When & How could there be a united Ireland?

lugha · 15-07-2010 6:49pm

Noreen1 wrote: »

Neither can I! But, you never know what the future will bring. What will happen if, for example 51% of Unionists are willing to accept it? (I just chose that figure out of thin air - obviously, I have no idea how many Unionists would accept it.)
Noreen

Well if they are unionists you would have to put the number willing to dissolve the union at about, oh 0% :pac:.

Seriously, why do we persist with this notion that the unionist can be persuaded? Nobody thinks you could persuade any nationalists to be part of a United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Why do you suppose unionists have less attachment to their preferred political arrangement?

No. Out-breeding them is the only show in town :cool:.

ardmacha · 15-07-2010 6:50pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by getz View Post
a optimistic date for a referemdum [by the so called experts] is 2016 just over 5 years away,i cannot see the 49% of the unionist population excepting fully a united ireland without a fight

Neither can I! But, you never know what the future will bring. What will happen if, for example 51% of Unionists are willing to accept it? (I just chose that figure out of thin air - obviously, I have no idea how many Unionists would accept it.)

There is no requirement for x% of the unionist population to be in favour of a United Ireland, only that a majority of the population be in favour. But of course NI was set up to give one type of persons vote greater weight than another. As circumstances come to favour a UI cue some sort of claim that a majority of both communities have to be in favour or similar, with any unionist who becomes in favour being discounted as now being a nationalist and so the remaining existence of any unionist being enough to stop progress.

There is profound hypocrisy here, as usual. People argue for the continuation of the present colonial arrangements, which cannot be morally justified, however slim the majority for their continuation. The same people then argue that there must be large majority for a UI to take place.

getz · 15-07-2010 7:01pm

i think there is a attempt between both the UK and ireland to build close and more friendy relations if they [the republic] could convince the loyalist population that they are not anti-brit it could go a long way to a irish unification,the first moves are already in motion,the irish offer for the queen to visit,the other one was the one banded about is rejoining the commonwealth,satisfy the loyalist population and the battle is won,but it is going to be painful for most irish people to except ,

ardmacha · 15-07-2010 7:18pm

Unionists have to accept that it is they who make Irish people opposed to Britain. You can be friends with your neighbour, but not if he has annexed part of your garden.

Joining the Commonwealth might be the sort of thing involved in a settlement.

bigbadbear · 15-07-2010 7:21pm

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Rubbish. No other word for that statement really.

I am an Irishman living in the republic. I do not want the scum that attacked the Dublin-Belfast train. Why is that surprising?

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Every survey ever has always had a large majority willing to accept the north.

Yes and I would have probably been one that would say yes for UI.... until I think about it properly.

There are so many reasons why UI will never happen and so far there hasn't really been a good one for uniting it.

Are you a Northerner with foggied up eyes about the republic? because living in the republic is cráp in so many ways at the moment. (I still love it of course)

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Why bring it up? There were countries before oil ya know. More rubbish.

No need to be all smart about it. The only way it could ever happen is when all the current arguments against UI go out the window.
basically it is if the very nature and structure of society changes completely. The world running out of oil might change things a little so it's a relevant comment.

getz · 15-07-2010 7:34pm

ardmacha wrote: »

Unionists have to accept that it is they who make Irish people opposed to Britain. You can be friends with your neighbour, but not if he has annexed part of your garden.

Joining the Commonwealth might be the sort of thing involved in a settlement.

read your own post and you will see like them,you are still living in the passed,that is why there is still a irish problem

Mayo Exile · 15-07-2010 7:35pm

When: whenever a majority in NI (and probably RoI) vote for it.

How: maybe work the GFA in reverse. There's a book by Richard Humphreys called "Countdown to Unity: Debating Irish Reunification" (Irish Academic Press) which goes into the details of how it might be done.

oscarBravo · 15-07-2010 7:40pm

Mayo Exile wrote: »

When: whenever a majority in NI (and probably RoI) vote for it.

"Probably RoI"? I should bloody well hope I'll be consulted before a whole new chunk is grafted onto my country.

lugha · 15-07-2010 7:47pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

"Probably RoI"? I should bloody well hope I'll be consulted before a whole new chunk is grafted onto my country.

I think it is assumed, regrettably but probably correctly, that a majority in the South would vote for an enlarged all-Ireland state.

IPRIreland · 15-07-2010 7:49pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

"Probably RoI"? I should bloody well hope I'll be consulted before a whole new chunk is grafted onto my country.

