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

T runner

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Geographically yes but that's about as important up here as saying everyone from Spain & Portugal is Iberian.



It doesn't distort the argument, It IS the argument! What would you suggest fro someone who's born of mixed marriage?

People who are born protestants may think they are British but they are not British. (They are not from Britain).

If protestants in NI are British then protestants in Virginia are British.
They may be loyal to Britain and have a culture more similar to that of some Britons because of the political ties with Britain but it still doesnt make them British.

Before partition protestants and catholics were Irish. NI is still part of UK so when did they suddenly turn British. Did the Iberian peninsula argument hold before partition?

djpbarry

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

...there would be a host of funding initiatives in place from the EU.

Would there? Why?

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

My point is that 'cordial' is not a word traditionally associated with Anglo Irish relations.

I think it is an accurate description at the present time.

djpbarry

T runner wrote: »

Or British and Northern Irish? It would allow people from NI to be Irish and part of the UK.

I have no idea what you’re talking about here. People from Northern Ireland are already entitled to call themselves Irish whilst living in the UK.

T runner wrote: »

Only British people are officially from the UK.

What about Irish people from Northern Ireland? Are they not “officially from the UK”?

T runner wrote: »

Thats the point, they want to remain part of the UK because they want to be part of a protestant majority, not because they think they are British.

Did it ever occur to you that maybe people would rather be governed from Westminster than from Dublin? Maybe they think the British government is doing a better job than the Irish government would?

T runner wrote: »

It is a religious problem. Remove the religious problem you remove the need for partition.

If this were true, then every catholic in Northern Ireland would support a united Ireland. Is this the case? I don’t think so.

T runner wrote: »

If protestants in NI are British then protestants in Virginia are British.

Is Virginia under the jurisdiction of the British government?

getz

T runner wrote: »

People who are born protestants may think they are British but they are not British. (They are not from Britain).

If protestants in NI are British then protestants in Virginia are British.
They may be loyal to Britain and have a culture more similar to that of some Britons because of the political ties with Britain but it still doesnt make them British.

Before partition protestants and catholics were Irish. NI is still part of UK so when did they suddenly turn British. Did the Iberian peninsula argument hold before partition?

take note there are six and a half million people living in the UK who can claim irish passports most of them protestants, and only three and a half million people in ireland with irish passports most of them catholic

jimmmy

SirHenryGrattan wrote: »

There is an accepted documented history of discrimination against the Irish in Britain.

Over a million people and how many instances of discrimination? I know more than a few who went over in the 40's and 50's to get work, and found no discrimination there whatsoever, and who were treated better by the UK authorities than by the Irish system in that they got work and were able to enjoy life there.

Our two islands have had close links over the centuries...the first settlers in Ireland came over the short distance from Scotland, which you can see from Ireland on a clear day. Our islands have a natural link, just like the islands of Japan, the Canary islands, the 2 islands of New Zealand, Sicily + Italy etc. Many a person from Sicily went to the Italian mainland to get work too.

partyguinness

jimmmy wrote: »

Over a million people and how many instances of discrimination? I know more than a few who went over in the 40's and 50's to get work, and found no discrimination there whatsoever, and who were treated better by the UK authorities than by the Irish system in that they got work and were able to enjoy life there.

Our two islands have had close links over the centuries...the first settlers in Ireland came over the short distance from Scotland, which you can see from Ireland on a clear day. Our islands have a natural link, just like the islands of Japan, the Canary islands, the 2 islands of New Zealand, Sicily + Italy etc. Many a person from Sicily went to the Italian mainland to get work too.

My 2 granduncles emigrated to England during the early 1950s and stayed there over 40 years and by all accounts were very happy there.

To say the first settlers came from Scotland is stretching it. Initially, I believe it was actually the other way around. By all account the first settlors in Ireland came up from the Basque region after the last Ice Age and eventually made it to Scotland.

More recently "settlers" from Scotland were planted in Ulster during the 1500-1600 centuries with a modus operandi that would make even Israeli cringe..they are more than welcome to relocate if the love the "mainland" so much..:D

Should we not go one step further and have Britain join again with mainland Europe?

jimmmy

partyguinness wrote: »

To say the first settlers came from Scotland is stretching it. Initially, I believe it was actually the other way around. By all account the first settlors in Ireland came up from the Basque region after the last Ice Age and eventually made it to Scotland.

lol What you believe ( or may like to believe ) and what happened are 2 different things. The crossing from Scotland to Antrim is much much
closer than France to Ireland. In very primitive craft, do you think people would travel for days and days in to the unknown ( over the edge of the earth ? ) rather than travel to the land ( Co. Antrim ) visible in the distance from Scotland ? And from France, the white cliffs of dover are a lot lo closer than Ireland.

