Any protestants in NI that feel Irish?

p.oconnor

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Don't be ridiculous. Southern independence wasn't voted on by all of the UK. Democracy in this case is not ideal because it allows the majority to repress the minority. Unionists had as much right to reject independence as nationalists had to seek it. Yes unionists were the minority in Ireland but nationalists were the minority in the UK. Both are minorities depending on how you look at it. Why would Britain turn their loyal citizens over to a hostile state?

I think hostile state is pushing it a bit, they were also Irishmen and women. Of course you are right by saying the unionists had as much right to reject independence as nationalists to seek it but you miss out on one vital piece of information, the nationalists were in a majority. Doesn't a democracy side with those in a majority?... and in this case the vast majority would have voted for full independence from the British empire on the island of Ireland.

Crooked Jack

getz wrote: »

could be far worse,what is the gain of a all ireland at this time when the result may mean you would have to leave the country to be able to feed your family,in the north the cost would be enormous,no NHS and thousands out of work in the public sector,on top of that i very much doubt that the irish state could afford or handle the violence that would certainly happen,be careful what you wish for

That's all a totally different issue. You said one year of paying for the north was equivalent to the cost of ending our economic woes. I was only pointing out how wrong that was.
Also your view of what a united ireland would look like i skewed by a basic mistake a lot of people make, they assume it would mean just sticking 6 counties onto 26. i, like most republicans, would envisage an overhaul of the whole country and the building of a totally new nation, but this is not the place for that discussion

Iwasfrozen

p.oconnor wrote: »

I think hostile state is pushing it a bit, they were also Irishmen and women. Of course you are right by saying the unionists had as much right to reject independence as nationalists to seek it but you miss out on one vital piece of information, the nationalists were in a majority. Doesn't a democracy side with those in a majority?... and in this case the vast majority would have voted for full independence from the British empire on the island of Ireland.

Of course they were hostile. The ulster covenant? The war of independence? It was obvious these two groups didn't like each other very much. And you're not looking at the full picture. Yes nationalists were the majority in Ireland but so what? Unionists were the majority in the UK. Should parliament have held a referendum on the issue throughout the UK? Isn't it undemocratic for a region to succeed without the consent of the majority? The point I'm trying to make here is that democracy doesn't work in this case so it shouldn't be used as a validation of position.

Crooked Jack wrote:

but just asking the people in the area that was specifically designed to usurp democracy is not democratic

This line could just as easily be applied to Ireland from London's view as Northern Ireland from Dublin's view.

purplepanda

Fuinseog wrote: »

Feathard on Sea. a wonderful example of sectarianism.

The priests in Fethard picked on a Church of Ireland mother & Catholic father who stood up to them.

Sheila Kelly was a descendant of John Kelly from Killane, of 1798 United Irishmen ballad fame.

Her family actually were reputedly involved in the anti treaty republican movement during the Civil War.

Only when local republican veterans starting contacting De Valera protesting about the boycott did De Valera actually force the church to back down.

Sean Cloney, husband of Sheila, help expose church clerical abuse in the '70's & early '80's by Father Fortune whilst Ferns Bishop Comiskey ignored the evidence & failed to act on the issue.

Many locals have never taken the church seriously since in the area since these events. ::rolleyes:

Crooked Jack

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Of course they were hostile. The ulster covenant? The war of independence? It was obvious these two groups didn't like each other very much. And you're not looking at the full picture. Yes nationalists were the majority in Ireland but so what? Unionists were the majority in the UK. Should parliament have held a referendum on the issue throughout the UK? Isn't it undemocratic for a region to succeed without the consent of the majority? The point I'm trying to make here is that democracy doesn't work in this case so it shouldn't be used as a validation of position.

Your argument is preposterous. Ireland was a separate nation invaded and occupied by Britain. That's like saying Germany should have had a vote on wether or not to grant freedom to Poland after they invaded.
Also on what basis are you suggesting that unionists were the majority in the "uk" given that a referendum was never held.
Ireland would not have been "seceding" it would have been repelling an invader declaring its freedom and asserting itself as a nation. Again, you wouldnt say Poland "seceded" from Germany
Your last line is particularly telling. You either have democracy or you dont, you cant cherry pick it and decide when it suits you and when it doesnt.

