I meant noo offense its just thats the sentiment ive noticed amongst the northern Irish ive spoken to. I dont think it would be fair on them if the south voted to absorb the north and they wished to become an independent northern Irish state. Though of course I would respect such a decision were it made by them.IG-Calibre wrote:
Jepeto, that's pretty insulting coming from a fellow Irish man. Of course Ulster men are unique compared to the folk of Leinster, Munster, Connaught. However personally as a Democrat I have to accept the will of the people, and as such the people of the "whole" island of Ireland have agreed that the 6 Counties is a Provence of the UK - hence the removal of articles 2 & 3 (it was called the Good Friday agreement). Where does that leave us? a great deal of folk though still a minority, mainly Catholic & some Protestant are committed none militantly & militantly to the ideal of a Republic. In a way it's a bit like battlefield 2, we are in the process of neutralizing the flags here (see Poots thread saying it's time to stop playing the Irish national anthem at GAA games in Northern Ireland). Perhaps many will view this situation as an acceptable compromise and the 6 counties will just become an independent state. What is important is that should the Majority vote for re-unification the British & Unionists can no longer stop it happening it's an inevitability (this is why dissident militant Republicans are redundant and they don't realise it) which leads me on to the other thing we can say for sure - there are some who will never accept subjugation, that's why i'm a citizen of the Republic.Jepeto87 wrote:
I think the people in the north have developed there own special identity, they seem to define them selves as northern Irish. Maybe in 20 years they wont want to join the south or remain part of the UK but remain in there own special state within a state.
On another note did Fitz Gerald not g
ive up the Republics claim to the north can we legally have it back or will the constitution have to be amended?
It's not the "souths" decision to make, but the whole islands..Jepeto87 wrote:
I meant noo offense its just thats the sentiment ive noticed amongst the northern Irish ive spoken to. I dont think it would be fair on them if the south voted to absorb the north and they wished to become an independent northern Irish state. Though of course I would respect such a decision were it made by them.IG-Calibre wrote:
Jepeto, that's pretty insulting coming from a fellow Irish man. Of course Ulster men are unique compared to the folk of Leinster, Munster, Connaught. However personally as a Democrat I have to accept the will of the people, and as such the people of the "whole" island of Ireland have agreed that the 6 Counties is a Provence of the UK - hence the removal of articles 2 & 3 (it was called the Good Friday agreement). Where does that leave us? a great deal of folk though still a minority, mainly Catholic & some Protestant are committed none militantly & militantly to the ideal of a Republic. In a way it's a bit like battlefield 2, we are in the process of neutralizing the flags here (see Poots thread saying it's time to stop playing the Irish national anthem at GAA games in Northern Ireland). Perhaps many will view this situation as an acceptable compromise and the 6 counties will just become an independent state. What is important is that should the Majority vote for re-unification the British & Unionists can no longer stop it happening it's an inevitability (this is why dissident militant Republicans are redundant and they don't realise it) which leads me on to the other thing we can say for sure - there are some who will never accept subjugation, that's why i'm a citizen of the Republic.Jepeto87 wrote:
I think the people in the north have developed there own special identity, they seem to define them selves as northern Irish. Maybe in 20 years they wont want to join the south or remain part of the UK but remain in there own special state within a state.
On another note did Fitz Gerald not g
ive up the Republics claim to the north can we legally have it back or will the constitution have to be amended?
Well im sure the south would be in favour of it, if the north voted in for it.
Will they be welcome? Or will it be descrimination again only the other way around?IG-Calibre wrote:
Should they not move? then they are truly the sons & daughters of the Republic, they will take oats to uphold the Republic & constitution. The Green White & Orange flag that flies over their heads will truly signify the meeting of the two traditions as equals. all vestiges of British "culture" will be harmless pageantry & remnant of the past age of kings and Queens. This will be no sceptered isle, those that stay will be welcome, Those Loyal will have to live in the Kingdom for their culture to have "meaning". I don't think you understand what Loyalty means, any insurgency would be rendered pointless and mootjord wrote:
Yeah I think there is a good chance of violence. There's always political parties willing to blow stuff up to get their message across, I think quite a few would sprout up should that ever happen. If they were to sprout up, I'm wondering how the new unified Ieeland would deal with them. I mean, we sent in our Parachute regiment to deal with terrorist groups. I wonder what Ireland would do?IG-Calibre wrote:
You know Jord this is something i've been thinking about a lot. Do you think that really would be the case? I sometimes think that too, but, there was no Loyalist insurgency in the Republic when the British were driven out. I've now concluded that those so desperate to be reigned over shall go to where ever the Queen reigns, if anything the Loyal sons & daughters will probably return to where they can wave their wee flags and sing God save the queen! i'm sure there is plenty more room in England? eh?Of course the most deserving Loyal subjects will view this land as their entitlement, more so than, shall we say those from distant Empire lands? You could find very interesting developments on your own door step, so don't be too quick to predict what we will find on ours..