Especially when it would really hit our collective wallets and purses extremely hard. Yes, Britain would surely be obliged to shoulder some of the bill but still, we'd notice it in ways we cant afford to (especially at the moment).

gurramok · 15-07-2010 7:53pm

IPRIreland wrote: »

Especially when it would really hit our collective wallets and purses extremely hard. Yes, Britain would surely be obliged to shoulder some of the bill but still, we'd notice it in ways we cant afford to (especially at the moment).

I'd happily pay for a hike in taxes to pay for it. Our tax burden is actually quite low at the moment so it won't be 'extremely hard' but more of a 'hard' one.

lugha · 15-07-2010 7:53pm

IPRIreland wrote: »

.... Britain would surely be obliged to shoulder some of the bill ....

I seriously doubt that Britain will continue to offer meaningful financial support once the're gone!

Mayo Exile · 15-07-2010 8:00pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

"Probably RoI"? I should bloody well hope I'll be consulted before a whole new chunk is grafted onto my country.

The word "probably" is used as I am unsure of exactly what would happen in the South in the event of this scenario.

IPRIreland · 15-07-2010 8:02pm

lugha wrote: »

I seriously doubt that Britain will continue to offer meaningful financial support once the're gone!

And i'm equally sure that the new, United Ireland would be seeking to sue and trying to claim some form of colonial reparations. And I could equally see Britain agreeing as overall, it would suit them much better in the long run if they could get the north off their balance books.

getz · 15-07-2010 8:03pm

lugha wrote: »

I seriously doubt that Britain will continue to offer meaningful financial support once the're gone!

why would the british taxpayer prop up northern ireland if its people voted to leave the union ? its your problem ,warts and all

getz · 15-07-2010 8:22pm

IPRIreland wrote: »

And i'm equally sure that the new, United Ireland would be seeking to sue and trying to claim some form of colonial reparations. And I could equally see Britain agreeing as overall, it would suit them much better in the long run if they could get the north off their balance books.

northern ireland is NOT a colony,a colony is under direct legislative control of the crown and does not possess its own system of representative goverment,crown colonies are administered by a crown -appointed governor ,northern ireland has its own goverment.and as with scotland,wales and england,and sends it MPs to wesminster,stop reading that republican crap ,the only country within the union who has not got its own goverment is england.

IPRIreland · 15-07-2010 8:45pm

getz wrote: »

northern ireland is NOT a colony,a colony is under direct legislative control of the crown and does not possess its own system of representative goverment,crown colonies are administered by a crown -appointed governor ,northern ireland has its own goverment.and as with scotland,wales and england,and sends it MPs to wesminster,stop reading that republican crap ,the only country within the union who has not got its own goverment is england.

Trust me, we at IPRI are vehemently opposed to "that republican crap". Fair enough, in the traditional sense,it is no longer classed as a colony. My point is, ultimately, we don't think it would be tolerated by many world powers if Britain we're to make a clean and absolute break without an adequate level of planning for such a transfer. Such a transfer would have to be extremely gradual over a long period.

OS119 · 15-07-2010 10:12pm

IPRIreland wrote: »

My point is, ultimately, we don't think it would be tolerated by many world powers if Britain we're to make a clean and absolute break without an adequate level of planning for such a transfer. Such a transfer would have to be extremely gradual over a long period.

could name one of these 'world powers', just one, who has in the past given the slightest **** about the way the UK deals with NI and its relationship with the RoI?

i would remind you that the time of the worst of the troubles, the 'great hope accross the sea' - the only country that the UK gives more than a seconds notice to - was happily giving the UK unequalled access to its submarine, ballistic missile and nuclear weapons programs, selling the UK its most successful fighter, and swapping every bit of signals intelligence it could hoover out of the atmosphere to GCHQ. can you really believe that after an majority in NI vote to leave the UK, and while the UK is the only customer for its Trident SSBN/SLBM replacement program, the only Tier 1 partner in its 50 year JSF program, and the closest ally in two recent wars, the US is going to put pressure on the UK give money to people who no longer wish to be UK citizens?

because that is seriously delusional...

ardmacha · 15-07-2010 10:38pm

northern ireland is NOT a colony,a colony is under direct legislative control of the crown and does not possess its own system of representative goverment,crown colonies are administered by a crown

You can split hairs on the legal definitions of these things. But NI is a place that was invaded by force, colonised and which remains under the control of the invading country because of the presence of people who identify themselves as colonists. That's the essence of a colony whatever the the legalities.

As a colony NI can never be normal society, which is why the normality of democratic Ireland must come.

