SINN FEIN Can Have it both ways on Policing.

K-9

Why do these threads always end up in whataboutery about the British, RUC etc.?

lugha

dlofnep wrote: »

Hold up a second, how was their campaign illegitimate?

I explained why it was illegitimate but you choose to ignore it. You could certainly make a case for justifying some of what the IRA did at the beginning of the troubles in terms of defending their community from attack. But it is quite a leap for them to assert that they are the legitimate government of Ireland. Most people on this island, and the majority in the South, were and are Nationalist who aspired to a united Ireland, as is evident from the parties they voted for. But when Sinn Fein started to participate in elections in the South, it was clearly evident that the overwhelming majority did not support the means by which they wanted to bring this about. That is why it was illegitimate. They did not have a mandate from the people they claimed to represent, they felt that the people were not capable of deciding what was in their own best interests and talked about puppet governments and other highly insulting and condensing nonsense. (The irony of them simultaneously lambasting British imperialism seemed to have been entirely lost on them!)

dlofnep wrote: »

The IRA's war against the British army was 100% legitimate.

The IRA's claim to represent me and my fellow country people, despite being clearly told that we did not approve of them, was 100% illegitimate.

dlofnep wrote: »

One could argue that the Easter Rising didn't have a mandate, but that didn't mean that resistance wasn't just.

But where does it stop? Could I assemble a bunch of right wingers and decide that our welfare state is unjust on the hard working taxpayer, and launch a terrorist campaign against the state, and simply ignore and evidence that the vast majority don't agree with me? Of course in some cases it may not be possible to formally acquire a mandate, but that was not the case with the IRA during the troubles. The people they claimed to represent could and did reject them at the ballot box. This is an unfortunate consequence of the actions of Pearse & co. They have enabled republicans to reason that it does not matter if your contemporaries reject your methods, future generations might revise (interesting that revisionism is a dirty word for Republicans) this view.

dlofnep wrote: »

Are you rejecting the claim that British troops murdered Irish civilians?

Yes they did, just as the IRA murdered plenty of innocent civilians. But it is entirely disingenuous to suggest that all those that died at the hands of the British were innocent civilians. And I always thought it shameful that the IRA used the victims of bloody Sunday for propaganda purposes.


And in any case, the actions of the BA on occasions, however wrong, did not rile me as much because they did not claim to be doing so on my behalf.

dlofnep wrote: »

colluded with loyalists.

Yes, the “colluded with loyalists” mantra again. I don't doubt it happened, just as some members of the Gardai colluded with the IRA. But I think that particular card is overplayed just a tad by Republicans.

dlofnep

lugha wrote: »

I explained why it was illegitimate but you choose to ignore it. You could certainly make a case for justifying some of what the IRA did at the beginning of the troubles in terms of defending their community from attack. But it is quite a leap for them to assert that they are the legitimate government of Ireland. Most people on this island, and the majority in the South, were and are Nationalist who aspired to a united Ireland, as is evident from the parties they voted for. But when Sinn Fein started to participate in elections in the South, it was clearly evident that the overwhelming majority did not support the means by which they wanted to bring this about. That is why it was illegitimate. They did not have a mandate from the people they claimed to represent, they felt that the people were not capable of deciding what was in their own best interests and talked about puppet governments and other highly insulting and condensing nonsense. (The irony of them simultaneously lambasting British imperialism seemed to have been entirely lost on them!)

Firstly - most of the people in the south didn't have to endure the nonsense that the nationalists in the north had to endure, and thus would view the situation under a different light. You might not have felt that resistance was just, but many people in the north did feel that it was just - especially after witnessing and experiencing what partition meant for them.

Nobody in this thread mentioned anything about being the legitimate Government of Ireland. I explained why resistance was right against the British occupational forces.

lugha wrote: »

Yes they did, just as the IRA murdered plenty of innocent civilians. But it is entirely disingenuous to suggest that all those that died at the hands of the British were innocent civilians. And I always thought it shameful that the IRA used the victims of bloody Sunday for propaganda purposes.

And in the same context, it is entirely disingenuous to suggest that all who died at the hands of the IRA were innocent civilians. See what I did there?

