The Race for the ARAS.....

[Evil Genius]

I can understand (to an extent) why Northern Nationalists are fixated with themselves and their place in the world (and Ireland) and am happy enough to co-exist with that.  I understand that they feel 'betrayed' by a bad political decision made some ninety years ago. 

What I don't 'get' is how they feel that this 'betrayal' ninety years ago should form the cornerstone of their relationship with the country they want to be a part of in the future; as neither they nor us have (nor should have) any real relationship with or understanding of the Ireland of 1922.  I don't see either how this fixation with the past should shape how we move into the future, together, if that is indeed how we progress.  It strikes me as trying to gain some greater-than-equal status in a larger political 'pool' than that to which they're accustomed - I'm not impressed by that.

Billy, you've only had a few weeks of Marty telling you how you should think and behave as he roves the 32(!) counties in his shiny new Battle Bus etc.

But after 30 years+ of him and his type trying to bomb and shoot the sh1t out of us, we in NI have been witness to a process whereby all the gunmen and bombers got released early (half of them to take up their seats in Government on an as-of-right basis); whilst all the time they have been lecturing everybody on how hard done by they are with their designer suits, lavish allowances and Ministerial cars etc.

How do you think your 1 million fellow Irishmen and women who are of the Unionist persuasion feel?

Quite honestly, if it were not for the fact that in 2016, the Shinners will be "celebrating" 100 years of failure to achieve a United Ireland, whilst 5 years later, Unionists will be celebrating 100 years of a United Kingdom, I suspect that we might be getting just a tad miffed...

[sammymaguire]

Interesting take on it all there Olly and I think you hit the nail on the head with it all apart from naling your colours to any particular mast... so which one would make the next best President of Ireland in your opinion?

[sheamy]

Ulick, Hardy's response is no more a rant than Pangurban's. Is it only those from the 6 counties who are allowed to express their frustrations at their fellow Irishmen's narcissistic and self-orientated outlook.

Pangurban raises some very good points which deserve better than a rant from Hardy and pathetic attempt at satire by O'Neill. Namely:

1. The Irish media industry stand exposed as partisan, untruthful and incompetent
2. Irish society has been exposed as devoid of vision
3. an inability to learn from past mistakes
4. Northern Nationalists have seen their aspirations trampled upon

These are four very salient aspects to the Presidential campaign and coverage so far and deserve rational debate not hyperbolic rant against imagined slights.

Hold on a minute lads...these points do merit discussion. I would drop 4) from this list as I don't think the views of one part of society merit discussion over another. I posted earlier about the makeup and history of the media. That has been shown up in this campaign. Fact is by electing someone from the Fianna Fail machine who's only talent was to make a few quid in the property boom, then quite frankly that does show points 2) and 3) to be valid at least for discussion. They are equally valid north and south. Gallagher is pure veneer. Just like the majority of Irish politicians. Talks shite, delivers nothing and entrenched in the culture of cronyism. Take your north v south hats off for a minute and think about it. The establishment let EVERYONE down.

[Evil Genius]

What I don't 'get' is how they feel that this 'betrayal' ninety years ago should form the cornerstone of their relationship with the country they want to be a part of in the future;

I haven't agreed with some of the over the top stuff posted here and have said so. But when people routinely come out with this kind of exclusionist partitionism is it any wonder that northerners feel a bit pissed off?

Au contraire.

This particular "northerner" is actually greatly amused by this outbreak of, er, fraternalism amongst his fellow Irishmen.   

In fact, it all serves to call to mind Behan's wonderful quip that whenever Republicans assemble, "the first item on the Agenda is always The Split" 

[Evil Genius]

As Appliesisapples has said, if there is to be a United Ireland, it's not going to be a utopia for anyone.
For us in the south, it won't be carry on as normal with the 6 northern counties merely slotting in to our existing structures.
For those in the north, it's not going to be some northern nationalist republic that extends into and consumes the 26.

In fact it will probably be the current Northern Unionist population who will be in permanent government, tacked on to FG, SF, Labour or another party that may arise, switching their alleigence as they see fit. Indeed they may be the lead party in a coalition of fractured nationalist parties. What might prevent this if the middle class ones break away into a seperate party or join up with an existing party in the Republic.

At last!

At least one Irishman is able to recognise that there are one million irish people who will have a vote (and the casting vote, at that) in determining how Ireland is going to turn out.

Now if you could just make the further step and accept that that vote is only ever going to be cast so as to prevent  any United Ireland taking place, then you'd be right there (with only another 4 million? of your fellow Irish men and women to catch up...) 

