Republic and Northern Ireland will eventually be reunited, predicts Enda Kenny

bilston

junder wrote: »

Irish is not my identity, it's yours. My identity is British.

Why do you not see yourself as Irish? I'm a Unionist and see myself as British but I'm very proud to be Irish as well. Do Scottish Unionists not see themselves as Scottish? Do Welsh Unionists not see themselves as Welsh? Of course they do. What is Irish anyway? A hardline Unionist from Ballymena has every right to call themselves Irish in the same as someone from Killarney can.

Do you think Edward Carson saw himself as Irish? I would imagine he did.

bilston

Royal Legend wrote: »

You live in Northern Ireland, not Great Britain, so you cannot be British, you are living a lie

Yes he can be British. I imagine his passport will prove this.

junder

bilston wrote: »

Why do you not see yourself as Irish? I'm a Unionist and see myself as British but I'm very proud to be Irish as well. Do Scottish Unionists not see themselves as Scottish? Do Welsh Unionists not see themselves as Welsh? Of course they do. What is Irish anyway? A hardline Unionist from Ballymena has every right to call themselves Irish in the same as someone from Killarney can.

Do you think Edward Carson saw himself as Irish? I would imagine he did.

How you identity yourself is entirely your buisness. You are correct in that a hardcore ballymena unionist has every right to call himself Irish, he also has the right to define himself as not irish.

junder

bilston wrote: »

Yes he can be British. I imagine his passport will prove this.

Indeed it does

Brian 0f 1reland

That'll never happen. anyways Kenny shouldnt you be trying to stop td's robbing us blind?

riffmongous

Royal Legend wrote: »

You live in Northern Ireland, not Great Britain, so you cannot be British, you are living a lie

But if he's got a British culture and absolutely nothing to do with anything 'Irish' other than living on an island called Ireland how can he be Irish?

An Coilean

riffmongous wrote: »

But if he's got a British culture and absolutely nothing to do with anything 'Irish' other than living on an island called Ireland how can he be Irish?

If he is living on the Island of Ireland, interacting with Irish people and culture every day, how can he have absolutely nothing to do with anything Irish?

riffmongous

An Coilean wrote: »

If he is living on the Island of Ireland, interacting with Irish people and culture every day, how can he have absolutely nothing to do with anything Irish?

I live in Austria, interact with Austrian people and culture everyday, yet calling myself Austrian would be worse than a joke, it would be insulting to people who identify as austrians. And in Junkers case its debatable how much he interacts with 'Irish' people, I'm sure he spends most of his time with other self identifying British people, and only interacting with Irish culture in a negative way, I dont see how qualifies him as Irish.

junder

riffmongous wrote: »

I live in Austria, interact with Austrian people and culture everyday, yet calling myself Austrian would be worse than a joke, it would be insulting to people who identify as austrians. And in Junkers case its debatable how much he interacts with 'Irish' people, I'm sure he spends most of his time with other self identifying British people, and only interacting with Irish culture in a negative way, I dont see how qualifies him as Irish.

I interect with people who indentify themselves as Irish everyday, even have friends who would identify themselves as Irish, but I fail to see what bearing that would have on what nationality i identify with.

riffmongous

junder wrote: »

I interect with people who indentify themselves as Irish everyday, even have friends who would identify themselves as Irish, but I fail to see what bearing that would have on what nationality i identify with.

Apologies so, and the 2nd part was indeed my original point.

An Coilean

riffmongous wrote: »

I live in Austria, interact with Austrian people and culture everyday, yet calling myself Austrian would be worse than a joke, it would be insulting to people who identify as austrians. And in Junkers case its debatable how much he interacts with 'Irish' people, I'm sure he spends most of his time with other self identifying British people, and only interacting with Irish culture in a negative way, I dont see how qualifies him as Irish.

I think you will find that I was not saying that interacting with Irish people makes him Irish, my point was that your suggestion that it is possible to live on the Island of Ireland and yet still have absolutly nothing to do with anything Irish is nonsense.

woodoo

junder wrote: »

How you identity yourself is entirely your buisness. You are correct in that a hardcore ballymena unionist has every right to call himself Irish, he also has the right to define himself as not irish.

Yes but its a bit silly.

woodoo

An Coilean wrote: »

I think you will find that I was not saying that interacting with Irish people makes him Irish, my point was that your suggestion that it is possible to live on the Island of Ireland and yet still have absolutely nothing to do with anything Irish is nonsense.

