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

SirHenryGrattan · 24-01-2009 5:19pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

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

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.

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

Maybe we need to rewrite history then and correct all that bad press de Valera gets for keeping the ROI out of the war and vilify Churchill for all the horrible things he said about our Irish allies in the aftermath; 'a heavy hand upon Ireland' and all that.

The Corinthian · 24-01-2009 7:04pm

SirHenryGrattan wrote: »

Maybe we need to rewrite history then and correct all that bad press de Valera gets for keeping the ROI out of the war and vilify Churchill for all the horrible things he said about our Irish allies in the aftermath; 'a heavy hand upon Ireland' and all that.

Who mentioned that here? Is that your way of admitting you were wrong but would like to change the subject so as to detract attention from it or just an other angry rant for the sake of it?

SirHenryGrattan · 24-01-2009 11:05pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

Who mentioned that here? Is that your way of admitting you were wrong but would like to change the subject so as to detract attention from it or just an other angry rant for the sake of it?

The Irish Government has officially allowed foreign military aircraft passage through Irish airspace since the passing of the 1952 Air Navigation (Foreign Military Aircraft) Order. The Irish Government has allowed Irish Military personnel participate in UN peach keeping missions and has joined the EU Nordic Battle Group. All of these initiatives are in breech of the strict "Swiss" definition of neutrality.

The Irish approach to neutrality is designed to avoid military alliances that might result in involuntary participation in a military conflict.

Oh, and by the way the Irish High Court ruled that "notwithstanding the neutrality issue, the use of Shannon did not a mount to participation in the war".

QED.

T runner · 25-01-2009 1:24am

djpbarry wrote: »

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.

You cannot be British and Irish as they are two seperate places.
Most Scots are Scots first (and only feel British in the geographical not political sense). The Welsh are more nationalistic. A lot of people see being British to mean being subservient to England.

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

Not at all. 95% of people in the republic would consider themselves Irish, 45% in the North. Thats over 80% Id say. (I dont stats aside from passports)

Indeed. They are from the UK.

They are from a region of Ireland that is part of the UK. Atleast you admit they are not from Britain and therefore not British. BTW if you hold a UK passport you are called 'British' not UKish. So it is not possible to be Irish if you are a UK citizen as Ireland is not a country of Britain.

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.

Read my post please. English people are Anglo-Saxon. Ethnically they have more in common with people from North Germany.

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”.

Look at it this way. From that survey:
0% of protestants consider themselves nationalist.
0% of Catholics consider themselves Unionist.

Put another way:
if you are born a protestant you have 100% chance of being not a nationalist.
if you are born a catholic you have 100% chance of being not a unionist.

Therefore the problem is not one of National Identity (after all they are all Irish). It is one of religion and always was.

There were very few people who called themselves British in NI until partition. Just after the reason for parting was Home Rule = Rome Rule. Not we are 'British'. Only long after did the 'British' identity emerge. Why? To ratioalize partition. We are seperate because our ancestors were British. And more recently they are British because they are from the 'British Isles'.

The truth is, protestants in Ulster want to remain part of a protestant majority in a foreign country rather than part of a protestant minority in their own due to fears (both real or irrational).

djpbarry · 25-01-2009 7:41am

T runner wrote: »

You cannot be British and Irish as they are two seperate places.

I'll be sure to mention that to my British-Irish-Pakistani wife, i.e. that two of her passports are not valid.

Who are you to tell people what they can or cannot be? What difference does it make anyway? I could decide tomorrow that I'm going to be Fijian - what difference would it make to anyone?

T runner wrote: »

Most Scots are Scots first (and only feel British in the geographical not political sense).

Really? So why has Scotland not seceded from the union then? Why is there still no clear support for independence?

T runner wrote: »

The Welsh are more nationalistic.

Are they? Well, the same question applies - why are they not independent?

T runner wrote: »

A lot of people see being British to mean being subservient to England.

I doubt it. How many is "a lot"?

T runner wrote: »

95% of people in the republic would consider themselves Irish, 45% in the North. Thats over 80% Id say. (I dont stats aside from passports)

I meant that Northern Ireland, which you referred to as "the far north-east of the country", is in fact a different country.

T runner wrote: »

Atleast you admit they are not from Britain and therefore not British. BTW if you hold a UK passport you are called 'British' not UKish.

They are called British because Northern Ireland is under the jurisdiction of the British government. But anyway, I really don't care what anyone wants to call themselves.

T runner wrote: »

So it is not possible to be Irish if you are a UK citizen as Ireland is not a country of Britain.

I think you’ll find that it is quite possible to be both Irish and British. I'm guessing there is a sizeable number of people on these the two islands that are entitled to both passports.

T runner wrote: »

English people are Anglo-Saxon. Ethnically they have more in common with people from North Germany.

