Flag protests in Northern Ireland.

[dropzone]

So, this raises the question: In the flag of the Republic of Ireland the green represents the Catholics and the orange the Protestants, but does the white represent No Man's Land?

[Lust4Life]

My my !

Mutt and Geoff are alive and well !

Perhaps as this is all about compromise, the Dail could fly the Union Flag on the days that Belfast isn't.

I mean, none of it actually MEANS anything, so flying a flag, or not flying a flag isn't really important.

And I'm sure the neighbours in the mostly south would totally agree.

As it shouldn't mean anything much to the majority population in their own country, then it also won't mean anything to the population of the country that adjoins Britain.

Over to you Mutt !

Or is it Geoffs turn ?

[LC Strawhouse]

Originally Posted by ruadh

What is the "typical nationalist vision of a united Ireland"?

"26+6=1"

Originally Posted by ruadh

Well it's higher than that now, although admittedly not by much. It would be much higher in a united Ireland - around 17% by my calculations. That's higher than, say, the Hispanic-American population and not too much lower than the French-Canadian. They'd still be a minority, but one with considerable clout and certainly nowhere near at risk of extinction.

There's barely any anti-Protestant violence in the Republic and hasn't been for a long time. And anyone who wanted to commit it against northern Protestants could just as easily do so now. Nobody's talking about forcibly relocating them into staunchly Catholic areas of the south (to the extent that those even exist anymore, with all the immigration of the past couple decades).

Fine, but my question remains, is there anything that would make Unionists actually prefer to live in a united Ireland instead of the UK? I'm reading your argument as basically "it won't be as bad for them as it would have been 50 or 100 years ago."

These community votes on the flag, etc., seem to be validating the most hardline Unionists' position that the nationalist community is highly motivated to tear down all visible traces of the Unionist/Protestant community and throw up monuments to nationalist extremists every time they get a chance. Although it may be fair play and democratic under the GFA, maybe it's still not such a good road to follow? (I mean, they democratically introduce outrageous sectarian crap all the time in Quebec)

Originally Posted by ruadh

Both countries are EU members.

What's there to reconcile? It's an entirely consistent position. A more logical question is how pro-EU nationalists justify ceding sovereignty to Brussels after fighting so hard to win it from London.

I meant that the UK has a different relationship to the EU... they are not in the euro currency or Schengen zone, and are openly talking about leaving the EU completely these days. It would seem more productive to be a euroskeptic based in the UK than in Ireland.

Originally Posted by Lust4Life

As it shouldn't mean anything much to the majority population in their own country, then it also won't mean anything to the population of the country that adjoins Britain.

Over to you Mutt !

Or is it Geoffs turn ?

Was that my cue? Anyway, I had wondered at first if Westminster would back up the NI Unionists on the flag issue. (I guess they aren't)

[Lust4Life]

I doubt it.

No more then they'd intervene in Bradford City councils actions.

[tomndebb]

Originally Posted by Lust4Life

My my !

Mutt and Geoff are alive and well !

. . .

This was nothing more than pointless threadshitting.

Knock it off.

[ /Moderating ]

[Northern Piper]

Originally Posted by ruadh

I don't believe the situations are really analogous. In Quebec the majority community of the province is seeking to remove the flag of the federal state, which the minority community identifies with.

I'm afraid I don't agree with your description of the political dynamic. There is no doubt that it is a debate about the place of Quebec in Canada, but it is a debate amongst the francophone majority, not a linguistic majority/minority split.

LC Strawhouse linked to a story about the flag issue in Quebec, which the PQ Government lost: Canadian Flag In Quebec National Assembly: Parti Quebecois Loses Bid To Take Down Maple Leaf.

If it were a straight debate between the francophone majority and the anglophone minority, then the motion should have carried, since the Members of the National Assembly are overwhelmingly francophone. (See: list of Members of the National Assembly.)

Rather, this was a debate among the francophone majority about the place of Quebec in Confederation. There are three parties in the National Assembly: the Parti Québécoise, the Quebec Liberal Party, and the Coalition Avenir Quebec. The Liberals and the Coalition together voted down the PQ's motion.

Neither the Liberals nor the Coalition are parties of the anglophone minority. The Liberals traditionally draw support from anglophones and allophones, but the majority of their members are francophone. The Coalition's members are entirely francophone, going by their last names. In fact, the only MNA with a clearly anglophone name, Scott McKay, belongs to the PQ.