Crooked Jack

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

This line could just as easily be applied to Ireland from London's view as Northern Ireland from Dublin's view.

No it couldnt

Iwasfrozen

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Your argument is preposterous. Ireland was a separate nation invaded and occupied by Britain. That's like saying Germany should have had a vote on wether or not to grant freedom to Poland after they invaded.
Also on what basis are you suggesting that unionists were the majority in the "uk" given that a referendum was never held.
Ireland would not have been "seceding" it would have been repelling an invader declaring its freedom and asserting itself as a nation. Again, you wouldnt say Poland "seceded" from Germany
Your last line is particularly telling. You either have democracy or you dont, you cant cherry pick it and decide when it suits you and when it doesnt.

Of course you can. Democracy isn't this all powerful ideology that beats all others in all situations. Sometimes we have to put restrictions on democracy to protect a minority from the wishes of the majority. In this case division of the island was needed to protect the unionists right to refuse independence. Remember unionists have as must right to reject independence as nationalists have to seek it.

Your comparison to Germany and Poland is ridiculous. Germany annexed and lost Poland within one generation. There were several wars before that however and the borders of Poland have never remained consent. Just like the borders of any country. Your argument that Dublin should control all of Ireland falls flat on it's face when you compare it to Poland.

Why should our borders never shift just because we are an island? But then you say that there are a lot of Irish people in Northern Ireland. So what? There are a lot of Poles in Lithuania. There are a lot of Germans in Poland. It doesn't give those countries the right to make territorial claims!

Nationalists are very quick to chime about how the democratic right was denied them because there was no vote in the south on unionist succession. But there was no vote in the UK on Irish succession so the argument is a moot point. Not that there should have been either because as I've said at the start democracy is a horrible tool in these situations.

Crooked Jack wrote: »

No it couldnt

And yes it could. Ireland was one region of the UK. One kingdom out of three. Just as Ulster is one province out of four. If the nationalists could leave the UK the unionists could leave Ireland. And before you say it Ireland as a political entity not an island. If we went around uniting every island we'd have an Afro-Eurasian superstate.

Crooked Jack

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Of course you can. Democracy isn't this all powerful ideology that beats all others in all situations. Sometimes we have to put restrictions on democracy to protect a minority from the wishes of the majority. In this case division of the island was needed to protect the unionists right to refuse independence. Remember unionists have as must right to reject independence as nationalists have to seek it.

I never said it was, this started when I pointed out that the north is an inherently undemocratic entity.
Unionists do indeed have as much right to reject independence, they have the right to any opinion they want, what they dont have however is the right to subject the whole country to their whim and will despite being a minority.
By that logic nationalists should have the right to opt out of the north, we can have little republics of Crossmaglen, West Belfast and East Tyrone pockmarked all over the place. Your assertion is ridiculous, Ireland is, was and will be one nation and any decision affecting its future should be put to all its people. An occupying government should have no say.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Your comparison to Germany and Poland is ridiculous. Germany annexed and lost Poland within one generation. There were several wars before that however and the borders of Poland have never remained consent. Just like the borders of any country. Your argument that Dublin should control all of Ireland falls flat on it's face when you compare it to Poland.

So the length of time that you hold a country is what counts when it comes to forcing your will on them? So had germany held onto poland for a few generations they would now be entitled to vote on Poland's future. Once again your own arguments work against you. Also, i have never suggested Dublin rules Ireland, like any republican I merely ask that the people of Ireland rule Ireland.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Why should our borders never shift just because we are an island? But then you say that there are a lot of Irish people in Northern Ireland. So what? There are a lot of Poles in Lithuania. There are a lot of Germans in Poland. It doesn't give those countries the right to make territorial claims!

