Would you like to see a united Ireland?

djpbarry

O'Morris wrote: »

Not all of them are descended from the original planters but most of the hard unionists are.

How do you know? You're just guessing, aren't you?

O'Morris wrote: »

I'm not defining them by religion or ethnicity. They define themselves by religion and ethnicity.

No, they don't; once again, nationalist ≠ catholic and unionist ≠ protestant.

O'Morris wrote: »

All the way back to when Ireland was first inhabited 9,000 years ago.

:rolleyes:

You see, this is the problem. You think that most Irish people can trace all their ancestry back to pre-history, whereas "Orangemen" can only trace their ancestry on this island back a few hundred years. Can you not see how utterly ludicrous your position is?

O'Morris wrote: »

I have several friends who are black...

:rolleyes:

O'Morris wrote: »

I have repeatedly said that I don't want to force them to leave.

But you want them to leave never-the-less.

O'Morris

djpbarry wrote:

How do you know? You're just guessing, aren't you?

No, I'm basing it on my knowledge of Irish history. The reason the majority of the north's population are a different religion from the rest of the Irish population is not because the reformation was successful only among Ireland's indigenous population in Ulster while the rest of the country stuck to the old faith. The reason Ulster is protestant and feels an ethnic attachment to the people of the neighbouring island has to do with the mass immigration of thousands of British protestants to Ulster in the 17th century. If that's not a historical fact then I have a seriously distorted view of Irish history.

djpbarry wrote:

You think that most Irish people can trace all their ancestry back to pre-history,

I wouldn't say they can trace their ancestry back to pre-history. I would be surprised if anyone could trace their ancestry back more than a millennium, let alone 9,000 years. The evidence does seem to suggest that the majority of the Irish population do share genes with the original inhabitants though. The experts think that this is enough to indicate that the Irish are mostly the descendants of the people who originally settled here 9,000 years ago.

djpbarry wrote:

whereas "Orangemen" can only trace their ancestry on this island back a few hundred years.

That's correct. Most orangemen are the direct descendants of protestants who immigrated from Scotland and England during the 17th century.

djpbarry wrote:

Can you not see how utterly ludicrous your position is?

No, I can't. Explain why you think it's an utterly ludicrous position?

djpbarry wrote:

once again, nationalist ≠ catholic and unionist ≠ protestant.

You can't believe how much I would love for that to be true.

djpbarry wrote:

But you want them to leave never-the-less.

If they find the idea of living in a united Ireland so unbearable that they would rather emigrate to Britain then that's a decision that we should respect. I think we should do everything we can to make sure that they don't find the idea of a united Ireland unbearable and that they are made to feel fully at home in the same country with the rest of us but if they still want to leave then that's entirely up to them. I don't want us to force them to stay any more than I want to force them to leave. I wouldn't shed any tears if half the population of the Shankill road decided to move to Glasgow. Would you?

The Corinthian

Mayo Exile wrote: »

Which is what Unionists did after the December 1918 general election. A majority of the people on the island voted for some form of independence, be it the Sinn Fein model or the Nationalist Party's version. Both Unionism and the British government at the time, refused to accept the outcome.

There's a fine line between democracy and tyranny by the majority. After all, if the entire island of Britian voted for something and the majority English overruled the Scots and the Welsh, by weight of numbers, how democratic would that be? Perhaps Kosovo should have remained part of Serbia, given that a referendum in the whole of Serbia in favour of Kosovar independence would almost certainly been defeated?

This is before we examine your claim that a "majority of the people on the island voted for some form of independence", because that's as vague as you can get.

Mayo Exile

Originally posted by the Corinthian: There's a fine line between democracy and tyranny by the majority. After all, if the entire island of Britian voted for something and the majority English overruled the Scots and the Welsh, by weight of numbers, how democratic would that be? Perhaps Kosovo should have remained part of Serbia, given that a referendum in the whole of Serbia in favour of Kosovar independence would almost certainly been defeated?

Surely an overgeneralisation? Every historical event should be examined on its own.

This is before we examine your claim that a "majority of the people on the island voted for some form of independence", because that's as vague as you can get.

Really? Here's the result of the election for Ireland. No vagueness at all in the actual figures! If you combine the island wide vote for Sinn Fein and the Nationalist Party they got a combined 68.6% of votes cast.

