Time to prepare for a United Ireland even if it does not happen?

darkman2

ArthurF wrote:

Ulster9, looks like you really need to read-up on Britishness and what being British & part of the UK actually means, you also seem to have a very narrow & shallow understanding of the term 'British' but then again (depending on your age), that might be understandable?

I also had a very narow view of what it meant to be Jewish, Israeli, or Palestinian until I went to live in Israel, Jordan & Egypt for six months .................

What you need to accept is that there can be no Britishness by definition in a soveriegn state. If people want to feel British then by all means - meanwhile the rest of us will move on having pride in our own country and what we can achieve in the future. Unionist issues revolve around insecurity. They dont seem to have the will, asspiration or capacity to be able to govern themselves and be part of a country that could be so much more then it is now. The days of this crowd looking down their noses at the legitimate independent, sovereign state to the south (thinking we are all looney or wayward) are over. Thats the only reality that has to be faced on this island and the nonsense about Unionist 'identity' (what identity?) and all the rest of it is a side show to the real challenge they face in the years ahead. Its a delaying tactic of the inevitable. Unionists's real problem with us is nothing more then sheer hatred. Hence why even the British governemnt is hard pressed to want anything to do with them.

Northern Ireland is a disturbed place. Thats the way it was created. Something that should never have happened.

LordSutch

Ulster9 wrote:

I am sorry ArthurF but that doesnt wash.

People may have a sense of Britishness from being a british nationalist,ie being from the isle of Britain.The majority of Irish people would view with contempt the notion of being labeled as British.How could you label somebody the nationality of an island they are not from.I am not British in any way because i m not from Britain.Very simple really.I think Gerry Adams would not be happy at being labelled as British.He lives in a part of Ireland that is under British sovernty and has apposed it all is life.For your information Gerry Adams did not attend University.Ireland has and still endures British colonisation in Northern Ireland but it doesnt make Irish people in some way british.Maybe you should stick arrogance in your list, thats definitely British

You might also be very surprised to learn that that many of the things on my 'British' list could also be applied to Irish people (from the Republic) from a great interest & liking of the British Royal Family, to a new found Love of Cricket, to Rugby, to Corrie, Eastendres, Emmerdale, Tesco, Fish & Chips, footie, HP Sauce ~ The real point I was making in my previous post was that many Irish people (in the South) are also 'nearly' but not quite "British" in their cultural identity

Funily enough, I was looking at a picture the other day in my Doctors surgery on the wall and it was to commerate Queen Victoria's visit to Dun Laoghaire (Kingstown) and Dublin in 1900 ~ the whole of Dun Laoghaire Pier was festooned with Union Jacks as was the whole of Dun Laoghaire and most (but not all) of Dublin ~ Look up the archives in Trinity or UCD and see for Yourself.

My point being, most Irish peoples Grandparents were British too as well as being obviously Irish (shock horror) not to detract from Irish Nationalism, but just to point out that the differences between being British or Irish are sometimes very small indeed, even if some people hate the very thought that they might even be 'slightly' british or that their Grand Parents might have been proud to be british, as in the context of (culture heritage & Union with the rest of the British isles).

LordSutch

darkman2 wrote:

The days of this crowd looking down their noses at the legitimate independent, sovereign state to the south (thinking we are all looney or wayward) are over. Thats the only reality that has to be faced on this island and the nonsense about Unionist 'identity' (what identity?) and all the rest of it is a side show to the real challenge they face in the years ahead. Its a delaying tactic of the inevitable. Unionists's real problem with us is nothing more then sheer hatred. Hence why even the British governemnt is hard pressed to want anything to do with them.

Northern Ireland is a disturbed place. Thats the way it was created. Something that should never have happened.

Interesting, and I agree with some of it too, the North is a disturbed place and they are partially to blame for its own creation (accepted), but may I suggest that this whole island + the island next door are to blame for the artificial Border!!! we in the South wanted 100% independence in the form of a Mono-Cultural, Irish Catholic, Gaelic State, and the North said "NO" We do not want to break off all ties with Britain or our Britishness......

