Northern Ireland and the 2011 UK census

OhNoYouDidn't

Denerick wrote: »

I haven't broken the rules and I haven't resorted to personalisation either. I'd love to know what goober means though

If you don't want to be accused of being a dissident apologist, maybe you shouldn't post on internet forums defending dissidents?

What an odious poster you are.

For the tenth time from 3 different posters on here, where did I defend them?

I'm all for a bit of arrogance in a posting style, but there is a line and you are well beyond it. Over to the mods to decide if I'm being overtly precious in reacting to being called a dissident supporter or whether you are simply being infantile and refusing to back up your slurs.

Wolfe Tone

If you leave a bomb outside a school, how is that not targeting kids? Whether they hoped to murder police officers is irrelevant.

Yes but the stated aim was to kill PSNI members. Why would they want to kill kids in a school in a nationalist stronghold like that?


Its a debate for another thread.

Denerick

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

What an odious poster you are.

For the tenth time from 3 different posters on here, where did I defend them?

I'm all for a bit of arrogance in a posting style, but there is a line and you are well beyond it. Over to the mods to decide if I'm being overtly precious in reacting to being called a dissident supporter or whether you are simply being infantile and refusing to back up your slurs.

If it means that much to you:

I retract the statement.

Denerick

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Yes but the stated aim was to kill PSNI members. Why would they want to kill kids in a school in a nationalist stronghold like that?

I don't know. Perhaps to show the world that they don't have a moral center?

LordSutch

charlemont wrote: »

both administrations on the island are a failure , a divided ireland will always be a disaster...

But was it ever united?

Denerick

LordSutch wrote: »

But was it ever united?

The only time Ireland was ever truly united was in 1782 with Grattans parliament. But that was only ever a Protestant sister state of Britain, with very limited meaningful autonomy.

OhNoYouDidn't

Denerick wrote: »

If it means that much to you:

I retract the statement.

Do you mind me asking what age you are?

Denerick

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Do you mind me asking what age you are?

I'm 94.

Enkidu

LordSutch wrote: »

But was it ever united?

Just for the sake of history I'll answer this. In the modern sense, probably not. The closest would have been what we the High Kings, but even they were simply quite powerful provincial Kings who created a history of rule for themselves.

lugha

Denerick wrote: »

The only time Ireland was ever truly united was in 1782 with Grattans parliament. But that was only ever a Protestant sister state of Britain, with very limited meaningful autonomy.

Were we not "united" for about 5 minutes after the Anglo-Irish treaty before the northies ceded and legged it?

OS119

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

That decision has been taken. The day after a successful referendum in the 6 counties, we have our UI. The 26 county electorate had their only say in it in 98.

not being argumentative, but could you point me to the source for that?

my understanding was that the agreement said that once a majority in the north voted for unification in a referendum the two governments and the NIAs would get together and sort out the mechanics for a transfer of sovereignty - what you're suggesting, assuming i've got the jist of your posts, is that such a process won't happen, and that as soon as the last vote is counted at 3am on a Friday morning NI will, both de jure and de facto, cease to exist?

nothing i've read in the GFA or in the Irish Legal system suggests thats the case, there's certainly nothing in the Irish constitution outlawing a further referendum on either the principle of unification, or on the particular economic and constitutional measures that unification would bring.

KeithAFC

LordSutch wrote: »

Personally I'd really miss shopping up North, can you imagine the North as part of this State, (with Euro prices to match)? I also get cheapoer dentestry up there, so even if the RC's do outbreed the Proddies in twenty years time they would be mad to leave the UK > they have it pretty good up there as things currently stand, but who knows what changes will happen in the future, its their call . . .

I'd say that is why it won't happen. There is a lot of people like you who think like that. People want bread on the table, not blood. It won't happen. So nationalists can scream about it all day if they want, ain't going to make a difference.

OhNoYouDidn't

OS119 wrote: »

not being argumentative, but could you point me to the source for that?

my understanding was that the agreement said that once a majority in the north voted for unification in a referendum the two governments and the NIAs would get together and sort out the mechanics for a transfer of sovereignty - what you're suggesting, assuming i've got the jist of your posts, is that such a process won't happen, and that as soon as the last vote is counted at 3am on a Friday morning NI will, both de jure and de facto, cease to exist?

No, I am saying that process will happen, but that there is no provision for a second vote in the south - its assumed in the process that the support is there.