I don't dispute that for one second innocent people didn't die at the hands of the IRA. I'm not defending that. But I am defending armed resistance against a force that has the audacity to murder civilians on streets and not ever be held accountable for it. Many volunteers of the IRA served prison time - but there wasn't an iota of accountability for the British forces.

lugha wrote: »

And in any case, the actions of the BA on occasions, however wrong, did not rile me as much because they did not claim to be doing so on my behalf.

Oh, well that makes everything alright - now doesn't it?

lugha wrote: »

Yes, the “colluded with loyalists” mantra again. I don't doubt it happened, just as some members of the Gardai colluded with the IRA. But I think that particular card is overplayed just a tad by Republicans.

It's not over-played. It's a very valid fact, that the forces that were sent to protect a community, assisted loyalist terrorists in state murder. I don't think the victims of those who died as a direct cause of collusion would appreciate your accusations of it being over-played.

lugha

dlofnep wrote: »

Firstly - most of the people in the south didn't have to endure the nonsense that the nationalists in the north had to endure, and thus would view the situation under a different light.

Fine, so don't purport to represent the people from the South. And the IRA did.

dlofnep wrote: »

Nobody in this thread mentioned anything about being the legitimate Government of Ireland. I explained why resistance was right against the British occupational forces.

I am arguing that the IRA's campaign was illegitimate. That they claimed to represent people when they clearly did not goes to the heart of my argument.

dlofnep wrote: »

And in the same context, it is entirely disingenuous to suggest that all who died at the hands of the IRA were innocent civilians.

The BA / RUC had an authority, indeed obligation, to combat subversives in NI. The authority derived from the fact that NI was recognised internationally as being under British jurisdiction (notwithstanding the fact that the majority on this island would vehemently, and with some grounds for argument, disagree). This authority would justify lethal force on some occasions, but of course not on others such as bloody Sunday. The IRA did not have this authority and so few, if any of their killings were justified. Even if they commanded the support of the Nationalist community, which they did not, it would not have been justified, if you respect the opinion of the international community. As an aside, it is interesting that Irish republicans are almost unanimous in their disapproval of the the carry on in Afghanistan, Iraq and Israel and cite violations of international law to make their case.

dlofnep wrote: »

Oh, well that makes everything alright - now doesn't it?

No it doesn't. But it makes it worse if they claim to have acted on my behalf.

dlofnep wrote: »

It's a very valid fact, that the forces that were sent to protect a community, assisted loyalist terrorists in state murder.

And how do you know it is fact, or the extent of the fact and not just Republican propaganda? By its very nature there will be very little hard evidence of state collusion. You can only guess at the extent of this and I suspect republicans will hardly under estimate the extent. You have no real notion of the extent of it any more than I do. Have some Loyalists confided in you?

dlofnep

lugha wrote: »

The IRA did not have this authority and so few, if any of their killings were justified.

Since when did guerrillas need international authority to resist occupation? Britain by all means, should not have had any authority in Ireland and it was the IRA's right to resist that. Britain was the one which upheld partition, not the IRA. If Britain had of affording the people of Ireland the right to vote on partition in the first place and they had of agreed to it - then the IRA's cause would have had no credibility.

But we all know how that would have gone, and that the people of Ireland would have resoundingly rejected partition.

lugha wrote: »

Even if they commanded the support of the Nationalist community, which they did not, it would not have been justified, if you respect the opinion of the international community.

The international community oversaw Palestinians being displaced from their homes. Their credibility isn't always right.

lugha wrote: »

As an aside, it is interesting that Irish republicans are almost unanimous in their disapproval of the the carry on in Afghanistan, Iraq and Israel and cite violations of international law to make their case.

Ireland was partitioned under duress by a foreign country - it's not the same scenario.

lugha wrote: »

And how do you know it is fact, or the extent of the fact and not just Republican propaganda? By its very nature there will be very little hard evidence of state collusion. You can only guess at the extent of this and I suspect republicans will hardly under estimate the extent. You have no real notion of the extent of it any more than I do. Have some Loyalists confided in you?

I know it because it is very well documented, and there is heaps of evidence to back it up. I know it because I have spoken to people who have witnessed it first-hand.

