Towards a United Ireland

Bertie Woot

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Some steps are steps too far. If even I won't agree to it then no chance will the Shinners. They want an independent Ireland. What you propose goes against that.

I want an independent Ireland with sufficient measures in place to prevent history from repeating itself.

What's more even in the impossible scenario the Shinners did agree to it the dissidents never would. You'd give them an excuse to continue their campaign.

The Dissidents have little to no support.

What I have done is taken the definition of nation. Applied it to an ethnic group and concluded that that ethnic group was a nation.

Which was your folly. An ethnic group is not a nation.

Socialism removes the incentive for advancement. What we need is a strong capitalist society with high social mobility. If you work hard you get to the top and get to reap the benefits. If you don't then you don't. But all socialism will ever do is create an inefficient economy and a lazy, dependent population.

You're sitting inside the box, thinking inside the box, unaware that you're in a box.

How can we be a group that no longer exists? There's one for the philosophers.

You can't use we as a term for the population of NI because you're so divided you have nothing in common.

Controversial. You're suggesting that NI is a "divided society"? Wait until I tell everyone about this. They'll be devastated. :rolleyes:

Why make a distinction?

Because Ulster Unionists are pertinent to this discussion, whereas Scottish, Welsh and English Unionists are irrelevant, as they have no provision to decide the fate of NI.

We treat our minorities like shít, ask the travellers or the Roma.

And by insinuation, the Catholics of NI.

I was born in 68, the year the troubles began, and treated no-one like sh*t, and I have condemned the Unionist government 1921-72 until blue in the face.

Discrimination was wrong, and should not have happened.

Iwasfrozen

Bertie Woot wrote: »

I want an independent Ireland with sufficient measures in place to prevent history from repeating itself.

You're going too far with the safety measures though, we wouldn't be independent if we gave Britain the right to meddle in our affairs. What's too stop the British government in some undisclosed time in the future from using that line in the constitution as a pretext for invasion?

May sound unplausible but who knows what will happen past the unforeseeable future?

The Dissidents have little to no support.

They don't need it.

Which was your folly. An ethnic group is not a nation.

I disagree, in Europe in particular the link between ethnicity and nationality is blurred. It was one of the reasons we sought independence from the super ethnic United Kingdom in the first place.

Now I don't agree with this. I prefer the French/American concept that race is secondary to nationality. But that doesn't mean I deny it's existence.

You're sitting inside the box, thinking inside the box, unaware that you're in a box.

I've heard many convincing arguments for capitalism based on solid evidence. Hell my life at the moment consists of doing the maths for said models but I've never heard one convincing argument for socialism. Not one. I flirted with the idea when I was younger but dismissed it because I saw it for what it was. Archaic sentimentality that belongs to another age.

Out of interest what sort of socialist would you describe yourself as? It's very hard to discuss articulately such a broad definition.

Because Ulster Unionists are pertinent to this discussion, whereas Scottish, Welsh and English Unionists are irrelevant, as they have no provision to decide the fate of NI.

We were talking about percentage of unionists who make up the houses of parliament. you said unionists were in a minority and I correctly pointed out that you weren't, that you actually make up the majority in your own parliament as things stand. It baffles me why you would want to go from a vast majority in the United Kingdom to a voiceless powerless minority in the Dáil.

No Irish party will touch the DUP or any other unionist party, you will never be in government. Not even as a coalition. You'll be voted down on every issue unless the way you vote happens to be the same way as the Irish. The Unionists will have no power, no voice and no representation. And why? Because people like you want to create an artificial state into which the Unionists can never integrate and will always be seen as tolerable minorities (at best) or outright traitors (at worst).

And by insinuation, the Catholics of NI.

I was born in 68, the year the troubles began, and treated no-one like sh*t, and I have condemned the Unionist government 1921-72 until blue in the face.

Discrimination was wrong, and should not have happened.

Indeed it was but the answer to discrimination is reform of the structures all ready in place. Not unification.

Bertie Woot

WakeUp wrote: »

Looks like you will be voting no then Bertie

For the most part what you have put forward has been reasoned, knowledgeable, well thought out and coherent. Then you come out with this...

It's rattled a few cages, which was the intent.

This is an unreasonable position to take or put forward it wouldnt be on the table not now not ever I would hope unionism would never assume such a zerosum position that isnt even a starter should unification realistically be on the table. What does intervention even mean??... are you talking military, economic, subversion? what does intervention even mean it could mean anything. Governments talk all the time both governments would be in constant contact no need to amend our constitution and give Britain such a legally covered power over us. It isnt going to happen.
As you seem like an intelligent person Im struggling to see how you havent thought out this particular, momentous request, with the same level of thought you have given the rest of your ideas.

I didn't need to think anything out as it's a simple political strategy, and both Republicans and Unionists have played it and travelled the distance. The Shinners and the PIRA began with "not an inch, not an once", and the DUP stated categorically that they would NEVER sit down and talk to Sinn Fein.

Look what happened - big Ian and Martin hit it off like two old homosexual buddies on heat. The 'chuckle brothers' were the media's darlings, everybody on the street loved them for having abandoned the hard-line stance, compromised, and done the right thing for all of the people of Northern Ireland.

When I speak of "intervention", of course I don't mean military intervention. I mean that if in a united ireland Protestants found themselves discriminated against, persecuted, marginalised and alienated, then the British government should have some constitutional right to bring this to the attention of the Irish government with a view to swiftly and jointly rectifying a situation that could spiral out of control and lead to further civil disturbance and political violence.

I don't want the British government to have any say in the sovereign independent domestic governance of a reunified 32 county Republic of Ireland, as total separation from Britain, and then a redefined relationship with Britain on the basis of equality and mutual respect is the only feasible way forward. But because the Ulster Unionist people have had and still do have considerable trust issues in relation with Republicanism, Nationalism and the Irish government, one way of putting their apprehensions, concerns and fears to bed is to provide them with a sense of security, a security blanket if you will, so as to allay their concerns.

I know this is an unpopular proposal, but when have we ever in the history of Ireland, NI in particular, had a proposal that both sides have agreed on?

Inserting a clause like the one you suggest is a threat to our national & strategic interests and would weaken both our hand & position in the geopolitical arena. Its against and a potential threat to our national interest to accede to such a request I cant see how you fail to see this yourself it would be an outrageous thing to demand and would be given the dueful short shrift it deserves.

I accept your objection. Look at it this way: 99.7% (a rough estimate) of Unionists in NI are 100% vociferously opposed to Irish reunification, and will not even consider let alone discuss the remote prospect of a united Ireland; it's just not on the political horizon or the hypothetical negotiation table as far as they are concerned. For the vast majority of Ulster Unionists, the union is safe, and they have their wee country, now at peace and without any realistic threat of being subsumed into an all Ireland arrangement.

I could so easily be like the majority and refuse to even consider a UI. With many young Nationalists in NI now embracing the NI identity and stating that they would vote in a referendum to keep NI as part of the UK, and with many Southerner's not wanting a UI because it would cost too much whilst other's feel apathetic or that that it would terminate the tranquility of the ROI and cause more problems that it's worth, and with there being very little prospect of a UI in my lifetime, I really don't need to give a united Ireland any consideration at all, as it shall happen, if it ever does, long after I am dead and gone.

But here I am, a little Northern Protestant, doing his bit for Irish reunification, as he feels that reuniting this country after centuries of tyranny, oppression, turbulence and discord caused by his British ancestors is the right thing to do.

I'm not expecting my ideas to be popular, but unlike most people from a Unionist background, I am talking UI, and we have to start somewhere.

If a united Ireland is possible in a peaceful all inclusive type way then I would support one. Neither the people of Northern Ireland nor the British goverment will dictate the terms though, on what basis and shape the island is to be unified and in turn rule of law and life administered. This would be done by an all inclusive Irish goverment without the help of outside interference administered from the capital, Dublin This thread is interesting and makes a change from the usual threads about the north I think its good that people are talking about issues and potential happenings though it needs to be based in the real world and start out as it means to continue.

I'm not a politician and I don't think you are either. We are just ordinary people who grew up on different sides of the national, political, religious, cultural and geographical divide. At least this atmosphere of (relative and imperfect) peace has afforded people on different parts of this island who have felt like foreigners to one another for generations the opportunity to talk.

Let's keep talking, let's build dialogue and permit ideas, no matter how unsavoury, to flow freely, transform and take shape. That's what the politicians did here in the North, and against all the odds, it paid huge dividends.

Bertie Woot

marienbad wrote: »

The Republic has already been transformed, it is not the 1920's Bertie. What you are proposing is based on notions that wer'nt even valid in the Republic 80 years ago never mind now.

Just because one side put the boot in north of the border dos'nt mean that it will happen in a united Ireland, and the fact the you think it might just shows you hav'nt moved on as much as you think you have.

I share the concerns of the Unionist-Protestant community, as I come from that community and have had sufficient experience of the devious, duplicitous and disingenuous machinations of a number of Northern Nationalists to know that many of them just cannot be trusted.

I do however hope that some day many within Nationalism can evolve and move forward, and instead of viewing all Protestants as Orange sectarian bigots who discriminated against the Catholic minority, can actually find the handle on reality and realise that when all of that terrible sh*t was going on many of us weren't even born, and do not deserve to be punished for the sins of an insecure, frightened and defensive father.

And the racism I am referring to , veiled though it is, is the notion that Britain would step in to curb the excesses of the Paddies is just a variation of the old ''white man's burden'' theme . Talk about not learning from the past and thus having to repeat it !

You have used the term "Paddies", not I, and you do yourself a great disservice. This negative national stereotype constructed by the British to justify their imperialism speaks more about what you think of yourselves than anyone else does.

And on top of everything else , as a southern nationalist (with a small n) I am sick of the condescension from both communities north of the border. We already have a functioning democracy and if and when a united Ireland does come about we will have the majority say in who when what it will consist of ,thank you very much.

Rant over.

*applause*

marienbad

Bertie Woot wrote: »

I share the concerns of the Unionist-Protestant community, as I come from that community and have had sufficient experience of the devious, duplicitous and disingenuous machinations of a number of Northern Nationalists to know that many of them just cannot be trusted.

I do however hope that some day many within Nationalism can evolve and move forward, and instead of viewing all Protestants as Orange sectarian bigots who discriminated against the Catholic minority, can actually find the handle on reality and realise that when all of that terrible sh*t was going on many of us weren't even born, and do not deserve to be punished for the sins of an insecure, frightened and defensive father.



You have used the term "Paddies", not I, and you do yourself a great disservice. This negative national stereotype constructed by the British to justify their imperialism speaks more about what you think of yourselves than anyone else does.



*applause*

It might be an idea Bertie if you familiarised yourself with life south of the border before advocating such bizarre measures .You will be surprised to find that nationalism has moved on, ,if in the Republic it ever even conformed to your description.

And for you to be advocating such measures and at the same time be so ignorant of life within the borders of your nearest neighbour is just navelgazing of the highest order.

You need to get down here more often and for longer periods and you might discover that their is life beyond the dreary steeples of Fermanagh and Tyrone .

And if you think my use of the word ''Paddies'' invalidates my point you are mistaken, it only shows you don't understand it.

Bertie Woot

Noreen1 wrote: »

Unfortunately, the colonies they went on to claim weren't McMurroughs to give - and therein lies the root of the problem.

