Referendum for Irish Unity 2022

T runner

kidneyfan wrote: »

Why not an independent 7 county Ulster (we'll take Donegal off your hands). Nice Defend-able border. Or why not just cut Northern Ireland into a patchwork that is mixed between the UK and the Republic. Seriously there are towns in holland and belgium that are cut up like mad between the two countries.

Have the Diamond in the UK and the Short Strand in the republic.

What is the problem. OK in one way it intensifies sectarian division. But in another we can all just forget about it.

What does it matter to someone in Cork if most of Coleraine is in the UK?

There was only a Unionist majority in 3 Ulster counties before partition, so 6 was deemed (by Ulster Protestants) to be the maximum they could safely take.
Cutting Ireland up has failed. Partitioning countries was popular post ww1. Partitioning an Island country into a larger mildly sectarian Catholic part and a smaller apartheid like Protestant regime was just ridiculous and shortsighted. Cutting it up again to facilitate a sectarian majority in a few counties wont happen. If Protestants become a minority in NI then its time to leave the sectarian stick down and try and strike up a relationship with the other people on this Island.

For teh Cork man? It means that another juristiction is trading on the Island and will inevitably continue to adopt a parasytic economic position.
It means that The island he lives on is still divided by sectarian lines well into the 21st century.

kidneyfan

T runner wrote: »

Partitioning countries was popular post ww1.

Terrible how the British Isles were partitioned. Time to put that right and put the red saltire back in the front of the Union Flag.

Crooked Jack

gallag wrote: »

Thats how polls work, they cant ask everyone so they ask about 1000 people, I thought you would know this? Also, how was the question loaded? And would you agree sf seem to want the vote issue put on the back burner, why is that?

come on gallag, you can work this out. So contrary to what you said earlier 30 per cent of SF voters didn't say anything. 30 per cent of people in a small poll said they voted Sinn Fein and then said something? Yeah, that's the same.
The only worthwhile poll, with any credibility, is a border poll.
As for the question, how is it not loaded. Would you vote for a reunited Ireland tomorrow?
No debate, no information, no explanation of the issues, just expect an uninformed electorate to wake up one day and cast a vote on the biggest decision in the country's history. Pfffft.
And no, I would not agree SF has put the border poll on the back burner at all, quite the opposite in fact. They have promoted it consistently despite this farcical poll, have challenged the Brits and unionists to stand up and defend this corrupt occupation if they believe in it so much and from what I have heard are planning to escalate the campaign in the near future.

Crooked Jack

kidneyfan wrote: »

Why not an independent 7 county Ulster (we'll take Donegal off your hands). Nice Defend-able border. Or why not just cut Northern Ireland into a patchwork that is mixed between the UK and the Republic. Seriously there are towns in holland and belgium that are cut up like mad between the two countries.

Sure why not just go house to house. 27 Newry Road is now part of a free Ireland. 28 Newry Road remains under British control. 29 Newry road is split; upstairs is now Ireland, downstairs in Britain.

garhjw

I would vote NO for 2 reasons.
1. Economically, it would be a disaster.
2. Sinn Fein would get more votes and that would be a disaster. Their "economic policies" are ruinous.

Chuck Stone

gallag wrote: »

The united kingdom of great Britain and Ireland is the future. A United ireland back within the UK, Ireland would have its own parliament just like wales and Scotland.

COYW wrote: »

I agree Gallag. It is the only genuine compromise I can see.

This is absolute fantasy. The fury that would unleash would make the troubles look like a fucking kindergarten argument.

Never going to happen.

Prop Joe

A new currency the British & Irish Pound or something along the lines of that.Each country could have there own design.

Also what would the flag look like,I think they should keep the same one as with the national anthem

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

What's the casulty figures for those 5 years again?
Seems to me the North only got to be a better place to live since the Irish government got involved.

Seen from another vantage point, the North only got to be a better place since Sinn Fein/IRA stopped their illegal terrorist murders.

Happyman42

Godge wrote: »

Seen from another vantage point, the North only got to be a better place since Sinn Fein/IRA stopped their illegal terrorist murders.

If you could only see that from your vantage point then you where part of the problem.
Life only got better for real when the British where forced to realise that the only solution was to negotiate a deal with the Irish Government, which has seen the end of the Unionist gerrymandered failure. There is just some diehard Unionists left who haven't realised that it is better.

The Corinthian

CelticDragon7 wrote: »

Whether you would vote Yes or No in any such referendum, would you support that there should be a referendum on the issue of Irish unity some time in 2022?

(2022 would be 100 years on from the effective ratification of the Anglo-Irish Treaty in 1922 and so really the defining moment for permanent partition and so surely the people voting 100 years later could settle the issue for the foreseeable future one way or the other).

Holding a referendum in 2022 simply because it is a century since the Anglo-Irish treaty, is symbolic but also pretty daft.

