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

The Corinthian

Irlbo wrote: »

Would come from a republican family,but in the Fianna Fail vein,I formed my own ideas in my teens,and have got a little bit wise to things and got a little bit more open in my ideas as I got older,but always maintained a republican outlook to things,far from a fanatic my old flower,dont see anything wrong with being a republican

I never suggested there was anything wrong with being a republican (more correctly an Irish Nationalist Republican, otherwise Cicero might have been a provo).

There is a difference between adhering to an ideology and being a slave to it though. Rejecting any evidence (for dubious reasons) that may disagree with a dogmatic World view, inability to consider opposing positions and identifying other sides with stereotypical clichés would however be the hallmarks of fanaticism, regardless of of whether you're a 'republican', loyalist, socialist, Scientologist or whatever.

In this regard, you do appear to fit the bill. You are dogmatic, unwilling to consider opposing view and prone to stereotypical clichés about 'Brits', protestants, et al. If I was a betting man, I'd put you from an agrarian, non-urban background, conservative Catholic, lower middle to working class family with at least one (perhaps distant) relative who was sacrificed to the 'cause'. There was at least one Wolfe Tones album at home.

Irlbo

My upbringing is no interest to you buddy,but to satisfy you,Im from the North Inner City in Dublin,and never had any time for Oirish ballads from the Wolfe Tones,and my family are a diverse mix,republicans moderate and militant,catholic,protestant and atheist,I actually send my daughter to a non-denominational school,so Im far from the bored middle class spoiled kid who thinks he's Bobby Sands cousin,how old are you?

The Corinthian

Irlbo wrote: »

My upbringing is no interest to you buddy,but to satisfy you,Im from the North Inner City in Dublin,and never had any time for Oirish ballads from the Wolfe Tones,and my family are a diverse mix,republicans moderate and militant,catholic,protestant and atheist,I actually send my daughter to a non-denominational school,so Im far from the bored middle class spoiled kid who thinks he's Bobby Sands cousin,how old are you?

Never said you had a Wolfe Tones album, only suggested your family did. I seem to have gotten the rest of your background right, with the exception of the urban environment.

I certainly never suggested you were middle class - quite the opposite. I've always found it interesting how support for militant republicanism/unionism seems to be inversely proportional to class background and, often, education.

As to my own age, I'm probably older than you. Still, thank you for sharing.

djpbarry

Irlbo wrote: »

Still maintained,funded and adminstered by the British Government...

I doubt that very much.

gurramok wrote: »

Now, you're saying they can even take a proper opinion poll!

Did I say the poll was 100% accurate? No. I said it gives a reasonable indication of people's views. It's certainly not gospel. Besides, if it's so entirely inaccurate then you should have no trouble producing evidence that contradicts the poll's findings.

gurramok wrote: »

In 2005, there were new rules for voter registration. About 200,000 were struck off as thought initially(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/4266613.stm)

Actually, that article says that "More than 200,000 people have failed to register to vote in Northern Ireland...". Are you suggesting that people who were not arsed registering to vote were in fact (nationalist) victims of some sort of (unionist) conspiracy?

gurramok wrote: »

Then they reckoned 80,000 were struck off because of the new rules (http://www3.u.tv/newsroom/indepth.asp?id=56103&pt=n )

Once again, that article refers to people "who failed to re-register".

gurramok wrote: »

Have a look here http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/issues/politics/election/elect.htm
The electorate declined between 2005 and 2007 despite a population increase.

Because people failed to re-register to vote.

Irlbo wrote: »

Would come from a republican family,but in the Fianna Fail vein,I formed my own ideas in my teens,and have got a little bit wise to things and got a little bit more open in my ideas as I got older...

I'd hate to see what your attitude to Northern Ireland was like before you became "a little bit more open" in your ideas.

Irlbo

Your a lovely chap areant ya,so you figure that Im undereducated because of my environment,and that because of my background thats where I get my ideas from,god your not half judgemental are you,can I make a snap judgement about you without knowing anything about you apart from the way you type?

The Corinthian

Irlbo wrote: »

Your a lovely chap areant ya,so you figure that Im undereducated because of my environment,and that because of my background thats where I get my ideas from,god your not half judgemental are you,can I make a snap judgement about you without knowing anything about you apart from the way you type?