OS119 wrote: »

nothing i've read in the GFA or in the Irish Legal system suggests thats the case, there's certainly nothing in the Irish constitution outlawing a further referendum on either the principle of unification, or on the particular economic and constitutional measures that unification would bring.

Its an interesting question, but as far as I can tell the constitution is clear on the policy aim of reunification, so there is no legal imperative for a referendum. Has there ever been a referendum on a non contitutional question like an economic matter?

I can't see any government risking being the ones who united Ireland and the entering of history and nobel prizes that would follow on the say so of the general public when they are under no obligation to do so.

OhNoYouDidn't

KeithAFC wrote: »

I'd say that is why it won't happen. There is a lot of people like you who think like that. People want bread on the table, not blood. It won't happen. So nationalists can scream about it all day if they want, ain't going to make a difference.

Have you not read the last 3 pages?

If the issue was simply over money above prinipals, you would have joined a UI 20 years ago.

If this vote happens and the majority in the north vote for a United Ireland, would you accept that result?

KeithAFC

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Have you not read the last 3 pages?

If the issue was simply over money above prinipals, you would have joined a UI 20 years ago.

If this vote happens and the majority in the north vote for a United Ireland, would you accept that result?

Lets get to the point that a majority would vote a United Ireland. Which i don't see.

OhNoYouDidn't

KeithAFC wrote: »

Lets get to the point that a majority would vote a United Ireland. Which i don't see.

Thats not what I asked. If, in 15 years time, the vote happens and 55% of the votes are for a UI, would you accept the will of the majority or not?

KeithAFC

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Thats not what I asked. If, in 15 years time, the vote happens and 55% of the votes are for a UI, would you accept the will of the majority or not?

I will accept the view of the people.

OhNoYouDidn't

KeithAFC wrote: »

I will accept the view of the people.

Do you think the rest of unionism will accept the democratic will of the people?

Not fishing here, but people have talked about the UVF replacing the Ra etc. Is that a vista you see?

KeithAFC

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Do you think the rest of unionism will accept the democratic will of the people?

Not fishing here, but people have talked about the UVF replacing the Ra etc. Is that a vista you see?

No. As far as im aware, its the RIRA etc who are trying to start up the trouble again. I think the majority of unionists now want peace. Peter robinson could not even win his east belfast seat, which kind of sums it up.

I think they would but the argument is would nationalists accept the view of the people who want to remain in the Union and vote for it to be so?

OhNoYouDidn't

KeithAFC wrote: »

No. As far as im aware, its the RIRA etc who are trying to start up the trouble again. I think the majority of unionists now want peace. Peter robinson could not even win his east belfast seat, which kind of sums it up.

I think they would but the argument is would nationalists accept the view of the people who want to remain in the Union and vote for it to be so?

Not quite what I asked. We know a small section of the republican movement will fight on regardless of the will of the majority all too well.

What I am asking is in the context of a majority vote for a UI, would the UVF accept the will of the majority or would they step into the breach to 'free Ulster'?

Denerick

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

What I am asking is in the context of a majority vote for a UI, would the UVF accept the will of the majority or would they step into the breach to 'free Ulster'?

The UVF might, at a stretch, but some small group will clearly take up arms in their stead. Its long been the Irish way.

KeithAFC

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Not quite what I asked. We know a small section of the republican movement will fight on regardless of the will of the majority all too well.

What I am asking is in the context of a majority vote for a UI, would the UVF accept the will of the majority or would they step into the breach to 'free Ulster'?

No they woulnd't. People who signed up to the UVF take a vow and reject a republic.

OhNoYouDidn't

KeithAFC wrote: »

No they woulnd't. People who signed up to the UVF take a vow and reject a republic.

Have they not also signed up for the GFA?

While not popping at you, what you are saying is that the Republicans must do what they signed up for and accept British rule while the majority want it, but Loyalists, who are also signatories, will not live up to their end of the agreement?

Food for thought.

KeithAFC

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Have they not also signed up for the GFA?

While not popping at you, what you are saying is that the Republicans must do what they signed up for and accept British rule while the majority want it, but Loyalists, who are also signatories, will not live up to their end of the agreement?

Food for thought.

People who would join the UVF would not vote for a United Ireland. The UVF would not just accept it.

It would cause mayhem. Like i have said, the province now needs just peace. A long lasting amount of peace. If we go into a UI right away, the amount of bombs which would hit belfast, dublin and so on is just not worth it.

