Do all Catholics in the six counties want a united Ireland?

djpbarry

Deedsie wrote: »

That might be what you do with your (healthy) lifestyle choice and opinion. But how can you say who did those things first.

What difference does it make? The point is the similarities exist.

Deedsie wrote: »

RTÉ is pumped into nearly every house in Ireland and if you put an average Briton down watching our News and entertainment programmes he wouldnt have a clue what was going on, because he is British and we are Irish.

You’re obviously overlooking the fact that a large amount of the “entertainment” screened by RTE is either British or American in origin. As for the news, my wife’s British-born and she seems to be able to follow the RTE news just fine, thanks.

If the Irish and British are so incredibly different, then why have so many British people moved to Ireland and vice versa?

Deedsie wrote: »

The longest running programme on RTÉ is the Angelus. The BBC hardly covers Catholic programming?

So?

Deedsie wrote: »

The vast majority of Irish people are Catholics, Britons are not. Antother Difference.

You’re really clutching at straws now. I seriously doubt that the “vast majority” of Irish people are practicing Catholics.

Deedsie wrote: »

You cant accuse the Irish people of being British because the world has become globalised.

Likewise, it’s impossible to deny that American and British culture has had a massive influence on this country.

djpbarry

T runner wrote: »

The people in Britain who would describe their nationality as Scottish, English and Welsh would outnumber the people claiming to be British.

I don’t know about that. I would imagine most people would consider themselves British and whatever – there’s no reason why the two have to be mutually exclusive. If people really thought as you say they do, the union would have broken up long ago.

T runner wrote: »

Over 80% of people living in Ireland would describe themselves as Irish. Most of the 20% who describe themselves as British are nearly all protestants in the far North East of the country.

Hmm. I think that’s a different country you’re referring to there.

T runner wrote: »

They may hold allegiance to Britain but, and I dont mean any disrespect here, they are not from Britain...

Indeed. They are from the UK.

T runner wrote: »

I dont think its ridiculous as I was answering a point about ethnic groups.

You claimed that English people have more in common with people in Northern Germany than they do with people in Wales and Scotland. Apart from being ridiculously general, I used two very simple examples to illustrate how absurd that claim is.

T runner wrote: »

I would guess 95%. Enough to demonstrate that the divisions are religious.

It’s actually about 70%, according to this survey:
http://www.ark.ac.uk/nilt/2007/Political_Attitudes/UNINATID.html

So a sizeable minority of the unionist population do not consider themselves protestant. Personally, I think 70% falls well short of “nearly all”.

Grudaire

djpbarry wrote: »

So a sizeable minority of the unionist population do not consider themselves protestant. Personally, I think 70% falls well short of “nearly all”.

Not exactly, 18% of non-religious are Unionist, not 18% of Unionist are non-religious.... depends on how many non-religious there are really:D

djpbarry

Cliste wrote: »

Not exactly, 18% of non-religious are Unionist, not 18% of Unionist are non-religious....

Ah, sorry. Yes, I had that the wrong way around.

Grudaire

and if you look in the technical notes it's around 2% of all Northerner's are non-religious and Unionist, while 31% (ish) are Protestant unionist,

So actually it's less then 8% of all Unionists are non-religious

edit: I don't know why I'm assuming that the sample is a representation of actual peoples in the six counties, disregard above!

1huge1

slapbangwhallop wrote: »

yes I remember being told of the world class conditions that my great-grandfather lived in, the world class education they recieved and the world class job prospects they could look forward to! sheesh!

I don't believe he was saying that we were better off being part of the British empire by any means, just the fact that they were able to manage the country better in a lot of ways back then compared to now.

LordSutch

1huge1 wrote: »

I don't believe he was saying that we were better off being part of the British empire by any means, just the fact that they were able to manage the country better in a lot of ways back then compared to now.

Re Empire; May I suggest you should read Post#526 again.

TOMASJ

[quote=Camelot;58611927

]Apparently after Princess Diana's death the queue in Dublin to sign the book of condolence was just as long, or longer than many cities on the island next door, there has always been a fascination, liking, curiousity, for Royalty in Ireland.