Obviously this is a very simplistic vision of what happened, but it might explain some of the reason for that disturbed region of the UK, oh and of course there is the little detail of the (IRAs recent thirty year campaign) designed to bring the North to its knees ~ which it did.

Looks like the North might be coming out of the doldrums though, house prices (Highest in UK) plus many New building projects all over the place + Mr Browns 51 Billion

Zambia

ArthurF wrote:

Looks like the North might be coming out of the doldrums though, house prices (Highest in UK) plus many New building projects all over the place + Mr Browns 51 Billion

We are and I would like to piont out a few things here ,

Gerry and Ian did go to The exchequer for a investment package , but its not as if we could borrow the money from world banks like the south can.

House prices have risen but a lot of Southern Private Money brought those houses driving demand when we had bugger all stock to start with. It was a pity the Irish market stoped as ours was growing due to the peace processs.

New building projects are long over due , there was an obivous delay in investment.

I respect the opinion of everyone on this Island even those who wish to remain part of the UK. In the politics of it if I own a UK passport Im British this does not remove any semblance of Irish Nationality I also possess no more than a Scot or a Welshman. It is the right of anyone in Northern Ireland to own a Irish Passport I believe. So the choice was always there.

Personnally I think we give the Present day Brits a lot of bad press, for years I lived abroad and one day I asked the Irish Ambassador if trouble ever got really bad in the country how did the Irish goverment plan to get us out.

He simply answered we go out with the Brits. I reckon that is still in place today. If not I would love to now what is the Irish Citizen Evacuation plan for somewhere like the Ivory Coast.

Plus I am under no illusion that England wants to retain some sort of Death grip on NI. If anyone is interested they are showing some episode of Star trek for the first time here soon where Data apparently states ireland is successfully re-united after a terrorist campaign in 2024. In the old days it never got past UK censorship.

darkman2

ArthurF wrote:

Mr Browns 51 Billion

Oh your mistaken here. Not everything is as it seems. The vast majority of that is not new money but rather was going to the North anyway to fund the leaching public service there. 7 billion per year is needed to subsidise the North. That 51 billion is over 5 years. Do the maths. A bit of sly politics went on there.

Enigma365

In my opinion, the only way a United Ireland will come about is if the majority of people in the north (and south) voted in favour for it.

While there may eventually be a nationalist majority in the North sometime in the long term future, I'm not sure a majority will ever vote for a United Ireland. Even now, polls show that many so called "nationalists" would actually prefer to stay within the UK.

In any case, I'm not even sure we should want a United Ireland. While in the fuzzy sense, it would be nice if it happened, in the more tangible sense, it could cause so much harm with very little actual genuine benefit.

Currently in both the north and south , we are experiencing peace, with full equality and oppertunity for all, relatively high prosperity and a high standard of living across the board.

If a United Ireland was created, it would simply cause a flip-flop in the current situation. There would still be a large, 40% proportion of the north, who would be unhappy with the flag they live under. Furthermore, the loyalist paramilitaries would likely go crazy, leading to the start of decades of new troubles. In other words, at best we would have an equivalent situation to now and more likely, we would have a situation that is much worse.

I am of course being objective here and not just looking at it selfishly from the nationalist point of view.

I don't there there could be a change in the status of Northern Ireland that could please both Unionists and Nationalists in the north. Maybe its time to accept the status quo as the best possible result for everyone?

A Dub in Glasgo

ArthurF wrote:

we in the South wanted 100% independence in the form of a Mono-Cultural, Irish Catholic, Gaelic State, and the North said "NO" We do not want to break off all ties with Britain or our Britishness......

You mean the democratic wish of the people of Ireland was twarted by a minority?

Looks like the North might be coming out of the doldrums though, house prices (Highest in UK)

Surely not higher than the south of England??

Mr Browns 51 Billion

You mean the taxpayers of the UK?

A Dub in Glasgo

ArthurF wrote:

or on the other hand take Gordon Brown the Scottish Chancellor of the exchequer who Shouts in the House of Commons about how Great it is to be British.

You do realise that he is only stating this because he wants to become PM, don't you? The West Lothian Question is still unanswered and he is a recent convert to the whole 'Britishness' thing!

even though they know full well that the Republic will cheer for Spain when they play England!