Of course swings are amplified in first past the post systems. Sinn Fein got 73 (25 uncontested) seats with a vote of 476,087 while the Nationalist Party got only 6 seats with 220,837. If the 25 seats taken unopposed by SF were contested, the percentages for SF and the NP could have been more.

Link to election result: http://www.ark.ac.uk/elections/h1918.htm

The Corinthian

pablomakaveli wrote: »

ancient ireland was also divided into different kingdoms and there would have been a pan-gaelic quality to ancient ireland similar to greece. you can also see this with medieval italy and germany. so while there was never officially a "united ireland" before the english invasions there still was a pan-gaelic area in the island of ireland.

Well, you get that everywhere, and it's not always a good idea - Yugoslavia being a case in point.

its turned into a situation where people want a united ireland just for the sake of it.

A lot of it is armchair nationalism - standing behind the man, behind the man, behind the man... and so on. That's why a lot of the debates on this issue irritate me - lots of people who want a united Ireland on principle and are not too bothered about the cost or even the 'why' of it.

The Corinthian

Mayo Exile wrote: »

Surely an overgeneralisation? Every historical event should be examined on its own.

No, it was a rebuttal - You gave as evidence a majority vote and I debunked the notion that a simple majority is the answer, as you implied.

Mayo Exile

Originally posted by The Corinthian: No, it was a rebuttal - You gave as evidence a majority vote and I debunked the notion that a simple majority is the answer, as you implied.

So this particular expression (December 1918) of democracy through the ballot box is not valid then? We hear enough nowadays about the "majority of people of Northern Ireland" etc etc....

Where do you draw the line on what constitutes a majority? If County Dublin voted to secede tomorrow from the Republic of Ireland, would you accept it?

The Corinthian

Mayo Exile wrote: »

Where do you draw the line on what constitutes a majority? If County Dublin voted to secede tomorrow from the Republic of Ireland, would you accept it?

That's the question, isn't it? Should Kosovo be independent? Then why not Abkhazia? Should we have a pan-European referendum as to whether we should all become part of a European superstate?

Can you impose a simple 'majority' in one case and not in another depending upon the circumstances? And if so, your original point is invalid.

McArmalite

Mayo Exile wrote: »

So expressions of democracy through the ballot box are not valid in all cases then? We hear enough nowadays about the "majority of people of Northern Ireland" etc etc....

Where do you draw the line on what constitutes a majority? If County Dublin voted to secede tomorrow from the Republic of Ireland, would you accept it?

Couldn't agree more with you Mayo. It's only democracy only when the secterian gerrymander that is ' Northern Ireland ' is allowed to impose it's way.

I see also Corinthian that you failed to reply to my post criticising your comments on Irish history and culture etc. If their's anyone whose trying to create insulting myths about here - it's yourself;).

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=57394427&postcount=143

The Corinthian

McArmalite wrote: »

Couldn't agree more with you Mayo. It's only democracy only when the secterian gerrymander that is ' Northern Ireland ' is allowed to impose it's way.

Yet the United Kingdom of Great Britian and Ireland did not vote for Irish independence - only a part of it did. If you accept that a sub-division can overrule the greater majority, then you need to accept that a further sub division of that group may overrule them. Otherwise you're just cherry picking the democracy you want to hear.

I see also Corinthian that you failed to reply to my post criticising your comments on Irish history and culture etc. If their's anyone whose trying to create insulting myths about here - it's yourself;)

Getting to that when I had more time, TBH. Some of us don't have as much spare time as you.

Mayo Exile

Originally posted by The Corinthian: That's the question, isn't it?

Indeed it is the question. Now you are down to the most basic fact, the strength and weakness of the opposing sides, which doesn't just apply to Historical scenarios.

Strength almost always wins, and the winners write the history books. Why is Abkhasia going remain independent despite what the EU etc thinks? Because its neighbour, Russia, has loads of tanks, planes (and nukes) to make sure it stays this way.

Similar to Ireland in 1918. Unionism, was backed by the British establishment, so if it wanted to secede from the rest of Ireland, Irish Nationalism simply couldn't stop the process, no matter what happened at the ballot box. The 1919-21 war was unable to change this. The northern state was in a de-facto state of existance by the Autumn of 1920, a full year before the December 1921 Anglo-Irish treaty was signed.

