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
Would you like to see a united Ireland?
Options
Comments
-
Ireland was once a united country. Sort of. Actually not. The High Kings of Ireland were largely a pseudohistorical creation of the 18th century and the reality is that Ireland was a pretty balkanized place under no single rule. After all, the reason the Normans arrived in Ireland was because they were invited by one such chieftain who wanted to get the upper hand on his rivals.
So historically Ireland was only ever politically united as the possession of another power.
Geographically is the weakest argument as simply being an island does not mean that you have to be a single nation. Look at Hispaniola, or many would argue, even Britain.
The best argument is a single nation is that of a cohesive ethnic entity. Problem with this, however, is that there's a big chunk of the population up there that's ethnically very different to the south, and for that matter, after almost a century of partition, the part that is similar isn't all that similar when you really get to know them - or at least a Scottish Catholic essentially differs from your average southern Irishman on much the same level as an Northern Catholic.
All this before you consider the political, security and economic implications, or for that matter that even the nationalists really want to be reunited - there's a lot of lip service, but is anyone honestly pursuing this? Even the chucks are pretty quiet on the issue.
So, the Irishman in me would have to say that I get all teary-eyed in support of a united Ireland. But once the last chorus of "A Nation Once Again" has subsided and I've sobered up, I'd really have to say, that it's probably time to wake up and smell the bitter coffee of reality.
"Romantic Ireland's dead and gone"... thank fück for that, 'e was a dreadful ejit.0 -
have i got it wrong but wasent it the republic that split up the united ireland?as for as the economy maybe the uk would have been better off if they had not paid all that money out to the eu to prop up french and irish farmers ...... only joking i wish we could have a united ireland but as long as religion has its say it will not happen0
-
Nice one Corinthian, I agree 100%.0
-
Oh, is it that time of year again - time for the annual "United Ireland" question....
Answer is still no. Let the tribes up there enjoy their own company in the perfect little province theyve made for themselves.0 -
I think its sad that Ireland has never had a 32 County referendum so we could really judge the mood of the people of Ireland for unification. Democracy in it purest form has not been exercised in this country! Our interests and national integrity have always been second to other vested interests namely British and Ulster Unionists who have manufactured and propped up an artifical statelet that a large minority within have no allegiance to.
We will have to wait until Catholics outbreed Protestant in the 6 Counties before a 6 County referendum is triggered by the Secretary of State. This will inevitably happen, but not for another 20-25 years. Then we'll have a United Ireland but not any sooner unless in the unlikely event that Britains just pulls out of Ireland. If Scotland became independent it would be interesting to see what happens the union of the north of ireland and the UK though.0 -
Advertisement
-
I don't disagree, but I do think you'd get a nasty surprise at the outcome.Erin Go Brath wrote: »I think its sad that Ireland has never had a 32 County referendum so we could really judge the mood of the people of Ireland for unification.
After all, northern unionists will say no, northern nationalists are not terribly interested in losing all the subsidies they get from the UK that pay for everything (including the civil service there that essentially supplies around 40% of all jobs), and southerners will not be terribly interested in paying for a state that is little more than an economic drain to the UK.
Not everyone shares your blind patriotism, after all. Some of us live in the Real World.0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »I don't disagree, but I do think you'd get a nasty surprise at the outcome.
After all, northern unionists will say no, northern nationalists are not terribly interested in losing all the subsidies they get from the UK that pay for everything (including the civil service there that essentially supplies around 40% of all jobs), and southerners will not be terribly interested in paying for a state that is little more than an economic drain to the UK.
Not everyone shares your blind patriotism, after all. Some of us live in the Real World.
I challenge you to find a single poll ever undertaken in the 26 Counties since partition which shows a majority would vote against unification. Most polls i've ever seen on the topic show a 2:1 or higher majority in favour of the unification of the national territory.
Northern nationalists by defintion are nationalist and favour unification. The demographics of the 6 Counties are only heading in one direction which ostensibly means that there are an ever increasing amount of nationalists pro rata in the 6.
Reunification will not be a seamless operation, undoubtedbly there will be teething difficulties but the positive dynamic of an All-Ireland economy will benefit us all in the long term!0 -
Actually, I'd challenge you to show me current and credible polls that support your assertion.Erin Go Brath wrote: »I challenge you to find a single poll ever undertaken in the 26 Counties since partition which shows a majority would vote against unification. Most polls i've ever seen on the topic show a 2:1 or higher majority in favour of the unification of the national territory.