An investigation into collusion between the UDR and loyalist groups was very well documented and can be read here: http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/publicrecords/1973/subversion_in_the_udr.pdf

HTML version here: http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/publicrecords/1973/subversion_in_the_udr.htm

Collusion between Police and loyalists in the murder of civilians: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/6285101.stm

And not only attacks in the north, but in the south also: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/6157379.stm

I would be here all night if I was to cite every source for collusion in the north. It existed, and it was wide-spread. The fact that you are second guessing collusion in the north leads me to believe that you're able to casually absolve the British forces of wrong-doing at the level that truly existed.

If you want to discuss collusion in the north, start a thread on it and I'll be more than happy to discuss it in detail with you, and provide you with more than enough documentation to substantiate my claims.

K-9

dlofnep wrote: »

Firstly - most of the people in the south didn't have to endure the nonsense that the nationalists in the north had to endure, and thus would view the situation under a different light. You might not have felt that resistance was just, but many people in the north did feel that it was just - especially after witnessing and experiencing what partition meant for them.

Nobody in this thread mentioned anything about being the legitimate Government of Ireland. I explained why resistance was right against the British occupational forces.




And in the same context, it is entirely disingenuous to suggest that all who died at the hands of the IRA were innocent civilians. See what I did there?

I don't dispute that for one second innocent people didn't die at the hands of the IRA. I'm not defending that. But I am defending armed resistance against a force that has the audacity to murder civilians on streets and not ever be held accountable for it. Many volunteers of the IRA served prison time - but there wasn't an iota of accountability for the British forces.



Oh, well that makes everything alright - now doesn't it?



It's not over-played. It's a very valid fact, that the forces that were sent to protect a community, assisted loyalist terrorists in state murder. I don't think the victims of those who died as a direct cause of collusion would appreciate your accusations of it being over-played.

What I get from your posts is you expected a perfect RUC/Army. There always was going to be backlashes from the Brits/RUC, always.

What gets forgotten in the rush to condemn shoot to kill etc. was: It was RUC officers who touted and reported to Stalker, at great personal risk.

dlofnep

K-9 wrote: »

What I get from your posts is you expected a perfect RUC/Army. There always was going to be backlashes from the Brits/RUC, always.

I don't expect any army to be perfect.

I was firstly giving context into why nationalists didn't trust British forces (about 5 pages back at this point), which then suddenly spiraled into this. And secondly, while no army is perfect - the British army cannot be absolved of their wrong-doings, and their role in the troubles - and even for an army, the level of scumbagism that they got up to was well and beyond the norm.

Going to catch some shut-eye now - drop a few comments and I'll respond tomorrow.

gurramok

lugha wrote: »

And how do you know it is fact, or the extent of the fact and not just Republican propaganda? By its very nature there will be very little hard evidence of state collusion. You can only guess at the extent of this and I suspect republicans will hardly under estimate the extent. You have no real notion of the extent of it any more than I do. Have some Loyalists confided in you?

What rubbish. Do you ever read the news?

10 murders by one UVF unit suspected of been collusion cases.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/6286097.stm
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/mccord-british-government-colluded-with-terrorist-organisations-and-should-apologise-14602761.html

Thats one small district. God knows how many more have been collusion oriented as Loyalist violence peaked in the 90s.

Try and tell the families of your ill-founded analysis http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/?jp=CWSNEYOJKFGB&rss=rss2

Now, put yourself as a Nationalist back in the 80s/90's and why on earth can you trust the RUC with your life back then when this was going on??

lugha

dlofnep wrote: »

The fact that you are second guessing collusion in the north leads me to believe that you're able to casually absolve the British forces of wrong-doing at the level that truly existed.

I am not denying that there was collusion and I am not absolving anybody for it. But you are being naive to thing that the IRA would not exploit this for propaganda purposes. There was also collusion involving rogue members of the Gardai who were sympathetic to the IRA. But would that justify Loyalist gangs launching a terrorist campaign in the South on the grounds that an agency of the state was assisting in state murder of their people? There may have been many more rogues in the British forces but the point still stands. And as I already said, it is almost impossible to gauge the extent with any kind of reliability. The sources you quote do not nor cannot go beyond saying what is “probably true” or what they “suspect”. I wonder would you have been happily to accept this level of evidence if it related to a bombing atrocity in England and Irish suspects?

And I think you are deliberately evading the central point of my argument. No group has any moral authority to profess to act on behalf of another if a mandate is not at least implicitly given. And the IRA did not have such a mandate. This is why they were wrong. Not because the were brutal, I can easily believe that the other side were every bit as bad or worse, but they (IRA) did not have the authority.