The current debate over the flag may be an indication of an ongoing shift in the federalist/sovereigntist debate generally in Quebec, as another article suggests: Hébert: Separatist PQ victory has produced unexpected boost for federalists. Hébert also takes the position that it is a debate amongst the majority community in Quebec about their role in Canada, with a shift in favour of federalism and away from sovereigntists.

Finally, it is significant that the Maple Leaf flag was adopted in the 1960s with the express intention of creating a national flag based solely on Canadian symbolism, replacing the old Red Ensign with the Union Flag in the canton. It was adopted in the Commons with overwhelming support from the Quebec MPs, from different parties. The main opposition to the new flag came from the Progressive Conservatives, which had primarily anglophone members, and were led by John Diefenbaker. Given that history, the Maple Leaf flag has been seen as a federalist symbol in Quebec, not a linguistic/ethnic symbol, as was the case with the Red Ensign.

[ruadh]

Originally Posted by LC Strawhouse

Fine, but my question remains, is there anything that would make Unionists actually prefer to live in a united Ireland instead of the UK?

No, there isn't, and that is precisely the point that I have been arguing. They simply don't want to live in a united Ireland.

I'm reading your argument as basically "it won't be as bad for them as it would have been 50 or 100 years ago."

I'm curious as to where you're reading in my argument that it would be bad for them at all, as Protestants.

These community votes on the flag, etc., seem to be validating the most hardline Unionists' position that the nationalist community is highly motivated to tear down all visible traces of the Unionist/Protestant community and throw up monuments to nationalist extremists every time they get a chance. Although it may be fair play and democratic under the GFA, maybe it's still not such a good road to follow?

Progress under a peace agreement can't be made contingent on the acceptance of the most extreme elements. There wouldn't be any progress if that was allowed... the hardliners would stop everything.

I meant that the UK has a different relationship to the EU... they are not in the euro currency or Schengen zone

Ireland is not in the Schengen zone either.

and are openly talking about leaving the EU completely these days.

The Tories are, but it's questionable whether the public would agree in a referendum. In any case, I can't say I've ever heard any unionist justify their position on the basis of Ireland's relationship with the EU.

I do agree that there are certain differences between Ireland and the UK that make the latter a more attractive country to live in - the NHS, for example, versus our free market primary care system - but their actual impact is probably felt more keenly among nationalists than unionists. In other words for nationalists these things may (and for some people I think they have) make a real difference in terms of whether or not a united Ireland is desirable. For unionists, at most they reinforce a view they already hold.

[ruadh]

Originally Posted by Northern Piper

I'm afraid I don't agree with your description of the political dynamic. There is no doubt that it is a debate about the place of Quebec in Canada, but it is a debate amongst the francophone majority, not a linguistic majority/minority split.

Fair enough, I was assuming that was the analogy LC was drawing. If not, the situations are even less analogous.

[LC Strawhouse]

Originally Posted by ruadh

No, there isn't, and that is precisely the point that I have been arguing. They simply don't want to live in a united Ireland.

So I'm curious what you think the final endgame of all this will (or should) be. Is NI heading for a Kosovo-like situation where it simply becomes an independent state? (If roughly half the people refuse to be British and the other half refuse to be Irish...) Will Protestants be pulled into a UI against their will? Or will NI stay in the UK but without any overt trappings of the UK?

Originally Posted by ruadh

I'm curious as to where you're reading in my argument that it would be bad for them at all, as Protestants.

I guess you're saying that there would be no problem, but it's a pretty big part of the unionist argument that the Catholic establishment created an unacceptable environment for the Protestant community and others in both overt and subtle ways, which makes them gunshy about a united-Ireland (the fact that there are almost no Prods left in ROI is thrown around a lot). I didn't make those things up, I heard them directly from NI expats and their families. Maybe it sounds like a bunch of Orange nonsense but it was a fairly convincing argument to me.

Originally Posted by ruadh

Ireland is not in the Schengen zone either.

Oops, sloppy of me. LOL

[An Gadaí]

Union flag protest planned for Dublin

Loyalist activist Willie Frazer has said he is organising a demonstration in Dublin next weekend as part of the ongoing protests over the union flag controversy.