And so will Scotland!

To be honest, there are so many examples of Britishness that I could be here all day,

You might start by telling British people as a lot of people I know don't seem to know what being 'British' means.

Finally > I would say that in my opinion the 'Orange Order' is not a very ‘British’ institution.

It is in NI!

marco murphy

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

You mean the democratic wish of the people of Ireland was twarted by a minority?

Afraid it is. But that just has to be lived with these days. The goal is to make a UI appeal to Unionists. After all they must live with us.

brianthebard

Ulster9 wrote:

And you re point is???

Probably that not everyone believes in a united Ireland, either side of the border, and that nationalist sentiment is blurring the issue...

johnnyskeleton

darkman2 wrote:

Nationalists in NI dont want an independent NI. They want unification with us. They wont except an independent NI. This a stupid proposition put forward by stupid loyalists as far as Im concerned and to entertain such an idiotic notion politically would have very detrimental effects on us. Like I said earlier, I, and very many people here would never accept that either. Do you honestly think we would allow Unionist majority rule up there again? After the attempt at ethnic cleansing in the past? Dont tell me how much they have change or any of that rubbish. They have not changed on neither side. The question is, in this independent NI, which bigots will be in control? BTW when they are all starving as a result of their 3rd world economy I take it those in favour of independence will have no problem excepting further aid from us.

They don't want to be part of the UK, but they accpet it. Most just want to put the past behind them, I believe. Unionists are at present in the majority of the powersharing agreement...but in any case, my point is that an independent NI doesn't mean that we in the south (or in the UK, America, the EU, etc) will turn our backs on it, nor does it mean the progress of the last few years will be simply washed away, and I still don't accept that the NI economy as it is now will turn into a 3rd world economy where people are starving, just because they get political independence. If the Basque country gained its independence from Spain, would it ipso facto degenerate into a third world economy? If so why?

Please bear in mind that when we broke away from the UK, we still relied on them for economic support for a few years, until we got onto our feet. Also during our famine we accepted financial assistance from abroad. We have been sucking money from the EU for over 30 years, so I don't think we should complain if we give some economic support to an independent NI. Especially since, despite the troubles, NI has been, until recently, a stronger economy than the south.

darkman2

johnnyskeleton wrote:

They don't want to be part of the UK, but they accpet it. Most just want to put the past behind them, I believe. Unionists are at present in the majority of the powersharing agreement...but in any case, my point is that an independent NI doesn't mean that we in the south (or in the UK, America, the EU, etc) will turn our backs on it, nor does it mean the progress of the last few years will be simply washed away, and I still don't accept that the NI economy as it is now will turn into a 3rd world economy where people are starving, just because they get political independence. If the Basque country gained its independence from Spain, would it ipso facto degenerate into a third world economy? If so why?

Please bear in mind that when we broke away from the UK, we still relied on them for economic support for a few years, until we got onto our feet. Also during our famine we accepted financial assistance from abroad. We have been sucking money from the EU for over 30 years, so I don't think we should complain if we give some economic support to an independent NI. Especially since, despite the troubles, NI has been, until recently, a stronger economy than the south.

I understand your point but I dont symphytise with it. An independent NI is against the legitimate and real asspiration of our country being the country it should be Island wide - not legitimising the pillaging of the country in 1921. I dont want to see the breaking up of our country legitimised. Up in the North is a manufactured state that was designed (and thats a very important word with NI - 'designed') in such a way to ensure Unionist majority against the wishes of the majority on the Island. That caused decades of misery for us because it cut us of from OUR main industrial area. It was calculated and savage in the way it was done in a smokey room in London. Absolutely unforgivable in my view. They knew the consequences for the island. They knew it would never be accepted by those who would feel abandoned in NI. Im not some crazy republican of the SF variety but Unionists up there really annoy me. 'Were different this and were different that'. Its complete BS to be completely honest. They like being awkward really. Cant keep things simple. What are they afraid of?

InFront

darkman2 wrote:

Unionists up there really annoy me. 'Were different this and were different that'. Its complete BS to be completely honest. They like being awkward really. Cant keep things simple. What are they afraid of?

