Messages

The Ukranian centre half's attempted take out of an NI player has to be seen; made SSN this morn, even better on the big screen

Unbelievable.  The fact that she was certainly getting to the ball first and changed direction to take her out beggars belief.

And made a terrible attempt at taking her out too. Had the ball, choose to ignore it and run off to take out an opponent and then only half do it. Was comical.

Tbf, she probably didn't realise that the NI girl in pursuit lacked a bit of pace and was busted at that point.  That's not meant to take away from her performance as was WOM I thought.

https://www.rte.ie/sport/soccer/2021/0413/1209758-northern-ireland-women-secure-first-ever-finals-place/
Qualified for the Women's Euro 2022 finals with a 4-1 aggregate play off win against Ukraine, fair play to them.

Unbelievable effort.

Why should a Protestant have any affinity to another country? To them the south is just another county on the same land mass.

I think it's you that has a problem with understanding your neighbours.

I know I'm long winded but did you actually read my post😂
First of all , I'm talking about unionists not Protestants.
Secondly I don't expect anybody to have an affinity to anything , but I don't think my lack of affinity to Britishness , or michaelg's lack of affinity to many aspects of Irishness should be an impediment to finding a solution for these islands going forward . I think mutual respect and challenging each other's opinions and cultures ( as long as it's not aggressive ,  antagonistic culture from either side) is healthier than trying to mould everybody into a neutral culture. Calling out dysfunctional behaviour of my neighbours doesn't mean I don't understand or respect them.

By your argument then, some sort of accomodation could be reached within the current constitutional arrangement too.

Unionism had that opportunity for 100 years and squandered it. I grew up in a state to which I had no love, no allegiance and was very aware of my minority status, I was reminded of it everyday. What makes you think they'd change now?

I absolutely agree with you.  Hopefully the intorudction of an Irish Language Act, and the replacement of the lovely Arlene with someone with a bit more nous, might have some impact.  Sadly, at present there are no obvious candidates to replace her who appear to see the benefits of what a more pragmatic approach might bring

Why should a Protestant have any affinity to another country? To them the south is just another county on the same land mass.

I think it's you that has a problem with understanding your neighbours.

I know I'm long winded but did you actually read my post😂
First of all , I'm talking about unionists not Protestants.
Secondly I don't expect anybody to have an affinity to anything , but I don't think my lack of affinity to Britishness , or michaelg's lack of affinity to many aspects of Irishness should be an impediment to finding a solution for these islands going forward . I think mutual respect and challenging each other's opinions and cultures ( as long as it's not aggressive ,  antagonistic culture from either side) is healthier than trying to mould everybody into a neutral culture. Calling out dysfunctional behaviour of my neighbours doesn't mean I don't understand or respect them.

By your argument then, some sort of accomodation could be reached within the current constitutional arrangement too.

[but you want the Irish in the North who have been bullied by unionism for years to join with unionists in embracing Britishness? 🤦🏻‍♂️Are you serious .]

Serious question...
What percentage of the Unionist/Protestant population are "angry" over the Protocol?
What percentage are out rioting, attacking Police, trying to attack Nationalists etc?

Very very low percentage Ross, most unionists are reasonable . The problem for us is that they value the union and therefore many ( understandably ) back the main unionist party as the best way of maintaining the union. The real hardliners tend to be older fundamentalist types , and an easily led section of the "Protestant" working class. Most unionists favour the union for socio-economic reasons, and if there are sound socioeconomic reasons for a UI they could be persuaded. It would suit the British and Irish governments to create favourable socioeconomic for a UI. Let's be honest no Englishman with a brain wouldn't be delighted to offload Ni, to the extent that they'd be happy for GB to part finance it. A trouble free north with an economic link to England would make sense even to partitionists in ROI. For me the biggest step along the path is to sideline the DUP by giving unionists a middle ground alternative in the Alliance ( some unionists already copping on to this) . SF need to realise ( and I think they are already starting this) that if they genuinely want to become the largest party in the North they are going to have to soften further, show more remorse . Finucane epitomised this best in North belfast

A very reasonable post.  Whilst socio-economic reasons are undoutedly a major reason why unionists favour the union, it's not the be all and end all.  A sense of comfort with the status quo and fear of the unkown are the main reasons why unionsists would be reluctant to ever vote for a UI.  Coupled with the oft mentioned 'siege mentality' and a sense of giving in to SF/IRA after their 30 year terrorist campaign, it's unlikely that small 'u' unionists who vote Alliance will ever vote for a UI, as many on this board seem to think that they will.

Agree that the " comfort of the status quo " is a factor, unbelievably, as the status quo has been a disaster by most parameters: large percentage of the population having no affinity to the state, economic regression, large public sector, segregation , sectarianism, racism . The status quo is not a viable option and those unionists who are hanging onto the status quo are doing themselves no favours. If NI didn't work with a large unionist majority , it ain't go to work with a unionist minority. An all island solution with Britishness enshrined in the constitution is the most likely scenario. NI possibly might have worked if respect was shown to the minority but unfortunately for unionists that opportunity has been lost .

