Towards a United Ireland

junder

Happyman42 wrote: »

Well, the sensible thing to do would be to have a citizenship that isn't under threat or can be sold out from under you, like the British have said they will do. Be part of a new country, a united Ireland!
N.I. Unionists are in a worse position than Falklanders; at least they can never be out voted.

J
Why would I want Irish citzenship when I'm not Irish

marienbad

Happyman42 wrote: »

Like Oscar you are applying a moral code to my solution, it has nothing to do with moral objections so therefore is not applicable to every act of violence in the world. It is case specific. So can you stop with the moral judgements? You have no idea of what my attitude to violence is, you might think you do but you couldn't possibly know because I haven't expressed it.
It is my opinion of the ongoing conflict here and is not a manifesto applicable to all violent situations.

And you can stop with the condescending waffle. Who makes it case specific ? you ?

So it is just Islamic violence and Nationalist violence you approve of ?

Happyman42

junder wrote: »

J
Why would I want Irish citzenship when I'm not Irish

If a majority vote in favour then you won't get British citizenship unless you move there. That is the dilemma of your situation, caused by the failure of N.I. and it's a dilemma to be dealt with by you.
Personally, if i was in your situation I would want to go with a future where I had a say, in my fate and I would embrace that very positively on behalf of my children.

Happyman42

marienbad wrote: »

And you can stop with the condescending waffle. Who makes it case specific ? you ?

So it is just Islamic violence and Nationalist violence you approve of ?

You're throwing me saying I approve of Islamic violence into the pot too? :rolleyes:

Bertie Woot

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Not violently no. It would have had to have been peaceful or not at all.

This is totally unrealistic though. With the acceptance of partition De Va Lera and Collins were at loggerheads. Collin's capitulation to British demands for partition under threat of war if the Irish did not concede made civil war between the pro and anti-treaty factions inevitable. The ROI was born out of civil war, and regardless of whether you would have been pro or anti-treaty at that time. The peaceful birth of a nation is the ideal. The reality is usually very different.

Why do you use loaded terminology like colonial occupier? It makes it very hard to debate with you. But yes NI is a region of the UK, that's where it belongs. If they want independence that's 100% their business.

It's not "loaded terminology". Nationalists and Republicans view Northern Ireland as the British occupation of six counties of Ireland, and indeed six of Ulster's nine counties. NI may be a region of the UK, but that was forced upon the six counties politically in 1921, and the six counties are also very much an unalterable and undeniable geographic region of Ireland.

Poland occupies Germany, Prussia.
France occupies Germany, Strasbourg
The UK occupies Ireland, NI.

Nations shift and change all the time. Ireland has no God given right to unity. You need to grow up and accept that.

Well at least you've admitted that the UK "occupies" Ireland - Northern Ireland. What is and what makes a nation? Is it a geographical unit? An ethno-cultural unit? A geo-political unit? A simple and clearly defined land mass with borders and boundaries? A purely historical unit? An abstract concept, or some or all of the above?

Of course there are population shifts and geographical boundaries change and/or are blurred, but Ireland is a small island with a history of invasion by Gaels, Norse Vikings, Anglo-Normans, Scots and English, and no-one can deny the fact that Ireland is currently partitioned because of an 800 year period of British colonisation that did not end the way most Irish Republicans would have wished it to end 92 years ago.

I don't wish to show anything. I just don't see the need to destabilise my country and risk the lives of my fellow countrymen over the hell of NI. Unionists created that mess when they treated Catholics like shít it's not our duty to run in and pick up the pieces.

That's a rather skewed and egocentric way of looking at the situation. Catholics in NI were discriminated against - fact. There is a prospect that Protestants shall face retaliatory discrimination in a reunified Ireland. In fact I've already been discriminated against in the workplace for being a Protestant in Northern Ireland, and by a Catholic Nationalist who acted out his desire for revenge. That had the effect of instilling within in me a distrust of Nationalists. I should be a typical Unionist with a never, never attitude towards reunification, but I'm not. I understand Catholic resentment, accept it as logical, and nevertheless want the best for this island and all of its peoples. I am prepared to run the very real risk of further discrimination in a UI, and because my allegiance is selflessly to Ireland, my country of birth, not Britain, my country of ancestral origin.

You may see reunification as offering destabilisation. Most Irish Republicans would disagree and view unity as providing social, political and economic strength.