When he calls himself british there is something missing what is that? The scots are scots and british, welsh are welsh and british english are english and british. Junder is Northern Irish and British. He can't escape the irish tag.

junder

woodoo wrote: »

Yes but its a bit silly.

Why? Because you say so

Chuck Stone

Jesus lads, in fairness, if a person wants to identify himself as British then that's his prerogative.

Some Unionists consider themselves Irish.

Some Unionists consider themselves Irish and British (just like how a Scotsman or Welshman might).

Some Unionists consider themselves British and British only.

A person should have the freedom to consider himself Klingon if he wants.

Does my UK birth certificate make me less Irish than a person with an Irish one?

No.

woodoo

junder wrote: »

Why? Because you say so

Because nobody outside ireland gets it. To them you are irish. Its a step too far to deny any irishness when you and your people have been here for hundreds of years. I'm not denying you are british, i accept that but you are also irish.

junder

woodoo wrote: »

Because nobody outside ireland gets it. To them you are irish. Its a step too far to deny any irishness when you and your people have been here for hundreds of years. I'm not denying you are british, i accept that but you are also irish.

My identity is not based on what people outside Northern Ireland or this island in general, get or don't get. Indeed to many outside this island 'irishness' means drinking and drunkerness, fighting and being stupied, a national stereotype even your own national airline promoted selling as it did 'Irish socks' on its aeroplanes, socks that had left written on both socks, but sure it's just a bit of craic, even in its less comical stereotype, irishness is fiddley dee music, gaa and 'top of the morning to you' even your rugby team that's supposed to encompass both traditions, plays under a tricolour. So you tell me where a member of a flute band, member of the loyal orders and a member of the British army fits into that 'Irish' identity. And let's not forget the republican movement, that warped and twisted the irishness identity into something that no unionist would ever want to be part. Not often I agree with chuck but he has hit the nail on the head, having a uk birth certificate does not make even less Irish and being born in Northern Ireland does not make me less british

Thomas_I

junder wrote: »

My identity is not based on what people outside Northern Ireland or this island in general, get or don't get.

Indeed to many outside this island 'irishness' means drinking and drunkerness, fighting and being stupied, a national stereotype ... And let's not forget the republican movement, that warped and twisted the irishness identity into something that no unionist would ever want to be part. ... having a uk birth certificate does not make even less Irish and being born in Northern Ireland does not make me less british

I see, your "Anti-Irishness" is based on these stereotypes (apart from your political attitude I suppose). Just for a change, have you ever considered how the British (and most people outside the UK see British simply as English) are seen on an international basis? There you could have the similar stereotypes which you´re referring to the Irish. Just to add another one as beeing "Warmongers, Imperialists, Racists, Colonialists etc." aside from their image to be a lot of drunkers. Well, you might find these kind of people among other Nations as well, but it doesn´t gives you a real picture of the people concerned. It only provides a twisted one and I personally refuse to follow such stereotypes.

There is a difference between the Republic of Ireland and NI, seen by outsiders. As far as someone, not involved into the troubles and with less knowledge of their background could assume that the more sane people are living in the Republic of Ireland and the troublemakers are all concentrated in NI. So what argument would you bring in to convince such a person that he´s has got the wrong picture about NI?

From the start of the Republican Movement in the late 19th Century through their struggle for Irelands independence, they didn´t make a difference between religious confessions (it´s clear stated in the Proclamation of the Irish Republic 1916 and also in the Constitution of the Republic of Ireland). But these people were of different characters as these of the PIRA whose claim to fight in tradition of the old IRA would be better to be considered more differently. The Republican Movement didn´t create that picture of Irishness you´re referring to, they´d taken up and occupied the traditions and customs, maintained and preserved by the Irish people in spite of the eagerness of the ruling English class to root them out. This is no "republican propaganda" this is simply what many historians proved regarding the history of the Anglo-Irish-Relationship.

If you´re always telling people that you are British, it sounds as well as from the British citicens who have no English, Scottish or Welsh ancestors. Just to refer to Great Britain. I´ve on some occassions asked English people on the BBC Message Boards what and whom they consider as being English or an Englishman. I didn´t got any proper answer because over there, some people are hesitating to debate that topic for fear as being branded as "racist" or "playing the racist card". There are also people there who are very proud of their "Englishness" and don´t give such high regards towards "Britishness".
What I like to tell you by these examples is, that some English people in the UK got a crisis of their national identity and felt oppressed by the "political correctness" in the UK for avoiding any offence towards British Citizens without English ancestory. I don´t see that all as rediculous it might appear because it is a matter of personal identity.

