Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
1234579

Comments

  • Options
    #182
    LordSutch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,078 ✭✭✭✭LordSutch


    Removed from just one Atlas actually!

    Folens Atlas (secondary school edition) have already removed 'British Isles' and replaced it with the UK & Ireland, which is really a cheap and ill informed cop-out on the part of Folens, seeing as the UK & Ireland is a Political term that does not belong in the 'Physical' pages of any Atlas, as students in Northern Ireland & Britain will testify.

    Geography V Politics?


  • Options
    #183
    Ulster9
    Closed Accounts Posts: 100 ✭✭Ulster9


    ArthurF wrote:
    Removed from just one Atlas actually!

    Folens Atlas (secondary school edition) have already removed 'British Isles' and replaced it with the UK & Ireland, which is really a cheap and ill informed cop-out on the part of Folens, seeing as the UK & Ireland is a Political term that does not belong in the 'Physical' pages of any Atlas, as students in Northern Ireland & Britain will testify.

    Geography V Politics?

    Please enlighten us as to the origins of the term British isles and why it came into use?


  • Options
    #184
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    Ulster9 wrote:
    Please enlighten us as to the origins of the term British isles and why it came into use?
    The Islands off Brittany maybe?


  • Options
    #185
    LordSutch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,078 ✭✭✭✭LordSutch


    Ulster9 wrote:
    Our you deliberately trying to be smart referring to Britain as the "Mainland"? Do you see Ireland as an offshore island of Britain? Funny that you say some of the buildings are British in appearance.Who do you think built all the fine buildings we have in this country. Britain colonised all of Ireland(32) you may have forgotten.I dont think Collins be to proud of ye in Cork with that partitonist mentality.

    Britain is an island that lies off the "Mainland" of Northern France, or to be more specific Britain lies off the coast of "Brittany" hence 'Great Britain' or (Large Brittany) as the Norman invaders might have put it, and Ireland lies off the coast of Britain, as does the Isle of Man & the Channel islands, so Ireland is an off shore island of Britain!

    The UK (Britain & Ireland) Colonised large swathes of the World (India & the Americas inc), Ireland was an integral part of that Colony machine, and many of the Top brains and people in the British/UK regeimes around the World were Irish, but this 'New idea' that we (Ireland) was a Colony just doesnt wash with me matey, even though it seems to be a new trendy Retro idea that Ireland itself was a colony even though the Irish were the Colonists :)


  • Options
    #186
    darkman2
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 8,632 ✭✭✭darkman2


    If thats your attitude and you have little pride in your country then go and live in the UK. Or else just except the reality that your views about Ireland leave you in the minority that no one is listening to.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #187
    Zambia
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,333 ✭✭✭Zambia


    darkman2 wrote:
    If thats your attitude and you have little pride in your country then go and live in the UK. Or else just except the reality that your views about Ireland leave you in the minority that no one is listening to.

    And here we see why we never probably will see a united ireland in our life time


  • Options
    #188
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Zambia232 wrote:
    And here we see why we never probably will see a united ireland in our life time

    Amen

    Its funny, I actually don't think most of the anti-British posters here would want a United Ireland if they really thought about its, since it would require sharing the island with a large number of people who have different views to them about Ireland.

    And this seems to be something they really don't like very much


  • Options
    #189
    Voipjunkie
    Registered Users Posts: 1,062 ✭✭✭Voipjunkie


    Wicknight wrote:

    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.


    .

    So are you saying that a minority should have a veto over the wishes of the majority of people on this Island north and south by way of a threat of violence.


    Nationalists and republicans (or the vast majority of them) have accepted a method of changing the constitutional position of the 6 counties and that it has to be by peaceful means and that in the mean time until such an event might happen they will respect the current position and work within it.

    Now you seem to be suggesting that even if those peaceful conditions were met and the majority of people were in favour of a UI it should not go ahead because of some headbangers on the Unionist side and effectively that these headbangers should be allowed to have a veto on the democratic wishes of the people of this Island by the threat of violence !!

    What about democracy or does that only count while the unionists are in a majority in the 6 counties.


  • Options
    #190
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    Voipjunkie wrote:
    So are you saying that a minority should have a veto over the wishes of the majority of people on this Island north and south by way of a threat of violence.