OS119

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

No, I am saying that process will happen, but that there is no provision for a second vote in the south - its assumed in the process that the support is there.....

....I can't see any government risking being the ones who united Ireland and the entering of history and nobel prizes that would follow on the say so of the general public when they are under no obligation to do so.

you know what they say about 'assume'! i can imagine that the electorate in 2020 or whenever saying 'we weren't the people who agreed to this, we aren't going to be held to it'.

i'm not convinced about the 'glittering prize' argument - i can see enthusiasm wearing off when the sums start to appear, and especially if there's any serious civil disorder or even terrorism from 'Loyalism' at the time. given that no one i've spoken to wants unification to be 26+6 and just continue as before, there will almost certainly be constitutional changes and a 're-invention' of the current state - that will almost certainly cause political argument and some, when confronted with a deal that fundamentally changes the current state, comes with a significant and long term cost, and brings the possibility/likelyhood of 'Loyalism' bringing its violence to the streets of Dublin, Galway and Cork, may decide that they aren't keen - and their politicians will reflect that.

OhNoYouDidn't

OS119 wrote: »

you know what they say about 'assume'! i can imagine that the electorate in 2020 or whenever saying 'we weren't the people who agreed to this, we aren't going to be held to it'.

i'm not convinced about the 'glittering prize' argument - i can see enthusiasm wearing off when the sums start to appear, and especially if there's any serious civil disorder or even terrorism from 'Loyalism' at the time. given that no one i've spoken to wants unification to be 26+6 and just continue as before, there will almost certainly be constitutional changes and a 're-invention' of the current state - that will almost certainly cause political argument and some, when confronted with a deal that fundamentally changes the current state, comes with a significant and long term cost, and brings the possibility/likelyhood of 'Loyalism' bringing its violence to the streets of Dublin, Galway and Cork, may decide that they aren't keen - and their politicians will reflect that.

There is a certain amount of truth in that, and I would fundamentally hope that in the event of a UI that all bets are off and we start afresh, a Second Republic and all that.

But I think you underestimate the desire of the Taoiseach of the day to unfurl a tricolour on Belfast's City Hall and enter history as the guy who got the fourth field back and all the international kudos associated with it. That and that a huge amount of the electorate wouldn't care for the price tag, like the Germans in the early 90's. Patriotism is like that - completly heart over head.

Denerick

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

like the Germans in the early 90's. Patriotism is like that - completly heart over head.

The difference being that a vast majority of Germans of all persuasions wanted unification. If Germany hadn't unified after the collapse of communism, then that would have been remarkable.

Wolfe Tone

Denerick wrote: »

The difference being that a vast majority of Germans of all persuasions wanted unification. If Germany hadn't unified after the collapse of communism, then that would have been remarkable.

The majority of people on this island want unification.

Denerick

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

The majority of people on this island want unification.

The difference being that that majority is only passively interested because a substantial minority is passionately opposed. Once that passionate opposition asserts itself the passive interest would die off; hence the analogy with Germany doesn't stand up.

OS119

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

...Patriotism is like that - completly heart over head.

isn't that a pretty good reason to make sure this whole process is really thought out - isn't patriotism, unfettered by thought, what got us into this mess?

i accept entirely what you say - the party that delivers a UI can probably bet on being in office for the next 10 years and will be able to silence any criticsm over policy, incompetence or corruption with 'we delivered Belfast'. however while i agree that a vast majority want a UI, i have serious reservations about quite how much they want it, and what they are prepared to put up with to ensure that it happens.

i would add that the publics faith in the ability of politicians to both make good decisions on risks, and to deal effectively with those risks when the decision goes bad, has been savaged - i'm suggesting that an Irish electorate, faced with a 51/49% vote up north, sizable numbers of 'Loyalists' making blood-curling threats and having a good riot while the referendum campaign is ongoing, being told that taxes will have to rocket to subsidise the NI NHS and extend the RoI benefits regime to the north, and believing that their politicians couldn't manage their way out of a wet paper bag, may decide that its not for them.

IRISHSPORTSGUY

Interesting that before EU expansion there were less than 20 Polish in NI, now there's an estimated 35,000. That's roughly 2% of the population. Poland is an extremely RC country, obviously. Lithuanian immigrants top that up by a few more thousand.

Also take into account 43.8% of the population was Catholic in '01. The 'native' Catholic population has also probably risen a couple of percentage points, although you have to take into consideration young Catholics are inclined to use contraception more and more as society modernises.

