Commemorate 1798 with a 'United Irishmen' Day petition

Nodin

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I actually don't know where to start with that.....Suffice to say thats not my concept of Republicanism nor do I believe it to be that of PSF. Certainly the SF that became the Workers Party were pointing their ship in that direction, but they're gone with the wind now....

Nodin

O'Coonassa wrote: »

That fecker ruined this country :mad:

Aye, we were better off taken heads and robbin cattle. There was at least an honesty in it.

Cavehill Red

Joey the lips wrote: »

Anybody know who is the originators of this petition? Dont say petitions on line,

http://skinflicks.blogspot.com/2009/05/commemorate-1798.html

Joey the lips

Cavehill Red wrote: »

http://skinflicks.blogspot.com/2009/05/commemorate-1798.html

and who in the name of god is jcskinner and does he really care about politics!

FTA69

You will take decades to explain that one to the electorate!!

Decades? Try centuries! Sure the auld peasants in this country wouldn't even know who Theobold Wolfe Tone was!

DF,

As a libertarian individualist, I find both movements in the province antithetical to virtually everything I believe in.

Just to clarify, Irish Republicanism and to a lesser extent Irish Unionism, are not confined to "the province" and predate the existence of the northern state.

The Republican movement is intolerant, violent, statist, and collectivist

Well I disagree that Republicanism is intolerant, elements of it have been in the past but generally it is built on pluralist and egalitarian foundations. The violence employed by Republicans has usually been a response to the conditions in which it found itself, ie it isn't inherently bound to arms or armed struggle (although again a few elements of it are.) As for it being statist and collectivist, I don't see that as a bad thing as I view co-operation and collectivism as the natural methods of organising human society. Social cannibalism (or "individualism" as you call it) doesn't appeal to me at all. But perhaps that's a debate for a different thread.

The question we are debating here, though, is the foisting of nationalistic perspectives on the country as a whole.

I don't think a national day of remembrance would be "foisting" anything, rather it would serve as a reminder of the ideals which forged the concept of Irish freedom. However, Easter Monday is a perfect time to do that, so I don't see any need for new holidays.

Unfortunately, not caring less what others think leads to a dangerously exclusivist perspective on history and politics. In reality, your interpretation of history is only one among many possible interpretations.

I never said I didn't care about what others think full stop, rather I would be very dismissive of the notion that Ireland wasn't colonised. If someone wants to bend over backwards in order to justify the centuries of repression that went on in this country then leave them off, but I won't be entertaining them.

A British monarch has ruled over Northern Ireland since 1169, at which time Genghis Khan was approximately five years old. You can't sweep away 840 years of history just like that—as generations of revolutionaries have discovered.

Unionists in their current incarnation have been here for 400 years. Neither do genuine Republicans advocate "sweeping away" the Unionists far from. I view Unionists as equal to anyone else on this country, they were born and raised here and as such they have as equal claim to this country as anyone else. That having been said, I also acknowledge the fact they are a minority in this country, and as such have no right to over-rule the wishes of the rest of the country in order to set up a sectarian state in Ireland.

brianthebard

Just to note, unionism and the possibility of people identifying with the union can only be traced back as far as the Act of Union, so I would say their current incarnation is less than 200 years. Besides which the possibility of a partitioned Ulster was only conceived in the 1910s. So we are talking about a very recent phenomenon, which is separate from 1798.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

gurramok

That part you labelled red still has a substantial population that identifies with the part marked green hence they belong to this country.

An artificial line drawn in 1922 does not divide a nation.

sink

gurramok wrote: »

That part you labelled red still has a substantial population that identifies with the part marked green hence they belong to this country.

An artificial line drawn in 1922 does not divide a nation.

All land dividing lines drawn on a map are artificial!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

gurramok

sink wrote: »

All land dividing lines drawn on a map are artificial!

Which never divide a nation. Ask the Koreans

donegalfella wrote:

This post has been deleted.

No, as we were not united with New York state previously. We were united under British rule pre-1922, you can't wriggle out of that one

sink

gurramok wrote: »

Which never divide a nation. Ask the Koreans

Nation states are intangible arbitrary social constructs invented by humans. They have no inherent value beyond some vague emotional attachment related to tribal instinct. From a purely objective perspective they are barriers to prosperity and sources of conflict, completely absent of merit.

gurramok

sink wrote: »

Nation states are intangible arbitrary social constructs invented by humans. They have no inherent value beyond some vague emotional attachment related to tribal instinct. From a purely objective perspective they are barriers to prosperity and sources of conflict, completely absent of merit.