Again, you don't seem to get the fundamental point / essence of unionism.  The main parameter by which it has been a success, is that NI has remained as part of the United Kingdom, with the benefits that that brings.  As for your final sentence, as things stand there is likely still a significant number from the nationalist community who would vote to remain in the UK, so there is no guarantee of a UI happening in the immediate future.

Michaelg , you're an intelligent man and I always try to understand and respect your viewpoint, but how can you possibly say unionism has been a success🤦🏻‍♂️. When NI was founded 100 years ago the uk held onto, I think over 90% of the GDP of the island.
To make a simple analogy, Unionism has behaved liked a spoilt privileged child and let those UK  advantages slip away. The unionist leadership again like a spoilt child basically have tried to bully  their Irish neighbours  in the north, and have been antagonistic and demeaning  to their neighbours in the South, whilst demanding more from mummy and daddy. NI remains in the UK family but like most spoilt bullies, your current leadership still appears immature , contributing little to their family and has few friends, but unfortunately  remains deluded . Surely it's Time to grow up and get real?
Much of unionism however remains the  deluded bully  , even as their best argument for the union , " at least we are better off than that backwater down south " has now also gone. All sides need to start looking to the future and stop hanging on to a woeful status quo for fear of something worse. Don't forget that any new arrangements on the island will continue to be heftily financed by the UK who will be keen to offload NI and would welcome even closer links with ROI, especially post Brexit. Unionism is in real trouble if their best hope is to persuade those  they have bullied for years to join them in hanging on by their fingernails to a UK that they've sponged off for years, giving little back . How could intelligent people in the UK possibly want them, I mean even their best allies the Tories have shafted them . I've never shied away from admitting Irish nationalists contribution to this mess, but unionism needs to quickly develop the insight that the status quo sells their community woefully short. If intelligent unionists like yourself don't get this, and move the dinosaurs that are destroying your community,  off the stage, then you'll lose the opportunity to optimise your influence in new arrangements.

Given the general tone of your post above, coupled with other posters advice for unionists to 'move back to Britain' or to bring out the machine guns as another poster suggested, I fear you will be a long time persuading more moderate unionists to throw their hat in the riing for a UI.

Criticising the perceived  "tone" of my comment rather than the content, and coupling it with a comment  to which I am clearly diametrically opposed , is selling yourself short Michaelg, and unfortunately that's a recurrent trait amongst many unionists. If you are not prepared to engage with people like me who clearly likes unionists and wants to improve a woeful status quo , then maybe you're closer to the dinosaurs that are holding your community back , than you would admit .?

Just because my desire would be for NI to stay within the UK, that does not make me 'closer to the dinosaurs'.  You mentioned GDP etc, but these things can change over time.  Although bouyant at the moment, the economy in the ROI was in poor health for much of the last 100 years, and indeed, had to be bailed out in recent times.  You are going to have a different view, but my preference is to continue as part of the UK going forward.  As I also mentioned, it is not soley a question about economic arguments.  Other than the odd trip to watch the rugby in Dublin, or a holiday in Donegal, many unionists have little or no affinity with the ROI, be that watching gaelic games, watching RTE etc.  That might not sound like much of a big deal to someone like you who embraces those aspects of Irish cultural life, but it may be part of the wider reasons why a lot of unionists aren't so keen on a UI.

Great to get that perspective and honesty. So many unionists are not keen to expose themselves to Irishness to which they have no affinity,  but you want the Irish in the North who have been bullied by unionism for years to join with unionists in embracing  Britishness? 🤦🏻‍♂️Are you serious .
The way to defeat bullying is to call it out , and show a better way. This will involve creativity in finding the best way of doing things . The key has to be moving away from an exclusive nationalistic view of things from both sides and being led by the true majority who realise that equality, respect, opportunity , health , education , quality of life are far more important than national affiliation. Unionists have had the chance to provide that in the North and have failed, so the status quo won't work. Perhaps MR's assessment is correct , SF ironically are now a massive barrier to a UI , as victory for republicans is too difficult for unionists to countenance . Could SF do a John Hume and put the country first (as in the whole island ) . The historical desire of republicans for a 32 county socialist republic is as far away as ever. An All-Island solution however is achievable . Do SF hold out for the former, or pragmatically help to achieve the latter ?

Not sure where I said that.

Presumably By wanting us remain part of the UK as it stands , that involves embracing Britishness . Can you understand how one of the reasons NI has failed is because it has given preference to Britishness . Even after the GFA which promoted equal status of identities , the DUP have had to be dragged kicking and screaming into what they ridiculously term "concessions ".

Why would you say that if you have not had to do that to date? 

[but you want the Irish in the North who have been bullied by unionism for years to join with unionists in embracing Britishness? 🤦🏻‍♂️Are you serious .]

Serious question...
What percentage of the Unionist/Protestant population are "angry" over the Protocol?
What percentage are out rioting, attacking Police, trying to attack Nationalists etc?