    Nationalists and republicans (or the vast majority of them) have accepted a method of changing the constitutional position of the 6 counties and that it has to be by peaceful means and that in the mean time until such an event might happen they will respect the current position and work within it.

    Now you seem to be suggesting that even if those peaceful conditions were met and the majority of people were in favour of a UI it should not go ahead because of some headbangers on the Unionist side and effectively that these headbangers should be allowed to have a veto on the democratic wishes of the people of this Island by the threat of violence !!

    What about democracy or does that only count while the unionists are in a majority in the 6 counties.

    very similar to what people in Britain have been saying for years.


  • Options
    #191
    LordSutch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,078 ✭✭✭✭LordSutch


    Judging by recent events in Ireland both (North & South) I get the distinct impression that if a United Ireland were on the cards in the 'distant' future then it could & would be acheived peacefully with the consent of Unionists, but only if their British heritage & British culture is recognised and included in a New 'all island' 'all Ireland' State ~ Totally at ease with each other & including the two main traditions in a (New National flag) and (New National Anthem)!

    (Re joining the Commonwealth would also be the "Perfect trade-off" to welcome the North into a New political dispensation on this island) or would that be too distasteful and a bridge too far for Irish Republicans & Nationalists?

    Hows does that sound ~ coming from an Irish Unionist ?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #192
    Ulster9
    Closed Accounts Posts: 100 ✭✭Ulster9


    ArthurF wrote:
    Judging by recent events in Ireland both (North & South) I get the distinct impression that if a United Ireland were on the cards in the 'distant' future then it could & would be acheived peacefully with the consent of Unionists, but only if their British heritage & British culture is recognised and included in a New 'all island' 'all Ireland' State ~ Totally at ease with each other & including the two main traditions in a (New National flag) and (New National Anthem)!

    (Re joining the Commonwealth would also be the "Perfect trade-off" to welcome the North into a New political dispensation on this island) or would that be too distasteful and a bridge too far for Irish Republicans & Nationalists?

    Hows does that sound ~ coming from an Irish Unionist ?

    I think all these things would certainly be for discussion, considering an agreed Ireland would only come about after negotiations with all traditions in Ireland.As a republican i dont have a major problem with the Commonwealth considering it has many republics as members that have there own Heads of State.
    I think a New Ireland will challenge peoples concepts of what a United Ireland will be like.As a republican who seeks unity and someone who has thought a lot about how it would be realised.I think those in Sinn Fein would be more open to broader ideas than those in Fianna Fail who would have now formed a very partitionist mentality over the years as a United Ireland would change the political power landscape forever.Unionists for example could end up in every coalition government as they would hold probably 20% of the seats in parliament.
    I think a united Ireland is an exciting prospect if it can be debated maturely and managed sensibly.20 years ago people would have said there would never be peace in Northern Ireland.With respectful dialogue anything can happen.


  • Options
    #193
    LordSutch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,078 ✭✭✭✭LordSutch


    Good to hear positive and constructive sounds coming from both sides.


  • Options
    #194
    Voipjunkie
    Registered Users Posts: 1,062 ✭✭✭Voipjunkie


    ArthurF wrote:
    Britain is an island that lies off the "Mainland" of Northern France, or to be more specific Britain lies off the coast of "Brittany" hence 'Great Britain' or (Large Brittany) as the Norman invaders might have put it, and Ireland lies off the coast of Britain, as does the Isle of Man & the Channel islands, so Ireland is an off shore island of Britain!

    The UK (Britain & Ireland) Colonised large swathes of the World (India & the Americas inc), Ireland was an integral part of that Colony machine, and many of the Top brains and people in the British/UK regeimes around the World were Irish, but this 'New idea' that we (Ireland) was a Colony just doesnt wash with me matey, even though it seems to be a new trendy Retro idea that Ireland itself was a colony even though the Irish were the Colonists :)


    Ireland was colonised first in fact many of the methods of colonistaion that Britain used around the world were ones that they had tried out in Ireland first .
    Like the pale, the plantations, the oppression of the Irish language the oppression of the religion of the native people the use of Irish people in their armed forces. The use of oppressive laws to deny basic rights to people including the right to own land or enter professions.
    The Irish famine is also something that ireland has in common with other colonies and the fact that we had a famine while we were still producing plenty of food to feed ourselves but that food was being exported. In India for example about 25 million people died of famine under british rule despite there been plenty of food of course India was producing vast ammounts of cotton for the empire.
    Oh and indians were also in the british army so I suppose they were not really a colony either.
    Famine really needs at least one of 3 conditions war, dictatorship or colonisation to happen which one do you think applies to Ireland.