What you seem not to be able to comprehend in your rather simplistic definition of unification are the questions "on what terms" and "at what cost"?Northern nationalists by defintion are nationalist and favour unification. The demographics of the 6 Counties are only heading in one direction which ostensibly means that there are an ever increasing amount of nationalists pro rata in the 6.
What terms would NI wish to join a united republic? Politically would we be willing to do? Would it end up as another confederated Bosnia-type entity where we would essentially not have one nation but two loosely connected ones? After all, the northern nationalists are unlikely to want to go from a state of being a minority in NI to a minority in a united Ireland.
And the cost? I don't see the UK agreeing to subsidize NI once we take over - and make no mistake, economically it is completely dependant on the public sector, with a disproportionate number of people employed in it and its citizens enjoying generous social programmes. Do you really think the south wants to pay for that or that they want to give it up?
All before we consider what the unionists would do...
You're just coming out with vague terms about the cost and it's pretty obvious you've not really considered it. Indeed, your solution appears to be a case of "sure it'll all work out in the end". Right :rolleyes:Reunification will not be a seamless operation, undoubtedbly there will be teething difficulties but the positive dynamic of an All-Ireland economy will benefit us all in the long term!0 -
Erin Go Brath wrote: »We will have to wait until Catholics outbreed Protestant in the 6 Counties before a 6 County referendum is triggered by the Secretary of State.
We're back to this old chestnut again.
there a lot of assumptions being made about people not yet born, based on the religion of yet to be parents.
Anyway, I thought this wasn't about religion.0 -
Unification of Two Tribes, how? & why? - being Irish can mean standing for God Save the Queen, or standing for the Soldiers Song/ one Unionist, one Nationalist - Why & How should we try and make them into 'One Type' of Irishness?
But was Ireland ever 'United' in the first place? and were the people of Ireland ever 'One people'? or was Ireland always seperated by different tribes, different relegions, different alligences, different beliefs, with different flags?
I suspect Ireland was never 'United' as one single entity, & I doubt if it ever will be, unless one side gives up their culture/ gives up their Beliefs - gives up their Birthright - Gives up their flag & Anthem and is 'taken over' or becomes like the other . . . ie Unionist becoming Nationalist.
In answer to the original question - NO.0 -
Advertisement
-
Couldn't care less, and anyone who does needs to get their sh1t together.
Its like the black people in america still bitching about slavery.0 -
Theres no point in a united ireland.
Whats the benefit of it in this day and age. It would simply create more problems.0 -
I challenge you to find a single poll ever undertaken in the 26 Counties since partition which shows a majority would vote against unification. Most polls i've ever seen on the topic show a 2:1 or higher majority in favour of the unification of the national territory.
No poll has ever acknowledged the real costs and compromises that would have to be made to even *attempt* to accomadate the Unionists. I doubt youve ever even considered the shopping list the DUP and UUP could present as a price for not stirring up their voter, let alone the loyalists, against a Dublin government. With the amount of leverage they would have they could demand "God Save the Queen" as a second anthem with equal footing with the "Soldiers Song" at every state event....0 -
Why?Erin Go Brath wrote: »...the positive dynamic of an All-Ireland economy will benefit us all in the long term!0 -
Erin Go Brath wrote: »Reunification will not be a seamless operation, undoubtedbly there will be teething difficulties but the positive dynamic of an All-Ireland economy will benefit us all in the long term!
We already have one- the EU is a no holds barred free trade area. Of course by your logic I'm sure you wouldn't oppose a single EU state with one large economy for the benefit of all....right?0 -
Well I think we can pretty much agree that NI is like a black hole with tax money, whether its in the UK or the Republic. So when we have our referendum down here to decide on unification (a referendum will be necessary to edit the constitution), a big list will be made of which voters voted which way.
If you voted NO to unification you get to live life normally. All efforts will be made to ensure that the transition will have no economic effect on your life.
If, on the other hand, you voted YES, you will have to pay the cost for the North. A big tally will be had of how much of a strain the North will be on our public finances, from subsidies to government etc. This tally will then be funded by those who actually wanted this economic mess. In effect, if you vote YES your tax will be jacked up to accommodate the financial repercussions of your vote.