Yes the people would probably have rejected partition in 1922 but it would have been a preposterous proposition to put. There was/is a sizable population in the North who were vehemently opposed to being ruled by Dublin (perhaps not a bad call by them given the subsequent elevation of FF and the catholic church here). It would have made as much sense to consider asking all of the people in Britain and Ireland to make a collective decision on the future political shape of these islands.

Anyway, there is little to be gained by regurgitating history. I am more interested in where the republican movement will take us rather than where it is coming from. And I don't like what I see.

Happy Monday

The sad reality for Republicans is that the IRA's campaign achieved far less than a peaceful political approach would have achieved from 1969.

There is some talk on this thread of British troops having left the North.
No - they haven't - as the North remains part of the UK British troops continue to be garrisoned in the North.

SF is now serving the Queen's writ in the North - policing powers will be transferred when their bosses at Westminster allow.

K-9

dlofnep wrote: »

I don't expect any army to be perfect.

I was firstly giving context into why nationalists didn't trust British forces (about 5 pages back at this point), which then suddenly spiraled into this. And secondly, while no army is perfect - the British army cannot be absolved of their wrong-doings, and their role in the troubles - and even for an army, the level of scumbagism that they got up to was well and beyond the norm.

Going to catch some shut-eye now - drop a few comments and I'll respond tomorrow.

I'm not debating what happened. This is the whataboutery that annoys me.

You said this was a war. If it was a war, (btw I'm not disputing that) it seems one side was/is held to a higher standard than the other.

For things to move on, Republicans need to understand just as IRA atrocities happened, so did British Army/RUC atrocities.

Otherwise and this is crucial to me, you are holding the authorities to a higher standard than the IRA. They either are held to the same standards or not?

Otherwise, it wasn't a true war.

Btw, that is not excusing Bloody Sunday, Castlereagh, Shoot to Kill etc. just saying if you can accept atrocities happened on the IRA side, Enniskillen, Warrington etc. you also have to accept atrocities happened on the other side? Yes?

Otherwise it wasn't a true war?

PS. Can you acknowledge without RUC members shoot to kill would never have got the credibility it did get?

lugha

K-9 wrote: »

Otherwise and this is crucial to me, you are holding the authorities to a higher standard than the IRA. They either are held to the same standards or not?

Exactly. If the IRA war was just, and they were fighting for the Irish people as they claimed, against those who would seek to preserve British rule in Ireland (the various lawful forces as well as the paramilitary groups) then how can you criticize your opponents if they form alliances to combat you? What would have been wrong with collusion, as they call it? As you suggest, they wanted the rules of war to apply to their side but their opponents must abide by the rules of peacetime civil society.

FTA69

sceptre wrote: »

So throwing things is OK as long as it isn't a petrol bomb then? Just stones? Or sticks as well? Is there a line of acceptability of violence somewhere?

The British Army and its adjuncts in this country maintain their presence here in Ireland through violence, in fact they are inherently violent organisations themselves. I won't be condemning anyone engaged in attacking British forces in Ireland; to do so would make me a hypocrite in the extreme. That having been said, I don't support the current campaigns as I think they are largely counter-productive. What Irish Republicanism needs is the construction of a political alternative, not clandestine groups shooting people every few months.

dlofnep

lugha wrote: »

And as I already said, it is almost impossible to gauge the extent with any kind of reliability.

The evidence is overwhelming that there was heavy, repetitive and ongoing collusion.

lugha wrote: »

The sources you quote do not nor cannot go beyond saying what is “probably true” or what they “suspect”.

So you believe that collusion wasn't present?

lugha wrote: »

I wonder would you have been happily to accept this level of evidence if it related to a bombing atrocity in England and Irish suspects?

The evidence goes beyond what's probably true, or what they suspect. There are eye-witness accounts. Evidence of overlapping between terrorist groups and the UDR. Evidence that the British Government was aware that the UDR were providing weapons to loyalist terrorists.

I can only assume that you have not read the report I provided you with.

lugha wrote: »

No group has any moral authority to profess to act on behalf of another if a mandate is not at least implicitly given. And the IRA did not have such a mandate. This is why they were wrong. Not because the were brutal, I can easily believe that the other side were every bit as bad or worse, but they (IRA) did not have the authority.