Aside from British Citizens without English, Scottish, Welch or Irish ancestory, some of the Unionists in NI are the only people I know who hold Britishness in that high regards and identify themselves in a way as you do. That means that in some way, you´re considering yourself as being a foreigner in your onw country because NI is part of the UK politically, but geographically part of the Island of Ireland. What are you going to do if the UK is going into history by desolving itself? You can say that this will never happen, but I´m not so sure about whether Westminster wouldn´t had the guts to get rid of the NI-Problem once and for all when they are on their own and the Welsh migth follow the Scottish example.

Those who created the United Kingdom of Great Britain were the English in "cooperation" with an bankrupt Kingdom of Scotland that joined that Union with England because of that. It was maintained and dominated by the English and the support of the Scottish. Without these two countries in a Union, there would be no UK and sooner or later, NI would be left to its own if England couldn´t afford to keep NI in whatever the remaining parts of the UK would call themselves. If this would be over, what is left of the term "British"? Well you might in the end refer to your ancestors from Scotland or England in case you´d still refuse any link of your personaltiy to Ireland and Irishness.

junder

Thomas_I wrote: »

I see, your "Anti-Irishness" is based on these stereotypes (apart from your political attitude I suppose). Just for a change, have you ever considered how the British (and most people outside the UK see British simply as English) are seen on an international basis? There you could have the similar stereotypes which you´re referring to the Irish. Just to add another one as beeing "Warmongers, Imperialists, Racists, Colonialists etc." aside from their image to be a lot of drunkers. Well, you might find these kind of people among other Nations as well, but it doesn´t gives you a real picture of the people concerned. It only provides a twisted one and I personally refuse to follow such stereotypes.

There is a difference between the Republic of Ireland and NI, seen by outsiders. As far as someone, not involved into the troubles and with less knowledge of their background could assume that the more sane people are living in the Republic of Ireland and the troublemakers are all concentrated in NI. So what argument would you bring in to convince such a person that he´s has got the wrong picture about NI?

From the start of the Republican Movement in the late 19th Century through their struggle for Irelands independence, they didn´t make a difference between religious confessions (it´s clear stated in the Proclamation of the Irish Republic 1916 and also in the Constitution of the Republic of Ireland). But these people were of different characters as these of the PIRA whose claim to fight in tradition of the old IRA would be better to be considered more differently. The Republican Movement didn´t create that picture of Irishness you´re referring to, they´d taken up and occupied the traditions and customs, maintained and preserved by the Irish people in spite of the eagerness of the ruling English class to root them out. This is no "republican propaganda" this is simply what many historians proved regarding the history of the Anglo-Irish-Relationship.

If you´re always telling people that you are British, it sounds as well as from the British citicens who have no English, Scottish or Welsh ancestors. Just to refer to Great Britain. I´ve on some occassions asked English people on the BBC Message Boards what and whom they consider as being English or an Englishman. I didn´t got any proper answer because over there, some people are hesitating to debate that topic for fear as being branded as "racist" or "playing the racist card". There are also people there who are very proud of their "Englishness" and don´t give such high regards towards "Britishness".
What I like to tell you by these examples is, that some English people in the UK got a crisis of their national identity and felt oppressed by the "political correctness" in the UK for avoiding any offence towards British Citizens without English ancestory. I don´t see that all as rediculous it might appear because it is a matter of personal identity.

Aside from British Citizens without English, Scottish, Welch or Irish ancestory, some of the Unionists in NI are the only people I know who hold Britishness in that high regards and identify themselves in a way as you do. That means that in some way, you´re considering yourself as being a foreigner in your onw country because NI is part of the UK politically, but geographically part of the Island of Ireland. What are you going to do if the UK is going into history by desolving itself? You can say that this will never happen, but I´m not so sure about whether Westminster wouldn´t had the guts to get rid of the NI-Problem once and for all when they are on their own and the Welsh migth follow the Scottish example.