Fair enough? Give me a reason why not!0 -
Yes, I support and would like to see Irish Unity. The North is too small to survive as an independant state on it's own and British rule in the North has been laughable at best.0
-
yes,
if people come together,0 -
I would very much love to see a united Ireland and I hope to see it in my lifetime. I consider my country to be Ireland rather than the republic of Ireland and I've always hated the idea of it being divided. I think in hindsight it would have been better if we didn't leave the union with Britain when we did. We should have waited for a few decades to develop our economy under British rule. We would have eventually had devolution anyway like the Scots and the Welsh and the level of independence we would have had as part of the United Kingdom would not have been all that different from the level of independence we now have as part of the European Union. An Ireland united under British rule is still preferable in my mind to an Ireland divided under Brussels rule.
I would prefer if a united Ireland didn't mean we'd have to add a million orangemen to our population but hopefully a lot of those people will move to Britain when it does happen, the same way that many unionists in the 26 counties moved there after partition. For the people who remain I think we will need to make some sacrifices. We'll need to develop stronger links with Britain (our nearest neighbour and still one of our main trading partners) and possibly give a minor consitutional role to the British monarch. I agree with Kevin Myers as well who said that we should consider coming up with a new flag and a new anthem that would be more acceptable to the unionists. The symbolism of the tricolour is perfect but sadly it has become associated with violent republicanism in the eyes of the unionists and so I can't see it having any future in a united Ireland.
Anyway, the sacrifices we'll need to make to accomodate the orangemen will not be as great in the long-term as the sacrifices we'll need to make to accomodate the Poles and the Nigerians and the Chinese and the muslims. I think it's a bit ironic that many of the people who argue against a united Ireland because the orangemen are not like us are the same people who would be quick to jump on anyone who makes the same point when arguing in favour of stricter immigration controls.
A united Ireland will cost us financially but I think we can afford it and many of us would be happy to pay the price for the fourth green field. I remember seeing a poll on this a few years ago that showed most people in the 26 counties would still support a united Ireland even if it meant an increase in the amount of tax we'll have to pay. It will only be temporary anyway as eventually the two parts of the country will become fully integrated and we'll share the tax burden equally. The north will be moving in the direction of greater economic self-reliance and so the financial burden will not be as great after another ten years as it is anois. If the north unites with the south they will have the same corporation tax and so they will be much more competitive than they are now.0 -
:rolleyes:Anyway, the sacrifices we'll need to make to accomodate the orangemen will not be as great in the long-term as the sacrifices we'll need to make to accomodate the Poles and the Nigerians and the Chinese and the muslims.
Is there anything you can discuss without having a swipe at foreigners?0 -
Advertisement
-
Is there anything you can discuss without having a swipe at foreigners?
I wasn't taking a swipe at anyone. I was pointing out that just as we'll need to make sacrifices to accommodate the Ulster protestants in a united Ireland, we'll also need to make sacrifices to accommodate the immigrants and their descendants in a multicultural Ireland. How is that taking a swipe at foreigners?0 -
So Ireland under London, which in turn is under Brussels is better than an Ireland that can represent itself directly in Brussels? Go figure.An Ireland united under British rule is still preferable in my mind to an Ireland divided under Brussels rule.
Why don't you go tell us now how we could then be strong enough to break free of EU domination and we'll all be gaily dancing at the crossroads when we do.
The term you're looking for is ethnic cleansing.I would prefer if a united Ireland didn't mean we'd have to add a million orangemen to our population but hopefully a lot of those people will move to Britain when it does happen, the same way that many unionists in the 26 counties moved there after partition.
That'll make up for the ethnic cleansing, no doubt.We'll need to develop stronger links with Britain (our nearest neighbour and still one of our main trading partners) and possibly give a minor consitutional role to the British monarch.
Aren't you contradicting yourself now? I thought you wanted them to leave?I agree with Kevin Myers as well who said that we should consider coming up with a new flag and a new anthem that would be more acceptable to the unionists.
That's because no one is suggesting unification with Poland or Nigeria.I think it's a bit ironic that many of the people who argue against a united Ireland because the orangemen are not like us are the same people who would be quick to jump on anyone who makes the same point when arguing in favour of stricter immigration controls.