What began as an invitation in the 12th century gradually evolved into what has been termed and effectively was an "invasion", and if McMurrough had not requested assistance from the English (Anglo-Normans to be precise) in regaining his throne, then it is most likely that the British would have ventured across to Ireland at some subsequent date.

They had a an empire that spanned the globe, Ireland was on their doorstep, and colonisation would have taken place sooner or later, with or without an invitation by an ancient Irish King.

1: Why would it change? There are plenty of British people living in the Republic. We know they're here. For that matter, there are a very significant number of families in Donegal who have Scots relatives - Protestant and Catholic, who visit on a regular basis. No-one bats an eyelid! Equally, every 12th July, there is an exodus from Northern Ireland into Donegal, both Protestant and Catholic. There's no problem. So, I don't forsee any problems in the Republic, unless some agitators choose to create problems (and I suspect those agitators would come from Northern Ireland - without being racist - the Republic has had decades more time to mellow, is all)- which is why I would like to see a revised history syllabus- and time for the peace process to work.

The entry of approximately 1 million Northern Unionist Protestants into a reunified Republic shall still present some teething problems in terms of adjustment and assimilation. Those Southern Protestants who didn't flee post partition have had 92 years to adapt and assimilate. The Northerners may, and especially if they feel their civil and religious liberties and culture are being eroded and/or not being afforded parity of esteem with Irish Gaelic culture, may offer some form of protest.

My sentiments exactly. Wolfe Tone was an amazing man.

If only 20th century Irish Republicanism had contained some like him.

What Unionists in the North experience is very different to the experience in the South though. Having said that, I acknowledge that that fear exists for some Unionists.
I acknowledge it, because it is noticeable that the majority of Northern Protestants who visit Donegal tend to stay in Protestant communities.
Some few choose to stay in majority Catholic areas - but most don't!
Northern Catholics, on the other hand, tend to be more widely dispersed.

Despite the peace process and political progress, most members of both tribes tend to "stick to their own", and NI is still divided along sectarian lines. You'll find the same phenomena in virtually every other political/social/national/religious/ethnic/cultural et al. group around the world; taking the Palestinians and Israelis as a prime example.

I can only see two possible reasons for that.
One is fear. Which is actually illogical, if you think about it, because staff working in the area may be either Protestant or Catholic. And the people living in the surrounding areas are overwhelmingly Catholic, and probably the majority of them could be considered Nationalist, to varying degrees. So, if there were some wish to harm particular Protestants/Unionists, for example, it wouldn't be at all difficult for Nationalists to find out exactly where any chosen "target" was, at any time. There haven't been any targets - hence the direct experience, often from many years visiting the area, would contradict that there is any reason for fear - yet that fear still exists. Now, I would personally hesitate to call it paranoia - but I wouldn't call it reasoned thought, either.

Paranoia is a false belief that people are out to get you; that's a crude definition. Fear is interrelated, and may be either logical or illogical. Considering what the Unionist government perpetrated on Nationalists in the 6 counties, and out of a sense of fear of the Nationalist "enemy within", I do not feel that Unionist's concerns and fears are not reasoned, logical and rational.

Militant Republicanism has assured Unionism that their "revenge shall be the laughter of their children". As someone who has been discriminated against in employment and experienced the sly, devious, duplicitous and wholly disingenuous behaviour of Northern Nationalists, I can inform you that there are elements within Republicanism/Nationalism who harbour resentment and more than a desire for the laughter of children. I have also experienced blatant intimidation and aggression at the hands of a Republican solicitor, and had no option but to request my house deeds form him and terminate all contact.

Republicans and Nationalists can help Unionists out with their trust issues and fear, and by being upfront and honest with Unionists about their grievances instead of playing the devious two-faced game. And Unionists can help Republicans and Nationalists to overcome their dislike, distrust and resentment towards Unionism. We need to be open and honest with eachother, instead of continuing the conflict by subtler, covert means. We need to discuss our respective issues in an honest, authentic and overt fashion, as psychological warfare is not the way forward.

Heck, I'm 44 and still in the process of overcoming the fear the sight of the Irish tricolour and IRA memorials in NI cause me to experience. That's not paranoia or illogicality, it's purely rational.

The other possibility is bigotry - and I'll very hastily add that I don't believe that's the motive for the majority of people - but it needs to be acknowledged that it does exist.
As you say, bigotry has existed on both sides of the political divide for generations.
Again, however - it's illogical.

No, it is very logical indeed. We have hated eachother, and for a reason. The hatred may be contained most of the year, but still runs deep within sections of our society, and manifests itself at the marching season every year, and without fail (Ardoyne riots in protest at Orange parade).

For example. I could name some regular visitors to the area who will only eat in Protestant owned restaurants, or drink in Protestants owned pubs. Thankfully, there are only a couple.
The irony, of course, is that in their efforts to studiously avoid Catholics, they forget that Catholics also frequent these establishments, work in them, and generally provide the local produce advertised on the menu.

I'm guilty of "avoiding Catholics" myself. After the experience of Catholic-Nationalist discrimination and the detected devious and disingenuous attitude and behaviour of many catholics in the University area of Belfast, I avoided them like the plague. If the devious, disingenuous people I had come into contact with had been Protestants, Muslims or Hindus, I would have avoided them too, as I have zero tolerance for dodgy, devious, disingenuous people.

I personally suspect that, in either of these situations, whereas either motivation certainly has an influence - it's more a lack of understanding of the depth of difference in attitudes here, compared to the North, coupled with habits acquired over a lifetime of living in a conflict zone.
Tensions are not that far below the surface in Northern Ireland, even yet, though the progress has been incredible. Nevertheless, ingrained habits (however necessary for the last 30 years) - don't disappear overnight, and are bound to affect peoples worldview.

Our coping mechanisms and "survival strategies" here in the North have been wide and varied. As already touched upon, avoidance of "the other side" has been one. Another has been to feign friendliness whilst holding the dagger behind the back (duplicity). Yet another has been all out confrontation. The art of conflict avoidance has however been mastered by most 'decent' NI citizens. The quiet and non-confrontational life has been many peoples coping mechanism, and sometimes the best way to avoid conflict is to avoid your adversaries. However, we need to begin trusting, assimilating and integrating, because that is the only practical way to overcome sectarian division, as difficult as it may be.

In the Republic, if someone asks your name, it's because they quite innocently want to know. In Northern Ireland, even yet, you can never be quite certain what the motivation may be for the same question - but you can be fairly sure that you will be labelled by your name, in most cases.
Therein lies the difference. And it's all been brought about by time.

My name sounds distinctly English, as opposed to typical Irish names like "Patrick", Seamus" or Sean". So my name marks me out as 'a Brit', and it doesn't matter if I am an Agnostic who doesn't practice the religion I was born into (Protestantism), or the fact that I am a Socialist and believe in Irish reunification; these things are not written on my forehead, and many Nationalist's label you as "an Orange bastard" or "a Hun" and discriminate accordingly, and without knowing or caring about your personal political beliefs, values and aspirations. That's the sad reality; labelling and stereotyping occurs, and it works both ways.

This I will never understand, no matter how I try.
I can understand people defining themselves as Anglo-Irish. I've no problem with that. Ulster-Scots, or British, I struggle with, because I can't understand how someone whose family have lived here for 400 years can say they are not at least part Irish. If Scots or English ancestry can be recognised from 400 years ago - why can't it also be recognised that both Irish and British people have common ancestors?

I'm unwilling to express my nationality as "Anglo-Irish", as historically that term refers to a privileged social class in Ireland, and I hail from the proletariat.

I regard myself as "British-Irish" or "Irish of British ancestry", which is true and accurate. It's important to note that Wolfe Tone was also of British ancestry, a Protestant, and the most notorious Irish Republican that ever lived. Besides Tone, there have been many other Protestant Irish Nationalists:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_Irish_nationalists

The British and Irish peoples are genetically similar and connected by a pre-Gaelic common ancestry as can be seen in the ancient indigenous Irish tribe of "the Cruthin", who upon the Gaels arrival in Ireland fled from Ulidia to Scotland, then returned via the Ulster plantation. Not all were Protestant settlers, there were also many Catholic Scots among the Presbyterians.

There has been more national, religious and cultural overlap than most people realise.

I'm inclined to think you're right. I suppose the question is, what is the motivation for such opposition?

Woah! That's a thread in itself, so I'll provide the short answer: Northern Irish Unionist-Protestants do not want to be in a minority in a reunified Ireland which they have traditionally viewed as a Catholic dominated state. They are happy with their (tenuous) majority status in NI, and view reunification as offering nothing only discrimination, persecution, powerlessness and poor treatment, so they sustain the Union as a form of political protection.

I agree 100% with the bolded bit.

On the other hand, I don't believe in allowing fear to rule my life, or what I believe to be right. So, if conflict were to erupt in the morning, it wouldn't change my opinion that Ireland would be better united. However, a United Ireland should not be forced on people, just because I think it's the best solution.

The terms of the GFA clearly stipulate that a UI shall be the product of a referendum on reunification and thus the democratic wish of the people of NI. Dissidents have argued that this arrangement simply sustains the Unionist veto on reunification, as a majority or even a sizeable minority within Unionism is never going to vote in favour of a UI, and they are correct in their analysis.

Furthermore, forcing people to do something against their will only generates more resistance.
Therefore, I'm content to be patient, and wait for the peace process to work - whilst always aspiring to a United Ireland.

Realistically, it is all that Republicans and Nationalists can do, as there is not going to be a resumption of the PIRA's armed campaign, and if at some point they did decide to resume hostilities, without nuclear weapons their second campaign would be as futile as the first.

I wouldn't agree with the idea of repatriation at all.
I've no respect ( to put it mildly) for Cromwells repatriation to Connacht theory, and I'd be equally appalled at such a "solution":eek: being applied to Northern Unionists.

Repatriation would simply make the Irish look like ethnic cleansers in the eyes of the world. More unpopular than Unionist discrimination and South African apartheid combined; the Irish would become national pariahs.

As I see it, compromise is the only game in town. Making hardliners on either side see that is the problem.
As I alluded to earlier, I tend to view Unionists as Anglo-Irish. I'm fairly certain that some Unionists would be deeply offended at the notion - and yet, before the idea of a United Ireland can become remotely acceptable - Unionists must first recognise their shared links with the Irish people - which is precisely what the most hardline Loyalists refuse point blank to even consider.

I remember Loyalists putting up posters up on Belfast's Shankill Road which read "Irish Out". I thought that the most hilarious and idiotic statement from Loyalism ever, as Loyalists are Irish. whether they want to be or not. Besides, how exactly do you get the Irish out of Ireland? Of course this ridiculous sentiment was in response to Republican's "Brits Out", but it just made them look supremely foolish.

Interesting observation, and one I wasn't aware of, since I only visit the North. I'm not sure what the solution is, since you can't force people into higher education.

You can encourage them though, and working class Protestant need encouragement, as there exists a virtual culture of anti-education among the Protestant wc.

I don't think it is wishful thinking.
I remember an elderly Protestant lady being afraid to speak to me 20 years ago, when she heard I was from Donegal. I'm a very non-threatening five-foot nothing, but this poor woman thought i would attack her.:eek:
She also kept looking over her shoulder at a housing estate, and was clearly afraid to be seen speaking to me.