This just sounds like you attempting to justify Britain's occupation. hey Australia, why should your borders never shift just because your an island, Im gonna invade and take over half of it and claim that the people in my half are now somehow inherently different from the people in the other half because they're now forced to live under a different flag and if they try to complain I'm gonna whinge about how being an island doesnt give them a right to immovable borders.
Your points about lithuania and germany are once again beyond ridiculous. These are irish people seeking to decide the fate of ireland, not a foreign country

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Nationalists are very quick to chime about how the democratic right was denied them because there was no vote in the south on unionist succession. But there was no vote in the UK on Irish succession so the argument is a moot point. Not that there should have been either because as I've said at the start democracy is a horrible tool in these situations.

Yeah, bloody nationalists chiming on about the subversion of democracy.
As earlier, the "uk" is not entitled to a vote on what happens to Ireland.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

And yes it could. Ireland was one region of the UK. One kingdom out of three. Just as Ulster is one province out of four. If the nationalists could leave the UK the unionists could leave Ireland. And before you say it Ireland as a political entity not an island. If we went around uniting every island we'd have an Afro-Eurasian superstate.

THis has been answered a dozen times, again, Ireland was not some willing part of the "uk", it was/is an enforced occupation.
This is all a moot point however as I clearly stated I support the Peace Process and the current system because the alternative is worse.
I was just earleir pointing out the undemocratic nature of the north to another poster

Iwasfrozen

Crooked Jack wrote: »

I never said it was, this started when I pointed out that the north is an inherently undemocratic entity.
Unionists do indeed have as much right to reject independence, they have the right to any opinion they want, what they dont have however is the right to subject the whole country to their whim and will despite being a minority.
By that logic nationalists should have the right to opt out of the north, we can have little republics of Crossmaglen, West Belfast and East Tyrone pockmarked all over the place. Your assertion is ridiculous, Ireland is, was and will be one nation and any decision affecting its future should be put to all its people. An occupying government should have no say.

you really don't get it do you? The British are not occupying Northern Ireland. It is a part of the United Kingdom. And army cannot occupy within it's own borders. The people of Northern Ireland wish to remain part of the UK. That may change in the future but at the moment the status quo remains. As for the second half of your post, Ireland is not one nation. Ireland is either depending on your definition an island or a country. The island is bigger then the country and the country has no legal right to dominion over British territory.

Crooked Jack wrote: »

So the length of time that you hold a country is what counts when it comes to forcing your will on them? So had germany held onto poland for a few generations they would now be entitled to vote on Poland's future. Once again your own arguments work against you. Also, i have never suggested Dublin rules Ireland, like any republican I merely ask that the people of Ireland rule Ireland.

Yes actually it does. In the long term occupation stops being occupation and the cultures merge and the little country is assimilated into the big country. Had Ireland been connected to Britain this would have happened to us. What stopped it was our status as an island. Although our culture is very similar to Britain as it is so how much is debatable.

You mention Germany's annexation of Poland but had Germany won the war and Hitler's plan of a one thousand year old reich come to fruition by the end of that one thousand years all concepts of Polish identity would have been absorbed. Once you replace a countries ruling class with those loyal to unification people's ideas of their own cultural distinctiveness change.

Crooked Jack wrote: »

This just sounds like you attempting to justify Britain's occupation. hey Australia, why should your borders never shift just because your an island, Im gonna invade and take over half of it and claim that the people in my half are now somehow inherently different from the people in the other half because they're now forced to live under a different flag and if they try to complain I'm gonna whinge about how being an island doesnt give them a right to immovable borders.

lol, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secessionism_in_Western_Australia

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Yeah, bloody nationalists chiming on about the subversion of democracy.
As earlier, the "uk" is not entitled to a vote on what happens to Ireland.

I disagree. Ireland was a region in the UK. I know if Cork wanted independence I'd expect a vote.

Crooked Jack wrote: »

THis has been answered a dozen times, again, Ireland was not some willing part of the "uk", it was/is an enforced occupation.
This is all a moot point however as I clearly stated I support the Peace Process and the current system because the alternative is worse.
I was just earleir pointing out the undemocratic nature of the north to another poster

And had Northern Ireland been made to join the free state in independence they would have been an unwilling member of forced occupation. Why shouldn't the British protect their own loyal citizens? The north is not undemocratic they had as much right to self determination as the republic.