  • Options
    #195
    Voipjunkie
    Registered Users Posts: 1,062 ✭✭✭Voipjunkie


    Ulster9 wrote:
    I think all these things would certainly be for discussion, considering an agreed Ireland would only come about after negotiations with all traditions in Ireland.As a republican i dont have a major problem with the Commonwealth considering it has many republics as members that have there own Heads of State.
    I think a New Ireland will challenge peoples concepts of what a United Ireland will be like.As a republican who seeks unity and someone who has thought a lot about how it would be realised.I think those in Sinn Fein would be more open to broader ideas than those in Fianna Fail who would have now formed a very partitionist mentality over the years as a United Ireland would change the political power landscape forever.Unionists for example could end up in every coalition government as they would hold probably 20% of the seats in parliament.
    I think a united Ireland is an exciting prospect if it can be debated maturely and managed sensibly.20 years ago people would have said there would never be peace in Northern Ireland.With respectful dialogue anything can happen.

    It is indisputable that unionists would have alot more say in the running of a United Ireland than they have had or ever will have in the running of the UK it is also the most likely outcome that the current institutions and their safeguards for both traditions in the 6 counties would continue on into a united Ireland.


  • Options
    #196
    Ulster9
    Closed Accounts Posts: 100 ✭✭Ulster9


    Voipjunkie wrote:
    It is indisputable that unionists would have alot more say in the running of a United Ireland than they have had or ever will have in the running of the UK it is also the most likely outcome that the current institutions and their safeguards for both traditions in the 6 counties would continue on into a united Ireland.

    Agree, this would be a sensible thing.Autonomy for Northern Ireland or perhaps the 9 counties of Ulster would be possible.I think one thing people need to forget about is a united Ireland were Northern Ireland is absorbed into the current 26 county arrangement.


  • Options
    #197
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Voipjunkie wrote:
    So are you saying that a minority should have a veto over the wishes of the majority of people on this Island north and south by way of a threat of violence.

    No, I'm saying that if there is a united Ireland there will be a major increase in unionists violence and this will damage the tourist industry on both sides of the border.

    Whether or not people think this is worth it is up to them. But the suggestion that a united Ireland would be worth increase in tourism is nonsense.
    Voipjunkie wrote:
    Now you seem to be suggesting that even if those peaceful conditions were met and the majority of people were in favour of a UI it should not go ahead because of some headbangers on the Unionist side
    No, I'm suggesting that if there is a united Ireland there will be a major increase in unionists violence and this will damage the tourist industry on both sides of the border.

    I think I said that already. Which part of that isn't clear?
    Voipjunkie wrote:
    What about democracy or does that only count while the unionists are in a majority in the 6 counties.

    Well I don't think Unionists terrorists who are prepared to murder and maim innocent people are that concerned with democracy, do you?


  • Options
    #198
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Ulster9 wrote:
    I think one thing people need to forget about is a united Ireland were Northern Ireland is absorbed into the current 26 county arrangement.

    That isn't really a United Ireland though, as Republicans mean. They want to be fully part of the Republic.

    Devolution from Ireland rather than the UK would seem rather pointless semantics


  • Options
    #199
    Voipjunkie
    Registered Users Posts: 1,062 ✭✭✭Voipjunkie


    Wicknight wrote:
    That isn't really a United Ireland though, as Republicans mean. They want to be fully part of the Republic.

    Devolution from Ireland rather than the UK would seem rather pointless semantics


    How do you know how republicans feel or mean by a United Ireland


  • Options
    #200
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Voipjunkie wrote:
    How do you know how republicans feel or mean by a United Ireland

    Well because I pay attention

    For example Sinn Fein wants elected representatives from N.I to be able to sit in the Dail. The also want to adopt the Irish constitution while making amendments to it


  • Options
    #201
    Voipjunkie
    Registered Users Posts: 1,062 ✭✭✭Voipjunkie


    Wicknight wrote:
    No, I'm saying that if there is a united Ireland there will be a major increase in unionists violence and this will damage the tourist industry on both sides of the border.