Unionism went for the 6 county solution, so that it could adequately control an area free from what it saw as "Rome Rule". Quite a practical solution from the Unionist point of view! However this left Northern Nationalists in a state they didn't want to be in. History is never fair!

Originally posted by The Corinthian: And if so, your original point is invalid.

I wouldn't consider my original point invalid, it's just my opinion, as is alot of Historical analysis. However when an opinion becomes policy and is subsequently enforced by strength (military etc.) things change.....

turgon

O'Morris wrote: »

If they find the idea of living in a united Ireland so unbearable that they would rather emigrate to Britain then that's a decision that we should respect.

Only a few pages back you were suggesting that you would prefer them all to leave: this is totally different to what your saying now. I am glad you have seen the light.

McArmalite

The Corinthian wrote: »

Yet the United Kingdom of Great Britian and Ireland did not vote for Irish independence - only a part of it did. If you accept that a sub-division can overrule the greater majority, then you need to accept that a further sub division of that group may overrule them. Otherwise you're just cherry picking the democracy you want to hear.

Getting to that when I had more time, TBH. Some of us don't have as much spare time as you.

No it's not cherry picking democracy. If anyone is cherry picking and inventing democracy it's you. Before partition 'Britian' was known as United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and not the United Kingdom of Great Britain and southern Ireland and northern Ireland.

Before partition Ireland was treated in administration as a single unit e.g. the Royal Irish Constabulary and not the southern/26 counties Royal Irish Constabulary and the northern/6 counties Royal Irish Constabulary. Even in the 1918 election Ireland was treated as a single unit as the british introduced the proportional representation system to just Ireland alone as they hoped it would split the vote between Sinn Fein and the Redmondites.

As a single unit it should have been allowed to democratically decide it's own future and not have the secterian gerrymander imposed on it by the threats of "terrible and immediate war" etc

Sand

As others pointed out, a subset of UK voters [ In the island of Ireland] voted mostly for pro-independance parties in 1918. At the same time, a subset of UK voters in the island of Ireland [ Northern Ireland] voted mostly for pro-union parties.

If the first subset has any weight, then logically the second subset must also have some weight.

There was no way in hell that the Unionist population of Northern Ireland could be forced into a Dublin government against their will. The Unionist population were willing to use force to resist any attempt to do so, and there was no stomach in the UK for using military force against them. End of.

kevinmyarse

i was reading abour the 1918 election the other day.
less than half the people of ireland voted for sinn fein.
slightly more than this voted for either unionists or the irish party which was on a home rule platform remaining within the uk
so in the last all ireland election a small majority voted to remain in the uk. because of first past the post system sinn fein got most of the seats.
because of murder we got partition
strange eh

guinnessdrinker

Sand wrote: »

There was no way in hell that the Unionist population of Northern Ireland could be forced into a Dublin government against their will. The Unionist population were willing to use force to resist any attempt to do so, and there was no stomach in the UK for using military force against them. End of.

So was it ok for nationalists in the North to be forced into a new unionist majority state and for southern unionists to be forced into a new Southern Ireland against their will?

Sand

If by "Ok" you mean better than any realistic alternative then yeah, it was ok.

rcecil

Sinn Fein stopped a war and brought an agreement which provides a peaceful and democratic resolution to the British mess. We should all build relationships with people in the north and encourage them to see the benefits of one government on this wee island. We can resolve this forever with pride in our island and a commitment never to accept discrimination or oppression again.

Turn out the corporate parties and the crooks!

Fratton Fred

rcecil wrote: »

Sinn Fein stopped a war and brought an agreement which provides a peaceful and democratic resolution to the British mess. We should all build relationships with people in the north and encourage them to see the benefits of one government on this wee island. We can resolve this forever with pride in our island and a commitment never to accept discrimination or oppression again.

Turn out the corporate parties and the crooks!

That was mighty good of Sinn Fein. maybe if they weren't directly involved in killing people in the first place then they would have a lot more respect north and south of the border.

and what exactly are the benefits you talk about?

Erin Go Brath

Fratton Fred wrote: »

That was mighty good of Sinn Fein. maybe if they weren't directly involved in killing people in the first place then they would have a lot more respect north and south of the border.

says the avid supporter of the british imperialist army

Fratton Fred

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

says the avid supporter of the british imperialist army

That's useful.