Ulster Protestants do tend to be very wary of their opposite numbers within and outside of Northern Ireland. It's a product of 30 years of PIRA and indeed Loyalist violence ie. conflict; which has cultivated a deep, inherent and virtually indelible distrust.

That's changed, in the last 10 years. Fair enough, things can be noticeably tense, depending on the current situation, but I'm certainly less wary of speaking to people - and people are certainly not afraid of me, just because I'm Irish.
That's progress that I didn't expect to see in such a short period of time.

Segregated housing only compounds the issues, and needs to change, imo.

Integration is easier said than done, unfortunately. Realistically, I think the "us and them" syndrome and ethnic tribalism shall endure well into the future, and despite all efforts to eradicate ethnic and religious division.

As to the "peace walls" - I find the artwork on them offensive - and I'm referring to both political persuasions. I don't think constant reminders of paramilitarism are helpful, or do anything except cause mistrust.
I'd personally love to see them torn down, asap.

Oh bad idea. The political wall murals of Belfast tell the story of our conflict and are huge tourist attraction, generating revenue for tour companies and even taxi drivers. It would be like burning hard currency to tear them down.

Equally, co-education, when possible, is to be encouraged (though not forced!).

Agreed.

When people grow up together, and recognise their common humanity, then respect and trust can grow faster. It's far easier to hate/mistrust "them" in the other school, or the other side of the wall, than it is to hate/mistrust the lad you played football with at lunchtime.

Or even hurling or Gaelic football, which like a typical Prod, I can't play and know nothing about.

WakeUp

Bertie Woot wrote: »

I didn't need to think anything out as it's a simple political strategy, and both Republicans and Unionists have played it and travelled the distance. The Shinners and the PIRA began with "not an inch, not an once", and the DUP stated categorically that they would NEVER sit down and talk to Sinn Fein.

Look what happened - big Ian and Martin hit it off like two old homosexual buddies on heat. The 'chuckle brothers' were the media's darlings, everybody on the street loved them for having abandoned the hard-line stance, compromised, and done the right thing for all of the people of Northern Ireland.

When I speak of "intervention", of course I don't mean military intervention. I mean that if in a united ireland Protestants found themselves discriminated against, persecuted, marginalised and alienated, then the British government should have some constitutional right to bring this to the attention of the Irish government with a view to swiftly and jointly rectifying a situation that could spiral out of control and lead to further civil disturbance and political violence.

I don't want the British government to have any say in the sovereign independent domestic governance of a reunified 32 county Republic of Ireland, as total separation from Britain, and then a redefined relationship with Britain on the basis of equality and mutual respect is the only feasible way forward. But because the Ulster Unionist people have had and still do have considerable trust issues in relation with Republicanism, Nationalism and the Irish government, one way of putting their apprehensions, concerns and fears to bed is to provide them with a sense of security, a security blanket if you will, so as to allay their concerns.

I know this is an unpopular proposal, but when have we ever in the history of Ireland, NI in particular, had a proposal that both sides have agreed on?

Its far from a simple political strategy:) what you are suggesting is for us to issue Britain with a back door key and a stick above us should they deem it fit to exercise that power at some stage in the future. Nobody can predict the future is why we get out of bed every morning you just dont know what will happen anything could happen. Amending our constitution giving Britain a legally binding power over us is something that will never happen. National security / strategic interests and potential documents, legally binding documents , that could potentially pose a threat to both just arent up for discussion. Ever.

In any case a constitutional amendment isnt needed. An mou - Memorandum of understanding would perfectly suffice between the two governments. In a previous comment you used language like - right, treaty, agreement ( suggesting constitutional amendment ) - none of these words would be present in the mou. The reason being you need to avoid ambiguity as to whether or not the document is legally binding under international law. Using such language leaves that open to debate. I would also include a disclaimer at the end of the document stating that both participants understand and agree that the document is not legally binding, just to be sure

From a Unionist perspective you can put whatever you want in that document they would draft the document . Once its realistic in its content and not silly this would be the basis of the understanding. The British government in the extremely unlikely event of having to make a case would be able to bring whatever issue pertaining to the document they felt they needed to the attention of the Irish government, though ultimately it would be an Irish govermental decision as to whether or not any action is taken be that joint or solo. Just an aside but the trust issues within the unionist community Im afraid its for them to deal with. We dont have a problem with anyone. They need to come to terms with that themselves.

I accept your objection. Look at it this way: 99.7% (a rough estimate) of Unionists in NI are 100% vociferously opposed to Irish reunification, and will not even consider let alone discuss the remote prospect of a united Ireland; it's just not on the political horizon or the hypothetical negotiation table as far as they are concerned. For the vast majority of Ulster Unionists, the union is safe, and they have their wee country, now at peace and without any realistic threat of being subsumed into an all Ireland arrangement.

I could so easily be like the majority and refuse to even consider a UI. With many young Nationalists in NI now embracing the NI identity and stating that they would vote in a referendum to keep NI as part of the UK, and with many Southerner's not wanting a UI because it would cost too much whilst other's feel apathetic or that that it would terminate the tranquility of the ROI and cause more problems that it's worth, and with there being very little prospect of a UI in my lifetime, I really don't need to give a united Ireland any consideration at all, as it shall happen, if it ever does, long after I am dead and gone.

But here I am, a little Northern Protestant, doing his bit for Irish reunification, as he feels that reuniting this country after centuries of tyranny, oppression, turbulence and discord caused by his British ancestors is the right thing to do.

I'm not expecting my ideas to be popular, but unlike most people from a Unionist background, I am talking UI, and we have to start somewhere.

I think I addressed most of this in my previous comment if Ive left anything out no problem I shall elaborate.

I'm not a politician and I don't think you are either. We are just ordinary people who grew up on different sides of the national, political, religious, cultural and geographical divide. At least this atmosphere of (relative and imperfect) peace has afforded people on different parts of this island who have felt like foreigners to one another for generations the opportunity to talk.

Let's keep talking, let's build dialogue and permit ideas, no matter how unsavoury, to flow freely, transform and take shape. That's what the politicians did here in the North, and against all the odds, it paid huge dividends.

Im not a politician either just interested in how the country and world is run and works. I agree with you, I think talking is good putting ideas out there and just being civil to each other if nothing else and talking about things that might happen in the future and not always about things that have happened in the past

Happyman42

junder wrote: »

So what gives The Irish government the right to meddle in our affairs?

The GFA.

Bertie Woot

WakeUp wrote: »

Its far from a simple political strategy:) what you are suggesting is for us to issue Britain with a back door key and a stick above us should they deem it fit to exercise that power at some stage in the future. Nobody can predict the future is why we get out of bed every morning you just dont know what will happen anything could happen. Amending our constitution giving Britain a legally binding power over us is something that will never happen. National security / strategic interests and potential documents, legally binding documents , that could potentially pose a threat to both just arent up for discussion. Ever.

I'm not in fact proposing that Britain be given a "back door key" or the capacity to wield "a stick above us", in a reunified 32 county Republic which could "threaten national security". What I am proposing is that any reunification agreement must contain unequivocal copper-fastened safeguards, assurances and guarantees to protect the Unionist people against persecution and discrimination under rights of minority ethnic groups. If provision had been made post partition for such ethnic minority rights protection in Northern Ireland discrimination would probably not have occurred. An attempt to address discrimination via "The Northern Ireland Constitution Act (1973)" came a bit late in the day, and after discrimination had already occurred, but it was an attempt to redress the balance:

Part III of the Act dealt with discrimination "on the ground of religious belief or political opinion." Any existing Act of the Parliament of Northern Ireland, any Measure to be passed by the new Assembly, and any secondary legislation was declared to be void if it discriminated against an individual or "class of persons" on the basis of their religious or political beliefs. It was also said to be unlawful for the Executive or a government body to "discriminate, or aid, induce or incite another to discriminate" against someone on the same grounds. Discrimination was defined as "treat[ing a] person or [a] class [of persons] less favourably in any circumstances than other persons are treated in those circumstances by the law for the time being in force in Northern Ireland."

The Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights (SACHR) was also created.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Ireland_Constitution_Act_1973

I'd like to see a similar act embedded within a completely new or purposely modified current Irish constitution if none already exists, so as to provide constitutional protection for the ethnic British and Unionist minority. As already stated, I'd also like provision made for British governmental intervention in the form of a diplomatic address (not a military invasion!) should a covert and subterranean state sponsored pogrom of discrimination occur, or large numbers of Unionists find themselves being discriminated against by individuals and individual organisations in employment, housing, education and/or electoral voting rights.

I am aware that many in the ROI shall find these proposals offensive, and I do not care. Not one jot. I could just as easily bury my head back in the sand, be the typical Unionist, and live in Northern Ireland in full reassurance that "the union is safe", in fact, the safest it has ever been since NI's conception, and not even contemplate a united Ireland. Above all, I want 100% safety for the Unionist people in a new Ireland, should they astonishingly decide to vote for reunification at some point in the future, and I can guarantee you that the proposals I have put forward shall seem modest and reasonable in comparison to what the UUP, DUP, and PUP shall demand of the Irish government should they ever seek to abandon Unionism (it's not going to happen!) and reunify Ireland.

Realistically, a federal system shall probably be proposed, with the 6 counties maintaining some degree of autonomy, and as a stepping stone to full reunification, integration and complete disconnection and independence from Britain. Baby steps, until Unionism builds trust and confidence and then learns how to run.

In any case a constitutional amendment isnt needed. An mou - Memorandum of understanding would perfectly suffice between the two governments. In a previous comment you used language like - right, treaty, agreement ( suggesting constitutional amendment ) - none of these words would be present in the mou. The reason being you need to avoid ambiguity as to whether or not the document is legally binding under international law. Using such language leaves that open to debate. I would also include a disclaimer at the end of the document stating that both participants understand and agree that the document is not legally binding, just to be sure

Let's be realistic. With the consent of Unionism the British government shall essentially be handing over a former colony, and to all definitions - a foreign country, the ROI. An agreement between the two governments shall have to be produced via a reunification document, and one which shall have to be written within and enforceable by law. A nod and a wink and a "please look after our colonial children" from the British government shall not be enough to allay Unionist's concerns and fears about their new place in the new Ireland. Like I've already stated, Unionists do not trust Nationalists, Republicans and the Irish government, so concrete arrangements and understandings between the Irish and British governments must be made prior to reunification, and they must be 'legally binding', otherwise Unionists shall just walk away and resurrect the protective barrier, viewing reunification as a step too far and too risky, and vow never to contemplate it again.

From a Unionist perspective you can put whatever you want in that document they would draft the document . Once its realistic in its content and not silly this would be the basis of the understanding. The British government in the extremely unlikely event of having to make a case would be able to bring whatever issue pertaining to the document they felt they needed to the attention of the Irish government, though ultimately it would be an Irish govermental decision as to whether or not any action is taken be that joint or solo. Just an aside but the trust issues within the unionist community Im afraid its for them to deal with. We dont have a problem with anyone. They need to come to terms with that themselves.

The bit I've bolded is what Unionists shall have some difficulty with, as they shall view that as providing the Irish government with a full licence to ignore all pleas for remedial action should persecution and discrimination of the Unionist minority occur.