    Whether or not people think this is worth it is up to them. But the suggestion that a united Ireland would be worth increase in tourism is nonsense.


    No, I'm suggesting that if there is a united Ireland there will be a major increase in unionists violence and this will damage the tourist industry on both sides of the border.

    I think I said that already. Which part of that isn't clear?



    Well I don't think Unionists terrorists who are prepared to murder and maim innocent people are that concerned with democracy, do you?

    What I want to know is how you can be so sure that there WILL be an increase in Unionist violence not that there maybe or could be but you are absolutely sure.
    Surely that would largely depend on the circumstances of a united Ireland which you have completely ignored.
    For instance the majority of the people in the 6 counties would have already accepted it.
    The UK would already have turned their back on them.
    So the question would be what would the aim of this violence be the aim of Nationalist violence was clear and the causes of it ie discrimination in employment housing etc
    Presuming it is an agreed Ireland which is the only way it can happen then the protections of minorities that have moved nationalists away from violence would also protect unionists.
    So presumably the violence would be to reenter a jurisdiction that would not want or take them or to repartition to a smaller statelet which without UK support would be completely unworkable.

    I think if you believe in democracy then you should not offer the excuse of some headbangers to attempt to dilute the will of the people


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #202
    Ulster9
    Closed Accounts Posts: 100 ✭✭Ulster9


    Wicknight wrote:
    Well because I pay attention

    For example Sinn Fein wants elected representatives from N.I to be able to sit in the Dail. The also want to adopt the Irish constitution while making amendments to it

    Obviously you dont pay attention.You misrepresent Sinn Feins objectives.
    Sinn Fein has been calling for a New Agreed Ireland for the past ten years.That is why it has supported the Good Friday Agreement and has been trying to engage with Unionism positively.Obviously there are unionists who will never be persuaded of the merits of unity but the objective is to bring it about with as much consent as reasonably possible.


  • Options
    #203
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Voipjunkie wrote:
    What I want to know is how you can be so sure that there WILL be an increase in Unionist violence not that there maybe or could be but you are absolutely sure.

    Well were you not paying attention for the last 140 years?
    Voipjunkie wrote:
    Surely that would largely depend on the circumstances of a united Ireland which you have completely ignored.
    Well I imagine that there are a lot of Unionists who would consider a "United Ireland" as unacceptable, no matter what circumstances. They are called "Unionists" for a reason Voip
    Voipjunkie wrote:
    For instance the majority of the people in the 6 counties would have already accepted it.
    As I said, the ideals of democracy hasn't historically been that high on the list of priorities of Unionist terrorists
    Voipjunkie wrote:
    The UK would already have turned their back on them.
    You seem to have a very peculiar and distorted idea of why Unionists believe what they believe. They don't believe what they believe because the UK tell them they are part of the Union.

    In the past any time it appeared that the UK government were turning their backs on the Unionists this only made them more determined to protect the Union.
    Voipjunkie wrote:
    the aim of Nationalist violence was clear
    Was it? Is that why they blew up Irish people or killed Gardai?

    Terrorists will lash out at anything they determine as getting in their way. There are still Republican terrorists who do not accept the Irish government, or the legitimacy of the Republic.
    Voipjunkie wrote:
    So presumably the violence would be to reenter a jurisdiction that would not want or take them
    That never stopped the extreme Republicans, what makes you think it would stop extreme Unionists. You think the Real-IRA are bothered that the Republic despise them?
    Voipjunkie wrote:
    I think if you believe in democracy then you should not offer the excuse of some headbangers to attempt to dilute the will of the people

    Yes, because thats what I'm doing ... :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #204
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Ulster9 wrote:
    Obviously you dont pay attention.You misrepresent Sinn Feins objectives.
    Sinn Fein has been calling for a New Agreed Ireland for the past ten years.That is why it has supported the Good Friday Agreement and has been trying to engage with Unionism positively.Obviously there are unionists who will never be persuaded of the merits of unity but the objective is to bring it about with as much consent as reasonably possible.