The Protestant community will still probably still be a wee bit bigger, but it's going to be very tight. Obviously a bigger RC community doesn't automatically translate into Nationalists, yet it'll sure as hell have an impact on the superiority complex and mentality of hardline loyalists - basically not as much to crow about anymore.

IRISHSPORTSGUY

Someone made an interesting comment about some Republicans refusing to partake in a UK census, how common is this?

Wolfe Tone

IRISHSPORTSGUY wrote: »

Someone made an interesting comment about some Republicans refusing to partake in a UK census, how common is this?

Very.(in the past anyways) Why tell the brits anything? Then they know were to get good young catholics to inter.

Ren2k7

Does anyone know of any forecasts of when Catholics will eventually outnumber Protestants in NI. I would assume given current trends 50 years would be the estimated time when both sides reach parity.

Of course, by that stage with further European integration and a linked, all island economy, with the euro being used throughout the UK, such a scenario of Catholics outnumbering the other side will probably be irrelevant.

Who knows, by 2060 we may all living in the United States of Europe with the concept of a border separating
Dundalk and Newry something that only bothers map makers.

KeithAFC

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

The majority of people on this island want unification.

Northern Ireland is its own country. It will be up to the people who live in Northern Ireland to decide unifiction.

gurramok

Ren2k7 wrote: »

Does anyone know of any forecasts of when Catholics will eventually outnumber Protestants in NI. I would assume given current trends 50 years would be the estimated time when both sides reach parity.

Dunno about outnumbering but it looks like equal numbers within 10 years when you look at the under 35yr age group makeup now. Over that age, Protestants have a majority 55%-65% where there are more of them as you look at older age groups. The more older an age group you look at, there is a substantial majority of Protestants. (A link of a good blog was posted earlier)

Irishsportsguy wrote:

you have to take into consideration young Catholics are inclined to use contraception more and more as society modernises

So have Protestants. Its called getting with the times

Cú Giobach

Because of the quite obvious demographic changes occurring in the North, the old rhetoric of "A UI will never happen" or "not in our lifetime" etc are quite meaningless. It's quite clear that soon there will be a majority in NI who, if they voted would vote for pro-UI parties.
If a referendum is called for and a majority in NI vote pro-UI, then the processes for this must be put in place, That is what the people of the Island voted for 12 years ago.
It's true of course the UVF won't be too pleased with the situation, but will the people of Ireland bow to the threats of violence? Have the people of NI bowed to the threats of violence in the past?
Yes it will cost us financially a great deal, but I think that issue wouldn't really sink in until after the fact, as is the way with such things.
I would find it hard to believe that the majority of people on this Island wouldn't accept a UI if the chance for it arose, and from the demographics that could be a lot sooner than some people would like to think.

Cú Giobach

Ren2k7 wrote: »

Does anyone know of any forecasts of when Catholics will eventually outnumber Protestants in NI. I would assume given current trends 50 years would be the estimated time when both sides reach parity..

If the figures in that blog earlier are correct, The number of Catholic/Nationalist school children already outnumber Protestant/Unionist SC.
The large proportion of older P/U population seems to imply an increase in the rate of decline in that population in the near future.
From looking at the figures it seems 10-20 years seems more likely.

View

There could have been a united Ireland years ago if a medium-sized chunk of the NI Protestant population had been persuaded it was in their interests. Offhand, I am not certain that anyone ever even tried to make any such case to them.

If anything, this thread is highly indicative of why the NI Protestant population probably shouldn't even consider the prospect of a united Ireland. The underlying basis of it, for many posters, revolves around a sectarian headcount and nothing else. It would appear that their main desire isn't for a united Ireland per se. Rather, it is for an updated version of the pre-'70's Stormont NI only with the sectarian "boot on the other foot" in terms of the religious communities there.

Rebelheart

This is directed at nobody in particular, just a very large number of people who partake in the threads relating to British-occupied Ireland.

Why do people continue to capitalise the words 'republican' and 'nationalist'? They are common nouns, not proper nouns. If they were specifically referring to members of a party named 'Republican' or 'Nationalist' that would be justified - but they are not.

Likewise with loyalist and unionist: they are both common nouns, not proper nouns.

I'm particularly disappointed at the number of West Brit and British nationalist lower class types who cannot get to grips with this most remedial lesson in the Queen's English. For shame.

Yours, in the advancement of knowledge.