Presuming you want to want the result to support unification, there's no guarantee that there will be sufficient support for it by 2022. It may take until 2027 for that or even could happen in 2017, then fall again, as often happens with these things - yet you'll have tied yourself to a fixed date rather than a point where you have the best chance of getting the desired result.

And if it fails what then? It's not like you can realistically do a Nice or Lisbon on it and have another referendum six months later; politically it would likely be years if not decades before you could try again. Or, given you've set a 'century precedent', one can easily argue "better luck in 2122".

Symbolism is only of use if it sways public opinion, which would be minimal in this case IMHO. Hold a referendum when you're going to win, not because of some silly romantic anniversary.

bbam

Was watching an episode of Star Trek Next generation the other evening.

They were babbling on about examples of terrorism gaining results and then mentioned the 2024 civil war in Ireland that gained a unified state...

So that's just two years after your proposed vote.

kidneyfan

kidneyfan wrote: »

why not just cut Northern Ireland into a patchwork that is mixed between the UK and the Republic. Seriously there are towns in holland and belgium that are cut up like mad between the two countries.

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Sure why not just go house to house. 27 Newry Road is now part of a free Ireland. 28 Newry Road remains under British control. 29 Newry road is split; upstairs is now Ireland, downstairs in Britain.

well why not? If you write to derry city council and you put Londonderry in your address then they write to you with the same form of words and if you use Derry the same.

Seriously I don't see the problem. House by house might be a pain but why not let any group of 1000 people pick the country for themselves.

Happyman42

The Corinthian wrote: »

Hold a referendum when you're going to win,

Somebody else suggested this ill thought out idea too. What if we held 'elections' only when we where sure that the opposition was going to win?

It's nonsense, just as taking any indicators from the BBC poll question, 'Would you vote for it tomorrow' is a nonsense idea.
Part of the process is the debate and the campaign and the opportunity to sway people's opinions in a democratic atmosphere.
There has to be regular referendums (every 10 years) and a lively, intelligent and stimulating debate, call it a safety valve, it's a small price to pay.
And the debate could be extremely stimulating and interesting, as our essential differences always have been, that's if you can step back from the hate and be properly democratic.

kidneyfan

Happyman42 wrote: »

There has to be regular referendums (every 10 years) and a lively, intelligent and stimulating debate, call it a safety valve, it's a small price to pay.

Bridget: Let's have a referendum
Luther: I don't want one
Bridget: So we can have a United Ireland
Luther: I so don't want that. People from Cork telling us what to do. Southerners are annoying.
Bridget: Well English people are annoying too.
Luther: I can't stand them either. Let's get our own country. But Let's get a room first.
Bridget: I'm not that kind of girl
Luther: Yes you are
Bridget: Oh that's good

etc. and all our problems just go away.

Happyman42 wrote: »

stimulating and interesting, as our essential differences always have been.

Our differences (if you mean the differences between Protestants and Roman Catholics in Ulster) are not stimulating or interesting or essential.

Crooked Jack

kidneyfan wrote: »

well why not? If you write to derry city council and you put Londonderry in your address then they write to you with the same form of words and if you use Derry the same.

Seriously I don't see the problem. House by house might be a pain but why not let any group of 1000 people pick the country for themselves.

Partition is idiotic and problematic enough without this fiasco you're suggesting.
I assume you dont live anywhere near the border because then you'd understand the hassle it causes and you wouldn't be advocating borders every 2 miles.

kidneyfan

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Partition is idiotic and problematic enough without this fiasco you're suggesting.
I assume you dont live anywhere near the border because then you'd understand the hassle it causes and you wouldn't be advocating borders every 2 miles.

What hassle does the border cause? The lines on the road change colour. Petrol is cheaper. The roads on one side are better one year and on the other side the next.

EDIT: The only thing that I can think of is that the southern government won't pay properly for southerners to go to Altnagelvin, Enniskillen or Daisy Hill so they have to go to rubbish hospitals in the south.

EDIT:
Anyway it is question begging to describe Partition as idiotic. The (protestant) people of Northern Ireland didn't secede from the UK and therefore we are NOT the ones who partitioned Ireland.

Happyman42

kidneyfan wrote: »

Bridget: Let's have a referendum
Luther: I don't want one
Bridget: So we can have a United Ireland
Luther: I so don't want that. People from Cork telling us what to do. Southerners are annoying.
Bridget: Well English people are annoying too.
Luther: I can't stand them either. Let's get our own country. But Let's get a room first.
Bridget: I'm not that kind of girl
Luther: Yes you are
Bridget: Oh that's good

etc. and all our problems just go away.
Our differences (if you mean the differences between Protestants and Roman Catholics in Ulster) are not stimulating or interesting or essential.

Our cultural differences are endlessly fascinating to anybody who is not embarassed or bored by them.
We can't move forward if we don't embrace them and interest ourselves in who we are.
There is always the option to 'opt out' and not take part, but just like in ordinary elections, you have no right to complain about the outcome if you don't participate in the choosing.