Your country has no strategic interest for us. The extra land, people and capital we don't need. NI has nothing to offer us yet the majority of posters on here want us to risk our own country to unify with them. I say bugger to that, we have been separated for the best part of 100 years now. We are different people with a different outlook on life. Unification is neither necessary or wanted.

My country is your country. My ancestors simply sectioned a piece of it for themselves, then misused their political power in that region. Partition and the creation of NI was a Unionist contrivance and a self defence strategy. Not only was Ireland partitioned, the very province of Ulster was partitioned, with three of Ulster's nine counties in the ROI.

Irish Republicans again would vehemently disagree that NI has no strategic interest for you, as regaining the six counties and making Ireland one and whole again is the raison d'etre of Irish Republicanism. They would also disagree with your analysis that you don't need the extra land, people and capital. It is your land, six counties of Ireland, and was taken from you by the British.

Having said all of this, I still respect your decision to reject Irish reunification, though must confess to finding it rather peculiar that I, somone from a Northern British-Unionist background, am much more enthusiastic about Irish reunification than someone from I presume a Southern Catholic and Nationalist background.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

marienbad

Happyman42 wrote: »

You're throwing me saying I approve of Islamic violence into the pot too? :rolleyes:

You are saying it yourself . While you may not specifically approve of violence you do say that we should give in to it . And you specifically say this in your post no 355.

I even asked if you misunderstood my question. And if you give in to it you make it inevitable.

Happyman42

marienbad wrote: »

You are saying it yourself . While you may not specifically approve of violence you do say that we should give in to it . And you specifically say this in your post no 355.

I even asked if you misunderstood my question. And if you give in to it you make it inevitable.

I said we should understand the cause of it and remove that.

junder

Happyman42 wrote: »

If a majority vote in favour then you won't get British citizenship unless you move there. That is the dilemma of your situation, caused by the failure of N.I. and it's a dilemma to be dealt with by you.
Personally, if i was in your situation I would want to go with a future where I had a say, in my fate and I would embrace that very positively on behalf of my children.

Funny in Northern Ireland a person had the right to Irish citzenship, but in your vision of a united Ireland ( brought about by violence or the threat of it) I won't have the right to maintain my British citzenship, not really selling this vision to me not going to be blackmailed by violence either

Happyman42

junder wrote: »

Funny in Northern Ireland a person had the right to Irish citzenship, but in your vision of a united Ireland ( brought about by violence or the threat of it) I won't have the right to maintain my British citzenship, not really selling this vision to me not going to be blackmailed by violence either

Thing is, Junder, it's not me saying it...it's the British Government.

marienbad

Happyman42 wrote: »

I said we should understand the cause of it and remove that.

And if removing that cause was cutting away the fundamental nature of democracy you said that was ok.

You just have no consistency in your argument at all. You are even contradicting yourself at this stage.

As was said earlier - your way or no way,

Happyman42

marienbad wrote: »

And if removing that cause was cutting away the fundamental nature of democracy you said that was ok.

You just have no consistency in your argument at all. You are even contradicting yourself at this stage.

As was said earlier - your way or no way,

Wrong again. My solution applies to the Irish conflict. It is you who are applying it to other situations as my moral standpoint.

junder

Happyman42 wrote: »

Thing is, Junder, it's not me saying it...it's the British Government.

The British government have said no such thing. Moreover their presence in Northern Ireland is copper fastened by the gfa which they are signed up to, unless the majority of the people of Northern Ireland wish to change it, then the British government are stuck here.

marienbad

Happyman42 wrote: »

Wrong again. My solution applies to the Irish conflict. It is you who are applying it to other situations as my moral

standpoint.

Not at all, it is you that keeps bringing morals into it.

You are just all over the place . The only connecting theme through your complete argument is that it must be your way or no way.

You go on about enforcing the will of the people towards a new Ireland and at the same time you are ignoring the current will of the people. And why ? because you don't like the answer you have being given from them.

Happyman42

junder wrote: »

The British government have said no such thing. Moreover their presence in Northern Ireland is copper fastened by the gfa which they are signed up to, unless the majority of the people of Northern Ireland wish to change it, then the British government are stuck here.

Yes and when the majority vote for a UI (which is infinetly possible) then they will withdraw, leaving you with a dilemma.
I have no problem with you being 'a foreign citizen' living here if that is what you want, that is your decision.
It wouldn't be what I would want though and certainly not for my children and future grandchildren.

