 |
By *ouple1234 OP Couple
over a year ago
BELFAST UK |
Let's not turn this into a tit for tat thread etc but it will come up one day so if you were to think of the pros and cons of a united ireland would you be in favour of taking on northen irelands problems and vice versa |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
A deep question which can't he answered easily. Personaly id like 32 county sovereign state there is the problem of the unionist diaspra who would cause havoc. The mainstay of unionist distrust of a all Ireland state was the papist influence on government and society but thankfully this has wained . But loyalty to the crown runs deep and strong but maybe in time who knows. Other parts of Europe stopped paying homage to mortal deitys who where just crowned meglamniac dynasties and dictators. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *vsnikkiTV/TS
over a year ago
Limavady |
No problem with the concept of a United Ireland but there would have to be a referendum in UK to see if we'd accept the republic back in after they so ungraciously left!
(No. I'm not really serious!) |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
How could we pay for a united ireland when we cant even afford to pay of our own country.Anyway u will never have united ireland not in our life time thats for sure. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ouple1234 OP Couple
over a year ago
BELFAST UK |
It is a sensitive subject but let's try keep it clean we are adults well most of us haha.
Could a united ireland fund itself or would it be stay in the euro and have Brussels have its say in the affairs could it have an nhs style health care. There is alot of questions that would need answered
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I think the republic are more for a united Ireland than the north are.one thing is for sure the cost of living won't go down for us.
OK that's my clever bit done for the day. It cancels out my blooper this morning. I'm off for a coffee  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *vsnikkiTV/TS
over a year ago
Limavady |
"Ireland used to be part of the United Kingdom as in the Act of Ireland 1800 ad
Yes indeed, the 1801 Act of Union which ironically the Orange Order objected to.  "
Not ironic at all Mick. As is quite common, people are unaware of the disenfranchisement of both the Roman Catholics, Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists etc. The Orange order was (and is) against discrimitation against any religion. As in most organisations there are people that are pillocks and create a poor impression. In this the Orange Order is no different to |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Ireland used to be part of the United Kingdom as in the Act of Ireland 1800 ad
Yes indeed, the 1801 Act of Union which ironically the Orange Order objected to.
Not ironic at all Mick. As is quite common, people are unaware of the disenfranchisement of both the Roman Catholics, Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists etc. The Orange order was (and is) against discrimitation against any religion. As in most organisations there are people that are pillocks and create a poor impression. In this the Orange Order is no different to "
Hmm.. The Orange Order weren't exactly fans of either papists or Presbyterians in the early days. Presbyterians back then were persecuted in the same way as catholics were and so were almost polar opposite to the Orange Order. As for being against discrimination? Hello? Even their membership criteria discriminates against catholics or anyone who marries a Catholic. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *vsnikkiTV/TS
over a year ago
Limavady |
"Ireland used to be part of the United Kingdom as in the Act of Ireland 1800 ad
Yes indeed, the 1801 Act of Union which ironically the Orange Order objected to.
Not ironic at all Mick. As is quite common, people are unaware of the disenfranchisement of both the Roman Catholics, Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists etc. The Orange order was (and is) against discrimitation against any religion. As in most organisations there are people that are pillocks and create a poor impression. In this the Orange Order is no different to
Hmm.. The Orange Order weren't exactly fans of either papists or Presbyterians in the early days. Presbyterians back then were persecuted in the same way as catholics were and so were almost polar opposite to the Orange Order. As for being against discrimination? Hello? Even their membership criteria discriminates against catholics or anyone who marries a Catholic. "
Our reading of history disagrees over the order's attitude to Presbyterians but I partially agree with you on its membership rules. Roman catholics can't join but those that marry catholics can. I concede that this is discrimitation in itself, but I do maintain that it disagreed with the disenfranchisement of Catholics et al. I do accept that is not the image one gets from the thugs and idiots that promote violence and hatred. By the way I'm not a member! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Ireland used to be part of the United Kingdom as in the Act of Ireland 1800 ad
Yes indeed, the 1801 Act of Union which ironically the Orange Order objected to.