The Corinthian

Happyman42 wrote: »

Somebody else suggested this ill thought out idea too. What if we held 'elections' only when we where sure that the opposition was going to win?

I specifically spoke from the premise of "presuming you want to want the result to support unification" in which case you will seek to time any vote to the most favourable time. That's why governments tend to choose when best to run an election (even if they could attempt to squeeze out every last day in office) to coincide with more favourable conditions.

If you're not bothered either way and I did not apply that premise, then sure - do it whenever.

It's nonsense, just as taking any indicators from the BBC poll question, 'Would you vote for it tomorrow' is a nonsense idea.

Then, if one is an interested party and does not trust existing polls, you stop moaning, go out and do your own research.

There has to be regular referendums (every 10 years) and a lively, intelligent and stimulating debate, call it a safety valve, it's a small price to pay.

Sure, and if the north were to unify and dis-unify every ten or twenty years as a result? Very democratic, but not terribly practical. Or to be really democratic, we should have referenda for every county or province. That'll be fun.

And the debate could be extremely stimulating and interesting, as our essential differences always have been, that's if you can step back from the hate and be properly democratic.

Somehow, judging by past experience, I doubt it, IMHO.

CelticDragon7

kidneyfan wrote: »

Anyway it is question begging to describe Partition as idiotic. The (protestant) people of Northern Ireland didn't secede from the UK and therefore we are NOT the ones who partitioned Ireland.

Well in fact it was Northern Ireland who seceded from the Free State, a state which it was part of for two whole days! =]

kidneyfan

Happyman42 wrote: »

Our cultural differences are endlessly fascinating to anybody who is not embarassed or bored by them.

Cultural differences between Protestants and Roman Catholics in Northern Ireland? I'd love to hear them.

kidneyfan

CelticDragon7 wrote: »

Well in fact it was Northern Ireland who seceded from the Free State, a state which it was part of for two whole days! =]

Thanks CelticDragon I never knew that! Great one for a Pub quiz!

pablomakaveli

Although im opposed to a UI as i believe it would do more damage then benefit the current Republic, i would actually welcome a referendum on the subject as when its voted down the question can be put to rest for a long time to come.

Crooked Jack

kidneyfan wrote: »

What hassle does the border cause? The lines on the road change colour. Petrol is cheaper. The roads on one side are better one year and on the other side the next.

Phone signals, different currencies, the endless bureaucracy around living on one side and working on the other, trying to deal between banks on either side, even if it's the same bloody bank (fuck you Bank of Ireland,) the huge difficulties around combating crime when criminals can slip across a border nobody in the area recognises, the fact the whole thing is shut down as soon as some emergency like BSE or foot and mouth hits, the massive problems for farmers with land on both sides or even just farmers in general, for example, selling livestock/machinery, the fact that sending a letter to someone ten miles away takes a week.
There are endless day to day problems caused by that odious imaginary line. Just because the brits stopped blockading and blowing up the border roads doesnt mean the border itself isnt still a massive pain in the whole.

kidneyfan wrote: »

EDIT: The only thing that I can think of is that the southern government won't pay properly for southerners to go to Altnagelvin, Enniskillen or Daisy Hill so they have to go to rubbish hospitals in the south.

Uninformed, idiotic bigotry. Your true self really slips through with these we comments. Very telling.

kidneyfan wrote: »

EDIT:
Anyway it is question begging to describe Partition as idiotic. The (protestant) people of Northern Ireland didn't secede from the UK and therefore we are NOT the ones who partitioned Ireland.

I dont even know where to begin with this one. Firstly, on a slight side note, this ability one protestant seems to have to speak on behalf of all protestants immediately withdraws credibility from what you say. I would never presume that I could speak on behalf of all catholics.
More to the point, unionists claim to be democratic but when the vast majority of the people of Ireland called for independence it was the unionists who threatened war and began redrawing the country's parameters, ignoring, if not heaping active scorn and derision, on the democratic will of the people.
Unionists, with the help of their british masters and a good old dollop of free state complicity, did indeed partition Ireland.

Crooked Jack

CelticDragon7 wrote: »

Well in fact it was Northern Ireland who seceded from the Free State, a state which it was part of for two whole days! =]

I the thought northern parliament was set up well before the southern one. Can you provide a link to back this up?

Sulla Felix

If it means no one is allowed bring it up for another hundred years then sure.

kidneyfan

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Phone signals

OK I'll give you that one.

Crooked Jack wrote: »

different currencies

That's not a hassle.

Crooked Jack wrote: »

the endless bureaucracy around living on one side and working on the other,

No that's an advantage. Live in the south and work in the United Kingdom and you can have southern schools and UK hospitals.
+1 the border

Crooked Jack wrote: »

the huge difficulties around combating crime when criminals can slip across a border nobody in the area recognises

They recognise it when it suits them. If the Garda was competent we could have much closer cooperation. It isn't the PSNIs fault.

Crooked Jack wrote: »

the fact the whole thing is shut down as soon as some emergency like BSE or foot and mouth hits

That's good for controlling that sort of emergency. +1 the border.