CramCycle

Thread TL:DR

As a republican, I can't see either side realistically wanting a reunification in the majority. The Irish goverment cannot afford it, and therefore could not accept. The UK holds onto it in part due to agreements made and other political reasons, but I believe if these were not in place they would gladly pass it over to Ireland.

Happyman42

marienbad wrote: »

You go on about enforcing the will of the people towards a new Ireland and at the same time you are ignoring the current will of the people. And why ? because you don't like the answer you have being given from them.

There was a vote? :eek:


It's my opinion, it is yours to accept it or not, I'm not holding a gun to your head. There is nothing dogmatic in what I am saying, I'm merely debating.

marienbad

Happyman42 wrote: »

There was a vote? :eek:


It's my opinion, it is yours to accept it or not, I'm not holding a gun to your head. There is nothing dogmatic in what I am saying, I'm merely debating.

Of course there was a vote ! The is how the Good Friday Agreement came into being. And we withdrew our claim to those six counties and everyone accepted the principle of consent. Thus giving an effective veto to the Northern Ireland electorate.

And I cannot see us overcome that veto anytime soon.

And by the way you may not be holding a gun to my head but your whole argument is based on holding guns to other people's heads.

Happyman42

marienbad wrote: »

Of course there was a vote ! The is how the Good Friday Agreement came into being. And we withdrew our claim to those six counties and everyone accepted the principle of consent. Thus giving an effective veto to the Northern Ireland electorate.

And I cannot see us overcome that veto anytime soon.

And by the way you may not be holding a gun to my head but your whole argument is based on holding guns to other people's heads.

We didn't relinguish our desire to see a United Ireland. Prehaps you didn't read it. Note: 'It is the WILL f the Irish people....'

Article 3:
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 trad
itions, 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 inthe 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.

What gun am I holding to other peoples heads? An acceptance of reality and an OPINION based on that is not holding a gun to peoples heads.
If you have a better way of stopping the cycle of violence (which I believe it always will be and not because I condone it or support, but because that is the sad consequence of the British being here) then spit it out and we'll debate it, stop judging.

Iwasfrozen

Bertie Woot wrote: »

This is totally unrealistic though. With the acceptance of partition De Va Lera and Collins were at loggerheads. Collin's capitulation to British demands for partition under threat of war if the Irish did not concede made civil war between the pro and anti-treaty factions inevitable. The ROI was born out of civil war, and regardless of whether you would have been pro or anti-treaty at that time. The peaceful birth of a nation is the ideal. The reality is usually very different.

The situation you describe was a direct result of the war of independence. A war that should never have happened. 1916 should never have happened the British were giving us Homerule. This would have been used as a stepping stone to further separation down the line. 1916, the war of independence and civil war were a needless pointless waste of blood. Nothing more. They achieved nothing that couldn't have been achieved peacefully.

Bertie Woot wrote: »

It's not "loaded terminology". Nationalists and Republicans view Northern Ireland as the British occupation of six counties of Ireland, and indeed six of Ulster's nine counties. NI may be a region of the UK, but that was forced upon the six counties politically in 1921, and the six counties are also very much an unalterable and undeniable geographic region of Ireland.

Except it is a loaded term. The UK does not "occupy" NI. No more then it "occupies" Scotland or England. NI (and Ireland before it) is/was one of the three constitute kingdoms that formed the UK along with England and Scotland. The United Kingdom was formed as the direct amalgamation of these three kingdoms.

I don't understand why you keep talking about unalterable and undeniable geographic regions. Since when have we ever defined nations based on geography?

Bertie Woot wrote: »

Well at least you've admitted that the UK "occupies" Ireland - Northern Ireland. What is and what makes a nation? Is it a geographical unit? An ethno-cultural unit? A geo-political unit? A simple and clearly defined land mass with borders and boundaries? A purely historical unit? An abstract concept, or some or all of the above?

I did no such thing. No more then Poland occupies Prussia.

It's really a mixture of all of the above but it doesn't need to be. There is no American ethnicity (well except the Indians), hell all of the New World is made up of an ethnically mixed population. I just think basing nationalism on ethnicity is an out dated idea in this era of globalisation. But isn't the break down of national and ethnic borders one of the goals of socialism anyway?

Bertie Woot wrote: »

Of course there are population shifts and geographical boundaries change and/or are blurred, but Ireland is a small island with a history of invasion by Gaels, Norse Vikings, Anglo-Normans, Scots and English, and no-one can deny the fact that Ireland is currently partitioned because of an 800 year period of British colonisation that did not end the way most Irish Republicans would have wished it to end 92 years ago.