Mr Frazer, who is based in Markethill, Co Armagh, said he expects 150 people to take part in a short protest at Leinster House at midday on Saturday, 12 January.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0104/bel...nion-flag.html

I don't know how any good can come from this. It's liable to raise hackles down here and it's completely irrelevant what anyone in Leinster House or in the Republic Of Ireland thinks about the Union flag. I don't see any purpose for such a protest other than to annoy people here.

[ruadh]

Originally Posted by LC Strawhouse

So I'm curious what you think the final endgame of all this will (or should) be. Is NI heading for a Kosovo-like situation where it simply becomes an independent state? (If roughly half the people refuse to be British and the other half refuse to be Irish...) Will Protestants be pulled into a UI against their will? Or will NI stay in the UK but without any overt trappings of the UK?

Under the GFA there will be no united Ireland until a majority in the Six Counties wants there to be. Interestingly, a few years ago when there were rumours that the census was going to show the Catholic population about to overtake the Protestant (it didn't), unionist leaders started moving the goalposts and claiming this would have to be a majority of "both" communities. But that's a moot point anyway, because I can't see a pro-UI majority any time in the near future. (I blame Fianna Fáil.)

I honestly can't predict what's going to happen. There are a lot of factors involved, like the amount of growth of the population that sees itself solely as "Northern Irish", whether Scotland becomes independent, and how much deeper EU integration gets (and whether the UK itself is involved in that). I don't think it's outside the realms of possibility that we could see a new form of "state" develop within the EU over the next couple generations, with a number of quasi-independent territories possibly including the Six Counties, Scotland, Catalunya and other places like that. But who knows.

it's a pretty big part of the unionist argument that the Catholic establishment created an unacceptable environment for the Protestant community and others in both overt and subtle ways, which makes them gunshy about a united-Ireland (the fact that there are almost no Prods left in ROI is thrown around a lot). I didn't make those things up, I heard them directly from NI expats and their families. Maybe it sounds like a bunch of Orange nonsense but it was a fairly convincing argument to me.

The problem with this argument is that the Protestant community in the Six Counties opposed a united (independent) Ireland long before that "Catholic establishment" did anything at all. Irish republicanism is actually traditionally non-sectarian; the leaders of the United Irishmen in 1798 were Protestants, as were many of those who fought in the Easter Rising and Anglo-Irish War (Markievicz, Childers, Casement for starters). It was genuinely a struggle for Irish independence and not for Catholic dominance, and yet northern Protestants by and large opposed it anyway. As I said, I'm sure some of the things that happened after independence didn't help, but they didn't create the opposition in the North.

It's also worth pointing out that the environment in which Catholicism could exert undue influence was created by partition. The post-1922 drop in the Protestant ratio from 7% to 3% is nothing compared to the drop that occurred when the counties with the largest Protestant populations were cut off from the state in the first place. Protestants accounted for roughly a quarter of the island's population at the time. How different might things have been if they hadn't insisted on their own "Protestant state for a Protestant people" (which was far more sectarian in practice than the state they were partitioned from)?

[ruadh]

Originally Posted by An Gadaí

I don't see any purpose for Willie Frazer other than to annoy people here.

Fixed that for you

[LC Strawhouse]

Originally Posted by ruadh

Under the GFA there will be no united Ireland until a majority in the Six Counties wants there to be. Interestingly, a few years ago when there were rumours that the census was going to show the Catholic population about to overtake the Protestant (it didn't), unionist leaders started moving the goalposts and claiming this would have to be a majority of "both" communities. But that's a moot point anyway, because I can't see a pro-UI majority any time in the near future. (I blame Fianna Fáil.)

I honestly can't predict what's going to happen. There are a lot of factors involved, like the amount of growth of the population that sees itself solely as "Northern Irish", whether Scotland becomes independent, and how much deeper EU integration gets (and whether the UK itself is involved in that). I don't think it's outside the realms of possibility that we could see a new form of "state" develop within the EU over the next couple generations, with a number of quasi-independent territories possibly including the Six Counties, Scotland, Catalunya and other places like that. But who knows.

It is interesting. It would be nice if the sectarian/political stuff fades to a dull roar because the NI people have much else in their cultures that is unique and worth preserving (whatever country that may be in)

Originally Posted by ruadh

The problem with this argument is that the Protestant community in the Six Counties opposed a united (independent) Ireland long before that "Catholic establishment" did anything at all. Irish republicanism is actually traditionally non-sectarian; the leaders of the United Irishmen in 1798 were Protestants, as were many of those who fought in the Easter Rising and Anglo-Irish War (Markievicz, Childers, Casement for starters). It was genuinely a struggle for Irish independence and not for Catholic dominance, and yet northern Protestants by and large opposed it anyway. As I said, I'm sure some of the things that happened after independence didn't help, but they didn't create the opposition in the North.