If I remember this period correctly, Her Maj was close to being lynched by her English subjects,for her lack of feelings over the death of her very popular daughter in law, and her Muslim boy friend,
you could not have picked a worse example to portray Irish interest in the royal family

slapbangwhallop

1huge1 wrote: »

I don't believe he was saying that we were better off being part of the British empire by any means, just the fact that they were able to manage the country better in a lot of ways back then compared to now.

5 minutes saved on a journey from "Kingstown" to Dublin is hardly a strong case! :rolleyes:

Grudaire

1huge1 wrote: »

I don't believe he was saying that we were better off being part of the British empire by any means, just the fact that they were able to manage the country better in a lot of ways back then compared to now.

I mean look at the roads up North they're so much better:rolleyes:

I think we were doing fine and dandy with the Norman invaders.

SirHenryGrattan

Cliste wrote: »

I mean look at the roads up North they're so much better:rolleyes:

I think we were doing fine and dandy with the Norman invaders.

Find and dandy until your read about the Conscription Act of 1918.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_Crisis_of_1918

Forced participation in an unjust war tends to concentrate the mind. The Donkeys in charge gifted the 1918 General Election to Sinn Fein with that one.

The Corinthian

SirHenryGrattan wrote: »

Find and dandy until your read about the Conscription Act of 1918.

Good thing that conscription ended in the UK in 1960 then.

SirHenryGrattan

The Corinthian wrote: »

Good thing that conscription ended in the UK in 1960 then.

Indeed. Very fortunate for Blair. There would have been a rebellion here too if conscripts had been sent to Iraq.

The Corinthian

SirHenryGrattan wrote: »

Indeed. Very fortunate for Blair. There would have been a rebellion here too if conscripts had been sent to Iraq.

Is there a point to your argument or have you simply been listening to too much music from the Wolfe Tones?

SirHenryGrattan

The Corinthian wrote: »

Is there a point to your argument or have you simply been listening to too much music from the Wolfe Tones?

The relevant point is that the ROI had a choice about whether to participate in the Iraq war. That choice was not available to NI because UK foreign policy is determined in London. Given that Sinn Fein and the SDLP opposed the war and those parties represent the majority of Catholics then it would be logical to assume that Catholics would be better off in a United Ireland where they are less likely to be marginalised.

RiverWilde

The sovereign govt. of the UK made a decision regarding the Iraq war. That's how democracy works.

Riv

jimmmy

RiverWilde wrote: »

The sovereign govt. of the UK made a decision regarding the Iraq war. That's how democracy works.
Riv

True, as if it was not for the UK 's stand during WW2 and the Cold war, to name but two, it is unlikely we would have any democracy in Western Europe at all. Many R.C.'s helped preseve democracy, and the UK does not care what religion they were. The people who feel most marginalised now are those who cannot do their weekly shopping across the border in the UK jurisdiction !

SirHenryGrattan

RiverWilde wrote: »

The sovereign govt. of the UK made a decision regarding the Iraq war. That's how democracy works.

Riv

Yes that is how democracy works but when the wishes of one minority group are continually ignored then that group will make "alternative arrangements" i.e. they will either leave or if they are concentrated together geographically then they will agitate for self government.

This is probably one of the most consistent and clearly discernable behavioural patterns that dictate social and political developments.

SirHenryGrattan

jimmmy wrote: »

The people who feel most marginalised now are those who cannot do their weekly shopping across the border in the UK jurisdiction !

Swings and roundabouts. Those who live in the UK but work in the ROI are now 20% better off when they go home at the weekend.

The Corinthian

SirHenryGrattan wrote: »

The relevant point is that the ROI had a choice about whether to participate in the Iraq war.

And we participated. The use of Shannon was found to be a clear violation of what constitutes neutrality in the courts.

That choice was not available to NI because UK foreign policy is determined in London. Given that Sinn Fein and the SDLP opposed the war and those parties represent the majority of Catholics then it would be logical to assume that Catholics would be better off in a United Ireland where they are less likely to be marginalised.

Sinn Fein also opposed the Shannon military stopover, where does that leave NI? Seemingly they can't have their way in the UK or in the Republic.

jimmmy

SirHenryGrattan wrote: »

Swings and roundabouts. Those who live in the UK but work in the ROI are now 20% better off when they go home at the weekend.