Very very low percentage Ross, most unionists are reasonable . The problem for us is that they value the union and therefore many ( understandably ) back the main unionist party as the best way of maintaining the union. The real hardliners tend to be older fundamentalist types , and an easily led section of the "Protestant" working class. Most unionists favour the union for socio-economic reasons, and if there are sound socioeconomic reasons for a UI they could be persuaded. It would suit the British and Irish governments to create favourable socioeconomic for a UI. Let's be honest no Englishman with a brain wouldn't be delighted to offload Ni, to the extent that they'd be happy for GB to part finance it. A trouble free north with an economic link to England would make sense even to partitionists in ROI. For me the biggest step along the path is to sideline the DUP by giving unionists a middle ground alternative in the Alliance ( some unionists already copping on to this) . SF need to realise ( and I think they are already starting this) that if they genuinely want to become the largest party in the North they are going to have to soften further, show more remorse . Finucane epitomised this best in North belfast

A very reasonable post.  Whilst socio-economic reasons are undoutedly a major reason why unionists favour the union, it's not the be all and end all.  A sense of comfort with the status quo and fear of the unkown are the main reasons why unionsists would be reluctant to ever vote for a UI.  Coupled with the oft mentioned 'siege mentality' and a sense of giving in to SF/IRA after their 30 year terrorist campaign, it's unlikely that small 'u' unionists who vote Alliance will ever vote for a UI, as many on this board seem to think that they will.

Agree that the " comfort of the status quo " is a factor, unbelievably, as the status quo has been a disaster by most parameters: large percentage of the population having no affinity to the state, economic regression, large public sector, segregation , sectarianism, racism . The status quo is not a viable option and those unionists who are hanging onto the status quo are doing themselves no favours. If NI didn't work with a large unionist majority , it ain't go to work with a unionist minority. An all island solution with Britishness enshrined in the constitution is the most likely scenario. NI possibly might have worked if respect was shown to the minority but unfortunately for unionists that opportunity has been lost .

Again, you don't seem to get the fundamental point / essence of unionism.  The main parameter by which it has been a success, is that NI has remained as part of the United Kingdom, with the benefits that that brings.  As for your final sentence, as things stand there is likely still a significant number from the nationalist community who would vote to remain in the UK, so there is no guarantee of a UI happening in the immediate future.

Michaelg , you're an intelligent man and I always try to understand and respect your viewpoint, but how can you possibly say unionism has been a success🤦🏻‍♂️. When NI was founded 100 years ago the uk held onto, I think over 90% of the GDP of the island.
To make a simple analogy, Unionism has behaved liked a spoilt privileged child and let those UK  advantages slip away. The unionist leadership again like a spoilt child basically have tried to bully  their Irish neighbours  in the north, and have been antagonistic and demeaning  to their neighbours in the South, whilst demanding more from mummy and daddy. NI remains in the UK family but like most spoilt bullies, your current leadership still appears immature , contributing little to their family and has few friends, but unfortunately  remains deluded . Surely it's Time to grow up and get real?
Much of unionism however remains the  deluded bully  , even as their best argument for the union , " at least we are better off than that backwater down south " has now also gone. All sides need to start looking to the future and stop hanging on to a woeful status quo for fear of something worse. Don't forget that any new arrangements on the island will continue to be heftily financed by the UK who will be keen to offload NI and would welcome even closer links with ROI, especially post Brexit. Unionism is in real trouble if their best hope is to persuade those  they have bullied for years to join them in hanging on by their fingernails to a UK that they've sponged off for years, giving little back . How could intelligent people in the UK possibly want them, I mean even their best allies the Tories have shafted them . I've never shied away from admitting Irish nationalists contribution to this mess, but unionism needs to quickly develop the insight that the status quo sells their community woefully short. If intelligent unionists like yourself don't get this, and move the dinosaurs that are destroying your community,  off the stage, then you'll lose the opportunity to optimise your influence in new arrangements.

Given the general tone of your post above, coupled with other posters advice for unionists to 'move back to Britain' or to bring out the machine guns as another poster suggested, I fear you will be a long time persuading more moderate unionists to throw their hat in the riing for a UI.

Criticising the perceived  "tone" of my comment rather than the content, and coupling it with a comment  to which I am clearly diametrically opposed , is selling yourself short Michaelg, and unfortunately that's a recurrent trait amongst many unionists. If you are not prepared to engage with people like me who clearly likes unionists and wants to improve a woeful status quo , then maybe you're closer to the dinosaurs that are holding your community back , than you would admit .?

Just because my desire would be for NI to stay within the UK, that does not make me 'closer to the dinosaurs'.  You mentioned GDP etc, but these things can change over time.  Although bouyant at the moment, the economy in the ROI was in poor health for much of the last 100 years, and indeed, had to be bailed out in recent times.  You are going to have a different view, but my preference is to continue as part of the UK going forward.  As I also mentioned, it is not soley a question about economic arguments.  Other than the odd trip to watch the rugby in Dublin, or a holiday in Donegal, many unionists have little or no affinity with the ROI, be that watching gaelic games, watching RTE etc.  That might not sound like much of a big deal to someone like you who embraces those aspects of Irish cultural life, but it may be part of the wider reasons why a lot of unionists aren't so keen on a UI.