I also don't think everyone views it as a case of being reigned over by the Queen. Rather that they get certain benefits from being a part of the UK and they already have houses there now. They'll see it as "Why should we move, they didn't"...
No.. i'm afraid you're confusing us with the British, I think you will find none is discriminated against in the Republic for their religion, it's unconstitutional.. next?jord wrote:
Will they be welcome? Or will it be descrimination again only the other way around?IG-Calibre wrote:
Should they not move? then they are truly the sons & daughters of the Republic, they will take oats to uphold the Republic & constitution. The Green White & Orange flag that flies over their heads will truly signify the meeting of the two traditions as equals. all vestiges of British "culture" will be harmless pageantry & remnant of the past age of kings and Queens. This will be no sceptered isle, those that stay will be welcome, Those Loyal will have to live in the Kingdom for their culture to have "meaning". I don't think you understand what Loyalty means, any insurgency would be rendered pointless and mootjord wrote:
Yeah I think there is a good chance of violence. There's always political parties willing to blow stuff up to get their message across, I think quite a few would sprout up should that ever happen. If they were to sprout up, I'm wondering how the new unified Ieeland would deal with them. I mean, we sent in our Parachute regiment to deal with terrorist groups. I wonder what Ireland would do?
I also don't think everyone views it as a case of being reigned over by the Queen. Rather that they get certain benefits from being a part of the UK and they already have houses there now. They'll see it as "Why should we move, they didn't"...
Last edited by IG-Calibre (2008-01-20 09:32:40)
Its a multi-cultural country I doubt there will much problems!
I said "the other way around", seeing as how we owned Northern Ireland and the Nationalists were descriminated against. Would Loyalists not be descriminated against when Ireland owns that territory?IG-Calibre wrote:
No.. i'm afraid you're confusing us with the British, I think you will find none is discriminated against in the Republic for their religion, it's unconstitutional.. next?jord wrote:
Will they be welcome? Or will it be descrimination again only the other way around?IG-Calibre wrote:
Should they not move? then they are truly the sons & daughters of the Republic, they will take oats to uphold the Republic & constitution. The Green White & Orange flag that flies over their heads will truly signify the meeting of the two traditions as equals. all vestiges of British "culture" will be harmless pageantry & remnant of the past age of kings and Queens. This will be no sceptered isle, those that stay will be welcome, Those Loyal will have to live in the Kingdom for their culture to have "meaning". I don't think you understand what Loyalty means, any insurgency would be rendered pointless and moot
NO this is why you're confusing us with the British, I think you will find none is discriminated against in the Republic for their religion, it's unconstitutional..jord wrote:
I said "the other way around", seeing as how we owned Northern Ireland and the Nationalists were descriminated against. Would Loyalists not be descriminated against when Ireland owns that territory?IG-Calibre wrote:
No.. i'm afraid you're confusing us with the British, I think you will find none is discriminated against in the Republic for their religion, it's unconstitutional.. next?jord wrote:
Will they be welcome? Or will it be descrimination again only the other way around?
lol like hell they wont be.IG-Calibre wrote:
NO this is why you're confusing us with the British, I think you will find none is discriminated against in the Republic for their religion, it's unconstitutional..jord wrote:
I said "the other way around", seeing as how we owned Northern Ireland and the Nationalists were descriminated against. Would Loyalists not be descriminated against when Ireland owns that territory?IG-Calibre wrote:
No.. i'm afraid you're confusing us with the British, I think you will find none is discriminated against in the Republic for their religion, it's unconstitutional.. next?
There's loads of English in Ireland who have no problems. Just look at all the British hen and stag partys that take place in Dublin every weekend, they love it here and have no problems!
Vilham wrote:
lol like hell they wont be.IG-Calibre wrote:
NO this is why you're confusing us with the British, I think you will find none is discriminated against in the Republic for their religion, it's unconstitutional..jord wrote:
I said "the other way around", seeing as how we owned Northern Ireland and the Nationalists were descriminated against. Would Loyalists not be descriminated against when Ireland owns that territory?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Ireland[edit] Under 'Fundamental Rights' title
Equality before the law: Guaranteed by Article 40.1.
Prohibition on titles of nobility: The state may not confer titles of nobility and no citizen may accept such a title without the permission of the Government (in practice this is usually a mere formality) (Article 40.1).