You cannot explain the multitudes of people flocking to the UK jurisdiction to do their shopping as being all cross border workers returning home ?

SirHenryGrattan

The Corinthian wrote: »

And we participated. The use of Shannon was found to be a clear violation of what constitutes neutrality in the courts.

OK. Just how many troops did the ROI send to Iraq and how many of them came back in body bags?

Providing a refuelling stop is not participation. The ROI remained neutral during WW2 but still provided limited support for the Allies. Was that a breech of neutrality too?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_neutrality_during_World_War_II

1huge1

SirHenryGrattan wrote: »

The relevant point is that the ROI had a choice about whether to participate in the Iraq war. That choice was not available to NI because UK foreign policy is determined in London. Given that Sinn Fein and the SDLP opposed the war and those parties represent the majority of Catholics then it would be logical to assume that Catholics would be better off in a United Ireland where they are less likely to be marginalised.

As stated thats how democracy works, unless you'd rather live in a communist country, and using the Iraq war I don't think is a great example, because the people who were opposed to it were not divided with people who were for it through their religion.

It wasn't a case were prodestants were for the war in iraq and the catholics were against it.

Sinn Fein don't speak for all the catholics up north you know.

The Corinthian

SirHenryGrattan wrote: »

OK. Just how many troops did the ROI send to Iraq and how many of them came back in body bags?

You don't have to send troops to participate in a conflict.

Providing a refuelling stop is not participation.

Actually, even allowing safe passage to beligerant troops, let alone supplying them, is a clear breach of neutrality. Were we neutral, we would have been obligated to inter US military personnel passing through our territory.

You may want to educate yourself on the subject.

The ROI remained neutral during WW2 but still provided limited support for the Allies. Was that a breech of neutrality too?

Actually, it was. Again, I think you need to understand what neutrality actually means.

gurramok

1huge1 wrote: »

Sinn Fein don't speak for all the catholics up north you know.

They probably do.

Vast majority of Nationalists are represented by Sinn Fein as evidenced by elections and we know most nationalists are of Catholic background unless you know otherwise?

Grudaire

jimmmy wrote: »

You cannot explain the multitudes of people flocking to the UK jurisdiction to do their shopping as being all cross border workers returning home ?

The Irish are rightly treating the Ireland as one united Island

And why not, when petrol was cheaper down here the Northerners came down South!


And what does the niceties of neutrality have to do with Catholics up North? - 1huge1 is right:

1huge1 wrote:

It wasn't a case were protestants were for the war in iraq and the Catholics were against it.

The Corinthian

gurramok wrote: »

They probably do.

Doesn't really make much of a difference. Sinn Fein also opposed the Shannon military stopover too. Now say NI was part of the Republic; does this mean that a minority of the population of that Republic should dictate national policy over the majority?

Whether in the UK or ROI, NI's objections would have been overruled. It's called democracy. I just don't think the chucks get the concept.

gurramok

I was just correcting an incorrect assumption that was posted.

If NI was part of the republic, we can almost certainly agree that the DUP/UUP would agree with FF in allowing the troops through Shannon but then again the Unionists might oppose it on the grounds that Belfast should be the preferred option, you never know!

SirHenryGrattan

jimmmy wrote: »

You cannot explain the multitudes of people flocking to the UK jurisdiction to do their shopping as being all cross border workers returning home ?

I did not write that. Anyway the opposite also applies. The hoards of shoppers from NI that descending on Dublin and other ROI towns when the Pound was worth two Euros and ROI petrol was cheap is not indicative of a desire for a United Ireland. That fact that most British holiday makers spend their Summer holidays in Europe does not imply that we want to cede national sovereignty to Europe.

SirHenryGrattan

1huge1 wrote: »

As stated thats how democracy works, unless you'd rather live in a communist country, and using the Iraq war I don't think is a great example, because the people who were opposed to it were not divided with people who were for it through their religion.

It wasn't a case were prodestants were for the war in iraq and the catholics were against it.

Sinn Fein don't speak for all the catholics up north you know.

The post said "Given that Sinn Fein AND the SDLP opposed the war and those parties represent the majority of Catholics".

The Unionist parties voted for the Iraq war so that implies there was a split along ethnic or religious lines. Perhaps you would have us believe that Sinn Fein represents the majority of Protestants!