So lets scrap Ireland, EU and nation states within it and outside it as they are.

Roll on the Utopia?:rolleyes:

Souljacker

gurramok wrote: »

So lets scrap Ireland, EU and nation states within it and outside it as they are.

Roll on the Utopia?:rolleyes:

You should read Benedict Arnold's 'Imagined communities' nation states are a concept conceived from the French revolution. If History has taught us anything it's that nothing lasts forever least of all political systems.

No, the end of nationhood will not bring us closer to utopia, but nationhood is far from ideal and has been minipulated by those in power to cause conflict for as long as it has existed.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

brianthebard

Therefore, New York is ours for the taking?

Sand

It seems so...

Happy Monday

gurramok wrote: »

That part you labelled red still has a substantial population that identifies with the part marked green hence they belong to this country.

An artificial line drawn in 1922 does not divide a nation.

All nations by their nature are artifically drawn - look at the USA for example.

sink

gurramok wrote: »

So lets scrap Ireland, EU and nation states within it and outside it as they are.

Roll on the Utopia?:rolleyes:

No, i'm not calling for any extreme action. To prematurely attempt to abolish nations could lead to civil strife as many people are strongly emotionally attached to their artificial nation and would resist with force any move to abolish it. We are moving slowly towards a future without nation states with proto-world governance already taking shaping in the form of institutions like the UN and the EU. As more laws and rules are placed upon nation states it is almost inevitable that one day the concept of sovereignty will been seen as archaic and outdated.

junder

gurramok wrote: »

That part you labeled red still has a substantial population that identifies with the part marked green hence they belong to this country.

An artificial line drawn in 1922 does not divide a nation.

perhaps in your Mysty eyed world maybe but in the real world. Northern Ireland is a separate nation as recognized by international law so as such no unionists are not the minority in their country. Let me ask you this are you against Scottish independence?

sink

junder wrote: »

Let me ask you this are you against Scottish indecency?

Well isn't everyone, after all loud mouth aggressive neds are not very pleasant people!

Nodin

junder wrote: »

Let me ask you this are you against Scottish indecency?

I believe we should respect all kinds of loving relationships, bekilted or otherwise.

gurramok

sink wrote: »

No, i'm not calling for any extreme action. To prematurely attempt to abolish nations could lead to civil strife as many people are strongly emotionally attached to their artificial nation and would resist with force any move to abolish it. We are moving slowly towards a future without nation states with proto-world governance already taking shaping in the form of institutions like the UN and the EU. As more laws and rules are placed upon nation states it is almost inevitable that one day the concept of sovereignty will been seen as archaic and outdated.

I see you want a Star Trek(:P) scenario there where a UN style council consisting of all the races and nations rules supreme, just like an Utopia

Happy Monday wrote: »

All nations by their nature are artifically drawn - look at the USA for example.

The US is an exception rather than a rule. It consists of a new nation created since the Quakers landed in New England.
Europe always had nations going back centuries consisting of city states, monarchies etc which mostly have been ironed out where the borders have been created to reflect nations with only a handful of a nation residing in a foreign nation state. (Hungarians in Romania, Russians in Ukraine, Dutch in Belgium, Irish in NI etc)

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yep, New York as part of the US had to fight bloodily for their freedom from the British, sound familiar?

junder wrote:

perhaps in your Mysty eyed world maybe but in the real world. Northern Ireland is a separate nation as recognized by international law so as such no unionists are not the minority in their country. Let me ask you this are you against Scottish independence?

Nope, the Scots deserve their freedom as a nation when they get it, if they are allowed of course

Regarding NI, it is not a nation, it is a statelet consisting of 2 nations where each nation has separate allegiances to different states. We know what they are and dismissing them is an insult to both communities up there.

A Dub in Glasgo

junder wrote: »

perhaps in your Mysty eyed world maybe but in the real world. Northern Ireland is a separate nation as recognized by international law so as such no unionists are not the minority in their country. Let me ask you this are you against Scottish independence?

NI a Nation? Come off it, even the most die hard British Unionist will not claim that one. Unionists created the state to be the majority therefore do not be surprised if they are the majority.

The Scottish people can decide their own affairs although judging by past experience, it does not look good for independence,

gurramok

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

NI a Nation? Come off it, even the most die hard British Unionist will not claim that one. Unionists created the state to be the majority therefore do not be surprised if they are the majority.