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Uninformed, idiotic bigotry. Your true self really slips through with these we comments. Very telling.

Southern hospitals are rubbish, the police are rubbish, cross from Fermanagh to South Donegal and look around if anything Donegal is more naturally beautiful but ruined by bad planning.

The south has low standards and a culture of ineptitude.

I have never claimed to speak on behalf of all protestants.

CelticDragon7

Crooked Jack wrote: »

I the thought northern parliament was set up well before the southern one. Can you provide a link to back this up?

It was but 'legally' on 6 December 1922, Northern Ireland became an autonomous region of the newly created Irish Free State although through the negotiations it had the option of opting out, which it did two days later.

Yes I know it is always suspect to use Wikipedia to back things up, but I am sure it can be found else where on the web!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Free_State#Northern_Ireland_.22opts_out.22

Lelantos

A referendum where? In the 26 counties? Counts for nothing whatsoever. If the 6 counties vote in the future to leave the union & then at a future date have a vote on possibly joining with Ireland, then you can have a referendum, until then, its moot point

Happyman42

The Corinthian wrote: »

I specifically spoke from the premise of "presuming you want to want the result to support unification" in which case you will seek to time any vote to the most favourable time. That's why governments tend to choose when best to run an election (even if they could attempt to squeeze out every last day in office) to coincide with more favourable conditions.

If you're not bothered either way and I did not apply that premise, then sure - do it whenever.

You said 'hold a referendum when you are going to win' as if it was in the gift of one side or the other, it shouldn't be in a truly democratic process. The GFA referred to periods of 7 years,(although it didn't stipulate that) which seems about right to me. But we need to allow the debate and respective campaigns to begin, or the accusation will be that rights are being denied and we now where that can lead to.

Then, if one is an interested party and does not trust existing polls, you stop moaning, go out and do your own research.

It's not a question of 'trust'. One should stop extrapolating nonsense from polls that ask specific questions. Which is what I was referring to.

Sure, and if the north were to unify and dis-unify every ten or twenty years as a result? Very democratic, but not terribly practical. Or to be really democratic, we should have referenda for every county or province. That'll be fun.

In order to hold any referendum you have to demonstrate a need to have that referendum, and there are many reasons... legal or societal change etc., just like the need for one on abortion, divorce, Lisbon etc was demonstrated by varying groups. If after unity, enough people demonstrate that there is a need for a rethink then I can't see it being democratic to deny them the right to poll the electorate. It's a case of, we are a democracy now, put up or shut up.

Somehow, judging by past experience, I doubt it, IMHO.

An open an free society should have noting to fear from cultural differences within it. But a lot more people have to put away their ingrained prejudices.

LordSutch

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Just because the brits stopped blockading and blowing up the border roads . . . .

I thought it was the IRA who made the blockades and blew up the roads + the railway tracks :cool:

I think the only way Northern Ireland would leave the United Kingdom to form a so called 'United Ireland'
would be if the Republic came close enough to them to make it worth their while to leave the United Kingdom.

Joining the Commonwealth would be a start, putting the road markings back to MPH would be another, adopting the UK postcode system would also help, opening BBC offices in Dublin & Cork, marking the Queens birthday, changing the National anthem to a more Unionist friendly version' + a new all Ireland flag, oh and don't forget the NHS, which we would have to adopt . . .

All of this and more is what's needed to woo Northern Ireland out of the United Kingdom > and into the clutches of a Dublin
which would have to find the means to fund, run & police the very angry 'hornets nest' that would be Northern Ireland )

OK most of that's very unlikely, but the commonwealth bit is a serious suggestion, which does have some support down here.

kidneyfan

Really if the south wants a united Ireland (without interminable terrorism) the below is little enough to ask.
No downside really.
Make Donegal Irish the standard in schools.

The postcode system is a good idea anyway and the royals have to keep some role. A new national anthem is a good idea anyway because the one yous have is rubbish. Commonwealth you get the commonwealth games.

I'd have no problem with a United Ireland. But
1 Ulster is special and better that has to be recognised
2 What's the point
3 Why not just repartition
4 Why bother

LordSutch wrote: »

Joining the Commonwealth would be a start, putting the road markings back to MPH would be another, adopting the UK postcode system would also help, opening BBC offices in Dublin & Cork, marking the Queens birthday, changing the National anthem to a more Unionist friendly version' + a new all Ireland flag . . .

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

If you could only see that from your vantage point then you where part of the problem..

I never said that I could only see that from my vantage point. Actually, when I was young and naive what I saw from my vantage point would have been quite similar to what you see now. However, maturity personal growth, and a realisation that there are others with genuine beliefs and aspirations allowed me to learn that there are always other viewpoints and that there are no absolutes. Once you achieve the realisation that there is no natural god-given (or any other -given) right or reason for there to be just one (or even one) state on this island, no matter how much some misguided people think there is, then you realise that the multiple viewpoints preclude the type of solution espoused by SF/IRA types.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Life only got better for real when the British where forced to realise that the only solution was to negotiate a deal with the Irish Government, which has seen the end of the Unionist gerrymandered failure. There is just some diehard Unionists left who haven't realised that it is better.