Personal rights: The state is bound to protect "the personal rights of the citizen" and in particular to defend the "life, person, good name and property rights of every citizen" (Article 40.2).
Unenumerated Rights: The language used in article 40.3 has been interpreted by the courts as implying the existence of unenumerated rights afforded to Irish citizens under natural law. Such rights upheld by the courts have included the right to marital privacy and the right of the unmarried mother to custody of her child.
Prohibition of abortion: Prohibited by Article 40.3, except in cases in which there is a threat to the life of the mother.
Habeas Corpus: Guaranteed by Article 40.4. The Defence Forces are exempt from habeas corpus during time of rebellion or war. Since the Sixteenth Amendment it has also been constitutional for a court to deny bail to someone charged with a crime where it suspects they may commit an offence.
Inviolability of the home: An officer of the state may not forcibly enter someone's home unless permitted to do so by law (Article 40.5).
Freedom of speech: Guaranteed by Article 40.6.1. However, this may not be used to undermine "public order or morality or the authority of the State". Furthermore, the constitution explicitly requires that the publication of "blasphemous, seditious, or indecent matter" be a criminal offence.
Freedom of assembly: Guaranteed by Article 40.6.1, but only when exercised "peaceably and without arms" and not a "nuisance to the general public".
Freedom of association: Article 40.6 protects this right, but states that it may be regulated by the state "in the public interest", provided it is not regulated in a manner which is discriminatory.
Family and home life: Under Article 41 the state promises to "protect the family" and its "imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law". Under the same article the state must ensure economic circumstances do not oblige a mother to work outside of the home. The provision also guarantees that in the event of divorce adequate financial provision must be made for any children and for both spouses.
Education: Article 42 guarantees parents the right to determine how their children shall be educated, provided a minimum standard is met. Under the same article the state must provide for free primary level education. Currently Irish law also guarantees free second and third level education.
Private property: Guaranteed subject to "social justice" and the "common good" (Article 43).
Freedom of worship: Guaranteed subject to "public order and morality" (Article 44.2.1).
Prohibition of establishment: The state may not endow any religion (Article 44.2.2).
Religious discrimination: The state may not discriminate on religious grounds (Article 44.2.3).
Ignorance is a terrible affliction
In fairness though im sure the English constitution guarantees the same thing. As do all the other European states.
WARNING: WE;RE VEERING OFF TOPIC!!!!
WARNING: WE;RE VEERING OFF TOPIC!!!!
Last edited by Jepeto87 (2008-01-20 10:07:34)
really? here's a history lesson for you THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A WRITTEN ENGLISH CONSTITUTION. You have a Protestant constitutional Monarchy. That's pretty funny ttry Telling that to the Catholics that were discriminated against in the North, living in a Protestant State for a Protestant people..Jepeto87 wrote:
In fairness though im sure the English constitution guarantees the same thing. As do all the other European states.
WARNING: WE;RE VEERING OFF TOPIC!!!!
Indeed it is. That is why you should go check yourself in with a doctor.IG-Calibre wrote:
Block of text that apparently everyone MUST obey, which is why there is 0 crime in RoI.
Ignorance is a terrible affliction
You really think there wont be people that wouldnt discriminate? Just like SOME UK people discriminated against the Irish ppl in NI. I guess that wont get through to you though, as you already do feel prejudice to UK citizens which is why you think all UK citizens were responsible for what a few did in NI.
This is what a person who doesnt have "ignorance" looks like. When you look like that you should be cured.Jepeto87 wrote:
In fairness though im sure the English constitution guarantees the same thing. As do all the other European states.
O right... yeah coz you need a constitution to have laws. I forgot about that. Law doesnt exist if there is no constitution...IG-Calibre wrote:
really? here's a history lesson for you THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A WRITTEN ENGLISH CONSTITUTION. You have a Protestant constitutional Monarchy. That's pretty funny ttry Telling that to the Catholics that were discriminated against in the North, living in a Protestant State for a Protestant people..Jepeto87 wrote:
In fairness though im sure the English constitution guarantees the same thing. As do all the other European states.
WARNING: WE;RE VEERING OFF TOPIC!!!!
I really do feel pity for you IG. You prejudice views are an illness that no one should suffer from.
Dude take some drowsy pills or something and calm the hell down, you'd think someone hit a nerve on a every post.IG-Calibre wrote:
NO this is why you're confusing us with the British, I think you will find none is discriminated against in the Republic for their religion, it's unconstitutional..jord wrote:
I said "the other way around", seeing as how we owned Northern Ireland and the Nationalists were descriminated against. Would Loyalists not be descriminated against when Ireland owns that territory?IG-Calibre wrote:
No.. i'm afraid you're confusing us with the British, I think you will find none is discriminated against in the Republic for their religion, it's unconstitutional.. next?