LordSutch

partyguinness wrote: »

To say the first settlers came from Scotland is stretching it. Initially, I believe it was actually the other way around. By all account the first settlors in Ireland came up from the Basque region after the last Ice Age and eventually made it to Scotland.

More recently "settlers" from Scotland were planted in Ulster during the 1500-1600 centuries with a modus operandi that would make even Israeli cringe..they are more than welcome to relocate if the love the "mainland" so much..:D

Dermot Gavin recently suggested on an RTE Documentary that peoples from the Basque region of Spain travelled up towards the british isles some 3.500 years ago (carbon dated bone from a cave in Limerick) but there are signs of human life in Ireland going back 10.000 years, and the chances are, that the original settlers came from Scotland or Wales just 20+ miles away.

Britain (the island of) was populated by humans some 700.000 years ago.

Deedsie

Camelot wrote: »

Dermot Gavin recently suggested on an RTE Documentary that peoples from the Basque region of Spain travelled up towards the british isles some 3.500 years ago (carbon dated bone from a cave in Limerick) but there are signs of human life in Ireland going back 10.000 years, and the chances are, that the original settlers came from Scotland or Wales just 20+ miles away.

Britain (the island of) was populated by humans some 700.000 years ago.

That was a good documentary. Interesting anyway. He took samples of people from the west of Ireland who still have genetic links to the Basques. He even sailed in a boat made out of materials available at the time. He suggested Wales as the likely launching point.

9,910 years this island was unified.

partyguinness

jimmmy wrote: »

lol What you believe ( or may like to believe ) and what happened are 2 different things. The crossing from Scotland to Antrim is much much
closer than France to Ireland. In very primitive craft, do you think people would travel for days and days in to the unknown ( over the edge of the earth ? ) rather than travel to the land ( Co. Antrim ) visible in the distance from Scotland ? And from France, the white cliffs of dover are a lot lo closer than Ireland.

Its not what "I believe" it is based on scientific fact and analysis. And what makes you so sure "what happened"?

There is no doubt that there was crossing back and forth to Scotland given the proximity. For example, it is well documented and accepted that Gaelic(particularly the language) originated in Ireland and spread into Scotland.

Slightly off point, but only Greek and Latin are older than Gaelic as a working European language.

Ireland was a far more advanced civilisation than Britain (language, culture, arts and legal system) and indeed was known as a centre of learning throughout Europe up the Norman invasion in around 1160 AD. "Land of the saints and scholars"... When Britain was in the Dark Ages overrun with Barbarians and fighting tribes, the very opposite was in Ireland. A sort of Celtic Utopia if you will...:)

After the Norman invasion...well..as they say the rest is history..

gurramok

getz wrote: »

take note there are six and a half million people living in the UK who can claim irish passports most of them protestants, and only three and a half million people in ireland with irish passports most of them catholic

Source for this?

First time i've seen figures like this and they appear very dubious. How do you know that most are Protestant?
My own relatives of Irish descent over there, a count of maybe at least 30 are Catholic.

djpbarry wrote: »

:rolleyes:
ARK seem to disagree. They have been surveying political attitudes in Northern Ireland for some time now. From 2002 – 2007, support for a United Ireland was within the range 22 – 30%:
http://www.ark.ac.uk/nilt/results

Here we go again with that silly poll. That poll has been proven in this thread already to be quite wrong and its the real poll of elections that count.

djpbarry wrote: »

Yes, of course. That’s why unification is such a high priority for so many people on the island and why Sinn Féin enjoy so much support in the Republic... oh, wait now...

In case you did not know, most of the political parties including FF who call themselves Republican want a United Ireland.
FF, FG, Lab, Greens, extinct PD's and practically all the parties want re-unification, its the way of going about that they all disagree on.

And guess what, the 166 TD's represent the Irish public in the Dail.

You're statement is not genuine unless you've interviewed every person in ROI for their opinion on whether re-unification was their top priority?

Hint, we do not know what priority it is.

Deedsie

partyguinness wrote: »

Its not what "I believe" it is based on scientific fact and analysis. And what makes you so sure "what happened"?

There is no doubt that there was crossing back and forth to Scotland given the proximity. For example, it is well documented and accepted that Gaelic(particularly the language) originated in Ireland and spread into Scotland.

Slightly off point, but only Greek and Latin are older than Gaelic as a working European language.

Ireland was a far more advanced civilisation than Britain (language, culture, arts and legal system) and indeed was known as a centre of learning throughout Europe up the Norman invasion in around 1160 AD. "Land of the saints and scholars"... When Britain was in the Dark Ages overrun with Barbarians and fighting tribes, the very opposite was in Ireland. A sort of Celtic Utopia if you will...:)

After the Norman invasion...well..as they say the rest is history..

