God Save our Queen

[London Calling]

can you explain how ?

Isn't it a poplulation growth thing? That by some future point in time, there will be more voting Catholics than protestants and the theory goes, they will in a referendum, vote for an United Ireland.

 

[Simster]

can you explain how ?

A combination of the the fact that the British taxpayer will get pissed off with subsidising the place, the population explosion is all happening on the Catholic side meaning the Proddy majority will be removed in 80 years anyway, plus the fact that the rest of Ireland probably wants "their" land back.

By which I mean, a quarter of the island is in the hands of a slender majority as things currently stand, whereas 3 quarters of the Ireland is in the hands of a massive Catholic majority.

 

[Brovion]

I've avoided this binfest too as it's just going the way of all the others, but I do think (unless I've misuderstood) that bushy and Spanish have a point. If you were to play a Word Association game with the majority of people in mainland Britain and said the word 'Republicanism' I'm sure for a lot of people the answer would be 'Terrorists' (or something of that ilk). Obviously republicanism per se is nothing to do with terrorism, but the images of the 1970s and the actions of 'Republican terrorists' have formed a deep impression.

(Likewise I'm sure there are large areas of Iraq and Afghanistan where if you say the word 'British' the answer is 'Murdering bastards')

Anyway, that'll be my only contribution. Carry on.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

If you were to play a Word Association game with the majority of people in mainland Britain and said the word 'Republicanism' I'm sure for a lot of people the answer would be 'Terrorists' (or something of that ilk).

Maybe. But if I was playing Word Association and someone said "windscreen-wipers" I'd say "Tits".

 

[The Spanish]

Quite right - I meant British of course. mea culpa

But I notice that you avoided the main point I made: that the UDA had no reason to bomb the British mainland so, of course, they're going be perceived as "less bad" than the IRA. You'd get a different point of view in the streets of Dublin.

And I think that you're wrong about the perception as well. I agree that that was probably the case in the early stage of the troubles; I remember the anti-Irish hysteria at the time of the Guildford and Birmingham bombings - but that had gone by the 80s. There were plenty of opinion polls that showed that the English (and this time that is the right word) generally thought " a plague on both your houses"

yeah fair enough, although the 'perception' is impossible to guage in reality. That is why I use, some, many etc. Opnions on it differ(ed) from complete indifference to rabid anti-Irish sentiment in the real world, and all points in between.

 

[Storer68]

Do you really want the head of the army to be running the country?

Not me. and that is why i will always support the Monarchy over a president.

As head of state, the British monarch, Queen Elizabeth II, is nominally the Head of the UK's Armed Forces.[2] Longstanding constitutional convention, however, has vested de facto executive authority in the office of Prime Minister and the Cabinet.[3] The Queen remains the "ultimate authority" of the military and retains the power to prevent its unconstitutional use

The current Commander-in-Chief of the Canadian Forces (in French: commandant en chef des Forces canadiennes) is HM Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada. The powers of this position are vested in the Canadian sovereign and are delegated to the Governor General of Canada. Though its authority is vested in the monarch (represented by the Governor General), Government ministers may sometimes exercise its powers. However, ultimately, it the monarch who has constitutional power over the Armed Forces and it is in the monarch's name it is exercised. The Sovereign can also stop any attempts to use the Armed Forces unconstitutionally.

Section 68 of the Australian Constitution says: "The command in chief of the naval and military forces of the Commonwealth is vested in the Governor-General as the Queen's representative." In practice, however, the Governor-General does not play any part in the ADF's command structure and the ADF is under the control of the Minister for Defence and several subordinate ministers. The Minister advises the Governor-General who acts as advised in the normal form of executive government

 

[Stoo82]

As head of state, the British monarch, Queen Elizabeth II, is nominally the Head of the UK's Armed Forces.[2] Longstanding constitutional convention, however, has vested de facto executive authority in the office of Prime Minister and the Cabinet.[3] The Queen remains the "ultimate authority" of the military and retains the power to prevent its unconstitutional use

The current Commander-in-Chief of the Canadian Forces (in French: commandant en chef des Forces canadiennes) is HM Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada. The powers of this position are vested in the Canadian sovereign and are delegated to the Governor General of Canada. Though its authority is vested in the monarch (represented by the Governor General), Government ministers may sometimes exercise its powers. However, ultimately, it the monarch who has constitutional power over the Armed Forces and it is in the monarch's name it is exercised. The Sovereign can also stop any attempts to use the Armed Forces unconstitutionally.

Section 68 of the Australian Constitution says: "The command in chief of the naval and military forces of the Commonwealth is vested in the Governor-General as the Queen's representative." In practice, however, the Governor-General does not play any part in the ADF's command structure and the ADF is under the control of the Minister for Defence and several subordinate ministers. The Minister advises the Governor-General who acts as advised in the normal form of executive government

I know. Whats your point?

What i ment was that, the head of the arrmy should never be the head of the Government.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Of course 10 years ago, we were booking tickets to the

Enlightened Socialist Republic of Cuba.

Trains, planes, Samba, cigars and chica's.

We were, god. Doesnt time fly. I still have nightmares about that bi-plane taking us over the top of that mountain into Baracoa. And then that other Russian dump of a plane swerving off the runway in Santiago.

 

[Cian]

LB stated that on the basis of spanish's statement , just as many british people would find unionism sinister, i enquired why, as the unionists hadnt exploded any f***ing bombs , killing countless innocent people, with me so far ?

Extremely selective memory you've got there. Dublin, Monaghan, Lifford, Dundalk, Castleblayney as well as countless places in the North.

 

[Rougvie]

Its threads like these on almost every other fans forum that give the bigoted old firm a reason to exist.