Crooked Jack

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I disagree. Ireland was a region in the UK. I know if Cork wanted independence I'd expect a vote.

Exactly. You wouldn't just carve off a wee section of Cork and ask them, much like how a wee section of Ireland was carved off and only those within it asked. Once again your own argument has proved my point.
Regarding everything else you wrote it has been rebutted already and there is absolutely no point in engaging with it seeing as you continue to just make the same (incorrect) point over and over that England's claim over Ireland is/was some sort of God-given natural right.

p.oconnor

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

you really don't get it do you? The British are not occupying Northern Ireland. It is a part of the United Kingdom.

What the hell were the British doing so before 1920's in the republic, calling over for the craic? the British government occupied the island and were ultimately forced to come to an arrangement over the 26 counties, they continue to occupy the north and use an ad hoc version of democracy to keep the peace between both sides of the divide. I'm sure if the rest of the UK were given a vote they would vote to unite the country, a better man then me once said "ireland unfree shall never be at peace".

purplepanda

Many English people see Northern Ireland as being full of Paddies like the rest of Ireland & would laugh at those that say they're not Irish! :rolleyes:

They really often can't tell the difference between the accents & certainly don't really care about the religious quarrels.

Most English also do not consider Irish as foreigners either, only continental Europeans & those further away get that designation.

I personally am quite confused when some on boards label English / British as foreigners. I thought that both countries laws allowed total freedom of movement & settlement including working rights after the 1921 Anglo Irish Treaty. In effect the same rights as Isle of Man & Channel Islands which are of course not part of the UK either?

asherbassad

davet82 wrote: »

The whole mcilroy saga got me thinking, i've heard of catholics and people with Irish surnames (so not just religion) feeling British. I remember reading a survey about a small minority of catholics who would rather stay under british rule...

is there any prodestants or people of that desent that would feel irish and would like a united ireland?

i'm just curious, i'm not looking for a debate on the politics of it just if there any people that feel that way, sort of a vice-versa of the mcilroy thing?

At the end of the day, it's all about money. A Northern Prot Unionist told me this. If you've got more pennies in your pocket being governed by gang A as opposed to gang B then you are going to go with gang A.
As for not wanting to be ruled by a Dublin government having anything to do with how you feel nationality-wise is nonsense. What if you emigrated? You would still view yourself as Irish or British even though you are ruled by a government in another country.

woodoo

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Of course you can. Democracy isn't this all powerful ideology that beats all others in all situations. Sometimes we have to put restrictions on democracy to protect a minority from the wishes of the majority. In this case division of the island was needed to protect the unionists right to refuse independence. Remember unionists have as must right to reject independence as nationalists have to seek it.

Your comparison to Germany and Poland is ridiculous. Germany annexed and lost Poland within one generation. There were several wars before that however and the borders of Poland have never remained consent. Just like the borders of any country. Your argument that Dublin should control all of Ireland falls flat on it's face when you compare it to Poland.

Why should our borders never shift just because we are an island? But then you say that there are a lot of Irish people in Northern Ireland. So what? There are a lot of Poles in Lithuania. There are a lot of Germans in Poland. It doesn't give those countries the right to make territorial claims!

Nationalists are very quick to chime about how the democratic right was denied them because there was no vote in the south on unionist succession. But there was no vote in the UK on Irish succession so the argument is a moot point. Not that there should have been either because as I've said at the start democracy is a horrible tool in these situations.


And yes it could. Ireland was one region of the UK. One kingdom out of three. Just as Ulster is one province out of four. If the nationalists could leave the UK the unionists could leave Ireland. And before you say it Ireland as a political entity not an island. If we went around uniting every island we'd have an Afro-Eurasian superstate.

Ireland was viewed as one country within the union just like England Scotland and Wales. Are you saying that if Scotland decided to leave the union then the unionist people in western Scotland should have the right to split Scotland. What if the people of Tyrone and Derry wanted to leave NI do you think they should be allowed do it? Or do you view NI as one voting block i.e a Country..just like Ireland was within the union (before the gerrymandering).