Where? Indeed, if we're 'recollecting' polls, I remember one saying that showed most people in the 26 counties would not support a united Ireland even if it meant an increase in the amount of tax we'll have to pay.I remember seeing a poll on this a few years ago that showed most people in the 26 counties would still support a united Ireland even if it meant an increase in the amount of tax we'll have to pay.
Tell that to the Germans, they're still paying for theirs even though Helmut Kohl swore blind that the special tax to fund it would be gone in five years. Eighteen years later they're still paying it.It will only be temporary anyway as eventually the two parts of the country will become fully integrated and we'll share the tax burden equally.
What evidence, if any, do you have of this? With the public sector presently accounting for over 60% of the economy there, your claims sound less than realistic.The north will be moving in the direction of greater economic self-reliance and so the financial burden will not be as great after another ten years as it is anois.
I think you'll find that there's more to making an economy successful than corporation tax. Maybe you should read more on the topic of economics before you entertain us with your fantasies.If the north unites with the south they will have the same corporation tax and so they will be much more competitive than they are now.0 -
The Corinthian wrote:So Ireland under London, which in turn is under Brussels is better than an Ireland that can represent itself directly in Brussels?
Not at all. An Ireland directly represented in Brussels is better than an Ireland represented by Britain, the same way that a Scotland represented directly under Brussels would be better for Scotland in Europe than a Scotland represented as part of Britain.The Corinthian wrote:Why don't you go tell us now how we could then be strong enough to break free of EU domination and we'll all be gaily dancing at the crossroads when we do.
What are you talking about?The Corinthian wrote:The term you're looking for is ethnic cleansing.
I don't think so. Ethnic cleansing is the forceful movement of people against their will. I'm not advocating the forceful movement of the orangemen from Ulster. I just made the point that if there is a united Ireland it's probable that a lot of them will move to Britain, the same way that many unionists in the 26 counties moved there during the 1920s. Many of them will also stay behind and we'll need to accommodate those people.The Corinthian wrote:Aren't you contradicting yourself now? I thought you wanted them to leave?
I do want as many of them to leave as possible but if you read what I had written I was talking about the people who don't leave, the people who choose to remain in Ulster.The Corinthian wrote:That's because no one is suggesting unification with Poland or Nigeria.
I understand that but I can still see an inconsistency between the two positions. Being opposed to a united Ireland because they're "not like us" while at the same time condemning those people who are opposed to a multicultural Ireland for the same reason does not seem to be a consistent position to take.The Corinthian wrote:Where?
I don't know. If I had the link to it I would have included it when I first mentioned it above.The Corinthian wrote:I remember one saying that showed most people in the 26 counties would not support a united Ireland even if it meant an increase in the amount of tax we'll have to pay.
Maybe, I wasn't aware that that was the case. That could have been the same poll I saw, just that I was mistook what the result said. The result might have shown the exact opposite to what I thought.
Based on the wikipedia United Ireland entry (here), a poll conducted by the Sunday Business Post in 2006 found that 77% of voters in the 26 counties would like to see a united Ireland. Just 10% of the population don't believe the government should make no effort to bring it about. It doesn't mention anything about the costs that people would be prepared to pay so I'm not sure where people stand on that.The Corinthian wrote:Tell that to the Germans, they're still paying for theirs even though Helmut Kohl swore blind that the special tax to fund it would be gone in five years. Eighteen years later they're still paying it.
It wouldn't matter to me if it took twenty years for us to pay for the North. Most of the Germans I know are glad that their country is united, and while many of them resent the fact that the east costs them so much money, I've never met any German who regrets that Germany was reunited.
According to the wikipedia article on united Ireland (here), the costs of Irish unification will probably be lower than the costs of German unification.The Corinthian wrote:What evidence, if any, do you have of this?
Based on the figures on that wikipedia United Ireland entry (here). GDP is growing faster in the north than it is in England, Wales and Scotland. I don't think that growth can be attributed to the public sector.
If both economies united we would have a combined GDP per capita of 27,000 euros.The Corinthian wrote:I think you'll find that there's more to making an economy successful than corporation tax.