The Scottish people can decide their own affairs although judging by past experience, it does not look good for independence,

Well, Unionists claim to be part of the 'British nation' and we know that Scots are British too.

What happens when the Scots break away? We just have England and Wales so the Unionists would just have to claim to be part of the English and Welsh nations

Whats more, we always here about the strong link between the Unionists and the Scots with Scottish flags always flying in Unionist areas up north as well as having the promotion of the Ulster-Scots language and the string Rangers football team connection. Now, when Scotland does break away, where will their allegiances be?

They will be better off joining us as Ireland is a multi-cultural society model now which the rebels of 1798 would of been proud of!

Souljacker

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

NI a Nation? Come off it, even the most die hard British Unionist will not claim that one.

I think they might. Also if you have a look at my location you'll see exactly where I'm from and I'm no 'die hard British Unionist.'

Also you'd be surprised how many Southerners consider NI a different country and how many have absolutely no interest in NI.

gurramok

Souljacker wrote: »

I think they might. Also if you have a look at my location you'll see exactly where I'm from and I'm no 'die hard British Unionist.'

Also you'd be surprised how many Southerners consider NI a different country and how many have absolutely no interest in NI.

Very odd. I know people from NI who consider themselves part the Irish nation and many Southerners consider the place as part of the Irish nation too.

Serenity Now!

'United Irishmen' Day??

Lol. It seems Plastic Republicans would do anything for a day off :rolleyes:

Serenity Now!

gurramok wrote: »

Regarding NI, it is not a nation, it is a statelet consisting of 2 nations where each nation has separate allegiances to different states. We know what they are and dismissing them is an insult to both communities up there.

One 'community' refuses to sit at a Parliament it won seats in yet feels the need to claim ridiculous expenses from the British taxpayer. Ironic, eh?

sink

gurramok wrote: »

I see you want a Star Trek(:P) scenario there where a UN style council consisting of all the races and nations rules supreme, just like an Utopia

By referencing a science fiction tv series you do nothing to discredit the idea. Society is moving in that direction. Human civilisation is only 12,000 years old and has gone through multiple radical changes in social structure, developing at break neck speed (in comparison to evolutionary/geological time). Each one a was progression in human development. If you think civilisation has stopped progressing and will remain forever frozen in it's present form, then clearly you are the one who is unrealistic and naive.

junder

gurramok wrote: »

I see you want a Star Trek(:P) scenario there where a UN style council consisting of all the races and nations rules supreme, just like an Utopia



The US is an exception rather than a rule. It consists of a new nation created since the Quakers landed in New England.
Europe always had nations going back centuries consisting of city states, monarchies etc which mostly have been ironed out where the borders have been created to reflect nations with only a handful of a nation residing in a foreign nation state. (Hungarians in Romania, Russians in Ukraine, Dutch in Belgium, Irish in NI etc)



Yep, New York as part of the US had to fight bloodily for their freedom from the British, sound familiar?



Nope, the Scots deserve their freedom as a nation when they get it, if they are allowed of course

Regarding NI, it is not a nation, it is a statelet consisting of 2 nations where each nation has separate allegiances to different states. We know what they are and dismissing them is an insult to both communities up there.

but scotland england and wales for that matter are only a small island, surly it would make more sence for the island of great britain to remain unfied under one government and one currency, after all the borders that sepperate england scotland and wales are artifically drawn

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Souljacker

gurramok wrote: »

Very odd. I know people from NI who consider themselves part the Irish nation and many Southerners consider the place as part of the Irish nation too.

That's undeniably true but it doesn't take away from the fact that many people still recognise Northern Ireland.

Recent research from Queens has shown that 1/4 of people in this country consider themselves Northern Irish.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ev0QujIkKZA&feature=channel_page

Muldoon, Orla .T., Trew, K., Todd, J., McLaughlin, K & Rougier, N. (2007). The nature and meaning of identity in Northern Ireland after the Good Friday Agreement. Political Psychology

I'm from NI and I can assure you the constitutional question doesn't keep me up at night.

gurramok

Serenity Now! wrote: »

One 'community' refuses to sit at a Parliament it won seats in yet feels the need to claim ridiculous expenses from the British taxpayer. Ironic, eh?

