kneecap wrote:

Tl;dr if you from NI you get to be Irish, British or both and neither govt is supposed to get a say in denying you this.

Yeah. I seems to have over simplified this. There's quite a row about it on local radio this morning. The problem appears to be the legislature and its incompatibility with the concept of some things in the GFI it seems.

Drawing lines on a map eh?

 

kneecap wrote:

Regrading Unification. If you don't think Ireland would vote in favour... You seriously misunderestimate the general feeling here especially in young people. After the legalisation of abortion, the slogan was "the north is next" (tonight to legalise abortion, not like an anexation campaign) Regarding The republic "taking over NI" Not the words I'd use but the comparison is Germany reuniting. Modern Germany is the successor state of West Germany not East Germany. A United Ireland is the successor state to Ireland. For example there will not be a question of EU membership. It continues, as Germany's did. Regarding communities, I never suggested revenge or any such thing, no one desires that, simply that in a transition period reaching out to both communities, we should not compromise the open and tolerant nature of our modern country to appease a tiny minority (on either side) of dreadful people. Sectarian Marching and bonfires (on both sides!) are disgusting and shouldn't be allowed. They're literal displays of racism. The 12th could be rescued if the antagonistic nature is removed and turned into historical celebration in the city centre. Columbus it. Fund lambeg drum workshops and Ulster Scots poets. Whatever. But not the bullshit that's been left to fester, it has no place in a modern country. The real way to move past all that is just to get an economy that works. There's no reason Belfast couldnt be a second Dublin in a UI, it would help stop the self sabotage that's going on now with awful rent situation, Multinationals could set up there instead and have the same benefits but be cheaper for the workers to live in. And also there'd finally be a train to Donegal. I heard it's pretty. So that's a plus.

You have good points; particularly about the young vote.

There's a lot of pluses to Irish Unity. I'm a unionist but I feel Irish. I don't feel British simply because I don't live in Britain. I live in the UK. Which is the United Kingdom of GB and NI.

I'm not sure any nationalist party, moderate or otherwise, reaches out to me or describes to me what it would look like. 

Sinn Fein is all about victim politics and nothing about what a united Ireland could be on the global stage. The way they weaponised the Irish language which was just a big a part of the Protestant culture until recent times made it a toxic issue.

 Irish Unity to me is something I'm wary of. I am wary of economic changes  and as much as I shouldn't kow-tow to threats, I don't want my kids to grow up in the mess I did. And there is a chance of a hard core loyalist body becoming active.

There are horrific behaviours being tolerated here in the North. I myself am affected by them - and no-one has the balls here to deal with them. Unity will have to deal with them if we are to join the 21C. And that won't be pretty. Maybe it would be better with a unified government dealing with them.

I'm for a change and some pain but I'd want to be confident that medium to long term it would be for the good. I don't see that at the minute.

If I thought hardline loyalism was going to be faced down then that would be a big mark in the plus column. But it's also wrapped up in organised crime and the Dublin mob and the terrorists here would end up having a rumble.

A lot of Northern Nationalists need to start portraying themselves as modern Irishmen and not be defined by their opposition to the English.

A lot of Northern Unionists need to be able to state they Irish if they do. And start voting moderate in bigger numbers and not be afraid of Sinn Fein.

Moderate unionists have no voice now (neither to moderate nationalists for that matter). If a unionist party were to somehow appeal to a catholic vote block then it would probably delay any unification and/or ease the transition but that ain't there. Nor do I think it ever will. Many unionists do face the fact of unity but none dare mention it.

Did I read something recently about meat being grown in space?

The old "but what do they want? They're not putting forward any concrete, viable solutions!" was also levied against the Occupy Wall Street protests. 

I'm all for people protesting for what they want. The world not ending seems like a good thing to want. More power to them.

djchump wrote:

The old "but what do they want? They're not putting forward any concrete, viable solutions!" was also levied against the Occupy Wall Street protests.  I'm all for people protesting for what they want. The world not ending seems like a good thing to want. More power to them.

 

I may not have been clear - I've no problem with protest - my problem is disruption protests.  Throwing blood onto public buildings doesn't wash (ahem) with me as a protest. Although the same problem was kinda there with occupy wallstreet - and 7-8 years on, did they achieve much actual change. 

Diluted Dante wrote:

Its not Extinction Rebellions job to put forward a plan. Its the Governments job. They do have a concrete goal. Reduce atmospheric CO2 to a level that prevents catostrophic climate change.

 

As I said, that was the Brexit winners response. I don't think they should have all the solutions, but I do think they should have a large list of well-thought out suggestions. This will help their argument. It's easier to dismiss a broad issue than specific, well thought out arguments. Saying they want CO2 Levels down is too broad (and actually may be beyond the scale of what the UK can achieve given its size) but if there are specifics, those can be achieved. At the moment its not even broad strokes, its fucking a can of paint at a wall.

Also this quote from Roger Hallam indicates that knowing some of the problems solutions was what made them different

Unlike many of the spontaneous social media-fuelled rebelliosn and uprisings in recent years, Extinction rebellion has been carefully planned. For several years, a group of academics and activists have been working on two main questions: "Why have we failed to stop climate change? And the how the hell are we going to stop it?"

Yossarian wrote:

if you wont to influence things on the scale needed, you really need to either have a political party fully backing it

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/apr/23/labour-extinction-rebellion-climate-change Aim achieved.