There is some truth to the fact that Bagpipes and Kilts were introduced to Scotland from Ireland. I read it somewhere but i cant remember where.

jimmmy

Camelot wrote: »

Dermot Gavin recently suggested on an RTE Documentary that peoples from the Basque region of Spain travelled up towards the british isles some 3.500 years ago (carbon dated bone from a cave in Limerick) but there are signs of human life in Ireland going back 10.000 years, and the chances are, that the original settlers came from Scotland or Wales just 20+ miles away.

Britain (the island of) was populated by humans some 700.000 years ago.

I agree, of course the original settlers came from Scotland or Wales just 20+ miles away. Ireland is visible from Scotland.

partyguinness

Camelot wrote: »

Dermot Gavin recently suggested on an RTE Documentary that peoples from the Basque region of Spain travelled up towards the british isles some 3.500 years ago (carbon dated bone from a cave in Limerick) but there are signs of human life in Ireland going back 10.000 years, and the chances are, that the original settlers came from Scotland or Wales just 20+ miles away.

Britain (the island of) was populated by humans some 700.000 years ago.

You should refrain from using the term "british isles". It is offensive and is not used with any seriousness.

It has no legal or political authority or recognition and is only used by persons of a certain vintage or to wind up Irish people.

LordSutch

I even used small letters so as not to set-off or upset any sensitive people ......

I should have refered to the group of islands which lay off the north west coast of Brittany, comprising of the island of great britain, the island ireland, the isle of man, the channel islands, the orkney islands, achill island, the isle of wight, etc .....

sorry for upsetting the previous poster.

K-9

partyguinness wrote: »

You should refrain from using the term "british isles". It is offensive and is not used with any seriousness.

It has no legal or political authority or recognition and is only used by persons of a certain vintage or to wind up Irish people.

Good God, he was chatting about 700,000 years ago when it was one island.

partyguinness

Camelot wrote: »

I even used small letters so as not to set-off or upset any sensitive people ......

I should have refered to the group of islands which lay off the north west coast of Brittany, comprising of the island of great britain, the island ireland, the isle of man, the channel islands, the orkney islands, achill island, the isle of wight, etc .....

sorry for upsetting the previous poster.

I'm not remotely upset I can assure you. So why use it all if it might upset people? "these islands" would more than sufficed.

Just bear it in mind for the future. Thanks.

partyguinness

Seanies32 wrote: »

Good God, he was chatting about 700,000 years ago when it was one island.

Maybe but they were hardly "british" were they? But lets not go there..for now anyway..lol

jimmmy

partyguinness wrote: »

You should refrain from using the term "british isles". It is offensive and is not used with any seriousness.

It has no legal or political authority or recognition and is only used by persons of a certain vintage or to wind up Irish people.

As a geographical term it is correct. Why would some people find it offensive when no offence was meant.

g5fd6ow0hseima

jimmmy wrote: »

As a geographical term it is correct. Why would some people find it offensive when no offence was meant.

Only idiots would take offence to that term in fairness. Those who would are best left putting on a celtic jersey.....

partyguinness

jimmmy wrote: »

As a geographical term it is correct. Why would some people find it offensive when no offence was meant.

As a geographical term it is not correct. Yes it is describing a particular area. You will find the term being cropping up every now and then but it is being phased out. Even maps/atlases are are dropping the term but some still do.

Well it depends on the recipient I imagine. While you might not mean any offence it does not mean someone else won't take offence.

partyguinness

Hadleigh Ugly Tiger wrote: »

Only idiots would take offence to that term in fairness. Those who would are best left putting on a celtic jersey.....

Very constructive.

Would you like to elaborate? and since when are you the judge of what other people might find offensive??

O'Morris

djpbarry wrote:

Yes, of course. That’s why unification is such a high priority for so many people on the island and why Sinn Féin enjoy so much support in the Republic... oh, wait now...

A Red C poll carried out in 2006 found that 22% of the population of the 26 counties believed that uniting Ireland should be the first priority of the government.
http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2006/04/02/story13121.asp

I'm a hardcore united-Irelander myself but I wouldn't include myself in that 22% as I think that a few other things should have a higher priority. It just goes to show how strong nationalist feeling is in this country though when 22% of the population are more hardcore than me.

gurramok wrote:

In case you did not know, most of the political parties including FF who call themselves Republican want a United Ireland.
FF, FG, Lab, Greens, extinct PD's and practically all the parties want re-unification, its the way of going about that they all disagree on.