Those who created the United Kingdom of Great Britain were the English in "cooperation" with an bankrupt Kingdom of Scotland that joined that Union with England because of that. It was maintained and dominated by the English and the support of the Scottish. Without these two countries in a Union, there would be no UK and sooner or later, NI would be left to its own if England couldn´t afford to keep NI in whatever the remaining parts of the UK would call themselves. If this would be over, what is left of the term "British"? Well you might in the end refer to your ancestors from Scotland or England in case you´d still refuse any link of your personaltiy to Ireland and Irishness.

So we are all Irish then so tell me why republicans murdered an Irishman last week, tell me why republicans spent 30years murdering Irishmen and blowing the heart out of Irish city's. if my culture of flute bands and loyal orders is now Irish why can't irish Orangemen living in dublin parade through thier own capital city?
Funny how you demand that Ifa majorty voted for a united ireland we unionists should accept it and yet you and many other Irish can not accept one mans right to to define his cultural and national identity as he believes.

golden lane

junder wrote: »

So we are all Irish then so tell me why republicans murdered an Irishman last week, tell me why republicans spent 30years murdering Irishmen and blowing the heart out of Irish city's. if my culture of flute bands and loyal orders is now Irish why can't irish Orangemen living in dublin parade through thier own capital city?
Funny how you demand that Ifa majorty voted for a united ireland we unionists should accept it and yet you and many other Irish can not accept one mans right to to define his cultural and national identity as he believes.

identify yourself as you feel you are..........

i have lived in the uk for over fifty years......i am irish, nobody will deny me that...

what the outside world feels is their problem......and billions of them, couldn't give a hoot.....

junder

golden lane wrote: »

identify yourself as you feel you are..........

i have lived in the uk for over fifty years......i am irish, nobody will deny me that...

what the outside world feels is their problem......and billions of them, couldn't give a hoot.....

My point exactly

woodoo

junder wrote: »

My point exactly

Nobody is refusing your right to be british but coming from the island of ireland and your people being here hundreds of years you can't totally wash your hands of irishness. You may not be gaelic irish but you are irish nonetheless. A 2nd or 3rd generation italian or african can be irish too it doesn't mean they have to identify with GAA, skid-le-i music or shamrocks. Thats just my opinion you don't have to accept my opinion clearly.

Royal Legend

riffmongous wrote: »

I live in Austria, interact with Austrian people and culture everyday, yet calling myself Austrian would be worse than a joke, it would be insulting to people who identify as austrians. And in Junkers case its debatable how much he interacts with 'Irish' people, I'm sure he spends most of his time with other self identifying British people, and only interacting with Irish culture in a negative way, I dont see how qualifies him as Irish.

The difference is that I take it for granted that you were not born in Austria, whereas Junker was born on the island of Ireland.

Iwasfrozen

woodoo wrote: »

Nobody is refusing your right to be british but coming from the island of ireland and your people being here hundreds of years you can't totally wash your hands of irishness. You may not be gaelic irish but you are irish nonetheless. A 2nd or 3rd generation italian or african can be irish too it doesn't mean they have to identify with GAA, skid-le-i music or shamrocks. Thats just my opinion you don't have to accept my opinion clearly.

But how do you define irishness? Politically, culturally, or genetically? Unionists are none of the above. The only way you could identify an ulster unionist as irish is geographically, which as the existence of national borders shows us, unfortunately means very little.

getz

woodoo wrote: »

Nobody is refusing your right to be british but coming from the island of ireland and your people being here hundreds of years you can't totally wash your hands of irishness. You may not be gaelic irish but you are irish nonetheless. A 2nd or 3rd generation italian or african can be irish too it doesn't mean they have to identify with GAA, skid-le-i music or shamrocks. Thats just my opinion you don't have to accept my opinion clearly.

why are you getting so upset that some people who live in the north of the island do not want to call themselves irish ?, being irish in the EU is not the most popular thing at this time.

Thomas_I

junder wrote: »

So we are all Irish then so tell me why republicans murdered an Irishman last week, tell me why republicans spent 30years murdering Irishmen and blowing the heart out of Irish city's. if my culture of flute bands and loyal orders is now Irish why can't irish Orangemen living in dublin parade through thier own capital city?
Funny how you demand that Ifa majorty voted for a united ireland we unionists should accept it and yet you and many other Irish can not accept one mans right to to define his cultural and national identity as he believes.