True, the sectarian issues would have been more fluid in those earlier times. But I think that would mainly be of academic interest to Protestants - by the 1800s, and definitely by 1916, the island had pretty irreversibly solidified into Catholic nationalists and Protestant loyalists (I'm aware there have been some exceptions, but "Home Rule is Rome Rule" was the slogan of the time.) Many Protestants do claim their families would have had no equal opportunity in the ROI today (or in recent years). On that point, I am reminded of the big drop in Quebec's Anglo/Protestant population over the 1970s - 1990s; it was presented as a French liberation movement at the time but looks a lot less noble (if not outrageously wrong) in retrospect.

Originally Posted by ruadh

It's also worth pointing out that the environment in which Catholicism could exert undue influence was created by partition. The post-1922 drop in the Protestant ratio from 7% to 3% is nothing compared to the drop that occurred when the counties with the largest Protestant populations were cut off from the state in the first place. Protestants accounted for roughly a quarter of the island's population at the time. How different might things have been if they hadn't insisted on their own "Protestant state for a Protestant people" (which was far more sectarian in practice than the state they were partitioned from)?

I get your point but come on, that is blaming the victim.

[An Gadaí]

Originally Posted by LC Strawhouse

Many Protestants do claim their families would have had no equal opportunity in the ROI today (or in recent years). On that point, I am reminded of the big drop in Quebec's Anglo/Protestant population over the 1970s - 1990s; it was presented as a French liberation movement at the time but looks a lot less noble (if not outrageously wrong) in retrospect.

I fairly refuted these notions in that other thread and it would be nice if you would acknowledge that. The Protestant % of the Republic indeed decreased over time but there were never any explicit policies against people of that religion and as that link I provided before indicated protestants were allowed privilege of a sort in southern Irish economic life.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by dropzone

So, this raises the question: In the flag of the Republic of Ireland the green represents the Catholics and the orange the Protestants, but does the white represent No Man's Land?

According to this, "The white in the centre signifies a lasting truce between the two cultures and a living together in peace." FWIW.

[BrainGlutton]

Ancient Irish joke:

"So, how are things in Ireland, Pat?"

"About the same as ever and always, Mike. The Catholics live in the South and the Protestants live in the North and they're at each other's throats as often as not. If only we were heathen so we could all live together like good Christians!"

[LC Strawhouse]

Originally Posted by An Gadaí

I fairly refuted these notions in that other thread and it would be nice if you would acknowledge that. The Protestant % of the Republic indeed decreased over time but there were never any explicit policies against people of that religion and as that link I provided before indicated protestants were allowed privilege of a sort in southern Irish economic life.

Sorry, I didn't mean to misrepresent it - you did indeed point out that the reality was was a lot more nuanced.

I just meant that there is still a perception among NI Protestants that the ROI is hostile territory for them compared to NI, Scotland, Canada, etc. I realize that the Protestant minority may have had it better than many ordinary Catholics, but even the CAIN paper paints a picture of de-facto paranoid isolation for that community, so their perception is not too surprising. Plus, there were the Ne Temere (mixed-marriage) laws which discriminated in favor of Catholics (albeit you mentioned earlier that the law was often ignored in private.)

[ruadh]

Originally Posted by LC Strawhouse

I get your point but come on, that is blaming the victim.

No, it isn't, because the people to blame for this situation are not the "victims" of partition (and even though you haven't shown any real way that southern Protestants were victimised by partition, certainly they never were in the way that Catholics were in the North, I understand what you're getting at here). Partition was desired by northern Protestants, not southern ones and in no way can the northern ones be described as "victims" of it.

It's a simple reality that what the Catholic population wanted, by and large, was an independent Ireland where there would be a significant Protestant minority. They didn't ask for one with a small Protestant minority; that was simply all they were allowed. The blame for Protestants becoming a tiny minority in the new state has to lie with those who insisted on keeping the largest Protestant-population areas out of it.