JaffaCakes.

Why should rural Protestants in Ulster be ruled from Dublin if they do not wish for that to happen? What you are doing is forcing a distinct people into a country they don't want to be part of it. I imagine they would prefer to just live the normal traditional and rural way of life they have in the upper Ulster counties.

Leave them be, they just want to be left alone.

JaffaCakes.

THis has been answered a dozen times, again, Ireland was not some willing part of the "uk", it was/is an enforced occupation.

And you would be willing to throw hundreds of thousands of Protestants in Ulster under occupation from a Catholic controlled state and denying them the right to self determination to run themselves.

woodoo

JaffaCakes. wrote: »

Leave them be, they just want to be left alone.

So do we keith

pragmatic1

I don't know why you would find that strange.

Seaneh

JaffaCakes. wrote: »

And you would be willing to throw hundreds of thousands of Protestants in Ulster under occupation from a Catholic controlled state and denying them the right to self determination to run themselves.

what a **** argument.

There are only hundrerds of thousands of Protestant Scots-Irish in the north because of plantation.


Surely we (the south) would have just as much right to send 400,000 Irish men and women north of the border to live for any length of time and then demand a vote by your logic?


We could have a reverse plantation.

Seanchai

JaffaCakes. wrote: »

And you would be willing to throw hundreds of thousands of native Irish nationalists in the Occupied Six Counties of Ireland under occupation from a British settler-colonial Protestant controlled state and denying them the right to self determination to run themselves.

Fyp, horse.

Seaneh

JaffaCakes. wrote: »

And you would be willing to throw hundreds of thousands of Protestants in Ulster under occupation from a Catholic controlled state and denying them the right to self determination to run themselves.

There is not Catholic controled state on this island and claim there is show you up for the idiot you are.


The issue isn't religion and never ****ing has been.

It's gorgraphical and ethnic and always will be.


a government foreign to this island controls 1/5th of this island and as long as it does, against the wishes of the majority of people on this island, it won't ever be accepted.

Seanchai

Heroditas wrote: »

I know plenty of Northerners who are Protestants but feel very much "Irish".
They just don't want to be part of a country run from Dublin.
As one of them once told me: "I'm Irish, but I'm also British"

This is a nice "sentiment of our times" which is sincerely held by unionists. However, for honesty's sake it should be noted that "Irishness" in that context is very much a colonial conception of Irishness: Irishness is a provincial identity of the British (ie English) metropolis. It is Englishness with an (acceptable) "Oirish" veneer. If "Irish" were Irish-Ireland they would universally reject it.

Toshchiy Imperatritsy Vselennoy

Who cares.....so long as that partition stays up...let them feel French if they feel like it.


I want the Rep to remain 26 counties ....

We are Irish they are not.....simple...

Do they feel a part of our people?


Do they look on us kindly or as kin?

No pretty much the better unionists just want to be lef alone and are inndifferent to us the worst hate us.

And really the Nationalists don't give a rats about us either and some of them hate us too.

The rest just don't care and are as sick of it as us.

As for Rory Mc Ilroy

He not patriotic to anyone...he does no care about being British or Irish he just serves his own interests and wants to further his career and will do what he must.

If he cared about being British he would come out straight and say..I am a proud British person or a proud Irish person...

He cares so much he cant make up his mind.


He simply does not want to piss off fans....

Toshchiy Imperatritsy Vselennoy

p.oconnor wrote: »

I'm sure Ian Paisley was once asked during an interview if he considered himself Irish, in no uncertain terms he snapped back saying he was a British man and that's all.

He sys he is Ulster Scots and British....and yes he does not like to be refered to as anything else..

He has stated so in many interviews...i saw one once

DEFTLEFTHAND

Can't we all be just good Europeans united under our continental connection.:pac:

Really though why complicate it further, of course you can be from the north and identify as being Irish (in the southern sense) likewise you can consider yourself British. The thing I don't get is the Ulster Scots argument. Even Ian Paisley conceded that to be an Ulsterman one must also be be an Irishman.