My point is, ultimately, we don't think it would be tolerated by many world powers if Britain we're to make a clean and absolute break without an adequate level of planning for such a transfer.

It is alsolutely critical that Britain is not allowed leave in irresponsible way. They have an obligation to the Irish people to leave the country in a proper condition and an obligation to the Unionist community who have been working on behalf of the British for 400 years.

IPRIreland · 15-07-2010 10:42pm

OS119 wrote: »

could name one of these 'world powers', just one, who has in the past given the slightest **** about the way the UK deals with NI and its relationship with the RoI?

i would remind you that the time of the worst of the troubles, the 'great hope accross the sea' - the only country that the UK gives more than a seconds notice to - was happily giving the UK unequalled access to its submarine, ballistic missile and nuclear weapons programs, selling the UK its most successful fighter, and swapping every bit of signals intelligence it could hoover out of the atmosphere to GCHQ. can you really believe that after an majority in NI vote to leave the UK, and while the UK is the only customer for its Trident SSBN/SLBM replacement program, the only Tier 1 partner in its 50 year JSF program, and the closest ally in two recent wars, the US is going to put pressure on the UK give money to people who no longer wish to be UK citizens?

because that is seriously delusional...

Nobody mentioned the US. All i'm saying is, entities such as the EU would be happy if Britain was to simply evacuate politically without ensuring a smooth transfer (both in terms of security and economically). Chances are, the NI assembly would be requesting some sort of guarantee with Britain before they even thought about going ahead with such a vote.

Lets be blunt though - a united Ireland is an extremely unlikely scenario for a very long time.

oscarBravo · 15-07-2010 11:03pm

ardmacha wrote: »

But NI is a place that was invaded by force...

Can you name a part of the world that hasn't been invaded by force?

...colonised...

You could make a case that Ireland was colonised, but it wasn't a colony in any useful sense of the word after the Act of Union.

...and which remains under the control of the invading country because of the presence of people who identify themselves as colonists.

Wait, what? Who identifies themselves as colonists in Northern Ireland?

Mayo Exile · 15-07-2010 11:16pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

You could make a case that Ireland was colonised, but it wasn't a colony in any useful sense of the word after the Act of Union.

???????

Because an "Irish Parliament" which was utterly unrepresentative of the Irish population at the time "votes" for an "Act of Union", does this suddenly turn Ireland from being a colony to not being one? I dont think so. In reality the social & economic condition of the average Irish person improved little after 1801, and in 1845 would get alot worse........

oscarBravo · 15-07-2010 11:28pm

Mayo Exile wrote: »

Because an "Irish Parliament" which was utterly unrepresentative of the Irish population at the time "votes" for an "Act of Union", does this suddenly turn Ireland from being a colony to not being one?

Pretty much, yes. Ireland became an integral part of the United Kingdom.

Is Scotland a colony?

Mayo Exile · 16-07-2010 12:09am

oscarBravo wrote: »

Pretty much, yes. Ireland became an integral part of the United Kingdom.

Is Scotland a colony?

So you would accept and consider it valid then that a parliament which didn’t represent the majority of the Irish population somehow had the right to pass an act making Ireland an “integral” part of the UK? Why should this be so? Is it still valid if you attempt to apply more modern political concepts such as a parliament mirroring the majority view of a population it claims to represent?

Now of course parliaments of the time (early 1800s) were pretty unrepresentative of their populations, but in Irelands case the Irish parliament was a pretty extreme example of this. Before 1707 (Scottish Act of Union) Scotland may be been quite similar with it’s own parliament.

So if you accept and recognise (many don’t) the legitimacy of both the Scottish and Irish parliaments at that time to pass acts to join the UK then in a (very) narrow political context both Ireland and Scotland ceased to become colonies.

oscarBravo · 16-07-2010 12:25am

Mayo Exile wrote: »

So you would accept and consider it valid then that a parliament which didn’t represent the majority of the Irish population somehow had the right to pass an act making Ireland an “integral” part of the UK? Why should this be so? Is it still valid if you attempt to apply political concepts such as majority rule?

Now of course parliaments of the time (early 1800s) were pretty unrepresentative of their populations, but in Irelands case the Irish parliament was a pretty extreme example of this. Before 1707 (Scottish Act of Union) Scotland may be been quite similar with it’s own parliament.

So if you accept and recognise (many don’t) the legitimacy of both the Scottish and Irish parliaments at that time to pass acts to join the UK then in a (very) narrow political context both Ireland and Scotland ceased to become colonies.

First, whether or not you accept the authority of a parliament two or three hundred years ago is moot - the acts of union are historic fact.

