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

LordSutch

Deedsie wrote: »

It sure is complicated alright. Is there any word on changing the Anthem and Flag of north Ireland?

I did make a serious suggestion re the flag in Post#248.

Deedsie

ilkhanid wrote: »

Fine Gael...Commonwealth party? Yes, the party that in coalition took Ireland out of the Commonwealth, which looks in retrospect like a mistake. Which goes to show the foolishness of trying to be "greener than thou" against FF.
No,the flag is not perfect. It would have to be replaced in any future arrangement. Yes, the idea of the tricolour was good, but what it originally was intended to represent has been overwritten by what events have made it represent,namely, the flag of nationalism.However you put it, saying it was 'hijacked'..what you will..the fact is,the clock can't be put back in this matter.
And..."we are sovreign unique race with our own culture,tradition and language,this has all been established....".
No, we are a mongrel race, just like most of the others,just like our neighbours and we have traditions,cultures and languages (emphasis on the plural) and we can't go back to this fantasy of a monocultural, monolithic Ireland. If there ever is a united Ireland, the North will have a relationship with the South such as Scotland has to England, or Hong Kong has to China and we can forget about this "32 county neutral,socialist republic" this hoary old dream peddled for decades by Sinn Fein.

I respectfully disagree, was there not some part of the GFA that suggested when a Nationalist majority voted in the North that it wanted out of the North it would happen? Was that just a load of BS that the 32 counties voted for?

Was Fine Gael never reffered to as the Commonwealth party? I know they declared the republic too but there is something lingering there. Tri-Colour besdie the Ulster Flag is a fair compromise or a Red Hand knocking around somewhere.

getz

no words in god save the queen insult anyone but the words ;the saxon foe;is very insulting to friendly neighbouring saxons

Deedsie

Camelot wrote: »

I did make a serious suggestion re the flag in Post#248.

You certainly did and i should have acknowledeged it. Would they change the northen Ireland flag in the current climate is what i meant?

I made a compromise to Amhran Na Bhfiann as well?

djpbarry

Deedsie wrote: »

"Amhran Na Bhfiann in the Bin" is not very sensitive towards Nationalists now is it? How is it any less provocative than God Save the relevant monarch?

They're both feckin' awful songs.

The Corinthian

Deedsie wrote: »

I respectfully disagree, was there not some part of the GFA that suggested when a Nationalist majority voted in the North that it wanted out of the North it would happen? Was that just a load of BS that the 32 counties voted for?

I'm not sure exactly how it is defined. I believe the principle of self determination was included, but as to the details, I don't know. I would be very surprised, and dismayed, if a simple majority could decide something as contentious as that.

Of course, even if the north voted to leave the UK by a 99% majority, the south would still have to vote on whether we want them to join us...

getz wrote: »

no words in god save the queen insult anyone but the words ;the saxon foe;is very insulting to friendly neighbouring saxons

Poor Germans.

luckyfrank

ilkhanid wrote: »

Fine Gael...Commonwealth party? Yes, the party that in coalition took Ireland out of the Commonwealth, which looks in retrospect like a mistake. Which goes to show the foolishness of trying to be "greener than thou" against FF.
No,the flag is not perfect. It would have to be replaced in any future arrangement. Yes, the idea of the tricolour was good, but what it originally was intended to represent has been overwritten by what events have made it represent,namely, the flag of nationalism.However you put it, saying it was 'hijacked'..what you will..the fact is,the clock can't be put back in this matter.
And..."we are sovreign unique race with our own culture,tradition and language,this has all been established....".
No, we are a mongrel race, just like most of the others,just like our neighbours and we have traditions,cultures and languages (emphasis on the plural) and we can't go back to this fantasy of a monocultural, monolithic Ireland. If there ever is a united Ireland, the North will have a relationship with the South such as Scotland has to England, or Hong Kong has to China and we can forget about this "32 county neutral,socialist republic" this hoary old dream peddled for decades by Sinn Fein.