Not ironic at all Mick. As is quite common, people are unaware of the disenfranchisement of both the Roman Catholics, Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists etc. The Orange order was (and is) against discrimitation against any religion. As in most organisations there are people that are pillocks and create a poor impression. In this the Orange Order is no different to
Hmm.. The Orange Order weren't exactly fans of either papists or Presbyterians in the early days. Presbyterians back then were persecuted in the same way as catholics were and so were almost polar opposite to the Orange Order. As for being against discrimination? Hello? Even their membership criteria discriminates against catholics or anyone who marries a Catholic.
Our reading of history disagrees over the order's attitude to Presbyterians but I partially agree with you on its membership rules. Roman catholics can't join but those that marry catholics can. I concede that this is discrimitation in itself, but I do maintain that it disagreed with the disenfranchisement of Catholics et al. I do accept that is not the image one gets from the thugs and idiots that promote violence and hatred. By the way I'm not a member!"
I think from the outset that the OO were very much in favour of disenfranchising catholics, given that it was established in the aftermath of the "battle of the diamond" which involved somewhat more than disenfranchising a few of them
Somehow I didn't think you'd be a member. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *vsnikkiTV/TS
over a year ago
Limavady |
"Ireland used to be part of the United Kingdom as in the Act of Ireland 1800 ad
Yes indeed, the 1801 Act of Union which ironically the Orange Order objected to.
Not ironic at all Mick. As is quite common, people are unaware of the disenfranchisement of both the Roman Catholics, Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists etc. The Orange order was (and is) against discrimitation against any religion. As in most organisations there are people that are pillocks and create a poor impression. In this the Orange Order is no different to
Hmm.. The Orange Order weren't exactly fans of either papists or Presbyterians in the early days. Presbyterians back then were persecuted in the same way as catholics were and so were almost polar opposite to the Orange Order. As for being against discrimination? Hello? Even their membership criteria discriminates against catholics or anyone who marries a Catholic.
Our reading of history disagrees over the order's attitude to Presbyterians but I partially agree with you on its membership rules. Roman catholics can't join but those that marry catholics can. I concede that this is discrimitation in itself, but I do maintain that it disagreed with the disenfranchisement of Catholics et al. I do accept that is not the image one gets from the thugs and idiots that promote violence and hatred. By the way I'm not a member!
I think from the outset that the OO were very much in favour of disenfranchising catholics, given that it was established in the aftermath of the "battle of the diamond" which involved somewhat more than disenfranchising a few of them
Somehow I didn't think you'd be a member. "
Obviously we disagree and unlikely to change our minds. Wonder if there's a similar impasse at Stormont today? Why not, the same sort of issues have caused problems for 300+ years so unlikely to get sorted on a Friday! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Ireland used to be part of the United Kingdom as in the Act of Ireland 1800 ad
Yes indeed, the 1801 Act of Union which ironically the Orange Order objected to.
Not ironic at all Mick. As is quite common, people are unaware of the disenfranchisement of both the Roman Catholics, Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists etc. The Orange order was (and is) against discrimitation against any religion. As in most organisations there are people that are pillocks and create a poor impression. In this the Orange Order is no different to
Hmm.. The Orange Order weren't exactly fans of either papists or Presbyterians in the early days. Presbyterians back then were persecuted in the same way as catholics were and so were almost polar opposite to the Orange Order. As for being against discrimination? Hello? Even their membership criteria discriminates against catholics or anyone who marries a Catholic.
Our reading of history disagrees over the order's attitude to Presbyterians but I partially agree with you on its membership rules. Roman catholics can't join but those that marry catholics can. I concede that this is discrimitation in itself, but I do maintain that it disagreed with the disenfranchisement of Catholics et al. I do accept that is not the image one gets from the thugs and idiots that promote violence and hatred. By the way I'm not a member!
I think from the outset that the OO were very much in favour of disenfranchising catholics, given that it was established in the aftermath of the "battle of the diamond" which involved somewhat more than disenfranchising a few of them
Somehow I didn't think you'd be a member.
Obviously we disagree and unlikely to change our minds. Wonder if there's a similar impasse at Stormont today? Why not, the same sort of issues have caused problems for 300+ years so unlikely to get sorted on a Friday!"
Cameron left shortly after 9 so I wouldn't hold out much hope there today.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Ireland used to be part of the United Kingdom as in the Act of Ireland 1800 ad
Yes indeed, the 1801 Act of Union which ironically the Orange Order objected to.