Oh dear, calling that propaganda is an insult to propagandists. Epic fail of revisionism. The British were not forced to do anything (especially by the SF/IRA terrorist axis). They were persuaded slowly by consistent diplomatic pressure from the Irish government that a peaceful outcome within Northern Ireland securing its future was best assured through bilateral negotiation, a minor role for the Irish government and the relinquishing by the Irish state of the Article 2 & 3 aspirations.

kidneyfan

Happyman42 wrote: »

An open an free society should have noting to fear from cultural differences within it. But a lot more people have to put away their ingrained prejudices.

may I politely request that you identify some of the cultural differences within Northern Ireland?

Deedsie

I would definitely advocate a referendum north and south. For something that has such an affect on Irish politics we all deserve a right to vote on it! I'd be voting yes, if ever the people of Northern Ireland wished to reunite the island I would support it!

The Corinthian

Happyman42 wrote: »

You said 'hold a referendum when you are going to win' as if it was in the gift of one side or the other, it shouldn't be in a truly democratic process.

OK. Correction; most likely or have the best chance of winning. Happy?

It's not a question of 'trust'. One should stop extrapolating nonsense from polls that ask specific questions. Which is what I was referring to.

It's pretty clear you don't 'trust' the results of said poll. So, again, go out and do your own - if you're bothered to, that is. If not, no worries.

In order to hold any referendum you have to demonstrate a need to have that referendum, and there are many reasons... legal or societal change etc., just like the need for one on abortion, divorce, Lisbon etc was demonstrated by varying groups. If after unity, enough people demonstrate that there is a need for a rethink then I can't see it being democratic to deny them the right to poll the electorate. It's a case of, we are a democracy now, put up or shut up.

But doesn't that contradict the original premise of this thread? Should we have a referendum because it's been a hundred years since the Anglo-Irish treaty or because it can be demonstrated that there is need for one? If one can demonstrate that need now, should we not do so now, instead of waiting another nine years? Unless the two coincide, you really have to come down on one side or the other.

An open an free society should have noting to fear from cultural differences within it. But a lot more people have to put away their ingrained prejudices.

An awful lot more, I suspect.

Happyman42

Godge wrote: »

I never said that I could only see that from my vantage point. Actually, when I was young and naive what I saw from my vantage point would have been quite similar to what you see now. However, maturity personal growth, and a realisation that there are others with genuine beliefs and aspirations allowed me to learn that there are always other viewpoints and that there are no absolutes. Once you achieve the realisation that there is no natural god-given (or any other -given) right or reason for there to be just one (or even one) state on this island, no matter how much some misguided people think there is, then you realise that the multiple viewpoints preclude the type of solution espoused by SF/IRA types.

What about SF makes you thin that they don't accept that there is another viewpoint? Once the deal was done they signed up to it and waited for the foot draggers to see that it was the only way forward. The DUP didn't exactly welcome it with open arms and as we seen with the 'flag issue' they are still slightly conflicted on what a 'shared future' means.

Oh dear, calling that propaganda is an insult to propagandists. Epic fail of revisionism. The British were not forced to do anything (especially by the SF/IRA terrorist axis). They were persuaded slowly by consistent diplomatic pressure from the Irish government that a peaceful outcome within Northern Ireland securing its future was best assured through bilateral negotiation, a minor role for the Irish government and the relinquishing by the Irish state of the Article 2 & 3 aspirations.

How come they didn't see in 1969, what they eventually seen in 1999? It wasn't that they weren't told often enough.
3000 people died because they wouldn't do what had to be done all along.... accept that there HAD to be an 'Irish dimension' to the solution.
They could meet several times in secret with the 'abhorrent never to be dealt with' IRA, but could not move enough to get a deal done.
And the Irish government, who instead of forcibly calling them to account, spent tragic years condemming the logical outcome of their combined intransigence and civil war hang-ups.
You say you have, maturity and realisation, but you can't see who failed to take the responsibility until it was almost too late.
The tragedy is that violence 'forced' two governments to eventually take responsibility.

Happyman42

The Corinthian wrote: »

It's pretty clear you don't 'trust' the results of said poll. So, again, go out and do your own - if you're bothered to, that is. If not, no worries.

I trust the results because I understand the question, I don't trust those who extrapolate something the question doesn't ask.

But doesn't that contradict the original premise of this thread? Should we have a referendum because it's been a hundred years since the Anglo-Irish treaty or because it can be demonstrated that there is need for one? If one can demonstrate that need now, should we not do so now, instead of waiting another nine years? Unless the two coincide, you really have to come down on one side or the other.

Absolutely, there is a need for one now. But the original premise was should there be one in 2022, there was no 'or' that I seen.