[Tubberman]

Ulick, Hardy's response is no more a rant than Pangurban's. Is it only those from the 6 counties who are allowed to express their frustrations at their fellow Irishmen's narcissistic and self-orientated outlook.

Pangurban raises some very good points which deserve better than a rant from Hardy and pathetic attempt at satire by O'Neill. Namely:

1. The Irish media industry stand exposed as partisan, untruthful and incompetent
2. Irish society has been exposed as devoid of vision
3. an inability to learn from past mistakes
4. Northern Nationalists have seen their aspirations trampled upon

These are four very salient aspects to the Presidential campaign and coverage so far and deserve rational debate not hyperbolic rant against imagined slights.

Hold on a minute lads...these points do merit discussion. I would drop 4) from this list as I don't think the views of one part of society merit discussion over another. I posted earlier about the makeup and history of the media. That has been shown up in this campaign. Fact is by electing someone from the Fianna Fail machine who's only talent was to make a few quid in the property boom, then quite frankly that does show points 2) and 3) to be valid at least for discussion. They are equally valid north and south. Gallagher is pure veneer. Just like the majority of Irish politicians. Talks shite, delivers nothing and entrenched in the culture of cronyism. Take your north v south hats off for a minute and think about it. The establishment let EVERYONE down.

I agree there are valid points there, but Pangurban wasn't saying that if Gallagher wins, then points 1, 2 and 3 are true.
He was saying if MMcG doesn't win, then points 1, 2, 3 and 4 (and more) are true. That's very different.

[Donnellys Hollow]

I'd rather have a man with a dodgy £5k in his background than a man involved in the murder and maiming of men, women and children.

Michael Collins? 

Michael Collins never lied or hid what he done.

St Michael 

Maybe because he died at 31 and twitter wasn't what it is now?...

OK I would have assumed that a man who led the IRA would have hid more than a few things but apparently not 

So if not Collins, is it Tom Barry or Dan Breen who "maimed and murdered men, women and children"? Or were all the members of the Old IRA whiter than white, and did they all openly tell everyone what they did, as posts to this board over the years have led me to believe? Surely Mick Collins wasn't the only Saint after all!

TG4 did a interesting program on Dan Breen a few weeks ago, including interview footage of him as an old man and he was not one bit sorry for shooting solidiers dead that he caught. If memory serves me he said they had no option but to shoot them as they had no means of holding them. Dan Breen was anti treaty during the civil war and then joined FF. He is not alone in what he done from that time. I believe he was one of the armed FF delegation that entered the Dail and took the oath to the british monarch - although of course they later declared a republic. The only thing that has changed is that the rose tinted glasses have been applied when some look back at this period of time. War is a dirty business - always was and always will be.

What's the point of all this? Dan Breen, as far as I can judge at this remove, was something of a psychopath. How does that affect any consideration of the presidential campaign of 2011, the character or actions of the living, breathing Martin McGuinness, the character or actions of the living, wheezing Sean Gallagher, life, the universe, anything?

Exactly. The above names are pushing up clover in Glasnevin Cemetery. I fail to see how they are of any relevance in this presidential campaign???

[Tubberman]

As Appliesisapples has said, if there is to be a United Ireland, it's not going to be a utopia for anyone.
For us in the south, it won't be carry on as normal with the 6 northern counties merely slotting in to our existing structures.
For those in the north, it's not going to be some northern nationalist republic that extends into and consumes the 26.

In fact it will probably be the current Northern Unionist population who will be in permanent government, tacked on to FG, SF, Labour or another party that may arise, switching their alleigence as they see fit. Indeed they may be the lead party in a coalition of fractured nationalist parties. What might prevent this if the middle class ones break away into a seperate party or join up with an existing party in the Republic.

At last!

At least one Irishman is able to recognise that there are one million irish people who will have a vote (and the casting vote, at that) in determining how Ireland is going to turn out.

Now if you could just make the further step and accept that that vote is only ever going to be cast so as to prevent  any United Ireland taking place, then you'd be right there (with only another 4 million? of your fellow Irish men and women to catch up...)

So you can speak for ALL unionists forEVER? 

[Billys Boots]

How do you think your 1 million fellow Irishmen and women who are of the Unionist persuasion feel?

The problem here is that some people are telling others how they should and shouldn't feel - I wouldn't for a miiute presume to tell you, as: (a) a Unionist, (b) an Irishman, (c) a British subject, or (d) a wind-up merchant, how you feel. 