Great to get that perspective and honesty. So many unionists are not keen to expose themselves to Irishness to which they have no affinity,  but you want the Irish in the North who have been bullied by unionism for years to join with unionists in embracing  Britishness? 🤦🏻‍♂️Are you serious .
The way to defeat bullying is to call it out , and show a better way. This will involve creativity in finding the best way of doing things . The key has to be moving away from an exclusive nationalistic view of things from both sides and being led by the true majority who realise that equality, respect, opportunity , health , education , quality of life are far more important than national affiliation. Unionists have had the chance to provide that in the North and have failed, so the status quo won't work. Perhaps MR's assessment is correct , SF ironically are now a massive barrier to a UI , as victory for republicans is too difficult for unionists to countenance . Could SF do a John Hume and put the country first (as in the whole island ) . The historical desire of republicans for a 32 county socialist republic is as far away as ever. An All-Island solution however is achievable . Do SF hold out for the former, or pragmatically help to achieve the latter ?

Not sure where I said that.

Serious question...
What percentage of the Unionist/Protestant population are "angry" over the Protocol?
What percentage are out rioting, attacking Police, trying to attack Nationalists etc?

Very very low percentage Ross, most unionists are reasonable . The problem for us is that they value the union and therefore many ( understandably ) back the main unionist party as the best way of maintaining the union. The real hardliners tend to be older fundamentalist types , and an easily led section of the "Protestant" working class. Most unionists favour the union for socio-economic reasons, and if there are sound socioeconomic reasons for a UI they could be persuaded. It would suit the British and Irish governments to create favourable socioeconomic for a UI. Let's be honest no Englishman with a brain wouldn't be delighted to offload Ni, to the extent that they'd be happy for GB to part finance it. A trouble free north with an economic link to England would make sense even to partitionists in ROI. For me the biggest step along the path is to sideline the DUP by giving unionists a middle ground alternative in the Alliance ( some unionists already copping on to this) . SF need to realise ( and I think they are already starting this) that if they genuinely want to become the largest party in the North they are going to have to soften further, show more remorse . Finucane epitomised this best in North belfast

A very reasonable post.  Whilst socio-economic reasons are undoutedly a major reason why unionists favour the union, it's not the be all and end all.  A sense of comfort with the status quo and fear of the unkown are the main reasons why unionsists would be reluctant to ever vote for a UI.  Coupled with the oft mentioned 'siege mentality' and a sense of giving in to SF/IRA after their 30 year terrorist campaign, it's unlikely that small 'u' unionists who vote Alliance will ever vote for a UI, as many on this board seem to think that they will.

Agree that the " comfort of the status quo " is a factor, unbelievably, as the status quo has been a disaster by most parameters: large percentage of the population having no affinity to the state, economic regression, large public sector, segregation , sectarianism, racism . The status quo is not a viable option and those unionists who are hanging onto the status quo are doing themselves no favours. If NI didn't work with a large unionist majority , it ain't go to work with a unionist minority. An all island solution with Britishness enshrined in the constitution is the most likely scenario. NI possibly might have worked if respect was shown to the minority but unfortunately for unionists that opportunity has been lost .

Again, you don't seem to get the fundamental point / essence of unionism.  The main parameter by which it has been a success, is that NI has remained as part of the United Kingdom, with the benefits that that brings.  As for your final sentence, as things stand there is likely still a significant number from the nationalist community who would vote to remain in the UK, so there is no guarantee of a UI happening in the immediate future.

Michaelg , you're an intelligent man and I always try to understand and respect your viewpoint, but how can you possibly say unionism has been a success🤦🏻‍♂️. When NI was founded 100 years ago the uk held onto, I think over 90% of the GDP of the island.
To make a simple analogy, Unionism has behaved liked a spoilt privileged child and let those UK  advantages slip away. The unionist leadership again like a spoilt child basically have tried to bully  their Irish neighbours  in the north, and have been antagonistic and demeaning  to their neighbours in the South, whilst demanding more from mummy and daddy. NI remains in the UK family but like most spoilt bullies, your current leadership still appears immature , contributing little to their family and has few friends, but unfortunately  remains deluded . Surely it's Time to grow up and get real?
Much of unionism however remains the  deluded bully  , even as their best argument for the union , " at least we are better off than that backwater down south " has now also gone. All sides need to start looking to the future and stop hanging on to a woeful status quo for fear of something worse. Don't forget that any new arrangements on the island will continue to be heftily financed by the UK who will be keen to offload NI and would welcome even closer links with ROI, especially post Brexit. Unionism is in real trouble if their best hope is to persuade those  they have bullied for years to join them in hanging on by their fingernails to a UK that they've sponged off for years, giving little back . How could intelligent people in the UK possibly want them, I mean even their best allies the Tories have shafted them . I've never shied away from admitting Irish nationalists contribution to this mess, but unionism needs to quickly develop the insight that the status quo sells their community woefully short. If intelligent unionists like yourself don't get this, and move the dinosaurs that are destroying your community,  off the stage, then you'll lose the opportunity to optimise your influence in new arrangements.