That's a rather simplistic statement and quite inaccurate too. The Anglo-Saxon influence in Britain is often overstated - it was relatively confined to the south-east of the country. Ireland has a lot more in common with Britain than you seem to think. Bear in mind that, throughout history, virtually all migration to Ireland came from Britain, including, most likely, the very first settlers.

T runner wrote: »

There were very few people who called themselves British in NI until partition.

Based on what?

The Corinthian · 25-01-2009 9:01am

SirHenryGrattan wrote: »

The Irish Government has officially allowed foreign military aircraft passage through Irish airspace since the passing of the 1952 Air Navigation (Foreign Military Aircraft) Order. The Irish Government has allowed Irish Military personnel participate in UN peach keeping missions and has joined the EU Nordic Battle Group. All of these initiatives are in breech of the strict "Swiss" definition of neutrality.

The 1952 Air Navigation Order covered the passage of military aircraft, not troops to a theatre of combat. nonetheless, I see you are finally accepting that Ireland is not actually neutral - this is and long has been a myth.

In essence you object to involvement in the Iraq war, but not logisitical involvement. Somehow that does not count.

Don't like our principles? How about these?

All of which essentially lays bare as ridiculous your initial objections:

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.

Sinn Fein opposed also the Shannon stopover, which is an involvement in the same war. This too was overruled and, given Sinn Fein would still be in the minority in a 32-county Republic, would have been overruled in that scenario.

After all, they are in the minority in both scenarios and that's how democracy works.

SirHenryGrattan wrote: »

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

Irrelevant. Does not exist any more. A Northern Ireland UK citizen is no more likely to be conscripted today than an English one.

Oh, and by the way the Irish High Court ruled that "notwithstanding the neutrality issue, the use of Shannon did not a mount to participation in the war".

Source please? Sounds like wishful thinking or selective quotation upon your part.

So in the debate on NI's position, this entire sub-debate really is pretty irrelevant.

SirHenryGrattan · 25-01-2009 9:03am

djpbarry wrote: »

So why has Scotland not seceded from the union then? Why is there still no clear support for independence?

SNP? Sean Connery?

The biggest barrier to Scottish Independence is the economy. Government services are responsible for about 60% of output versus a third of output in England. It's even worse in NI; about 70%.

The English taxpayer is unlikely to accept continued subsidy of Scotland after North Sea oil runs out.

djpbarry · 25-01-2009 11:34am

SirHenryGrattan wrote: »

SNP? Sean Connery?

I didn't say there was no support, I said there was no clear support. Or, to put it another way, it does not seem that a clear majority of Scots support independence. That's not to say that a majority of Scots are not quick to proclaim themselves Scottish, but I don't think calling oneself Scottish is akin to calling oneself non-British. In the same way, calling oneself Texan does not imply anti-American sentiment.

SirHenryGrattan wrote: »

The biggest barrier to Scottish Independence is the economy.

It's undoubtedly a big factor, but I don't think it's as straightforward as saying that a strong Scottish economy would result in Scottish independence (although support would probably grow). Unless the particulars of an independent Scotland are thrashed out, it's very difficult to ascertain the level of support for such an entity.

RiverWilde · 25-01-2009 11:54am

SirHenryGrattan wrote: »

SNP? Sean Connery?

The biggest barrier to Scottish Independence is the economy. Government services are responsible for about 60% of output versus a third of output in England. It's even worse in NI; about 70%.

The English taxpayer is unlikely to accept continued subsidy of Scotland after North Sea oil runs out.

The UK is a stable, sovereign state and up till a few years ago we were all British. The UK is stronger unified as one nation. The only reason the south broke away was because certain interests in Irish society wanted all the power for themselves. Well they got it and now where are we?

We wanted in to Europe and that was all fine and dandy so long as Brussels kept shovelling cash our way. Now that we have to stand up and put back into the European pot we don't want to know. Shortsighted greed has this country where it is today. A few happy mandarins who made a shed load of money out of the 'celtic tiger' are skipping all the way to the bank. The rest of us are left to wonder where all the money went.

What's even more galling is now that the money has been squandered, that lot in Leinster house want to put the boot in to protect their positions. Oh, and god forbid anyone would exercise their rights as European Citizens and shop in a neighbouring state.

Who the hell would want to unify with us? I wouldn't want to unify with this state and I was raised here.

Riv

SirHenryGrattan · 25-01-2009 3:43pm

RiverWilde wrote: »

The only reason the south broke away was because certain interests in Irish society wanted all the power for themselves. Well they got it and now where are we?

Riv

That's a bit vague. Who were these interests? The IPP?

Grudaire · 25-01-2009 4:07pm

It appears to be going on a tangent of a tangent - oh well.