Unionist's trust issues are ones which both the Irish and British governments shall have to deal with. If you honestly think that saying "We don't have a problem with anyone" is going to help Unionist's sleep sound in their beds at night you obviously have no knowledge of Unionists, their mindset, and their psychology.

Im not a politician either just interested in how the country and world is run and works. I agree with you, I think talking is good putting ideas out there and just being civil to each other if nothing else and talking about things that might happen in the future and not always about things that have happened in the past

Agreed. We can't go back in time and prevent things from happening that we wish had not happened. All we can do is accept what has happened and try to build for a much more sensible, better and peaceful future, recognising that we are coming at this from very different positions and perspectives and that a final agreement is gong to be a real and arduous challenge.

Bertie Woot

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

You're going too far with the safety measures though, we wouldn't be independent if we gave Britain the right to meddle in our affairs. What's too stop the British government in some undisclosed time in the future from using that line in the constitution as a pretext for invasion?

May sound unplausible but who knows what will happen past the unforeseeable future?

The British government has no desire to re-colonise the 26 counties, and they have no desire to 'meddle' in Ireland's domestic affairs and governance. They have been eager to wash their hands of the "Irish problem" (actually a British problem, as they created it) since the early 70's. In fact they wanted completely out of Ireland in 1921, only Unionism threatened war if full Irish independence was granted.

I want a completely free and independent 32 county Republic, but one where Protestant-Unionists feel that their civil and religious liberties and ethnicity and culture is fully protected, and like I said; Unionism does not trust Nationalists, Republicans and/or the Irish government. Heck, they don't even trust the British.

I disagree, in Europe in particular the link between ethnicity and nationality is blurred. It was one of the reasons we sought independence from the super ethnic United Kingdom in the first place.

Nationality is a component of ethnicity. Ireland sought independence from an imperialist and colonial occupier, and a long time before Britain was multiethnic and multicultural.

Now I don't agree with this. I prefer the French/American concept that race is secondary to nationality. But that doesn't mean I deny it's existence.

Fair enough.

I've heard many convincing arguments for capitalism based on solid evidence. Hell my life at the moment consists of doing the maths for said models but I've never heard one convincing argument for socialism. Not one. I flirted with the idea when I was younger but dismissed it because I saw it for what it was. Archaic sentimentality that belongs to another age.

This is a whole new thread, and I could copy-paste convincing arguments for Socialism and damning indictments of capitalism which I've posted on other fora over the years, but let's stay on topic here, as sometimes it results in a gratuitous ban.

Out of interest what sort of socialist would you describe yourself as? It's very hard to discuss articulately such a broad definition.

I'm just a Socialist, in the traditional sense that I desire a system of society whereby the means and instruments required for producing and distributing wealth are owned and controlled by and in the interests of the whole community and not a super-wealthy super-privileged elite who have monopolised the means of production and who ruthlessly exploit the proletariat within a system (capitalism) which promotes and legitimises selfishness, ruthlessness and greed.

If there are subvarieties of Socialism, I'd be interested in perusing them.

We were talking about percentage of unionists who make up the houses of parliament. you said unionists were in a minority and I correctly pointed out that you weren't, that you actually make up the majority in your own parliament as things stand. It baffles me why you would want to go from a vast majority in the United Kingdom to a voiceless powerless minority in the Dáil.

Again, I was referring to Ulster Unionists, not Ulster, English, Scottish and Welsh Unionists combined.

We are a 2% minority in the UK, an increasingly tenuous majority in Northern Ireland, and yes, we would become a minority in a reunified Ireland, and that is why the vast majority of Unionists oppose Irish reunification.

But if you compare a 2% UK minority status with a 17-20% variable Irish minority status, then we would be a larger minority in Ireland than we currently are in the UK.

No Irish party will touch the DUP or any other unionist party, you will never be in government. Not even as a coalition. You'll be voted down on every issue unless the way you vote happens to be the same way as the Irish. The Unionists will have no power, no voice and no representation. And why? Because people like you want to create an artificial state into which the Unionists can never integrate and will always be seen as tolerable minorities (at best) or outright traitors (at worst).

We would have political representation in government, coalition or otherwise, and we would face the challenge of being a minority, but a minority with a political voice. We will have some power, a voice, and representation, but Unionists are not that keen on minority status, hence their continuing reluctance to even contemplate the remote and distant prospect of a UI.

Integration shall be a challenge, and the points you have raised are valid and ones which Unionists have used to argue against Irish reunification.

You should seriously consider joining the Democratic Unionist Party or the Ulster Unionist Party, as you are a Unionist, and they would greatly appreciate young Catholics from the ROI in their ranks, so as to legitimise and sustain the partition of Ireland and indeed Ulidia.

Indeed it was but the answer to discrimination is reform of the structures all ready in place. Not unification.

Like I said, just join a Unionist party of your choice, don an Orange sash, and wave the Union flag. You're a better Unionist than I've ever been.

Bertie Woot

marienbad wrote: »

It might be an idea Bertie if you familiarised yourself with life south of the border before advocating such bizarre measures .You will be surprised to find that nationalism has moved on, ,if in the Republic it ever even conformed to your description.

Forgive my "bizarre measures", I must confess to not being entirely familiar with life and Nationalist politics south of the border, and that is due to growing up in a staunchly Unionist part of Belfast during the troubles; a time when Irish Republicans were busy pulverising my city with their bombs, and shooting people dead on a daily basis in the name of "Irish freedom".

I want to learn about the South and why the Protestant population was greatly reduced post partition. And of course why you think that Northern Protestants have nothing to be concerned about going into a united Ireland.

And for you to be advocating such measures and at the same time be so ignorant of life within the borders of your nearest neighbour is just navelgazing of the highest order.

Right-o. Like I said, I'm from the separatist and inward looking Northern Ireland. I was only in the Republic once (Dublin) in 1987, and never dared venture across the border again by myself until 2012. I have little experience of the ROI and its people, but I do get a real hoot venturing into the ROI, which was viewed as "enemy territory" by my generation.

You need to get down here more often and for longer periods and you might discover that their is life beyond the dreary steeples of Fermanagh and Tyrone .

I know the South is beautiful and am doing a tour of the ROI this summer; wearing a Union Jack t-shirt.

Shall I be safe?

And if you think my use of the word ''Paddies'' invalidates my point you are mistaken, it only shows you don't understand it.

Because I am a "thick Paddy"? (your words not mine).

I've never experienced such blatant racism ...:eek:

marienbad

Bertie Woot wrote: »

Forgive my "bizarre measures", I must confess to not being entirely familiar with life and Nationalist politics south of the border, and that is due to growing up in a staunchly Unionist part of Belfast during the troubles; a time when Irish Republicans were busy pulverising my city with their bombs, and shooting people dead on a daily basis in the name of "Irish freedom".

I want to learn about the South and why the Protestant population was greatly reduced post partition. And of course why you think that Northern Protestants have nothing to be concerned about going into a united Ireland.



Right-o. Like I said, I'm from the separatist and inward looking Northern Ireland. I was only in the Republic once (Dublin) in 1987, and never dared venture across the border again by myself until 2012. I have little experience of the ROI and its people, but I do get a real hoot venturing into the ROI, which was viewed as "enemy territory" by my generation.



I know the South is beautiful and am doing a tour of the ROI this summer; wearing a Union Jack t-shirt.

Shall I be safe?



Because I am a "thick Paddy"? (your words not mine).

I've never experienced such blatant racism ...:eek:

Bertie , have a nice time on your travels south, forget all your preconceived notions , throw out all your books and take a leaf from that other great socialist on his travels - Mr Orwell and let the people places and events shape your opinions and not your preconceived ideas.

I am already looking forward to your book , perhaps Down and Out In Luimneach and Port Lairge would be an apt title , particularly if you tour in your Union Jack t-shirt.

Bertie Woot

marienbad wrote: »

Bertie , have a nice time on your travels south, forget all your preconceived notions , throw out all your books and take a leaf from that other great socialist on his travels - Mr Orwell and let the people places and events shape your opinions and not your preconceived ideas.

I am already looking forward to your book , perhaps Down and Out In Luimneach and Port Lairge would be an apt title , particularly if you tour in your Union Jack t-shirt.

What? You mean symbols of Britishness are not welcome in the Irish Republic?

What have the British ever done to the Irish?

marienbad

Bertie Woot wrote: »

What? You mean symbols of Britishness are not welcome in the Irish Republic?

What have the British ever done to the Irish?

Of course British symbols are welcome in the Republic so long as they are accompanied by ''lashings of apologies'' as Count Almasy would say.

just be sure to say ''ah shure yeer grand and am'nt I haven great craic mor ya'' as we kick the ****e out ya , ya black prod !

Bertie Woot

marienbad wrote: »

Of course British symbols are welcome in the Republic so long as they are accompanied by ''lashings of apologies'' as Count Almasy would say.

just be sure to say ''ah shure yeer grand and am'nt I haven great craic mor ya'' as we kick the ****e out ya , ya black prod !

God Lord, Marien. You've come over all Irish and Caflik and sectarian and racist and all.

It's a lot easier being an Irish Nationalist when you were born into that tradition is all I can say.

I keep forgetting myself and usually wake up in the morning and put on my Union Jack t-shirt and Orange sash, then slip a Loyalist CD on the player and sing along to "The Sash My Father Wore" at full volume.

It's only after my cat gives me the hard eye that I remember that I'm a Nationalist.

Pfft!

washpenrebel

I'm new to the topic but I’ve done a lot of research into the North of Ireland and i think that it is possible for Ireland to become united again.

Looking at the history of Ireland (pre 1920) the reason Ireland was separated was not to keep the Protestants happy it was so that the UK could still have a foothold on the Island of Ireland. They knew if it went to a vote that the Island of Ireland would become independent. There was a majority nationalist people on the island compared to a minority unionist (I've said nationalist because both protestants and Catholics wanted a united Ireland; some of the great Irish heroes were protestant). The UK government choose 6 counties where if a vote on independence was done that they would vote to keep with the union and the UK. The problem for them was that nationalists were dotted all over the 6 counties. Fermanagh, Down, Derry, South Armagh, parts of Tyrone and the glens of Antrim were Mainly Nationalists areas.

Two things happened that need to be reversed for Ireland to be united again.

1) Ireland being a Catholic country. The government and the country need to break all links with the church. Schools, government policy, education, universities and health. The church must not be allowed any say over what happens in Ireland and this must be very public. This is the way Ireland was pre 1920. The biggest mistake there was in the south was allowing the church the power that is got. After independence they moved in quickly and asserted there dominance over the people. The worst example i heard was that there was a guy born in Fermanagh at an early age his parents immigrated to the US when he was 30 he returned to Ireland and settled back here. He built his own parish hall independent from the church parish hall and started running dances, the church didn't like this and petitioned the government to have him deported and this is exactly what happened. No wonder why the north didn't want to join the south.

2) Government policy needs to be directed is such a way that the whole island is catered for. Example we NEED and whole Island police force. We need a whole island health system. Example if you live in Donegal you can go to hospital in Derry as it would be the closest to the people. The same for people in Fermanagh. At the moment the nationalists living in the north feel abandoned by the southern government. This policy has been in place since the death of Michael Collins. In 1924 the government sold out all the nationalists in the north over the boundary commission. This was a hard fought deal by Collins during the negotiations. They government of the day sold it to the UK government for money. So the border never changed and thousands of nationalists remained joined to a country they didn't belong to. Their plight was hampered by the gerry mandering that went on in the early days of the north. In the 70's you had 30% of the city of Derry’s population unionists with an 8 - 6 majorities over nationalists who's numbers were 70%. The government in the south never helped them.

