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

The Corinthian

luckyfrank wrote: »

I think in a few decade at least the unionsits will see that all the scaremongering that there leaders do about the south is untrue and infact the feniens are actully ok i believe they will see they have more in commen with us than with people from the mainland uk

I do think that since the early 90's unification with the Republic has become more attractive for the North. The power of the Catholic Church has diminished considerably (pulpit politics ruled the Republic until we realized what they were up to under the pulpit) and economically we're no longer a basket case (although recent events may prove me wrong).

Given this, 'more attractive' does not imply that it would be a sellable option at present either.

I don't really see unification happening as things stand. To occur, other than it having to be economically viable, neither the nationalist or unionist community are terribly fond of Dublin, which means that any unification would have to include a federal or autonomous status for NI, which seems beyond the intellectual grasp of southern politicians, let alone southern nationalists.

As for 'more in common', this is debatable. Quite a few southerners really feel little in common with northerners and the protestant community in the north really feels little commonality with the south. What's more, as the years pass and our respective societies evolve this gap is growing larger.

My own feeling is that the longer it takes, the less likely it will become. Nationalists (especially in the south) increasingly try to sell a "lets unify and, sure, it'll work out in the end" line (i.e the unionists won't do anything and the economies will magically align), and this is simply isn't being swallowed in the face of the gigantic obstacles that would face any attempt at unification.

I'd genuinely entertain the idea if there was a realistic plan and price for unification, but as things stand neither is on the horizon and so NI will likely remain in its present limbo.

LordSutch

luckyfrank wrote: »

I think its important to remember that no matter what is said that eventully one day a united ireland is envitable

It may not happen in my lifetime 'hope it does' or my kids lifetimes but one day it will happen

I think in a few decade at least the unionsits will see that all the scaremongering that there leaders do about the south is untrue and infact the feniens are actully ok i believe they will see they have more in commen with us than with people from the mainland uk

But what is a "United Ireland" luckyfrank? Would it be like a United Kingdom? with two different parts (North & South) doing their own thing, with their own flags & Anthems, rather like we currently have between the four constituent parts of the UK & the Republic . . . . .

So the North would swap London for Dublin as their Capital City? the BBC would pull-out, as would the Royal Mail, followed by the National health Service, the Union flag would be lowered & the DUP would become green & would then suddenly decide that they have more in common with the Republic than with Northern England or Scotland :cool:

thehighground

Camelot wrote: »

But what is a "United Ireland" luckyfrank? Would it be like a United Kingdom? with two different parts (North & South) doing their own thing, with their own flags & Anthems, rather like we currently have between the four constituent parts of the UK & the Republic . . . . .

I think the SDLP believe in some sort of a federal republic.

So the North would swap London for Dublin as their Capital City?

Yes.

the BBC would pull-out,

You will be able to get the Beeb, so you will still retain close British cultural ties - Match of the Day, Cornation Street and Eastenders will all be on tap.

as would the Royal Mail,

- I'm afraid that will have to go. But I'm sure NI could retain red post boxes for the foreseeable future. We could also stretch to a special stamp for NI with the Queens head on it.

followed by the National health Service,

If we could only get that. Or better still, if we could have a comparable health service to the French one.

the Union flag would be lowered

Afraid so, but I'd support not making the flying of it illegal

& the DUP would become green & would then suddenly decide that they have more in common with the Republic than with Northern England or Scotland :cool:

Didn't realise that the DUP had a whole lot in common with your average Mancurian/Liverpudlian (bearing in mind their very large populations of Irish extraction). They probably don't have a whole lot in common with your average Scottish Celtic supporter either.

Sand

Provos have no idea what a United Ireland would look like. They would be horrified by it.

Their view is "Everyone suddenly becomes Celtic supporters, and sings the Fields of Athenry, the hardcore ****ers are herded onto boats and forced to go back to England". Thats how much theyve actually considered it. Its about as realistic as "Everyone suddenly becomes Rangers supporters, and sings God Save the Queen, the hardcore ****ers are herded onto trains and forced to go back to the South" that the other nutters thought would work.

TOMASJ

Sand wrote: »

Provos have no idea what a United Ireland would look like. They would be horrified by it.

"The Provos" are so confident that its "going to happen" that they called of there war.

O'Morris

Sand wrote: »

Provos have no idea what a United Ireland would look like. They would be horrified by it.

Good! That's one of the best arguments for a united Ireland.

The Corinthian

Sand wrote: »

Their view is "Everyone suddenly becomes Celtic supporters, and sings the Fields of Athenry, the hardcore ****ers are herded onto boats and forced to go back to England". Thats how much theyve actually considered it. Its about as realistic as "Everyone suddenly becomes Rangers supporters, and sings God Save the Queen, the hardcore ****ers are herded onto trains and forced to go back to the South" that the other nutters thought would work.