In the long history of Ireland you can find plenty examples for bloodshed among the Irish people themselves. Just the circumstances that caused these were different and changed through the times. In this regard, concerning the past century, I´m with the Taoseach referring to what he said regarding the IRA. It wasn´t without reason that in the 1930s the IRA was banned by law in the Irish Free State. If you´d try to get a look into the history of the IRA with the focus on the time from the Easter Rising 1916 till the end of the Irish civil war in 1923, you´d see that there are parallels regarding the methods they used then and what people, a couple of generations afterwards took up from these patterns. In the light of this what once had been used as warfare tactics against British rule in Ireland and its administration, including Informers who worked for them, has given these later generations the patterns for their terrorism. I see these periods in a very different light and it´s only in regard towards the Irish war for independence that these patterns, which also included measures which one would simply brand as criminal acts, could be justified for the cause of Irish Freedom.

The IRA isn´t Ireland, but they and their policital party Sinn Fein managed it that in these times of struggle for Irish Freedom, they showed themselves to the public that they were the only effective political and military power to end British rule in Ireland. But one should take a look on the political grass roots of them in their early times. I´ll stop here to keep this message shorter because it´d lead us too far from the topic itself.

I´m not demanding anything in case a majority in Ireland would vote for the unification of NI with the Republic of Ireland. These demands would come from the political circumstances, just simply as that. As for the Orangemen and their parades, they´re in my opinion the same hardliners as the Republicans, but I can´t understand why it has been necessary to provoke them by marching through Catholic areas in some well known places in NI. You can´t tell me that there hasn´t been any intention by the Orangemen to offend Republicans. Every year the same for decades and yet you´re suggesting that they should do it in Dublin as well. I think that the poem, some other member on these boards posted on that thread is the appropriate answer to this suggestion (he was referring to NI and the Battle of the Boyne).

You´re talking of ones cultural and national identity as he believes. What is Britishness in these regards anyway, if not also a stereotype that summed up traditions and customs from the various parts of the UK? Is that enough to take it as an national identity whereas in other parts of the UK, those with English, Scottish or Welsh ancestry define themselves as Englishmen, Scottish or Welsh in the first place and British only in referring to their citizenship?

Maybe it´s time that the definitions of cultural and national identities needs to be reconsidered and in regards of the global era to include people who have none of the above said ancestry. Even culture isn´t a static thing, it´s living by and through the people and it is them who create it and maintain it so that it can be extended also by influence from other cultures, as history shows in many periods at various places.

I´ve trubbled myself to read the Ulster Convenant of Loyalty from 1913 to get an insight to the Unionists political outset. It wasn´t that uninteresting, but it is next year 100 years old and it doesn´t fit into the present times, because the Ireland which is discribed there, has changed and so the fears and worries stated in that paper are outdated. I can understand their loyalty towards the crown, but I also think that in an united Ireland, Unionists surely would have the possibility of an option between remaining an British or becoming an Irish citizen or maybe both.

By the way, in some documentary one Englishman described the Stormont Parliament from its very beginning onwards as dictatorship. I think that he was right and that man knew what he was talking about. So much for the Unionists in NI and their handling of democracy which hasn´t been there and was simply a ruling on colonial style at its worst. Otherwise, if it were not, you could tell me the reason for refusing the Catholic or say the Irish people in NI civil and equal rights? I searched for it, but I couldn´t find another explanation as I said before. The British government is also responsible for their actions during the troubles in NI. They saw it only as an struggle against terror from the IRA, but didn´t give any effort on the issue of civil rights for all people in NI. They know that very well and when I think about the speech of HM Queen Elizabeth II last year in Dublin, when she said that some things better hadn´t been done, it was something of an unspoken admittance which one could include the failures of British policy towards NI in the 1970s to the 1990s, but this is a matter of interpretation and I won´t go too far in this.

Thomas_I

getz wrote: »

why are you getting so upset that some people who live in the north of the island do not want to call themselves irish ?, being irish in the EU is not the most popular thing at this time.