I believe that the question on where Northern Ireland lies will come up again. This lies in Scottish independence. if Scotland goes independent i don't think the already cash strapped UK government will see much point in keeping the north as they make no money in the north and it costs the English tax payer a lot of money each year to pay for the north.

Some reasons i believe the north would be better joined with the south.
-the average person in the north has nothing in common with the counterparts in London
-there are different protestant communities in the north some hardliners who want to stay with the UK some are afraid to break away in fear of being discriminated against in the south. This has rarely happened in the south. Protestant and Catholics live properly side by side.
-industrialisation of Derry and Belfast. These cities have largely been ignored by the UK government. Imagine in a united Ireland Derry and Belfast being a heavy industrial city’s again not having to compete with Liverpool and Birmingham. This is largely what happened to these cities. It was cheaper to export to London from Britain than to make it in Ireland and ship it to London.
-Farming would boom in a United Ireland as there would be a single currency rather than the situation at the moment where instead of working together people are using the value of currency to their own gain.
- A creation of an all Irish currency so people could trade between the north and south could be a bridge for a united Ireland. This would mean still keeping the Euro and the Pound but trading on the island would be better for the Island
- United Ireland police force so they could travel between the North and South and capture the criminals smuggling fuel, drugs and cigarettes all along the border.
- It allows people in the North to compete for jobs in the South and the same for people in the south. This is the way it was pre 1920.

Madam

washpenrebel wrote: »

I'm new to the topic but I’ve done a lot of research into the North of Ireland and i think that it is possible for Ireland to become united again.

Looking at the history of Ireland (pre 1920) the reason Ireland was separated was not to keep the Protestants happy it was so that the UK could still have a foothold on the Island of Ireland. They knew if it went to a vote that the Island of Ireland would become independent. There was a majority nationalist people on the island compared to a minority unionist (I've said nationalist because both protestants and Catholics wanted a united Ireland; some of the great Irish heroes were protestant). The UK government choose 6 counties where if a vote on independence was done that they would vote to keep with the union and the UK. The problem for them was that nationalists were dotted all over the 6 counties. Fermanagh, Down, Derry, South Armagh, parts of Tyrone and the glens of Antrim were Mainly Nationalists areas.

Two things happened that need to be reversed for Ireland to be united again.

1) Ireland being a Catholic country. The government and the country need to break all links with the church. Schools, government policy, education, universities and health. The church must not be allowed any say over what happens in Ireland and this must be very public. This is the way Ireland was pre 1920. The biggest mistake there was in the south was allowing the church the power that is got. After independence they moved in quickly and asserted there dominance over the people. The worst example i heard was that there was a guy born in Fermanagh at an early age his parents immigrated to the US when he was 30 he returned to Ireland and settled back here. He built his own parish hall independent from the church parish hall and started running dances, the church didn't like this and petitioned the government to have him deported and this is exactly what happened. No wonder why the north didn't want to join the south.

2) Government policy needs to be directed is such a way that the whole island is catered for. Example we NEED and whole Island police force. We need a whole island health system. Example if you live in Donegal you can go to hospital in Derry as it would be the closest to the people. The same for people in Fermanagh. At the moment the nationalists living in the north feel abandoned by the southern government. This policy has been in place since the death of Michael Collins. In 1924 the government sold out all the nationalists in the north over the boundary commission. This was a hard fought deal by Collins during the negotiations. They government of the day sold it to the UK government for money. So the border never changed and thousands of nationalists remained joined to a country they didn't belong to. Their plight was hampered by the gerry mandering that went on in the early days of the north. In the 70's you had 30% of the city of Derry’s population unionists with an 8 - 6 majorities over nationalists who's numbers were 70%. The government in the south never helped them.

I believe that the question on where Northern Ireland lies will come up again. This lies in Scottish independence. if Scotland goes independent i don't think the already cash strapped UK government will see much point in keeping the north as they make no money in the north and it costs the English tax payer a lot of money each year to pay for the north.

Some reasons i believe the north would be better joined with the south.
-the average person in the north has nothing in common with the counterparts in London
-there are different protestant communities in the north some hardliners who want to stay with the UK some are afraid to break away in fear of being discriminated against in the south. This has rarely happened in the south. Protestant and Catholics live properly side by side.
-industrialisation of Derry and Belfast. These cities have largely been ignored by the UK government. Imagine in a united Ireland Derry and Belfast being a heavy industrial city’s again not having to compete with Liverpool and Birmingham. This is largely what happened to these cities. It was cheaper to export to London from Britain than to make it in Ireland and ship it to London.
-Farming would boom in a United Ireland as there would be a single currency rather than the situation at the moment where instead of working together people are using the value of currency to their own gain.
- A creation of an all Irish currency so people could trade between the north and south could be a bridge for a united Ireland. This would mean still keeping the Euro and the Pound but trading on the island would be better for the Island
- United Ireland police force so they could travel between the North and South and capture the criminals smuggling fuel, drugs and cigarettes all along the border.
- It allows people in the North to compete for jobs in the South and the same for people in the south. This is the way it was pre 1920.

Oh yes and the Irish people lived in cloud cuckoo Utopia pre 1920:rolleyes:

washpenrebel

if ireland is to be united then there cannot be any religion involvement in ploitics of any part of society favoured over the other!!! the had not got it easy pre 1920 but wasn't it better then unionist and nationalist communities blowing the s***e out of each other. I live 1hr from London. the people down here have nothing in common with the people of Northern Ireland. down here the people care about money, fancy cars and being better than anybody else. most people believe north should be part of the republic. they don't care about them, they don't think about northern ireland let alone visit the place. Scotland wants independence from the UK.

Few more points i thought of:
1) Water canons are used in Northern Ireland to control the crowds. They are illegal to be used in the UK. Remember the riots in London a while back, they legally were not allowed to water canon the thugs!!!

2) Northern Irish and Scottish money is not accepted in London. Its still sterling but UK companies refuse to accept as legal tender. (Must have the queen's head on there)

3) Has anybody heard about what the goverment did to the people of scotland? The UK (English) Goverment 10 years ago transfered 6000 miles of scottish sea to English sea. Why? OIL AND GAS = ££££££££ for England

some interesting links
www.scotster.com/.../scottish.../6000-Miles-Scottish-Sea-Stolen.3397.htm
http://www.oilofscotland.org/scottish_politics.html#secret_plans

4) If the Unionists in Northern Ireland love the UK so much then why do Scotland want their freedom!!! The Northern Irish person and the scottish person are the same. same culture, same gaelic language, same music same hospitality. English people care about England and nobody else!

WakeUp

Bertie Woot wrote: »

I'm not in fact proposing that Britain be given a "back door key" or the capacity to wield "a stick above us", in a reunified 32 county Republic which could "threaten national security". What I am proposing is that any reunification agreement must contain unequivocal copper-fastened safeguards, assurances and guarantees to protect the Unionist people against persecution and discrimination under rights of minority ethnic groups. If provision had been made post partition for such ethnic minority rights protection in Northern Ireland discrimination would probably not have occurred. An attempt to address discrimination via "The Northern Ireland Constitution Act (1973)" came a bit late in the day, and after discrimination had already occurred, but it was an attempt to redress the balance:

I know what you are proposing but you need to explain the method and mechanism by which this would be enforced in the unlikely event of it happening. Would the British government have to ability to bring a case to the United nations or the international court of law? Would the Irish government have the right to refuse a request if it felt the accusation was unfair or the British decided to stir the pot for interests other than unionist peoples welfare.. what action do you think should be taken? You also need to outline what specific rights you believe a minority section of society should be entitled too and why?? How would you word the paragraph to be inserted into a new and amended Irish constitution?? As somebody who believes in not discriminating against anyone and as I know that the vast vast majority of my people think the same though there are always a number of idiots, unionist trepidation that we potentially would act in such a way doesnt sit to well with me I have to be honest

The NI constitution act came far to late as you rightly point out. The Irish constitution as it stands gives gurantees, rights & protection for all its citizens - equally - regardless of backround or beliefs.

I'd like to see a similar act embedded within a completely new or purposely modified current Irish constitution if none already exists, so as to provide constitutional protection for the ethnic British and Unionist minority. As already stated, I'd also like provision made for British governmental intervention in the form of a diplomatic address (not a military invasion!) should a covert and subterranean state sponsored pogrom of discrimination occur, or large numbers of Unionists find themselves being discriminated against by individuals and individual organisations in employment, housing, education and/or electoral voting rights.

What modifications would you make if the current Irish constitution was completely re-written and why??

I am aware that many in the ROI shall find these proposals offensive, and I do not care. Not one jot. I could just as easily bury my head back in the sand, be the typical Unionist, and live in Northern Ireland in full reassurance that "the union is safe", in fact, the safest it has ever been since NI's conception, and not even contemplate a united Ireland. Above all, I want 100% safety for the Unionist people in a new Ireland, should they astonishingly decide to vote for reunification at some point in the future, and I can guarantee you that the proposals I have put forward shall seem modest and reasonable in comparison to what the UUP, DUP, and PUP shall demand of the Irish government should they ever seek to abandon Unionism (it's not going to happen!) and reunify Ireland.

Not caring whether your position is offensive as a starting position for negotiations is not a good place to start Bertie The UUP, DUP, PUP can demand what they like. If they entered into negotiatians in a "demanding" type way they would be given a cup a tea, pat on the back and shown the door. And welcomed back when their position returns to realism

Realistically, a federal system shall probably be proposed, with the 6 counties maintaining some degree of autonomy, and as a stepping stone to full reunification, integration and complete disconnection and independence from Britain. Baby steps, until Unionism builds trust and confidence and then learns how to run.

This would have it advantages and would be the way to go initially I would agree with that. The Sino-Britsh agreement when Britain ceded Hong-Kong had a similar format in the begining. Though this method has its complications and would be a drawn out discussion, air space/land rights/sea rights/sovereignty issues to name but a few would take a while to trash out. As a starting point a regional body consisting of representitives from the six counties would be set up. They would have the power to legislate and run the internal day to day business of the six counties. Foreign policy ( trade & diplomacy ) & defence would be matters for the national government. The six counties body would take part in discussions on a national level but not have the power to make a decision by themselves. It would be an Irish governmental decision ( policy & defence )

Let's be realistic. With the consent of Unionism the British government shall essentially be handing over a former colony, and to all definitions - a foreign country, the ROI. An agreement between the two governments shall have to be produced via a reunification document, and one which shall have to be written within and enforceable by law. A nod and a wink and a "please look after our colonial children" from the British government shall not be enough to allay Unionist's concerns and fears about their new place in the new Ireland. Like I've already stated, Unionists do not trust Nationalists, Republicans and the Irish government, so concrete arrangements and understandings between the Irish and British governments must be made prior to reunification, and they must be 'legally binding', otherwise Unionists shall just walk away and resurrect the protective barrier, viewing reunification as a step too far and too risky, and vow never to contemplate it again.