Erin Go Brath

Fratton Fred wrote: »

That's useful.

Just pointing out the illogical nature of your stance. You come on here saying Sinn Fein have been responsible for killings, yet you support the Imperialist British Army who made a habit of slaughtering people through the world for their own ends. Truly bizarre!

Fratton Fred

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

Just pointing out the illogical nature of your stance. You come on here saying Sinn Fein have been responsible for killings, yet you support the Imperialist British Army who made a habit of slaughtering people through the world for their own ends. Truly bizarre!

You are putting words in my mouth and making assumptions about me. I have never defended imperialism, only ever sought to put it into context.

I do no different to you, i will defend the actions of the British when needed and condemn those actions that i think should be condemned. How is that any different to the stance you and McArmalite take regarding the actions of SF/IRA.

Lets get back on topic. The people of Northern Ireland brought peace, not SF, the IRA, the DUP, the UVF or the British Army. The people had had enough and the different parties realised they were losing support by continuing the armed struggle.

Maybe you could tell us what the "Benefits" are of a united Ireland?

thejamescaird

btw the unionists fears about a united ireland in 1918 were as follows
rome rule
economic disaster
sectarianism by catholics
they were proved orrect in every respect
the irish government banned the free practice of the protestant religion in the south banning divorce, contraception and enshrineing catholic dogma in the constitution. they banned books discrimted against protestants in jobs. within a generation the protestants were down from 300000 in the south to 60000.
they allowed catholic paedophiles to **** tens of thousands of children.
they turned the country into the albania of western europe economically with 100s of thousands forced to emigrate. etc etc
the unionists made the right decision when you think of it.:)

Nalced_irl

Fratton Fred wrote: »

You are putting words in my mouth and making assumptions about me. I have never defended imperialism, only ever sought to put it into context.

I do no different to you, i will defend the actions of the British when needed and condemn those actions that i think should be condemned. How is that any different to the stance you and McArmalite take regarding the actions of SF/IRA.

Lets get back on topic. The people of Northern Ireland brought peace, not SF, the IRA, the DUP, the UVF or the British Army. The people had had enough and the different parties realised they were losing support by continuing the armed struggle.

Maybe you could tell us what the "Benefits" are of a united Ireland?

1. The Irish up there that have been treated like dirt would finally be free and not made felt like 2nd class citizens.
2. We could use some of their footballers.
3. Lets face it, pride! We could finally say that Ireland is free of occupation once and for all. This to me is the main thing and would be worth economic sacrafices...well, well see how bad the reccession gets!
4. Maybe that french bird that sent the letter to the Indo likes Belfast accents.
5. We wouldnt have to see Sam Maguire going to a different country anymore, altho hopefully the Dubs will stop that next year anyway.

Well, 2 serious ones obviously but a little humour here every now and then cant hurt either. I know economically it doesnt make sense to want it back but its a matter of claiming what is rightfully yours. Same question in reverse: Why do the brits want it since its costing them so much? Surely in the midst of IRA bombings in England it would have been easier for them to give it back and be done with it? Of course the answer again is pride. They dont want to look beaten.

Just realised i never answered the original question altho i dont think i need to Yes, i would like to see a united Ireland but done properly. Everyone made welcome and sacrafices made by both sides to ensure everyone feels welcome if needs be.

Fratton Fred

Nalced_irl wrote: »

1. The Irish up there that have been treated like dirt would finally be free and not made felt like 2nd class citizens.
2. We could use some of their footballers.
3. Lets face it, pride! We could finally say that Ireland is free of occupation once and for all. This to me is the main thing and would be worth economic sacrafices...well, well see how bad the reccession gets!
4. Maybe that french bird that sent the letter to the Indo likes Belfast accents.
5. We wouldnt have to see Sam Maguire going to a different country anymore, altho hopefully the Dubs will stop that next year anyway.

Well, 2 serious ones obviously but a little humour here every now and then cant hurt either. I know economically it doesnt make sense to want it back but its a matter of claiming what is rightfully yours. Same question in reverse: Why do the brits want it since its costing them so much? Surely in the midst of IRA bombings in England it would have been easier for them to give it back and be done with it? Of course the answer again is pride. They dont want to look beaten.

