Towards a United Ireland

oscarBravo

johnnydeep wrote: »

until Ireland is united there will always be an element of violent opposition.

That's just another way of saying that some republicans will always reject democracy and use terrorism to try to overrule the democratically-expressed will of the people. Do you agree with Happyman42's assertion that loyalism doesn't have the same indelible murderous streak, and that only republicans are incapable of permanently turning their backs on violence?

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.

It's really rather pathetic that you see this puerile analogy as anything other than a transparent attempt to avoid giving a straight answer to a straight question.

Happyman42

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's just another way of saying that some republicans will always reject democracy and use terrorism to try to overrule the democratically-expressed will of the people.

And the state would never use terror to impose it's will? You do know how the present troubles evolved don't you?

Do you agree with Happyman42's assertion that loyalism doesn't have the same indelible murderous streak, and that only republicans are incapable of permanently turning their backs on violence?

Happyman42 never 'asserted' any such thing, you seem to be having comprehension difficulties.

ONeill2013

Reading this thread has made me sure that I would never vote a united Ireland, we started off in a state which didn't want us so why go to another. Hopefully one day we can go independent over the next few centuries though I will always view myself as an Irishman due to being a native of Ireland, citizenship of ROI or not. It will always be an island no matter how many countries it's broken into, the Scots will still be British even if they leave the UK. Would many level headed ROI citizens ever vote to go back into the UK though? that's an interesting question. I've unsubscribed to the thread now as the arguing could go on for weeks.

Zubeneschamali

Happyman42 wrote: »

That is why people like me want to see the process on a continual movement forward, to silence the extremists.

Feck them, give them nothing. Arrest them, jail them, laugh at their "political prisoner" bull. As peace lasts longer, they become more and more irrelevant.

oscarBravo

Happyman42 wrote: »

And the state would never use terror to impose it's will?

I guess if it did, we'd just have to try to understand its concerns and address them so as to make the violence go away.

Oh sorry, I forgot: that's only a useful approach if you agree with those concerns in the first place.

Happyman42 never 'asserted' any such thing, you seem to be having comprehension difficulties.

You have claimed that republican violence will never end until Ireland is united.

You have claimed that loyalist violence would fizzle out if Ireland is united.

That seems to be a fairly clear assertion that republicans are much more firmly committed to violence than loyalists.

Happyman42

oscarBravo wrote: »

I guess if it did, we'd just have to try to understand its concerns and address them so as to make the violence go away.

Unfortunately and tragically for all of us because of inaction on behalf of those vested with being democratic and responsible leaders there was only one way the state would listen and thankfully they eventually did.

You have claimed that republican violence will never end until Ireland is united

You have claimed that loyalist violence would fizzle out if Ireland is united.

That seems to be a fairly clear assertion that republicans are much more firmly committed to violence than loyalists.

No I haven't claimed that.
I said 'violence will never end until the cause of it is removed from the island'....' there is a difference. Of course you typically jumped to the moral high ground and assumed it was 'republican' violence I was talking about.
As I said, you seem to be having comprehension problems, perhaps it would be best if you didn't comment.

Zubeneschamali

Happyman42 wrote: »

No I haven't claimed that.
I said 'violence will never end until the cause of it is removed from the island'....' there is a difference. Of course you typically jumped to the moral high ground and assumed it was 'republican' violence I was talking about.

So you think Loyalist violence will end when we have a United Ireland?

Tell us more!

Happyman42

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

So you think Loyalist violence will end when we have a United Ireland?

Tell us more!

I've already said what I thought on that, earlier, no point writing it again.

oscarBravo

Happyman42 wrote: »

Unfortunately and tragically for all of us because of inaction on behalf of those vested with being democratic and responsible leaders there was only one way the state would listen and thankfully they eventually did.

There was only one way the state would listen? You are claiming that you can't imagine any conceivable set of circumstances under which nationalists could have achieved civil rights other than through terrorism?

What an abject failure of imagination.

No I haven't claimed that.
I said 'violence will never end until the cause of it is removed from the island'....' there is a difference.

You've claimed that the cause of violence is the British presence on this island. In other words, until Northern Ireland is no longer a part of the United Kingdom, violence is inevitable.

Now, maybe in your head there's a distinction between that claim and the assertion that Irish republicans will never stop resorting to terrorism as long as Northern Ireland remains part of the UK, but if such a distinction exists you've failed to explain it.

Of course you typically jumped to the moral high ground and assumed it was 'republican' violence I was talking about.

So you haven't claimed that loyalist violence wouldn't last long after a united Ireland came into being? Are you now claiming that loyalists would pursue their aims through terrorism as tenaciously as republicans have, and that the British presence in Ireland isn't, in fact, the sole cause of violence on the island?