I never suggested you were ill-educated - I suggested that you came from a working to lower middle class background. This was correct, by your own admission.

I did comment that poor education is often also related, but did not suggest that this was the case with you - is it? I also never suggested any connection between social class and education.

But, returning to you, of course I can make educated guesses about background based upon both language and moral or ideological outlooks. People simply are not that complicated as we are shaped by the environment in which we grew up; you don't actually believe that you came to your conclusions all by yourself?

"Those who believe in free will make the best puppets of all", and all that jazz

Irlbo

My friend,if I was to make a guess about you,I would assume you are someone in their early to late twenties,who comes from a upper middle class suburban background,who while obviously intelligent and well educated probably due to influence of parents and a comfortable upbringing,has very little experince of life and gets all your ideas from books and the web,I see you know Italian so I would assume youve travelled but despite this your shileded upbringing blocked you from the nastier things in life,so something like militant republcanism is something you cant comprehend,I take it that having money and oppoportunities provided to you growing up,sacriface or volunteering for anything selfless would be forieign to you as how does it benefit you

The Corinthian

Irlbo wrote: »

My friend,if I was to make a guess about you,I would assume you are someone in their early to late twenties,who comes from a upper middle class suburban background,who while obviously intelligent and well educated probably due to influence of parents and a comfortable upbringing,has very little experince of life and gets all your ideas from books and the web,I see you know Italian so I would assume youve travelled

Nice try

Add a good few years to my age, family is lower middle one one side and lower upper on the other. As to experience, I've seen war (not as a combatant thankfully) and have been witness to a few things in my life that I doubt you will ever experience - not that I would wish for you or anyone else to do so. So, the bookish stereotype does not really apply.

However you score points some points; upbringing was pretty comfortable, but not opulent, travelled and educated. Thank you for suggesting I'm intelligent.

but despite this your shileded upbringing blocked you from the nastier things in life,so something like militant republcanism is something you cant comprehend,I take it that having money and oppoportunities provided to you growing up,sacriface or volunteering for anything selfless would be forieign to you as how does it benefit you

Ahh the sting in the tail... I think I've probably seen enough to understand such things better than someone who appears to do so from an armchair.

gurramok

djpbarry wrote: »

Did I say the poll was 100% accurate? No. I said it gives a reasonable indication of people's views. It's certainly not gospel. Besides, if it's so entirely inaccurate then you should have no trouble producing evidence that contradicts the poll's findings.

I did, they are called elections along with experienced political commentators on BBC NI/UTV and anecdotals.

=djpbarry wrote: »

Actually, that article says that "More than 200,000 people have failed to register to vote in Northern Ireland...". Are you suggesting that people who were not arsed registering to vote were in fact (nationalist) victims of some sort of (unionist) conspiracy?

Nope, members of both sides were struck off, just look DUP's Mr.Dodds reaction in the article.

=djpbarry wrote: »

Once again, that article refers to people "who failed to re-register".
Because people failed to re-register to vote.

You obviously picked it up wrong. The rules were changed for the voting register. Registering every year was not required previously hence anyone who did not return forms were struck off under the new rules.

Alot didn't bother to re-reg due to various circumstances hence they were struck off. They did not realise how serious the impending strike-off was and since then the Electoral Commission along with the political parties have been campaigning in their communities to get people to re-reg properly.

Irlbo

I think personalities here mean little,experience counts abit but not much as after all,we just faceless nicknames that post on a forum,but I think you have the wrong impression of me my friend,Im no internet warrior or armchair general as you may think,cant go into it here in detail but Im older then you think,and have been active in pursuing my ideals,although nowadays things have died down and its a different sort of activism(Im happy about that,as years ago,although being a republican was exciting and fulfilling,it ran alot of risks,gardai harassment and blacklisting being the biggest),be honest had verly comfortable stable upbringing although did experience few hardships,made me stronger as individual,but nothing that would have influenced me towards repulicanism

djpbarry

gurramok wrote: »

I did, they are called elections...

But you're claiming that election results have been invalidated by people not registering to vote?

gurramok wrote: »

Nope, members of both sides were struck off, just look DUP's Mr.Dodds reaction in the article.

So what's the problem? Do you think the make-up of the assembly would be substantially different if these people were not removed from the register? I'd be of the opinion that someone who is not bothered registering to vote is unlikely to be bothered voting anyway.

gurramok wrote: »

You obviously picked it up wrong.