So why does Ireland have a God given right to unity?

Bertie Woot wrote: »

That's a rather skewed and egocentric way of looking at the situation. Catholics in NI were discriminated against - fact. There is a prospect that Protestants shall face retaliatory discrimination in a reunified Ireland. In fact I've already been discriminated against in the workplace for being a Protestant in Northern Ireland, and by a Catholic Nationalist who acted out his desire for revenge. That had the effect of instilling within in me a distrust of Nationalists. I should be a typical Unionist with a never, never attitude towards reunification, but I'm not. I understand Catholic resentment, accept it as logical, and nevertheless want the best for this island and all of its peoples. I am prepared to run the very real risk of further discrimination in a UI, and because my allegiance is selflessly to Ireland, my country of birth, not Britain, my country of ancestral origin.

I would never discriminate against protestants and in the event of unification I'd try my best to stamp it out where ever I saw it. We are all equal, different but equal.

Bertie Woot wrote: »

You may see reunification as offering destabilisation. Most Irish Republicans would disagree and view unity as providing social, political and economic strength.

I'm more interested in fact then the opinion of Irish Republicans and frankly I don't buy the arguments put forth by Republicans.

Bertie Woot wrote: »

My country is your country. My ancestors simply sectioned a piece of it for themselves, then misused their political power in that region. Partition and the creation of NI was a Unionist contrivance and a self defence strategy. Not only was Ireland partitioned, the very province of Ulster was partitioned, with three of Ulster's nine counties in the ROI.

400 years before my birth. It makes no difference to me. I don't wake up in the morning thinking how much better my life would be if Ireland was unified. I'm happy with my lot thank you very much and don't want to mess that up. We have a good country here. We're down the toilet economically but these things are cyclical so I'm not worried. Why would we risk that for you? What do you offer to us we don't already have?

Bertie Woot wrote: »

Irish Republicans again would vehemently disagree that NI has no strategic interest for you, as regaining the six counties and making Ireland one and whole again is the raison d'etre of Irish Republicanism. They would also disagree with your analysis that you don't need the extra land, people and capital. It is your land, six counties of Ireland, and was taken from you by the British.

Well what do you offer? I'm not interested in what Republicans think because their thoughts are so predictable.

• We don't need the land we have one of the lowest population densities in Europe.
• We don't need the people, we already have a world class city and two smaller regional hubs. Even though we have a small population density we have enough to utilise our resources.
• We don't need the capital, we have a small population with a knowledge based economy, the majority of the capital we do need is provided by foreign direct investment.

So I ask you if it isn't land, labour or capital what exactly does NI offer to us? We have a nice little country here, why should we risk it for you?

Bertie Woot wrote: »

Having said all of this, I still respect your decision to reject Irish reunification, though must confess to finding it rather peculiar that I, somone from a Northern British-Unionist background, am much more enthusiastic about Irish reunification than someone from I presume a Southern Catholic and Nationalist background.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

You're not wrong but what can I say, we both used our brains and came to different conclusions.

marienbad

Happyman42 wrote: »

We didn't relinguish our desire to see a United Ireland. Prehaps you didn't read it. Note: 'It is the WILL f the Irish people....'



What gun am I holding to other peoples heads? An acceptance of reality and an OPINION based on that is not holding a gun to peoples heads.
If you have a better way of stopping the cycle of violence (which I believe it always will be and not because I condone it or support, but because that is the sad consequence of the British being here) then spit it out and we'll debate it, stop judging.

I am not judging anyone ! You are demanding an acceptance of YOUR Reality !

You must read your own post again. We have accepted that a united Ireland can only come about by consent . That is the democratically expressed will of the people.

That is the only reality that counts and turning your own post back on you means that you are obliged to accept that. Implicit in that acceptance is that you are absolutely entitled to convince and persuade others to your way of thinking. But also implicit is that we must face down any who would use any means other than democratic ones to achieve their aims.

Whether those aims are inevitable or not is immaterial . That is of course assuming you do believe in democracy ?

johnnydeep

marienbad wrote: »

And you can stop with the condescending waffle. Who makes it case specific ? you ?

So it is just Islamic violence and Nationalist violence you approve of ?

so what are you saying, that aswell as the british army murdering irish men women and children, you are happy for them to kill innocent Iraqi, afghan and Pakistani men women and children. I suppose its proof that the English never learn from their mistakes

johnnydeep

oscarBravo wrote: »

No; people die because some people believe that the British presence in Northern Ireland justifies their murder. You are accepting this as axiomatic, and demanding that the rest of us placidly accept it also.

