Some years ago I was in a pub in Belfast. The craic was mighty. I was the only (nominal) Catholic in a group of 12 Protestants. I commented that the pub was so fantastic, it reminded me of the Horseshow House in Ballsbridge, Dublin, before a big International Rugby Match. A Protestant on my right agreed with me saying "True for ye my man. We have a lot more in common with you fellas down South than we have with "that shower of shit across the water"!!! "Mind you" he said "that is not necessarily a plea for a change in the present Constitutional arrangements"!!
Absolutely Brilliant Leading From the Front Lads keep up This Good Work A Noble Project Equality For All Backgrounds of the People of Ireland The Irish People In England and Everywhere Else in the World 🌎
Brilliant honest and rounded interview. Calm pragmatism from both men. One question though! Why are we limited to only the binary options of "Status Quo" or a "United Republic of Ireland"? Why are we not considering other innovative and more stable options such as a "Union of Ireland" between an independent self governing NI and ROI, with perhaps even ROI joining the commonwealth, and NI retaining Charles III as official head of state. Such a union of Ireland being in the EU brings all the economic benefits of access to the single market for goods, services and labour. The idea of a referendum with 50%+1 vote bringing NI into ROI seems ridiculously dangerous and likely to fail. You cannot coerce 1m people into unity. Until a large majority of northern unionists feel safe, comfortable and welcome with their British identity in ROI, unity could possibly risk a Balkin level of tragic catastrophe. Yes you can call that a unionist veto, but winning hearts and mind to the idea of total reconciliation and a union of peoples rather than a mere union of territory, we'd just be blowing hard into the wind. The past is the past, respect it but not be imprisoned by it. Virtually all that unionists once feared and disliked about ROI no longer exists nor applies. Likewise what stirred nationalists in the 1960s about former injustices in NI no longer exist nor apply post GFA. We can but pray for rational thinking women and men of God to help NI into a new future whatever constitutional form that takes. Only a union of peoples can heal and reconcile. Look at Rugby and Cricket, where together Ireland lead the world. Thank God the bad old days are gone, and the young people will never tolerate their return. The current 'peace process' post GFA may be an imperfect peace, but its a peace and has brought prosperity and for the first time in many years joy to all people who live and work in NI. I am optimistic about the future, cautions about a few bumps along the way, and confident the brexit pothole can safely be negotiated along the journey. Well done both of those contributors.
@@tomtomftube Yes, Different times. It now seems about a 'true end game reconciliation' rather keeping a ledger of past wrongs. We need to move on. It's not about winning, is about going forward in prosperity and quality of life. GFA has eliminated most of the 'after partition' ills. Forward.
Very broad minded perspective by Mr Thompson. Key takeaway is to understand and respect each other. I prefer his use of language as it is more diplomatic. New Ireland instead of United Ireland as the latter has historical competitive connotations. A true republic respects and values the freedom of all its citizens to hold and express their beliefs. Mr Thompsons phrase a 'New Ireland' suggests a new framework, blueprint, constitution, anthem and flag that represents all Irish citizens and that holds no historical baggage for anyone. It would be better to take the time it needs to achieve this rather than rush something that creates future conflict.
I completely appreciate the tone and pragmatism. It pains me to introduce what is probably a sour note. I found the statement that armed struggle was unnecessary profoundly insulting. The decision to resist oppression by taking up arms against it is human and universal. It would be better for Unionists to accept their responsibility for the continuation of violence between neighbors on this island after 1921. I might on a good day acknowledge some joint responsibility but today isn't that day. When we move forward the topic of the necessity for violence will come up. I'll point out that Dr. Paisley compromised with Sinn Fein and not with the SDLP and leave it at that.