Enforceable by whoms law and how?....

Unionist's trust issues are ones which both the Irish and British governments shall have to deal with. If you honestly think that saying "We don't have a problem with anyone" is going to help Unionist's sleep sound in their beds at night you obviously have no knowledge of Unionists, their mindset, and their psychology.

How about they try deal with it themselves?? If I dont trust somebody I dont ask somebody else to make it right for me. Im not so sure you understand our mentality but I have a pretty good idea of the unionist mentality in the main not all of them.

Agreed. We can't go back in time and prevent things from happening that we wish had not happened. All we can do is accept what has happened and try to build for a much more sensible, better and peaceful future, recognising that we are coming at this from very different positions and perspectives and that a final agreement is gong to be a real and arduous challenge.

The first thing that needs to be built is trust, genuine trust. This as you have outlined is going to take time. People just have to keep talking and hopefully the generations that follow up north will have a different mindset growing up and grow up sure of themselves and not give a sh1t whether or not their neighbour is from this community or that one.

Bertie Woot

washpenrebel wrote: »

I'm new to the topic but I’ve done a lot of research into the North of Ireland and i think that it is possible for Ireland to become united again.

Looking at the history of Ireland (pre 1920) the reason Ireland was separated was not to keep the Protestants happy it was so that the UK could still have a foothold on the Island of Ireland. They knew if it went to a vote that the Island of Ireland would become independent. There was a majority nationalist people on the island compared to a minority unionist (I've said nationalist because both protestants and Catholics wanted a united Ireland; some of the great Irish heroes were protestant). The UK government choose 6 counties where if a vote on independence was done that they would vote to keep with the union and the UK. The problem for them was that nationalists were dotted all over the 6 counties. Fermanagh, Down, Derry, South Armagh, parts of Tyrone and the glens of Antrim were Mainly Nationalists areas.

This is a fallacious analysis of Irish history, partition in particular. The British wanted to grant "home rule" to the 32 counties. Unionists in the north, who opposed home rule, signed the "Ulster Covenant" in 1912 in opposition to home rule, and created the "Ulster Volunteer Force" to resist any move by the British to force through the third home rule bill. They also began importing arms into Ulster, and to resist (their own) British troops.

After the first world war, the third home rule bill went through, and independence was granted to the 26 counties, whilst a deal was struck between the British government and Michael Collins to exclude 6 of Ulster's counties. This was done under duress and threat of all-out war by Unionists under Carson, and hence partition occurred and "Northern Ireland" was born.

The British government did not want to hold onto any part of Ireland, but were coerced to by Northern Protestant Unionists who were completely opposed to home rule, which they knew would lead to full Irish independence, and they did not want to be a minority in a state which was dominated by the Catholic church. They also feared retribution and reprisals for 800 years of British colonial occupation.

Two things happened that need to be reversed for Ireland to be united again.

1) Ireland being a Catholic country. The government and the country need to break all links with the church. Schools, government policy, education, universities and health. The church must not be allowed any say over what happens in Ireland and this must be very public. This is the way Ireland was pre 1920. The biggest mistake there was in the south was allowing the church the power that is got. After independence they moved in quickly and asserted there dominance over the people. The worst example i heard was that there was a guy born in Fermanagh at an early age his parents immigrated to the US when he was 30 he returned to Ireland and settled back here. He built his own parish hall independent from the church parish hall and started running dances, the church didn't like this and petitioned the government to have him deported and this is exactly what happened. No wonder why the north didn't want to join the south.

The Roman Catholic church was at loggerheads with British imported Protestantism in Ireland, and whilst Catholicism did take second place to Protestantism it wasn't completely driven underground, and as you rightly state, post reunification the RCC quickly asserted its dominance, and I shall add, began a sustained period of sexual, psychological, emotional and physical abuse of children and young women behind a facade of piety.

I'd like to see a secular reunified Ireland, where the Roman Catholic and indeed Protestant churches no longer have the status and power once afforded to them, and where people are sill permitted to practice a religion of their choice, but where no obligation is place upon them, and no significance is attached to any form of religious worship.

2) Government policy needs to be directed is such a way that the whole island is catered for. Example we NEED and whole Island police force. We need a whole island health system. Example if you live in Donegal you can go to hospital in Derry as it would be the closest to the people. The same for people in Fermanagh. At the moment the nationalists living in the north feel abandoned by the southern government. This policy has been in place since the death of Michael Collins. In 1924 the government sold out all the nationalists in the north over the boundary commission. This was a hard fought deal by Collins during the negotiations. They government of the day sold it to the UK government for money. So the border never changed and thousands of nationalists remained joined to a country they didn't belong to. Their plight was hampered by the gerry mandering that went on in the early days of the north. In the 70's you had 30% of the city of Derry’s population unionists with an 8 - 6 majorities over nationalists who's numbers were 70%. The government in the south never helped them.

Gerrymandering was a practice that attempted to establish a political advantage for Unionism by manipulating district boundaries to create partisan advantaged districts. GM was carried to contrive a Unionist majority in counties areas where there was none, and to maintain Unionism's tenuous grip on political power. Discrimination in employment and housing was also carried out for this reason, and what baffles me is how the Unionist government thought they could do this and that there would be no consequences. We can look back now and see that there were consequences - civil rights marches and a 30 year terrorist campaign conducted by the Provisional IRA, where thousands of people lost their lives. That is why we need to have learned from the past and make sure that no such recurrences are allowed to take place in a reunified Ireland.

I believe that the question on where Northern Ireland lies will come up again. This lies in Scottish independence. if Scotland goes independent i don't think the already cash strapped UK government will see much point in keeping the north as they make no money in the north and it costs the English tax payer a lot of money each year to pay for the north.

Scottish independence (if it happens) may well set a precedent, and encourage NI Nationalists to re-assert theor desire for reunification. As reards the English; they view Northern Ireland as an unwanted delinquent distant cousin, a waste of English tax-payer's money (because NI benefits via the Barnett Formula), and I have no doubt that if the English were offered a referendum on NI' continued membership of the UK, they would eagerly vote to excommunicate the 6 counties, as we are foreigners and "Irish" to them, and regardless of whether you are a British Unionist or an Irish Nationalist.

Many English people are also still very hibernophobic to this day, as can be garnered from the testimonies of these Irish people:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056893287

Some reasons i believe the north would be better joined with the south.

-the average person in the north has nothing in common with the counterparts in London

True.

-there are different protestant communities in the north some hardliners who want to stay with the UK some are afraid to break away in fear of being discriminated against in the south. This has rarely happened in the south. Protestant and Catholics live properly side by side.

Unfortunately the same can't be said here in the north. The Protestant and Catholic working classes still live in segregated communities, and despite Unionist and Republican politicians having got their act together, both traditions here on the ground are still very much polarised. I can't see that changing any time soon, if ever.

-industrialisation of Derry and Belfast. These cities have largely been ignored by the UK government. Imagine in a united Ireland Derry and Belfast being a heavy industrial city’s again not having to compete with Liverpool and Birmingham. This is largely what happened to these cities. It was cheaper to export to London from Britain than to make it in Ireland and ship it to London.
-Farming would boom in a United Ireland as there would be a single currency rather than the situation at the moment where instead of working together people are using the value of currency to their own gain.

The economic arguments for reunification trump those against in the long term. Initially, reunification would cost both the Irish and British governments, but in the long term a unified Ireland makes total economic sense, as currently we have two sets of infrastructure on the island, and one (NI) is heavily dependent upon London-Westminster funding and subsidy. NI has never been an independent economically viable political entity, and when Dublin pays its debts to the EU (might take a while), a reunified, independent Ireland with one set of infrastructure can only offer socio-economic strength.

- A creation of an all Irish currency so people could trade between the north and south could be a bridge for a united Ireland. This would mean still keeping the Euro and the Pound but trading on the island would be better for the Island

An interim federal Ireland might also offer an imaginative stepping stone to full reunification, should full reunification not be possible in one set move.

- United Ireland police force so they could travel between the North and South and capture the criminals smuggling fuel, drugs and cigarettes all along the border.

In a reunified Ireland there can only be one Police force.

- It allows people in the North to compete for jobs in the South and the same for people in the south. This is the way it was pre 1920.

Reunification shall create a single Irish job market, with the talents, qualifications, vocations and abilities of both sections of Ireland melding to create a stronger workforce and economy.

Divided we are weak, united we stand together on our own two feet.

Bertie Woot

washpenrebel wrote: »

if ireland is to be united then there cannot be any religion involvement in ploitics of any part of society favoured over the other!!! the had not got it easy pre 1920 but wasn't it better then unionist and nationalist communities blowing the s***e out of each other. I live 1hr from London. the people down here have nothing in common with the people of Northern Ireland. down here the people care about money, fancy cars and being better than anybody else. most people believe north should be part of the republic. they don't care about them, they don't think about northern ireland let alone visit the place.Scotland wants independence from the UK.

And such is the attitude of the English towards the Northern Irish. The sad thing about this is that most Ulster Unionists know that the English don't want their 'loyalty', and yet they don't care. They shall continue assembling each year on the 12th of July to celebrate the victory of the Protestant British (Dutch actually) King William III of Orange over the Catholic King James II at the battle of the Boyne, and continue to consider themselves "British" and loyal to their Queen, and even though the English, and I'm sure the Queen herself, are really not that keen on sustaining the union with Northern ireland.

Few more points i thought of:
1) Water canons are used in Northern Ireland to control the crowds. They are illegal to be used in the UK. Remember the riots in London a while back, they legally were not allowed to water canon the thugs!!!

The thugs should lodge a claim with a sympathetic and reliable solicitor.

2) Northern Irish and Scottish money is not accepted in London. Its still sterling but UK companies refuse to accept as legal tender. (Must have the queen's head on there)

I handed an Ulster Bank £5.00 note to a shopkeeper in Peterborough and she looked at it like it was Russian currency.

3) Has anybody heard about what the goverment did to the people of scotland? The UK (English) Goverment 10 years ago transfered 6000 miles of scottish sea to English sea. Why? OIL AND GAS = ££££££££ for England

Thieving b*stards, eh!? And look what they and America collaboratively did to Iraq on blatant lies and false pretence (WMD). Again, for oil.

4) If the Unionists in Northern Ireland love the UK so much then why do Scotland want their freedom!!! The Northern Irish person and the scottish person are the same. same culture, same gaelic language, same music same hospitality. English people care about England and nobody else!

There has never been much love of the English among the Scots, as they too have a 'history'. Ulster-Scots and Scots have an ethnic kinship going back thousands of years, and are much closer culturally than the Scots and English and the Northern Irish and English. Having said that, I'm descended from both the English and the Scots.

Regrettably, I have found the English to be pompous, selfish, mind-bogglingly egocentric and indeed contemptuous of the Northern Irish. No, I'm not being anglophobic, just conveying my experience of a lot of English people as a Northern Irish person.

Iwasfrozen

Bertie Woot wrote: »

The British government has no desire to re-colonise the 26 counties, and they have no desire to 'meddle' in Ireland's domestic affairs and governance. They have been eager to wash their hands of the "Irish problem" (actually a British problem, as they created it) since the early 70's. In fact they wanted completely out of Ireland in 1921, only Unionism threatened war if full Irish independence was granted.