I guess you don't understand that the "state" discriminated against the people here, and this is what were talking about here MrJosephy, keep up..Vilham wrote:
O right... yeah coz you need a constitution to have laws. I forgot about that. Law doesnt exist if there is no constitution...IG-Calibre wrote:
really? here's a history lesson for you THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A WRITTEN ENGLISH CONSTITUTION. You have a Protestant constitutional Monarchy. That's pretty funny ttry Telling that to the Catholics that were discriminated against in the North, living in a Protestant State for a Protestant people..Jepeto87 wrote:
In fairness though im sure the English constitution guarantees the same thing. As do all the other European states.
WARNING: WE;RE VEERING OFF TOPIC!!!!
I really do feel pity for you IG. You prejudice views are an illness that no one should suffer from.
excuse me? calm down? mind your own business mate, I high lighted how I had answered the same question asked me again in the previous post by way of elucidation.. if you've nothing constructive and relevant to add, don't bother..M.O.A.B wrote:
Dude take some drowsy pills or something and calm the hell down, you'd think someone hit a nerve on a every post.IG-Calibre wrote:
NO this is why you're confusing us with the British, I think you will find none is discriminated against in the Republic for their religion, it's unconstitutional..jord wrote:
I said "the other way around", seeing as how we owned Northern Ireland and the Nationalists were descriminated against. Would Loyalists not be descriminated against when Ireland owns that territory?
Its so constitutional former TERRORISTS are political party leaders in NI and RoI. I guess your right, terrorists dont discriminate.IG-Calibre wrote:
I guess you don't understand that the "state" discriminated against the people here, and this is what were talking about here MrJosephy, keep up..Vilham wrote:
O right... yeah coz you need a constitution to have laws. I forgot about that. Law doesnt exist if there is no constitution...IG-Calibre wrote:
really? here's a history lesson for you THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A WRITTEN ENGLISH CONSTITUTION. You have a Protestant constitutional Monarchy. That's pretty funny ttry Telling that to the Catholics that were discriminated against in the North, living in a Protestant State for a Protestant people..
I really do feel pity for you IG. You prejudice views are an illness that no one should suffer from.
Yeah I guess the entire state of the UK is represented by a Lieutenant-Colonel and a Captain...
Last edited by Vilham (2008-01-20 10:39:12)
indeed "Former" being the operative word, such is the way of the world. Former terrorists become Statesmen all the time, However the individual rights to not be discriminated against on grounds of religion is still a constitutional right in the Republic of all its citizens. I fail to see the point you're making? we watch your queen pin medals on murders and honour them, suffered at the hands of terrorists that killed indiscriminately in her name - so your point is?Vilham wrote:
Its so constitutional former TERRORISTS are political party leaders in NI and RoI. I guess your right, terrorists dont discriminate.IG-Calibre wrote:
I guess you don't understand that the "state" discriminated against the people here, and this is what were talking about here MrJosephy, keep up..Vilham wrote:
O right... yeah coz you need a constitution to have laws. I forgot about that. Law doesnt exist if there is no constitution...
I really do feel pity for you IG. You prejudice views are an illness that no one should suffer from.
Yeah I guess the entire state of the UK is represented by a Lieutenant-Colonel and a Captain...
It appears there is no actual document, I stand corrected but this is off topic. Wrongs were obviously carried out in the past but the topic is clearly about the future.
Europe as a whole is growing very secular so I doubt there would be any problems with additional protestants in the south, thats my two pennys!
If the majority of people in the north want to join the republic they should be allowed after Poe's already mentioned duel referendum.
Europe as a whole is growing very secular so I doubt there would be any problems with additional protestants in the south, thats my two pennys!
If the majority of people in the north want to join the republic they should be allowed after Poe's already mentioned duel referendum.
My point? The tragedy of Bloody Sunday was carried out by two moron low rank commanders and was not authorized by the UK government. The terrorist attacks carried out by the IRA were ordered by political party leaders your people vote in... and you try to claim theres no prejudice? So based on your opinion people like Osama Bin Laden can be just change their mind and drop any form of prejudice they hold? I guess Hitler could of just quit his party and claimed he was a totally changed man and didn't believe in any of the things he did... Are you really that naive? There is no such thing as FORMER terrorist.IG-Calibre wrote:
indeed "Former" being the operative word, such is the way of the world. Former terrorists become Statesmen all the time, However the individual rights to not be discriminated against on grounds of religion is still a constitutional right in the Republic of all its citizens. I fail to see the point you're making? we watch your queen pin medals on murders and honour them, suffered at the hands of terrorists that killed indiscriminately in her name - so your point is?Vilham wrote:
Its so constitutional former TERRORISTS are political party leaders in NI and RoI. I guess your right, terrorists dont discriminate.IG-Calibre wrote:
I guess you don't understand that the "state" discriminated against the people here, and this is what were talking about here MrJosephy, keep up..