Utter nonsense. There was never any justification for Republican violence. This is not to say that Irish Catholics in the North did not have legitimate grievances but the question is whether nationalists had recourse to both political dialogue and the law and whether those political and legal avenues were exhausted. There were such avenues and they were not exhausted which is why the IRA are most clearly a terrorist organisation. The Irish community had the right to political assembly and to political representation. If Sinn Fein MPs had engaged in the UK political process, in the same way Unionist MPs have managed to hold political sway with governments with no overall majority, then much could have been achieved. Even Sinn Fein MPs being able to articulate Catholics' grievances in the Commons or lobby ministers could have made a huge difference. Then there is recourse to the law of the land. Britain has an independent judiciary and indeed a free press. At the time the Troubles started, UK anti discrimination laws were being introduced starting with the Race relations act of 1971 which tackled discrimination based on race, nationality, or ethnic origin. Had nationalist communities contributed monies to hiring some hot shot barristers rather than supplying arms then again more could have been achieved. The irony is that the very survival of the IRA hinged on operating within a free democracy with a free press and independent judiciary. The fact that Britain treated IRA operatives as common criminals was the IRA's very salvation. It is hard to imagine an organisation like the IRA surviving very long in China or Sadam's Iraq where its representatives including Adams and McGuinness could have their say on the telly every other night. The IRA were not looking to improve housing or job opportunities for Catholics. They were looking to force political change through terror. They wanted a united Ireland ruled from Dublin and they assumed Britain would grow weary and throw in the towel. That was never going to happen. All the IRA has achieved is to make unification a virtual impossibility within a generation or two despite the rather naive expectation that it might. And even assuming independence were to happen those Loyalists who will now never accept leaving the union would wreak havoc and Dublin would be hopelessly out of its depth and unable to cope.
@Kaiserbill99 That's a perspective I don't share with you. Armed struggle was the only sensible response to widespread and government sanctioned violence against the entire Nationalist community. I am so proud of my fellow countrymen for standing up for their rights and their freedom. You should be too. Wearing an Easter Lilly would be a nice gesture. I recommend it to you. Churchill decided to fight, Quisling didn't. McGuinness decided to fight. Would you demand an appology from Churchill? Why would you demand one from Gerry Adams? A great hero for freedom and for peace. A far better person then Churchill in my opinion.
@@iano239 Your comparison of Quisling and Churchill and then to McGuinness is so far of the mark it is offensive to reasonable minded people. Quisling was a fascist before Hitler came to prominence and he was a collaborator with no motivation to fight so I am not sure how he belongs in a comparison to a patriot like Churchill. Petain would have been a better comparison. There is a big difference between fighting a Nazi regime intent on butchering Eastern Europe and wiping a religious group off the planet and the Irish Troubles. Churchill was fighting for Western civilisation whilst McGuinness and co were fighting one of the world's greatest democracy because our Johnny did not get that council house or that job or was stopped at that roadblock. McGuinness and Adams had the right to political assembly and to stand for parliament on the premise of breaking up the very nation that parliament represented. And both lived to tell the tale. That freedom would not be afforded under Nazi tyranny. Perhaps you need to take your head out of your backside and remove that chip on the shoulder that is preventing you from thinking rationally.
@@kieransavage100 Did someone give you a hand with that comment or did you manage it all by yourself? Even used a comma for decoration even though you did not really need it.
The Presbyterians are more likely the problem. The Church of Ireland, North or South, is a different thing; much more tolerant and enlightened. Back in the day the Protestants that were fanatically Protestant were known as ‘Black Protestants’ to distinguish them from more mainline and tolerant Protestants such as Anglicans or Church of Ireland Protestants. The Scots-Irish are different as well they were the ancestors of Andrew Jackson, American President who massacred Native Americans.
In addition Thomas Jefferson had a vey jaundiced view of the Scots-Irish and their ancestors in Scotland. He described them in hard terms and even referred to them as savages.
Well Done to all concerned.
Some years ago I was in a pub in Belfast. The craic was mighty. I was the only (nominal) Catholic in a group of 12 Protestants. I commented that the pub was so fantastic, it reminded me of the Horseshow House in Ballsbridge, Dublin, before a big International Rugby Match. A Protestant on my right agreed with me saying "True for ye my man. We have a lot more in common with you fellas down South than we have with "that shower of shit across the water"!!! "Mind you" he said "that is not necessarily a plea for a change in the present Constitutional arrangements"!!