    Sinn Fein's "New, agreed Ireland" has always been put forward as a stepping stone to a united Ireland. It isn't the goal.

    "We have to plot a course from today's partitioned, divided Ireland into a new, agreed Ireland and from there into a national Republic."
    Gerry Adams 2007

    The goal of Sinn Fein is not devolution of Northern Ireland into an independent state, it is a united republic across the entire island.

    This is contrast to say the SDLP, who have in the past favored devolution of Northern Ireland.


  • Options
    #205
    Ulster9
    Closed Accounts Posts: 100 ✭✭Ulster9


    Wicknight wrote:
    Sinn Fein's "New, agreed Ireland" has always been put forward as a stepping stone to a united Ireland. It isn't the goal.

    "We have to plot a course from today's partitioned, divided Ireland into a new, agreed Ireland and from there into a national Republic."
    Gerry Adams 2007

    The goal of Sinn Fein is not devolution of Northern Ireland into an independent state, it is a united republic across the entire island.

    This is contrast to say the SDLP, who have in the past favored devolution of Northern Ireland.

    You are misinterpreting his words or deliberately misrepresenting them.
    Of course the aim is a National republic that doesnt mean Northern Ireland cant continue with a devolved institution.He is simply saying we must negotiate the shape of national republic by agreement.
    Are you saying we are going to have an agreed Ireland then scrap it for something thats not agreed.


  • Options
    #206
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Ulster9 wrote:
    You are misinterpreting his words or deliberately misrepresenting them.
    Yes so you keep saying, but I think his words speak for themselves.

    Do you have something to support the idea that this isn't what Sinn Fein envision a United Ireland to be?
    Ulster9 wrote:
    Are you saying we are going to have an agreed Ireland then scrap it for something thats not agreed.

    No I'm saying that the Sinn Fein wish that eventually Northern Ireland will be absorbed into the rest of the Republic becoming the same as say Kerry or Limerick.

    All this talk about an "agreed Ireland" is simply window dressing. It is like saying we are for democracy. Just because someone supports democracy doesn't mean they agree with every opinion. They continue to support what they believe in. Sinn Fein won't support an "agreed Ireland" they don't agree with.


  • Options
    #207
    darkman2
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 8,632 ✭✭✭darkman2


    I dont support joining the commonwealth. I see it as a pointless institution with nothing to offer. Unionists are the minority on this island and they would have to be treated as such as that is democracy. Unfortunatley their behaviour in the past leaves alot to be desired and their crying to be respected smacks of hypocrisy.

    I think the best way forward is to let NI become 'normal' because then they will realise just how important, or rather, unimportant they are to the UK. They become just another very small European Region with no clout politically or otherwise. They slip from the newspaper headlines and eventually are just ignored. Then they will IMO re-evaluate just where they are better off. As a tiny part of the UK with hardly any say or as part of the Republic where they would have far far more say. The hope being that they will realise that socially and economically their future lies south of the border.


  • Options
    #208
    Ulster9
    Closed Accounts Posts: 100 ✭✭Ulster9


    Wicknight wrote:
    Yes so you keep saying, but I think his words speak for themselves.

    Do you have something to support the idea that this isn't what Sinn Fein envision a United Ireland to be?


    No I'm saying that the Sinn Fein wish that eventually Northern Ireland will be absorbed into the rest of the Republic becoming the same as say Kerry or Limerick.

    All this talk about an "agreed Ireland" is simply window dressing. It is like saying we are for democracy. Just because someone supports democracy doesn't mean they agree with every opinion. They continue to support what they believe in. Sinn Fein won't support an "agreed Ireland" they don't agree with.

    You are entitled to be cynical if you wish but Gerry Adams was simply stating that once we have an agreed Ireland we can move forward into that agreed ireland which will be a national republic.This national republic will have an agreed constitution that will obviously have gurantees for unionists that they will have agreed to and the constitution will recognise any institutions that remain outside of central government.
    Many people never thought Sinn Fein would be in stormont but they are.You underestimate how progressive republicans can be.


