Majority of people in south want a united Ireland

Thomas_I

Godge wrote: »

... Over the last 30 years, the actual situation has swayed back and forth like a pendulum. With the GFA and the consolidation of the nationalist vote behind SF, the pendulum has swung considerably towards the nationalist side.

I really appreciate that very much.

Godge wrote: »

In order to maintain the peace and keep the unionist minority on the island happy (everyone is our problem) it is probably time for some concessions from the nationalist side, probably in relation to recognition of the legitimacy of British aspirations and symbols.

The recognition of the legitimacy of British symbols is one thing, the recognition of the legitimacy of British aspirations is another because it refers only to Unionist / Loyalist aspirations. That´s the point and you can´t have it both from the nationalist side, because it requires also that the Unionists / Loyalists would make the same concessions towards Irish Symbols and aspirations. So where´s a suggestion for a compromise? Maybe the problem lies in the term "legitimacy" (?).

I´m sorry but that´s the view I´ve got and it is different from what I´ve about Great Britain which looks like quite another country with another problems in compare to NI.

Thomas_I

LordSutch wrote: »

... Two tribes & an economic reality.

That will be decisive.

dizzywizlw

The economic reality argument presupposes that we couldn't milk Whitehall for 'ahem' restructuring support.

Not to mention the amount of EU grant we could probably blag too.


Failing that the realization that the Irish Economy could contribute 7Billion a year in theory but wouldn't have to in practice.

Promissory notes or Prods

Same difference.

Thomas_I

dizzywizlw wrote: »

Fairly Simple solution in theory.

Disregard lies of 1916 era 'republicanism' and celtic Irishness and built and new Ireland under a confederate system, let the north keep Policing and Education and whatever else they do better than us, take over Defence (tricky) Fiscal and Policy Powers.

Things that would need to go:
Constitution
Dáil Éireann
Status of Irish
Religious Schools
Irish Army
British Army
Stormount


For all intents and purposes you can never peacefully reintegrate the North, need to kill both states and build a new one. Best of luck with the caliber of politician and indeed citizen in both states...

This would not work. Just to think about the "Fiscal and Policy powers". You can´t run a state without enough money and a prosperous economy where the money comes from.

dizzywizlw

Thomas_I wrote: »

This would not work. Just to think about the "Fiscal and Policy powers". You can´t run a state without enough money and a prosperous economy where the money comes from.

Yep you can, in fact every industrialised country in the world give or take few operates their states without enough money.

Thomas_I

dizzywizlw wrote: »

Yep you can, in fact every industrialised country in the world give or take few operates their states without enough money.

Maybe for a considerable time, but not unlimited because soon or later you´d end up by either austerity measures, which means short cuts, or begging for money. I think that the RoI is doing well in her efforts to tackle the crisis and it shouldn´t get back to the times when it was the poorest country in Western Europe. You couldn´t rely on the EU for such an purpose either.

The Corinthian

Thomas_I wrote: »

There is a much greater chance that Scotland votes in favour of their independence in 2014 and that´s a real thing to me.

As things stand I can't see it - it's going to take a lot more than re-runs of Braveheart to convince the Scots that they're better off out of the Union. This isn't to say that it won't happen (I've previously theorized that the UK leaving the EU may be what sways Scottish opinion), but presently I think it unlikely that Scottish independence will happen next year.

In this more likely case the Union will go into history and the remaining parts of the UK, most of all England will have reckon whether it can afford to give the same amount of money to NI as it can at the present.

While I agree that Scottish independence would likely see increased support in NI for leaving the Union (note I did not say unifying with southern Ireland), cost to the British exchequer is unlikely to be the reason. Scotland presently only represents £149 billion of the UK's £1.52 trillion GDP (another reason why the Scots may not be so eager to leave), so it's not exactly going to devastate British finances.

I wouldn´t count on the financial support from Scotland to NI because they´ll have to sort out their own ways of revenue to keep their independence going.

I agree, but they might set up a free trade zone or other economic cooperative measures. Last thing Belfast would want it to become economically dependant on its southern neighbour - even if you aspire to unification, you want to strengthen your hand to get the best terms.