Given the general tone of your post above, coupled with other posters advice for unionists to 'move back to Britain' or to bring out the machine guns as another poster suggested, I fear you will be a long time persuading more moderate unionists to throw their hat in the riing for a UI.

Criticising the perceived  "tone" of my comment rather than the content, and coupling it with a comment  to which I am clearly diametrically opposed , is selling yourself short Michaelg, and unfortunately that's a recurrent trait amongst many unionists. If you are not prepared to engage with people like me who clearly likes unionists and wants to improve a woeful status quo , then maybe you're closer to the dinosaurs that are holding your community back , than you would admit .?

Just because my desire would be for NI to stay within the UK, that does not make me 'closer to the dinosaurs'.  You mentioned GDP etc, but these things can change over time.  Although bouyant at the moment, the economy in the ROI was in poor health for much of the last 100 years, and indeed, had to be bailed out in recent times.  You are going to have a different view, but my preference is to continue as part of the UK going forward.  As I also mentioned, it is not soley a question about economic arguments.  Other than the odd trip to watch the rugby in Dublin, or a holiday in Donegal, many unionists have little or no affinity with the ROI, be that watching gaelic games, watching RTE etc.  That might not sound like much of a big deal to someone like you who embraces those aspects of Irish cultural life, but it may be part of the wider reasons why a lot of unionists aren't so keen on a UI.

Serious question...
What percentage of the Unionist/Protestant population are "angry" over the Protocol?
What percentage are out rioting, attacking Police, trying to attack Nationalists etc?

Very very low percentage Ross, most unionists are reasonable . The problem for us is that they value the union and therefore many ( understandably ) back the main unionist party as the best way of maintaining the union. The real hardliners tend to be older fundamentalist types , and an easily led section of the "Protestant" working class. Most unionists favour the union for socio-economic reasons, and if there are sound socioeconomic reasons for a UI they could be persuaded. It would suit the British and Irish governments to create favourable socioeconomic for a UI. Let's be honest no Englishman with a brain wouldn't be delighted to offload Ni, to the extent that they'd be happy for GB to part finance it. A trouble free north with an economic link to England would make sense even to partitionists in ROI. For me the biggest step along the path is to sideline the DUP by giving unionists a middle ground alternative in the Alliance ( some unionists already copping on to this) . SF need to realise ( and I think they are already starting this) that if they genuinely want to become the largest party in the North they are going to have to soften further, show more remorse . Finucane epitomised this best in North belfast

A very reasonable post.  Whilst socio-economic reasons are undoutedly a major reason why unionists favour the union, it's not the be all and end all.  A sense of comfort with the status quo and fear of the unkown are the main reasons why unionsists would be reluctant to ever vote for a UI.  Coupled with the oft mentioned 'siege mentality' and a sense of giving in to SF/IRA after their 30 year terrorist campaign, it's unlikely that small 'u' unionists who vote Alliance will ever vote for a UI, as many on this board seem to think that they will.

Agree that the " comfort of the status quo " is a factor, unbelievably, as the status quo has been a disaster by most parameters: large percentage of the population having no affinity to the state, economic regression, large public sector, segregation , sectarianism, racism . The status quo is not a viable option and those unionists who are hanging onto the status quo are doing themselves no favours. If NI didn't work with a large unionist majority , it ain't go to work with a unionist minority. An all island solution with Britishness enshrined in the constitution is the most likely scenario. NI possibly might have worked if respect was shown to the minority but unfortunately for unionists that opportunity has been lost .

Again, you don't seem to get the fundamental point / essence of unionism.  The main parameter by which it has been a success, is that NI has remained as part of the United Kingdom, with the benefits that that brings.  As for your final sentence, as things stand there is likely still a significant number from the nationalist community who would vote to remain in the UK, so there is no guarantee of a UI happening in the immediate future.

Michaelg , you're an intelligent man and I always try to understand and respect your viewpoint, but how can you possibly say unionism has been a success🤦🏻‍♂️. When NI was founded 100 years ago the uk held onto, I think over 90% of the GDP of the island.
To make a simple analogy, Unionism has behaved liked a spoilt privileged child and let those UK  advantages slip away. The unionist leadership again like a spoilt child basically have tried to bully  their Irish neighbours  in the north, and have been antagonistic and demeaning  to their neighbours in the South, whilst demanding more from mummy and daddy. NI remains in the UK family but like most spoilt bullies, your current leadership still appears immature , contributing little to their family and has few friends, but unfortunately  remains deluded . Surely it's Time to grow up and get real?
Much of unionism however remains the  deluded bully  , even as their best argument for the union , " at least we are better off than that backwater down south " has now also gone. All sides need to start looking to the future and stop hanging on to a woeful status quo for fear of something worse. Don't forget that any new arrangements on the island will continue to be heftily financed by the UK who will be keen to offload NI and would welcome even closer links with ROI, especially post Brexit. Unionism is in real trouble if their best hope is to persuade those  they have bullied for years to join them in hanging on by their fingernails to a UK that they've sponged off for years, giving little back . How could intelligent people in the UK possibly want them, I mean even their best allies the Tories have shafted them . I've never shied away from admitting Irish nationalists contribution to this mess, but unionism needs to quickly develop the insight that the status quo sells their community woefully short. If intelligent unionists like yourself don't get this, and move the dinosaurs that are destroying your community,  off the stage, then you'll lose the opportunity to optimise your influence in new arrangements.