This gentleman approaches the various subjects with humility and thoughtfulness. If only all of us on both sides could be so humble and honest.
Let’s keep talking…. There is hope❤
Absolutely Brilliant Leading From the Front Lads keep up This Good Work A Noble Project Equality For All Backgrounds of the People of Ireland The Irish People In England and Everywhere Else in the World 🌎
Fascinating interview, very enjoyable and thought provoking.
Brilliant honest and rounded interview. Calm pragmatism from both men. One question though! Why are we limited to only the binary options of "Status Quo" or a "United Republic of Ireland"? Why are we not considering other innovative and more stable options such as a "Union of Ireland" between an independent self governing NI and ROI, with perhaps even ROI joining the commonwealth, and NI retaining Charles III as official head of state. Such a union of Ireland being in the EU brings all the economic benefits of access to the single market for goods, services and labour. The idea of a referendum with 50%+1 vote bringing NI into ROI seems ridiculously dangerous and likely to fail. You cannot coerce 1m people into unity. Until a large majority of northern unionists feel safe, comfortable and welcome with their British identity in ROI, unity could possibly risk a Balkin level of tragic catastrophe. Yes you can call that a unionist veto, but winning hearts and mind to the idea of total reconciliation and a union of peoples rather than a mere union of territory, we'd just be blowing hard into the wind. The past is the past, respect it but not be imprisoned by it. Virtually all that unionists once feared and disliked about ROI no longer exists nor applies. Likewise what stirred nationalists in the 1960s about former injustices in NI no longer exist nor apply post GFA. We can but pray for rational thinking women and men of God to help NI into a new future whatever constitutional form that takes. Only a union of peoples can heal and reconcile. Look at Rugby and Cricket, where together Ireland lead the world. Thank God the bad old days are gone, and the young people will never tolerate their return. The current 'peace process' post GFA may be an imperfect peace, but its a peace and has brought prosperity and for the first time in many years joy to all people who live and work in NI. I am optimistic about the future, cautions about a few bumps along the way, and confident the brexit pothole can safely be negotiated along the journey. Well done both of those contributors.
where was the same level of concern for the Irish nationalists after partition?
@@tomtomftube Yes, Different times. It now seems about a 'true end game reconciliation' rather keeping a ledger of past wrongs. We need to move on. It's not about winning, is about going forward in prosperity and quality of life. GFA has eliminated most of the 'after partition' ills. Forward.
Very broad minded perspective by Mr Thompson. Key takeaway is to understand and respect each other. I prefer his use of language as it is more diplomatic. New Ireland instead of United Ireland as the latter has historical competitive connotations. A true republic respects and values the freedom of all its citizens to hold and express their beliefs. Mr Thompsons phrase a 'New Ireland' suggests a new framework, blueprint, constitution, anthem and flag that represents all Irish citizens and that holds no historical baggage for anyone. It would be better to take the time it needs to achieve this rather than rush something that creates future conflict.
I completely appreciate the tone and pragmatism. It pains me to introduce what is probably a sour note. I found the statement that armed struggle was unnecessary profoundly insulting. The decision to resist oppression by taking up arms against it is human and universal. It would be better for Unionists to accept their responsibility for the continuation of violence between neighbors on this island after 1921. I might on a good day acknowledge some joint responsibility but today isn't that day. When we move forward the topic of the necessity for violence will come up. I'll point out that Dr. Paisley compromised with Sinn Fein and not with the SDLP and leave it at that.
Utter nonsense. There was never any justification for Republican violence. This is not to say that Irish Catholics in the North did not have legitimate grievances but the question is whether nationalists had recourse to both political dialogue and the law and whether those political and legal avenues were exhausted. There were such avenues and they were not exhausted which is why the IRA are most clearly a terrorist organisation.