As I said, you seem to be having comprehension problems, perhaps it would be best if you didn't comment.

Oh, I can see why you'd love for me to stop arguing with you, but it's telling that you're resorting to insults.

Bertie Woot

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

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.

The third Home Rule Bill was postponed by the first world war and was on the cards, but Home rule was not a dead certainty, and Irish Nationalists joined the British Army and fought at the Somme to help forward the goal of 32 county independence. 1916 was not a popular uprising, with the rebels having rotten vegetables thrown at them on the streets by many Catholic Irish of Dublin.

1916, the war of independence and the civil war all paved the way to the independence from Britain that you enjoy today. A peaceful and bloodless separation from Britain would have been the ideal, some might say 'wishful thinking', but that didn't happen, and you have no option but to accept historicity.

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.

NI is a part of the UK, and Irish Republicans would still argue that NI is still a British occupied territory, and despite the GFA, which effectively provides legitimacy for the existence of NI.

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

Since when have we not? Look at the borders which divide France, Belgium, Holland et al. Are they not geographical demarcations of nations? Of course language and culture also contribute to defining nations, but you cannot ignore very real geographical borders and boundaries, which as you rightly point out, are susceptible to change.

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?

Ireland is "made up of an ethnically mixed population", north and south. We have different ancestral lineages and varying national allegiances, religions, cultures, classes, races et al. Nationality is a part of ethnicity, a single segment of ethnicity, and even internationalist Socialists cannot deny that there have been Socialists who have also been Nationalists.

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

I'm an Agnostic and doubtful of the existence of a supernatural entity that allegedly created the world and the universe, but shall argue that Irish Nationalists have a valid and legitimate right to pursue Irish reunification, and moreso than Unionism's claimed right to continue partition.

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

.

But that is the crux of the problem - the British colonial has traditionally never treated the indigenous Irish people as equals, and has attempted to relegate Ireland to a position of social, national and cultural inferiority. The Irish were stereotyped as "Thick Paddies" and a backward and inward looking people, the Gaelic language was suppressed, and by preventing food relief from landing In Ireland during the famine Britain effectively attempted what has been viewed as "genocide" on the Irish people. My ancestors, the British colonial settlers of the early 17th century Ulster plantation, were planted here by a British government which wanted to make Ireland more easily governable by transplanting a British population which would remain loyal to the British crown.

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

I didn't and don't agree with their violence, but believe that the Irish Republican analysis of the British-Irish situation is correct.

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?

We have a good country here too and I could be a typical Unionist and ask you the exact same questions, but instead prefer to look upon it as what both sections of this island can offer eachother. We have an educated workforce in NI, our industry is strong, we have a successful and burgeoning private sector and an effective public sector, we no longer have Harland and Wolf ship building, but we have aircraft manufacturers "Bombardier Aerospace" (formerly Shorts), we have two world class Universities (Queens and the University of Ulster), we have areas of outstanding natural beauty which act as very lucrative tourist attractions (eg. Giants Causeway, Mournes region ..), we have the newly built Titanic Quarter exhibition which rakes in revenue from visitors from all over the world, Belfast City is an excellent city of culture, history, architecture and atmosphere which recently hosted the MTV awards, the city of Derry/Londonderry is currently European city of culture 2013 with lots of cultural events taking place on a daily basis, the Protestant work ethic built Belfast and the industry of the North; for such a small country, we have a lot to offer a reunified Ireland.

• 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.

And your economy collapsed because you mismanaged it and consequently you are dependent on foreign investment and EU bail out.

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?

See the long answer I gave to this question above, and then ask yourself why we should risk reunification for those patriotic Southern and Northern Irishmen who haven't abandoned the Nationalist/Republican goal, and who still desire and seek reunification.

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

Seemingly. I can't help but feel that you are playing devil's advocate and that you don't truly believe in what you are saying. It seems like you are attempting to test me, to see if I truly believe in reunification.

marienbad

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

No it is proof of no such thing , particularly as the examples I gave were of innocent British Dutch and Danish people.

But your reply is the perfect case of wilful misunderstanding or if not that then just plain incomprehension issues.

Zubeneschamali

Happyman42 wrote: »

I've already said what I thought on that, earlier, no point writing it again.

You mean this?

Happyman42 wrote: »

I don't think so because by the time it gets here, most will have been convinced or will be willing to give it a go.
I don't want a UI without fundamental changes in the way we are governed. I think Unionists have a lot to offer to a new concensus and country. Yes there will be diehards, but where will support for them come from in a practical way. It's a much more difficult world to move arms around in and with Britain/America hostile to them and eager to see a UI work, it would be very difficult to sustain any campaign.