Given the general tone of your post above, coupled with other posters advice for unionists to 'move back to Britain' or to bring out the machine guns as another poster suggested, I fear you will be a long time persuading more moderate unionists to throw their hat in the riing for a UI.

Serious question...
What percentage of the Unionist/Protestant population are "angry" over the Protocol?
What percentage are out rioting, attacking Police, trying to attack Nationalists etc?

Very very low percentage Ross, most unionists are reasonable . The problem for us is that they value the union and therefore many ( understandably ) back the main unionist party as the best way of maintaining the union. The real hardliners tend to be older fundamentalist types , and an easily led section of the "Protestant" working class. Most unionists favour the union for socio-economic reasons, and if there are sound socioeconomic reasons for a UI they could be persuaded. It would suit the British and Irish governments to create favourable socioeconomic for a UI. Let's be honest no Englishman with a brain wouldn't be delighted to offload Ni, to the extent that they'd be happy for GB to part finance it. A trouble free north with an economic link to England would make sense even to partitionists in ROI. For me the biggest step along the path is to sideline the DUP by giving unionists a middle ground alternative in the Alliance ( some unionists already copping on to this) . SF need to realise ( and I think they are already starting this) that if they genuinely want to become the largest party in the North they are going to have to soften further, show more remorse . Finucane epitomised this best in North belfast

A very reasonable post.  Whilst socio-economic reasons are undoutedly a major reason why unionists favour the union, it's not the be all and end all.  A sense of comfort with the status quo and fear of the unkown are the main reasons why unionsists would be reluctant to ever vote for a UI.  Coupled with the oft mentioned 'siege mentality' and a sense of giving in to SF/IRA after their 30 year terrorist campaign, it's unlikely that small 'u' unionists who vote Alliance will ever vote for a UI, as many on this board seem to think that they will.

Agree that the " comfort of the status quo " is a factor, unbelievably, as the status quo has been a disaster by most parameters: large percentage of the population having no affinity to the state, economic regression, large public sector, segregation , sectarianism, racism . The status quo is not a viable option and those unionists who are hanging onto the status quo are doing themselves no favours. If NI didn't work with a large unionist majority , it ain't go to work with a unionist minority. An all island solution with Britishness enshrined in the constitution is the most likely scenario. NI possibly might have worked if respect was shown to the minority but unfortunately for unionists that opportunity has been lost .

Again, you don't seem to get the fundamental point / essence of unionism.  The main parameter by which it has been a success, is that NI has remained as part of the United Kingdom, with the benefits that that brings.  As for your final sentence, as things stand there is likely still a significant number from the nationalist community who would vote to remain in the UK, so there is no guarantee of a UI happening in the immediate future.

Serious question...
What percentage of the Unionist/Protestant population are "angry" over the Protocol?
What percentage are out rioting, attacking Police, trying to attack Nationalists etc?

Very very low percentage Ross, most unionists are reasonable . The problem for us is that they value the union and therefore many ( understandably ) back the main unionist party as the best way of maintaining the union. The real hardliners tend to be older fundamentalist types , and an easily led section of the "Protestant" working class. Most unionists favour the union for socio-economic reasons, and if there are sound socioeconomic reasons for a UI they could be persuaded. It would suit the British and Irish governments to create favourable socioeconomic for a UI. Let's be honest no Englishman with a brain wouldn't be delighted to offload Ni, to the extent that they'd be happy for GB to part finance it. A trouble free north with an economic link to England would make sense even to partitionists in ROI. For me the biggest step along the path is to sideline the DUP by giving unionists a middle ground alternative in the Alliance ( some unionists already copping on to this) . SF need to realise ( and I think they are already starting this) that if they genuinely want to become the largest party in the North they are going to have to soften further, show more remorse . Finucane epitomised this best in North belfast

A very reasonable post.  Whilst socio-economic reasons are undoutedly a major reason why unionists favour the union, it's not the be all and end all.  A sense of comfort with the status quo and fear of the unkown are the main reasons why unionsists would be reluctant to ever vote for a UI.  Coupled with the oft mentioned 'siege mentality' and a sense of giving in to SF/IRA after their 30 year terrorist campaign, it's unlikely that small 'u' unionists who vote Alliance will ever vote for a UI, as many on this board seem to think that they will.

[I want to see a civilised conversation that does not harp back to the perceived injustices of the past. Nationalists are capable for doing that, our problem is a rump of unionism that sees any change as sellout.]

Is there any actual possibility of discussion on how a potential new Ireland might look, or is that not possible without a frank honest discussion on the past?