[font=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif] [/font]

Ok, fair point. And I'm proven wrong so fair balls. Although, worth pointing out, that is 5 months ago. There is no call on Extinction rebellions to vote labour at every opportunity as they are the government that is needed. So the protest to get politicians to listen achieves the result but then not built on it and instead we are back to protest. Why? You now have the second biggest party backing you. Focus on getting them into power. Tell all your supporters that these are the guys - don't fucking vote for anyone else. This kind of thing is why I feel it is protest for protest sake. 

But look, I certainly wont argue with the overall message or their motives. I've been involved in protests myself. I just don't think this is a particularly good one but I hope I'm wrong and they help bring about the change needed.

They’ve got the second biggest party to start backing them, why not push for the first and third biggest as well so that these desperately-needed changes don’t become victims to electoral cycles?

Relying on getting a chosen party into power is an exercise in futility, there are too many other factors playing into people’s votes, and even then you have the very real chance of making modest gains for four or five years only for there to be a recession, a change in government, and those modest gains are immediately undone. It’s exactly what’s been happening for decades now and we’re still staring down the barrel of a climate catastrophe.

This won’t be solved by voting, suggesting that people focus on that might as well be suggesting that they give up.

RedDave2 wrote:

There is no call on Extinction rebellions to vote labour at every opportunity as they are the government that is needed. So the protest to get politicians to listen achieves the result but then not built on it and instead we are back to protest. Why? You now have the second biggest party backing you. Focus on getting them into power. Tell all your supporters that these are the guys - don't fucking vote for anyone else. This kind of thing is why I feel it is protest for protest sake.

How is backing a personality cult built around an inept and duplicitous leader an answer to anything?

Extinction Rebellion is a worldwide movement that extends far beyond the shores of this country, so making it a national issue seems a bit reductionist.

Brooks wrote:

monkey wrote:

You're not going to berate grown men into giving up their bacon sarnies on the say so of some holier-than-thou snot nose bitch who's still taking her A-levels.

Sounds like most grown men are pricks.

Maybe. Stupid too. You’ve still got to convince them to do something they don’t want to do.

Or you need to convince more people to vote for the political entity that's going to impose legislation that discourages people being real dumb, and outnumber the dumbos. Worked for cigs.

Probably more like drunk driving that's been successfully reduced down to proper pariah behaviour. But there's a very direct link there (as with smoking) and very personal legal consequences if you fuck up. Kill someone when drunk, you go to jail. Leave your car running at a traffic light, then maybe, 10 years from now, this happens according to some model you don't understand, told to you by a guy on tv you can't stand, and even if you turn your engine off, it's going to happen anyway. 

Neither is a very good comparison though because they're so narrow compared to climate change which needs everything to change. Top-down and bottom-up.  

But whatever. Many minds needs to be changed. Government can set the narrative but unfortunately there's too many votes in reflecting back people's prejudices.

Best thing Corbyn could do is get out of the fucking way.

RedDave2 wrote:

Yossarian wrote:

They’ve got the second biggest party to start backing them, why not push for the first and third biggest as well so that these desperately-needed changes don’t become victims to electoral cycles? Relying on getting a chosen party into power is an exercise in futility, there are too many other factors playing into people’s votes, and even then you have the very real chance of making modest gains for four or five years only for there to be a recession, a change in government, and those modest gains are immediately undone. It’s exactly what’s been happening for decades now and we’re still staring down the barrel of a climate catastrophe. This won’t be solved by voting, suggesting that people focus on that might as well be suggesting that they give up.

 

I'm assuming then you think these protests will succeed in forcing the current tory government to change their current plan.

Maybe, maybe not, but everything else has failed to get them to change their plan and we’re facing an existential crisis.

So why cant XR explain where they think the tory government need to change their plan. Why not demand a public audience with the main players in that government where their proposals can be put forward? 

Do you really think that environmental groups haven’t been doing this for decades? It hasn’t worked, it’s not going to work. Politicians pay lip service to change then go back to supporting policies that benefit industry. Mobilising mass public support is one of the few things that hasn’t been tried.

You’re sitting here saying why don’t these people continue doing X which they have been doing and which has failed. Continuing to do it is a waste of time.

Whats going to be the big change after these protests, in a mid to best case scenario?

The continuation of life on Earth.

You're not red at all!

All of the science is telling us that we aren’t doing enough, that these changes aren’t coming fast enough, that if we continue at the rate we’re going we will end up crossing the tipping point that makes this planet uninhabitable.

Yes, we need to do more. Politicians are scared to do more because of the effect it will have on people’s lives. Convincing the politicians that there is a real appetite for change is probably the most effective thing that can be done in this situation.

Everything else has been tried, everything else has failed. There is no other approach left.

Presumably anyone who agrees that combatting climate change is urgent, but disagrees with the approach of XR, is heavily involved in some kind of alternative programme to create change. So it would be good to know what that is.

Yossarian wrote:

Everything else has been tried, everything else has failed. There is no other approach left.

 

Well, ok then. Cant argue if that's how you feel.

monkey wrote:

Of course it’s easy to criticise the only people doing much. If you want the movement to be more moderate and representative then join in.

 

Yeah, that's quite true. On my own part, I try to have our restaurant follow as many eco friendly procedures as possible but there is always more. (I will say, a great help to push business to change is to get staff on side - its been a big help from my experience) but it is, of course, easy to criticise instead of getting involved. I realise I'm guilty of the same issue I have with the XR.

Yossarian wrote:

While it’s good that you’re doing that, those types of small scale changes will never be enough to deal with the problem. It needs action from governments.

And I'm sure they will get right on that if people stop blocking roads.