They would probably say the same about Irish nationalists. Being nationalist themselves, in terms of their British nationalism, and having British ancestry, why exactly do you think your version of nationalism with Irish ancestry is more valid?

Ulster9

Im not some crazy republican of the SF variety

I have been largely agreeing with your points Darkman until i read the above insulting remark.

Fratton Fred

darkman2 wrote:

I understand your point but I dont symphytise with it. An independent NI is against the legitimate and real asspiration of our country being the country it should be Island wide - not legitimising the pillaging of the country in 1921. I dont want to see the breaking up of our country legitimised. Up in the North is a manufactured state that was designed (and thats a very important word with NI - 'designed') in such a way to ensure Unionist majority against the wishes of the majority on the Island.

Why is it a "Legitimate" claim? If the majority of people in NI want to be part of a united Ireland then it is Legitimate, otherwise I would say it is not.

this is the point I was trying to make earlier, the concept of a united Ireland only came to being under British rule.

Zombrex

darkman2 wrote:

An independent NI is against the legitimate and real asspiration of our country being the country it should be Island wide - not legitimising the pillaging of the country in 1921.

Except close to 95% (of the 58% that voted and I've no sympathy for anyone who didn't vote but was opposed) in the South voted to gave up that claim with the Good Friday agreement, so I'm not sure how you claim it is "legitimate"

Now the only legitimate way for a United Ireland would be if both majorities in the South and North voted for a united Ireland. And I doubt that will ever happen in the near or mid future

darkman2 wrote:

Absolutely unforgivable in my view.

Well luckily for them they are all dead, so forgiveness is largely irrelevant.

darkman2 wrote:

What are they afraid of?

Rule from a government they don't accept or acknowledge as legitimate to rule over them. Sound familiar?

Jimoslimos

A point that seems to have been largely forgotten is that even with a nationalist majority in 10, 20, 30 years time is what will happen with the unionist population. Will the loss of power lead to increased levels of poverty amongst unionists and hence a resulting rise in birth rates seen in lower socioeconomic groups? I'd predict a see-saw effect between nationalist and unionist majority for some time.

Another point is what constitutes a majority in any given area? If NI tomorrow decided to vote yes for a United Ireland, would the people of North Antrim or Down be allowed to declare that majority of their area wanted to remain within the union and opt out of any UI?

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see a UI. I think overall it would benefit both sides of the border but I'm struggling to see ways in which the unionists would accept it (even grudingly). Maybe stronger links with the UK, rejoin the commonwealth (can't see that going down well), sticking a union jack on the corner of the tricolour perhaps?

Ulster9

Why is it a "Legitimate" claim? If the majority of people in NI want to be part of a united Ireland then it is Legitimate, otherwise I would say it is not.

this is the point I was trying to make earlier, the concept of a united Ireland only came to being under British rule.

It is a legitimate aspiration.Ireland is a geographical entity and historically has a claim to nationhood and National self-determination.It doesnt take a genius to realise that the partition of Ireland was an undemocratic stroke carried out by Britain to oppease the Ulster Volunteer Force that was threatening civil war in the event that Ireland received Home Rule.A simple line was drawn across the country to created a protestant majority.Now what about the consent of the Nationalist people in Northern Ireland, their consent was never sought or considered.
The point of a United Ireland only existing under british rule is a stupid point.Before British rule the notions of central governments anywhere had not really evolved.Ireland is and was a colonised country and for a large part ireland was an unwilling partner in the Act of Union with Britain.It was trying constitutionally to remove itself from the Union but unfair obstacles were put in the way and violent uprising became inevitable.
Back to the topic of preparing for a United Ireland people should open their minds to what form that could take, will it be a federal Ireland?This notion that it will happen over night and that it will just end up as an enlarged version of the current Irish State must be challenged.
People scaremongering that it will cost the irish state 10b a year are talking nonsense.The economys will have to harmonise and equilibrate over a ten year period.Also what way will Britain accomadate it finincially, obviously it is in their interest to see a smooth transition(the saving they will make).
Benefits would be:
(1) 1.7 million new taxpayers into the coffers in Dublin.
(2) Belfast would grow taking away strain on Dublin.
(3) Tourism marketing the country effectively as whole island.
(4) Removing disadvantage from border counties.
(5) New confidence in modern diverse Irish identity.
(6) Opportunity to present ourselves to the world as a new modern country driving forward, economically, culturally and socially.