The Irish community had the right to political assembly and to political representation. If Sinn Fein MPs had engaged in the UK political process, in the same way Unionist MPs have managed to hold political sway with governments with no overall majority, then much could have been achieved. Even Sinn Fein MPs being able to articulate Catholics' grievances in the Commons or lobby ministers could have made a huge difference.
Then there is recourse to the law of the land. Britain has an independent judiciary and indeed a free press. At the time the Troubles started, UK anti discrimination laws were being introduced starting with the Race relations act of 1971 which tackled discrimination based on race, nationality, or ethnic origin. Had nationalist communities contributed monies to hiring some hot shot barristers rather than supplying arms then again more could have been achieved.
The irony is that the very survival of the IRA hinged on operating within a free democracy with a free press and independent judiciary. The fact that Britain treated IRA operatives as common criminals was the IRA's very salvation. It is hard to imagine an organisation like the IRA surviving very long in China or Sadam's Iraq where its representatives including Adams and McGuinness could have their say on the telly every other night.
The IRA were not looking to improve housing or job opportunities for Catholics. They were looking to force political change through terror. They wanted a united Ireland ruled from Dublin and they assumed Britain would grow weary and throw in the towel. That was never going to happen. All the IRA has achieved is to make unification a virtual impossibility within a generation or two despite the rather naive expectation that it might. And even assuming independence were to happen those Loyalists who will now never accept leaving the union would wreak havoc and Dublin would be hopelessly out of its depth and unable to cope.
@Kaiserbill99 That's a perspective I don't share with you. Armed struggle was the only sensible response to widespread and government sanctioned violence against the entire Nationalist community. I am so proud of my fellow countrymen for standing up for their rights and their freedom. You should be too. Wearing an Easter Lilly would be a nice gesture. I recommend it to you. Churchill decided to fight, Quisling didn't. McGuinness decided to fight. Would you demand an appology from Churchill? Why would you demand one from Gerry Adams? A great hero for freedom and for peace. A far better person then Churchill in my opinion.
@@iano239 Your comparison of Quisling and Churchill and then to McGuinness is so far of the mark it is offensive to reasonable minded people. Quisling was a fascist before Hitler came to prominence and he was a collaborator with no motivation to fight so I am not sure how he belongs in a comparison to a patriot like Churchill. Petain would have been a better comparison.
There is a big difference between fighting a Nazi regime intent on butchering Eastern Europe and wiping a religious group off the planet and the Irish Troubles. Churchill was fighting for Western civilisation whilst McGuinness and co were fighting one of the world's greatest democracy because our Johnny did not get that council house or that job or was stopped at that roadblock. McGuinness and Adams had the right to political assembly and to stand for parliament on the premise of breaking up the very nation that parliament represented. And both lived to tell the tale. That freedom would not be afforded under Nazi tyranny.
Perhaps you need to take your head out of your backside and remove that chip on the shoulder that is preventing you from thinking rationally.
@@Kaiserbill99wise up,will you!!!!
@@kieransavage100 Did someone give you a hand with that comment or did you manage it all by yourself? Even used a comma for decoration even though you did not really need it.
Johnson and the Conservative Party betrayed the English, Welsh and Scotts too. We have not had the Brexit we voted for delivered in any way.
A former free presbyterian interviewed by a former free presbyterian
The Presbyterians are more likely the problem. The Church of Ireland, North or South, is a different thing; much more tolerant and enlightened. Back in the day the Protestants that were fanatically Protestant were known as ‘Black Protestants’ to distinguish them from more mainline and tolerant Protestants such as Anglicans or Church of Ireland Protestants. The Scots-Irish are different as well they were the ancestors of Andrew Jackson, American President who massacred Native Americans.
In addition Thomas Jefferson had a vey jaundiced view of the Scots-Irish and their ancestors in Scotland. He described them in hard terms and even referred to them as savages.
Did you ask for the Orange seating?????
Don't nitpick, he's making a big effort and giving his perspective.
Yeah that is a petty comment. I would also say the seats are more red than orange.