Second, you've tacitly agreed that any definition by which NI is a colony necessarily means Scotland is one too. I don't think you'll find too many Scots who buy into that narrative.

Mayo Exile · 16-07-2010 12:33am

oscarBravo wrote: »

First, whether or not you accept the authority of a parliament two or three hundred years ago is moot - the acts of union are historic fact.

So you don't want answer the question I put to you then?

Second, you've tacitly agreed that any definition by which NI is a colony necessarily means Scotland is one too. I don't think you'll find too many Scots who buy into that narrative

With respect, no I have not. I was referring to the whole of Ireland being a colony pre 1801 and then not being one after that date, in response to your earlier post. Whether Scots think Scotland is a colony or not wasn't or isn't my main concern in replying to you. It's whether unrepresentative parliaments can be considered to legitimately represent their countries/kingdoms etc. Also my post is unrelated to whether or not NI is considered a colony.

IPRIreland · 16-07-2010 12:39am

Hi,

It was my colleague, Denis, who mentioned above that NI could be considered a colony. However, considering that for a brief time, the Irish Free state included Northern Ireland, and those in charge of the territory of NI at the time willingly repatriated with the UK, it is generally known that Northern Ireland is technically NOT a colony. Yes, for 'stirring it up' purposes, it could arguably be looked at as occupied territory but certainly not a colony.

Gareth,
IPRI Admin.

ardmacha · 16-07-2010 1:05am

Can you name a part of the world that hasn't been invaded by force?

The past is the past, the question is the continuation of the past into current relations. The Vikings invaded Ireland but there is neither a pro nor anti Viking faction in modern politics. Likewise the Roman invasion of Britain is not a major election issue.

You could make a case that Ireland was colonised, but it wasn't a colony in any useful sense of the word after the Act of Union.

Quite apart from the nature of the franchise, the Act of Union was never a genuine union. The fact that you have the British government, the British army and British citizens makes quite clear the nature of the Union. The Union of Great Britain and (Northern) Ireland is a Union of Great Britain and British people living in Ireland, not the Irish.

Wait, what? Who identifies themselves as colonists in Northern Ireland?

Persons who describe themselves as British, while living in Ireland. They generally prefer the word synonym planter rather than colonist.

OS119 · 16-07-2010 9:33am

IPRIreland wrote: »

Nobody mentioned the US. All i'm saying is, entities such as the EU would be happy if Britain was to simply evacuate politically without ensuring a smooth transfer (both in terms of security and economically). Chances are, the NI assembly would be requesting some sort of guarantee with Britain before they even thought about going ahead with such a vote.

the US is the only other state who's opinions the UK has the faintest concern for - the only 'internationalisation' process that matters is one that involves the US. without the US these other 'world powers' may as well be yelling at the moon. if the EU wishes to get involved they would be most welcome - though personally i can't see France looking to set a precedent for allowing EU interference in the way it deals with 'former territories' or Germany wishing to dip its hand in its pocket. again.

the UK would attempt to arrange a smooth transfer of power because its in its security interests to do so - that however does not require a multi-billion pound dowery, it could, at its most basic, look something like the Military Technical Agreement between NATO and the Former Yugoslavia over the transfer of power in Kosovo: that took 3 days to negotiate and 3 days to implement.

the Stormont parliament, were it looking to lay the groundwork for a referendum, would, after asking 'so, if we decide we don't want to be British anymore, could we have some money?' be told to go and fcuk itself.

Shea O'Meara · 16-07-2010 9:46am

To answer the op;
If and when the North votes for devolution from the U.K. followed by repatriation.
They are in a unique position because they can devolve as they are seen as a seperate state in so much as Wales/Scotland and they can also repatriate as nobody can argue they are not part of Ireland.
If they democratically wish to do so, I can't see how any Irish person in good conscience can refuse. I would welcome it. In fact it shouldn't even be debated should they choose to do so.

Religion is often a handy divider, but there are people with vested interests fearful they may lose land/money should Irish rule be instilled.

oscarBravo · 16-07-2010 9:48am

Mayo Exile wrote: »

So you don't want answer the question I put to you then?

I did, even if it wasn't the nice, neat black & white answer you were looking for. You could argue that any decision made by any parliament in an era where only monied people could vote in an election had no moral authority.

The Acts of Union happened, whether through parliamentary corruption or not. Semantic quibbling over the meaning of "British" aside, the UK was a single country post 1800, and the UK is a single country now.