Cú Giobach

View wrote: »

Rather, it is for an updated version of the pre-'70's Stormont NI only with the sectarian "boot on the other foot" in terms of the religious communities there.

There would be no chance in "hell" of either the government or the Catholic/Nationalist population of a UI treating the Protestant population even remotely like the way Catholics were treated in NI during the 20th century.

There could have been a united Ireland years ago if a medium-sized chunk of the NI Protestant population had been persuaded it was in their interests. Offhand, I am not certain that anyone ever even tried to make any such case to them.

If someone had tried to make such a case and had actually been listened to, the answer would have been a resounding NO.

Since the thread is about the changing demographics in NI, it's not really surprising that this is what is being discussed.

Rebelheart

KeithAFC wrote: »

Northern Ireland is its own country. It will be up to the people who live in Northern Ireland to decide unifiction.

It's obviously not. It's an artificial gerrymandered statelet in Ireland, a statelet which the vast majority of Protestant organisations do not organise around - and that includes the Grand Orange Lodge of Ireland, the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, the Methodist Church in Ireland and the anglican Church of Ireland.

"Country" indeed.

Wolfe Tone

Rebelheart wrote: »

It's obviously not. It's an artificial gerrymandered statelet in Ireland, a statelet which the vast majority of Protestant organisations do not organise around - and that includes the Grand Orange Lodge of Ireland, the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, the Methodist Church in Ireland and the anglican Church of Ireland.

"Country" indeed.

Well said.

OhNoYouDidn't

IRISHSPORTSGUY wrote: »

Someone made an interesting comment about some Republicans refusing to partake in a UK census, how common is this?

Very. Civil disobedience included not assisting in the census, to the point where a census taker in Derry was shot.

IRISHSPORTSGUY

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Very. Civil disobedience included not assisting in the census, to the point where a census taker in Derry was shot.

Are we talking three figure numbers or higher?

KeithAFC

Rebelheart wrote: »

It's obviously not. It's an artificial gerrymandered statelet in Ireland, a statelet which the vast majority of Protestant organisations do not organise around - and that includes the Grand Orange Lodge of Ireland, the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, the Methodist Church in Ireland and the anglican Church of Ireland.

"Country" indeed.

Every country on this planet is artifical. America is artificial and so is a lot of other countries.

Northern Ireland is a country, its recognised as one by the UN.

PKen

There's been a lot of ambivalence in this and other threads (and in Ireland historically) regarding violence towards the Northern security services. When anyone (in a debate) uses violence as a rationale, they can just about justify any atrocity for their own political ends.
I think JFK said, "When Peaceful Means Are Impossible - Violent Means Are Inevitable". Regretably, the quote has been mis-interpreted and abused. Long before partition, a political (peaceful) solution was possible, e.g. Charles Stuart Parnell and the Home Rulers. Also Michael Davitt (Fenian turned politician) formed the Land League. Concerning Catholic civil rights, we've had Daniel O'Connell and more recently John Hume and the SDLP.
My point is that peaceful dialogue and not violence can achieve results. If we end up with a "United Ireland" or should that be a "Geographically Re-Conjoined State" (depends on your definition of unity), I'll not want anyone to have to die for it.

OhNoYouDidn't

IRISHSPORTSGUY wrote: »

Are we talking three figure numbers or higher?

Who knows as the Brits massaged the figures to hide the scale of the non reporting, but anecdotally very few nationalists did the census. Rough guess at half.

Its only recently when Republicans latched onto the demographic argument that takeup increased

LordSutch

KeithAFC wrote: »

Northern Ireland is its own country. It will be up to the people who live in Northern Ireland to decide unifiction.

Agreed, and I might add that all this "We want a United Ireland" chant from many nationalists is something they might actually rue if it came into being (I did say might), but to think that wanting a UI so badly, when Unionists wish to retain the Union so badly, does not bode well for future North-South harmonisation. Incedentally, if London was to off load N.Ireland it would be a massive burden off their economic shoulders, (I guess most of Britain would love to ditch NI too), but would this State be ready for the adition of Northern Ireland in its entirety? would we really know what we were in for? The massive economic challenge, with Gardai getting hammerd with bricks & petrol bombs on the streets of the Ardoyne & all that jazz :cool:

I for one, am certainly not (currently) convinced of the UI argument.

OhNoYouDidn't

LordSutch wrote: »

, with Gardai getting hammerd with bricks & petrol bombs on the streets of the Ardoyne & all that jazz :cool:

Surely thats one in the plus column for a UI?