Those against the notion in the 26 counties are just trying to preserve the cosy status quo protecting their selfish interests in the current political setup in the state.It goes against the aspirations of the United Irishmen, Pearse and Connolly.Its time for people to consider the concept of a completely New Ireland.The recent political accommodation will allow this transition to occur democratically if the people wish so.With a growing British disinterest in Northern Ireland i personally think this will happen in another 15-20 years.

LordSutch

Jimoslimos wrote:

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see a UI. I think overall it would benefit both sides of the border but I'm struggling to see ways in which the unionists would accept it (even grudingly). Maybe stronger links with the UK, rejoin the commonwealth (can't see that going down well), sticking a union jack on the corner of the tricolour perhaps?

Good point about the flag Jimoslimos, see post #66 for my idea on that topic.

Re joining the Commonwealth, changing/ ammending the flag + changing the words of the National Anthem would probably do the trick sometime in the future (seriously)!

Northerners want better relations with the South by & large, but its just that they also despirately want to hang-on to their Britishness (in an Irish context) and I see nothing wrong with that what-so-ever.

Zombrex

Ulster9 wrote:

Benefits would be:
(1) 1.7 million new taxpayers into the coffers in Dublin.

68% of the N.I economy is produced by the public sector. This costs the British government close to £5 billion sterling a year to maintain. If N.I was unified with the south we would inherit this problem. The cost to the State to support N.I would be huge, far outweighing any benefits from new tax payers.

Ulster9 wrote:

(2) Belfast would grow taking away strain on Dublin.

That isn't happening in Limerick, Cork or Galway, so why would it happen in Belfast?

Ulster9 wrote:

(3) Tourism marketing the country effectively as whole island.

If the country was united within the life time of currently living unionists there would be a resurgence of Unionists violence. This would damage tourism in both the South and North.

Ulster9 wrote:

(4) Removing disadvantage from border counties.

Such as?

Ulster9 wrote:

(5) New confidence in modern diverse Irish identity.

Confidence in relation to what?

Ulster9 wrote:

(6) Opportunity to present ourselves to the world as a new modern country driving forward, economically, culturally and socially.

We do that already, and one of the ways we do that is by letting go of old romanticized ideas of what used to be "Ireland" that lead to such a troubled and violent past.

csk

Fratton Fred wrote:

Why is it a "Legitimate" claim? If the majority of people in NI want to be part of a united Ireland then it is Legitimate, otherwise I would say it is not.

Here is why:

Proclamation of the Irish Republic wrote:

We declare the right of the people of Ireland to the ownership of Ireland, and to the unfettered control of Irish destinies, to be sovereign and indefeasible. The long usurpation of that right by a foreign people and government has not extinguished the right, nor can it ever be extinguished except by the destruction of the Irish people.

this is the point I was trying to make earlier, the concept of a united Ireland only came to being under British rule.

That is irrelevant we are a Soveriegn Nation, who as such inhabits all parts of this island, therefore we, the Irish people, deserve to have self determination. It is a very basic right, the GFA while not addressing the problem fully, did go some way to helping.

Zombrex

Groan ... the 1916 Proclamation is neither a legal nor legitimate document

Just because you have gun doesn't mean anything you read out on the steps of the GPO is legitimate

Fratton Fred

csk wrote:

Here is why:





That is irrelevant we are a Soveriegn Nation, who as such inhabits all parts of this island, therefore we, the Irish people, deserve to have self determination. It is a very basic right, the GFA while not addressing the problem fully, did go some way to helping.

Firstly, people can proclaim what they like, it doesn't make it right. I don't see how that adds to the legitimacy of the claim.

I agree Ulster 9, it is an aspirational claim (Not one I disagree with incidentally) but one which, in reality, only the people of NI can decide on.