I dare say there are quite a few scots who would tell you that there relationship with england is far far different than the north's with us and hong kong is with china

I dont know why people cant except that if the majority of people in the future of northern ireland want a 32 county ireland under one inclusive goverment.
Why is it so hard for people to fathom ?

Yes comprimise will be made for the good of all but people need to stop pretending like the north is this far far away realm that has little in common with the south

The vast majority of the people on this island want to see a peaceful united ireland its not a dream or a fantasy but its real its similar to germany before unification it can and will happen

The Corinthian

luckyfrank wrote: »

I dont know why people cant except that if the majority of people in the future of northern ireland want a 32 county ireland under one inclusive goverment.
Why is it so hard for people to fathom ?

Why do people keep on suggesting that only NI has a say in this?

Yes comprimise will be made for the good of all but people need to stop pretending like the north is this far far away realm that has little in common with the south

Equally one might argue that some should stop pretending like the north has all that much in common with the south. In reality, the gap is realistically not huge, but neither is the gap between us and a Scott or Welshman.

That's not to say we shouldn't unify, but I do think we need to look at the cultural differences that exist realistically and not with some rose tinted nationalist glasses.

The vast majority of the people on this island want to see a peaceful united ireland its not a dream or a fantasy but its real its similar to germany before unification it can and will happen

I think you'll find that there are numerous differences between Irish unification and German reunification.

LordSutch

Some posters have eluded to a New Flag in previous posts, so here is a Great idea for a new 'All island' or
'All ireland' Flag - to be used in the unlikely event of some form of 'United Island' in about 60 years time )

Ingredients:
Leave the Tricolour as it is :eek: then take the 'Cross of St Patrick' (one third of the Union Flag), then turn the Cross 90o and insert it into the [White Third] at the centre of the Tricolour :eek: So now you have the Green, White & the Orange traditions (unchanged) but joined in the Centre by the 'Cross of St Patrick' signifying 'Unionists' who are not of an Orange persuasion = me Happy

The Cross of St Patrick is currently used by the Newly formed PSNI, the Cross was deliberately chosen because of its 'non sectarian appeal' - the Cross of St Patrick is also the (Irish) one third of the Union Jack which will appeal to Unionists.

Any objections? - Anyone think its a Good idea? - any other ideas re Flags & Anthems?

Bottle_of_Smoke

The Corinthian wrote: »

It's difficult to impossible to truly assess a potential referendum as none has been proposed for us to analyse and the support of groups, both north and south, is very much dependant on the conditions of such a proposal. Remember, no group opposed Irish independence in principle in 1922, but based upon the conditions of that independence, that is precisely what the anti-treaty side did. Politically you can oppose something and still be in favour of the principle behind it - Lisbon was largely opposed on those grounds, that it was a 'bad deal', not because anyone was 'anti-Europe'.

Similarly, any settlement that would pave the way for unification could be rejected on the basis of the conditions surrounding it - any party could patriotically claim to want unification, but not on such terms. And not only Fianna Fail, Fine Gale or Labour, but even Sinn Fein could oppose it. After all, if unification really meant changing the flag, the anthem and many of the symbols and institutions of the Irish Republic, can you really see them supporting it? Such is the tribalism, that I suspect such compromise is beyond their comprehension.

And without such compromise, you're unlikely to see any proposal being seriously considered north of the border.

Have to say I did not consider this and was thinking far too black and white. Cheers

luckyfrank

Camelot wrote: »

Some posters have eluded to a New Flag in previous posts, so here is a Great idea for a new 'All island' or
'All ireland' Flag - to be used in the unlikely event of some form of 'United Island' in about 60 years time )

Ingredients:
Leave the Tricolour as it is :eek: then take the 'Cross of St Patrick' (one third of the Union Flag), then turn the Cross 90o and insert it into the [White Third] at the centre of the Tricolour :eek: So now you have the Green, White & the Orange traditions (unchanged) but joined in the Centre by the 'Cross of St Patrick' signifying 'Unionists' who are not of an Orange persuasion = me Happy

The Cross of St Patrick is currently used by the Newly formed PSNI, the Cross was deliberately chosen because of its 'non sectarian appeal' - the Cross of St Patrick is also the (Irish) one third of the Union Jack which will appeal to Unionists.