That's the problem with romantics - high ideals, little practical substance.

We've repeatedly (and vaguely) been told in this and other threads that:

• The price would be acceptable
• Loyalists wouldn't kick up that much
• It is inevitable
• After a short period it'll all work out

No one has made any attempt to give details, or genuinely address the issues that would be involved in any unification attempt, be they security, economically or politically related.

It could be smooth sailing, it could be a disaster, but we can worry about that after we do it. And asking questions makes you a unionist, apparently...

The Corinthian

TOMASJ wrote: »

"The Provos" are so confident that its "going to happen" that they called of there war.

I assume you meant to write "called off their war"?

If so this is debatable, as a prolonged campaign was becoming untenable for everyone at the time, including the provos.

oscarBravo

The Corinthian wrote: »

I assume you meant to write "called off their war"?

If so this is debatable, as a prolonged campaign was becoming untenable for everyone at the time, including the provos.

And even so, we have some provos still telling us that "they haven't gone away, you know."

O'Morris

The Corinthian wrote: »

That's the problem with romantics - high ideals, little practical substance.

We've repeatedly (and vaguely) been told in this and other threads that:

• The price would be acceptable
• Loyalists wouldn't kick up that much
• It is inevitable
• After a short period it'll all work out

I think they've made as good an attempt at it as the other side of the debate have. The pro-UI side of the debate might be short on details but so too have the anti-UI side. Just some of the things we've heard from the Anti-United Irelanders:

* The price would be so high it would cripple us economically
* Civil war or a terrorist campaign by loyalists is inevitable in a UI
* They're not like us
* We would have nothing to gain from a united Ireland

Before critising the united Irelanders for their lack of detail maybe the other side should to try to set an example by providing the details to back up their claims.

oscarBravo

O'Morris wrote: »

Before critising the united Irelanders for their lack of detail maybe the other side should to try to set an example by providing the details to back up their claims.

Two things: first, we have ample evidence of what happens in Northern Ireland when a section of the community feels aggrieved. Second, those in favour of a UI are arguing for a change from the status quo, and as such the onus is on them to demonstrate how it can work, and why it should be done.

studiorat

I think we should give the Republic back to the English and apologise for the state of the roads.:D

Really though, I lived in Belfast and very few of either side were interested in a "united Ireland". I know people from Omagh who though Dublin was smaller than Omagh! A federal Ireland maybe, but Dublin running politics in Ulster? Not a chance. Maybe if we moved the government in Dublin to Belfast or Derry they might buy it.

Whatever about the human rights issues. For a united Ireland I don't really care, I don't see the difference between one bunch of cnuts running the country and another bunch of cnuts running the country.

And having lived in Belfast, they can keep it. Never liked it anyway...

O'Morris

oscarBravo wrote:

Two things: first, we have ample evidence of what happens in Northern Ireland when a section of the community feels aggrieved.

Yes, they keep their heads down and obey the law. That's what happened in 1922 with both the nationalist population in the 6 counties and the unionist population in the 26 counties. They didn't resort to violence because they knew they were outnumbered and they didn't stand much chance of reversing what had happened. The unionist population of the north make up less than a sixth of the total Irish population. By the time the majority in the six counties vote for a united Ireland their percentage of the population will have fallen further.

It was largely due to the policies of the Stormont government that led to a high level of grievance in the nationalist population in the 1960s. That led to a loyalist backlash which brought in the British army, which the provos could then exploit to gain broad nationalist support for an armed campaign. There was nothing inevitable about the violence in the north. I don't think we should repeat the mistakes of the Stormont government in a united Ireland. I don't think we should do what the free-state government did either.

oscarBravo wrote:

Second, those in favour of a UI are arguing for a change from the status quo, and as such the onus is on them to demonstrate how it can work, and why it should be done.

I agree, I think the onus should be on the united Irelanders. In the same way I think the onus should be on the people in favour of greater European "integration" and continued high immigration to demonstrate why we should change the political and demographic status quo. I don't think that was the point that was being made by the Corinthian though. I think he was trying to suggest that people in favour of a united Ireland tend to be less concerned with detail than people who take the opposite position.

Fratton Fred

oscarBravo wrote: »

And even so, we have some provos still telling us that "they haven't gone away, you know."

I know one that has

The Corinthian

O'Morris wrote: »

Yes, they keep their heads down and obey the law. That's what happened in 1922 with both the nationalist population in the 6 counties and the unionist population in the 26 counties.

This is a very dangerous assumption and based upon a very dubious premise.

The unionist population of the north make up less than a sixth of the total Irish population.

Someone should tell ETA that they shouldn't be causing any trouble, given that Basques only make up just over a twentieth of Spain.

I don't think we should repeat the mistakes of the Stormont government in a united Ireland. I don't think we should do what the free-state government did either.

