Messages

Good online archive of information pertaining to the 1981 hunger strike here www.longkesh.info

There has been no indication that the British establishment (the ones who actually run the place) have any desire to leave Ireland. quite the contrary. Lisbon 1+2 give us a good indication of how much Governments care about the will of their people.

You're deluded. Do you really think that a £3 billion annual drain on the exchequer is something the British want to hang on to?

Can you point to ANYTHING which would suggest there is any real desire on the part of the British establishment to leave Ireland? Everything they have done in recent years points to a process of normalisation and perpetuation of the British administrative presence in Ireland.

Cat stop projecting your own upbringing on others.

2 things: 

1 - It was Brooke, not Sir Paddy, who made the "no selfish strategic interest" speech.

2 - I lived in England long enough to know that the people don't give a toss about the six counties, don't understand what it's doing on their evening news, don't know what the conflict was/is about, and those of them who are actually aware that the place is part of the UK would be only too happy to get shot of it and their government is not too far behind them.

There has been no indication that the British establishment (the ones who actually run the place) have any desire to leave Ireland. quite the contrary. Lisbon 1+2 give us a good indication of how much Governments care about the will of their people.

And if the shinners did take their seats in Westminster how would you feel about that?

Unsurprised.

If your aunt had balls would she be your uncle or even your uncledaddy?

Cat you do realise you are the one coming across sounding like a fascist nutter.

That's right, I'm the one trolling a thread where somebody had the gall to express an opinion alternate to the establishment mantra.

I think you are wrong about the British position in this. I reckon if they could get out without being accused of causing a conflict they'd be gone in jig time. They don't give a shit about the 6 counties and would be glad to be shot of them.

Why then did they insist on the constitutional issue being resolved in their favour?

Surely you don't believe Mayhew's lies about Britain having 'no selfish strategic interest?'

[in both jurisdictions]

Yes, and you're one of them. The revised Article 3 reads as follows:

1. It is the firm will of the Irish nation, in harmony and friendship, to unite all the people who share the territory of the island of Ireland, in all the diversity of their identities and traditions, recognising that a united Ireland shall be brought about only by peaceful means with the consent of a majority of the people, democratically expressed, in both jurisdictions in the island.

What you're talking about here is seperate referenda. If there was a unilateral referendum in the 26 tomorrow and the people voted for unity they would be ignored. The only referendum that matters to the GFA is the one which can only be called when the British decide it can happen. The whole island should vote together in one referendum.

OK then, how do you feel about SDLP people taking their seats in Westminster?

I haven't much in the way of feelings for the stoops, they don't represent me and neither do the shinners; who will join them in Westminster in due course.

Translation: I don't like the way the people voted so I'm going to ignore their wishes.

Translation: Achtung, your opinion is verboten.

Fascist much?

So if th 6 counties voted for a 32 county, Irish Republic, you'd reject it because it wasn't a 32 county referendum?

Hardly. Do you see a successful 6 county referendum happening any time soon?

You don't need to have read that GFA from cover to cover to understand it. The basic principle (in terms of the constitutional issue) is that once a majority of the population in the 6 counties, plus a majority in the 26 counties, want a united Ireland, that will happen. It's not rocket science, so to suggest that the Irish people were conned is more than a bit disingenuous.

And Articles 2 and 3 didn't actually do very much in 60 odd years to advance unification, so I don't see that as a massive 'surrender'.

There's nothing in it about a majority in the 26C. What it states is that a British SOS can call a referendum if s/he feels that it is likely to be successful and you can be sure that MI5 will be soclally engineering against such an eventuality. The internal referendum for the 6 is antidemocratic and enshrines a minority veto. The GFA contains absolutely no guarantee of a UI and recent statements by British PMs have clearly indicated that a UI will never be on the British agenda.

People were conned because they were and are still told that it would lead to unity when in effect it copperfastened British rule and constitutional sovereignty over the 6 was surrendered to the British with the result that what was internationally recognised as a dispute over territory between Britain and Ireland was henceforth a regional dispute within the UK.

That's a rational and sensible argument and I don't disagree with any of it.

I do take issue with your view on the GFA referendum. I don't think people were conned.  If anything I'd suggest they knew more about it than most other things they vote on.

Few people have actually read the GFA or understand that it's actually intended to copperfasten British rule, too many have been deluded by lying politicians who glame it's a 'blueprint for unity' or whatever rubbish the shinners are spinning these days. The GFA was the product of Gerry Adams, Bertie Ahern and Tony Blair; three of the least trustworthy politicians imaginable so it has 'conjob' written all over it. People voted for the GFA as they were essentially given a choice 'GFA or war', if you were against the GFA you were pro-violence and this tactic crossed the border in the form of Fianna Fáil's 'vote yes for peace' campaign. The passing of the GFA and surrender of articles 2+3 was a classic case of manufactured consent and the Irish people got the worst out of it.

OK Cáthasaigh. Lets say we have a referendum as you suggest. It's possible you wouldn't get the result you wish for - would that be undemocratic? If we get the result you wish for do you have any ideads how the rights and traditions of the large minority of unionists would be respected or would you be in favour of trampling on them like they did to nationalists previously?

My favoured outcome is a 32 county strong, independent republic with a just and fair society but not at any price. Too many people have died in conflict to face into that again. The focus of all should be on developing a fair society that treats all equally and gives opportunity to all. The border/currency etc is moot in the light of our impotence in the face of Brussels.

If we had a 32 County referendum and it was unsuccessful I would accept the result but continue to campaign for a United Ireland as would be my right. The people who lost the first divorce referendum didn't say 'we were beaten so we should just forget about it'. Plenty on here appear to be of the opinion that no alternative viewpoint to the GFA is socially acceptable and that is Fascistic. As far as the unionist minority is concerned I would have no problem with them maintaining a cultural link to Britain but would want to see them also contribute fully to a fair and progressive Irish society. I have many friends and colleagues in the minority community and I believe that we could count on the good nature of the vast majority of Unionists.

Quite.

What do you think of Charles Stewart Parnell?

From what little I know of him he was a decent Irishman taken down by the British and Catholic establishments. His relevance to this debate?