Any objections? - Anyone think its a Good idea? - any other ideas re Flags & Anthems?

Id have no problem having a small union jack in the corner of the tri-colour similar to what the aussies and NZ have id have no problem with ireland rejoining the commonwealth for that matter as long as we had our own president as head of state i think leaving the commonwealth was a mistake

ilkhanid

Thanks, Camelot. I'd have to visualize your flag in my mind...it's rather complex!
"Amhran Na Bhfiann in the Bin" is not very sensitive towards Nationalists now is it? How is it any less provocative than God Save the relevant monarch?"
They are both provocative to the other side. In an ideal United ireland both Amhran na Bhfiann and GSTQ would go into the bin. The idea is to find an anthem (and a flag) that transcends both and manages to allude to the cultural traditions of both parties,without excluding or belittling the traditions of the other. The objective is to find shared symbols that both parties could find some common ground in. Having a tricolour alongside a Red hand is little different to the way it is now,with the Union Jack and the tricolour,where both symbols exist side by side but each has meaning only for one side, and are only grudgingly tolerated by the other side.
"I dare say there are quite a few scots who would tell you that there relationship with england is far far different than the north's with us and hong kong is with china".
I'm not maintaining that either are the same or that either are an exact model of a future Ireland. I'm just giving examples of the kind of things people will have to think about,examples of different types of relationships between different ethnic areas within a larger political context.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

LordSutch

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The parts I have highlighted are 100% against the grain from my understanding, and the parts I have not highlighted I totally agree with ...........

Conquered and partitioned No, I would say that the 'South' partitioned the island - by leaving the UK ...

Colony No, this word 'Colony' is a very new addition to the lexicon of words associated with Ireland, and I dare say, that if we were having this discussion only twenty years ago, the word Colony & Ireland would Never have been associated in the same sentence (although I do understand that its 'the in thing' to call ireland an ex-colony).

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

LordSutch

The thing about the use of the word 'Colony' in relation to Ireland, is that (as I have already said) it has become 'fashionable' by some to call Ireland an ex-colony, which from a Unionist perspective makes no sence at all, because we see all the peoples of the british isles (Celtic, Angles, Saxons, Normans, Picts, etc) as having a connection as in 'One Big Family' - so the very idea of Ireland being a Colony is Rediculous!

Ireland is an island just 22 miles away from the island of Britain! (with the isle of Man between the two), with countless other islands surrounding both, so to say that Ireland is/was a 'Colony' leaves the door open to call every other island a Colony (and then you have Scicily off the coast of italy), is that a Colony? and the list might go on for every island beside another island which is a colony of the island next door ...... :cool:

My understanding of the word Colony would pertain mainly to the thirteen 'Colonies' of the United States (some three thousand miles away) with distance very much a part of the Term . . . but for God's sake, not Ireland or the isle of man, the isle of wight, or the Orkneys :cool:

As regards 'Who created the border' well, its complex isnt it - If the South hadnt decided to leave the UK - then - because - etc, etc .........

djpbarry

luckyfrank wrote: »

I dont know why people cant except that if the majority of people in the future of northern ireland want a 32 county ireland under one inclusive goverment.
Why is it so hard for people to fathom ?

What are we being asked to fathom? What exactly will this unification involve?

luckyfrank wrote: »

Yes comprimise will be made for the good of all but people need to stop pretending like the north is this far far away realm that has little in common with the south

As has been said already countless times on this thread and others, there are plenty of similarities between the people of the North and the Republic, but there are plenty of differences too. The high level of support enjoyed by Gerry Adams and co. up north is one example I often cite.