Irish people do have the right to self determination, currently the majority of people in NI determine their right to be part of Britain

Erin Go Brath

Ulster9 wrote:

Benefits would be:
(1) 1.7 million new taxpayers into the coffers in Dublin.
(2) Belfast would grow taking away strain on Dublin.
(3) Tourism marketing the country effectively as whole island.
(4) Removing disadvantage from border counties.
(5) New confidence in modern diverse Irish identity.
(6) Opportunity to present ourselves to the world as a new modern country driving forward, economically, culturally and socially.

Those against the notion in the 26 counties are just trying to preserve the cosy status quo protecting their selfish interests in the current political setup in the state.It goes against the aspirations of the United Irishmen, Pearse and Connolly.Its time for people to consider the concept of a completely New Ireland.The recent political accommodation will allow this transition to occur democratically if the people wish so.With a growing British disinterest in Northern Ireland i personally think this will happen in another 15-20 years.

I agree with the above points. Everyone on this island plus England would be net beneficiaries of a united 32 County Republic, not perhaps at the start while things sort themselves out but certainly in the medium to long term.

The Unionists fears in 1910s/20s of a Southern priest infected, largely agricultural backwater taking over the industrialised north are no longer valid today. A short trip to Dublin or any city South of the border would show Unionists what a multicultural country we have become. The Unionists have everything to gain by joining up. The 26 Counties has more than 50 fortune 500 companies currently operating in its jurisdiction. The Northern 6 counties has Zero. The advantage of an all-Ireland economy that Peter Hain talks about is what the 6 Counties is missing in order to prosper.

Unionists would be a much more important, and a bigger part of a United Ireland than they could ever hope to be in the UK. Their voices and concerns would be heard. Issues such as the flag, the anthem etc etc could all be ironed out with compromise. Also, the parliament of a United Ireland could sit for 6 months in Dublin, and 6 months in Belfast every year. The proclamation of 1916, and its principles are all about compromise. "The Republic guarantees religious and civil liberty, equal rights and equal opportunities to all its citizens, and declares its resolve to pursue the happiness and prosperity of the whole nation and all of its parts, cherishing all of the children of the nation equally and oblivious of the differences carefully fostered by an alien government, which have divided a minority from the majority in the past."

Ulster9

Groan ... the 1916 Proclamation is neither a legal nor legitimate document

Just because you have gun doesn't mean anything you read out on the steps of the GPO is legitimate

Get off your high horse, the proclaimation forms the basic principles of this country and is reflected in our constitution.Who decides whether it is legitimate, You?

I suppose like Northern Ireland is legitimate because Britain had the power to tell us to shove it.

68% of the N.I economy is produced by the public sector. This costs the British government close to £5 billion sterling a year to maintain. If N.I was unified with the south we would inherit this problem. The cost to the State to support N.I would be huge, far outweighing any benefits from new tax payers.

Like i said there would have to be a transitional time to allow equilibrium between both economies.The North reducing its corporation tax to harmonise with the south would have an impact in building up the private sector.

That isn't happening in Limerick, Cork or Galway, so why would it happen in Belfast?

Belfast is better suited as a international city to sustain growth than any of our regional cities.Lets be realistic here, there are only 2 real cities in Ireland by international standards.

If the country was united within the life time of currently living unionists there would be a resurgence of Unionists violence. This would damage tourism in both the South and North.

Unlikely to happen if it is managed sensitively and unionists are given a great deal of say regarding a New Ireland.The current developments show that with dialogue and consent this will not be a problem.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulster9
(4) Removing disadvantage from border counties.


Such as?

Economic isolation from their natural hinterlands,this has had visible economic effects and the border region is recognised as disadvantaged region.This is a particular problem for Donegal.

We do that already, and one of the ways we do that is by letting go of old romanticized ideas of what used to be "Ireland" that lead to such a troubled and violent past.

I think you will find that colonisation by Britain and their support of the Protestant/unionist/Anglo ancendency minority in Ireland led to the unfortunate violent past.Remember as long as the border is there we are a divided people.Removing the border peacefully will be a good thing for Ireland.

Ulster9

Groan ... the 1916 Proclamation is neither a legal nor legitimate document

Just because you have gun doesn't mean anything you read out on the steps of the GPO is legitimate

Get off your high horse, the proclaimation forms the basic principles of this country and is reflected in our constitution.Who decides whether it is legitimate, You?