I want a completely free and independent 32 county Republic, but one where Protestant-Unionists feel that their civil and religious liberties and ethnicity and culture is fully protected, and like I said; Unionism does not trust Nationalists, Republicans and/or the Irish government. Heck, they don't even trust the British.

If a United Ireland does ever come about you will be protected. We will write protections into our constitution but we will not allow the British government any "right of intervention". Ireland is a proud country if you think
1. We will give the British a constitutional right to over see us or
2. That we will actually systematically discriminate against you then you don't know much at all about the country you want to join with.

Bertie Woot wrote: »

Nationality is a component of ethnicity. Ireland sought independence from an imperialist and colonial occupier, and a long time before Britain was multiethnic and multicultural.

The UK was multi ethnic from the get go. A nation that covered four separate ethnic groups.

This is a whole new thread, and I could copy-paste convincing arguments for Socialism and damning indictments of capitalism which I've posted on other fora over the years, but let's stay on topic here, as sometimes it results in a gratuitous ban.

Actually could you pm me this? I'd be interested in reading it.

I'm just a Socialist, in the traditional sense that I desire a system of society whereby the means and instruments required for producing and distributing wealth are owned and controlled by and in the interests of the whole community and not a super-wealthy super-privileged elite who have monopolised the means of production and who ruthlessly exploit the proletariat within a system (capitalism) which promotes and legitimises selfishness, ruthlessness and greed.

If there are subvarieties of Socialism, I'd be interested in perusing them.

I mean are you libertarian socialist, democratic socialist, anarcho socialist, market socialist, state socialist etc. You're too well read not to know what these are. What sort of socialist would you classify yourself as?

Again, I was referring to Ulster Unionists, not Ulster, English, Scottish and Welsh Unionists combined.

We are a 2% minority in the UK, an increasingly tenuous majority in Northern Ireland, and yes, we would become a minority in a reunified Ireland, and that is why the vast majority of Unionists oppose Irish reunification.

But if you compare a 2% UK minority status with a 17-20% variable Irish minority status, then we would be a larger minority in Ireland than we currently are in the UK.

Why refer only to Ulster Unionists? There is no difference. It's like drawing a distinction between Northern and Southern Irish nationalists.

Unionists will be a majority in the UK for the foreseeable future because once you stop being the majority the country will collapse into four separate nations again.

We would have political representation in government, coalition or otherwise, and we would face the challenge of being a minority, but a minority with a political voice. We will have some power, a voice, and representation, but Unionists are not that keen on minority status, hence their continuing reluctance to even contemplate the remote and distant prospect of a UI.
Integration shall be a challenge, and the points you have raised are valid and ones which Unionists have used to argue against Irish reunification.

But you won't. How will you have representation in government? You will never have a high enough percentage to make it into government on your own and no Irish party would touch you. The Irish are kind of weird. While we won't openly discriminate against individual protestants we do openly despise unionist parties. Go down any street in Dublin, ask questions and you'll see the response.

It would be political suicide for any Irish party to enter coalition with any unionist party.

You should seriously consider joining the Democratic Unionist Party or the Ulster Unionist Party, as you are a Unionist, and they would greatly appreciate young Catholics from the ROI in their ranks, so as to legitimise and sustain the partition of Ireland and indeed Ulidia.

Why would I do that? I'm not a unionist if I were I'd be calling for us to rejoin the UK. But I'm not I'm glad we have independence.

I wouldn't be totally against unification but only if it is to my country's (what you would call the 26 counties) benefit. NI's wants and needs are only a secondary concern.

The British don't want NI and it can't survive on it's own lest the government collapse again. You must understand that you are what would be known in Irish as Eire without the fada. Unification will mean us taking you on and we shouldn't do it unless it's beneficial to us in some way.

Like I said, just join a Unionist party of your choice, don an Orange sash, and wave the Union flag. You're a better Unionist than I've ever been.

Except I'm not a unionist. I'm happy with the status quo because I think it's the South is better off without NI.

Bertie Woot

WakeUp wrote: »

I know what you are proposing but you need to explain the method and mechanism by which this would be enforced in the unlikely event of it happening. Would the British government have to ability to bring a case to the United nations or the international court of law? Would the Irish government have the right to refuse a request if it felt the accusation was unfair or the British decided to stir the pot for interests other than unionist peoples welfare.. what action do you think should be taken?

I'm not a constitutional architect or a world authority on national constitutions. Suffice to say, a reunified Ireland under a revised or completely new constitution should seek to keep Ireland's sovereign constitutional affairs within its own borders and boundaries, and with friendly and co-operative relations, understandings and arrangements with Great Britain in relation to the Protestant-Unionist-Loyalist minority. In the event that a 32 county ROI government should seek to ignore the concerns and/or petitions of Unionists via a diplomatic address by a future British government to the Irish government, then EU, UN and/or international court of law involvement may be necessary, but only as a very last resort and if all else failed.

As regards the British possibly harbouring "interests other than Unionist people's welfare", rest assured; the British have absolutely no desire to re-colonise the 26, and shall be tripping over themselves to finally relinquish (wash their hands of!) the 6 northern counties and provide Ireland with its very long anticipated 32 county Republic, with national self determination and total independence from Britain.

You also need to outline what specific rights you believe a minority section of society should be entitled too and why?? How would you word the paragraph to be inserted into a new and amended Irish constitution?? As somebody who believes in not discriminating against anyone and as I know that the vast vast majority of my people think the same though there are always a number of idiots, unionist trepidation that we potentially would act in such a way doesnt sit to well with me I have to be honest

That's OK mate, I can handle that. I'm aware of the fact that the Irish constitution contains a section on equality before the law, whereby all citizens in Ireland are held equal before Irish constitutional law. In theory this means that the state cannot unjustly, unreasonably or arbitrarily discriminate between citizens, and that you cannot be treated as "inferior" or "superior" to any other person in society simply because of your human attributes or your ethnic, racial, social or religious background.

But I've used the term "theory", and for a reason: not all constitutions are adhered to, and regrettably, despite what it says in a constitution, not everyone is viewed as "equal" by everyone else. In a reunified Republic the Northern Unionist Protestant minority shall not all of a sudden become a pristine people with an unblemished record. Or more accurately, the misdemeanours of the Unionist government 1921-72 shall not suddenly be forgotten. The "idiots" you speak of are contained within the Unionist as well as the Nationalist community, and I have no doubt that some Nationalist idiots shall view a reunification where a complete abandonment of the Unionist people by the British government takes place as providing opportunity for some retribution. And the idiots on the Unionist side shall be happy to noisily and violently respond.

We must build on the section on equality contained within the current Irish constitution, or word a modified or agreed completely new Irish constitution, so as to set in place unequivocal safeguards, assurances and guarantees to ALL ethnic minority groups in the new Republic that discrimination against and persecution of ethnic minorities shall not be tolerated, and if individual instances should occur, they shall be met with the full rigours of the law. I wouldn't object to the specific mentioning of the 'British-Unionist-Protestant' ethnic minority in particular, and I'm sure they wouldn't either. If you think that positive discrimination within a new Irish constitution is a step too far; that's fair enough.

Above all, we must strive to prevent a repeat occurrence of what happened in NI, as it shall destroy the new Republic.

The NI constitution act came far to late as you rightly point out. The Irish constitution as it stands gives gurantees, rights & protection for all its citizens - equally - regardless of backround or beliefs.

What modifications would you make if the current Irish constitution was completely re-written and why??

I've just answered this.

Not caring whether your position is offensive as a starting position for negotiations is not a good place to start Bertie The UUP, DUP, PUP can demand what they like. If they entered into negotiatians in a "demanding" type way they would be given a cup a tea, pat on the back and shown the door. And welcomed back when their position returns to realism

They are a demanding (and trying) people. I should know, I'm one of them, and I drink coffee not tea.

Milk and two sugars, please. :P

This would have it advantages and would be the way to go initially I would agree with that. The Sino-Britsh agreement when Britain ceded Hong-Kong had a similar format in the begining. Though this method has its complications and would be a drawn out discussion, air space/land rights/sea rights/sovereignty issues to name but a few would take a while to trash out. As a starting point a regional body consisting of representitives from the six counties would be set up. They would have the power to legislate and run the internal day to day business of the six counties. Foreign policy ( trade & diplomacy ) & defence would be matters for the national government. The six counties body would take part in discussions on a national level but not have the power to make a decision by themselves. It would be an Irish governmental decision ( policy & defence )

All sounds practical and reasonable as an intermediate step towards full reunification, 32 county independence and national self determination. I'm not great on the nitty gritty of politics, preferring to think in full brush strokes, but the steps you have outlined seem innovative and pragmatic, and conducive to harmonisation.

Enforceable by whoms law and how?....

Irish constitutional law, and by the Irish government acting upon advice and/or concerns from whatever source eg. Unionists and/or the British government.

How about they try deal with it themselves?? If I dont trust somebody I dont ask somebody else to make it right for me. Im not so sure you understand our mentality but I have a pretty good idea of the unionist mentality in the main not all of them.

Unionists are insecure and fearful about their future on this island, and the Irish government would be acting in a positive manner my doing all in its power to assure the Unionists that nothing negative is going to happen once Britain has pulled out of the 6 counties and reunification has taken place.

When most are suffering from an ailment they go and see a doctor, they don't attempt to treat it themselves.

The first thing that needs to be built is trust, genuine trust. This as you have outlined is going to take time. People just have to keep talking and hopefully the generations that follow up north will have a different mindset growing up and grow up sure of themselves and not give a sh1t whether or not their neighbour is from this community or that one.

That's the ideal. Realistically though, I think ethnic tribalism has longevity on its side, and mutual distrust and divisions shall take many generations to overcome, if ever, as our national, political and religious differences are deeply ingrained.

Noreen1

Madam wrote: »

I acknowledge it, because it is noticeable that the majority of Northern Protestants who visit Donegal tend to stay in Protestant communities.
Some few choose to stay in majority Catholic areas - but most don't!
Northern Catholics, on the other hand, tend to be more widely dispersed.

For example. I could name some regular visitors to the area who will only eat in Protestant owned restaurants, or drink in Protestants owned pubs. Thankfully, there are only a couple.
The irony, of course, is that in their efforts to studiously avoid Catholics, they forget that Catholics also frequent these establishments, work in them, and generally provide the local produce advertised on the menu. What Unionists in the North experience is very different to the experience in the South though. Having said that, I acknowledge that that fear exists for some Unionists.
I acknowledge it, because it is noticeable that the majority of Northern Protestants who visit Donegal tend to stay in Protestant communities.
Some few choose to stay in majority Catholic areas - but most don't!
Northern Catholics, on the other hand, tend to be more widely dispersed.

Noreen where in Donegal are these 'Protestant communities'?

Apologies for the delay in replying. I've been very busy lately, so, I may just disappear from the thread again, unfortunately.