Revolutions around the world, throughout time often had no mandate - like the Easter Rising. But that's not to say that resistance was not right and was not just. This is my point. Not once have I disagreed with you in regards to a mandate from the people.

lugha wrote: »

Yes the people would probably have rejected partition in 1922 but it would have been a preposterous proposition to put. There was/is a sizable population in the North who were vehemently opposed to being ruled by Dublin (perhaps not a bad call by them given the subsequent elevation of FF and the catholic church here). It would have made as much sense to consider asking all of the people in Britain and Ireland to make a collective decision on the future political shape of these islands.

So what? That's democracy. If the people would have rejected partition, then it would have been the will of the people. Opposed to the alternative which sprung a civil war, and decades of bitter fighting.

The Government of Ireland act resulted in leaving many cities and towns in the north which had a nationalist majority under British rule, which lead to heavy civil inequality. There would have been no civil inequality under rule from Dublin. All the Government of Ireland act did was allow a complete minority to dictate what happened to the majority of the population of Ireland.

So no, it would not have been preposterous to allow the democratic will of the people to reject partition. It would have been the only logical thing to do.

lugha wrote: »

Anyway, there is little to be gained by regurgitating history. I am more interested in where the republican movement will take us rather than where it is coming from. And I don't like what I see.

You don't like the fact that Republicans and Unionists have put down their guns and engaged in a peace process for the betterment of the people? Your complaints seem to stem from what's occured in the past - but what exactly is it about the future you don't like? The fact that nationalists might actually have a say?

dlofnep

K-9 wrote: »

I'm not debating what happened. This is the whataboutery that annoys me.

You said this was a war. If it was a war, (btw I'm not disputing that) it seems one side was/is held to a higher standard than the other.

For things to move on, Republicans need to understand just as IRA atrocities happened, so did British Army/RUC atrocities.

Otherwise and this is crucial to me, you are holding the authorities to a higher standard than the IRA. They either are held to the same standards or not?

Otherwise, it wasn't a true war.

Btw, that is not excusing Bloody Sunday, Castlereagh, Shoot to Kill etc. just saying if you can accept atrocities happened on the IRA side, Enniskillen, Warrington etc. you also have to accept atrocities happened on the other side? Yes?

Otherwise it wasn't a true war?

PS. Can you acknowledge without RUC members shoot to kill would never have got the credibility it did get?

Firstly, I've never absolved the IRA of their wrong-doing - But the difference between them and their British counterparts, is that the IRA spent time in prison, living in their own feces - while those who committed state murder got away with it and have been totally absolved of their wrong-doing.

lugha

dlofnep wrote: »

So what? That's democracy.

But on what basis do you decide that it is for the people of the island of Ireland to make a decision? If Ireland was homogenous, politically and culturally, that would make sense. But it wasn’t. You could just as easily make an argument that it was for the people of GB and Ireland to make the decision. Nationalist of course would be outraged at being coerced into remaining under British rule by virtue of being outnumbered by the British populace, but they are quite content to adopt the same plot to coerce Unionists into a UI. Surely the last 60 years have taught us that this doesn't work?

dlofnep wrote: »

Your complaints seem to stem from what's occurred in the past - but what exactly is it about the future you don't like? The fact that nationalists might actually have a say?

I am very happy at the progress made in NI. What I don’t like about the future is that I believe we are on an unstoppable path to a united Ireland. And I don’t think that will serve the best interests of anybody on this island. Apart from the possible civil war that will result (or at the very least, upsurge in Loyalist violence) and the consequence financial and economic cost, there will be a permanent Unionist block in the Irish parliament. You only need to look at the disproportional powers yielded in the past by small parties like the PDs to see what this might lead to. Conor Cruise O’Brien was mocked when he suggested to the Unionists that they would be in a far stronger position in a UI than they are now. We can only hope that they don’t suddenly wise up.
Can I ask you what problems you think will be solved in a UI that cannot be solved otherwise? Can you identify any group of people who will be better off?

dlofnep

lugha wrote: »

But on what basis do you decide that it is for the people of the island of Ireland to make a decision?

Because it was one single country, and under normal democratic circumstances - the majority rules. Imagine if Cork wanted to partition itself tomorrow and become the People's Republic of Cork, do you think that they would be able to do so - or would the will of the Irish people overturn it?