I´d rather say that being Greek in the EU is not the most popular thing at this time. There isn´t anything against the Irish within the EU. On the contrary they are seen as doing very well.:)

getz

Thomas_I wrote: »

I´d rather say that being Greek in the EU is not the most popular thing at this time. There isn´t anything against the Irish within the EU. On the contrary they are seen as doing very well.:)

i dont know about ireland doing well,over 40,000 irish people are having to leave the country each year because there is no work,yet in the north the population has remained the same ,with very little movement,so give one good reason why they join a country that they would have to leave at the end of the day so they could feed their family,

Thomas_I

getz wrote: »

i dont know about ireland doing well,over 40,000 irish people are having to leave the country each year because there is no work,yet in the north the population has remained the same ,with very little movement,so give one good reason why they join a country that they would have to leave at the end of the day so they could feed their family,

Well, this was said just in regard of the financial crisis and how the Irish government is dealing with it. No link to unemployment. Concerning that, why don´t you ask these companies who moved their production from European countries to Asia where labour is cheaper? How many of them are Irish?

Crooked Jack

getz wrote: »

i dont know about ireland doing well,over 40,000 irish people are having to leave the country each year because there is no work,yet in the north the population has remained the same ,with very little movement,so give one good reason why they join a country that they would have to leave at the end of the day so they could feed their family,

I'm really dont want to start this argument again so I'm just going to make this point and then back off but the level of ignorance over what is meant by a united Ireland is shocking.
It is not about stapling 6 counties onto 26, it would be a complete over haul of the entire country, the birth of a new nation. It wouldn't be about extending the Free State another 100 miles north, it's about a whole new Ireland.

Thomas_I

Crooked Jack wrote: »

I'm really dont want to start this argument again so I'm just going to make this point and then back off but the level of ignorance over what is meant by a united Ireland is shocking.
It is not about stapling 6 counties onto 26, it would be a complete over haul of the entire country, the birth of a new nation. It wouldn't be about extending the Free State another 100 miles north, it's about a whole new Ireland.

This "whole new Ireland" could also bear the chance to make things better (at least in theory, in pratice it´d depend on the people and the elected politicians).

I wouldn´t be so naive to think that it´d be so simple and easy, but I´d at least see the chances an unification might bring with it and the opportunity to use it for the common wheal. Somewhere I´ve read something about "reconsider the terms of the proclamation of the Irish Republic of 1916". It wasn´t all bad what´s stated there according to the democratic principles.

getz

Crooked Jack wrote: »

I'm really dont want to start this argument again so I'm just going to make this point and then back off but the level of ignorance over what is meant by a united Ireland is shocking.
It is not about stapling 6 counties onto 26, it would be a complete over haul of the entire country, the birth of a new nation. It wouldn't be about extending the Free State another 100 miles north, it's about a whole new Ireland.

ireland is to poor,northern ireland without UK income would be even poorer,then you would have to get rid of any religious input in/schools/hospitals/ect, convince the republicans its no longer a republic,convince the unionists they are no longer british,how do you envisage the future,

View

Crooked Jack wrote: »

I'm really dont want to start this argument again so I'm just going to make this point and then back off but the level of ignorance over what is meant by a united Ireland is shocking.
It is not about stapling 6 counties onto 26, it would be a complete over haul of the entire country, the birth of a new nation. It wouldn't be about extending the Free State another 100 miles north, it's about a whole new Ireland.

You are living in cloud cuckoo land if you think it would mean a complete overhaul of the country. It would be an "extension" with some very minor modifications because any such modifications would need to be approved in referenda in the Republic and we, the electorate, are not exactly renowned for our radicalism.

Thomas_I

View wrote: »

... It would be an "extension" with some very minor modifications because any such modifications would need to be approved in referenda in the Republic ...

Shouldn´t it go that way that in such a case, the people in NI should also have their say on that? Otherwise it´d look like an "annexation" which I don´t consider as an good idea for a peaceful future.

Iwasfrozen

Crooked Jack wrote: »

I'm really dont want to start this argument again so I'm just going to make this point and then back off but the level of ignorance over what is meant by a united Ireland is shocking.
It is not about stapling 6 counties onto 26, it would be a complete over haul of the entire country, the birth of a new nation. It wouldn't be about extending the Free State another 100 miles north, it's about a whole new Ireland.

We would still be responsible for our debt. A debt that would be growing exponentially every year as we pay for the upkeep of Northern Ireland.

Crooked Jack

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

We would still be responsible for our debt. A debt that would be growing exponentially every year as we pay for the upkeep of Northern Ireland.