  • Options
    #209
    Ulster9
    Closed Accounts Posts: 100 ✭✭Ulster9


    darkman2 wrote:
    I dont support joining the commonwealth. I see it as a pointless institution with nothing to offer. Unionists are the minority on this island and they would have to be treated as such as that is democracy. Unfortunatley their behaviour in the past leaves alot to be desired and their crying to be respected smacks of hypocrisy.

    I think the best way forward is to let NI become 'normal' because then they will realise just how important, or rather, unimportant they are to the UK. They become just another very small European Region with no clout politically or otherwise. They slip from the newspaper headlines and eventually are just ignored. Then they will IMO re-evaluate just where they are better off. As a tiny part of the UK with hardly any say or as part of the Republic where they would have far far more say. The hope being that they will realise that socially and economically their future lies south of the border.

    I dont agree with this view.Minorities should be treated with respect and their traditions upheld and protected by the state.This is the cornerstone of republicanism.Unionist views would be welcomed and encouraged in shaping an agreed Ireland and National republic.


  • Options
    #210
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Ulster9 wrote:
    You are entitled to be cynical

    Its nothing to do with being cynical, this is what Sinn Fein wants. I wasn't even aware they were hiding it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #211
    Voipjunkie
    Registered Users Posts: 1,062 ✭✭✭Voipjunkie


    Wicknight wrote:
    Well were you not paying attention for the last 140 years?


    So you see no difference in an agreed Ireland were the majority of people in the six counties agree to an All Ireland state and the situation that existed before
    Wicknight wrote:
    Well I imagine that there are a lot of Unionists who would consider a "United Ireland" as unacceptable, no matter what circumstances. They are called "Unionists" for a reason Voip

    They can be Unionist and not agree with the use of violence it can be unacceptable without the resort to violence just as the SDLP were nationalist without the resort to violence



    Wicknight wrote:

    As I said, the ideals of democracy hasn't historically been that high on the list of priorities of Unionist terrorists

    Isn't the DUP telling us all the time that they are democrats and they and the UUP represent 90% plus of the unionist people
    Wicknight wrote:

    You seem to have a very peculiar and distorted idea of why Unionists believe what they believe. They don't believe what they believe because the UK tell them they are part of the Union.



    In the past any time it appeared that the UK government were turning their backs on the Unionists this only made them more determined to protect the Union.


    Whilst they are still in the Union there is something to protect once they are outside of it that no longer exists just as the Unionists in the 26 counties did not launch into a terrorist campaign because that ship had sailed there was no going back.
    Wicknight wrote:
    Was it? Is that why they blew up Irish people or killed Gardai?

    It was clear in regards that the objective was reunification with the other part of the Island where a majority of people supported reunification ( that does not mean they supported the methods)
    Wicknight wrote:
    Terrorists will lash out at anything they determine as getting in their way. There are still Republican terrorists who do not accept the Irish government, or the legitimacy of the Republic.


    That never stopped the extreme Republicans, what makes you think it would stop extreme Unionists. You think the Real-IRA are bothered that the Republic despise them?

    Again you miss the point the RIRA or the CIRA objective of a united Ireland is an objective that the majority of people in the 26 counties also have so therefore the republicans were not seeking an objective that against the wishes of the Irish people. ( Again that does not mean that the Irish people supported their methods)
    Now in the scenario of a United Ireland that has the agreement of the majority of the people in the North and the South and the Brits have shown that they would drop the north in a heartbeat given half a chance. On top of that the discrimination and bigotry that was a hallmark of the 6 county state for the first 60 or 70 years of its existence would also not exist and we all know that was a a big factor in the use of violence to try and end the regime.

    The simple fact is that Unionist would have nowhere to go and a terrorist campaign would have zero possibility of any kind of success they would be fighting for an objective that was against the will of the majority of the 6 and 26 counties and against the will of the state they wanted to be part of. Unionist people are not stupid. And terrorists are not stupid this lashing out is nonsense the violence in the North all had a logic to it even if that logic was perverted the Shankill butchers obviously enjoyed murdering people but there was also a perverted logic to what they were doing ie trying to frighten the Nationalist people into submission.

    Wicknight wrote:
    Yes, because thats what I'm doing ... :rolleyes:


    Iam afraid it is you are using the threat of possible unionist violence to try and persuade people that a united Ireland would be a bad idea that is giving into the threat of violence and subverting democracy


Advertisement