Toshchiy Imperatritsy Vselennoy

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Exactly. You wouldn't just carve off a wee section of Cork and ask them, much like how a wee section of Ireland was carved off and only those within it asked. Once again your own argument has proved my point.
Regarding everything else you wrote it has been rebutted already and there is absolutely no point in engaging with it seeing as you continue to just make the same (incorrect) point over and over that England's claim over Ireland is/was some sort of God-given natural right.

The majority of people in the REP don't want a United Ireland ...the majority of people in the North want it


In recent polls only 7% of people in the North would want it.


More and more cathlics prefer to remain in the UK

It is a democratic mandate. THEY WANT IT THIS WAY THE MAJORITY OF BOTH COMMUNITIES WANT IT THIS WAY AND IN THE REP TOO.

THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO MIGHT NOT WANT IT ARE THE ENGLISH.

But certinly most in the Rep do NOT want it and it would be highly dangerous....it has really gotten worse

Toshchiy Imperatritsy Vselennoy

Crooked Jack wrote: »

But it's not democratic. Asking the people of Ireland, all the people of Ireland, would be democratic. Or even asking all the people of Britain and Ireland, while not ideal, would be closer to democracy. but just asking the people in the area that was specifically designed to usurp democracy is not democratic.
The north's very existence as a separate entity is an affront to democracy.
Now I'm realistic, so for the sake of the people of Ireland and the peace of the country I support the Peace Process and put up with this but do not try and pass of the farce we have here as democracy

ALL THE PEOPLE OF IRELAND WOULD WANT THE PARTITION

IN EVERY POOL BOT NORTH AND SOUTH IN RECENT YEARS THIS IS THE CASE.

Us southies are happy with the image of the 26 counties ....and i dont even like Northern Ireland being referred to as Ireland bad for our image

No keep the partition...they can remain in the UK

p.oconnor

JaffaCakes. wrote: »

Why should rural Protestants in Ulster be ruled from Dublin if they do not wish for that to happen? What you are doing is forcing a distinct people into a country they don't want to be part of it. I imagine they would prefer to just live the normal traditional and rural way of life they have in the upper Ulster counties.

Leave them be, they just want to be left alone.

You see your argument doesn't make sense on so many levels, you can turn it around the other way too, why should the republicans in the north be ruled from London as to the wishes of a tiny minority on this Island? Why could'nt they live the normal traditional rural way of life like thousands of others down south if they were governed from Dublin?

Its not like we would go up and throw them off the land and change their way of life completely, they are still Irish men, woman and children only from a different tradition.

p.oconnor

Toshchiy Imperatritsy Vselennoy wrote: »

Us southies are happy with the image of the 26 counties ....and i dont even like Northern Ireland being referred to as Ireland bad for our image

No keep the partition...they can remain in the UK

.... What are you on about? they are still Irish, why the hell would you not like them being referred to as Ireland?

Toshchiy Imperatritsy Vselennoy

p.oconnor wrote: »

You see your argument doesn't make sense on so many levels, you can turn it around the other way too, why should the republicans in the north be ruled from London as to the wishes of a tiny minority on this Island? Why could'nt they live the normal traditional rural way of life like thousands of others down south if they were governed from Dublin?

Its not like we would go up and throw them off the land and change their way of life completely, they are still Irish men, woman and children only from a different tradition.

They want to be....in every poll...nationalists prefer it ..really they don't like dublin...really


Truly they want to be a part of the UK

And they are ruled from stormont ....with consent from Westminster

To be honest you are fighting a lost cause

The majority of this Island wants northern Ireland to remain a part of the UK.


Northern Irish nationalists want it too as a majority.

The partition suits the Rep and is best for us leave it LEAVE US ALONE IN DUBLIN!:-)

p.oconnor

Toshchiy Imperatritsy Vselennoy wrote: »

The majority of this Island wants northern Ireland to remain a part of the UK.

Source? ... never have I ever seen one poll to suggest what you say is right.

Toshchiy Imperatritsy Vselennoy

p.oconnor wrote: »

You see your argument doesn't make sense on so many levels, you can turn it around the other way too, why should the republicans in the north be ruled from London as to the wishes of a tiny minority on this Island? Why could'nt they live the normal traditional rural way of life like thousands of others down south if they were governed from Dublin?