In the same respect - on what basis, does a small minority dictate what happens to an entire country? On what basis does a small minority get to make a decision that would partition a country, and integrate nationalist majority cities along with it? That doesn't make sense, now does it?

lugha wrote: »

If Ireland was homogenous, politically and culturally, that would make sense.

Please - no country is homogenous, politically and culturally. Just look at the United States.

lugha wrote: »

But it wasn’t. You could just as easily make an argument that it was for the people of GB and Ireland to make the decision.

No, you couldn't - because it was an internal affair and had nothing to do with Britain.

lugha wrote: »

Nationalist of course would be outraged at being coerced into remaining under British rule by virtue of being outnumbered by the British populace, but they are quite content to adopt the same plot to coerce Unionists into a UI. Surely the last 60 years have taught us that this doesn't work?

Well - considering they never got the choice in the first place?

lugha wrote: »

I am very happy at the progress made in NI. What I don’t like about the future is that I believe we are on an unstoppable path to a united Ireland.

Well, that's what I do like about the future of Ireland.

lugha wrote: »

And I don’t think that will serve the best interests of anybody on this island.

Sure it would.

lugha wrote: »

Apart from the possible civil war that will result (or at the very least, upsurge in Loyalist violence) and the consequence financial and economic cost, there will be a permanent Unionist block in the Irish parliament.

The upsurge in loyalist violence will be no greater than the upsurge in republican violence. We should not oppose Irish Unity based on what terrorists might do. If we let terrorists dictate politics, we'd get nowhere.

lugha wrote: »

Can I ask you what problems you think will be solved in a UI that cannot be solved otherwise? Can you identify any group of people who will be better off?

There will be more cultural and civil equality. There will be protection for Irish language speakers. Border businesses won't be threatened. People won't be dragged into immoral wars in the likes of Iraq, and won't have to front the cost of it. There will be more accountability for the actions of security services and policing will be more fair. Tribalist politics will end. The people will be able to determine the future of Ireland, opposed to having it legislated from Westminister wtihout accountability. The wishes of the majority will be respected in both Ireland and Britain, who both equally are in favour of Irish Unity. Both nationalists and unionists will be better off, as nationalists will finally have true equality, and unionists will actually have more power than they have now.

oscarBravo

dlofnep wrote: »

Because it was one single country...

When?

dlofnep

oscarBravo wrote: »

When?

Any date prior to the partition of Ireland. Even under British control, Ireland was one single political unit for hundreds of years. When Ireland was partitioned, it was a single country. That's really all that mattered at the time.

We're well aware of the "Oh, but Ireland was fragmented with different families and was never truly one single unit back in X" lark, which then can be subsequently countered with the "But it was united through common customs, language and agreements like many other nations of the same period such as Scotland and Wales."

I'm not really interested in dragging this issue out for 10 pages, it's been done before and is way off topic.

lugha

dlofnep wrote: »

Because it was one single country

because it was an internal affair and had nothing to do with Britain.

Your determination of who decides is entirely arbitrary. You seem determined to make exactly the same mistake as Britain by forcing a sizable minority in to a political arrangement that they do not want.

dlofnep

lugha wrote: »

Your determination of who decides is entirely arbitrary.

No it's not. There is a huge difference between a foreign occupier, and self determination.

lugha wrote: »

You seem determined to make exactly the same mistake as Britain by forcing a sizable minority in to a political arrangement that they do not want.

No I'm not. Allowing the people of Ireland to determine whether or not they wanted their country partitioned, and allowing a minority to determine whether or not it was partitioned at the expense of nationalists living in the 6 counties is vastly different.

Whatever way you spin it - it was only right to afford the people of Ireland to determine what happened Ireland, instead of threatening the Irish people will a large-scale war if they didn't accept Britain's terms.

lugha

dlofnep wrote: »

No it's not. There is a huge difference between a foreign occupier, and self determination.

Allowing the people of Ireland to determine whether or not they wanted their country partitioned, and allowing a minority to determine whether or not it was partitioned at the expense of nationalists living in the 6 counties is vastly different.

it was only right to afford the people of Ireland to determine what happened Ireland

Well I don't think it is vastly different at all. But we could be tossing that particular ball around all day. I expect it will be a disaster but I guess we will find out in perhaps 20 years time, or hopefully a good bit longer.