This opens new options and therefore some chances for a unification of Ireland. It´s a natural aspiration for the people of Ireland to achieve that unity. I´m quite frankly in favour of a united Ireland and if this will be achieved through Scotlands indepencence as the key event to trigger that, than so be it.

It may happen, and I agree that Scottish independence could well be a game changer, but there's a good few 'ifs' along the way.

As for it being a "natural aspiration", honestly, as time passes this is becoming more and more questionable.

dizzywizlw

Thomas_I wrote: »

Maybe for a considerable time, but not unlimited because soon or later you´d end up by either austerity measures, which means short cuts, or begging for money. I think that the RoI is doing well in her efforts to tackle the crisis and it shouldn´t get back to the times when it was the poorest country in Western Europe. You couldn´t rely on the EU for such an purpose either.

While you're correct in principle, the economics of it aren't as simple as NI is a black hole will suck up 20% of Irish GDP because the ROI will have to go it alone.

You're looking at a similar effect but less financially draining than German reunification.

It's quite possible and not mortally expensive or detrimental to growth, provided peace.

Crooked Jack

Godge wrote: »

The bits in bold are interesting.

Over the last 30 years, the actual situation has swayed back and forth like a pendulum. With the GFA and the consolidation of the nationalist vote behind SF, the pendulum has swung considerably towards the nationalist side.

In order to maintain the peace and keep the unionist minority on the island happy (everyone is our problem) it is probably time for some concessions from the nationalist side, probably in relation to recognition of the legitimacy of British aspirations and symbols.

What concessions do you suggest? Britain occupies part of the country and British symbols are everywhere. what reasonable concessions could you possibly want.
Loyalism/Unionism looks at things like the reform of the RUC as a concession by them but it wasn't, it was just righting a wrong. What real concessions has unionism made?

dizzywizlw

Crooked Jack wrote: »

What concessions do you suggest? Britain occupies part of the country and British symbols are everywhere. what reasonable concessions could you possibly want.
Loyalism/Unionism looks at things like the reform of the RUC as a concession by them but it wasn't, it was just righting a wrong.

Righting a wrong like removing Irish and other symbols from a country that has little ethnic link Celticism? Removing the prominence of the Church from society, formally recognizing Unionism as a legitimate political feeling and accommodating them?


Guess what, the Nationalists are just as deluded as the Unionists.

You're probably more Danish that Celt

The Corinthian

Thomas_I wrote: »

Maybe for a considerable time, but not unlimited because soon or later you´d end up by either austerity measures, which means short cuts, or begging for money.

I think you're confusing budget deficit with budget debt. A country can operate with the latter for ever.

Thomas_I wrote: »

It has shown to me that it´s rather unlikely to convince the Unionist / Loyalist community there to vote in favour of an united Ireland.

Seriouly, are you suggesting that this is just something that the unionists do? Call a spade a spade; the nationalist community used to do exactly the same thing not so long ago, when the unionists had the upper hand politically. The unionists are essentially just behaving in the same way now the roles are reversed.

They even wouldn´t vote for it if they would be left on their own after the UK would cease to exist. But they´d have to deal with the then reality, whether they like it or not, they can´t afford running their own state without financial support from London.

Problem is they can't afford running their own state without financial support full stop and I'm not entirely certain we can afford to pick up the bill.

Indeed, why the fsck should we have to pay so that we can continue subsidizing 40% public sector employment and free dental care?

At the present time you´re right, but wait and see what turns out on Scotlands referendum on its independence. This might alter the status quo, if the Scottish vote in favour of independence.

I do agree that this could well alter the status quo, if the Scottish vote in favour of independence.

I think that the Irish language, and the Gaeltacht who is maintaning it, is an essential part of the Irish culture and if one believes in the soul of an country, than it is part of that too.

The "soul" of the country. Christ on a stick.

Nationalism was an invention of the Enlightenment, to replace the binding force of the divine right of kings with something independent of religion. It flourished particularly during the romantic period, where you actually get almost all literature dedicated to patriotism.

Pretty words, devoid of reason, meant to recruit young men to feed the guns. That is what I think of your "soul" of the country.

Thomas_I

The Corinthian wrote: »

I think you're confusing budget deficit with budget debt. A country can operate with the latter for ever.

It appeares that way because all the leading politicians across the EU are telling everybody "We can´t afford ... because oure future generations will have to pay for that" and so on and on. Otherwise why would anybody bother about that?

The Corinthian wrote: »

Seriouly, are you suggesting that this is just something that the unionists do? Call a spade a spade; the nationalist community used to do exactly the same thing not so long ago, when the unionists had the upper hand politically. The unionists are essentially just behaving in the same way now the roles are reversed.

Probably that´s the way it is and they could benefit from that by learning how it feels like to be oppressed and remember that to not falling back to such behaviour again.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Problem is they can't afford running their own state without financial support full stop and I'm not entirely certain we can afford to pick up the bill.

That´s exactly the point but after all, it´s part of the whole Irish island and if the RoI thinks that she can´t afford to pick up the bill, then either alter the bill or even better, refuse to pay it. Just leave it to the British to sort it out. Besides, who said that this would be a demand from the British side. It´s merely an assumption that you´re taking into account. It´s not a bargain and the RoI isn´t obliged to pay.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Indeed, why the fsck should we have to pay so that we can continue subsidizing 40% public sector employment and free dental care?

There´s no guarantee that this standards will remain for free in the UK. The Cameron Cabinet will surely pick up their reform agenda re the NHS again. If there will be a united Ireland in the future, than it´s on the Irish state and the whole of Ireland to develope that (then former) NI into a prosperous area to get the most out of its potential. That´s a question of know how which should be put in the first place and not only how to afford to subsidize NI by 40% more or less.

The Corinthian wrote: »

I do agree that this could well alter the status quo, if the Scottish vote in favour of independence.

Yes, if they do that and even if Scotland gets its indepencence, it won´t come over night because there are some negotiations to follow with Westminster and one can only reckon after these are settled, not earlier.

The Corinthian wrote: »

The "soul" of the country. Christ on a stick.

Excuse me, but sometimes your expressions sound a bit funny to me. My meaning by the "soul" of a country has nothing to do with your interpretation, not at all. It´s more prosaic or linked to mythology.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Nationalism was an invention of the Enlightenment, to replace the binding force of the divine right of kings with something independent of religion. It flourished particularly during the romantic period, where you actually get almost all literature dedicated to patriotism.

You got me totally wrong if you think that I´m in accordance with the norm of the meaning as you´ve quoted the explanation of Nationalism. That´s a common problem because one can´t talk about something linked to cultural heritage without crossing the line towards Nationalism. It´s not always necessary to go that far. I´d rather put it simply on a level to talk about what it is and means to people, nothing more and I´m not advocating any kind of nationalism at all.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Pretty words, devoid of reason, meant to recruit young men to feed the guns. That is what I think of your "soul" of the country.

Again, that is not what I think about the "soul" of the country, because it has nothing to do with recruiting young men to feed the guns. It has just as much to do with keep and maintain the cultural heritage for future generations in this global and fast running world where not less people ask themselves about their cultural identity. As different as people are, as different such things matters to them. You don´t need this for any kind of recruitment, because in this case, it´d be the usual abusing. I´m far from that.

Thomas_I

The Corinthian wrote: »

As things stand I can't see it - it's going to take a lot more than re-runs of Braveheart to convince the Scots that they're better off out of the Union. This isn't to say that it won't happen (I've previously theorized that the UK leaving the EU may be what sways Scottish opinion), but presently I think it unlikely that Scottish independence will happen next year.

Firstly, it hasn´t anything to do with that fantasy "Braveheart" film but is more of a serious matter advocaded by the SNP for decades. Secondly it won´t happen next year because the referendum is set to take place in October / November 2014. It depends more on what the future, precisely the Cameron government, brings to the Scottish than what is at the present time. The UK leaving the EU wouldn´t sway the the Scottish opinion to vote against independence, it would rather increase the votes in favour because the current Scottish government wants to remain within the EU for their benefits of that membership.

The Corinthian wrote: »

While I agree that Scottish independence would likely see increased support in NI for leaving the Union (note I did not say unifying with southern Ireland), cost to the British exchequer is unlikely to be the reason. Scotland presently only represents £149 billion of the UK's £1.52 trillion GDP (another reason why the Scots may not be so eager to leave), so it's not exactly going to devastate British finances.

That is the present situation and nobody knows what might be settled in the Anglo-Scottish negotiations re Scotlands independence and what belongs to each part of that Union afterwards. It´s not so much the question whether this devastetes British finances it´s more the question what they actually will have afterwards.

The Corinthian wrote: »

I agree, but they might set up a free trade zone or other economic cooperative measures. Last thing Belfast would want it to become economically dependant on its southern neighbour - even if you aspire to unification, you want to strengthen your hand to get the best terms.

There wouldn´t be many options left to choose. As you said in another post, NI can´t hardly live on its own and therefore it´d be economically dependant either on the RoI, England or the EU (given that NI would be recognized as an independent state and fulfill the terms and conditions to become a full EU-Member state).

The Corinthian wrote: »

It may happen, and I agree that Scottish independence could well be a game changer, but there's a good few 'ifs' along the way.

So it is and this gives both of us plenty of opportunities for hopes or worries, depending on our points of view.

The Corinthian wrote: »

As for it being a "natural aspiration", honestly, as time passes this is becoming more and more questionable.

Maybe, but I wouldn´t underestimate that aspiration even by thinking about the plenty "ifs" along the way to Scotlands independence (referendum).

Thomas_I

dizzywizlw wrote: »

Righting a wrong like removing Irish and other symbols from a country that has little ethnic link Celticism? Removing the prominence of the Church from society, formally recognizing Unionism as a legitimate political feeling and accommodating them?


Guess what, the Nationalists are just as deluded as the Unionists.

You're probably more Danish that Celt

Do you have any proofe for that?

"Probably more Danish than Celt", sounds funny.:D

dizzywizlw

Thomas_I wrote: »

Do you have any proofe for that?

"Probably more Danish than Celt", sounds funny.:D

That the Irish aren't celts? That was proven around 5 or 6 years ago in Trinners/Oxford (vested interests methinks)

Considering thusly that you're not a celt, we can therefore establish that the Danes, who were here, have a higher change of ancestry...

Thomas_I

dizzywizlw wrote: »

That the Irish aren't celts? That was proven around 5 or 6 years ago in Trinners/Oxford (vested interests methinks)

Considering thusly that you're not a celt, we can therefore establish that the Danes, who were here, have a higher change of ancestry...

You mean the Vikings by the Danes. I don´t know exactly about any Skandinavian ancestry of my own, neither do I´ve a taste of "Smoerebroed".:)
During the last couple of thousand years, all got mixed up and it´d be a great deal to trace the ancestory of common people in that regards, for such records have been maintaned mostly just for the aristocracy.

Seriously, you´ll find more of the Danes by the English, because the Angles came from that area, like the Jutes and such sort of Saxon tribes.

Crooked Jack

dizzywizlw wrote: »

Righting a wrong like removing Irish and other symbols from a country that has little ethnic link Celticism? Removing the prominence of the Church from society, formally recognizing Unionism as a legitimate political feeling and accommodating them?

What in the name of Jeebus are you on about? Why are you waffling about the Celts? The prominence of what church? How could unionism be any more accommodated for than it already is?

dizzywizlw wrote: »

Guess what, the Nationalists are just as deluded as the Unionists.

I dont see nationalists out blocking roads, smashing their way into council meetings or trying to burn people alive in their cars.

dizzywizlw wrote: »

You're probably more Danish that Celt

Firstly, I love that you can tell my heritage, which usually requires some sort of complicated blood test, from my username.
Secondly, what on earth has that got to do with anything being discussed in this thread?

OCorcrain

The Corinthian wrote: »

the nationalist community used to do exactly the same thing not so long ago, when the unionists had the upper hand politically. The unionists are essentially just behaving in the same way now the roles are reversed.

Thomas_I wrote: »

Probably that´s the way it is and they could benefit from that by learning how it feels like to be oppressed and remember that to not falling back to such behaviour again.

Are you suggesting that unionists/loyalists are being oppressed and discriminated now the same way that Catholics and nationalists were under the Orange state?

Are you having a laugh?

dizzywizlw

Crooked Jack wrote: »

What in the name of Jeebus are you on about? Why are you waffling about the Celts? The prominence of what church? How could unionism be any more accommodated for than it already is?



I dont see nationalists out blocking roads, smashing their way into council meetings or trying to burn people alive in their cars.



Firstly, I love that you can tell my heritage, which usually requires some sort of complicated blood test, from my username.
Secondly, what on earth has that got to do with anything being discussed in this thread?

I can't tell if you seriously believe these to be disparate parts and not part of an over-arching cultural narrative.

OCorcrain

dizzywizlw wrote: »

I can't tell if you seriously believe these to be disparate parts and not part of an over-arching cultural narrative.

What is? That the head of state of the United Kingdom is also the theocratic leader of the Church, and to be head of state of the United Kingdom you have to fall under a certain religion?

That does sound backwards doesn't it.

An Coilean

dizzywizlw wrote: »

Righting a wrong like removing Irish and other symbols from a country that has little ethnic link Celticism?

You're probably more Danish that Celt

Righting a wrong? Would you care to elaborate?

Firstly what is 'Celticism'?

Secondly, what exactly are you basing your claims on? The term 'Celt' is not an generally applied to an ethnic group, but rather a cultural group generally based on language. Trying to determin an ethnic link is somewhat redundant in that context.

As for being Danish, its quite likely that there is some Viking mixed in somewhere along the line, but it is generally accepted that by far the biggest genetic presence in the population is that of the pre iron age inhabitants of the island.
As for the mix of Viking that is there, where that becomes a justification for 'remoaving Irish' is beyond me, the Vikings that setteled here like the Normans that came after them quickly adopted Gaeilge as their lingua franca.

getz

Thomas_I wrote: »

You mean the Vikings by the Danes. I don´t know exactly about any Skandinavian ancestry of my own, neither do I´ve a taste of "Smoerebroed".:)
During the last couple of thousand years, all got mixed up and it´d be a great deal to trace the ancestory of common people in that regards, for such records have been maintaned mostly just for the aristocracy.

Seriously, you´ll find more of the Danes by the English, because the Angles came from that area, like the Jutes and such sort of Saxon tribes.

angles and the saxons stayed in the south and east of england,viking and the irish stayed in the north

dizzywizlw

OCorcrain wrote: »

What is? That the head of state of the United Kingdom is also the theocratic leader of the Church, and to be head of state of the United Kingdom you have to fall under a certain religion?

That does sound backwards doesn't it.

Sure does

An Coilean wrote: »

Righting a wrong? Would you care to elaborate?

Firstly what is 'Celticism'?

Secondly, what exactly are you basing your claims on? The term 'Celt' is not an generally applied to an ethnic group, but rather a cultural group generally based on language. Trying to determin an ethnic link is somewhat redundant in that context.

As for being Danish, its quite likely that there is some Viking mixed in somewhere along the line, but it is generally accepted that by far the biggest genetic presence in the population is that of the pre iron age inhabitants of the island.
As for the mix of Viking that is there, where that becomes a justification for 'remoaving Irish' is beyond me, the Vikings that setteled here like the Normans that came after them quickly adopted Gaeilge as their lingua franca.

My whole point is that if being the 'Irish' that we are is based on shared norms then it can be changed. That the 'us' and 'them' are changeable if they aren't inherently linked to so called 'facts'.

If they have to let go of the plantation mentality, we have to let go of the celtic revival mentality and a build and new Ireland. Otherwise you'll have around 1 million pissed off Unionists in a state with unarmed police and a third-rate army at which point we may as well live in De Valeras dream of a simple, backward, pious crapheap.

Thomas_I

OCorcrain wrote: »

Are you suggesting that unionists/loyalists are being oppressed and discriminated now the same way that Catholics and nationalists were under the Orange state?

Are you having a laugh?

No, of course not by all means. What the Unionist / Loyalist might complaining about is not as far that worse than the way they treated the Irish.

There´s nothing for me to laugh about, it´s all too sad.

getz

OCorcrain wrote: »

What is? That the head of state of the United Kingdom is also the theocratic leader of the Church, and to be head of state of the United Kingdom you have to fall under a certain religion?

That does sound backwards doesn't it.

same as with the pope and the vatican state,

OCorcrain

getz wrote: »

same as with the pope and the vatican state,

The Vatican is a theocratic state, the United Kingdom is supposed to be a democratic society.

Thomas_I

dizzywizlw wrote: »

Sure does


My whole point is that if being the 'Irish' that we are is based on shared norms then it can be changed. That the 'us' and 'them' are changeable if they aren't inherently linked to so called 'facts'.

If they have to let go of the plantation mentality, we have to let go of the celtic revival mentality and a build and new Ireland. Otherwise you'll have around 1 million pissed off Unionists in a state with unarmed police and a third-rate army at which point we may as well live in De Valeras dream of a simple, backward, pious crapheap.

Some reasonable points in there. Just you can´t build a new Ireland with "around 1 million pissed off Unionists" because everything not British doesn´t suite them and to give up the celtic revival mentality doesn´t change that either. The other things you´ve mentioned are gone because the Irish society isn´t that ignorant anymore as to follow such politicians like Dev. That´s at least what I believe in the present time.

The way to Irish unity is in the dissolvement of the UK which leaves the Unionists stranded and with no other choice than to either live on their own, or join a united Ireland because noone wants them, neither the Scottish nor the Welsh and I doubt the English would want them either.

Thomas_I

getz wrote: »

angles and the saxons stayed in the south and east of england,viking and the irish stayed in the north

Yes I know that, but I know also that "the Vikings" were also of different tribes from Skandinavian areas.

Galwayguy35

Considering the actions of the flag protesters over the last few weeks I don't think they need have any worries about anyone in the South wanting them to join us.

The British can keep them as far as I am concerned.

dizzywizlw

Thomas_I wrote: »

Some reasonable points in there. Just you can´t build a new Ireland with "around 1 million pissed off Unionists" because everything not British doesn´t suite them and to give up the celtic revival mentality doesn´t change that either. The other things you´ve mentioned are gone because the Irish society isn´t that ignorant anymore as to follow such politicians like Dev. That´s at least what I believe in the present time.

The way to Irish unity is in the dissolvement of the UK which leaves the Unionists stranded and with no other choice than to either live on their own, or join a united Ireland because noone wants them, neither the Scottish nor the Welsh and I doubt the English would want them either.

That would be a recipe for disaster. There's enough rich Tories in the UK to pull an 'Irish in America'.


I mean, we could always go to war with the North if Britain wouldn't defend it...need a hell of a lot of holy water though.

Thomas_I

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Considering the actions of the flag protesters over the last few weeks I don't think they need have any worries about anyone in the South wanting them to join us.

The British can keep them as far as I am concerned.

And what about the Irish in NI?

dizzywizlw

Thomas_I wrote: »

And what about the Irish in NI?

Everyone in NI is Irish whether they like to admit it or not :pac:

Thomas_I

dizzywizlw wrote: »

Everyone in NI is Irish whether they like to admit it or not :pac:

This will bring you many clapping hands from the other side, wait for it.:D

An Coilean

dizzywizlw wrote: »

My whole point is that if being the 'Irish' that we are is based on shared norms then it can be changed. That the 'us' and 'them' are changeable if they aren't inherently linked to so called 'facts'.

If they have to let go of the plantation mentality, we have to let go of the celtic revival mentality and a build and new Ireland. Otherwise you'll have around 1 million pissed off Unionists in a state with unarmed police and a third-rate army at which point we may as well live in De Valeras dream of a simple, backward, pious crapheap.

What is this 'Celtic revival mentality' that Irish people are supposed to let go of, or plantation mentality for that matter? You are throwing around illdefined terms and expecting people to make sense of them.

Galwayguy35

Thomas_I wrote: »

And what about the Irish in NI?

I think most of them are happy enough to remain in the UK as it works out better for them economically.

Those Loyalists hate everything about us, soI'm happy to remain seperate from them.

dizzywizlw

An Coilean wrote: »

What is this 'Celtic revival mentality' that Irish people are supposed to let go of, or plantation mentality for that matter? You are throwing around illdefined terms and expecting people to make sense of them.

Sorry my bad.

We need to let go of the type of thinking typified by the fenian movement and the celtic revival of the past few centuries identifying the irish as heroic underdogs of noble celtic lineage with a common religion language tied to our ancestry oppressed by the 'other' (brits).

They need to stop believing that they're British people under siege on their land with is under the British sovereign by some sort of divine legitimacy.


We're all as mongrel (pardon the phrase) as each other, Gaelic Ireland is a load of BS, so is Unionist Ireland. It's about time we put these things behind us and let the crutches of our national infancy go.

Thomas_I

dizzywizlw wrote: »

Sorry my bad.

We need to let go of the type of thinking typified by the fenian movement and the celtic revival of the past few centuries identifying the irish as heroic underdogs of noble celtic lineage with a common religion language tied to our ancestry oppressed by the 'other' (brits).

They need to stop believing that they're British people under siege on their land with is under the British sovereign by some sort of divine legitimacy.


We're all as mongrel (pardon the phrase) as each other, Gaelic Ireland is a load of BS, so is Unionist Ireland. It's about time we put these things behind us and let the crutches of our national infancy go.

The problem you´ve missed to mention in your post is, that what has been preserved from the ancient Irish culture by the people themselves during centuries of English / British attempts to anglisize Ireland, was taken by the fenians because otherwise the English had succeeded.

The siege-mentality of the Unionists is - as you put it - "loads of BS" because they were never under siege by the Irish. I would rather put it that way that they were payed back by them for what they´ve done to the Irish. It´s not the other way round.

Well try to bring your ideas forward and start with a new Ireland from zero. I´d like to know what kind of Ireland that would be, with what culture to identify it. All for the sake of an artificial construction in which those people you´d try to integrate would as well refuse to give their consent. I´d rather suggest to let them keep their British citizenship within an united Ireland and let them be as foreigner but leave them the option to get naturalised if they choose so.

You can´t get rid of your history, but you can manage to live with it.

Thomas_I

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

I think most of them are happy enough to remain in the UK as it works out better for them economically.

Those Loyalists hate everything about us, soI'm happy to remain seperate from them.

Thank you.

Thomas_I

I take the opportunity to wish you all on here Happy holidays and a Happy New Year.

Thanks for having interesting exchanges of opinions and have a good time. I´ll be back next year.

The Corinthian

Thomas_I wrote: »

It appeares that way because all the leading politicians across the EU are telling everybody "We can´t afford ... because oure future generations will have to pay for that" and so on and on. Otherwise why would anybody bother about that?

Again, you're confusing budget deficit with debt.

Probably that´s the way it is and they could benefit from that by learning how it feels like to be oppressed and remember that to not falling back to such behaviour again.

Doesn't work that way, if it did, the nationalists would not be doing to the unionists what the unionists had done done to them, because they would have previously learned how it feels like to be oppressed.

Excuse me, but sometimes your expressions sound a bit funny to me. My meaning by the "soul" of a country has nothing to do with your interpretation, not at all. It´s more prosaic or linked to mythology.

That is precisely the interpretation I'm attacking.

Nations don't have 'souls'. Nations are simply super-communities, where common social bonds are largely invented and used to perpetuate a sense of loyalty for the individual citizen, who then sacrifices themselves for the greater good of this invention.

So I didn't get you wrong, I just rejected the romantic definition of the nation state as something which has ultimately caused more harm than good and we really should have outgrown a while back.

Thomas_I wrote: »

That is the present situation and nobody knows what might be settled in the Anglo-Scottish negotiations re Scotlands independence and what belongs to each part of that Union afterwards. It´s not so much the question whether this devastetes British finances it´s more the question what they actually will have afterwards.

I think it is reasonable to assume that Scotland really cannot argue for much more than their share of the wealth of the UK as a whole, so my point stands.

Maybe, but I wouldn´t underestimate that aspiration even by thinking about the plenty "ifs" along the way to Scotlands independence (referendum).

Indeed, but neither would I overestimate it, simply because I may be hoping for it.

OCorcrain wrote: »

Are you suggesting that unionists/loyalists are being oppressed and discriminated now the same way that Catholics and nationalists were under the Orange state?

I'm sorry, I was unaware this is a competition. Who's winning?

An Coilean

dizzywizlw wrote: »

Sorry my bad.

We need to let go of the type of thinking typified by the fenian movement and the celtic revival of the past few centuries identifying the irish as heroic underdogs of noble celtic lineage with a common religion language tied to our ancestry oppressed by the 'other' (brits).

They need to stop believing that they're British people under siege on their land with is under the British sovereign by some sort of divine legitimacy.


We're all as mongrel (pardon the phrase) as each other, Gaelic Ireland is a load of BS, so is Unionist Ireland. It's about time we put these things behind us and let the crutches of our national infancy go.

No problem, thanks for the clarification.

I'm sorry but Gaelic Ireland is far from a load of BS, read a history book, Gaelic Ireland was a political reality across this island until quite recently, culturally it is still a major part of what Ireland is. We don't get to make up our history, what happened happened, how we deal with it is for us to decide, expecting people to just forget about their past and how that influences their identity is inpractical and would be quite damaging overall.

OCorcrain

The Corinthian wrote: »

I'm sorry, I was unaware this is a competition. Who's winning?

If it is a competition about who has the most daft comments on this thread I concede defeat to you, I am now convinced that you are right and I am wrong judging by your intelligent (cough) and well-reasoned rebuttal, I will now subscribe to your blog 'Iamfullofit'.

karma_

The Corinthian wrote: »

Doesn't work that way, if it did, the nationalists would not be doing to the unionists what the unionists had done done to them, because they would have previously learned how it feels like to be oppressed.

I hadn't realised it before, but you are dead right, voting to have a flag flying on designated days only is exactly the same as actually curbing someones civil rights. Can't believe I missed that!

Doc Ruby

I'd be only delighted to have a united Ireland, and welcome our brethren back into the fold. Nice to have a real culture again eh lads? Proper dancing that people actually want to see. We'll get the Scots on board next, not too sure about the Welsh though. The Republic of Scotland and Ireland, got a nice ring to it.

Iwasfrozen

Doc Ruby wrote: »

I'd be only delighted to have a united Ireland, and welcome our brethren back into the fold. Nice to have a real culture again eh lads? Proper dancing that people actually want to see. We'll get the Scots on board next, not too sure about the Welsh though. The Republic of Scotland and Ireland, got a nice ring to it.

Can we include England as well? It can be called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.

gallag

I believe a united kingdom of great Britain and Ireland is an eventuality and the only way a united Ireland will work. I lookforward to the day we have a prime minister from Dublin.

Doc Ruby

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Can we include England as well? It can be called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.

More than welcome, as long as they learn to speak a civilised tongue like Irish, pay their taxes to the Dáil, and remove the latent aristocracy/royalty. I'm sure we can find something useful for that lot of third wheels to do for a change.

Obviously since a precondition of entry to any Republic would be removing the royalty, the name "kingdom" is right out, so we can call it the Republic of Scotland and Ireland and England. No, that's a bit of a mouthful. Would they go for a foreign dependency? We may as well go ahead and call it the Republic of the Irish Isles (and dependancy) at that stage, a most graceful and appealing title.

gallag

Doc Ruby wrote: »

More than welcome, as long as they learn to speak a civilised tongue like Irish, pay their taxes to the Dáil, and remove the latent aristocracy/royalty. I'm sure we can find something useful for that lot of third wheels to do for a change.

Obviously since a precondition of entry to any Republic would be removing the royalty, the name "kingdom" is right out, so we can call it the Republic of Scotland and Ireland and England. No, that's a bit of a mouthful. Would they go for a foreign dependency? We may as well go ahead and call it the Republic of the Irish Isles (and dependancy) at that stage, a most graceful and appealing title.

Holy ****, imagine the dail trying to run 70million people instead of five :-0. The Irish with nukes andaaircraft carriers would be interesting though! **** it, sign me up now before I sober up.

gallag

Just thinking the dail would probably bankrupt our newly former alliance in the first week by giving them selves some crazy pay rise, if they think they can justify their salary with 5 million people.

sanbrafyffe

what are you on about sir,,,,,,,,sure its working now fine bar a small handful of people complaining about the flags issuse,,,,sure we are practically united now,,we have power sharing,,,schools with mixing traditions,,religion issues decreasing,,population leveling,,police force respecting,,,cross border cororporation,,,sports teams uniteing,,,road infrastructure linking,,,,and the funny thing is that this is all happy while the british government are keeping low on what happens in the daily polotics of the northern irish affairs

gallag wrote: »

I believe a united kingdom of great Britain and Ireland is an eventuality and the only way a united Ireland will work. I lookforward to the day we have a prime minister from Dublin.