Its not like we would go up and throw them off the land and change their way of life completely, they are still Irish men, woman and children only from a different tradition.

ERM the vast majority of BOTH communities WANT to be ruled from LONDON in the North.

The VAST majority of people in the republic WANT the north to be apart of the uk .


We in the south and only in the south want the 26 counties and only the 26 counties to be independant and ruled by Dublin...or probably the Federal EU in the next few years ...

And yes we fought the British so we could be ruled by the EU ..thats EXACTLY why we fought them so we could escape their euroscepticism and embrace the EU OK :-)

Toshchiy Imperatritsy Vselennoy

p.oconnor wrote: »

Source? ... never have I ever seen one poll to suggest what you say is right.

Your mind shall be Blown....http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/northern-ireland/border-poll-just-7-of-voters-would-say-yes-to-irish-unification-tomorrow-16170779.html

p.oconnor

Toshchiy Imperatritsy Vselennoy wrote: »

ERM the vast majority of BOTH communities WANT to be ruled from LONDON in the North.

The VAST majority of people in the republic WANT the north to be apart of the uk .


We in the south and only in the south want the 26 counties and only the 26 counties to be independant and ruled by Dublin...or probably the Federal EU in the next few years ...

And yes we fought the British so we could be ruled by the EU ..thats EXACTLY why we fought them so we could escape their euroscepticism and embrace the EU OK :-)

Come back to me when you have a source.... think I might be waiting a while.

woodoo

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

The thing I don't get is the Ulster Scots argument. Even Ian Paisley conceded that to be an Ulsterman one must also be be an Irishman.

I think the ulster scot thing is ridiculous. What next, munster scots, or leinster welsh, connaught english. These provinces are all part of Ireland. Irish provinces. They can't escape Irishness. Irish & British or British & Irish. Irish, Northern Irish there is Irish in all people of this island.

p.oconnor

Toshchiy Imperatritsy Vselennoy wrote: »

Your mind shall be Blown....http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/northern-ireland/border-poll-just-7-of-voters-would-say-yes-to-irish-unification-tomorrow-16170779.html

That was a poll taken of people in the North, not on an-Ireland basis. We have already referred to it a while back.

darlett

Toshchiy Imperatritsy Vselennoy wrote: »

They want to be....in every poll...nationalists prefer it ..really they don't like dublin...really

Go home to Poland if its so important to you ya

Toshchiy Imperatritsy Vselennoy

p.oconnor wrote: »

Source? ... never have I ever seen one poll to suggest what you say is right.

Your mind shall be Blown....http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/northern-ireland/border-poll-just-7-of-voters-would-say-yes-to-irish-unification-tomorrow-16170779.html



Also this

http://www.thejournal.ie/poll-should-there-be-a-united-ireland-157741-Jun2011/

73 % say not to a united Ireland under current circumstances

p.oconnor

Toshchiy Imperatritsy Vselennoy wrote: »

Also this

http://www.thejournal.ie/poll-should-there-be-a-united-ireland-157741-Jun2011/

73 % say not to a united Ireland under current circumstances

...... read the first line of the bloody thing "A NEW POLL has shown that a clear majority of people in Northern Ireland want the province to remain part of the United Kingdom."

... can I make it any clearer, just admit you made a mistake and move on man.

Chuck Stone

getz wrote: »

the british goverment bailed out ireland with a £6bn loan

The British government protected its investments. If many people had their way they wouldn't be getting a ****ing penny back.

More accurately, the BG protected the speculation of those who had gambled on the 'Irish miracle' and didn't want to suffer a loss.

'Loan' my hole.

Seanchai

Toshchiy Imperatritsy Vselennoy wrote: »

Crooked Jack wrote: »

The majority of people in the REP don't want a United Ireland

Hmmm. And your evidence for this is what, precisely?

Toshchiy Imperatritsy Vselennoy

darlett wrote: »

Go home to Poland if its so important to you ya

I am Irish.