I'm not sure if you're refering to the Irish Illuminati branch or what, but on of the causes was indeed that "certain interests in Irish society wanted all the power for themselves." All is a bit stong to be fair. The home rule movement started because there wasn't enough power for the Irish politicians, thus they started obstructionism. These people got voted in by the Irish people mainly over lands rights etc. ie we were getting screwed over so we wanted some power ourselves. I think you might also find that sthe certain interests you talk of was a majority of the country

As for the UK being stronger as one nation I'd point at the North and ask you has that really benifited the UK?

As for wanting out of the EU? let me see that poll! Just because we voted down the Lisbon treaty does not mean we are money grabbing bastards. I emailled the local politicians before the election, and the replies I got were pathetic overall.

SirHenryGrattan · 25-01-2009 4:32pm

My post clearly states that the Irish Government decides when and where to remain neutral mainly by avoiding "all for one and one for all" alliances like NATO where an attack on one member automatically commits the rest to war. I did not say they had a purist "Swiss" style neutrality policy. Read the post again.

The use of Shannon airport for the transit of US troops did not breech any UN regulations and did not give rise to any substantial public opposition in the ROI. It never became an election issue unlike here in the UK where the father of an Iraq casualty stood against Blair.

The High Court found that Shannon transit is not participation (You can Google this yourself). So on the substantive issue which is military involvement in the Iraq war the views of the majority of Catholics in Northern Ireland were much closer to those of the Irish Government. Those are the facts, like it or not. Sinn Fein were opposed to participation AND Shannon transit. These are two different issues.

Northern Ireland was excluded from the post war National Service Act so your assertion that conscription would be applied uniformly across the UK is not true. Look what happened last time.

The Corinthian · 25-01-2009 5:12pm

SirHenryGrattan wrote: »

The use of Shannon airport for the transit of US troops did not breech any UN regulations and did not give rise to any substantial public opposition in the ROI.

Or in NI.

It never became an election issue unlike here in the UK where the father of an Iraq casualty stood against Blair.

In NI?

The High Court found that Shannon transit is not participation (You can Google this yourself).

Nope, nothing there. Anyhow, it's your job to back up your arguments, not ours.

So on the substantive issue which is military involvement in the Iraq war the views of the majority of Catholics in Northern Ireland were much closer to those of the Irish Government.

They supported the Shannon stopovers? Source please?

Those are the facts, like it or not.

What they're relevant to is another matter - even if correct.

Sinn Fein were opposed to participation AND Shannon transit. These are two different issues.

They're not in the context you gave them in and this has been pointed out to you. You're simply ignoring that response.

Northern Ireland was excluded from the post war National Service Act so your assertion that conscription would be applied uniformly across the UK is not true. Look what happened last time.

Will they send in the Black and Tans then?

SirHenryGrattan · 25-01-2009 5:17pm

djpbarry wrote: »

I meant that Northern Ireland, which you referred to as "the far north-east of the country", is in fact a different country.

The term "Great Britain" comes from "Greater Brittany" the original home of the Norman invaders and was used in the same way as "Greater London" or "Greater Manchester"

The United Kingdom represents the Kingdoms of Ireland, Scotland and England(which includes Wales) with Scotland joining in 1706 and Ireland joining in 1800. The United Kingdom lasted until 1922 when the The Irish Free State came into existence. In 1927 the United Kingdom became the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Technically people born in NI are not British because they don't come from the British mainland. They are Irish. Why? Because Ireland was a unitary state for hundreds of years before partition so carving it up into two bits does not suddenly make one part British. Obviously some Unionists disagree which is why some want NI absorbed into the UK i.e. permanent direct rule from London.

There is no such thing as a British Passport. There is a UK & NI passport.

The British Olympic Team was called TeamGB and not TeamUKNI. This has caused considerable angst among Unionists in NI.

luckyfrank · 25-01-2009 5:52pm

You get a pain in the arse talking about catholics not wanting a united ireland its being done till death it seems taboo around here to talk about prodestants wanting out of a united kingdom

Serenity Now! · 25-01-2009 6:03pm

SirHenryGrattan wrote: »

The High Court found that Shannon transit is not participation

Great. That must absolve the country of any involvement in the eyes of any extremist groups who might take issue with rendition stops at Shannon, eh? lol

The Corinthian · 25-01-2009 6:23pm

SirHenryGrattan wrote: »

There is no such thing as a British Passport. There is a UK & NI passport.

Isn't Britain and Northern Irish a bit of a mouthful though?

Maybe it should be British and Northern Irish? Or Brit-Norn-Irish?

How about BNI-ish? Does that answer satisfy the pedants in the audience?

shqipshume · 25-01-2009 6:40pm

Why would any Irish person not want it

The Corinthian · 25-01-2009 6:49pm

Serenity Now! wrote: »

Great. That must absolve the country of any involvement in the eyes of any extremist groups who might take issue with rendition stops at Shannon, eh? lol

I wouldn't accept what Sir Henry has claimed without some proof - Google never heard of the quote he posted earlier. Correction: it could find it on Boards.

shqipshume wrote: »

Why would any Irish person not want it

Want what? Sex? Free money?

shqipshume · 25-01-2009 6:58pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

Want what? Sex? Free money?

