North Irland

Fratton Fred

malman wrote: »

You are taking my post out of context. I originally claimed, in my questionnaire, that one possible outcome in NI would be if Unionists assimilated into the culture which surrounds them i.e. become Irish. Judgment Day countered that argument by suggesting that the opposite could happen i.e. the Nationalists would eventually see themselves as British. I then suggested that my vision is both more natural and more likely. I qualified this by pointing to pervious cultural assimilations (Viking, Anglo-Norman etc.).

Anyhow in response to what you said: You must bear in mind that Northern Irish society is not comparable to Scottish, Welsh and English culture. In comparing Northern Ireland with Scotland you are not comparing like for like. Scotland is a state within the UK which reflects it people as Scottish. NI is a state within the UK which reflects the ideology of Unionism, which is centred on being British. It is not centred on a Northern Irish identity.

As a consequence of this Unionism has traditionally operated as if NI has no Irish culture. Now in 2009 Nationalists have representation in Stormount. Yet the dominant party, the DUP, block all attempts by Nationalists to have the Irish culture respected. Despite the fact that NI has failed to respect Irish culture to date, to put it mildly, the culture has endured.

The nature of Unionism as a reactionary force has resulted in them losing or not willing to accept their Irish identity. The net result of the tribalism between both cultures has been the erosion of their ability to see (or indeed to seek) common ground. Therefore it is impossible for both to agree on one common Northern Irish culture.

The GFA reflects this polarisation in that it only presents two possible scenarios for the future constitutional status of NI: a sovereign united Ireland or NI remaining as part of the UK. It does not suggest a possible Independent state of NI, which would reflect one common N. Irish culture, which would in turn be comparable to Scottish culture.

Good post.

I would suggest that our Dutch friends take that on board as part fo their study into the North.

Hookey

malman wrote: »

The GFA reflects this polarisation in that it only presents two possible scenarios for the future constitutional status of NI: a sovereign united Ireland or NI remaining as part of the UK. It does not suggest a possible Independent state of NI, which would reflect one common N. Irish culture, which would in turn be comparable to Scottish culture.

Well it wouldn't would it? The third option of an independent NI would open up a large can of worms for the British with respect to Scotland and Wales, so its hardly surprising that its not mooted as an option. Doesn't mean to say it wouldn't happen though. As I said in an earlier post, its the eventual status of Scotland that is likely to have the largest impact on the fate of NI, especially as the expected nationalist demographic "timebomb" in NI isn't quite panning out as expected (prosperity slows birthrates). If Scotland becomes independent, then it would certainly become an option for NI (and Wales).

Personally I don't think an independent NI is tenable (as you say, there is an "identity issue"), but then you look at some of the countries in the Balkans and they have worse issues but have become independent, so I don't think you can automatically write off an independent NI as an option.

getz

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Good post.

I would suggest that our Dutch friends take that on board as part fo their study into the North.

i think any of our dutch friends who have read any of the posts that blame them[william of orange ]for all the troubles in ireland will think -and they are right ,that some people ireland i are living 400 years in the past

Bog Butter

Hookey wrote: »

Well it wouldn't would it? The third option of an independent NI would open up a large can of worms for the British with respect to Scotland and Wales, so its hardly surprising that its not mooted as an option. Doesn't mean to say it wouldn't happen though. As I said in an earlier post, its the eventual status of Scotland that is likely to have the largest impact on the fate of NI, especially as the expected nationalist demographic "timebomb" in NI isn't quite panning out as expected (prosperity slows birthrates). If Scotland becomes independent, then it would certainly become an option for NI (and Wales).

Personally I don't think an independent NI is tenable (as you say, there is an "identity issue"), but then you look at some of the countries in the Balkans and they have worse issues but have become independent, so I don't think you can automatically write off an independent NI as an option.

Another possible outcome is re-partition. The only way in which re-partition or an independent NI could happen is if Unionists compromise. The only way that could happen is if they become a minority. If this happened then the UK government are obliged to hold a vote under the terms of the GFA. Like I said there are only two options.

If someone thinks re-partition or a independant NI could happen then they are effectively saying the GFA should be discarded with. Remember the GFA is a international contract. If this was to be discarded with then it would mean all sides consenting to this. It is not in the interest of Nationalism to do this.

Hookey

malman wrote: »

Another possible outcome is re-partition. The only way in which re-partition or an independent NI could happen is if Unionists compromise. The only way that could happen is if they become a minority. If this happened then the UK government are obliged to hold a vote under the terms of the GFA. Like I said there are only two options.

If someone thinks re-partition or a independant NI could happen then they are effectively saying the GFA should be discarded with. Remember the GFA is a international contract. If this was to be discarded with then it would mean all sides consenting to this. It is not in the interest of Nationalism to do this.