The fantasy of a glorious "new" Ireland is based on the fantastical premise that Unionists will simply fall in and accept it

I dare say some Protestant Unionists had this same fantasy about Irish Catholics in the six counties

Some will accept it

Many will not

And thus the six counties are destined to always be afflicted with division and turmoil

Doesn't matter which jurisdiction they're under, they will always be afflicted because it's a classic territorial dispute where one section of the population believes it is an inherent state of nature for the territory which makes up the six counties to be part of one state

And another section of the population believes it is an inherent state of nature for the territory which makes up the six counties to be part of a different state

You can't square that, somebody has to lose

The only alternative is that people learn to forget about Irish nationalism and British nationalism and think about forging a society that works for all

The majority of voters in the six counties vote for parties for whom that is not a priority

The best thing that could happen to NI is for every union Jack and tricolour in the place to be burned

Your conclusion only leaves one loser though. Us as per standard. It reads of accept your lot northern nationalists, maybe this is not your intention.

When competing nationalisms divide a society everybody loses

What's your solution?

A functioning society is more important than fwegs

Good man. Fwegs? My solution is lay out how an all island health system would look, how education would look, taxation, housing. How are a minority incorporated and given absolute equality. What fwegs and emblems would look like. Giving those whose culture is orangism and parades etc assurances this can continue in a safe manner. East West copereration. What's yours ? The status quo?
.

My solution is that people in NI vote out the extremists on both sides and elect people who will work together to create an equal society

A united Ireland will come when it's ready to come

And it's not remotely ready to come yet

What will happen is that as the sabre rattling about a border poll ramps up, the extremists on both sides will benefit more and more because both sides will retreat more and more into competing nationalisms

Irish nationalists will retreat towards SF, British nationalists will retreat towards the DUP

The centre, whatever is there of it, will not hold

Vote out the DUP and SF and elect SDLP, Alliance, PBP and moderate Unionists

Sorry Sid, I don't know from where you hail but you are posting facile errant nonsense that shows no understanding of the 6 counties or the experience of nationalists in a hostile state. There is a reason why SF are so popular and it has to do with their effective delivery on the ground for people in need. The SDLP had years of a head start but ignored working class communities. Alliance is built on the highly effective foundation of Naomi Long, and a soft unionism that does not like the DUP or the UUP which is now DUP Lite.

Having said all of that and not to totally forget my lived experience I want to see a civilised conversation that does not harp back to the perceived injustices of the past. Nationalists are capable for doing that, our problem is a rump of unionism that sees any change as sellout.

Not sure if 'Nationalists are capable for doing that', when some posters on here are referring back to the Plantation of Ulster.

[The difference being that 90%+ of nationalists do not justify La Mon.]

90% of Nationalists are moderate, but only 5% of Unionists.

Such a mindset would be laughable, were it not reflective of the whole problem.

You know, "The Politics of Themmuns", exhibit No.1 'Angelo' 

Nationalism is intrinsically moderate, as all it wants is a normal democratic country.
Unionism is the opposite of moderate, it wants to extend colonialism, when it couldn't win by force in most of the Ireland, it seized part of the country as a sectarian statelet.

Unionist political parties offer no moderation and many people from a PUL background are drifting to Alliance as a consequence.

Ah right, so "Themmuns" it is, then.

Glad we got that sorted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Mon_restaurant_bombing


I said that nationalism was intrinsicially moderate, I did not say that all those who purported to be nationalists were moderate. RTÉ have been replaying the Reeling in the Years and I noted La Mon, one of the most disgraceful events in Irish history was in that year.
The difference being that 90%+ of nationalists do not justify La Mon.

If I said something that was not correct, then I'm sure you can refute it. I did not refer to "Themmuns" ,

Yet the large majority of Nationalists in NI vote for the party which is inextricably linked with the organisation which carried out La Mon.

And the Enniskillen bombing.

And the nakedly sectarian massacres at Tullyvallen, Darkley and Kingsmill.

And the abduction, torture, murder and disappearing of Jean McConville.

And Patsy Gillespie.

And a thousand other atrocities.

None of which justifies or condones one iota the myriad atrocities committed by their (so-called) "Loyalist" counterparts, but come on, surely you haven't forgotten what the IRA and INLA etc did in the name of Nationalism?

I mean, at a time when SF are falling over themselves to be seen "honouring" mass murderers like Bobby Storey?

I guess "moderate" means something different where you come from.

Great. Another Jamie Bryson.

Did the IRA commit multiple atrocities?
Are SF inextricably linked with, and supportive of, the IRA campaign?
Do the majority of Nationalists vote SF?

You don't need to be Jamie Bryson to ask those questions.

Though maybe you do need his mindset when required to answer them i.e. play the man instead of the ball.

Unless, of course, you're talking about a different Jamie Bryson from the one who got a massive 167 votes in the last election he fought in his own Bangor West backyard? (Equates to 2% of the vote, btw)

Listen, I'm not speaking for the majority of Unionists who vote for the DUP, nor do I condone those who do - I'm proud to say I've never given that mob so much as a 9th preference vote.

But just look at this picture and tell me that one side votes for extremists, while the other votes for moderates:



Them tell me which is which...