It also needs good infrastructure and a good protestant work ethic which is something the north has.0 -
I understand that but I can still see an inconsistency between the two positions. Being opposed to a united Ireland because they're "not like us" while at the same time condemning those people who are opposed to a multicultural Ireland for the same reason does not seem to be a consistent position to take.
I hold both those positions so perhaps I can shed light upon my rationale. I don't oppose a united Ireland in principle, in some ways I think it would be quiet nice but only in abstract. Objectively there are many problems which I and many others can foresee without any direct tangible benefits.
As has been eluded to many times the Norths economy is very different to our own and heavily reliant upon the public sector which accounts for 63% of their overall economy, comparatively our public sector only accounts for 36% of our economy. If we were to take on the responsibility of managing the Norths economy it would cost us a huge amount in government funding for many years. Although I admit that there is no comparison to East Germany as the East German infrastructure was massively underdeveloped whereas NI's is at a similar level to our own.
The only way to deal with the economy of the North over the long term is to completely restructure it by privatisation where possible and cutting employment levels across the remaining sectors. It would be very difficult to replace those jobs with new private sector jobs at an adequate pace and there will be some structural unemployment the result of which will be a spike in unemployment levels and a decrease in the size of the economy. It would take several years to develop the private sector to fully pick up the slack left over from the downsized public sector.
I have no opposition to a united Ireland on cultural grounds but bet your ass many Unionists do. Dissident Unionists could escalate the situation and start a campaign to free themselves of Irish rule. Their cause would be aided by disaffected former public sector employees who are victims of the painful but necessary restructuring of the economy. I think your presupposition that many Unionist would emigrate to Britain is ill founded. How many Irish emigrated south after partitioning? There wouldn't be any entertainment of your notion that we could give a constitutional role to the Monarch or other such nonsense as it would be rejected out of hand in a popular referenda.
In finale I would reflect back to the relation you played between my rejection of seeking a united Ireland and immigration. As I have pointed out I do not oppose a united Ireland on cultural ground and at the same time I do not support immigration on cultural grounds so your entire premise is false.0 -
Let me rephrase what I said to allow for your pedantry: "So a united Ireland under London, which in turn is under Brussels is better than a divided Ireland that can represent itself directly in Brussels?"Not at all. An Ireland directly represented in Brussels is better than an Ireland represented by Britain, the same way that a Scotland represented directly under Brussels would be better for Scotland in Europe than a Scotland represented as part of Britain.
I was just waiting for when you'd turn the discussion on a more Euroscpetic slant.What are you talking about?
Why would they want to move, unless the environment becomes less that friendly to them, as it did for the protestant population in the south after the establishment of the Free State?I don't think so. Ethnic cleansing is the forceful movement of people against their will. I'm not advocating the forceful movement of the orangemen from Ulster. I just made the point that if there is a united Ireland it's probable that a lot of them will move to Britain, the same way that many unionists in the 26 counties moved there during the 1920s. Many of them will also stay behind and we'll need to accommodate those people.
Ethnic cleansing does not need forceful movement to work, sometimes just making life uncomfortable enough will do the trick, and this would satisfy the UN's definition of the term as being "rendering an area ethnically homogeneous by using force or intimidation to remove from a given area persons of another ethnic or religious group".
And if they don't? And if they choose to stay and fight? After all, there is a precedence for an 'armed struggle' on behalf of a minority up there.I do want as many of them to leave as possible but if you read what I had written I was talking about the people who don't leave, the people who choose to remain in Ulster.
If you can't see the difference between controlled and limited immigration and a sudden influx of a culturally heterogeneous population that would increase the population by a quarter overnight, that's not my problem.I understand that but I can still see an inconsistency between the two positions. Being opposed to a united Ireland because they're "not like us" while at the same time condemning those people who are opposed to a multicultural Ireland for the same reason does not seem to be a consistent position to take.
Then you'll forgive us if we don't accept your word on it.I don't know. If I had the link to it I would have included it when I first mentioned it above.
And that's really what it comes down to.Based on the wikipedia United Ireland entry (here), a poll conducted by the Sunday Business Post in 2006 found that 77% of voters in the 26 counties would like to see a united Ireland. Just 10% of the population don't believe the government should make no effort to bring it about. It doesn't mention anything about the costs that people would be prepared to pay so I'm not sure where people stand on that.