With respect, no I have not. I was referring to the whole of Ireland being a colony pre 1801 and then not being one after that date, in response to your earlier post. Whether Scots think Scotland is a colony or not wasn't or isn't my main concern in replying to you. It's whether unrepresentative parliaments can be considered to legitimately represent their countries/kingdoms etc. Also my post is unrelated to whether or not NI is considered a colony.

The highlighted phrase is the interesting one for me. I'm not asking the Scots what they think; I'm asking the people who claim Northern Ireland is a colony whether or not Scotland is a colony, because it became a part of the United Kingdom through a not dissimilar process to Ireland's.

Mayo Exile · 16-07-2010 10:33am

oscarBravo wrote: »

I did, even if it wasn't the nice, neat black & white answer you were looking for.

Hmmm. I think I'll disagree with you on whether you did or not. I've no problem agreeing with you that the Act of Union did occur. It is a historical fact. How it was arrived at though and the legitimacy of it is what I am getting at. As Ardmacha says above it was not a genuine union in the accepted sense of the word. The majority of the Irish population were simply not consulted on the issue.

You could argue that any decision made by any parliament in an era where only monied people could vote in an election had no moral authority

Which I was trying to do. In Irelands case it was not merely monied people who were actually in the Irish parliament pre 1801 making decisions. Members of that parliament were unrepresentative of the vast majority of the Irish population in ethical, cultural and religious criteria too.

getz · 16-07-2010 11:25am

Mayo Exile wrote: »

Hmmm. I think I'll disagree with you on whether you did or not. I've no problem agreeing with you that the Act of Union did occur. It is a historical fact. How it was arrived at though and the legitimacy of it is what I am getting at. As Ardmacha says above it was not a genuine union in the accepted sense of the word. The majority of the Irish population were simply not consulted on the issue.

Which I was trying to do. In Irelands case it was not merely monied people who were actually in the Irish parliament pre 1801 making decisions. Members of that parliament were unrepresentative of the vast majority of the Irish population in ethical, cultural and religious criteria too.

you will never understand the way life was in the 19th century if you are trying to look at it from 21st century eyes,everywhere in the world only people with property or money had rights,common people were owned/slaved ect, woman up to the late 19th century had to give their money/ property to her husband, most members of parliament came from the rich and powerful, they were there only to look after their own,

LordSutch · 16-07-2010 11:49am

ardmacha wrote: »

You can split hairs on the legal definitions of these things. But NI is a place that was invaded by force, colonised and which remains under the control of the invading country because of the presence of people who identify themselves as colonists. That's the essence of a colony whatever the the legalities.

In relation to Northern Ireland the term 'Colony' is misleading. Can you really say that any part of these islands has (or has not been) colonised by another part? Is/was Britain a Norman Colony? Was/is Britain an ex Roman Colony? Is the western half of Scotland an Irish Colony? Was Ireland a Norman colony? Is Northern Ireland a Scottish Colony? and so on . . . .

I think the term 'Colony' in relation to and (within the british isles) has become very devalued & misused in recent times, for the sake of political argument! (The term 'colony' in relation to Ireland has only become fashionable since the mid to late 90's).

ardmacha wrote: »

As a colony NI can never be normal society, which is why the normality of democratic Ireland must come.

Can Northern Ireland really be described as a colony if Scotland is only 22 miles away :cool:

Was Ireland a Colony? > http://www.oppapers.com/essays/Was-Ireland-Colony-British-Empire/153092

ardmacha · 16-07-2010 12:16pm

the UK was a single country post 1800,

The UK was single State, few Scots would agree that the Union caused them to cease to be country, instread it formed a State in union with another country.

Is/was Britain a Norman Colony? Was/is Britain an ex Roman Colony? Is the western half of Scotland an Irish Colony? Was Ireland a Norman colony?

These historical conditions are not the point. Whether part of Scotland was an Irish colony is not the point as the people in Scotland today work with their fellow Scots and don't advocate rule from Ireland.

There seems to be attempt to conceal the origins of the problem, largely in a effort to undermine those who advocate extreme solutions. The region now forming NI was invaded, parts of its were ethnically cleansed and others were colonised with the aid of public discrimination in favour of the colonists, a count was then held which indicated that the colonisation had been sufficiently successful in some areas to make the colonists a majority. When Germany cleared out parts of Poland and Slovenia to facilitate German speakers this was seen as unspeakable, so you can't defend it here either or morally advocate its continuation.

LordSutch · 16-07-2010 12:25pm

I'm just raising the point really, can the various peoples within this little group of islands contend that one part of one island colonised another part? and I ask this in relation to our racial-cultural similarities, are the Scots/English/Welsh so dissimilar to the Irish as to be Colonists? personally I think the term is useless (within the british isles).