And guess what, the 166 TD's represent the Irish public in the Dail.

I would expect djpbarry to reply by saying that Dail Eireann could hardly be called representative of Irish public opinion after the Lisbon referendum result. On the subject of partition though there's no question but that the vast majority of people in the 26 counties would like to see their country united. The results of a poll carried out in 2006 (see here) showed that 77% of the people polled wanted the government to make an effort to end partition. 13% said they have no interest either way and only 10% believe that no effort should be made to unite Ireland.

partyguinness wrote:

You should refrain from using the term "british isles". It is offensive and is not used with any seriousness.

I've never found the term offensive and I regularly use it to refer to the two islands. I don't know the history of the word 'British' but I have a feeling that it was originally applied to both islands rather than just to the eastern one. It was only later with the political union of the islands that its meaning became political rather than geographical. I don't see anything offensive about it that we should stop using the term in a geographical context.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

partyguinness

Uniting Ireland is pretty much off the aganda at the moment. TBH I think most peoples eyes glaze over when news from the North is on TV.

K-9

O'Morris wrote: »

A Red C poll carried out in 2006 found that 22% of the population of the 26 counties believed that uniting Ireland should be the first priority of the government.
http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2006/04/02/story13121.asp

I'm a hardcore united-Irelander myself but I wouldn't include myself in that 22% as I think that a few other things should have a higher priority. It just goes to show how strong nationalist feeling is in this country though when 22% of the population are more hardcore than me.




I would expect djpbarry to reply by saying that Dail Eireann could hardly be called representative of Irish public opinion after the Lisbon referendum result. On the subject of partition though there's no question but that the vast majority of people in the 26 counties would like to see their country united. The results of a poll carried out in 2006 (see here) showed that 77% of the people polled wanted the government to make an effort to end partition. 13% said they have no interest either way and only 10% believe that no effort should be made to unite Ireland.




I've never found the term offensive and I regularly use it to refer to the two islands. I don't know the history of the word 'British' but I have a feeling that it was originally applied to both islands rather than just to the eastern one. It was only later with the political union of the islands that its meaning became political rather than geographical. I don't see anything offensive about it that we should stop using the term in a geographical context.

22% in a poll would be different when the complications involved became apparent.

jimmmy

partyguinness wrote: »

As a geographical term it is not correct. Yes it is describing a particular area. You will find the term being cropping up every now and then but it is being phased out. Even maps/atlases are are dropping the term but some still do.

Why do you think it is not correct as a geographical term ? All island groups have a name. Eg the Hawaiian islands....one island is called Hawaii, but the group is called the Hawaiian islands. Other groups of islands around the world have a common title too. Even if one island there eg Maui had an uprising and declared itself a republic, I think people would still refer to that area in the pacific as the Hawaiian islands.

LordSutch

partyguinness wrote: »

I'm not remotely upset I can assure you.

And yet, you went to all the trouble of making a silly point :rolleyes:

partyguinness wrote: »

"these islands" would more than sufficed.

Yeah right, As Pat Kenny discovered recently on the Radio to his shame, when he had a 'cross purpose' conversation with a caller from New Zealand, which is also known as "these islands" :rolleyes:

partyguinness wrote: »

Just bear it in mind for the future. Thanks.

I can assure you, I have no intention of abandoning a perfectly good term which refers to the islands geographically associated with the North West Coast of Britany, especially in this historical/geographical context!

djpbarry

partyguinness wrote: »

To say the first settlers came from Scotland is stretching it.

To say they came directly from the Basque region is fanciful.

partyguinness wrote: »

Initially, I believe it was actually the other way around. By all account the first settlors in Ireland came up from the Basque region after the last Ice Age and eventually made it to Scotland.

The available archaeological evidence suggests otherwise. There is evidence of human activity in Britain going back about 700,000 years, but there are no traces of human activity in Ireland prior to about 10,000 years ago.

partyguinness wrote: »

Its not what "I believe" it is based on scientific fact and analysis.

I’d be very interested in seeing this “scientific fact and analysis”.

djpbarry

gurramok wrote: »

Here we go again with that silly poll. That poll has been proven in this thread already to be quite wrong...

I presume by “proven in this thread already to be quite wrong”, you mean that it has been dismissed by yourself and others because the results contradict your own beliefs?

gurramok wrote: »

In case you did not know, most of the political parties including FF who call themselves Republican want a United Ireland.

I am quite aware of that, but it’s hardly a priority at the moment, is it (except for Sinn Féin)?

gurramok wrote: »

You're statement is not genuine unless you've interviewed every person in ROI for their opinion on whether re-unification was their top priority?

Do you honestly believe that it is?