And I don't think it will be lofty notions of equality and respect that will weigh heavily on people's minds on either side of the border if and when a vote is taken. I would think if we draw the attention of Northerners to the health service in the South and the attention of Southerners to the multi-billion public sector bill in the North that will be sufficient to see off this misty eyed unity nonsense for a few decades. With a bit of luck I will be dead by then, and won't care how much of a pig's ear you make of the place.

dlofnep

lugha wrote: »

Well I don't think it is vastly different at all. But we could be tossing that particular ball around all day. I expect it will be a disaster but I guess we will find out in perhaps 20 years time, or hopefully a good bit longer.

And I don't think it will be lofty notions of equality and respect that will weigh heavily on people's minds on either side of the border if and when a vote is taken. I would think if we draw the attention of Northerners to the health service in the South and the attention of Southerners to the multi-billion public sector bill in the North that will be sufficient to see off this misty eyed unity nonsense for a few decades. With a bit of luck I will be dead by then, and won't care how much of a pig's ear you make of the place.

We'll agree to disagree.

Exile 1798

lugha wrote: »

Your determination of who decides is entirely arbitrary. You seem determined to make exactly the same mistake as Britain by forcing a sizable minority in to a political arrangement that they do not want.

I thought we were all democrats - only when it suits it seems.

In any case, this attempt to justify partition is self defeating. We can't have a united Ireland because a sizeable minority object - but there was a much more sizeable minority in the Six Counties who objected to the creation of Northern Ireland.

Indeed why then should we shackle our selves to the so called consent principle? If 42% of people in the Six Counties are Nationalists then surely the Unionist "sizeable minority principle" applies?

aDeener

So are we on for a 2016 UI? would be the dream

lugha

Exile 1798 wrote: »

I thought we were all democrats - only when it suits it seems.

In any case, this attempt to justify partition is self defeating. We can't have a united Ireland because a sizeable minority object - but there was a much more sizeable minority in the Six Counties who objected to the creation of Northern Ireland.

Indeed why then should we shackle our selves to the so called consent principle? If 42% of people in the Six Counties are Nationalists then surely the Unionist "sizeable minority principle" applies?

The first question you should ask about any proposed solution to any problem is, will it work. Before you ask, it is fair, or is it justified, or is it reasonable. I would have thought that the whole Northern Ireland experiment up to GFA should have made it clear that catering solely for the largest group in a divided community simply did not work. Unionists will never, ever accept being part of a United Ireland any more than most Irish people would accept a return to British rule (and rational analysis doesn't play much part in either decision). For some reason, Republicans do not get this and blather on about the Unionists and Nationalists building a united Ireland together. They will only participate in a united Ireland under coercion. How can anybody think that is a solution that will work?
Why not let them carry on with the national government type solution they have? Any problems they have will get ironed out over time.

lugha

aDeener wrote: »

So are we on for a 2016 UI? would be the dream nightmare:D

Fixed.

dlofnep

lugha wrote: »

Fixed.

Don't worry Lugha. I'll treat you as an equal.

lugha

dlofnep wrote: »

Don't worry Lugha. I'll treat you as an equal.

You won't be in charge lad! That's another thing you lads don't realize. A UI will come, but your socialism utopia won't. Instead of Fianna Fail pissing on 26 counties, they'll be pissing on 32.
Be careful what you wish for.

Exile 1798

lugha wrote: »

The first question you should ask about any proposed solution to any problem is, will it work. Before you ask, it is fair, or is it justified, or is it reasonable. I would have thought that the whole Northern Ireland experiment up to GFA should have made it clear that catering solely for the largest group in a divided community simply did not work. Unionists will never, ever accept being part of a United Ireland any more than most Irish people would accept a return to British rule (and rational analysis doesn't play much part in either decision). For some reason, Republicans do not get this and blather on about the Unionists and Nationalists building a united Ireland together. They will only participate in a united Ireland under coercion. How can anybody think that is a solution that will work?
Why not let them carry on with the national government type solution they have? Any problems they have will get ironed out over time.

Nice change of tact.

Your's was a historical argument attempting to justify the denial of democratic will and the forced partition of Ireland. Do you accept the pointless stupidity of your arguement?