Just realised i never answered the original question altho i dont think i need to Yes, i would like to see a united Ireland but done properly. Everyone made welcome and sacrafices made by both sides to ensure everyone feels welcome if needs be.

So the Irish reason for wanting it, isn;t much more than the British reason for keeping it really.

I can see 6.5bn reasons why the British would want to get rid of it, but at the height of the IRA bombing campaign it would have been suicide for any government to even suggest it, such was the anti IRA feeling in England.

The only thing preventing it from a British perspective is that a) Britain and Ireland have agreed that the people of NI decide and b) people can;t bear the thought of Gerry Adams and Martin Mcguinness being victorious. If there were a new face of Irish republicanism, one that hasn't carried the coffins of dead terrorists, then it would be a lot more pallatable for English voters.

OH, the other reasons you mention, I can relate to them, but now Ryan Giggs is crap and there is no need for a British football team, Scotland and Wales can follow Ireland into independence as far as I care:D

Erin Go Brath

Fratton Fred wrote: »

You are putting words in my mouth and making assumptions about me. I have never defended imperialism, only ever sought to put it into context.

I do no different to you, i will defend the actions of the British when needed and condemn those actions that i think should be condemned. How is that any different to the stance you and McArmalite take regarding the actions of SF/IRA.

Lets get back on topic. The people of Northern Ireland brought peace, not SF, the IRA, the DUP, the UVF or the British Army. The people had had enough and the different parties realised they were losing support by continuing the armed struggle.

Maybe you could tell us what the "Benefits" are of a united Ireland?

Fred, we are very different animals. I for one could never justify or excuse an attack on another smaller and weaker nation nor would i try to put it into 'context'. Whats morally wrong is morally wrong. I strongly believe in every nations right to self-determination unhindered by larger powers who may have vested interests.

The actions of the IRA throughout the troubles were a reaction to the institutionalised sectarianism, gerrymandering and discriminiation against the nationalist community in the 6 county statelet. Its regrettable and unfortunate but if you kick a group of people and try to keep them down, a backlash is inevitable.

People here in the 26 can look down their nose on SF and the IRA because they didn't have to go through what the people up there had to go through. The telling point is that SF are the largest (and growing) nationalist party in the 6 Counties. The people in that area of conflict know and trust SF to represent them and have given them a mandate to do so.

oscarBravo

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

I for one could never justify or excuse an attack on another smaller and weaker nation nor would i try to put it into 'context'.

But murdering gardaí is OK?

LordSutch

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

The actions of the IRA throughout the troubles were a reaction to the institutionalised sectarianism, gerrymandering and discriminiation against the nationalist community in the 6 county statelet. Its regrettable and unfortunate but if you kick a group of people and try to keep them down, a backlash is inevitable.

What a total load of old hogwash

You have the cheek to say that the murdering actions of the IRA throughout the Troubles were reactionary!

YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS :mad:

The Provisional IRA waged their dirty little 'War' against the good people of Northern Ireland & anybody else who got in their way (including the Gardai), I cannot believe the audacity of the brainwashed followers of the Provo/ Sinn Fein movement when they claim that 'Ah sure we were only reacting' to the secterianism & sure dats why we planted da Bombs !!!

My blood boils reading any kind of excuse for what the IRA actually did to people.

Mayo Exile

What a total load of old hogwash

You have the cheek to say that the murdering actions of the IRA throughout the Troubles were reactionary!

YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS

The Provisional IRA waged their dirty little 'War' against the good people of Northern Ireland & anybody else who got in their way (including the Gardai), I cannot believe the audacity of the brainwashed followers of the Provo/ Sinn Fein movement when they claim that 'Ah sure we were only reacting' to the secterianism & sure dats why we planted da Bombs !!!

My blood boils reading any kind of excuse for what the IRA actually did to people.

These shallow one sided selective condemnations where people have a good rant and then proceed to sit on their fat sod@ing a@se, fold their arms and feel superior and smug about themselves is making this thread very boring................

I could go on about "dirty little wars" of the Br...., RU..., UV....., UD..., Red Ha....., LV.......etc etc etc. The thread seems to be turning into a version of noughts and crosses. YOU CAN'T WIN THAT GAME!!!!!!!