Listen to yourself. "Pay for the upkeep of northern Ireland." In the event of unity it wouldn't be this separate entity that you're burdened with. It's as much a part of the country as anywhere else. It contributes in taxes, industry, tourism etc... the same as anywhere else, not just this external thing that sits and consumes.
I'm not for one second suggesting I have all the answers by the way, I'm just saying there seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding here of what a united Ireland means.

Iwasfrozen

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Listen to yourself. "Pay for the upkeep of northern Ireland." In the event of unity it wouldn't be this separate entity that you're burdened with. It's as much a part of the country as anywhere else. It contributes in taxes, industry, tourism etc... the same as anywhere else, not just this external thing that sits and consumes.
I'm not for one second suggesting I have all the answers by the way, I'm just saying there seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding here of what a united Ireland means.

Yes but when we are considering when we are deciding whether to join with them or not we have to weigh the costs vs the benefits. And from what I see there's more economic costs involved in this idea.

Crooked Jack

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Yes but when we are considering when we are deciding whether to join with them or not we have to weigh the costs vs the benefits. And from what I see there's more economic costs involved in this idea.

Well how do you know that? Because so far every Irish government and party has failed to investigate the idea and see how it would work.
Sinn Fein has put forward a paper on it highlighting huge savings in terms of scrapping the duplication and bureaucracy of having two health/education/energy etc... services on one tiny island.
It also points out that it would be the perfect opportunity for radical reform and restructuring across the whole island.
But this should not be viewed as a SF project. Just like I dont have all the answers neither does Sinn Fein, each party should get involved in this and publish their own papers and if the find that it's unworkable then so be it, let them say so and explain why.
But just blindly saying "we cant afford it" without any investigation of any kind adds nothing to the debate

getz

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Well how do you know that? Because so far every Irish government and party has failed to investigate the idea and see how it would work.
Sinn Fein has put forward a paper on it highlighting huge savings in terms of scrapping the duplication and bureaucracy of having two health/education/energy etc... services on one tiny island.
It also points out that it would be the perfect opportunity for radical reform and restructuring across the whole island.
But this should not be viewed as a SF project. Just like I dont have all the answers neither does Sinn Fein, each party should get involved in this and publish their own papers and if the find that it's unworkable then so be it, let them say so and explain why.
But just blindly saying "we cant afford it" without any investigation of any kind adds nothing to the debate

yes northern ireland would have to give up the NHS ect ,as they are their biggest cost as well as one of the norths biggest employers,a no brainer.

View

Thomas_I wrote: »

Shouldn´t it go that way that in such a case, the people in NI should also have their say on that? Otherwise it´d look like an "annexation" which I don´t consider as an good idea for a peaceful future.

Of course, the people in NI would have their say but where exactly is this "radical majority" supposed to come from?

The electorate in the RoI isn't even remotely radical - most of the electorate won't even vote for Labour much less any of the self-styled "voice of the working man" parties.

And, unless I am very mistaken the average Unionist voter isn't a closet radical either.

Hence, you'd have fundamentally conservative populations and politicians looking for solutions and the proposed solutions are unlikely to involve anything other than minor changes to the current situation (even if there was a lot of political window dressing to give the impression to the contrary).

Thomas_I

View wrote: »

Of course, the people in NI would have their say but where exactly is this "radical majority" supposed to come from?

The electorate in the RoI isn't even remotely radical - most of the electorate won't even vote for Labour much less any of the self-styled "voice of the working man" parties.

And, unless I am very mistaken the average Unionist voter isn't a closet radical either.

Hence, you'd have fundamentally conservative populations and politicians looking for solutions and the proposed solutions are unlikely to involve anything other than minor changes to the current situation (even if there was a lot of political window dressing to give the impression to the contrary).

I see this thread more as an "What if" topic. So there are plenty of theories which could be considered here. I´m not in favour of any radicalism whatsoever. I´m more in favour of reformation and if there will be the chance to unify Ireland, I´m sure that this won´t happen without negotiations. This is where the outset starts and where politicians as well as the people (in the most optimistic way) should have and take the time to work out the best that could be achieved. If this chance will come, and I´m sure that once upon in a time it will (don´t know when), it is a one time offer.