[Evil Genius]

Ulick, Hardy's response is no more a rant than Pangurban's. Is it only those from the 6 counties who are allowed to express their frustrations at their fellow Irishmen's narcissistic and self-orientated outlook.

Pangurban raises some very good points which deserve better than a rant from Hardy and pathetic attempt at satire by O'Neill. Namely:

1. The Irish media industry stand exposed as partisan, untruthful and incompetent
2. Irish society has been exposed as devoid of vision
3. an inability to learn from past mistakes
4. Northern Nationalists have seen their aspirations trampled upon

These are four very salient aspects to the Presidential campaign and coverage so far and deserve rational debate not hyperbolic rant against imagined slights.

Meh.

In my opinion, the majority of "Northern Nationalists" (as demonstrated by those who vote SDLP or Alliance, or who don't vote at all) are actually less concerned by settling "the National Question" than they are by paying their bills and staying in their homes etc.

As for the  Shinner rump, your "seen [your] aspirations trampled on" is my "reminder that the days when you thought you could bomb the rest of us into doing your bidding are over".

It is voting which counts now, Donagh Ulick, and no amount of personation and double-voting, even in elections where you have no actual right to vote, will permit a party with less than 20% of the vote* to go on telling the rest of us how to think and behave.


* - On an all-Ireland basis. And being generous.

[lynchbhoy]

In my opinion, the majority of "Northern Nationalists" (as demonstrated by those who vote SDLP or Alliance, or who don't vote at all) are actually less concerned by settling "the National Question" than they are by paying their bills and staying in their homes etc.

As for the  Shinner rump, your "seen [your] aspirations trampled on" is my "reminder that the days when you thought you could bomb the rest of us into doing your bidding are over".

It is voting which counts now, Donagh Ulick, and no amount of personation and double-voting, even in elections where you have no actual right to vote, will permit a party with less than 20% of the vote* to go on telling the rest of us how to think and behave.


* - On an all-Ireland basis. And being generous.

evil myles!
the first part I'd agree with
the bit in bold- i'd reckon you can say the same about your own unionist/loyalist rump !!
especially as it wasnt the shinners that were fighting back against yez !

[Nally Stand]

I'd rather have a man with a dodgy £5k in his background than a man involved in the murder and maiming of men, women and children.

Michael Collins? 

Michael Collins never lied or hid what he done.

St Michael 

Maybe because he died at 31 and twitter wasn't what it is now?...

OK I would have assumed that a man who led the IRA would have hid more than a few things but apparently not 

So if not Collins, is it Tom Barry or Dan Breen who "maimed and murdered men, women and children"? Or were all the members of the Old IRA whiter than white, and did they all openly tell everyone what they did, as posts to this board over the years have led me to believe? Surely Mick Collins wasn't the only Saint after all!

TG4 did a interesting program on Dan Breen a few weeks ago, including interview footage of him as an old man and he was not one bit sorry for shooting solidiers dead that he caught. If memory serves me he said they had no option but to shoot them as they had no means of holding them. Dan Breen was anti treaty during the civil war and then joined FF. He is not alone in what he done from that time. I believe he was one of the armed FF delegation that entered the Dail and took the oath to the british monarch - although of course they later declared a republic. The only thing that has changed is that the rose tinted glasses have been applied when some look back at this period of time. War is a dirty business - always was and always will be.

What's the point of all this? Dan Breen, as far as I can judge at this remove, was something of a psychopath. How does that affect any consideration of the presidential campaign of 2011, the character or actions of the living, breathing Martin McGuinness, the character or actions of the living, wheezing Sean Gallagher, life, the universe, anything?

Exactly. The above names are pushing up clover in Glasnevin Cemetery. I fail to see how they are of any relevance in this presidential campaign???

It's because when Tony-talking-Baloney said "I'd rather have a man with a dodgy £5k in his background than a man involved in the murder and maiming of men, women and children," I was just wondering did he mean having Sean Gallagher as President would be better than if we had Collins/Breen etc as President before or something? Maybe he meant Sean Mac Eoin though, a man who is believed to have personally killed up to two dozen of "his fellow Irishmen", and who was subsequently nominated for President TWICE by FG.

It apparently wasn't Collins whom he was talking about anyway because when I suggested as much, I was told by Bingo that Collins "never hid what he done". (How he was allowed to be Intelligence Officer for the IRA is beyond me in that case!!). So maybe he meant Dev? Or Sean Lemass?? Or Richard Mulcahy?? They did have secrets apparently. Thirty years after the Tan War, the government established a Bureau of Military History to record the deeds of those who had fought the British and the three lads mentioned each declined to tell anything from their past. Hold on, wasn't Dev, that former terrorist who held secrets about his past, also an Irish President for 14 years?