I think the problem is that you're just comparing nationalists down south with nationalists up north - what about the rest of us?

djpbarry

ilkhanid wrote: »

Thanks, Camelot. I'd have to visualize your flag in my mind...it's rather complex!

I think this is what Camelot has in mind? Apologies if I got it wrong.

The Corinthian

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Next you'll tell us that Santa doesn't exist.

Because of this, greater appreciation is needed for the complex political, cultural, and religious forces that have shaped an Ulster notably distinct from the rest of Ireland. We need to consider the potential problems inherent in trying to shoehorn these six counties into the vaunted "32-county Ireland" before we rush ahead with plans for referenda and "re"-unification.

I wouldn't hold my breath where it comes to finding such 'greater appreciation'. The tribalism up north won't countenance it, the romanticism down south can't conceive it and then there's the status quo brigade...

There's quite a few vested interests both north and south in maintaining the divide. Some are financial (the south does not want to pay for unification and the north does not want to loose all that lovely London lolly) and others are political - for example, of the latter, political demographics would drastically change if six counties were suddenly added to the other 26, diluting the influence of the Republic's established parties, and potentially making the northern parties small coalition partners rather than masters of their own devolved home.

Of course, no one need oppose unification. That's political suicide. All you need do is propose a form that's doomed to fail and let the usual malcontents do the dirty work of opposing it. That's assuming that the 'conditions' necessary for a referendum are ever met - a bit like the UK and the Euro.

djpbarry wrote: »

I think this is what Camelot has in mind? Apologies if I got it wrong.

I strongly oppose that flag on purely aesthetic grounds.

LordSutch

Thats it djpbarry 100%, thats an Irish Flag I could do serious business with, and I say that as somebody with serious Unionist leanings !!!

The Flag itself is the Tricolour (Unchanged) to keep Nationalist Ireland Happy, presuming thats OK? then we insert the 'Cross of St Patrick' taken from the 'Union Flag' thus keeping a Unionist perspective alive - and with the Green White & Orange Tricolour still intact.

This now represents everybody - from Green to Orange & all of Unionism - sorted ?

I suppose there are dozens of theories about a flag that would keep everybody Happy, but this is my baby (courtesy of djpbarry).

Cheers for that, & what do you think of its concept?

How did you get it up there in the first place without a url?

Deedsie

So based on the readings throughout this thread? No one can be completely satisfied?

Would joint rule from Dublin/London be resisted by everyone? Split the number of MPs in two and have a TD and MP for each constituency. Allow the North to vote for The Irish President. And leave Northern Ireland Assembly have home rule for most issues.

Leave Northern Ireland in the Commonwealth. Set up a new flag and Anthem for the North. Set up an All ireland athletics team to compete in Commonwealth Games. No oaths of allegience to anyone they only get peoples backs up?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

djpbarry

Camelot wrote: »

Cheers for that, & what do you think of its concept?

Concept's fine (I'm not terribly hung up on flags), but I'm afraid I'd have to agree with The Corinthian.

Camelot wrote: »

How did you get it up there in the first place without a url?

I is Jesus (v 1.39d).

getz

camelot and djbarry are you two going to get married ?

LordSutch

I'm afraid I am already promised to another see Post#213

Deedsie

Camelot wrote: »

I'm afraid I am already promised to another see Post#213

Hold the phone there Camelot. I went on through various posts to explain my views in that post.

Nodin

djpbarry wrote: »

I think this is what Camelot has in mind? Apologies if I got it wrong.

If the red X covered the words "Mentioning the War" I think all angles are covered.

The Corinthian

Deedsie wrote: »

So based on the readings throughout this thread? No one can be completely satisfied?

I think you're beginning to understand the principle problem with achieving unification that tends to be glossed over by romantics.

Deedsie

The Corinthian wrote: »

I think you're beginning to understand the principle problem with achieving unification that tends to be glossed over by romantics.