I´m realistical enough to agree with you concerning the politicians, as you said in your post. This is the point where I´d be more worried because these class of people are more likely to ruin some chances at the very beginning for the usual reasons we well know. Also the "fundamentally conservative population" you mentioned. This refers to the status quo and I don´t expect that the unification would happen within the next couple of years. I´m thinking in a timeline a bit more further, to say of one or two generations to come who know the troubles only from history books and can deal with that in an historical retroperspective. Those children, born after the Good Friday Agreement in 1998 could be the first generation if their parents are willing to stop raising them in the old patterns of thinking on both sides. This could provide a different political and social climate in the future which could make it possible to think and to work on it in a timeframe of, let me say, 10 to 20 years.

I think that it might take more efforts to bring up a majority in favour of an united Ireland in NI than it might in the Republic of Ireland. For the first you´ve the generations grown up during the troubles, for the latter you´ve people who don´t care about an united Ireland anyway. They´re more concerned about other, domestic or global problems. But I wouldn´t say that this doesn´t applies for people in NI as well.

It´s what the Irish people want for themselves, that counts.

Iwasfrozen

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Well how do you know that? Because so far every Irish government and party has failed to investigate the idea and see how it would work.
Sinn Fein has put forward a paper on it highlighting huge savings in terms of scrapping the duplication and bureaucracy of having two health/education/energy etc... services on one tiny island.
It also points out that it would be the perfect opportunity for radical reform and restructuring across the whole island.
But this should not be viewed as a SF project. Just like I dont have all the answers neither does Sinn Fein, each party should get involved in this and publish their own papers and if the find that it's unworkable then so be it, let them say so and explain why.
But just blindly saying "we cant afford it" without any investigation of any kind adds nothing to the debate

Because investigations of such kind are expensive and need to be justified. Irish unification isn't on the table for at least several decades if ever so investigating the possibility now would be a waste of resources.

Playboy

Looking forward to years of Unionist violence if it ever happens

Thomas_I

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Yes but when we are considering when we are deciding whether to join with them or not we have to weigh the costs vs the benefits. And from what I see there's more economic costs involved in this idea.

This remindes me on the way the Unification of Germany went in 1990. The Conservatives were in favour of a smooth unification telling the people that this would "cost them nothing", the Social Democrats weren´t and they lost the first general election with the same arguments as you mentioned in your post. Well, it wasn´t the case that it "cost nothing" and the Germans are still paying for that.

If this chance of unification for Ireland will come along, one has to grab it in time and make the best of it, or it is passed away.

Iwasfrozen

Thomas_I wrote: »

This remindes me on the way the Unification of Germany went in 1990. The Conservatives were in favour of a smooth unification telling the people that this would "cost them nothing", the Social Democrats weren´t and they lost the first general election with the same arguments as you mentioned in your post. Well, it wasn´t the case that it "cost nothing" and the Germans are still paying for that.

If this chance of unification for Ireland will come along, one has to grab it in time and make the best of it, or it is passed away.

But surely if it costs us money then it is only right to let the opportunity pass away. The states debt is already teetering, unification will push us over the edge.

DARK-KNIGHT

I can imagine a vote up north being unify state yes or no?? hmm free healthcare I wonder when northerners see what we pay for doctors and medicines how many unify votes would come in lol!!

Last week whole family sick cost me 230 with doctors and meds!!!!!! Scandalous

Thomas_I

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

But surely if it costs us money then it is only right to let the opportunity pass away. The states debt is already teetering, unification will push us over the edge.

Such things as a unification for Ireland you can´t have for free and everybody who tells you the opposite is a liar. But if you´re so keen on reckoning between the costs and the advantages a unification might bring, it´d be better to be done.

Iwasfrozen

Thomas_I wrote: »

Such things as a unification for Ireland you can´t have for free and everybody who tells you the opposite is a liar. But if you´re so keen on reckoning between the costs and the advantages a unification might bring, it´d be better to be done.

I know it won't be free. That's the point. If it costs more money then it saves then it isn't worth doing.

Crooked Jack

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I know it won't be free. That's the point. If it costs more money then it saves then it isn't worth doing.

See, until a proper investigation is done into how it would (or wouldn't) work then people will just continue to repeat the empty "cant afford it" mantra ad nauseam

Iwasfrozen

Crooked Jack wrote: »

See, until a proper investigation is done into how it would (or wouldn't) work then people will just continue to repeat the empty "cant afford it" mantra ad nauseam

Because investigations of such kind are expensive and need to be justified. Irish unification isn't on the table for at least several decades if ever so investigating the possibility now would be a waste of resources.