It is Russian. You fail on so many levels.

I speak Russian, German and French.

Вы расистских невежественным дураком.

Sie sind ein Rassist unwissenden Narren.

Vous êtes un raciste ignorant.


Interesno zametitʹ, chto sektantskaya neterpimostʹ sushchestvuyet po etu storonu granitsy tozhe.

p.oconnor

Seanchai wrote: »

Hmmm. And your evidence for this is what, precisely?

+1 ... In 2006 a poll for the Sunday Business Post found 80% wanting a united ireland in the republic....

p.oconnor

Toshchiy Imperatritsy Vselennoy wrote: »

I am Irish.

It is Russian. You fail on so many levels.

I speak Russian, German and French.

Вы расистских невежественным дураком.

Sie sind ein Rassist unwissenden Narren.

Vous êtes un raciste ignorant.


Interesno zametitʹ, chto sektantskaya neterpimostʹ sushchestvuyet po etu storonu granitsy tozhe.

You are after going quiet .... any more sources to back up your claim?

marienbad

p.oconnor wrote: »

+1 ... In 2006 a poll for the Sunday Business Post found 80% wanting a united ireland in the republic....

2006 is not 2012- I doubt very much is you would even get near 50% now.

Toshchiy Imperatritsy Vselennoy

p.oconnor wrote: »

...... read the first line of the bloody thing "A NEW POLL has shown that a clear majority of people in Northern Ireland want the province to remain part of the United Kingdom."

... can I make it any clearer, just admit you made a mistake and move on man.

You admit the majority of people in the north do not want a united Ireland..good stay with me ...

Your mind equals blown again
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/almost-half-of-us-would-reject-united-ireland-poll-472479.html

ok only 55% of people in the south would vote for a united Ireland in a latest poll....

This marginal majority is if you count the island as a whole ....outweighed by the NO TO A UNITED IRELAND vote when you count the whole island....

So the majority of the people on this island as a whole do NOT want a united Ireland...

The majority of people on the Northern side do not want it.

Only 55 % said they would be open to it....in THE REPUBLIC

And 45 % said no

I admit this is just after a terrible summer in the north...

But it proves the majority on the island (which is what you apparantly want)would vote NO .

p.oconnor

marienbad wrote: »

2006 is not 2012- I doubt very much is you would even get near 50% now.

Granted, it might have fell but are you really saying the majority of people in the south would vote to prevent the unification of this country.

p.oconnor

Toshchiy Imperatritsy Vselennoy wrote: »

You admit the majority of people in the north do not want a united Ireland..good stay with me ...

Your mind equals blown again
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/almost-half-of-us-would-reject-united-ireland-poll-472479.html

ok only 55% of people in the south would vote for a united Ireland in a latest poll....

This marginal majority is if you count the island as a whole ....outweighed by the NO TO A UNITED IRELAND vote when you count the whole island....

So the majority of the people on this island as a whole do NOT want a united Ireland...

The majority of people on the Northern side do not want it.

Only 55 % said they would be open to it....in THE REPUBLIC

And 45 % said no

I admit this is just after a terrible summer in the north...

But it proves the majority on the island (which is what you apparantly want)would vote NO .

I will agree to differ, that poll could be skewed in a number of different ways, there seems to be no % error in that poll and it does not tell us the number sampled.

Toshchiy Imperatritsy Vselennoy

p.oconnor wrote: »

+1 ... In 2006 a poll for the Sunday Business Post found 80% wanting a united ireland in the republic....

My poll would seem to contradict this

This is a poll from 2010 that shows similar 55% -45% split...

And that would be outweighed by the no vote majority in the North...

http://sluggerotoole.com/2010/02/20/leinster-says-no/

That is a separate poll by a private company....

And the majority of DUblin people said no there was a 53 % no in Dublin

marienbad

p.oconnor wrote: »

Granted, it might have fell but are you really saying the majority of people in the south would vote to prevent the unification of this country.

For certain they would vote against , probably under the guise that the economic climate makes the timing wrong to ease few if any misgivings . And even more certain with younger voters - Just my opinion .