[trileacman]

I'd rather have a man with a dodgy £5k in his background than a man involved in the murder and maiming of men, women and children.

Michael Collins? 

Michael Collins never lied or hid what he done.

St Michael 

Maybe because he died at 31 and twitter wasn't what it is now?...

OK I would have assumed that a man who led the IRA would have hid more than a few things but apparently not 

So if not Collins, is it Tom Barry or Dan Breen who "maimed and murdered men, women and children"? Or were all the members of the Old IRA whiter than white, and did they all openly tell everyone what they did, as posts to this board over the years have led me to believe? Surely Mick Collins wasn't the only Saint after all!

TG4 did a interesting program on Dan Breen a few weeks ago, including interview footage of him as an old man and he was not one bit sorry for shooting solidiers dead that he caught. If memory serves me he said they had no option but to shoot them as they had no means of holding them. Dan Breen was anti treaty during the civil war and then joined FF. He is not alone in what he done from that time. I believe he was one of the armed FF delegation that entered the Dail and took the oath to the british monarch - although of course they later declared a republic. The only thing that has changed is that the rose tinted glasses have been applied when some look back at this period of time. War is a dirty business - always was and always will be.

What's the point of all this? Dan Breen, as far as I can judge at this remove, was something of a psychopath. How does that affect any consideration of the presidential campaign of 2011, the character or actions of the living, breathing Martin McGuinness, the character or actions of the living, wheezing Sean Gallagher, life, the universe, anything?

Exactly. The above names are pushing up clover in Glasnevin Cemetery. I fail to see how they are of any relevance in this presidential campaign???

Breen was a particularly vicious, unrepenting individual during the War of Independence. I wouldn't be holding him up as a example to all or an excuse for MMG. Thankfully we don't all live in a world where anybody involved in the paramilitary republican movement is deemed a hero and patriot between reproach.

[Evil Genius]

EG - SF might have 15% in the republic but you do realise that all the major parties in the South are for a united Ireland, even FG. Likewise in the North more than just SF are also in favour, namely the SDLP. I hope, with some persuading, that a chunk of unionists might also be convinced. Not that mad when you consider in 1798 a large proportion of the rebels in the united Irishmen in Ulster were protestant and ancestors of settlers.

You might look back to 1798  for evidence that sufficient numbers of Unionists can be persuaded to renounce their identity, heritage, aspirations and current (relative) economic stability etc, for a UI.

But this particular Unionist prefers to restrict his search to, say, the last fifty years*. And ALL the evidence of that time indicates that far from Unionists abandoning their stance, they are actually as determined as ever to maintain it.

And insofar as there has been significant movement in political thinking on this island in recent times, it is that (a ) since their Civil and Economic Rights have been granted and recognised, Nationalists in NI have become increasingly less obsessed with the National Question, whilst (b ) Nationalists in the Republic have been increasingly disinclined to give a fcuk about anything that takes place North of the Border.

Happy Days! 



* - You know, a period which constitutes "living memory" for the vast majority of people

[Evil Genius]

Tubberman you and some others here seem to take the posts of a few Northern Posters on this site as representative of all. This is not the case no more than some of the views expressed on here by you and others represent the views of all southerners. Yes it is true that some southerners on here have displayed a lack of understanding of the northern situation and the experiences of Nationalists since partition and the feeling of isolation we felt. But not all. Some northern posters have also shown a lack of understanding both of the politics and the experiences of the south since partition. But there is more that unites us than divides us. We should however know from the experiences of German reunification that to wake up in a United Ireland one day would be a complete disaster for all. When it happens unity will come dropping slowly and will require patience, understanding and compromise on all sides.

All very well, I'm sure, but it completely fails to take into account the "elephant in the room" - namely 1 million NI Unionists, without whose willing co-operation, no-one will be going anywhere.

Don't hold your breath...

Well it does really. That's the whole "patience, understanding and compromise on all sides" part I'd imagine. Unless you don't consider the unionists to be a side I suppose.

Fair enough, I see your point.

What I was taking exception to was the implicit assumption that "it" (Irish political unity) will inevitably happen.

Imo, thanks to those 1 million Unionists,"it" won't happen in your or my lifetime*.


* - Beyond that timescale, who knows? I suppose we can leave that for the type of people who hark back to the days of Dan Breen or 1798 to speculate upon...