I suppose like Northern Ireland is legitimate because Britain had the power to tell us to shove it.

68% of the N.I economy is produced by the public sector. This costs the British government close to £5 billion sterling a year to maintain. If N.I was unified with the south we would inherit this problem. The cost to the State to support N.I would be huge, far outweighing any benefits from new tax payers.

Like i said there would have to be a transitional time to allow equilibrium between both economies.The North reducing its corporation tax to harmonise with the south would have an impact in building up the private sector.

That isn't happening in Limerick, Cork or Galway, so why would it happen in Belfast?

Belfast is better suited as a international city to sustain growth than any of our regional cities.Lets be realistic here, there are only 2 real cities in Ireland by international standards.

If the country was united within the life time of currently living unionists there would be a resurgence of Unionists violence. This would damage tourism in both the South and North.

Unlikely to happen if it is managed sensitively and unionists are given a great deal of say regarding a New Ireland.The current developments show that with dialogue and consent this will not be a problem.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulster9
(4) Removing disadvantage from border counties.


Such as?

Economic isolation from their natural hinterlands,this has had visible economic effects and the border region is recognised as disadvantaged region.This is a particular problem for Donegal.

We do that already, and one of the ways we do that is by letting go of old romanticized ideas of what used to be "Ireland" that lead to such a troubled and violent past.

I think you will find that colonisation by Britain and their support of the Protestant/unionist/Anglo ancendency minority in Ireland led to the unfortunate violent past.Remember as long as the border is there we are a divided people.Removing the border peacefully will be a good thing for Ireland.

csk

ArthurF wrote:

Fish & Chips, the Royal Family, Two World Wars, Coronation Street, Going to University in England or Scotland, Curry, The Royal Mail, NHS, Fair Play, Union Jack, Religion (various), Cricket, Rugby, Darts, Rounders, Sunday School, Panto, Marmite, Tommy Cooper, Joey Dunlop, Van Morrisson, Mrs T (Love/ Hate)? Billy Connolly, Hugh Grant, English Scots, Irish, Welsh, Footie ………………

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: You left out Ulstér-Scotch or does that not count for you? Would that not be a fundamental part of Unionist identity ?(assuming Ulstér-Scotch exists of course!)

Being British can be very hard to define, and there are many definitions of being British (some English people even think that they alone are the British) but suffice to say, if you are British you know you are, and you proclaim it without hesitation.

Actually every single person I have ever met from England has described themselves as English, never British. Even Unionists would describe themselves as Irish just in a different way to the rest of us maybe more Irish-British than anything else.

Do not confuse being British with being English (they overlap).

Do not confuse British as a Nationality, I would say. Or Unionist with British. The Unionists have their own cultural leanings and outlooks... yes. They want to keep a political Union with Britian... yes. But are they then British... yes considering that Britian is merely a political Union. Sure I remember reading just the other day how Paisely referred to himself as Irish in the presence of the Taoiseach, recently! The times they really are achanging!

Being British can mean many things to many people. Many people who live on the island of Britain profess (not to be British) even though their family roots might have been in Britain for hundreds of years (take Andy Murray for example) the young and brilliant tennis player born and raised in Britain (Scotland), who at every opportunity puts down his Britishness, or on the other hand take Gordon Brown the Scottish Chancellor of the exchequer who Shouts in the House of Commons about how Great it is to be British.

Funny every Scottish person I have ever met believes the same as Murray, that they are Scottish not British!

Gordon Brown wants to be Prime Minister of...Great Britain, so of course he is going to say the that.

Britain as far as most people are concerned is nothing other than a political Union. As seen by the fact that Scotland seems to be seriously contemplating leaving, said Union and Irish people, of course, have been demanding to leave that Union possibly since they were first dragged into it.

Take David Trimble, Ian Paisley, Gerry Adams, or Martin Mc Guinness and there you have the real meaning of Britishness, which is so close to not being British as makes little difference! Adams as far as I am aware was educated in a British University (Queens~Belfast) and he enjoys all the benefits of that British system, yet still, he hates everything British while at the same time he asks for more money off Gordon Brown.