Unionists brought the Gun into Irish Politics. I despise violence, but Unionists are not innocent in all of this and even today many Unionists hint at a return to violence. Very similar tactics to what Trump was at. The Unionist community needs to wake up.

Nobody was saying that they were.  The point being discussed was the assertion that Nationalists were intrisically moderate, despite the fairly obvious point that most vote for a party intrically linked to terrorisrt activity and atrocities.

[Moderate unionism represents about 5% of unionism.You simply have no idea what you are dealing with.]

The middle ground tends to be interested in facts. Things like standard of living and likely chaos.
And demographics don't change overnight.

Moderate unionism represents about 5% of unionism.

You simply have no idea what you are dealing with.

Do you know many unionist people yourself?  Also, what are you basing your 5% figure on?

The fact that unionists vote en masse for the unashamed sectarianism of TUV/DUP/UUP.

Look at the triumphalism of unionist politics with the Pat Finucane case lately.

To say mainstream Unionist politics is from the gutter is the truth and that type of politics is what Unionists vote for.

TUV vote is negligible and not sure that UUP can be tarred with same brush.  Still not sure where you get your 5% figure from.

[Moderate unionism represents about 5% of unionism.You simply have no idea what you are dealing with.]

The middle ground tends to be interested in facts. Things like standard of living and likely chaos.
And demographics don't change overnight.

Moderate unionism represents about 5% of unionism.

You simply have no idea what you are dealing with.

Do you know many unionist people yourself?  Also, what are you basing your 5% figure on?

Keane played in a pretty average EPL. All the best players played in Italy at the time. United continued to dominate the EPL for years after he left.

There is no doubt he was a key player for both United and Ireland but his impact was overstated. Ireland had a very good World Cup after he departed in shame in 2002 and didn't look like they miss. United went on to beat Bayern in the final of the CL when he was there.

Liam Brady had a far more impressive career for me. Keane end up getting humiliated by a mechanic in the Scottish Cup before hanging up his boots.

Angelo, you make some great points, but these are often undermined and you lose credibility by making aggressive controversial statements and backing them up with confirmational  bias. I would also be opposed to Keane being appointed on the basis of his Managerial CV, but controversially questioning his status  as A player undermines your reasonable opinion that he could be disastrous for Celtic. For what it's worth, With some reservations , I took his side in Saipan and enjoy some of his soundbites but his sneering intolerance of many modern players means that he's only ever a couple of defeats away from losing the changing room. I liked the way he confronted much of the primadonna nonsense around soccer , but Tbf players generally have a much more professional attitude nowadays. I think the turning point for me were his heartless comments re Jonathan Walters. He's not the man for Celtic . I'd like to see an Eddie Howe character with a history of getting a team to punch above its weight by getting all the "small gains" right. This is where NL fell down, kudos as a player, but too many weaknesses around coaching, preparation, recovery, recruitment, developing young players , and just expecting players to deliver because if they wear the hooped jersey they should be better than their opponents most of the time. I would fear RK would be more like NL , with his biggest selling point being his kudos as a player and Irishman , whereas EH will be hungrier to earn his kudos and will get all the "small gains" right.

What have I questioned?

Did I say he was rubbish? No.

Did I say he was overrated? Yes.

Did I support that with facts? Yes.

United went onto have great success after Keane left
- Won 5 of the next 7 league titles
- A CL and another CL final appearance

They only went into decline post Ferguson - Keane was dispensable.

Similarly with Ireland. Very impressive World Cup without him. They only really started to decline as the likes of Duff, Robbie Keane, Given, Dunne etc came to the end.

So how good was he? I'd say someone like Rino Gattuso or Edgar Davids or Diego Simeone is a good yardstick for Keane as a player. Gattuso was probably a more complete footballer

Keane was possibly a top 10 midfielder in the world at his very peak. I'd say that's a fair summation of him.

I'm going to give some names here - Pirlo, Vieira, Makelele, Nedved, Rui Costa, Zidane, Redondo, Ballack, Effenberg, Hagi, Seedorf etc

Would he have been notably any better than Scholes, Giggs, Beckham?

How well did these guys fare outside of the United bubble.

I think it's clear now, maybe it wasn't at the time but the only indispensable part of the United journey was Ferguson. You look at how he made guys like Darren Fletcher and Ji Sung Park vita components in a team. I think it's obvious that a lot of these players owe Alex Ferguson for what they achieved in their career rather than the other way around.

I think the only two United players who have probably went on to really prove themselves elsewhere after leaving Ferguson's United were Ronaldo and Van Nistelrooy.

If you look at most of top 11 best players in any poll of the best players in the EPL, Keane makes the team. 7 titles 4 FA cups and CL.. To say Utd went on to win more titles means nothing, course they did what does that have to do with Keane's ability, if you are going for midfielders then go like for like.

He was better than Viera Seedorf Ballack, Effenberg, the others were ballers and technically better on the ball, as for putting Beckham in there, wise up

Seedorf was an absolute smasher.  Saw him play for Inter when he was in his pomp vs Lazio when the world's best were playing in Serie A and he was different gravy watching him live. Won 3 Eurpoean Cups with 3 different teams.  Keane was no way better then him.