I'll leave it there.

Noreen1 · 16-07-2010 12:25pm

lugha wrote: »

Well if they are unionists you would have to put the number willing to dissolve the union at about, oh 0% :pac:.

Seriously, why do we persist with this notion that the unionist can be persuaded? Nobody thinks you could persuade any nationalists to be part of a United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Why do you suppose unionists have less attachment to their preferred political arrangement?

No. Out-breeding them is the only show in town :cool:.

With all due respect - I have to disagree.

Consider the good Friday agreement. You could make a case that it served neither Unionist nor Nationalist aims in their entirety. Yet 71% of the people in Northern Ireland voted in favour of it. To put it another way - the majority of people voted for a compromise, in order to gain peace.

If you factor in the fact that extreme Nationalists and Unionists voted NO - and a percentage voted No for reasons other than extreme political affiliation - then the fact remains that the majority of people in Northern Ireland, whether Protestant or Catholic (or no/other religions) have a lot more in common than extremists on either side would like us to believe.

Who said anything about persuading anyone, anyway?
The Good Friday agreement left the Irish Unification process dependant on a free vote, by the people most affected.

The lesson that should have been learned when Northern Ireland was ceded to British rule - without a free vote - seems to have gone largely unlearned. That failure has caused too many deaths, and destroyed too many lives already. We have to find a better way.

The irony is that, failure to recognise the right to free and unfettered democracy is endemic in the extremists on both sides of the Political divide, when they seek to pressurise their own communities to attain political (or monetary) ends.

Noreen

getz · 16-07-2010 12:42pm

ardmacha wrote: »

The UK was single State, few Scots would agree that the Union caused them to cease to be country, instread it formed a State in union with another country.

These historical conditions are not the point. Whether part of Scotland was an Irish colony is not the point as the people in Scotland today work with their fellow Scots and don't advocate rule from Ireland.

There seems to be attempt to conceal the origins of the problem, largely in a effort to undermine those who advocate extreme solutions. The region now forming NI was invaded, parts of its were ethnically cleansed and others were colonised with the aid of public discrimination in favour of the colonists, a count was then held which indicated that the colonisation had been sufficiently successful in some areas to make the colonists a majority. When Germany cleared out parts of P,they say jump ,and we jumpoland and Slovenia to facilitate German speakers this was seen as unspeakable, so you can't defend it here either or morally advocate its continuation.

i feel it very sad that you are still harping on about a area of ireland and the people who colonized it 400 years ago, move on and lets face it, the irish republic and the UK are now under the law makers of the EU,we can say we are the colonies of our UE masters,they say jump and we jump

ardmacha · 16-07-2010 12:48pm

Who said anything about persuading anyone, anyway?

It should be the business of nationalist political parties to persuade others of the merit of their proposals, such is the nature of democracy.

Mayo Exile · 16-07-2010 12:56pm

getz wrote: »

you will never understand the way life was in the 19th century if you are trying to look at it from 21st century eyes,everywhere in the world only people with property or money had rights,common people were owned/slaved ect, woman up to the late 19th century had to give their money/ property to her husband, most members of parliament came from the rich and powerful, they were there only to look after their own,

Was just offering a constitutional viewpoint. No doubt the life of the average 19th century citizen was pretty miserable as you have illustrated!

lugha · 16-07-2010 1:15pm

Noreen1 wrote: »

Consider the good Friday agreement. You could make a case that it served neither Unionist nor Nationalist aims in their entirety. Yet 71% of the people in Northern Ireland voted in favour of it. To put it another way - the majority of people voted for a compromise, in order to gain peace.

Well the tribal split of the GFA vote went virtually 50:50 in the unionists community and was overwhelmingly supported in the nationalist community. So it’s a little misleading to quote the overall support for it. More importantly, and something which seems to have now slipped from popular memory, is that Blair and co used their undoubted talents to convince people that GFA could lead to two incompatible outcomes. Nationalist believed, rightly I think, that it would lead to a united Ireland. David Trimble insisted that it secured Northern Ireland’s place with the UK. I would suggest many people voted for GFA because they believed it would deliver, or retain, the political solution they wanted.

Noreen1 wrote: »

Who said anything about persuading anyone, anyway?
The Good Friday agreement left the Irish Unification process dependant on a free vote, by the people most affected.