Thats a fault of the British parliamentary system. They do represent their constitutients like any other.

junder wrote: »

but scotland england and wales for that matter are only a small island, surly it would make more sence for the island of great britain to remain unfied under one government and one currency, after all the borders that sepperate england scotland and wales are artifically drawn

Thats up to the people of those countries to decide and not have a solution imposed on them by Westminister

sink wrote: »

By referencing a science fiction tv series you do nothing to discredit the idea. Society is moving in that direction. Human civilisation is only 12,000 years old and has gone through multiple radical changes in social structure, developing at break neck speed (in comparison to evolutionary/geological time). Each one a was progression in human development. If you think civilisation has stopped progressing and will remain forever frozen in it's present form, then clearly you are the one who is unrealistic and naive.

Got a crystal ball have you? Now, who is unrealistic and naive.

Souljacker wrote: »

That's undeniably true but it doesn't take away from the fact that many people still recognise Northern Ireland.

Recent research from Queens has shown that 1/4 of people in this country consider themselves Northern Irish.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ev0QujIkKZA&feature=channel_page

Muldoon, Orla .T., Trew, K., Todd, J., McLaughlin, K & Rougier, N. (2007). The nature and meaning of identity in Northern Ireland after the Good Friday Agreement. Political Psychology

I'm from NI and I can assure you the constitutional question doesn't keep me up at night.

It keeps enough up at night hence the recent peace moves via political solutions! (GFA, powersharing)

O'Coonassa

sink wrote: »

As more laws and rules are placed upon nation states it is almost inevitable that one day the concept of sovereignty will been seen as archaic and outdated.

The only sovereignty with any value or worth is that of the individual. All others only serve to usurp it whilst simultaneously pretending to be sanctioned by it.

asdasd

after all the borders that sepperate england scotland and wales are artifically drawn

There are no offical borders between Scotland and England, nor England and Scotland.

Britain is a good example of why the "it's all a construct" idiocy is such ****.

The State ( of Scotland, England, and Wales) is Britain. The national anthem is British. There was one parliament until recently. The currency is the same (Sterling). The head of State is British. The offical flag is British. There are no offical borders. There is no border control. This has been the case for centuries, and moreover, Britain used to include Ireland.

And yet Britain has 4-5 separatist movements. A Cornish one. Plyd cymru. The SNP. Sinn Fein. The English Democrats. That's because it is not a nation State.

The Republic of Ireland - which is a nation state - has no separatist movemen t. Germany has no separatist movements. The ridiculous nonsensical pseudo-State Belgium has a large separatist movement in the vlams block - thats because French is treated rather better in Belgium ( as in English in the UK)

the "borders dont really exist" nonsense is, far from being radical, the official argument of Westernised elites. Particularly the lovers of gobalised capital.

Universal arguments are nonsense anyway - we cant create borderless societies without someone giving up something. In general the supporters of "universalism" are from a tribal group which doesn't understand the world outside it's tribe. That is, the Engish universalist decries the "petty nationalisms" of Ireland, and Scotland, and Wales, but his supposed "univeralism" is to speak English, impose English laws, and culture on the rest. That is indistinguishable from Imperialism. Similarly the irish Anglophile - who, given Irish history may well be of Anglo stock - opposes the nationalism of the Irish gaelgeoir, but prefering English is also nationalist. His form of nationalism. A state has to have a dominant language, law and culture.

Even the most stringent Guardian reader is not demanding the end of Anglo-Saxon laws - common law - in the UK and it's replacement with the Napoleanic system. Why not?

And shouldn't German be the obvious language for Central Europeans? There has to be one, after all. And german speakers spread out across the centre. If we are to be "borderless", or eschew petty nationalisms, let the Poles speak German.

As for a world government, which needs one law, why not Sharia? Why the supposed universal laws of the West?

The argument against this cant be that we can have one government and lots of different regions with different laws, languages and culture, becuase then we might as well keep the nation states. The lines are artifical when nations are grouped together - the UK, Belgium etc. - nation states exist because that is whay the people want. In fact nationalism rose with democracy for that reason.

asdasd

The only sovereignty with any value or worth is that of the individual. All others only serve to usurp it whilst simultaneously pretending to be sanctioned by it.

What are you, a libertarian?

O'Coonassa

gurramok wrote: »

They will be better off joining us as Ireland is a multi-cultural society model now which the rebels of 1798 would of been proud of!

lol it's not even secular and we've an anti-democratic upper chamber like the House of Lords and a President who acts like a Queen

O'Coonassa

asdasd wrote: »

What are you, a libertarian?

Yes, one of those.