Bertie Woot

CelticDragon7 wrote: »

Whether you would vote Yes or No in any such referendum, would you support that there should be a referendum on the issue of Irish unity some time in 2022?

(2022 would be 100 years on from the effective ratification of the Anglo-Irish Treaty in 1922 and so really the defining moment for permanent partition and so surely the people voting 100 years later could settle the issue for the foreseeable future one way or the other).

So basically a Yes or No answer but of course feel free to air your views and stimulate debate!

Thanks!

I'm a Northern Irish Protestant and from a typically Unionist background, and if there were a referendum in 2022, south and north, I would vote in favour of Irish reunification. Ireland was united under British colonial rule for 800 years, and although obvious divisions between British planter and indigenous Gael were real and evident and those divisions continue in Northern Ireland to this day, Ireland can be reunited peacefully and democratically, if that is the wish of the Irish people; Catholic and Protestant.

I find it bewildering that there is virtually no desire for reunification among Southern Irish people, with them viewing unification outside their economic grasp, and that many Northern nationalists have embraced the Northern Irish identity, and in doing so, have effectively legitimised partition. The Good Friday Agreement, instead of spurring Nationalists on to bring about reunification in their lifetime, has instead caused many to become jaded, with the notion "it's never going to happen" being widespread. This loss of morale has led to a virtual abandonment of the traditional Nationalist aspiration to a 32 county independent Republic, and with national self determination.

The people of the ROI have enjoyed their independence for almost a century, whilst Northern Irish Nationalists have endured institutionalised discrimination, and both Nationalists and Unionists were consequently coerced to wade through 30 years of PIRA violence. Not all Unionists are prepared to face up to the past, just as there are many Republicans who shy away from any confrontation of the atrocities that the PIRA committed in the name of Irish freedom. We need to draw a line in the sand, accept that we have a history of division and conflict, and move forward as Irishmen in the spirit and ideals of Wolfe Tone and the United Irishmen; Protestant, Catholic and dissenter, and embrace our destiny.

This may sound like utopian idealism, and very uncharacteristic coming from a Northern Prod, but I am in fact a realist, and acknowledge that is is extremely unlikely that my lot will ever contemplate withdrawal from the United Kingdom, and coming to favour Irish reunification. Dialogue between Unionists and Republicans here in the north, and most importantly, between Northern Irish Unionists and Southern people and politicians of all political party affiliation can perhaps create the baby steps towards a conversation which shall with sufficient momentum create a pathway to the exploration of the concept of Irish unity among Ulster Unionists, who let's face it, are the people who need to be reassured that reunification is nothing to fear.

Most Unionists fear that what happened to Nationalists in NI shall in turn happen to them in a reunified Republic; that a united Ireland shall only deliver persecution, discrimination, marginalisation and alienation. It is the task for Irish republicans and Nationalists to not only reassure Unionists that this shall not be the case, but in the event that it does, there shall be sufficient legislation embedded within any reunification agreement to allow for British governmental intervention. I know that's not going to be popular among nationalists, but the Prods in the north are never going to contemplate a UI without steadfast reassurances and guarantees that persecution shall not be the result of agreeing to enter into a reunified one country one state constitutional arrangement. In fact, even with sufficient guarantees, Irish republicans shall still have their work cut out for them.

I'm old enough to have lived through the troubles in Northern Ireland. I remember the level of violence being so bad that peace seemed impossible, in fact up until 1994 and the ceasefires, I had never experienced "peace", and when it came about it felt abnormal. The Good Friday Agreement not only delivered (an imperfect) peace, it also created a brand new political landscape to explore, and an opportunity to bridge the divisions that had created the conditions for conflict. I never thought the Good Friday agreement would ever happen, as it seemed an impossibility, but it did. Peaceful Irish reunification can also happen; it shall just take time, patience, and a hell of a lot of imagination and persistence.

Happyman42

Bertie Woot wrote: »

Most Unionists fear that what happened to Nationalists in NI shall in turn happen to them in a reunified Republic; that a united Ireland shall only deliver persecution, discrimination, marginalisation and alienation.

How much of a shift would occur (towards being open to dialogue about reunification) if the above could be demonstrated?
And what in the modern Irieland makes them feel that?
Interesting post btw.

Bertie Woot

Happyman42 wrote: »

How much of a shift would occur (towards being open to dialogue about reunification) if the above could be demonstrated?
And what in the modern Irieland makes them feel that?
Interesting post btw.

If you mean that a reassurance that persecution would not take place could be demonstrated, then like I said, the Republican movement still has its work cut out. Ulster Unionists are just as vehemently opposed to Irish reunification today as they were in the early 70's. I'm an exception to the rule, and one of a tiny minority of people from a Unionist background who have been able to review Irish history from a more non-partisan perspective, and feel that reunification is the right thing to do.