It's easy to get someone to answer patriotically, as long as you don't give them a chance to think about the consequences for too long. But in the privacy of the ballot box, and with time to consider the cost, things are a little different.
As long as you're willing to let people know that it may take twenty years for us to pay for the North too.It wouldn't matter to me if it took twenty years for us to pay for the North.
I've met plenty.Most of the Germans I know are glad that their country is united, and while many of them resent the fact that the east costs them so much money, I've never met any German who regrets that Germany was reunited.
The assumption there being that there is a greater degree of economic integration that exists between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, hence lower costs. Problem with this is (just off the top of my head):According to the wikipedia article on united Ireland (here), the costs of Irish unification will probably be lower than the costs of German unification.- It is the personal and unattributed opinion of a Wikipedia contributor
- No metrics on this level of integration are given.
- It ignores the €6.3 billion p.a. that the UK pays the province to keep everyone in public sector jobs.
- It ignores the social upheval - East Germans were overwelmingly happy with the idea of reunification, Northern Irish are not, which will lead to migration of capital (human and financial) or worse.
You don't think or you don't know? The latter is an argument, the former is simply opinion.Based on the figures on that wikipedia United Ireland entry (here). GDP is growing faster in the north than it is in England, Wales and Scotland. I don't think that growth can be attributed to the public sector.
GDP per Capita doesn't work that way in the Real World though. For example, following the reunification of Germany, GDP per capita fell for the combined state and took seven years to even return to West German levels.If both economies united we would have a combined GDP per capita of 27,000 euros.
A good protestant work ethic? Are you for real? We're talking about an economy where over 6 out of ten workers are civil servants - you have to be taking the piss!It also needs good infrastructure and a good protestant work ethic which is something the north has.0 -
I'm a protestant, I'm a lazy bastard that spends all day on boards...go figure
0 -
I also forgot to add I'm a confirmed Protestant turned atheist so any notion that I'm opposed to a united Ireland on cultural gounds should end there.0
-
Why Not have a 'United Ireland' with one economy, one Tax rate, one head of state, one national anthem, one national flag, with the border completly removed, a Nation once again, with one currency, one set of interest rates, all the people cherished equally under one culture, United as we were pre 1922 as part of the UK - Well, if people go on & on about a United Ireland why should it be one way traffic? with the North being absorbed into the South & taking on the Southern culture? why not re-absorbe the south back into the UK as it was pre 1922, then you could have your Holy Grail of a 'United Ireland' & I am sure Irelands Unionists would be very happy indeed - then, just to put the iceing on the cake, you could remove about 20 layers of green paint on the post boxes to reveal the Nations 'Royal Mail Red' once again
How about that for a United Ireland? my point being that its just as daft asking the North to become part of the South as it is for the South to become part of the North or reintegrate back into the UK - isnt it?0 -
The Corinthian wrote:Let me rephrase what I said to allow for your pedantry: "So a united Ireland under London, which in turn is under Brussels is better than a divided Ireland that can represent itself directly in Brussels?"
That is correct. That's what I believe. Ideally, I would like a united and independent Ireland governed from Dublin rather than from either London or Brussels. If it's a choice between the setup that Scotland has today though and what we have now I would still rather be a united Ireland in the United Kingdom than be a divided country. Scotland is now just a few steps away from being an independent country. Not only would we be in the same position today had we remained in the union with Britain but we'd also probably be wealthier and still united. We'd also probably have far fewer immigrants.The Corinthian wrote:Why would they want to move, unless the environment becomes less that friendly to them
Because I think many unionists value their British identity so much that I'm sure they would rather live on British soil under a British government than live on Irish soil under an Irish government, even if that government and the nationalist population is bending over backwards to make them feel welcome.The Corinthian wrote:as it did for the protestant population in the south after the establishment of the Free State?
What do you mean it became a less friendly place for protestants after the establishment of the Free State? What evidence do you have that it was any less friendly than it was before the establishment of the free state?The Corinthian wrote:Ethnic cleansing does not need forceful movement to work, sometimes just making life uncomfortable enough will do the trick
I don't want to see us to make life uncomfortable for northern protestants in a united Ireland. As I've said, I think we should be prepared to make sacrifices so that they feel at home in a united Ireland.The Corinthian wrote:this would satisfy the UN's definition of the term as being "rendering an area ethnically homogeneous by using force or intimidation to remove from a given area persons of another ethnic or religious group".