No, I didn't. I just don't get your point.

gurramok wrote: »

Alot didn't bother to re-reg...

...because they were not bothered. It's quite simple really. There may be some exceptional circumstances, but, by-and-large, people who are not arsed registering to vote are most likely not really arsed about elections in the first place. I don't think that's an altogether unreasonable conclusion.

gurramok

djpbarry wrote: »

But you're claiming that election results have been invalidated by people not registering to vote?

No, they were not invalidated. We were discussing the makeup of the Nationalist vote in numbers(that 300,000 and then the 340,000 number which then fell back)and I pointed out that the numbers who voted were down because of voting problems with the register and turnout hence the makeup of the Nationalist vote is invalidated, not the election itself.

It has nothing to do with less Nationalists existing as quoted by your silly survey.

djpbarry wrote: »

So what's the problem? Do you think the make-up of the assembly would be substantially different if these people were not removed from the register? I'd be of the opinion that someone who is not bothered registering to vote is unlikely to be bothered voting anyway.

...because they were not bothered. It's quite simple really. There may be some exceptional circumstances, but, by-and-large, people who are not arsed registering to vote are most likely not really arsed about elections in the first place. I don't think that's an altogether unreasonable conclusion.

Not as simple as that. People move between different areas. Ask any student for example!
They were protests at the time of people been turned away from polling stations becuase they were struck off, it was plastered all over the NI news at the time. It was mostly Nationalist politicians who protested about the new rules with a small number of Unionist politicians joining them.

Elderly also are not inclined to re-reg every year. Post can not be delivered to the correct addresses etc, they are the 'various circumstances' i had mentioned.

Depending on who you beleive if it was 80,000 or 200,000 who were struck off, so yes it will affect the make-up of the assembly in a small way, i'd hazard a guess of a small number of seats.

ilkhanid

A few disparate points.
1. Who gives a curse whether Queens is funded/mantained by the British Government? As far as I know the majority of the student population are catholics, and the majority of the staff may well be too. The only relevant matter is whether the funding authorities have direct influence over academic work and direct it in channels to their liking. If no evidence of this can be produced, then there is no reason to believe that a poll carried out by QUB shouldn't be less impartial than one carried out by staff at UCC.
2.I have seen some obnoxious bigotry here against Unionists/loyalists. But it's no surprise as we've been listening to this stuff since Old God was a boy. The usual patronizing line is that Loyalists are cowards who would never have the courage to resist Republicans or the Republic were it for the British encouraging/arming them.If it were'nt for the Brits the Loyalists would meekly accede to an united Ireland without a word of protest.If not they could be bought off ,since here another derogatory notion comes into play:that they are mercenary tightwads "more loyal to the half-crown than the crown" unlike the brave, selfless lads of Eireann. In short, their desire for separation from us,unlike other struggles for separation from a larger unit, is not legitimate, because they are either nasty bigots or deluded fools, if not both.
As has been said here before, it would be unwise to test this. Even if under a hypothetical, imposed United Ireland, there was no loyalist uprising, does anybody imagine there would be no riots or street disturbances? Even a continuing low-level of trouble could bankrupt the Republic. Would any Irish government want the task of occupying the North and ruling over a hostile, sullen population? That is why any notions that a future vote of 50% +1 will usher in an United Ireland are nonsense. In practice no Government can or would want to govern without the consent of even a minority of a population.
3.The fact is, any future United Ireland will be unlike the country we know.It would have to be some kind of federation or confederation; the title of the country,the national anthem and the flag would have to be changed and the whole culture would be different. But I doubt that people can ever be truly British and Irish at the same time. Like Spain,this is a very different case from Scandinavia or America. For one thing the concept of Scandinavia, which is a genuinely neutral term,is not loaded like the concept of Britain. The terms are geographically specific, Ireland is the name of one island,Britain is the name of the other island. In any future arrangement a new word would have to be found. That said, the idea that Ireland can ever be truly separate from the UK is wrong, the two islands and the different nations inter-penetrate in all kinds of ways and have always done so.Thousands of links; cultural, social, anthropological bind them together.