Dont think your been cliste nil tu

A united Ireland, who wouldn't want it who are true Irish!

Serenity Now! · 25-01-2009 7:06pm

shqipshume wrote: »

Why would any Irish person not want it

Pragmatism? Realism? Good riddance to a violent campaign by a minority who take it upon themselves to kill...allegedly for a united Ireland or for Ulster to remain as it is? Had enough of it?
Many reasons. As has been said before in threads like this: There's a reason why there are 32 counties in the first place: good old fashioned blind tribalism.

The Corinthian · 25-01-2009 7:08pm

shqipshume wrote: »

A united Ireland, who wouldn't want it who are true Irish!

Oh, I don't know... maybe those Irish who think you can be a patriot by not confusing sense with cliché move because it seemed like a good idea in the pub?

But fair enough, let's say all true Irishmen want to see a united Ireland. What are you willing to pay for that?

Grudaire · 25-01-2009 7:09pm

luckyfrank wrote: »

You get a pain in the arse talking about catholics not wanting a united ireland its being done till death it seems taboo around here to talk about prodestants wanting out of a united kingdom

But we hate them :pac:

Ah no, it's a bit mad alright, considering such massive figures in republican history have been Protestant. Mind you if you look at the survey earlier it doesn't look like many Protestents want a United Ireland (0%)

Right the fact of the matter is Most Catholics want a United Ireland, most Protestants want a united kingdom

shqipshume · 25-01-2009 7:20pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

Oh, I don't know... maybe those Irish who think you can be a patriot by not confusing sense with cliché move because it seemed like a good idea in the pub?

But fair enough, let's say all true Irishmen want to see a united Ireland. What are you willing to pay for that?

How about the fact its our country and shouldve been back in Irish control in first place when we formed Irish republic.

Ta ceist agam duit.An bhfuil tu duchasach?

What should any country have to pay to get their own land back? I think you will find my ancestors lready paid more than enough

The Corinthian · 25-01-2009 7:25pm

shqipshume wrote: »

What should any country have to pay to get their own land back? I think you will find my ancestors lready paid more than enough

So we'll get unification and there will be no cost and no consequences?

Maybe you should be watching this.

Serenity Now! · 25-01-2009 7:31pm

shqipshume wrote: »

Ta ceist agam duit.An bhfuil tu duchasach?

If he answers 'no' to that, does that disqualify him from having a valid opinion on the subject? Of course not. You seem to allude that having a couple of focail in gaelic is a qualifying point for some weird reason...

shqipshume · 25-01-2009 7:34pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

So we'll get unification and there will be no cost and no consequences?

Maybe you should be watching this.

Of course there is cost and consequences.You have to roll with them and make it work.To have our whole country back with out any foreign rulers any cost is worth it.

You never answered my question!
An bhfuil tu duchasach?

Grudaire · 25-01-2009 7:37pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

So we'll get unification and there will be no cost and no consequences?

Is that a threat? :pac:

shqipshume · 25-01-2009 7:38pm

Serenity Now! wrote: »

If he answers 'no' to that, does that disqualify him from having a valid opinion on the subject? Of course not. You seem to allude that having a couple of focail in gaelic is a qualifying point for some weird reason...

No i am trying figure out his standing on this and if it makes any odds to him or not if we have united Ireland or not.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion.
As the question stands though do Irish catholics all want untied Ireland?
I said why would they not?
You continued with tribalism.yes we have that all over never once heard anyone Irish say they didn't want united Ireland have you?

The Corinthian · 25-01-2009 8:27pm

shqipshume wrote: »

Of course there is cost and consequences.You have to roll with them and make it work.To have our whole country back with out any foreign rulers any cost is worth it.

So you accept there is cost and consequences - care to answer my question and tell us what an acceptable price is?

You never answered my question!
An bhfuil tu duchasach?

I would have thought that my repeated referral of Irish in the first person, in both singular and plural, would have given that one away.

What's the relevance of the question though? Especially in Irish, given that most of the population has at best cúpla fucal?

Cliste wrote: »

Is that a threat? :pac:

Nope, just a reality check.

shqipshume wrote: »

anyone Irish say they didn't want united Ireland have you?

Oh, I'd agree. I too would love to see a united Ireland and have even said this earlier in the thread.

But once I've left the pub and sobered up, the reality, the cost, of such a unification only begins to dawn on me. And I stress, only begins to dawn, which is already further than most chucks ever get.

I've travelled enough to know that the World is full of idiot patriots who want to do things on principle and consider the cost after the fact. Mainly because they don't pay it, those dumb civilians left with their legacy do.

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

Comments