[LC Strawhouse]

Originally Posted by ruadh

No, it isn't, because the people to blame for this situation are not the "victims" of partition (and even though you haven't shown any real way that southern Protestants were victimised by partition, certainly they never were in the way that Catholics were in the North, I understand what you're getting at here). Partition was desired by northern Protestants, not southern ones and in no way can the northern ones be described as "victims" of it.

By "blaming the victim", I was specifically referring to your statement that "The post-1922 drop in the Protestant ratio from 7% to 3% is nothing compared to the drop that occurred when the counties with the largest Protestant populations were cut off from the state in the first place." You're presumably referring to the 1916-1922 period and that seemed like quite a sinister way to put it, though maybe that's not what you meant.

Originally Posted by ruadh

It's a simple reality that what the Catholic population wanted, by and large, was an independent Ireland where there would be a significant Protestant minority. They didn't ask for one with a small Protestant minority; that was simply all they were allowed. The blame for Protestants becoming a tiny minority in the new state has to lie with those who insisted on keeping the largest Protestant-population areas out of it.

I'd agree in theory, and if you or An Gadaí happened to be in public office that would surely contribute to improving the tone. But there were (and are) much more hardline elements out there too which make it difficult to criticize people's choices too much (especially that long ago). Even among some Irish Americans one can hear references to "invaders" and "West Brits", or even a dismissal that the other community exists ("Never heard of those people").

[ruadh]

Originally Posted by LC Strawhouse

By "blaming the victim", I was specifically referring to your statement that "The post-1922 drop in the Protestant ratio from 7% to 3% is nothing compared to the drop that occurred when the counties with the largest Protestant populations were cut off from the state in the first place." You're presumably referring to the 1916-1922 period

Yes. The point is that the reason Protestants are such a small minority in independent Ireland is, first and foremost, because northern Protestants didn't (and don't) want to be a part of independent Ireland. It's circular for them to now cite the small Protestant population as if that were the reason they don't want to be a part of independent Ireland.

Even among some Irish Americans one can hear references to "invaders" and "West Brits", or even a dismissal that the other community exists ("Never heard of those people").

See what I said about not listening too much to the diaspora. Those attitudes are extremely marginal in Ireland and have been for some time; they aren't part of the political discourse here in any real respect. (You do still hear "West Brits" but it's mainly directed at Dublin 4 anglophiles, who could be of any religion.)

[BrainGlutton]

So, is there any chance this situation will be resolved in our lifetimes, do you think?

[An Gadaí]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

So, is there any chance this situation will be resolved in our lifetimes, do you think?

Depends, are you immortal?

[An Gadaí]

Well, thankfully the flag protest in Dublin has been cancelled, or at least postponed.

http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Loy...186294152.html

[ruadh]

Originally Posted by An Gadaí

Well, thankfully the flag protest in Dublin has been cancelled, or at least postponed.

Yes, allegedly because of "security concerns". Personally I think it had more to do with Frazer & Co twigging that they would look silly coming down to demand the Tricolour be taken down from the Irish Parliament ... on a day when the Tricolour wouldn't be flying over the Irish Parliament (they don't fly it every day, either).

[An Gadaí]

Originally Posted by ruadh

Yes, allegedly because of "security concerns". Personally I think it had more to do with Frazer & Co twigging that they would look silly coming down to demand the Tricolour be taken down from the Irish Parliament ... on a day when the Tricolour wouldn't be flying over the Irish Parliament (they don't fly it every day, either).

Did seem like a bizarre move on the part of unionists as it seemed to be a tacit acknowledgment that the south has some say in the north's affairs.

[LC Strawhouse]

Originally Posted by An Gadaí

Did seem like a bizarre move on the part of unionists as it seemed to be a tacit acknowledgment that the south has some say in the north's affairs.

You did say in an earlier post that it's completely irrelevant what anyone in the south thinks of the flag, but here you imply that the south does have some say in the north's affairs, so what is the situation? Just curious.

And maybe this Dublin protest would serve a purpose to entice the West Brits in the south to come out and reveal themselves.

[An Gadaí]

Originally Posted by LC Strawhouse

You did say in an earlier post that it's completely irrelevant what anyone in the south thinks of the flag, but here you imply that the south does have some say in the north's affairs, so what is the situation? Just curious.

And maybe this Dublin protest would serve a purpose to entice the West Brits in the south to come out and reveal themselves.