I always knew the situation was complex but i had presumed with a degree of naiveity that majority would mean at least a unification debate north and south.

Well what about the rest of that post? I made a few suggestions towards what would to me be a fair deal for everyone? NI would still be in the UK but also have seats in the Dáil.

Irlbo

Im sorry no compromise,no change in flags,anthems,traditions,anything,no compromise to unionists or Britain,an entirely sovreign 32 county republic is all that can surfice

The Corinthian

Deedsie wrote: »

Well what about the rest of that post? I made a few suggestions towards what would to me be a fair deal for everyone? NI would still be in the UK but also have seats in the Dáil.

Fair suggestions, but as our friend Irlbo has just pointed out some will still have their heads wedged too far up their own arses to read them, and there's enough of them to derail any deal.

"Other people have a nationality. The Irish and the Jews have a psychosis." - Brendan Behan

getz

Deedsie wrote: »

I always knew the situation was complex but i had presumed with a degree of naiveity that majority would mean at least a unification debate north and south.

Well what about the rest of that post? I made a few suggestions towards what would to me be a fair deal for everyone? NI would still be in the UK but also have seats in the Dáil.

this is very interesting, but if northern ireland had seats in the dail it would also mean that the republic would have seats in the parliament-back to 1920--the only way for a one country ireland is through a european goverment and that is a long way off

LordSutch

Nodin wrote: »

If the red X covered the words "Mentioning the War" I think all angles are covered.

. Nationalist . . . . . Unionist . . . . . Orange



The Red Cross (as you put it) is actually the
'Cross of St Patrick' which currently occupies
one third of the Flag of the United Kingdom . . .

Irlbo

I think the flag should be just green,I dont want any mention of unionists or peace with them on my nations flag

LordSutch

Irlbo wrote: »

I think the flag should be just green,I dont want any mention of unionists or peace with them on my nations flag

Maybe you should live in a mossy cave?

Deedsie

Irlbo wrote: »

I think the flag should be just green,I dont want any mention of unionists or peace with them on my nations flag

But that flies in the face of what the Proclomation of independence stood for:

"Irish Republic is entitled to, and hereby claims, the allegiance of every Irishman and Irishwoman. The Republic guarantees religious and civil liberty, equal rights and equal opportunities to all its citizens, and declares its resolve to pursue the happiness and prosperity of the whole nation and all of its parts, cherishing all of the children of the nation equally and oblivious of the differences carefully fostered by an alien government, which have divided a minority from the majority in the past."

I suppose that has to mean respecting all traditions. Look at the USA/South Africa. Two hotbeds of ethnic differences. Yet the majority of both countries all salute a single national flag.

Id hope a compromise could be made for Ireland. Two flags, Tricolour and whatever Northern Irelands new flag is to be.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

The Corinthian

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Indeed. We just agreed to it.

getz

Deedsie wrote: »

But that flies in the face of what the Proclomation of independence stood for:

"Irish Republic is entitled to, and hereby claims, the allegiance of every Irishman and Irishwoman. The Republic guarantees religious and civil liberty, equal rights and equal opportunities to all its citizens, and declares its resolve to pursue the happiness and prosperity of the whole nation and all of its parts, cherishing all of the children of the nation equally and oblivious of the differences carefully fostered by an alien government, which have divided a minority from the majority in the past."

I suppose that has to mean respecting all traditions. Look at the USA/South Africa. Two hotbeds of ethnic differences. Yet the majority of both countries all salute a single national flag.

Id hope a compromise could be made for Ireland. Two flags, Tricolour and whatever Northern Irelands new flag is to be.

there is a good irish web site www.reform.org that will give you a lot of answers to these questions that have been put on this thread

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Nodin

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

And agreeing to shelve the commission on the border that suggested a few (not particularily large) changes........

O'Morris

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Partition wasn't part of the treaty. The treaty granted the entire island dominion status under the crown with the option for the north to opt out if they wanted to. The jurisdiction of the free state when it was established included the entire island. The six counties were even part of that jurisdiction for three days in December 1922. The orangemen made the decision to opt out, not the nationalists. They're the people responsible for the partition of Ireland.

