent on violence with a 55-45 result for unification, or 60-40, or an even greater margin. It could be that no margin, no matter how big, would make certian people accept that being taken out of the United Kingdom in a referendum was legitimate. But the greater the margin, the less would be the legitimacy of any violence in the eyes of the Protestant/Unionist/Loyalist community as a whole. I think that's unarguable.

I'd like to see unification but I'd be more than prepared to wait an extra 30 or 40 years for it to happen if it meant there was a better chance that people wouldn't be killed.

Here's another thing. When people voted for Brexit they didn't know what they were voting for. Those who would vote for a united Ireland might think they would know what they would be voting for. But would they?

Because there would be those who would expect all the trappings and official culture of the 26 county state to be immediately extended to the six counties - the tricolour to fly over City Hall in Belfast etc., that unionist culture be basically be obliterated. That we'd "stick it to them once and for all".

Then, there would be those, like myself, who would be prepared to see a united Ireland as being effectively the creation of new state rather than it merely being a case of the six counties being subsumed into the Republic. A new state with a new flag and a new anthem etc., with Britain having some say over the six counties in a similar way to how the Republic has some say over the North now.

There would be hard united Irelanders and soft united Irelanders. The hard united Irelanders mightn't particularly like the ideas of the soft united Irelanders, never mind the ideas of those who opposed a united Ireland. The united Ireland that occurred in practice would likely not be the united Ireland they imagined.








8
General discussion / Re: The Offical Glasgow Celtic thread
« Last post by From the Bunker on December 13, 2018, 11:35:29 PM »
These are the teams Celtic could face;

Arsenal, Chelsea, Dinamo Zagreb, Dynamo Kiev, Eintracht Frankfurt, Zenit St Petersburg, Villarreal, Genk, Sevilla, Bayer Leverrkusen, Real Betis

(from the Champions League)

Inter Milan, Napoli, Valencia, Benfica
9
Antrim / Re: ANTRIM HURLING
« Last post by Milltown Row2 on December 13, 2018, 11:30:00 PM »
Cushendall should go and use it as a training game prep for their All Ireland campaign
10
Antrim / Re: ANTRIM HURLING
« Last post by Hand up on December 13, 2018, 11:24:07 PM »
I never heard about gripes with the management, very surprised if that is the case. Which Club is involved. I did hear the Johnnies lads weren't going.
The other thing is whether we fancy the friendly against Wicklow or not we need to prepare for the league which begins in Janurary!!
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10