And I'm not advocating anything that would meet the UN's definition of ethnic cleansing.The Corinthian wrote:And if they don't?
Most of them probably won't. We'll have to make a united Ireland as accommodating a place for them as we can.The Corinthian wrote:And if they choose to stay and fight?
You're assuming that if they stay they'll fight which I don't think is a fair assumption. I believe most of them will stay but I can't see them choosing to fight. They're resigned to the fact that Ireland will be united some day so I think they will probably just accept it as something that's not worth wasting the energy to oppose.
Northern protestants are a law-abiding and peaceful people. If they do want to mount any opposition to an united Ireland, I think that it will take the form of political and democratic opposition. I don't believe they will resort to violence.The Corinthian wrote:After all, there is a precedence for an 'armed struggle' on behalf of a minority up there.
There is, and most people up there have no desire to see a return to it. As I said, I think most people are resigned to the inevitability of a united Ireland so I can't see them resorting to violence to try to reverse something that has little prospect of being reversed.The Corinthian wrote:If you can't see the difference between controlled and limited immigration and a sudden influx of a culturally heterogeneous population
Controlled and limited immigration? What country are you talking about?The Corinthian wrote:that would increase the population by a quarter overnight
The size of the territory will increase as well so it's not really correct to say that it's just the population that's increasing. It's the size of the national territory that's increasing.The Corinthian wrote:Then you'll forgive us if we don't accept your word on it.
Forgiven and forgotten old boy! Forgiven and forgotten!The Corinthian wrote:It's easy to get someone to answer patriotically, as long as you don't give them a chance to think about the consequences for too long. But in the privacy of the ballot box, and with time to consider the cost, things are a little different.
I am more than confident that the majority of the people in the 26 counties will be prepared to bear a financial burden as great as that borne by the west Germans after German reunification.The Corinthian wrote:As long as you're willing to let people know that it may take twenty years for us to pay for the North too.
Absolutely. Even if the economists see no reason to believe that it will take twenty years we should still be told that it will take that long to be sure that we really do want it and are prepared to pay the price.The Corinthian wrote:I've met plenty.
I've never met any Germans who regrets that their country was united. I've met Irish people who don't want a united Ireland. There are plenty of them on this forum. I think they're only a very small minority of the Irish population though.The Corinthian wrote:It ignores the €6.3 billion p.a. that the UK pays the province to keep everyone in public sector jobs.
Does it? How do you know this wasn't factored into the calculations?The Corinthian wrote:It ignores the social upheval - East Germans were overwelmingly happy with the idea of reunification, Northern Irish are not,
They may not be happy with the idea now, but when the time comes that a majority of them vote in favour of it then a majority of them will be happy about it. And I can't see the the unhappy people causing many problems.The Corinthian wrote:which will lead to migration of capital (human and financial) or worse.
Most of the foreign companies who have invested in the north will be in a better position in a united Ireland because not only will they have the same access to the same markets but they'll also have to pay a lower level of corporation tax. FDI will almost definitely increase in the north if Ireland is united.
And the human migration would be a good thing if the people emigrating are unionists. It will ease the sectarian tension between the two sides.
On the comparison with German unification, East Germany was much poorer than West Germany and had an infrastructure that was in need of huge amount of investment. Compared with Ireland, the north has a more developed infrastructure than the 26 counties and the difference in average standard of living between both parts of the country is not as great as it was between East and West Germany.0 -
Advertisement
-
Sorry O'Morris but i had to laugh at your posts. i find it difficult to see the people of a soveirgn republic accepting an unelected head of state or even joining a union which is just a hangover from the imperial days.
A united ireland would damage the republic. an angry unionist majority would probably start a civil war which would disrupt the peace that has been on this island. an i dont see any reason why we should be bending over backwards to make unionists happy. to me they are foreigners in a foreign country who i dont want to share a nation with.
michael collins and his fellow negotiatiors may not have known it when leaving the treaty negotiations in 1921 but the ceding of the north was the best thing that could have happened for the newly independent free state which would later become the irish republic.
its no secret that the brits would be more than happy to be able to give up responsibilty for the north.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement