Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Northern Protestants.
Comments
-
Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »I think you need to re-read the posts on this form.
SFs status is the Republic has no bearing on whether there will be a UI or not either.
Read the GFA why don't you, and after you have read it, then re-read it.
The Belfast Agreement is only one factor Unionists have to contend with. They also have to contend with the changing deomographics in the North, the consequences of an independent Scotland and the fact that Sinn Fein is an all Ireland party capable of incorporating the six counties into an all Ireland parliament of some sort if they ever succeed in coming to power in the south.0 -
Bertie Woot wrote: »We all know that they have a reputation for being fiercely British, unapologetically Unionist, and resolutely loyal to the British Queen. The recent flag protests demonstrated that far from coming around to the idea of a united Ireland, most Unionists seem to be just as rejecting of the concept of Irish unification now as they were 40 years ago, and the old sectarian bigotry has once again reared its ugly head.
Despite the overwhelming majority of Northern Protestants still being Unionist, do you think that there are many, or indeed any who are in favour of a united Ireland? I understand that IRA violence has made it very difficult for Unionists to even consider Irish unification, but is unification not their destiny?
Even a majority of Catholics there want to remain in the union. I don't think it's going to happen anytime soon.0 -
People quote Billy Leonard as being a Protestant nationalist, but in reality he is a bit of an oddball on the political front. A recent poll has suggested that as few as 4% of Protestants would be supportive of a United Ireland (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/jun/17/life-and-times-survey-united-ireland).dienbienphu wrote: »I think the whole all Northern Protestants are Unionists is a ridiculous generalization.
I think it's fairly safe to say that if anything, as years pass, Protestants are becoming even more Unionist as the tradition of Irish nationalism is dying out amongst them.0 -
Bertie Woot wrote: »But more violence is likely anyhow, as under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement, when 51% of the people vote in favour of unification in a referendum, then a united Ireland shall come about. Unionists shall no doubt reject the democratic will of the people and launch a terrorist to provoke Republicans back into a war situation to destroy any realistic hope of reunification.
See above. They'd go bananas, but democracy is democracy, and even though Loyalists shall continue to reject a united Ireland, it's going to happen some day, with or without their consent. We just need the numbers in the north.
Well that's very telling.0 -
dienbienphu wrote: »The Belfast Agreement is only one factor Unionists have to contend with. They also have to contend with the changing deomographics in the North, the consequences of an independent Scotland and the fact that Sinn Fein is an all Ireland party capable of incorporating the six counties into an all Ireland parliament of some sort if they ever succeed in coming to power in the south.
one by one
1. changing deomographics in the North
Latest poll shows that little supports for UI even among Catolics.
Census shows only half of Catholics calling themselves 'Irish only'
2. independent Scotland
referendum due, unlikely to pass
3. the fact that Sinn Fein is an all Ireland party capable of incorporating the six counties into an all Ireland parliament of some sort if they ever succeed in coming to power in the south.
Unlikely to happen, SF are a fringe party, would be junior coalition partrners is the top of what they could achieve
Also ' incorporating the six counties into an all Ireland parliament of some sort' would be against the GFA0 -
-
Exactly, which begs the question why do they call their utopia a 'United Ireland'?0
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »one by one
1. changing deomographics in the North
Latest poll shows that little supports for UI even among Catolics.
Census shows only half of Catholics calling themselves 'Irish only'
So whats you point? It doesn't take away the fact that Sinn Fein and the SDLP are declared nationalist parties in favour a united Ireland which isn't going to change.Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »2. independent Scotland
referendum due, unlikely to pass
Unless you've a chrystel ball and can see into the future I can't see how you would know that.Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »3. the fact that Sinn Fein is an all Ireland party capable of incorporating the six counties into an all Ireland parliament of some sort if they ever succeed in coming to power in the south.
Unlikely to happen, SF are a fringe party, would be junior coalition partrners is the top of what they could achieve
Also ' incorporating the six counties into an all Ireland parliament of some sort' would be against the GFA
Your basing your argument on the liklihood of Sinn Fein not coming to power. If things stay going the way they are Labour are likely to get wiped out in the next election leaving three parties. Sinn Fein will unlikely enter into a coalition with either Fianna Fail or Fine Gael given small parties poor track record in government. What do you think is going to happen?
Like I said before, the Belfast Agreement allows for the setting up of all ireland political institutions including an all ireland assembly. Theres nothing in the Belfast Agreement stopping that.0 -
-
Yes in Northern Ireland where I live. The majorty of Protestants in Northern Ireland see themselves as either loyalist or unionists, historically, statistically and every other evidence shows this to be the case otherwise there would already be a united ireland
Maybe where you live, but not everywhere.0 -
The vast majority of Protestants in Northern Ireland would see themselves as Unionist (myself included) but I think a minority of Protestants would describe themselves as Loyalist.
I've never really understood the definition of Loyalist. I remember back to Drumcree in the mid to late 90s and my late Grandfather, who served in the British Army in France WW2 as part of the BEF, and later in North Africa and Italy, was pretty appalled to see so-called Loyalists throwing all sort of missiles, petrol bombs, fireworks, golf balls etc at British soldiers. I think he, like many, struggled to define what exactly the Loyalists were being loyal to.
Northern Ireland has never been a black and white issue, there are so many contradictions on all sides.0 -
What's your point? Sinn Fein and the SDLP can dream about joining us to their green hearts content but they need to a pass a referendum in Northern Ireland to make it happen. And if the majority of people don't want to join us then that referendum won't pass, regardless of the position of the nationalist parties.dienbienphu wrote: »So whats you point? It doesn't take away the fact that Sinn Fein and the SDLP are declared nationalist parties in favour a united Ireland which isn't going to change.
He said unlikely, nothing for definite but retaining the union was the way the last opinion poll went. Actually if Scotland does vote in stay in the union it will strengthen the UK, a United Ireland will be even less likely.dienbienphu wrote: »Unless you've a chrystel ball and can see into the future I can't see how you would know that.
No party will enter into coalition with SF considering they're terrorist socialists.dienbienphu wrote: »Your basing your argument on the liklihood of Sinn Fein not coming to power. If things stay going the way they are Labour are likely to get wiped out in the next election leaving three parties. Sinn Fein will unlikely enter into a coalition with either Fianna Fail or Fine Gael given small parties poor track record in government.
FF majority.dienbienphu wrote: »What do you think is going to happen?
Do you mean an all Ireland Dail? Without a referendum passed that would be illegal.dienbienphu wrote: »Like I said before, the Belfast Agreement allows for the setting up of all ireland political institutions including an all ireland assembly. Theres nothing in the Belfast Agreement stopping that.0 -
Iwasfrozen wrote: »What's your point? Sinn Fein and the SDLP can dream about joining us to their green hearts content but they need to a pass a referendum in Northern Ireland to make it happen. And if the majority of people don't want to join us then that referendum won't pass, regardless of the position of the nationalist parties.
He said unlikely, nothing for definite but retaining the union was the way the last opinion poll went. Actually if Scotland does vote in stay in the union it will strengthen the UK, a United Ireland will be even less likely.
No party will enter into coalition with SF considering they're terrorist socialists.
FF majority.
Do you mean an all Ireland Dail? Without a referendum passed that would be illegal.
Thanks for articulating that for me
When it comes to questions about Northern Ireland some posters here seem to have a very poor grasp of the workings of the real world and far less on Realpolitik0 -
Advertisement
-
-
I always understood a Loyalist to mean a Unionist who was associated with an organisation that is/was involved in a physical force organisation (i.e. UVF/LVF/UFF/PUP/etc).
A Republican was someone who is a Nationalist who was involved in a group involved with physical force violence at some point (IRA and various political splinter groups).0 -
It's understandable though when you think of all the people who are brought up with the notion that Ireland is a one island country with a singular dominant culture. We should start to think of the landmass of Ireland as two separate nations because really it is.Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »Thanks for articulating that for me
When it comes to questions about Northern Ireland some posters here seem to have a very poor grasp of the workings of the real world and far less on Realpolitik0 -
delthedriver wrote: »The romantic ideas of the real Irish people changed,when the economic bubble burst and the romancing of the Celtic Tiger turned ugly.
The romantic ideas have changed to harsh reality. No point in trying to sell romantic ideas of a united Ireland to real Irish people who are struggling to pay their mortgages and put food on their tables.
When Scotland leave the UK, the Chancellor will have even less revenue to support the six counties. Don't think real Irish people will want to be lumbered with financial strains of the Six counties. Guess we will be happy for the Uk to look after their own problems
United Ireland is for dreamers not real people!
A united Ireland is for Irish Republicans; who are real people. The economic argument against a UI shall run its course, and when the economy picks up and recovers, those people who like to think of themselves as 'realists' and who have rejected unification on economic grounds shall eat their words, because although it may cost a packet for unification at the moment, it's not always going to be that way, and many Irishmen look beyond economics to the rightful and legitimate aspirations of Irishmen throughout the centuries to create a 32 county independent island, separate from the oppressor Britain, and to reclaim that territory which is ours, just as much as the Falklands are Argentinas.
Empire is dead. NI is a product and remnant of British imperialism and it was created to provide the British colonist with a country of his own on this island where his kind would be the majority and wield power. They abused their power by using it to discriminate against Catholic Irishmen in NI. Now that they have had their illegitimate statelet foolishly sanctioned by the Irish people who were crying out for peace, they continue to sustain their colonisation of the 6 counties.I really hope that the unionists are removed from this island someday and sent home to their beloved Britain, the crown really made an absolute mess of this island by bringing them here.
It was actually Demot MacMurrough, ancient Irish King of Leinster who invited the English here by requesting assistance from English King Henry II in regaining his throne. That's right, the Brits were invited here, and were then offered small colonies in Ireland and the hand of MacMurrrough's daughter in marriage as a thank you for their assistance. What began as an invitation then developed into an invasion and eventual 32 county colonisation. If we are gong to blame anyone for 800 years of British occupation, look no further than King Dermot MacMurrough of Leinster. He's the culprit.I think in the duration of this thread you´ve given plenty of reasons by yourself that would deter even the most rational and liberal Unionist from any consent and to find your statements appalling after reading them.
Here are just those I´ve picked out which gives the answer to your own question by yourself:
You´ve nothing to offer to them than to either "take it or leave it" or "take up or shut up". Some of the most radical and backward statements I´ve ever come across on these boards are yours. Well done and thanks for doing the "cause of a UI" such a "good service". That UI of yours is not the UI for many people I suppose, except those who´re thinking the way you do.
You´ve no idea of what democracy really means and you just take it in favour of an imagineable majority in favour of a UI, that´s all that counts to you, not how to built an new and integrative Ireland in which none of the former belligerent sides have the superiority over another and instead built a better future in working together and sharing the power. Most interesting in your views is, that you seem to don´t give a damn whether the people in the RoI really want them from NI to become part of their society. These might be the "real Irish people" you´re referring to.
The Provisional IRA didn't give a damn about the democratic wishes of the people north and south of the border, and kept bombing and murdering in NI for 30 years and despite all protestations from Protestants and Catholics North and South to desist. My sentiments may seem "radical and backward" to you, but they are not as radical and backward as launching a campaign of violence in response to institutionalised discrimination in the British statelet, and sustaining a futile campaign of violence for 30 years, then surrendering their weaponry after signing an agreement which was essentially an admission of military defeat.
The IRA didn't care about the concept of "democracy" because they thought they could win and achieve their objective by armed force. The only reason they are wedded to the democratic process now is because after 30 years they finally realised that violence was not going to get the Brits out of the occupied 6 counties and deliver a united Ireland. The PIRA failed miserably and were defeated. They now serve their British paymasters in Stormont, the same parliament that presided over discrimination and Gerry Mandering, and which their raison d'etre was to destroy. They are now collaborators with the British Unionist parties in the continued British rule of the 6 counties.
No-one gives a toss what Sinn Fein say or do any more as they lost all credibility with real Irish Republicans 15 years ago. Adams even apologised for the murder of a Garda officer a few days back. If he apologised for the murder of a Southern Irish Policeman, is he now going to apologise for every northern RUC Officer and British soldier the Provos murdered in NI during the course of the conflict? Because that looks where he is heading.Yes, really. Protestants arent by and large unionists. Theres a difference between unionism and loyalism. Im a republican and even i know that.
Please educate me by outlining two definitions. One of Unionism and one of Loyalism, and tell me what the difference is beside most Loyalists being working class Protestants, and most Unionists being middle class Protestants.I am from north of the republic of ireland in an internationally recognised country known as Northern Ireland and I know quite a few unionists on account of me being an actual unionist I can assure you we won't be leaving anytime soon
Join us in the new Ireland. Be part of your own destiny, instead of procrastinating and attempting to delay and avoid the inevitable. In a 32 county Irish Republic Unionists would constitute approximately 20% of the Irish population, and could play a very significant role in governance.
If the were safeguards and guarantees built into a unification agreement to protect PULs from discrimination and persecution in a new Ireland (because we know that is what you fear the most), would you ever consider voting in favour of Irish unification in a referendum and becoming a fully fledged Irish citizen, instead of hanging onto the coattails of mother Britain; a nation that has been attempting to disown you since the early seventies?Want to know something funny, I am a loyalist, a member of a flute band, member of a the apprentice boys, member of the British army oh and a descendent of Henry joy McCracken
Wow. You're a super-Protestant with Irish Republican ancestry? That's marvellous. My mate Geordie is a northern Protestant and a fervent Unionist and he is ancestrally related to none other than Wolfe Tone.
It's important to note that in the past Irish Republicanism was not an almost exclusively Catholic phenomenon like it has been in recent years. There have been many Protestant Irish Republicans, and descended from the colonial British.0 -
Ok I have to say something here. Ours?! What is ours? Northern Ireland is not ours it belongs to the people who live there and only the people who live there can decide it's fate. Do you know what it's called when one country claims the territory of another? Imperialism. Stop laying claim to somebody else's land and country. If Northern Ireland wants to join us all well and good but until that day it is not ours. This state was not created with the inherent right to the whole island. Same with Argentina and the Falklands.Bertie Woot wrote: »A united Ireland is for Irish Republicans; who are real people. The economic argument against a UI shall run its course, and when the economy picks up and recovers, those people who like to think of themselves as 'realists' and who have rejected unification on economic grounds shall eat their words, because although it may cost a packet for unification at the moment, it's not always going to be that way, and many Irishmen look beyond economics to the rightful and legitimate aspirations of Irishmen throughout the centuries to create a 32 country independent island, separate from the oppressor Britain, and to reclaim that territory which is ours, just as much as the Falklands are Argentinas. Empire is dead.
NI is a product and remnant of British imperialism and it was created to provide the British colonist with a country of his own on this island where his kind would be the majority and have wield power. They abused their power by using it to discriminate against Catholic Irishmen. Now that they have had their illegitimate statelet foolishly sanctioned by the Irish people who were crying out for peace, they continue to sustain their colonisation of the 6 counties.
Northern Ireland was not created as a by product of British imperialism, hard as it may be for you to believe it was created by the British to satisfy the right to self determination of the Ulster-Scot people. It was a fair compromise devised by the British to ensure the maximum number of people possible could have their democratic rights to either leave or stay in the union respected. To deny the Ulster Scots their right to remain in the Union would have been just as bad as to deny Irish nationalists the right to leave. One right does not trump the other so a compromise was needed. Splitting the island was a fair and reasonable solution at the time.
Pretty sure you're describing the French there but sure label them all as British. They're the baddies. Simplistic history for the win. :rolleyes:It was actually Demot McMurrough, ancient Irish King of Leinster who invited the English here by requesting assistance from English King Henry II in regaining his throne. That's right, the Brits were invited here, and were then offered small colonies in Ireland and the hand of McMurrrough's daughter in marriage as a thank you for their assistance. What began as an invitation then developed into an invasion and eventual 32 county colonisation. If we are gong to blame anyone for 800 years of British occupation, look no further than King Dermot McMurrough of Leinster. He's the culprit.0 -
Advertisement
-
Iwasfrozen wrote: »
No party will enter into coalition with SF considering they're terrorist socialists.
Thats just as good for Sinn Fein, they'll have plenty of time to grow while the country is trying to get back on its feet while it takes casualties a long the way i.e. Labour, Fine Gael, Fianna Fail.Iwasfrozen wrote: »Do you mean an all Ireland Dail? Without a referendum passed that would be illegal.
No I said all ireland assembly which can form the foundation for a future all ireland dail. Nothing illegal about that.0 -
Sinn Fein will never be in power. Well hopefully.dienbienphu wrote: »Thats just as good for Sinn Fein, they'll have plenty of time to grow while the country is trying to get back on its feet while it takes casualties a long the way i.e. Labour, Fine Gael, Fianna Fail.
What's the point when unionists wouldn't join and it wouldn't have any legislative power? It would in effect be a nationalist inter party meeting, which already exist.dienbienphu wrote: »No I said all ireland assembly which can form the foundation for a future all ireland dail. Nothing illegal about that.0 -
Yes in Northern Ireland where I live. The majorty of Protestants in Northern Ireland see themselves as either loyalist or unionists, historically, statistically and every other evidence shows this to be the case otherwise there would already be a united ireland
ok then ... so protestant=unionist=loyalist. I must tell that to my parents neighbours and the protestant folk I grew up with in the north. They'd be delighted to hear that you speak for them all.0 -
Bertie Woot wrote: »Please educate me by outlining two definitions. One of Unionism and one of Loyalism, and tell me what the difference is beside most Loyalists being working class Protestants, and most Unionists being middle class Protestants.
I didnt realise there was an exam, but personally I can only educate you by repeating my earlier explanation - as a republican growing up in the north Ive known and met many protestants who were neither loyalist nor unionist.
Does that help you at all? Cus otherwise you'll have to work it out for yourself.0 -
Iwasfrozen wrote: »Sinn Fein will never be in power. Well hopefully.
What's the point when unionists wouldn't join and it wouldn't have any legislative power? It would in effect be a nationalist inter party meeting, which already exist.
When paramilitaries successfully render the six counties ungovernable once again, the assembly can be put forward as a compromise to paramilitaries. Dissident republicans don't have a mandate but neither did the provos yet the provos managed to get concessions from the British.
Although this is just one scenario it is probably the most likely one to bring about a united ireland.
Relying on the people of the six counties voting for a united ireland is laughable imho0 -
ok then ... so protestant=unionist=loyalist. I must tell that to my parents neighbours and the protestant folk I grew up with in the north. They'd be delighted to hear that you speak for them all.
No not protestant=unionist=loyalist, read his post. "The majorty of Protestants in Northern Ireland see themselves as either loyalist or unionists." Majority is not the same as every.0 -
Iwasfrozen wrote: »No not protestant=unionist=loyalist, read his post. "The majorty of Protestants in Northern Ireland see themselves as either loyalist or unionists." Majority is not the same as every.
i wish yous would make up your minds. I initially said that 'protestant=unionist=loyalist' wasnt true. Now youre telling me I was right the first time. Plus I think what you're really trying to say is loyalists would love to believe all protestants and unionists have the same ideals as the hard core loyalists, and ergo are all the same. I doubt that.0 -
When? Paramilitaries are not going to over run the Northern Ireland government. It's not going to happen. The Good Friday Agreement is international law. A referendum is required in both countries and neither government can back out of the treaty,dienbienphu wrote: »When paramilitaries successfully render the six counties ungovernable once again, the assembly can be put forward as a compromise to paramilitaries. Dissident republicans don't have a mandate but neither did the provos yet the provos managed to get concessions from the British.
Although this is just one scenario it is probably the most likely one to bring about a united ireland.0 -
-
Iwasfrozen wrote: »When? Paramilitaries are not going to over run the Northern Ireland government. It's not going to happen. And even if they did the Good Friday Agreement is international law. A referendum is required in both countries and neither government can back out of the treaty,
Look at the type of behaviour loyalists have been involved in since the Union flag was restricted. Its just a sign of things to come. The PSNI will have a war on two fronts0 -
Advertisement
-
Christ man, I wish you would read the thread. Thats precisely the initial point I made.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=83168340&postcount=15Iwasfrozen wrote: »Protestant does not equal unionist. Catholic does not equal nationalist.0 -
No these protests will die down, riots will not consume Northern Ireland and democracy will not collapse under the weight of violence. No matter how much you want it to.dienbienphu wrote: »Look at the type of behaviour loyalists have been involved in since the Union flag was restricted. Its just a sign of things to come.0 -
Course I read it. Junder said "Erm I think you will find in Northern Ireland that most Protestants are in fact unionist or loyalist" which is true. But you disagreed with him. Thinking he meant all protestants are unionist.Christ man, I wish you would read the thread. Thats precisely the initial point I made.0 -
Iwasfrozen wrote: »Course I read it. Junder said "Erm I think you will find in Northern Ireland that most Protestants are in fact unionist or loyalist" which is true. But you disagreed with him. Thinking he meant all protestants are unionist.
Obviously I disagreed. He cant speak for every protestant - as much as he may hope and pray that they all agree with him.0 -
Iwasfrozen wrote: »No these protests will die down, riots will not consume Northern Ireland and democracy will not collapse under the weight of violence. No matter how much you want it to.
oh i agree, they'll die down until another issue is raised. The more gains Nationalists make in the six counties the more threatened Unionist extremists will feel until the day comes when some crackball unionist paramilitary will set off a bomb and we're back to square one.
You're only fooling yourself0 -
-
UI is not going to happen at any time in the next 20 years, and I think SF are mad to bring up a border poll given the current fragile state of the place and the extreme insecurities and angers of the loyalist community that we're seeing spill onto the streets.
I'm a northern Catholic and have always been in favour of a UI, but it's definitely not the time or the place, and I'm afraid that in conducting this border poll and getting an overwhelming majority not in favour of a UI, it's going to damage the cause.0 -
You're the one fooling yourself if you think violence is going to break the GFA. If the government did break down the British would use the GFA as a mandate to maintain possession. Where do the Irish people come into your idea? Don't we get a vote to decide if we want the Northern Irish in our country? The GFA guarantees us that right but you don't seem very big on democracy.dienbienphu wrote: »oh i agree, they'll die down until another issue is raised. The more gains Nationalists make in the six counties the more threatened Unionist extremists will feel until the day comes when some crackball unionist paramilitary will set off a bomb and we're back to square one.
You're only fooling yourself0 -
I don't think he does. Let me spell it out for him once again.Iwasfrozen wrote: »He doesn't speak for every Protestant when he says most are unionist! Do you understand the difference between most and all?
Not all Protestants are unionists, although it's safe to say that ~95% of Protestants are.0 -
Advertisement
-
Iwasfrozen wrote: »You're the one fooling yourself if you think violence is going to break the GFA. If the government did break down the British would use the GFA as a mandate to maintain possession. Where do the Irish people come into your idea? Don't we get a vote to decide if we want the Northern Irish in our country? The GFA guarantees us that right but you don't seem very big on democracy.
A united ireland is ensrined in article three of the Irish constitution. By law, this state supports all avenues towards that goal. Its in our identity!
The British may use the GFA as a mandate to hold the country but it won't be much use to them if its ungovernable. All people alike, including Unionists, will eventually see that all voilence stems from the norths very existance and the only compromise to be reached will exist in a united Ireland.0 -
Iwasfrozen wrote: »Ok I have to say something here. Ours?! What is ours? Northern Ireland is not ours it belongs to the people who live there and only the people who live there can decide it's fate. Do you know what it's called when one country claims the territory of another? Imperialism. Stop laying claim to somebody else's land and country. If Northern Ireland wants to join us all well and good but until that day it is not ours. This state was not created with the inherent right to the whole island. Same with Argentina and the Falklands.
Articles 2 and 3 of the Irish Constitution were amended in 1999 which relinquished the Republic's territorial claim over the jurisdiction of Northern Ireland. Up until that time the Irish government laid claim to the Irish territory of the north-eastern 6 counties, which we know as the illegitimate statelet "Northern Ireland". So yes, that territory is OURS. It was a territory which was allowed to opt out of independence, and it was created when Michael Collins bowed to pressure to compromise by the British government, who themselves were under tremendous pressure from Unionists. The Unionists created Northern Ireland under threat of war. They drew up the boundaries and manufactured their own majority, not just partitioning Ireland, but also the very province of Ulster. Ulster had 9 counties, 3 of those had to be abandoned to the new Republic as keeping them would not have ensured a Unionist-Protestant majority in the new manufactured country to suit Unionist's needs.
It is not "someone else's land", it is our land, as it is on this island and is a remnant of British colonisation; a British colonial creation. People like you need to wake up and read some Irish history before you post complete b*llocks on this website.Northern Ireland was not created as a by product of British imperialism, hard as it may be for you to believe it was created by the British to satisfy the right to self determination of the Ulster-Scot people. It was a fair compromise devised by the British to ensure the maximum number of people possible could have their democratic rights to either leave or stay in the union respected. To deny the Ulster Scots their right to remain in the Union would have been just as bad as to deny Irish nationalists the right to leave. One right does not trump the other so a compromise was needed. Splitting the island was a fair and reasonable solution at the time.
There should have either been independence for all of Ireland or no independence at all. Northern Ireland should have never been allowed to come into existence, as it was an Orange sectarian state which implemented a program of institutionalised discrimination against the Nationalist Catholic minority, who were viewed by the Unionist majority as "the enemy within". That was most certainly not meant to have been the product of a "fair compromise" as you erroneously put it, it was the product of a threat of war by obstinate and belligerent Unionists who could not bear the thought of living in a majority Catholic independent Ireland where they would go from being the powerful colonial oppressor-occupier to a relatively insignificant minority. They feared a loss of power and status, and threatened war if home rule was imposed upon them.Pretty sure you're describing the French there but sure label them all as British. They're the baddies. Simplistic history for the win. :rolleyes:
The Norman invasion of Ireland was a two-stage process, which began on 1 May 1169 when a force of loosely associated Norman knights landed near Bannow, County Wexford at the request of Dermot MacMurrough (Diarmait Mac Murchada), the ousted King of Leinster, who sought their help in regaining his kingdom.
On 18 October 1171, Henry II landed a much bigger army in Waterford to ensure his continuing control over the preceding Norman force. In the process he took Dublin and had accepted the fealty of the Irish kings and bishops by 1172, so creating the Lordship of Ireland, which formed part of his Angevin Empire.
Prior to this, in 1155, Pope Adrian IV, the only English pope, issued a papal bull (known as Laudabiliter) that gave Henry II permission to invade Ireland as a means of strengthening the Papacy's control over the Irish Church.
The invasion was a joint Anglo-Norman effort, and viewed by most historians as the British invasion of Ireland, which began as an invitation.0 -
Bertie Woot wrote: »But like the Northern Protestants, they are descended from British colonial settlers, and thus share a common ancestry.
Before Ne Temere came into play the accepted convention was for the children of mixed marriages to rear the boys as Protestants and te girls as Roman Catholics. This - mixed marriages - has been happening for at least two centuries. To add to the confusion there were people who converted and not all were soupers either before yiz rear up !!
So, basically, pick the " colonists " out of that. The Lowland Scot loyalist from Belfast you see on the TeeVee is a relative latecomer , coming in to work in the Belfast of the shipyards.0 -
You bring up article 3 and don't even both to quote it.dienbienphu wrote: »A united ireland is ensrined in article three of the Irish constitution. By law, this state supports all avenues towards that goal. Its in our identity!
The British may use the GFA as a mandate to hold the country but it won't be much use to them if its ungovernable. All people alike, including Unionists, will eventually see that all voilence stems from the norths very existance and the only compromise to be reached will exist in a united Ireland.
A referendum on unification on both sides is constitutionally enshrined. And a referendum is needed to remove it. I know you hate democracy but thankfully the people who wrote the GFA didn't.Article3 wrote:1. It is the firm will of the Irish Nation, in harmony and friendship, to unite all the people who share the territory of the island of Ireland, in all the diversity of their identities and traditions, recognising that a united Ireland shall be brought about only by peaceful means with the consent of a majority of the people, democratically expressed, in both jurisdictions in the island. Until then, the laws enacted by the Parliament established by this Constitution shall have the like area and extent of application as the laws enacted by the Parliament that existed immediately before the coming into operation of this Constitution.
2. Institutions with executive powers and functions that are shared between those jurisdictions may be established by their respective responsible authorities for stated purposes and may exercise powers and functions in respect of all or any part of the island.0 -
Bertie Woot wrote: »
A united Ireland is for Irish Republicans; who are real people. The economic argument against a UI shall run its course, and when the economy picks up and recovers, those people who like to think of themselves as 'realists' and who have rejected unification on economic grounds shall eat their words, because although it may cost a packet for unification at the moment, it's not always going to be that way, and many Irishmen look beyond economics to the rightful and legitimate aspirations of Irishmen throughout the centuries to create a 32 county independent island, separate from the oppressor Britain, and to reclaim that territory which is ours, just as much as the Falklands are Argentinas.
Empire is dead. NI is a product and remnant of British imperialism and it was created to provide the British colonist with a country of his own on this island where his kind would be the majority and wield power. They abused their power by using it to discriminate against Catholic Irishmen in NI. Now that they have had their illegitimate statelet foolishly sanctioned by the Irish people who were crying out for peace, they continue to sustain their colonisation of the 6 counties.
It was actually Demot MacMurrough, ancient Irish King of Leinster who invited the English here by requesting assistance from English King Henry II in regaining his throne. That's right, the Brits were invited here, and were then offered small colonies in Ireland and the hand of MacMurrrough's daughter in marriage as a thank you for their assistance. What began as an invitation then developed into an invasion and eventual 32 county colonisation. If we are gong to blame anyone for 800 years of British occupation, look no further than King Dermot MacMurrough of Leinster. He's the culprit.
The Provisional IRA didn't give a damn about the democratic wishes of the people north and south of the border, and kept bombing and murdering in NI for 30 years and despite all protestations from Protestants and Catholics North and South to desist. My sentiments may seem "radical and backward" to you, but they are not as radical and backward as launching a campaign of violence in response to institutionalised discrimination in the British statelet, and sustaining a futile campaign of violence for 30 years, then surrendering their weaponry after signing an agreement which was essentially an admission of military defeat.
The IRA didn't care about the concept of "democracy" because they thought they could win and achieve their objective by armed force. The only reason they are wedded to the democratic process now is because after 30 years they finally realised that violence was not going to get the Brits out of the occupied 6 counties and deliver a united Ireland. The PIRA failed miserably and were defeated. They now serve their British paymasters in Stormont, the same parliament that presided over discrimination and Gerry Mandering, and which their raison d'etre was to destroy. They are now collaborators with the British Unionist parties in the continued British rule of the 6 counties.
No-one gives a toss what Sinn Fein say or do any more as they lost all credibility with real Irish Republicans 15 years ago. Adams even apologised for the murder of a Garda officer a few days back. If he apologised for the murder of a Southern Irish Policeman, is he now going to apologise for every northern RUC Officer and British soldier the Provos murdered in NI during the course of the conflict? Because that looks where he is heading.
Please educate me by outlining two definitions. One of Unionism and one of Loyalism, and tell me what the difference is beside most Loyalists being working class Protestants, and most Unionists being middle class Protestants.
Join us in the new Ireland. Be part of your own destiny, instead of procrastinating and attempting to delay and avoid the inevitable. In a 32 county Irish Republic Unionists would constitute approximately 20% of the Irish population, and could play a very significant role in governance.
If the were safeguards and guarantees built into a unification agreement to protect PULs from discrimination and persecution in a new Ireland (because we know that is what you fear the most), would you ever consider voting in favour of Irish unification in a referendum and becoming a fully fledged Irish citizen, instead of hanging onto the coattails of mother Britain; a nation that has been attempting to disown you since the early seventies?
Wow. You're a super-Protestant with Irish Republican ancestry? That's marvellous. My mate Geordie is a northern Protestant and a fervent Unionist and he is ancestrally related to none other than Wolfe Tone.
It's important to note that in the past Irish Republicanism was not an almost exclusively Catholic phenomenon like it has been in recent years. There have been many Protestant Irish Republicans, and descended from the colonial British.
Interesting how descendants of the Protestant united Irish men have rejected thier ancestors republicanism0 -
-
Advertisement
-
See there you go again laying claim to the land of another state regardless of what the people living in that state think. I'm well aware of our history I don't need a lesson from you, I know the island was once unified under British rule but the southern part rebelled and as a result it was split up as a best compromise for both sides. Anything else would have amounted to forcing Ulster Scots to leave the union and join the republic. No minorities right to self determination can ever be allowed to be drowned out by a majority. That is not democratic and that is not the shape of post WW2 international relations. Northern Ireland will join us if both sides of this island wish it to be so but for now your posturing that Northern Ireland is ours is only that, posturing. Heaven forbid the same rights to self determination be given to the Ulster Scots that was given to the Irish. Heaven forbid we have equal rights and freedom of expression of national identity.Bertie Woot wrote: »Articles 2 and 3 of the Irish Constitution were amended in 1999 which relinquished the Republic's territorial claim over the jurisdiction of Northern Ireland. Up until that time the Irish government laid claim to the Irish territory of the north-eastern 6 counties, which we know as the illegitimate statelet "Northern Ireland". So yes, that territory is OURS. It was a territory which was allowed to opt out of independence, and it was created when Michael Collins bowed to pressure to compromise by the British government, who themselves were under tremendous pressure from Unionists. The Unionists created Northern Ireland under threat of war. They drew up the boundaries and manufactured their own majority, not just partitioning Ireland, but also the very province of Ulster. Ulster had 9 counties, 3 of those had to be abandoned to the new Republic as keeping them would not have ensured a Unionist-Protestant majority in the new manufactured country to suit Unionist's needs.
It is not "someone else's land", it is our land, as it is on this island and is a remnant of British colonisation; a British colonial creation. People like you need to wake up and read some Irish history before you post complete b*llocks on this website.
Why? Why all or nothing when you can give both groups what they want.Bertie Woot wrote: »There should have either been independence for all of Ireland or no independence at all. Northern Ireland should have never been allowed to come into existence, as it was an Orange sectarian state which implemented a program of institutionalised discrimination against the Nationalist Catholic minority, who were viewed by the Unionist majority as "the enemy within". That was most certainly not meant to have been the product of a "fair compromise" as you erroneously put it, it was the product of a threat of war by obstinate and belligerent Unionists who could not bear the thought of living in a majority Catholic independent Ireland where they would go from being the powerful colonial oppressor-occupier to a relatively insignificant minority. They feared a loss of power and status, and threatened war if home rule was imposed upon them.
So you agree it wasn't just simplistic bold Brits invading the poor defenceless Irish.Bertie Woot wrote: »The Norman invasion of Ireland was a two-stage process, which began on 1 May 1169 when a force of loosely associated Norman knights landed near Bannow, County Wexford at the request of Dermot MacMurrough (Diarmait Mac Murchada), the ousted King of Leinster, who sought their help in regaining his kingdom.
On 18 October 1171, Henry II landed a much bigger army in Waterford to ensure his continuing control over the preceding Norman force. In the process he took Dublin and had accepted the fealty of the Irish kings and bishops by 1172, so creating the Lordship of Ireland, which formed part of his Angevin Empire.
Prior to this, in 1155, Pope Adrian IV, the only English pope, issued a papal bull (known as Laudabiliter) that gave Henry II permission to invade Ireland as a means of strengthening the Papacy's control over the Irish Church.
The invasion was a joint Anglo-Norman effort, and viewed by most historians as the British invasion of Ireland, which began as an invitation.0 -
Iwasfrozen wrote: »You bring up article 3 and don't even both to quote it.
A referendum on unification on both sides is constitutionally enshrined. And a referendum is needed to remove it. I know you hate democracy but thankfully the people who wrote the GFA didn't.
There's nothing undeomocratic about creating an all ireland assembly as per the belfast agreement. I did not say anything about creating an all ireland dail. I said that an all ireland assembly could be used as the future blueprint for an all ireland dail . I'll probably have to repeat myself again because I don't think you are grasping what I am saying. I am pointing out to you scenarios which are likey to happen in the future. So that does not make me undeomocratic wherever you got that notion from.0 -
I didnt realise there was an exam, but personally I can only educate you by repeating my earlier explanation - as a republican growing up in the north Ive known and met many protestants who were neither loyalist nor unionist.
Does that help you at all? Cus otherwise you'll have to work it out for yourself.
Nice cop-out. I don't for one minute believe that you have known many Protestants in NI who were neither Loyalist or Unionist. Sorry, but that just sounds like complete pish and a load of unrealistic evasive waffle.
And your inability to differentiate between Unionism and Loyalism has been noted.0 -
Iwasfrozen wrote: »See there you go again laying claim to the land of another state regardless of what the people living in that state think. I'm well aware of our history I don't need a lesson from you, I know the island was once unified under British rule but the southern part rebelled and as a result it was split up as a best compromise for both sides. Anything else would have amounted to forcing Ulster Scots to leave the union and join the republic. No minorities right to self determination can ever be allowed to be drowned out by a majority. That is not democratic and that is not the shape of post WW2 international relations. Northern Ireland will join us if both sides of this island wish it to be so but for now your posturing that Northern Ireland is ours is only that, posturing. Heaven forbid the same rights to self determination be given to the Ulster Scots that was given to the Irish. Heaven forbid we have equal rights and freedom of expression of national identity.
It is NOT "the land of another state". You consistently fail to recognise that what you term "another state" is nothing more than a British imperialist invention designed to legitimise the continued colonisation of a part of Ireland, which is our land. You post like a Unionist, so I can only surmise that you are one. The Ulster-Scots have a right to their own identity, ethnicity, culture and ethos, but not at the price of the continued partition of Ireland. We have a multicultural society in Ireland now, and Irish Republicanism is about tolerance for other cultures; the Ulster-Scots people would not be prevented from practising their culture in a unified independent Ireland.
And the bit about "No minorities right to self determination can ever be allowed to be drowned out by a majority. That is not democratic" is complete nonsense, as that is the very essence of democracy. When Northern Ireland eventually votes in favour of unification, the rights of the Ulster minority in favour of continued union with Britain shall have been trumped by the right of the majority who have voted in favour of unification. That is how democracy works. The majorities wishes must be respected and implemented, otherwise there is no democracy.Why? Why all or nothing when you can give both groups what they want.
In 1921 both Nationalists and Unionists were vociferously opposed to partition - fact. Both groups did not receive what they wanted.So you agree it wasn't just simplistic bold Brits invading the poor defenceless Irish.
As I have stated twice thus far: the Brits came here by invitation, and from King Dermot MacMurrough of Leinster. They then came across in increasingly higher numbers and what began as an invitation evolved into an invasion and consequent colonisation.
We Irish have no-one but an ancient Irish King to blame for 800 years of British occupation.0 -
Bertie Woot wrote: »It is NOT "the land of another state". You consistently fail to recognise that what you term "another state" is nothing more than a British imperialist invention designed to legitimise the continued colonisation of a part of Ireland, which is our land. You post like a Unionist, so I can only surmise that you are one. The Ulster-Scots have a right to their own identity, ethnicity, culture and ethos, but not at the price of the continued partition of Ireland. We have a multicultural society in Ireland now, and Irish Republicanism is about tolerance for other cultures; the Ulster-Scots people would not be prevented from practising their culture in a unified independent Ireland.
And the bit about "No minorities right to self determination can ever be allowed to be drowned out by a majority. That is not democratic" is complete nonsense, as that is the very essence of democracy. When Northern Ireland eventually votes in favour of unification, the rights of the Ulster minority in favour of continued union with Britain shall have been trumped by the right of the majority who have voted in favour of unification. That is how democracy works. The majorities wishes must be respected and implemented, otherwise there is no democracy.
In 1921 both Nationalists and Unionists were vociferously opposed to partition - fact. Both groups did not receive what they wanted.
As I have stated twice thus far: the Brits came here by invitation, and from King Dermot MacMurrough of Leinster. They then came across in increasingly higher numbers and what began as an invitation evolved into an invasion and consequent colonisation.
We Irish have no-one but an ancient Irish King to blame for 800 years of British occupation.
If he's not a loyalist hes definitely a troll0 -
Advertisement
Advertisement