But if extremists will eventually just let it go, and a campaign of violence is impossible to sustain if the Americans/British are hostile...

all we have to do continue to be hostile to your Republican dissidents, and they will have to let it go.

Happyman42

oscarBravo wrote: »

There was only one way the state would listen? You are claiming that you can't imagine any conceivable set of circumstances under which nationalists could have achieved civil rights other than through terrorism?

What an abject failure of imagination.

Unfortunately, people with your 'imagination' weren't around when the chips where down. It's interesting that the best your 'imagination' can come up with is 'ignore it and it might go away' or 'tut tut, condemm them and hope they come to their senses'.

You've claimed that the cause of violence is the British presence on this island. In other words, until Northern Ireland is no longer a part of the United Kingdom, violence is inevitable.


Now, maybe in your head there's a distinction between that claim and the assertion that Irish republicans will never stop resorting to terrorism as long as Northern Ireland remains part of the UK, but if such a distinction exists you've failed to explain it.

There are more than Republicans responsible for violence in N.I.
There will always be those who want to free Ireland by violent means if there is no peacful way to achieve it. That is why it is critical to keep the process moving. It is critical to allow the debate and regular votes on the matter. Only a fool believes that the current situation is tolerable for committed republicans. Gerry Adams also made committments to more radical and militant factions, he has done well to keep them in check, but that won't last ad infinitum (sits back and waits to be accused of making threats) as I said before, the edges of the process are fracturing. As a responsible republican I am deeply concerned about that and it's implications.

So you haven't claimed that loyalist violence wouldn't last long after a united Ireland came into being? Are you now claiming that loyalists would pursue their aims through terrorism as tenaciously as republicans have, and that the British presence in Ireland isn't, in fact, the sole cause of violence on the island? Oh, I can see why you'd love for me to stop arguing with you, but it's telling that you're resorting to insults.

Try reading what I wrote again, without the blinkers. Honestly, it's a very uncomplicated and clear assessment.
You have still to tell us what they would be fighting for, if the majority vote for a UI and the British do as they said they would do and withdraw.

Happyman42

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

You mean this?



But if extremists will eventually just let it go, and a campaign of violence is impossible to sustain if the Americans/British are hostile...

all we have to do continue to be hostile to your Republican dissidents, and they will have to let it go.

Again there is an element of living in cloud cuckoo land here. You have bought into the idea promoted in the media and by both governments that these people have no support.
The scary fact is that they do and that allows them to mount campaigns.
What I am saying is that there would be no such support infrastructure for violent loyalism who even at the height of the troubleshad great difficulty launching attacks in the south (the only ones they did had British Security forces collusion it seems). It would be even more dificult to arm and sustain themselves in a situation where the British where coming down hard on them. The UK would effectively be enemy territory for them.
Then there is the 'what would be the point?' factor. What would they be hoping to achieve, for Britain to take them back? The 'flag' issue shows us once again that ordinary decent Unionists don't respond to their political masters anymore. The predicted armageddeon never arrived and it barely registered as an issue in the Mid Ulster election, Unionists are pragmatic people when it comes down to it.

Zubeneschamali

Happyman42 wrote: »

What I am saying is that there would be no such support infrastructure for violent loyalism

Okey-dokey.

Happyman42

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Okey-dokey.

It's quite the dilemma for Loyalism isn't it?
I'd be interested in the thoughts of Unionists on here on the implications of Britain's intention to withdraw and what that says about what Britain thinks of Unionists/Loyalists notions of citizenship. Nobody seems to be confronting it.

junder

Happyman42 wrote: »

Again there is an element of living in cloud cuckoo land here. You have bought into the idea promoted in the media and by both governments that these people have no support.
The scary fact is that they do and that allows them to mount campaigns.
What I am saying is that there would be no such support infrastructure for violent loyalism who even at the height of the troubleshad great difficulty launching attacks in the south (the only ones they did had British Security forces collusion it seems). It would be even more dificult to arm and sustain themselves in a situation where the British where coming down hard on them. The UK would effectively be enemy territory for them.
Then there is the 'what would be the point?' factor. What would they be hoping to achieve, for Britain to take them back? The 'flag' issue shows us once again that ordinary decent Unionists don't respond to their political masters anymore. The predicted armageddeon never arrived and it barely registered as an issue in the Mid Ulster election, Unionists are pragmatic people when it comes down to it.