Yeah I guess the entire state of the UK is represented by a Lieutenant-Colonel and a Captain...
The UK Government put the Soldiers there you whab, of course they authorised their military to stand with their backs to the loyalists and open fire - bloody uppity Catholics demanding rights in their own country. Plus do you think that Bloody Sunday was the only event to happen here? Sinn Fein was a fairly small political party and certainly was not reflective of the majority of Catholic voters, the SDLP a non-violent political party born out of the civil rights movement was the majority Catholic party. Sinn Fien since renouncing violence and stopping the war has been much buoyed by Catholic Voters and are only now the Marjority Nationalist/Republican party because of the polarisation of the community by the conflict. That's how Democracy works mate, you can't complain when voters actually vote..Vilham wrote:
My point? The tragedy of Bloody Sunday was carried out by two moron low rank commanders and was not authorized by the UK government. The terrorist attacks carried out by the IRA were ordered by political party leaders your people vote in... and you try to claim theres no prejudice? So based on your opinion people like Osama Bin Laden can be just change their mind and drop any form of prejudice they hold? I guess Hitler could of just quit his party and claimed he was a totally changed man and didn't believe in any of the things he did... Are you really that naive? There is no such thing as FORMER terrorist.IG-Calibre wrote:
indeed "Former" being the operative word, such is the way of the world. Former terrorists become Statesmen all the time, However the individual rights to not be discriminated against on grounds of religion is still a constitutional right in the Republic of all its citizens. I fail to see the point you're making? we watch your queen pin medals on murders and honour them, suffered at the hands of terrorists that killed indiscriminately in her name - so your point is?Vilham wrote:
Its so constitutional former TERRORISTS are political party leaders in NI and RoI. I guess your right, terrorists dont discriminate.
Yeah I guess the entire state of the UK is represented by a Lieutenant-Colonel and a Captain...
Really? You seem to throw insult after insult in the direction of Vilham who so far is pointing out points for debate. If there was a UK citizen who became a statesman who was a former terrorist you'd be singing a different tune.IG-Calibre wrote:
excuse me? calm down? mind your own business mate, I high lighted how I had answered the same question asked me again in the previous post by way of elucidation.. if you've nothing constructive and relevant to add, don't bother..M.O.A.B wrote:
Dude take some drowsy pills or something and calm the hell down, you'd think someone hit a nerve on a every post.IG-Calibre wrote:
NO this is why you're confusing us with the British, I think you will find none is discriminated against in the Republic for their religion, it's unconstitutional..
Haha thanks for proving my point. People vote for a terrorist political party and yet you seem to think there will be no prejudice. /end argument, win.IG-Calibre wrote:
The UK Government put the Soldiers there you whab, of course they authorised their military to stand with their backs to the loyalists and open fire - bloody uppity Catholics demanding rights in their own country. Plus do you think that Bloody Sunday was the only event to happen here? Sinn Fein was a fairly small political party and certainly was not reflective of the majority of Catholic voters, the SDLP a non-violent political party born out of the civil rights movement was the majority Catholic party. Sinn Fien since renouncing violence and stopping the war has been much buoyed by Catholic Voters and are only now the Marjority Nationalist/Republican party because of the polarisation of the community by the conflict. That's how Democracy works mate, you can't complain when voters actually vote..Vilham wrote:
My point? The tragedy of Bloody Sunday was carried out by two moron low rank commanders and was not authorized by the UK government. The terrorist attacks carried out by the IRA were ordered by political party leaders your people vote in... and you try to claim theres no prejudice? So based on your opinion people like Osama Bin Laden can be just change their mind and drop any form of prejudice they hold? I guess Hitler could of just quit his party and claimed he was a totally changed man and didn't believe in any of the things he did... Are you really that naive? There is no such thing as FORMER terrorist.IG-Calibre wrote:
indeed "Former" being the operative word, such is the way of the world. Former terrorists become Statesmen all the time, However the individual rights to not be discriminated against on grounds of religion is still a constitutional right in the Republic of all its citizens. I fail to see the point you're making? we watch your queen pin medals on murders and honour them, suffered at the hands of terrorists that killed indiscriminately in her name - so your point is?