Bottle_of_Smoke

ilkhanid wrote: »

A few disparate points.
1. Who gives a curse whether Queens is funded/mantained by the British Government? As far as I know the majority of the student population are catholics, and the majority of the staff may well be too. The only relevant matter is whether the funding authorities have direct influence over academic work and direct it in channels to their liking. If no evidence of this can be produced, then there is no reason to believe that a poll carried out by QUB shouldn't be less impartial than one carried out by staff at UCC.
2.I have seen some obnoxious bigotry here against Unionists/loyalists. But it's no surprise as we've been listening to this stuff since Old God was a boy. The usual patronizing line is that Loyalists are cowards who would never have the courage to resist Republicans or the Republic were it for the British encouraging/arming them.If it were'nt for the Brits the Loyalists would meekly accede to an united Ireland without a word of protest.If not they could be bought off ,since here another derogatory notion comes into play:that they are mercenary tightwads "more loyal to the half-crown than the crown" unlike the brave, selfless lads of Eireann. In short, their desire for separation from us,unlike other struggles for separation from a larger unit, is not legitimate, because they are either nasty bigots or deluded fools, if not both.
As has been said here before, it would be unwise to test this. Even if under a hypothetical, imposed United Ireland, there was no loyalist uprising, does anybody imagine there would be no riots or street disturbances? Even a continuing low-level of trouble could bankrupt the Republic. Would any Irish government want the task of occupying the North and ruling over a hostile, sullen population? That is why any notions that a future vote of 50% +1 will usher in an United Ireland are nonsense. In practice no Government can or would want to govern without the consent of even a minority of a population.
3.The fact is, any future United Ireland will be unlike the country we know.It would have to be some kind of federation or confederation; the title of the country,the national anthem and the flag would have to be changed and the whole culture would be different. But I doubt that people can ever be truly British and Irish at the same time. Like Spain,this is a very different case from Scandinavia or America. For one thing the concept of Scandinavia, which is a genuinely neutral term,is not loaded like the concept of Britain. The terms are geographically specific, Ireland is the name of one island,Britain is the name of the other island. In any future arrangement a new word would have to be found. That said, the idea that Ireland can ever be truly separate from the UK is wrong, the two islands and the different nations inter-penetrate in all kinds of ways and have always done so.Thousands of links; cultural, social, anthropological bind them together.

I've had to avoid reading several of your posts I've wanted to read due to lack of paragraphs. Any chance you could start?

The_Corinthian - Although I'd like to agree that the South would vote no to a UI, I don't think it would. Economic reasons would be overlooked due to all the Hollywoood IRA propaganda over the years and our primary school History classes.

The only thing that might get a no vote would be the threat of loyalist violence and a potential "the troubles 2", however it's looking like UVF will be forced into decommissioning and even if they're not, which political parties would support a no vote?

Fianna "the republican party" Fail ?
Fine Gael - I'm unsure where they'd stand, not the most charismatic of lads in any case.
Sinn Fein......
The Green Party - Perhaps but practically irrelevent.
PDs - Probably the most likely to support a No vote :rolleyes:
Labour - I'd imagine would support a Yes vote.

Then Libertas I'm sure would be around to push a Yes vote. If UUP/DUP tried to campaign down south they'd be ignored.

getz

can anyone give a good reason for a person from ulster want to be part of a united ireland ? the health service is not as good -and from what i see on the boards a lot of people in the republic dont want them-you can not force anyone to take a backward step -to get a united ireland you must first win them over -you will never do that as long as idiots on both sides hate each other -i know its all been said before

thehighground

getz wrote: »

can anyone give a good reason for a person from ulster want to be part of a united ireland ? the health service is not as good -and from what i see on the boards a lot of people in the republic dont want them-you can not force anyone to take a backward step -to get a united ireland you must first win them over -you will never do that as long as idiots on both sides hate each other -i know its all been said before

Well Getz, can you give me a good reason why anyone from a catholic/nationalist background would want to share any space with some loyalists/ unionists? Bear in mind that the objector, Councillor Mel Lucas is an elected representative who refuses to attend a Remembrance Day ceremony because a catholic priest would be present!

http://www.antrimguardian.co.uk/articles/news/3207/unholy-row-sours-remembrance-day/

A timely reminder to those of you who think everything is just fine and dandy in NI.

ilkhanid

"I've had to avoid reading several of your posts I've wanted to read due to lack of paragraphs. Any chance you could start"
Eh? If you are addressing me,there were 4 paragraphs in my last post.