Yes, and there may eventually be a majority in NI who will vote for a united Ireland, but it won’t be because unionists finally realise what a great idea it is. It will happen because the will be outnumbered. So best advise to UI aspirants is to forget about persuasion and get breeding! :P

getz · 16-07-2010 1:49pm

Mayo Exile wrote: »

Was just offering a constitutional viewpoint. No doubt the life of the average 19th century citizen was pretty miserable as you have illustrated!

life in 1820 victorian england was far harder than ireland,in england 75% of the population had no schooling,the irishman patrick bronte,records that in haworth [relatively a better off place to live] that only one in three children lived to the age of five,the average age of life expectancy was 27.5 years,remember even his better off son and 5 daughters died young, victorian england was no place to live,it took people like dickens in his reforming novels, that portrayed the social evils of the early victorians to bring the problems to the masters,i know all that but that is the passed and i live in the now

Noreen1 · 16-07-2010 2:56pm

ardmacha wrote: »

It should be the business of nationalist political parties to persuade others of the merit of their proposals, such is the nature of democracy.

I would suggest that it should be the business of all political parties to represent the people who voted for them.

Just because a particular party is given a mandate by the people, does not mean that said party should "persuade" said people to accept their proposals.

Rather, it should be the responsibility of said party to develop proposals that are in keeping with the wishes of the majority of people who entrusted them with their vote.

Noreen

ardmacha · 16-07-2010 3:12pm

I would suggest that it should be the business of all political parties to represent the people who voted for them.

Just because a particular party is given a mandate by the people, does not mean that said party should "persuade" said people to accept their proposals.

Rather, it should be the responsibility of said party to develop proposals that are in keeping with the wishes of the majority of people who entrusted them with their vote.

Increasing the nationalist vote is in keeping with the wishes of the people who vote for nationalist parties. There should be a clear message that a United Ireland is simple normality, of interest and benefit to everyone wherever their ancestors came.

Noreen1 · 16-07-2010 3:19pm

lugha wrote: »

Well the tribal split of the GFA vote went virtually 50:50 in the unionists community and was overwhelmingly supported in the nationalist community. So it’s a little misleading to quote the overall support for it. More importantly, and something which seems to have now slipped from popular memory, is that Blair and co used their undoubted talents to convince people that GFA could lead to two incompatible outcomes. Nationalist believed, rightly I think, that it would lead to a united Ireland. David Trimble insisted that it secured Northern Ireland’s place with the UK. I would suggest many people voted for GFA because they believed it would deliver, or retain, the political solution they wanted.

??? From wiki:

In the North, when normal combined voting strengths among both  nationalist and unionist communities are superimposed on the Referendum  result, it is clear that pre-polling [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polls"]opinion polls[/URL] and [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exit_polls"]exit polls[/URL] on the day were correct in showing  that[B] a majority of the unionist voters voted 'Yes'.[/B] The DUP claim to  have been at that point 'a majority of the majority' was clearly  difficult to substantiate although in later events they succeeded in so  becoming.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belfast_Agreement

I did actually go looking for results by constituency, but they don't seem to be available. The most I can confirm in a quick search is that North Antrim was the only constituency to vote "No". Interesting that there is no reference to Nationalist voting patterns, for whatever reason.

Noreen

getz · 16-07-2010 4:02pm

ardmacha wrote: »

Increasing the nationalist vote is in keeping with the wishes of the people who vote for nationalist parties. There should be a clear message that a United Ireland is simple normality, of interest and benefit to everyone wherever their ancestors came.

i fully agree, the problem a this moment is the SF members of parliament who do not wish to sit in westminister,and reprepresent all the voters of their constituency whether or not the citizens voted for them, its a FU i am only looking after my own,thats not a mature and unifying way to act if one is looking for any future irish reconciliation.sends out the wrong signal

Notorious97 · 16-07-2010 4:31pm

getz wrote: »

i fully agree, the problem a this moment is the SF members of parliament who do not wish to sit in westminister,and reprepresent all the voters of their constituency whether or not the citizens voted for them, its a FU i am only looking after my own,thats not a mature and unifying way to act if one is looking for any future irish reconciliation.sends out the wrong signal

I dont see the reason for them to sit in Westminister, A) the people that vote for them vote for them on the basis they will not take up their seats;

their focus should be solely on the 6 counties assembly and within the republic also. Thats just my opninion though

T runner · 16-07-2010 5:16pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

You could make a case that Ireland was colonised, but it wasn't a colony in any useful sense of the word after the Act of Union.

Not by your definition of useful. The relationship ofcourse was de facto a colonial relationship long after the Act of Union.

Wait, what? Who identifies themselves as colonists in Northern Ireland?