I understand the siege psychology of the Ulster Unionist, as I was socialised within that political landscape and culture, and I can tell you that a united Ireland is NOT on the Unionist agenda, as it is the antithesis of all they are about. However, loyalty to Britain has been wasted and unappreciated IMO, as the English look upon NI as 'a nuisance state' and a dysfunctional and unwanted family relation. They see NI as a waste of English tax-payer's money, and they do not appreciate or admire the loyalty of the Ulster British, although they will pay Unionism lip service periodically, so as to keep them on board in Westminster in times of constitutional need.

The British Unionist Protestant in Northern Ireland is stuck between a rock and a hard place: does he sustain his loyalty to the ancestral ethnic motherland, a loyalty which is mostly unwanted and he sustains out of a fear of a united Ireland? Or does he embrace the fact that although he is of British ancestral origin, he was born on the island of Ireland, is thus Irish, and has more in common with Catholic Irishmen than he cares to imagine? I'd like to see my fellow countrymen sustain their British ethnic and cultural identity, but also embrace their Irishness, and in a reunified 32 county secular Socialist Republic, where religion is superseded by a nationalism which can unite Protestant and Catholic, and where the former can sustain their cultural connection with Britain without the need to sustain the partition of this island, and indeed the partition of Ulster itself.

Some people may call that a pipe-dream, but peace in Northern Ireland was also a 'pipe-dream' not so long ago.

.jacksparrow.

Bertie Woot wrote: »

I'm a Northern Irish Protestant and from a typically Unionist background, and if there were a referendum in 2022, south and north, I would vote in favour of Irish reunification. Ireland was united under British colonial rule for 800 years, and although obvious divisions between British planter and indigenous Gael were real and evident and those divisions continue in Northern Ireland to this day, Ireland can be reunited peacefully and democratically, if that is the wish of the Irish people; Catholic and Protestant.

I find it bewildering that there is virtually no desire for reunification among Southern Irish people, with them viewing unification outside their economic grasp, and that many Northern nationalists have embraced the Northern Irish identity, and in doing so, have effectively legitimised partition. The Good Friday Agreement, instead of spurring Nationalists on to bring about reunification in their lifetime, has instead caused many to become jaded, with the notion "it's never going to happen" being widespread. This loss of morale has led to a virtual abandonment of the traditional Nationalist aspiration to a 32 county independent Republic, and with national self determination.

The people of the ROI have enjoyed their independence for almost a century, whilst Northern Irish Nationalists have endured institutionalised discrimination, and both Nationalists and Unionists were consequently coerced to wade through 30 years of PIRA violence. Not all Unionists are prepared to face up to the past, just as there are many Republicans who shy away from any confrontation of the atrocities that the PIRA committed in the name of Irish freedom. We need to draw a line in the sand, accept that we have a history of division and conflict, and move forward as Irishmen in the spirit and ideals of Wolfe Tone and the United Irishmen; Protestant, Catholic and dissenter, and embrace our destiny.

This may sound like utopian idealism, and very uncharacteristic coming from a Northern Prod, but I am in fact a realist, and acknowledge that is is extremely unlikely that my lot will ever contemplate withdrawal from the United Kingdom, and coming to favour Irish reunification. Dialogue between Unionists and Republicans here in the north, and most importantly, between Northern Irish Unionists and Southern people and politicians of all political party affiliation can perhaps create the baby steps towards a conversation which shall with sufficient momentum create a pathway to the exploration of the concept of Irish unity among Ulster Unionists, who let's face it, are the people who need to be reassured that reunification is nothing to fear.

Most Unionists fear that what happened to Nationalists in NI shall in turn happen to them in a reunified Republic; that a united Ireland shall only deliver persecution, discrimination, marginalisation and alienation. It is the task for Irish republicans and Nationalists to not only reassure Unionists that this shall not be the case, but in the event that it does, there shall be sufficient legislation embedded within any reunification agreement to allow for British governmental intervention. I know that's not going to be popular among nationalists, but the Prods in the north are never going to contemplate a UI without steadfast reassurances and guarantees that persecution shall not be the result of agreeing to enter into a reunified one country one state constitutional arrangement. In fact, even with sufficient guarantees, Irish republicans shall still have their work cut out for them.

I'm old enough to have lived through the troubles in Northern Ireland. I remember the level of violence being so bad that peace seemed impossible, in fact up until 1994 and the ceasefires, I had never experienced "peace", and when it came about it felt abnormal. The Good Friday Agreement not only delivered (an imperfect) peace, it also created a brand new political landscape to explore, and an opportunity to bridge the divisions that had created the conditions for conflict. I never thought the Good Friday agreement would ever happen, as it seemed an impossibility, but it did. Peaceful Irish reunification can also happen; it shall just take time, patience, and a hell of a lot of imagination and persistence.

One of the best posts I have ever read in the countless northern Ireland threads on boards.

Iwasfrozen

@Bertie Woot, good post but you lost me at socialist.

LordSutch

Question; Is it a contradiction in terms for a Northern Irish/British/Unionist/Protestant person to aspire for his region of the United Kingdom
(to leave the UK) and become part of an 'All Ireland' Irish/Nationalist Republic, devoid of any connection to the rest of the United Kingdom?