Exile 1798

No, there should not be a "state" commemoration of the United Irishmen. There are public commemorations every year, as there always have been for the Easter Rising - even for those decades that the Irish state found it too politically uncomfortable to commemorate.

Now, here's a lovely poem about the Battle of Ballinamuck http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXVtyGUwj30

gurramok

O'Coonassa wrote: »

lol it's not even secular and we've an anti-democratic upper chamber like the House of Lords and a President who acts like a Queen

Its more secular than NI, even gays live in constant fear in NI. http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/0602/breaking8.htm

Yeh, the Senate where most of us have not got a vote!

Just slash her wages in half would help!

Nodin

O'Coonassa wrote: »

and a President who acts like a Queen

....which is why Norris should run, because then...

sink

asdasd wrote: »

There are no offical borders between Scotland and England, nor England and Scotland.

Britain is a good example of why the "it's all a construct" idiocy is such ****.

The State ( of Scotland, England, and Wales) is Britain. The national anthem is British. There was one parliament until recently. The currency is the same (Sterling). The head of State is British. The offical flag is British. There are no offical borders. There is no border control. This has been the case for centuries, and moreover, Britain used to include Ireland.

And yet Britain has 4-5 separatist movements. A Cornish one. Plyd cymru. The SNP. Sinn Fein. The English Democrats. That's because it is not a nation State.

The Republic of Ireland - which is a nation state - has no separatist movemen t. Germany has no separatist movements. The ridiculous nonsensical pseudo-State Belgium has a large separatist movement in the vlams block - thats because French is treated rather better in Belgium ( as in English in the UK)

the "borders dont really exist" nonsense is, far from being radical, the official argument of Westernised elites. Particularly the lovers of gobalised capital.

Universal arguments are nonsense anyway - we cant create borderless societies without someone giving up something. In general the supporters of "universalism" are from a tribal group which doesn't understand the world outside it's tribe. That is, the Engish universalist decries the "petty nationalisms" of Ireland, and Scotland, and Wales, but his supposed "univeralism" is to speak English, impose English laws, and culture on the rest. That is indistinguishable from Imperialism. Similarly the irish Anglophile - who, given Irish history may well be of Anglo stock - opposes the nationalism of the Irish gaelgeoir, but prefering English is also nationalist. His form of nationalism. A state has to have a dominant language, law and culture.

Even the most stringent Guardian reader is not demanding the end of Anglo-Saxon laws - common law - in the UK and it's replacement with the Napoleanic system. Why not?

And shouldn't German be the obvious language for Central Europeans? There has to be one, after all. And german speakers spread out across the centre. If we are to be "borderless", or eschew petty nationalisms, let the Poles speak German.

As for a world government, which needs one law, why not Sharia? Why the supposed universal laws of the West?

The argument against this cant be that we can have one government and lots of different regions with different laws, languages and culture, becuase then we might as well keep the nation states. The lines are artifical when nations are grouped together - the UK, Belgium etc. - nation states exist because that is whay the people want. In fact nationalism rose with democracy for that reason.

Good effort, but you've just built a large strawman. I'm not talking about destroying ethnicity or culture, they are independent of nationality and don't require a formal political structure. There are many regional cultures within every nation state of a decent size in the world and only a minority have independence movements.

What i'm talking about confining to the dustbin of history is the idea of national sovereignty. That each nation in existence should only consider it's own interests and each nation has the right to operate independently of foreign nations regardless of consequence. Just as every human in a just society has to work within the confines of a set of agreed rules which uphold egalitarian principles, so should every nation in the world. Such a system requires a global bureaucracy to implement and manage it, what is colloquially known as governing/government.

Once all the major overarching rules are defined by one centralised body. National governments stripped of much of their power and independence will morph into regional governments which oversee the running of smaller regions dealing with the day to day management of the local economy and infrastructure. Ireland would probably be small enough that one regional government could manage the entire island. Most issues that concern peoples daily lives such as taxes, infrastructure and job creation would be handled at this level. Larger countries such as England will probably be split by popular demand into smaller regions for better micromanagement. For most of it's history England was split into regions with different taxes and laws in each along with almost every country in Europe with universal income tax only being introduced in the late 18th century.