And the partition that was proposed at the time was only ever viewed as a temporary measure. Nationalists at the time expected that the north would not survive long on its own and that the country would be united again before long. Had people at the time realised that partition would have lasted for as long as it did the treaty would never have passed. Irish people have never accepted the partition of their country as a permanent political settlement.

The Corinthian

O'Morris wrote: »

Partition wasn't part of the treaty. The treaty granted the entire island dominion status under the crown with the option for the north to opt out if they wanted to.

But wouldn't accepting such an opt out be accepting partition?

Had people at the time realised that partition would have lasted for as long as it did the treaty would never have passed.

Conjecture stated as fact.

Irish people have never accepted the partition of their country as a permanent political settlement.

More conjecture stated as fact.

ilkhanid

"The thing about the use of the word 'Colony' in relation to Ireland, is that (as I have already daid) it has become 'fashionable' by some to call Ireland an ex-colony, which from a Unionist perspective makes no sense at all, because we see all the peoples of the british isles (Celtic, Angles, Saxons, Normans, Picts, etc) as having a connection as in 'One Big Family' - so the very idea of Ireland being a Colony is Ridiculous!"

One thing that has prompted the use of the term in relation to Ireland is this growth in academia of the fashionable subject of "post-colonial studies". The thing that baffles me is that in this subject we constantly see Ireland being compared with places like India,Jamaica and Australia. Surely examples closer to home would be more relevant? Even if we were to agree on whether Ireland was a colony at all,then surely examples from Europe itself would be more to the point. I'm thinking of places like Andalusia under the Moors and later the Spanish,Kosovo under the Ottomans and Serbs, Greece also under the Ottomans,the Czechs and Croats in the Austrian Empire and the Baltic States in the periods of German and Russian rule. Finland and Sicily also come to mind.

LordSutch

Did somebody wash my flag at the wrong temprature (its shrunk)

Nodin

ilkhanid wrote: »

"The thing about the use of the word 'Colony' in relation to Ireland, is that (as I have already daid) it has become 'fashionable' by some to call Ireland an ex-colony, which from a Unionist perspective makes no sense at all, because we see all the peoples of the british isles (Celtic, Angles, Saxons, Normans, Picts, etc) as having a connection as in 'One Big Family' - so the very idea of Ireland being a Colony is Ridiculous!"

Well, if in your family you kicked out your granny to house some other relation and treated your offspring as second class citizens for a few hundred years, I suppose you could have a point.

getz

the only thing that kept the republic from going bust from the 1920s- was the willingness of the united kingdom to trade and give free access to people from the republic to find work ,so they could feed their family ,remember they did not have to do that. this was noted and remarked on by your president on a visit to the uk-thats why my irish ancestors came over like over one million irish men and and their familys since-one thread said we are all one race on these western isles ,i believe that true -i notice that the DNA samples taken of peoples in the uk have come up with a result that most have a celtic background , not all celts went to ireland most stayed and intergrated with the roman invaders -history is strangly changing

gurramok

djpbarry wrote: »

I just went by the summary in Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Northern_Ireland

Updating post. News today about the register. Its at 1.142m, the same level as it was in 2005 before it went downhill
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2008/1201/1227910421538.html

June 10 2004 - 1,072m http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/issues/politics/election/re2004.htm
May 5 2005 - 1.142m http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/issues/politics/election/rd2005.htm
Mar 7 2007 - 1.107m http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/issues/politics/election/2007nia/ra2007.htm
Dec 1st 2008 - 1.142m

From the above, its crystal clear there was disappearing volumes of voters and probably still are despite the population increase in the same period.

djpbarry

getz wrote: »

...i notice that the DNA samples taken of peoples in the uk have come up with a result that most have a celtic background...

I'd be extremely surprised if that were true.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.