When did the city of Belfast leave Ireland? And can you provide a source that Adams "hates everything British":rolleyes: ?

Yes he does enjoy the benefits of the British system and get this it's because he is a politician, working inside certain political structures, namely the Union!

Paisley & Trimble will wear a Poppy to remember the 30 Thousand+ Irish Ward dead + all the other British dead in the two World Wars (this is very British) while Adams & Mc Guinness will refuse to remember or acknowledge the War dead.

Yes many brave men from Ireland died in that despicable war and Paisely and Lord Trimble have every right to wear a Poppy if they want. But I get the impression you don't believe Adams and Mc Guinness have the right not to wear one if they so wish?

Or take football for example; If the Republic is playing footie against Spain, the English, Scots Welsh & the Nordies will all cheer for the Republic (thats Britishness) even though they know full well that the Republic will cheer for Spain when they play England!

That piont makes no sense, considering Scotland always cheers against England, the North almost hate(in a sporting sense) the English more than we (supposedly!) do, told to me by a Unionist btw, I have also met some Welsh Rugby Fans who would put the idiots who insist on booing Rangers players against the Republic of Ireland to shame in their contempt for English sporting teams, what does this all mean? Not a lot really because sport is just that sport!

Finally > I would say that in my opinion the 'Orange Order' is not a very ‘British’ institution.

I have to agree. Unfortunately it is Irish, considering there are lodges all over Ireland Antrim, Donegal, Wicklow and I belive Cork as well. The whole obsession with marching is also, I believe, more linked to Irish traits and customs than anything from across the water.

csk

Wicknight wrote:

Groan ... the 1916 Proclamation is neither a legal nor legitimate document

*groan* I never said it was:rolleyes:

But the principle is as true today as it was 91 years ago.

Just because you have gun doesn't mean anything you read out on the steps of the GPO is legitimate

...But because you have a gun you can say, take over and subjugate a people?

csk

Fratton Fred wrote:

Firstly, people can proclaim what they like, it doesn't make it right. I don't see how that adds to the legitimacy of the claim.

Because the principle is as true today as it was 91 years ago.

I agree Ulster 9, it is an aspirational claim (Not one I disagree with incidentally) but one which, in reality, only the people of NI can decide on.

And what gives the people of NI the right?

Irish people do have the right to self determination, currently the majority of people in NI determine their right to be part of Britain

[/QUOTE]

So only the Irish people the British decide to give the right ot or all Irish people irrespective?

Zombrex

Ulster9 wrote:

Get off your high horse, the proclaimation forms the basic principles of this country and is reflected in our constitution.

And...?

I could write down "I think Ireland should win the next World Cup" .. pretty sure that is a reflection of the vast majority of the population of this country, can I go to FIFA with this and claim it is a legitimate document?

You seem to not understand what "legitimate" means.

Ulster9 wrote:

I suppose like Northern Ireland is legitimate because Britain had the power to tell us to shove it.

Northern Ireland is legitimate because the majority of people who live in Northern Ireland give it is legitimacy.

Ulster9 wrote:

Like i said there would have to be a transitional time to allow equilibrium between both economies.

You wouldn't need "time", you would need billions upon billions in foreign investment in the economy. Considering foreign investment is leaving the South, which has a far high skilled work force I'm not quite sure how you envision convincing it to come back to the North.

Ulster9 wrote:

The North reducing its corporation tax to harmonise with the south would have an impact in building up the private sector.

If lowering corporation tax was only thing you needed to do to get massive amounts of foreign investment in your economy everyone would be doing it.

Ulster9 wrote:

Belfast is better suited as a international city to sustain growth than any of our regional cities.

You are basic that assertion on what exactly?

Ulster9 wrote:

Lets be realistic here, there are only 2 real cities in Ireland by international standards.

You are right, there are. And neither of them are Belfast.

Ulster9 wrote:

Unlikely to happen if it is managed sensitively and unionists are given a great deal of say regarding a New Ireland.

Unionist have been given a say, and they say no to United Ireland. The "sensitive" thing is to respect that.

Ulster9 wrote:

The current developments show that with dialogue and consent this will not be a problem.

Suggest a United Ireland to the DUP and see if you run into a "problem"