Not ironic at all Mick. As is quite common, people are unaware of the disenfranchisement of both the Roman Catholics, Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists etc. The Orange order was (and is) against discrimitation against any religion. As in most organisations there are people that are pillocks and create a poor impression. In this the Orange Order is no different to
Hmm.. The Orange Order weren't exactly fans of either papists or Presbyterians in the early days. Presbyterians back then were persecuted in the same way as catholics were and so were almost polar opposite to the Orange Order. As for being against discrimination? Hello? Even their membership criteria discriminates against catholics or anyone who marries a Catholic.
Our reading of history disagrees over the order's attitude to Presbyterians but I partially agree with you on its membership rules. Roman catholics can't join but those that marry catholics can. I concede that this is discrimitation in itself, but I do maintain that it disagreed with the disenfranchisement of Catholics et al. I do accept that is not the image one gets from the thugs and idiots that promote violence and hatred. By the way I'm not a member!
I think from the outset that the OO were very much in favour of disenfranchising catholics, given that it was established in the aftermath of the "battle of the diamond" which involved somewhat more than disenfranchising a few of them
Somehow I didn't think you'd be a member.
Obviously we disagree and unlikely to change our minds. Wonder if there's a similar impasse at Stormont today? Why not, the same sort of issues have caused problems for 300+ years so unlikely to get sorted on a Friday!
Cameron left shortly after 9 so I wouldn't hold out much hope there today. "
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Personally I would have no problem 'taking on' northern Ireland's problems and vice versa.....however until politicians actually WANT to solve problems rather than talk about them or cause them, then it will never happen in my opinion.
Could we afford to take on each other's problems......absolutely. But again this will only happen when there's a WANT.....
If you WANT something bad enough it can happen but you can't have it when you have 1-2-3-4 or more divisions all pulling in different directions with differing agendas.
And remember if there was one government then there would be a lot less money to pay out on salaries, expenses, pensions, not forgetting all the other 'entitlements' politicians think they are 'entitled' to. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *vsnikkiTV/TS
over a year ago
Limavady |
"Personally I would have no problem 'taking on' northern Ireland's problems and vice versa.....however until politicians actually WANT to solve problems rather than talk about them or cause them, then it will never happen in my opinion.
Could we afford to take on each other's problems......absolutely. But again this will only happen when there's a WANT.....
If you WANT something bad enough it can happen but you can't have it when you have 1-2-3-4 or more divisions all pulling in different directions with differing agendas.
And remember if there was one government then there would be a lot less money to pay out on salaries, expenses, pensions, not forgetting all the other 'entitlements' politicians think they are 'entitled' to. "
The saving in terms of politician costs would be minimal but the majority of people in Northern Ireland still want to share the UKs problems. It's not politicians that are to be blamed for not compromissing. That's what caused all this mess. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I would suggest respectfully that the imposition of partition, against the wishes of the vast majority of people on the island, was what caused the mess. If people had day down and discussed all options properly at that point, that mistake might well have been avoided. Did it benefit anyone in the long run? It left protestants in the south and catholics in the north in very hostile environments and created a border that didn't tie in with any historical or cultural entities. There's my opinion on that one
.
As for politicians, they mostly follow rather than lead and do we get the politicians we deserve by and large. Not all are the same though, so there is some hope..
.
As for majorities,it's not as clear cut as it may seem. The last census showed that the Catholic population is about 41.6% and the non Catholic Christian population is about 42%. Those figures may not be exact as I haven't looked it up but it's something around that. The last census was a few years back, and the Catholic population had increased by about 1.5% more than the non Catholic Christian population since the previous census, thereby suggesting that the Catholic population will be larger than the protestant population after the next census. If you look at the population under the age of 35 the Catholic population is substantially larger. That's a sectarian headcount though, and it's not necessarily that relevant anymore, but it does point to substantial change in the future. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I would suggest respectfully that the imposition of partition, against the wishes of the vast majority of people on the island, was what caused the mess. If people had day down and discussed all options properly at that point, that mistake might well have been avoided. Did it benefit anyone in the long run? It left protestants in the south and catholics in the north in very hostile environments and created a border that didn't tie in with any historical or cultural entities. There's my opinion on that one
.