The reason the flags protests have shrunk ( but not ended ) is down the criminalisation of the protesters, people being arrested on trumped up charges which will get thrown out of court but have the affect of scaring people away from taking part in protests incase of arrest which could end in them losing thier jobs. I know personnly of one old man on crutches who was arrested for having an offensive weapon, his crutches. As the reverend Roy Gibson said this week ( a man instramental in helping end the violence in east Belfast) ' we are all flag protestors, just not all of us are out protesting' dont kid yourself that flag issue is over

junder

Happyman42 wrote: »

It's quite the dilemma for Loyalism isn't it?
I'd be interested in the thoughts of Unionists on here on the implications of Britain's intention to withdraw and what that says about what Britain thinks of Unionists/Loyalists notions of citizenship. Nobody seems to be confronting it.

That's assuming that a united Ireland is inevitable which these days looks very unlikely

SoulandForm

Happyman42 wrote: »

It's quite the dilemma for Loyalism isn't it?
I'd be interested in the thoughts of Unionists on here on the implications of Britain's intention to withdraw and what that says about what Britain thinks of Unionists/Loyalists notions of citizenship. Nobody seems to be confronting it.

You are completely underestimating the threat because you are discounting the fact that there is a large proportion of that quite large section of the BA which has destroyed whatever ounce or two of humanity they might once have posessed and become utterly vile and subhuman that sympathizes with the "Loyalist cause"- these people have the skills needed. That is why what is needed in the short term is a complete ban on anyone from Northern Ireland joining the British Army and courses in all the schools on the evils of British militarism.

Happyman42

junder wrote: »

The reason the flags protests have shrunk ( but not ended ) is down the criminalisation of the protesters, people being arrested on trumped up charges which will get thrown out of court but have the affect of scaring people away from taking part in protests incase of arrest which could end in them losing thier jobs. I know personnly of one old man on crutches who was arrested for having an offensive weapon, his crutches. As the reverend Roy Gibson said this week ( a man instramental in helping end the violence in east Belfast) ' we are all flag protestors, just not all of us are out protesting' dont kid yourself that flag issue is over

Not trying to enflame or confront here, but would that not prove my argument? It doesn't seem like there is much 'will' if a couple of arrests has subdued it to the point of nobody even discussing it anymore, certainly not on any national platform that I can see. It follows a trend that shows that Unionists may shout loud and bluster (Drumcree, The GFA etc etc) but when it comes down to it, the will is not really there, en masse and they eventually settle down and get on with it.

Zubeneschamali

Happyman42 wrote: »

they eventually settle down and get on with it.

Yes, and in the event of a United Ireland, "it" will be purging catholics from a rump NI statelet.

Happyman42

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yes, and in the event of a United Ireland, "it" will be purging catholics from a rump NI statelet.

And risk being wiped out? I don't think so.

Any thoughts on the question I posed?

Zubeneschamali

Happyman42 wrote: »

Any thoughts on the question I posed?

No, I'm not a Unionist.

Happyman42

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No, I'm not a Unionist.

Neither am I, but doesn't stop us having an opinion on an interesting and developing dilemma.

Zubeneschamali

Happyman42 wrote: »

Neither am I, but doesn't stop us having an opinion on an interesting and developing dilemma.

If you want the thoughts of non-Republican Southerners, I'd say that "Britain" (by which I assume you mean the United Kingdom) has no intention of withdrawing from anything, and that the English think Unionists/Loyalists are a bit embarrassing, like a family of slightly mad cousins you meet at Christmas who are a bit too fond of you. Still family, though.

oscarBravo

Happyman42 wrote: »

It's quite the dilemma for Loyalism isn't it?
I'd be interested in the thoughts of Unionists on here on the implications of Britain's intention to withdraw and what that says about what Britain thinks of Unionists/Loyalists notions of citizenship. Nobody seems to be confronting it.

Are you operating on the assumption that Northern Ireland residents will be denied the right to British citizenship in the event of a united Ireland? What's your basis for that assumption?

Iwasfrozen

oscarBravo wrote: »

Are you operating on the assumption that Northern Ireland residents will be denied the right to British citizenship in the event of a united Ireland? What's your basis for that assumption?

It seems he is. Which is a frankly ridiculous notion.

Happyman42

oscarBravo wrote: »

Are you operating on the assumption that Northern Ireland residents will be denied the right to British citizenship in the event of a united Ireland? What's your basis for that assumption?

Actually I was hoping you or somebody else might point to official material on that. Because I can't find any statements on it.
I am just curious as to how it would work, what rights would they have in Britain and what status would somebody holding British citizenship have in a United Ireland? Would it apply to just this generation or would future generations be entitled to British citizenship?

Happyman42

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I'd say that "Britain" (by which I assume you mean the United Kingdom) has no intention of withdrawing from anything,

Are you saying they would renege on the agreement?

Zubeneschamali

Happyman42 wrote: »

Are you saying they would renege on the agreement?

No, I'm saying they don't think they will ever have to follow through on the agreement, because NI will never vote for a United Ireland.