I agree, if it came to this, however so far most of the sentiments we've heard here and elsewhere from proponents of a UI seem to amount to "they can be good Irishmen or feck off back to Scotland", which does not bode well.

I think he was trying to suggest that people in favour of a united Ireland tend to be less concerned with detail than people who take the opposite position.

Indeed. It comes from a basic limitation of romanticism (on which nationalism is based); it's anti-intellectual and often degenerates in jingoism, but ultimately believes in prinicples that cannot be questioned and should be followed no matter the cost.

Eurofederalists, in fairness, are subject to the same romantic ideals and will often do the same thing - as are Eurosceptics, TBH. Both follow ideals that are often greater than reason.

As a result, you'll tend to get wafer thin reasoning from pro-UI militants, which rarely stands up to much scrutiny. The basic message is that it's something that we should have, it'll all work out if we do and don't ask too many questions.

Nevyn

luckyfrank wrote: »

I think its important to remember that no matter what is said that eventully one day a united ireland is envitable

Why ?

I think that most kids these days could not give a rats árse and would be bothered about the north and a lot of the older people's ideas may well change when the UK ratifies it's abortion law to include all of the UK including the 6 counties up north.

getz

the more i think about this the more i realise a united ireland cannot work for a start most ulster people would never except a goverment that is under the part control of the catholic church ie schools ,laws ect for the republic to cast it all away would cost to more that they can ever afford -one possible way is what happend to hongkong-one country two systems but you could never call it the republic of ireland ,it would have to change its name flag and anthem

TOMASJ

oscarBravo wrote: »

And even so, we have some provos still telling us that "they haven't gone away, you know."

"where would they have gone " they live in the statlet,
Ulster -6 -county's is now at peace as soon as the demographics reach 50.1% in favour of a United Ireland all fairytails about who said what to who about whatever does not matter, were all in a 32 county Ireland,
for better or worse, that's " democracy" like it or lump it.

The Corinthian

TOMASJ wrote: »

"where would they have gone " they live in the statlet,
Ulster -6 -county's is now at peace as soon as the demographics reach 50.1% in favour of a United Ireland all fairytails about who said what to who about whatever does not matter, were all in a 32 county Ireland,
for better or worse, that's " democracy" like it or lump it.

50.1% will solve all of NI's woes then? The of other 49.9% will simply accept it? Indeed, what is 'it'? A united Ireland under Dublin? A federation? An autonomous NI? Each of those options will affect support in NI. And that's before you ask about support down south - look at what happened in Cyprus...

Sounds like you're coming out with just more of that "it'll all work out, don't ask questions" rubbish, TBH.

gurramok

The Corinthian wrote: »

50.1% will solve all of NI's woes then? The of other 49.9% will simply accept it?

Its a simple question.

If 50.1% or any majority of the NI voting public voted to join the republic in a United Ireland, would you accept or reject their democratic wishes?

The Corinthian

gurramok wrote: »

Its a simple question.

I think you're confusing simple with simplistic - more of that "it'll all work out, don't ask questions" rubbish.

If 50.1% or any majority of the NI voting public voted to join the republic in a United Ireland, would you accept or reject their democratic wishes?

Don't the 26 counties get to vote too? What happens if we disagree, as happened in Cyprus?

Do I think that a 0.1% majority on an issue like this is workable? No. That's the reason that referenda on such issues normally require two-thirds or higher majorities in many countries.

Would I respect it? WTF, does that mean? I'd respect a united Ireland properly planned and receiving a hell of a higher majority, but thinking that you're home dry with 0.1% is utterly retarded.

No one need respect a democratic decision; that's why we will often bring issues to the people more than once, as we have with divorce, abortion, Nice, etc. The question is how you oppose it - democratically, or otherwise - not that you suddenly accept a 0.1% majority and give up.

I mean, what drugs are some people on here?

Greyfox

Just reading luckyfrank's post and I think it's the funniest thing I've ever read!!! Can their really be people that stupid out their? Their's more chance of Hull City winning the Premiership, Jean Claude Van Damme winning an Oscar, me winning the Euro millions draw, money growing on trees and time travel been invented all by next year than their is of their ever been United Ireland!!!

Firstly at least 98% of people in the republic do not want a United Ireland as they see it as pure fantasy, most people in the North have given up on it too as all sensible people have realised that the time to move on was a long time ago!!

It's time for people to grow up and stop dreaming!!!!!!!!

gurramok

The Corinthian wrote: »

I think you're confusing simple with simplistic - more of that "it'll all work out, don't ask questions" rubbish.

Nope, a simple question first and lets decide what to do after, like a negotiation if one may call it that.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Don't the 26 counties get to vote too? What happens if we disagree, as happened in Cyprus?

Yes, but that was not the question!

The Corinthian wrote: »

Do I think that a 0.1% majority on an issue like this is workable? No. That's the reason that referenda on such issues normally require two-thirds or higher majorities in many countries.