LordSutch

As an Anglican myself I would have no reservations whatsoever regarding a Roman Catholic Priest giving a Sermon on Remembrance Sunday, in fact I would be happy that the service included a RC Priest, seeing as everybody suffered massive loss during WWI & WWII (RC & Protestant alike).

Mel Lucas is an ass.

Nodin

thehighground wrote: »

Well Getz, can you give me a good reason why anyone from a catholic/nationalist background would want to share any space with some loyalists/ unionists? Bear in mind that the objector, Councillor Mel Lucas is an elected representative who refuses to attend a Remembrance Day ceremony because a catholic priest would be present!

http://www.antrimguardian.co.uk/articles/news/3207/unholy-row-sours-remembrance-day/

A timely reminder to those of you who think everything is just fine and dandy in NI.

Yes, but there was a time when there'd be more outside than in. Now its just this eejit. Even the DUP think he's a bigot, which is saying something.

The Corinthian

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

The_Corinthian - Although I'd like to agree that the South would vote no to a UI, I don't think it would. Economic reasons would be overlooked due to all the Hollywoood IRA propaganda over the years and our primary school History classes.

The only thing that might get a no vote would be the threat of loyalist violence and a potential "the troubles 2", however it's looking like UVF will be forced into decommissioning and even if they're not, which political parties would support a no vote?

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.

jaqian

The Corinthian wrote: »

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.

Well my own 2cents is that the anthem is outdated with its "soldiers are we" crap and the flag is just a piece of cloth given to us by the french although the sentiment is nice (peace between unionists and nationalists). Personally I'd prefer the green with the harp but if we were united a less controversial flag might just be the four crests of the different provences maybe on a blue background (St Patricks Blue). That would be all inclusive.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

getz

the first thing you start with is ---we are all irish.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

The Corinthian

jaqian wrote: »

Well my own 2cents is that the anthem is outdated with its "soldiers are we" crap and the flag is just a piece of cloth given to us by the french although the sentiment is nice (peace between unionists and nationalists). Personally I'd prefer the green with the harp but if we were united a less controversial flag might just be the four crests of the different provences maybe on a blue background (St Patricks Blue). That would be all inclusive.

While the French flag may have served as an inspiration, the French did not give it to us (unlike the Italian flag). The gold harp on the green background is actually the flag of Lenster and I'm not sure how the other provinces would like to be represented thus. The St. Patrick's cross might well be acceptable to unionists, but it's doubtful if nationalists would feel the same.

As with all other symbols of Ireland, it's a minefield.

Highsider

In answer to OP's post...No thanks very much

ilkhanid

"Well my own 2cents is that the anthem is outdated with its "soldiers are we" crap.....Personally I'd prefer the green with the harp but if we were united a less controversial flag might just be the four crests of the different provences maybe on a blue background (St Patricks Blue). That would be all inclusive."
Indeed! There was an Ireland a long time before either the tricolour or the anthem.

stardust_dublin

out of interest, how many people regard Northern Irish as 'Irish'? how can many of them even call themselves Irish? i think they need to ask themselves
what flag they fly?
what currency they use?
is Irish language taught in their schools?
are there Gardai on their streets?
what citizenship does their passport state they are?... British, thats what.

People from N.I are NOT Irish in the real sense of what being Irish really is!

The Corinthian

stardust_dublin wrote: »

People from N.I are NOT Irish in the real sense of what being Irish really is!

What is the real sense of what being Irish really is?

In fairness to many in NI, they do identify themselves as Irish, only it's not the same type of Irish as those of us down south. Many fly the tricolour, learn Irish in school and hold Irish passports - given this they grew up in a radically different culture to us and have developed an 'Irish' identity that has nothing to do with the one in the Republic. And that's just the nationalists.

Nationalities are invented. There's no rule that says that we have to be of the same nationality just because we share an island, on the other hand there's no reason that different ethnic groups cannot merge and form a new nationality - sometimes this works out (Germany) and sometimes not (Yugoslavia).

Just as long as you do it because it makes sense and not because of some idealistic idiocy.

Deedsie

I want a united Ireland at some stage. I hate to say it but any one from the republic who would again turn there back on Northern Nationalists, is basically a traitor to there nation. If the majority of the North wanted to unify the nation, then it should happen. But not untill the majority want it.