As for politicians, they mostly follow rather than lead and do we get the politicians we deserve by and large. Not all are the same though, so there is some hope..
.
As for majorities,it's not as clear cut as it may seem. The last census showed that the Catholic population is about 41.6% and the non Catholic Christian population is about 42%. Those figures may not be exact as I haven't looked it up but it's something around that. The last census was a few years back, and the Catholic population had increased by about 1.5% more than the non Catholic Christian population since the previous census, thereby suggesting that the Catholic population will be larger than the protestant population after the next census. If you look at the population under the age of 35 the Catholic population is substantially larger. That's a sectarian headcount though, and it's not necessarily that relevant anymore, but it does point to substantial change in the future. "
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *antyfetishTV/TS
over a year ago
Collooney/Sligo/Dublin |
yep! the unionists of the north say they are british and loyal the royals...but if you go back to all the royal houses most of them were german and good old king billy was dutch which the english hate...life is wonderful...lol |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I was watching a news report on al jezerra about the Scottish referendum where the went to ulster to get the views of the orange order on Scottish independence . A member of some lodge accused Alex salmond of being a jacobite with his mindset stuck in 1694 ....i nearly chocked .. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *vsnikkiTV/TS
over a year ago
Limavady |
"I would suggest respectfully that the imposition of partition, against the wishes of the vast majority of people on the island, was what caused the mess. If people had day down and discussed all options properly at that point, that mistake might well have been avoided. Did it benefit anyone in the long run? It left protestants in the south and catholics in the north in very hostile environments and created a border that didn't tie in with any historical or cultural entities. There's my opinion on that one
.
As for politicians, they mostly follow rather than lead and do we get the politicians we deserve by and large. Not all are the same though, so there is some hope..
.
As for majorities,it's not as clear cut as it may seem. The last census showed that the Catholic population is about 41.6% and the non Catholic Christian population is about 42%. Those figures may not be exact as I haven't looked it up but it's something around that. The last census was a few years back, and the Catholic population had increased by about 1.5% more than the non Catholic Christian population since the previous census, thereby suggesting that the Catholic population will be larger than the protestant population after the next census. If you look at the population under the age of 35 the Catholic population is substantially larger. That's a sectarian headcount though, and it's not necessarily that relevant anymore, but it does point to substantial change in the future. "
Worryingly I agree with all points. It could be said that the problem dates back further than last century and is the fault of Elizabeth the first and her acquisition of land by starting the Plantation. It's all the bloody protestants fault! (In fairness we had some left footed help. Let's blame the English!) |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I would suggest respectfully that the imposition of partition, against the wishes of the vast majority of people on the island, was what caused the mess. If people had day down and discussed all options properly at that point, that mistake might well have been avoided. Did it benefit anyone in the long run? It left protestants in the south and catholics in the north in very hostile environments and created a border that didn't tie in with any historical or cultural entities. There's my opinion on that one
.
As for politicians, they mostly follow rather than lead and do we get the politicians we deserve by and large. Not all are the same though, so there is some hope..
.
As for majorities,it's not as clear cut as it may seem. The last census showed that the Catholic population is about 41.6% and the non Catholic Christian population is about 42%. Those figures may not be exact as I haven't looked it up but it's something around that. The last census was a few years back, and the Catholic population had increased by about 1.5% more than the non Catholic Christian population since the previous census, thereby suggesting that the Catholic population will be larger than the protestant population after the next census. If you look at the population under the age of 35 the Catholic population is substantially larger. That's a sectarian headcount though, and it's not necessarily that relevant anymore, but it does point to substantial change in the future.
Worryingly I agree with all points. It could be said that the problem dates back further than last century and is the fault of Elizabeth the first and her acquisition of land by starting the Plantation. It's all the bloody protestants fault! (In fairness we had some left footed help. Let's blame the English!)"
You could go back that far if you wanted but it wouldn't do anyone any good. It's forward we need to be looking, and finding a way to live together in harmony on this small island. We have far more in common than we have separating us if we care to look at it objectively. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Has anyone asked the peeps in the North? Maybe they want their own province to become independent?
Honestly, can't see it ever happening. It will either remain as is or become a seperate state. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