Cavehill Red

Godge wrote: »

And someone from England might say that they will never be able to commence a truly genuine relationship with the people of the South of Ireland until they renounce their independence and rejoin the United Kingdom.

Some might. But they'd be damn few and far between.

Bertie Woot

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

@Bertie Woot, good post but you lost me at socialist.

I believe the capitalist system is unethical, unfair, and responsible for mass exploitation of the proletariat. It generates and sustains social inequality, and there is no point in attempting to eliminate the cultural inequalities that have existed between British and Irish on this island, and allow the very real social class inequalities that exist between proletariat, petty bourgeoisie and the parasitical capitalist minority elite.

LordSutch wrote: »

Question; Is it a contradiction in terms for a Northern Irish/British/Unionist/Protestant person to aspire for his region of the United Kingdom (to leave the UK) and become part of an 'All Ireland' Irish/Nationalist Republic, devoid of any connection to the rest of the United Kingdom?

No. Despite coming from a Unionist background, I have often argued the case for total separation and a permanent disconnection from the UK and mainland Britain very convincingly on British fora, and have often quoted Wolfe Tone's words which are still relevant to this day:

"To subvert the tyranny of our execrable government, to break the connection with England, the never failing source of all our political evils, and to assert the independence of my country -these were my objectives. To unite the whole people of Ireland, to abolish the memory of all past dissensions, and to substitute the common name of Irishman, in the place of the denominations of Protestant, Catholic, and Dissenter -these were my means."

I have also argued the case for an end to hibernophobia ie. the outdated stereotyping, prejudice, discrimination and hatred towards Irish people based upon a fallacy created by the British colonist (my ancestors) to justify 800 years of British occupation, tyranny, oppression and genocide (famine).

Wolfe Tone himself was a Protestant, descended from the English, and the best Irish Republican that ever lived; a man who gave his life for Ireland; recognising the injustices that his ancestral country of origin had inflicted upon the Irish people, whose only crime was to be indigenous inhabitants of a neighbouring island.

Not all Ulster Unionist Protestants are narrow-minded bigots, some of us have a brain, think for ourselves, have surveyed British-Irish history, and do not tow the traditional British Unionist line. Whilst I have no issue with a total disconnection form Britain in the event of Irish reunification, it would be much better for the Celtic/Gaelic Irish to permit the Ulster Unionist people to sustain their ancestral/historical/ethnic/cultural link with Britain, and to sanction the dual nationality of "British-Irish" in a similar manner to the way Americans of Irish, African and Italian descent consider themselves "Irish-American", Afro-American" and Italian-American".

Post reunification, a referendum on the rejuvenation of the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" also might be a good idea; to allow the Irish people the opportunity to democratically choose whether or not to officially rekindle the British connection. If they voted yes, the relationship between Ireland and Great Britain would be radically redefined, with Ireland an independent and equal partner in a Union which could provide social and economic benefits to all of the people of this island. Great Britain has been an oppressor. In the future it can act as a facilitator to the economic success and prosperity of Hibernia.

Iwasfrozen

Bertie Woot wrote: »

I believe the capitalist system is unethical, unfair, and responsible for mass exploitation of the proletariat. It generates and sustains social inequality, and there is no point in attempting to eliminate the cultural inequalities that have existed between British and Irish on this island, and allow the very real social class inequalities that exist between proletariat, petty bourgeoisie and the parasitical capitalist minority elite.

Socialism breeds a lazy, dependant population and an inefficient economy. The best should be allowed to succeed without being held back by the rest. you have some great idea and I agree with everything you've said bar this.

Bertie Woot

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Socialism breeds a lazy, dependant population and an inefficient economy. The best should be allowed to succeed without being held back by the rest. you have some great idea and I agree with everything you've said bar this.

I always bite off more than most people can chew, and can live with that.

Happyman42

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The best should be allowed to succeed without being held back by the rest.

T'was a shame about Seanie and the crew eh? Held back in their prime :rolleyes:

Iwasfrozen

Happyman42 wrote: »

T'was a shame about Seanie and the crew eh? Held back in their prime :rolleyes:

A criminal is a criminal that's not a criticism of capitalism.

Seanchai

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Socialism breeds a lazy, dependant population and an inefficient economy. The best should be allowed to succeed without being held back by the rest. you have some great idea and I agree with everything you've said bar this.

By a long shot the biggest socialism in this modern capitalist state is corporate socialism, state intervention designed to support the same people from banks to developers to foreign corporations who would be at the forefront of the ranks condemning "socialism", that is when state intervention distributes wealth to poorer people.

The rants against "socialism" should be hollow to anybody who has witnessed the massive transfer of wealth, and socialisation of corporate debt, during the current recession. And the godfather of capitalist societies, the United States, is a veteran in engaging in such massive corporate socialism. These are capitalist societies in action, not capitalism in the ideals of some blinkered Libertarian theorist.