It doesn't matter what we think. It's (for the foreseeable future) a different country that's why the proposed march would be so bizarre. As regards West Brits, just read the Sunday Independent. By the way, that term refers more to a stereotypical set of cultural precepts not really political ones. And insofar as they exist they look to England. Northern Ireland is irrelevant to most West Brits.

[Hrududu]

Originally Posted by LC Strawhouse

You did say in an earlier post that it's completely irrelevant what anyone in the south thinks of the flag, but here you imply that the south does have some say in the north's affairs, so what is the situation? Just curious.

And maybe this Dublin protest would serve a purpose to entice the West Brits in the south to come out and reveal themselves.

The south does not have a say in the north's affairs. Frazer initially claimed that the protest was a tit for tat thing. If they had to take down the union flag then we had to take down the tricolour. Which makes no sense, but then this is Willie Frazer. The man that branded a primary school a breeding ground for the IRA because he mistook an Italian flag being flown during cultural week for an Irish one.

When he discovered that the flag would not be up on the day of the march he then changed tack and said it was a 'sarcastic' protest. This then changed again to be a protest against the guards as he suspects them of colluding with the IRA. The goalposts are continually shifting with him.

But when you get down to it the real reason for the protest is because he believes it will cause the same yahoos that rioted at the Love Ulster march to do so again. Then he can point the finger and say 'see they're worse than us.'

And so on and so forth, everyone is completely sick and tired of it.

You're referral to West Brits is a bit confusing. 'West Brit' is a term normally leveled at people from posher areas of Dublin. If you don't LOVE the GAA. If you don't want to speak Irish. If you like Rugby. These are all things that might earn you the title. Its not a religion thing.

[ruadh]

Originally Posted by Hrududu

The south does not have a say in the north's affairs. Frazer initially claimed that the protest was a tit for tat thing. If they had to take down the union flag then we had to take down the tricolour.

The South doesn't have a "say" in the North's affairs, in the sense of exercising any control over the North, but you might say it's officially an Interested Party under the GFA. Frazer seems to think it goes further than that though. On one occasion when he was interviewed for the news here he asked who (in the South) had the right to go to Belfast to tell them not to fly their flag - as if the decision had been made in Dublin rather than Belfast City Hall.

[LC Strawhouse]

Originally Posted by Hrududu

You're referral to West Brits is a bit confusing. 'West Brit' is a term normally leveled at people from posher areas of Dublin. If you don't LOVE the GAA. If you don't want to speak Irish. If you like Rugby. These are all things that might earn you the title. Its not a religion thing.

Yes, from listening to my Irish American coworkers, I did get the feeling that it was mostly a class thing where West Brit = posh. I also got the message that (in the ROI) not all West Brits are Protestant, but all Protestants are West Brits. (Funny how I keep bumping into the NI conflict, I used to socialize with Orangemen and these days more with Irish-American republicans)

[An Gadaí]

Originally Posted by LC Strawhouse

Yes, from listening to my Irish American coworkers, I did get the feeling that it was mostly a class thing where West Brit = posh. I also got the message that (in the ROI) not all West Brits are Protestant, but all Protestants are West Brits. (Funny how I keep bumping into the NI conflict, I used to socialize with Orangemen and these days more with Irish-American republicans)

Highlighted part of your quoted text is incorrect, not all Protestants in the Republic Of Ireland are West Brits. I'm not even sure if you could say a majority are. Of my Protestant friends and acquaintances in the Republic Of Ireland, I'd say one conforms to that stereotype absolutely, hailing from South Dublin, posh as can be and with a healthy disdain for Gaelic Football, the Irish language etc. The rest of them not so much, in fact one is a fairly fervent republican. The only reason I know most of them are Protestant is because they told me, otherwise I would have had to throw holy water over them to check.

[An Gadaí]

Interesting article on the views of young loyalists: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/ja...oung-loyalists

[ruadh]

Originally Posted by An Gadaí

Interesting article on the views of young loyalists: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/ja...oung-loyalists

Thanks for that. Note how British identity, "Britishness" appears in quote after quote.

[BrainGlutton]

Rent-or-download The Commitments. The ending will tell you all you need to know about Irish history.

[An Gadaí]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

Rent-or-download The Commitments. The ending will tell you all you need to know about Irish history.

BrainGlutton, with all due respect, what has your post go to do with the rest of this thread?

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by An Gadaí

BrainGlutton, with all due respect, what has your post go to do with the rest of this thread?

Everything.