Your solution is for Britain to leave Northern Ireland, and you blithely assume that there is no reason why this would cause anyone else to want to commit murder. Leaving aside that this indicates that you believe that only republicans are sufficiently sociopathic to be permanently committed to violence, it neatly skips over any effort to persuade republicans to stop killing people in order to further their goals.

It's strange how you seem to feel that the loyalists are less deeply committed to violence than the republicans are: you are utterly certain that nothing could ever stop republican terrorism short of total victory, but are equally convinced that loyalist terrorists will simply give up and resign themselves to Irishness rather than put up a fight. I guess you believe that republicans are intrinsically more violent than loyalists: not a view I'd share.

Your analogy is stupid. Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom; we - the people of the Republic - overwhelmingly asserted that fact in a referendum. It's not ours.

no the fact is republicans have a just cause and widespread support. like the blacks in south Africa. not surprisingly the loyalists and white south Africans where buddies. until Ireland is united there will always be an element of violent opposition.
I am glad you have seen sense and quit calling it your house. I have to admit its a fine house. I have also moved ten people into it and unless they vote to leave it. then it will remain mine and I will lawfully shoot anybody unarmed in the back if they come near it.

Zubeneschamali

Happyman42 wrote: »

when the majority vote for a UI

Get back to us then, OK? In 50, 100 years or whenever.

SoulandForm

johnnydeep wrote: »

so what are you saying, that aswell as the british army murdering irish men women and children, you are happy for them to kill innocent Iraqi, afghan and Pakistani men women and children. I suppose its proof that the English never learn from their mistakes

Exactly- passively accepting occupation and partition is bowing to terrorism.

In the 1980s Charles Haughey rejected the first plan of the Anglo-Irish Agreement because it attacked Ireland's territorial integrity. The GFA itself was largely voted through on the back of a massive increase in the outright sectarian campaign of Britain's proxies.

Zubeneschamali

SoulandForm wrote: »

In the 1980s Charles Haughey rejected the first plan of the Anglo-Irish Agreement because it attacked Ireland's territorial integrity.

Charlie Haughey was a criminal and a scumbag.

Happyman42

marienbad wrote: »

But also implicit is that we must face down any who would use any means other than democratic ones to achieve their aims.

How is that all going then? :rolleyes:

You are doing what partitionists did after partition and the civil war, you are ignoring what is going on under your nose.
The fact is we have partitionists in government who rather than do what they are constitutionally mandated to do; excercise the ' firm will of the Irish people' and lobby for and keep on the agenda a debate about a UI, they are again ignoring increasing violence on the fringes in the vain hope that it will all go away. The partitionist media are flat out trying to portray these dissidents as common crimminals just as they did with the IRA and the gullible are swallowing it at everybody's peril.
All the above, (including you, if you swallow it,) will be responsible if they manage to wreck the tenuous and fragile peace that we have and make no mistake about it, that is their goal.

SoulandForm

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Charlie Haughey was a criminal and a scumbag.

Yes he was that- but he also did a lot of good and had many fine sides to him. He was a very complex man.

Zubeneschamali

Happyman42 wrote: »

HThe partitionist media are flat out trying to portray these dissidents as common crimminals just as they did with the IRA and the gullible are swallowing it at everybody's peril.

Portraying them that way worked - they eventually gave up. Now SF are among the voices condemning the dissidents, and disowning the arguments for violence they made themselves when the IRA were active.

SoulandForm

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Portraying them that way worked - they eventually gave up. Now SF are among the voices condemning the dissidents, and disowning the arguments for violence they made themselves when the IRA were active.

Bit like Fianna Fail and Fine Gael than. :P

Happyman42

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Portraying them that way worked - they eventually gave up. Now SF are among the voices condemning the dissidents, and disowning the arguments for violence they made themselves when the IRA were active.

Well they where wrong, as the British eventually bit the bullet and sat down and negotiated a deal with them, a deal that has seen all Nationalists being treated as equal citizens. Are you saying the British negotiate deals with common crimminals now?
The IRA are upholding their end but the failure of the British and Irish governments to uphold their end will see the fringes continuing to fracture. That is why people like me want to see the process on a continual movement forward, to silence the extremists. Stagnate and the process will fail and I wouldn't be sure the centre could hold. It really is that simple and important.