Well the self professed descendants of planters and colonists (the same as clonised Virginia) still claim "Britishness".

oscarBravo wrote: »

Pretty much, yes. Ireland became an integral part of the United Kingdom.

In the strict political sense only. Integral only by its technical integrity as a kingdom in the UK.

Is Scotland a colony?

You would hope not! Only 3% of the population regard themselves as British. The Scottish identity certainly seems to be stronger than any British one there. Maybe Scots feel that Anglo-centric control of the UK is a remnant of English colonialism in Britain.

Second, you've tacitly agreed that any definition by which NI is a colony necessarily means Scotland is one too. I don't think you'll find too many Scots who buy into that narrative

Technically the plantations in Ireland might strenghten the argument of colonialism there. You had attempts to plant "British" subjects more loyal and submissive to English authority in Ireland.

The People who claim to descend from these colonists still claim their identity as "British" so there are colonial remnants particularly in peoples perceptions of who they are.

oscarBravo wrote: »

You could argue that any decision made by any parliament in an era where only monied people could vote in an election had no moral authority

It is well known that bribery and coercion was used to influence the vote which voted the Irish parliament out of existance. There was no moral authority here.

The monied minority in the Irish case were slightly different in that their religion was the same as their colonial masters in London and different to the vast majority of their countrymen in Ireland.

Their loyalties were supranational and completely at odds with that of the Irish population.

The Irish MPs werent just confined to monied people: they were confined to monied people who were co-religionist to the established religion of the supra-national colonial power.

The Acts of Union happened, whether through parliamentary corruption or not. Semantic quibbling over the meaning of "British" aside, the UK was a single country post 1800, and the UK is a single country now.

Some people would regard it as a single state made up of countries.
You dont think Scotland is a country? As you say yourself "I don't think you'll find too many Scots who buy into that narrative".

I'm asking the people who claim Northern Ireland is a colony whether or not Scotland is a colony......

Scotland is dissimilar as it was lacking a planted colony like Ireland. Another dissimilarity is that it is on a seperate Island so teh explanation for large migrations of people into Ireland onto land cant be explained other than by means of colonisation.

Camelot wrote: »

In relation to Northern Ireland the term 'Colony' is misleading. Can you really say that any part of these islands has (or has not been) colonised by another part?

Ofcourse you can.

Is/was Britain a Norman Colony?

Yes, until it ceased to be ruled by Normandy.

Was/is Britain an ex Roman Colony?

Britain was a Roman colony yes. It was regarded as a province of Rome by the Romans.

Is the western half of Scotland an Irish Colony?

Is it? No

Can Northern Ireland really be described as a colony if Scotland is only 22 miles away :cool:

Are you suggesting that geographical closeness has something to do with the definition of colonisation?

Colonising far away places is a relatively new phenomenum. People tended to colonise lands adjacent to them, naturally enough. As ive explained here the concerted migrations of people to lands in Ireland cannot be explained by anything other than colonisation.

oscarBravo · 16-07-2010 5:30pm

T runner wrote: »

Not by your definition of useful. The relationship ofcourse was de facto a colonial relationship long after the Act of Union.

OK, so it's a colony by your definition of a "de facto colonial relationship".

In other words, Northern Ireland is whatever it's perceived to be by whomever is perceiving it. There's a spectrum of perceptions, ranging from those who see it as an integral and inseparable part of the United Kingdom, to those who see it as illegally occupied territory of a hypothetical all-island Irish republic.

If you're determined to perceive it as a colony, you're going to perceive it that way, and no amount of logical analysis will change that perception.

Some people would regard it as a single state made up of countries.
You dont think Scotland is a country? As you say yourself "I don't think you'll find too many Scots who buy into that narrative".

So you replace semantic quibbling over the definition of "British" with semantic quibbling over the definitions of "country" and "state".

Once again, those things only mean what people choose to believe they mean. I personally subscribe to the idea that internationally recognised geo-political borders are about the most useful means of describing things, which means that the six counties on the north-eastern corner of this island are part of a different country. I'm aware that that doesn't suit certain narratives, and that people will invent definitions of "country" to suit those narratives. Whatever.

ardmacha · 16-07-2010 5:47pm

I'm aware that that doesn't suit certain narratives, and that people will invent definitions of "country" to suit those narratives.

It is an easy cop out to undermine discussion by characterising your opponents as merely having a point of view with which everyone else's point of view is equal and then adopt definitions of things that suit your own political agenda.

Country has a meaning and describing Scotland as one is not "inventing" new language.

When & How could there be a united Ireland?

Comments