Except if the UK broke up the GFA wouldn't apply anymore because its an agreement between the UK and Ireland, and the UK would no longer exist, so a new deal would have to be done with its successor state(s), in this case a de facto independent NI. The nearest analogy I can think of is what happened to Moldova after the end of the Soviet Union; it was expected to reunite with Romania (which it had been part of before 1939) but stayed independent,probably because the Caucescu regime was even worse than the Soviets, but also because there was a significant non-Romanian ethnic minority who wanted to stay that way.

Bog Butter

Hookey wrote: »

Except if the UK broke up the GFA wouldn't apply anymore because its an agreement between the UK and Ireland, and the UK would no longer exist, so a new deal would have to be done with its successor state(s), in this case a de facto independent NI. The nearest analogy I can think of is what happened to Moldova after the end of the Soviet Union; it was expected to reunite with Romania (which it had been part of before 1939) but stayed independent,probably because the Caucescu regime was even worse than the Soviets, but also because there was a significant non-Romanian ethnic minority who wanted to stay that way.

So what is the likelyhood of the UK breaking up before movement in NI. Presumably this would be initiated by Scotland. I know the SNP are in power there. Were they voted in because the Scottish nation follow the party's desires for indpendance or was it simply about national pride? Is this issue being discussed in Scotland?

Hookey

malman wrote: »

So what is the likelyhood of the UK breaking up before movement in NI. Presumably this would be initiated by Scotland. I know the SNP are in power there. Were they voted in because the Scottish nation follow the party's desires for indpendance or was it simply about national pride? Is this issue being discussed in Scotland?

Its discussed all the time, but no-one seems to be able to get a handle on it. There's definitely more of an appetite for independence amongst younger Scots (but of course natural conservatism kicks in when you get older anyway), and there's a view that if the Tories get in at the next election that would increase the desire for independence, but I don't know much beyond that. Funny thing is, there was increasing agitation when I lived in England for English independence from Scotland! A lot of people don't like the fact that Scottish MPs can vote on matters that affect England (e.g. education), but not the other way around. Given English history this is rather ironic...

DublinDes

Hookey wrote: »

I scratched out quite a nice living thank you, and funnily enough didn't have to kiss any arse. They've taken down the "no blacks or Irish" signs these days.

Well aren't they great, and their soldiers are not murdering people in Ireland anymore. God, we should just sing their praises and love them like you do.

Hookey wrote: »

Since I was 3 at the time I'd say 70s attitudes on both sides of the Irish Sea were very similar, but I didn't really have an opinion, being like, 3 and everything. I'm talking about the last ten years.
Once again, in the eighties everyone hated everyone else. What's your point?

My point been that the attitiude of your average Dubliner could be seen in the burning down of the British embassy in 1972, the attempt to burn it down again in 1981, and the 2006 anti Orange protest. I have not the slightest doubt if the troubles started again and the brits say, carried out another attrocity like Bloody Sunday, the " average Dubliner " would make sure the Brits emabssy would go up in flames again. My point been, this is the attitude of your " average Dubliner ", unlike yours which is the attitude of your " average Londoner ". You spent so much time sweet talking and butt kissing over there that you have more in common with the average Londoner than the average Dubliner.

So basically you're proud to be a knacker? Lovely.

So basically you're proud to be a West Brit.

Funnily enough I was reading an English book about the English legal system just yesterday, which went on, at great length, about the abuses heaped on the Irish by the English for centuries and the great injustices done in the name of Empire and the Act of Union. It was written in 1911. Take your head from out of your arse for five minutes and actually read what real Brits actually think (rather than the Daily Mail), about lots of things; Iraq, Northern Ireland, their relationship with the US, and you might notice they're a damn sight more self-critical than you seem to be. You may continue to live in 1916, but a lot more of us have moved on, and instead of the exact same "my country right or wrong" jingoistic flag-waving that people like you are so quick to criticise the Brits for, we tend to take a more balanced view.

Just because you read a book by an English person criticising Britian, it means the rest of them are as critical -" Take your head from out of your arse " buddy.

And I'm sure if you took a tricolor to Lords you'd find common ground in your shared xenophobia. Oh, actually you probably wouldn't.

My girlfriend is from Poland, don't know how that could make me have xenophobia.

DutchStudent

hai everybody, i think its great that you all are discusing, but could you also answer our questions :mad::p

McArmalite

Centauro wrote: »

Ku Klux Klan?

Yes, as I said" basically " the same as the Ku Klux Klan. Nowadays the Klan also tries to pass itself off as a ' cultural ' society and some branches of it now allow Catholic members into its ranks ( practically zero recruitment I believe, but it's very easy to see where the KKK's pedigree orginated from ?? )

But still, should any of those in the picture happen to marry a Catholic, I'm sure they would be denounced in words similiar to " sell his soul to the devil himself. He is not loyal to his religion. He is a turncoat " like Tony Blair for being married to a Catholic and maybe a petrol bomb thrown in their window on the night of the " glorious twalfth ".