Like it or not but the world is heading in this direction. The nation state has being continually loosing power and influence to an international bureaucracy since the end of WWII. With global organisations such as the UN and WTO and smaller regional organisation such as the EU, NAFTA and Asean deciding the rules by which the games is played. The only things that would be decided at this level would be fundamental human rights and market/trade rules etc. In the future these institutions are only going to get stronger and will eventually hear popular demand to become democratic.
There is little anyone can do to stop it, indeed it would be like trying to stop the industrial revolution. It's all part of a process that began 12,000 years ago and will only stop when civilisation itself ends.

Stoking nationalistic fervour is futile and is only going to make the ride more bumpy.

junder

asdasd wrote: »

There are no official borders between Scotland and England, nor England and Scotland.

Britain is a good example of why the "it's all a construct" idiocy is such ****.

The State ( of Scotland, England, and Wales) is Britain. The national anthem is British. There was one parliament until recently. The currency is the same (Sterling). The head of State is British. The official flag is British. There are no official borders. There is no border control. This has been the case for centuries, and moreover, Britain used to include Ireland.

And yet Britain has 4-5 separatist movements. A Cornish one. Pl yd cymru. The SNP. Sinn Fein. The English Democrats. That's because it is not a nation State.

The Republic of Ireland - which is a nation state - has no separatist movemen t. Germany has no separatist movements. The ridiculous nonsensical pseudo-State Belgium has a large separatist movement in the vlams block - thats because French is treated rather better in Belgium ( as in English in the UK)

the "borders dont really exist" nonsense is, far from being radical, the official argument of Westernised elites. Particularly the lovers of gobalised capital.

Universal arguments are nonsense anyway - we cant create borderless societies without someone giving up something. In general the supporters of "universalism" are from a tribal group which doesn't understand the world outside it's tribe. That is, the Engish universalist decries the "petty nationalisms" of Ireland, and Scotland, and Wales, but his supposed "univeralism" is to speak English, impose English laws, and culture on the rest. That is indistinguishable from Imperialism. Similarly the irish Anglophile - who, given Irish history may well be of Anglo stock - opposes the nationalism of the Irish gaelgeoir, but prefering English is also nationalist. His form of nationalism. A state has to have a dominant language, law and culture.

Even the most stringent Guardian reader is not demanding the end of Anglo-Saxon laws - common law - in the UK and it's replacement with the Napoleanic system. Why not?

And shouldn't German be the obvious language for Central Europeans? There has to be one, after all. And german speakers spread out across the centre. If we are to be "borderless", or eschew petty nationalisms, let the Poles speak German.

As for a world government, which needs one law, why not Sharia? Why the supposed universal laws of the West?

The argument against this cant be that we can have one government and lots of different regions with different laws, languages and culture, becuase then we might as well keep the nation states. The lines are artifical when nations are grouped together - the UK, Belgium etc. - nation states exist because that is whay the people want. In fact nationalism rose with democracy for that reason.

in the unlikey event of a united Ireland you most certainly would have a separatist movemnet

Tarzan007

gurramok wrote: »

Its more secular than NI, even gays live in constant fear in NI. http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/0602/breaking8.htm

Yeh, the Senate where most of us have not got a vote!

Just slash her wages in half would help!

Yes and in NI where leading unionist politicians ( MP Iris Robinson ) say that gays are worse than child sex abusers.

Tarzan007

junder wrote: »

in the unlikey event of a united Ireland you most certainly would have a separatist movemnet

Intersting how unionists have since partition crowed on about " the rights of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland ", but when that majority is inevitably heading towards a nationalist one, they start banging the Orange drums again ?? Ulster will fight and all that. But when the time comes when Britan can no longer hide behind " the rights of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland " to hold onto the north, the unionists will do just like their brethern did on the southern side of the border - next to nothing, make a few mutterings and drunken speeches and that's about it. :rolleyes:

junder

Tarzan007 wrote: »

Intersting how unionists have since partition crowed on about " the rights of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland ", but when that majority is inevitably heading towards a nationalist one, they start banging the Orange drums again ?? Ulster will fight and all that. But when the time comes when Britan can no longer hide behind " the rights of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland " to hold onto the north, the unionists will do just like their brethern did on the southern side of the border - next to nothing, make a few mutterings and drunken speeches and that's about it. :rolleyes:

if thats what you want to believe, of course the protestant population declined from 8% to 2% in the RoI would that also happen in your united ireland?

Exile 1798

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Absolute nonsense.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Well if you're anything to go by...

brianthebard

junder wrote: »

in the unlikey event of a united Ireland you most certainly would have a separatist movemnet

Unionism has always been a separatist movement.