Yawn, not really much to see here that hasnt been said over and over and over again

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Isn't it a poplulation growth thing? That by some future point in time, there will be more voting Catholics than protestants and the theory goes, they will in a referendum, vote for an United Ireland.

If they manage to draw the boundaries carefully, I'm sure they can hang on to a unionist enclave for a few more generations.

After all, it worked last time.


There are already more Catholics than Protestants in Ulster. It's just that no-one will allow the people of Cavan, Donegal and Monaghan to vote in any referendum on the matter.

 

[looney]

Isn't it a poplulation growth thing? That by some future point in time, there will be more voting Catholics than protestants and the theory goes, they will in a referendum, vote for an United Ireland.

The problem with this theory is that catholic birthrates are in decline across europe and i remember an article in the economist stating that the rates in ulster were going to converge on trend in 10 to 20 years.

Partly this is modernisation and the decline of theocratic rule and the relative rise in affluence. a greater effect would be mass immigration that would maintain the UK connection, as well as pre-troubles a third of Ulster Catholics supporting the Union.


If you look at lebanon this is technically a majority Christian Country, accept just over a million of the population are overseas since the civil war. 90% Christian, they(overseas residents) are also not allowed to vote.

Immigration is seen as a critical issue since the syrian occupation government rushed through 800,000 citizenships. Something that is hard to get because of the sensativity of population demographics. Because they were shia you have weird electral aliances of drews and Sunni versus Shia and Marionite Christian.

Althought the Marionites make up about 80% of Christians they are having second thoughts about alliances with Hizbollah etc. Neither of those 2 faiths is in the majority, the rest about 15% is made up of jews and various other sects.

Hope this shows that trying to extrapolate crude birthrates 80 years into the future is a pointless exercise.

 

[London Calling]

The problem with this theory is that catholic birthrates are in decline across europe and i remember an article in the economist stating that the rates in ulster were going to converge on trend in 10 to 20 years.

Partly this is modernisation and the decline of theocratic rule and the relative rise in affluence. a greater effect would be mass immigration that would maintain the UK connection, as well as pre-troubles a third of Ulster Catholics supporting the Union.


If you look at lebanon this is technically a majority Christian Country, accept just over a million of the population are overseas since the civil war. 90% Christian, they(overseas residents) are also not allowed to vote.

Immigration is seen as a critical issue since the syrian occupation government rushed through 800,000 citizenships. Something that is hard to get because of the sensativity of population demographics. Because they were shia you have weird electral aliances of drews and Sunni versus Shia and Marionite Christian.

Althought the Marionites make up about 80% of Christians they are having second thoughts about alliances with Hizbollah etc. Neither of those 2 faiths is in the majority, the rest about 15% is made up of jews and various other sects.

Hope this shows that trying to extrapolate crude birthrates 80 years into the future is a pointless exercise.

especially the Drews

 

[London Calling]

We were, god. Doesnt time fly. I still have nightmares about that bi-plane taking us over the top of that mountain into Baracoa. And then that other Russian dump of a plane swerving off the runway in Santiago.

But driving the train?

The cars,
The Political rally ,
that place we stayed in Santiago,
That last night out in Santiago,
That concert in Havana,

It was one hell of a republican activity holiday

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

But driving the train?

The cars,
The Political rally ,
that place we stayed in Santiago,
That last night out in Santiago,
That concert in Havana,

It was one hell of a republican activity holiday

F**k yeah, I got to drive the Santa Clara-Santiago express. Forgot that one. That's the stuff dreams are made of.

And the speech we had read out at the Elian demo. I also recall an underground anti-Castro rap gig we went to....and the Casa Particular chap got a bit wary and left.

 

[Southover Street Seagull]

i know that they planted bombs in crossmaglen around 1970(pity it wasnt nuclear and didnt raze the festering shithole from the face of the earth) and dublin around 1974, but other than that i dont think so, i'm ready to be corrected though, my point is that unionists didnt bomb us, "republicans" did, but obviously not the majority of peace loving, law abiding, pink fluffy ones.

When you say us do you mean British in Great Britain, English in Great Britain or British in the UK?

 

[Tom Bombadil]

The problem with this theory is that catholic birthrates are in decline across europe and i remember an article in the economist stating that the rates in ulster were going to converge on trend in 10 to 20 years.

Partly this is modernisation and the decline of theocratic rule and the relative rise in affluence. a greater effect would be mass immigration that would maintain the UK connection, as well as pre-troubles a third of Ulster Catholics supporting the Union.


If you look at lebanon this is technically a majority Christian Country, accept just over a million of the population are overseas since the civil war. 90% Christian, they(overseas residents) are also not allowed to vote.

Immigration is seen as a critical issue since the syrian occupation government rushed through 800,000 citizenships. Something that is hard to get because of the sensativity of population demographics. Because they were shia you have weird electral aliances of drews and Sunni versus Shia and Marionite Christian.

Althought the Marionites make up about 80% of Christians they are having second thoughts about alliances with Hizbollah etc. Neither of those 2 faiths is in the majority, the rest about 15% is made up of jews and various other sects.

Hope this shows that trying to extrapolate crude birthrates 80 years into the future is a pointless exercise.

I'm going to quote this back to you next time you start on about Muslims taking over Europe

 

[User removed 4]

The demographics are in the Republicans favour. Staying within the UK is only tenable whilst the majority of the population are Unionist. Once the Republicans have a democratic majority then the government in Westminster will happily hand over the whole problem to Dublin.

so how the f*** is that a "historical" inevetability ?

 

[User removed 4]

When you say us do you mean British in Great Britain, English in Great Britain or British in the UK?

british in great britain.

 

[Tom Bombadil]

so how the f*** is that a "historical" inevetability ?

Perhaps one or the other posters has explained it in words short enough for you to understand?