Apply that today, alot less than 66% want the Union with Britain hence it is too tight to call.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Would I respect it? WTF, does that mean? I'd respect a united Ireland properly planned and receiving a hell of a higher majority, but thinking that you're home dry with 0.1% is utterly retarded.

No one need respect a democratic decision; that's why we will often bring issues to the people more than once, as we have with divorce, abortion, Nice, etc. The question is how you oppose it - democratically, or otherwise - not that you suddenly accept a 0.1% majority and give up.

Isn't that what democracy is about? A majority vote what they want and respect it?

The Corinthian wrote: »

I mean, what drugs are some people on here?

Nope, not high

It's just a simple question, that's all

Greyfox wrote:

Firstly at least 98% of people in the republic do not want a United Ireland as they see it as pure fantasy, most people in the North have given up on it too as all sensible people have realised that the time to move on was a long time ago!!

Where did you get that 98% from, did you do some secret poll?

If your quoting from the GFA, that was a poll on the GFA, not on a united Ireland!

TOMASJ

The Corinthian wrote: »

50.1% will solve all of NI's woes then? The of other 49.9% will simply accept it? Indeed, what is 'it'? A united Ireland under Dublin? A federation? An autonomous NI? Each of those options will affect support in NI. And that's before you ask about support down south - look at what happened in Cyprus...

Sounds like you're coming out with just more of that "it'll all work out, don't ask questions" rubbish, TBH.

Were all democrats here "arent we" now if we have an election for a UN and a majority vote for that are you telling me it should not be respected,
as for the 26 county's voting I have no doubt that it would be a landslide,

funny how that was not taken into consideration when the six countys were imposed against the wishes of the majority of people who voted back then.

The Corinthian

Greyfox wrote: »

Firstly at least 98% of people in the republic do not want a United Ireland as they see it as pure fantasy, most people in the North have given up on it too as all sensible people have realised that the time to move on was a long time ago!!

This is as much pure conjecture as the claims that an overwhelmingly large majority would vote for a unification.

gurramok wrote: »

Nope, a simple question first and lets decide what to do after, like a negotiation if one may call it that.

The problem is that it is not a simple question. Both nationalists and unionists have sought to define the entire thing as a simple question and it's not - it's a lot more complicated.

TOMASJ wrote: »

Were all democrats here "arent we" now if we have an election for a UN and a majority vote for that are you telling me it should not be respected

I don't think you understand democracy. Just because something is passed, does not mean it was a good idea or you should accept it. Democracy allows us to continue a debate if there is sufficient voice for it, so as to later overturn (democratically) a vote.

Otherwise, would you be telling us that if a referendum (either north or south) were defeated, you would respect this and accept partition? Hell, shouldn't you be respecting that referendum we had on the subject back in the twenties?

as for the 26 county's voting I have no doubt that it would be a landslide

As per my response to Greyfox above.

I do think however that nationalists tend to lose the plot where it comes to 'what the people want'. Most people have a limited sense of nationalism in the face of economic hardship or the threat of political instability. For unification to work people would have to be convinced that it was worth it - the price they're willing to pay is considerably less than your average chucky will pay.

TOMASJ

Hell, shouldn't you be respecting that referendum we had on the subject back in the twenties?

Was that the election in December 1919, when 78% of the people of the 32 county's of Ireland voted to end British rule in Ireland. and voted for a United Ireland, that was steam rolled by the brits.

djpbarry

gurramok wrote: »

...alot less than 66% want the Union with Britain...

Based on what?

LordSutch

As Greyfox has just stated in Post#113, the whole notion of a "united ireland" is in reality 'Pie-in-the-Sky' or Popycock - & it just aint goin to happen anytime soon, if ever! as much as certain Republican posters to Boards.ie may wish for the total domination & Greening of the North - Which cannot be forced out of the UK.

Even if an increased Catholic birth rate eclipsed the Protestant birth rate & resulted eventually in a higher 'Catholic' population, it would still NOT automatically follow that the North would leave the UK, there are far too many imponderables to calculate.

Even now many Catholics wish to stay in the Union - its not just a religious divide, its also a cultural, historical & economic divide that seperates the UK from the Republic.

Irlbo

Regardless of the indifference of the people in the 26 counties,I believe that the vast majority would be in favour of a United Ireland,and add that with vast majority of nationalists up North,I think on an all Ireland basis there is a democratic mandate for a United Ireland,and that is no pie in the sky or pipe dream,sure this state is build on miltant nationalism and republicanism,from its national anthem to its monoments,people dont forget

Fratton Fred

Irlbo wrote: »

add that with vast majority of nationalists up North,I think on an all Ireland basis there is a democratic mandate for a United Ireland,

so we can expect a vote in NI in the not too distant future then can we?