Dunfanaghy, Ramelton and Raphoe are the three I'd be most familiar with,
but in the interest of supporting the fact that these communities exist:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/County_Donegal#Demographics

Although approximately 85% of its population is Catholic, County Donegal also has a sizeable Protestant minority. Most Donegal Protestants would trace their ancestors to settlers who arrived during the Plantation of Ulster in the early 17th-century. The Church of Ireland is the largest Protestant denomination but is closely rivalled by a large number of Presbyterians. The areas of Donegal with the highest percentage of Protestants are The Laggan area of East Donegal around Raphoe, the Finn Valley and areas around Ramelton, Milford and Dunfanaghy – where their proportion reaches up to 30–45 percent. There is also a large Protestant population between Donegal Town and Ballyshannon in the south of the county. In absolute terms, Letterkenny has the largest number of Protestants (over 1000) and is the most Presbyterian town (among those settlements with more than 3000 people) in the Republic of Ireland. Some County Donegal Protestants (mainly those concentrated in The Laggan, the Finn Valley, Inishowen and the Donegal Town/Ballintra areas) are members of the Orange Order.citation needed]

Bertie Woot

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

If a United Ireland does ever come about you will be protected. We will write protections into our constitution but we will not allow the British government any "right of intervention". Ireland is a proud country if you think
1. We will give the British a constitutional right to over see us or
2. That we will actually systematically discriminate against you then you don't know much at all about the country you want to join with.

I'm aware that the Southern Protestant population was greatly reduced post partition, and am aware of what is contained within the current Irish constitution, and feel that it shall have to be built upon, revised, or a completely new Irish constitution devised to adequately cope with the increasingly condensed multiethnic nature of the new Ireland, and I quote my relevant answer to "Wakeup", above:

"I'm aware of the fact that the Irish constitution contains a section on equality before the law, whereby all citizens in Ireland are held equal before Irish constitutional law. In theory this means that the state cannot unjustly, unreasonably or arbitrarily discriminate between citizens, and that you cannot be treated as "inferior" or "superior" to any other person in society simply because of your human attributes or your ethnic, racial, social or religious background.

But I've used the term "theory", and for a reason: not all constitutions are adhered to, and regrettably, despite what it says in a constitution, not everyone is viewed as "equal" by everyone else. In a reunified Republic the Northern Unionist Protestant minority shall not all of a sudden become a pristine people with an unblemished record. Or more accurately, the misdemeanours of the Unionist government 1921-72 shall not suddenly be forgotten. The "idiots" you speak of are contained within the Unionist as well as the Nationalist community, and I have no doubt that some Nationalist idiots shall view a reunification where a complete abandonment of the Unionist people by the British government takes place as providing opportunity for some retribution. And the idiots on the Unionist side shall be happy to noisily and violently respond.

We must build on the section on equality contained within the current Irish constitution, or word a modified or agreed completely new Irish constitution, so as to set in place unequivocal safeguards, assurances and guarantees to ALL ethnic minority groups in the new Republic that discrimination against and persecution of ethnic minorities shall not be tolerated, and if individual instances should occur, they shall be met with the full rigours of the law. I wouldn't object to the specific mentioning of the 'British-Unionist-Protestant' ethnic minority in particular, and I'm sure they wouldn't either. If you think that positive discrimination within a new Irish constitution is a step too far; that's fair enough.

Above all, we must strive to prevent a repeat occurrence of what happened in NI, as it shall destroy the new Republic."

The UK was multi ethnic from the get go. A nation that covered four separate ethnic groups.

No, it was and is a "kingdom" which contains four separate countries. Again, you are using "ethnic group" as synonymous with "nation" as you did in your "Ulster-Scots nation" nonsense.

Actually could you pm me this? I'd be interested in reading in reading it.

If I get the time and it's really that important to you.

I mean are you libertarian socialist, democratic socialist, anarcho socialist, market socialist, state socialist etc. You're too well read not to know what these are. What sort of socialist would you classify yourself as?

Disillusioned with Unionism, I set out as an Anarchist in my teens, then viewed Socialism (plain and simple Socialism) as a more practical and practicable way forward. No, I'm not an Anarcho-Socialist, just a Socialist. If pushed, a democratic Socialist.

Why refer only to Ulster Unionists? There is no difference. It's like drawing a distinction between Northern and Southern Irish nationalists.

There is a fundamental difference, as English, Scottish and Welsh Unionists do not govern a part of Ireland, although NI is a part of the UK, and do not have any say in the destiny of NI or indeed Ireland.

Unionists will be a majority in the UK for the foreseeable future because once you stop being the majority the country will collapse into four separate nations again.

It is four separate constituent nations of the UK, and Ulster Unionists are a 2% UK minority populace.

But you won't. How will you have representation in government? You will never have a high enough percentage to make it into government on your own and no Irish party would touch you. The Irish are kind of weird. While we won't openly discriminate against individual protestants we do openly despise unionist parties. Go down any street in Dublin, ask questions and you'll see the response.

You must remember that Unionists shall cease to be Unionists in a united Ireland, as post reunification the union with Great Britain shall be past tense. But those who were formerly known as "Unionists" shall have political representation in an all Ireland parliament, as they shall continue to have an electorate, regardless of whether any Irish Nationalist party "touches us".

And I can understand the Irish' overt despisement of Unionist parties. I mean, it is Unionism which has been preventing the abolishment of partition and the reunification of Ireland. What's to like about Unionism?

It would be political suicide for any Irish party to enter coalition with any unionist party.

Like I said, there would be no more Unionism. Gone, past tense, and the Unionist hardliners who voted against reunification in a referendum and who were consequently coerced via the democratic mandate of the people into a united Ireland wouldn't want political representation in the Dail, as they would want to play no part in a united Ireland.

Why would I do that? I'm not a unionist if I were I'd be calling for us to rejoin the UK. But I'm not I'm glad we have independence.

If you lived in NI you'd be called "a Unionist", as you are opposed to Irish reunification, want to sustain partition, and all of your sentiments hitherto have been partitionist and consequently pro-union in nature.

I wouldn't be totally against unification but only if it is to my country's (what you would call the 26 counties) benefit. NI's wants and needs are only a secondary concern.

You are simply seeking to denigrate the significance of a part of Ireland which was separated from the bulk of Ireland in 1921, and as a somewhat puerile means of communicating that you believe that your part of Ireland is much more important than the 6 counties. The north of Ireland is an inconvenience in your eyes, and not worth the effort of Irish Republicanism.

The British don't want NI and it can't survive on it's own lest the government collapse again. You must understand that you are what would be known in Irish as Eire without the fada. Unification will mean us taking you on and we shouldn't do it unless it's beneficial to us in some way.

Like the capitalist system which you support and admire, you are primarily motivated by selfishness and self interest; viewing reunification solely in terms of what you can get out of it.

I would urge you to stop viewing reunification from such a partisan, selfish and egocentric perspective, and take the time to examine both the historical and economic arguments for a united Ireland, and how reunification shall benefit the island as a whole:

http://www.irishleftreview.org/2010/02/22/economic-case-united-ireland/

http://aunitedireland.org/2005/08/the-historical-argument-for-a-united-ireland/

Except I'm not a unionist. I'm happy with the status quo because I think it's the South is better off without NI.

You are strongly in favour of sustaining partition, and whilst you may not refer to yourself as a "Unionist", by implication you are consequently and inadvertently in favour of the sustainment of the union of Northern Ireland with Great Britain.

Madam

Noreen1 wrote: »

Apologies for the delay in replying. I've been very busy lately, so, I may just disappear from the thread again, unfortunately.

Dunfanaghy, Ramelton and Raphoe are the three I'd be most familiar with,
but in the interest of supporting the fact that these communities exist:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/County_Donegal#Demographics

I come from between Letterkenny and Raphoe(the Lagan to be precise). Not sure about protestant 'communities'. There are a lot of protestants in the places you cite but I wouldn't call them communities as such - most are integrated into the community or so much you wouldn't know who was who(maybe by their surname but that can be misleading too - I have what is perceived as protestant name in Donegal). Coming from a catholic and protestant background(mother catholic, father protestant)I'd say Donegal would be the most integrated county in all of Ireland(I could be wrong - I othen am;))! Most folk go to each other's weddings, funerals and family gatherings, and work together(the wee village near has in the past even loaned the OO the odd instrument or two). I've never come across anyone who wouldn't go into a place because it is owned by a catholic or a protestant! Perhaps years ago a bit of 'keeping to their own' went on but I think that all finished in the 1970s.

Noreen1

Madam wrote: »

I come from between Letterkenny and Raphoe(the Lagan to be precise). Not sure about protestant 'communities'. There are a lot of protestants in the places you cite but I wouldn't call them communities as such - most are integrated into the community or so much you wouldn't know who was who(maybe by their surname but that can be misleading too - I have what is perceived as protestant name in Donegal). Coming from a catholic and protestant background(mother catholic, father protestant)I'd say Donegal would be the most integrated county in all of Ireland(I could be wrong - I othen am;))! Most folk go to each other's weddings, funerals and family gatherings, and work together(the wee village near has in the past even loaned the OO the odd instrument or two). I've never come across anyone who wouldn't go into a place because it is owned by a catholic or a protestant! Perhaps years ago a bit of 'keeping to their own' went on but I think that all finished in the 1970s.

I use the term "community" because it's fair to say that there is a higher percentage of the population who happen to be Protestant living in a relatively small area, than you would expect, given that the National statistic is a Protestant population of 3%.

You're right, though, (imo, - Ive been known to be wrong, too!:D) Donegal is very well integrated. If there's any bad feeling among the two communities, I'm not aware of it!

As to locals not going into a place because it's owned by a Catholic or Protestant - I've never come across that, either - but I have come across it in a few Northern Unionists. In all fairness, I think it's reasonable to say that you're likely to find the same reluctance among some Northern Nationalists.

The point I was trying to make, in particular to Bertie Woot, (and anyone else from a Northern Unionist background - is that where there is mistrust, it's on the part of the Northern Irish communities, mostly. And that, imo, is because the conflict is so fresh in Northern memories that, though we are one people - in some ways we're poles apart, and I genuinely believe that it will take time to change that. Patience, too.
But if it was done in the Republic, it can be done in the North - it just can't be forced.
Maybe I didn't make myself clear.

Hence, fear of the Irish people, on this side of the border - is illogical.
Understandable - but illogical. The mindset here is different to that in the North.

If Unionists were to say they were nervous of a backlash from Northern Nationalists, I'd have no problem accepting that. Equally, if Northern Nationalists were to say they were nervous of a backlash from the Northern Unionist community in the event of a UI, I'd have no problem accepting that, either. Those are perfectly reasonable fears.
There are still plenty of diehards who live to hate on both sides, unfortunately.

I just think it's important to make the distinction of what is liable to cause problems - rather than having an abiding fear of all things Irish.

Noreen1

Bertie Woot wrote: »

What began as an invitation in the 12th century gradually evolved into what has been termed and effectively was an "invasion", and if McMurrough had not requested assistance from the English (Anglo-Normans to be precise) in regaining his throne, then it is most likely that the British would have ventured across to Ireland at some subsequent date.

They had a an empire that spanned the globe, Ireland was on their doorstep, and colonisation would have taken place sooner or later, with or without an invitation by an ancient Irish King.

True.

Bertie Woot wrote: »

The entry of approximately 1 million Northern Unionist Protestants into a reunified Republic shall still present some teething problems in terms of adjustment and assimilation. Those Southern Protestants who didn't flee post partition have had 92 years to adapt and assimilate. The Northerners may, and especially if they feel their civil and religious liberties and culture are being eroded and/or not being afforded parity of esteem with Irish Gaelic culture, may offer some form of protest.

Yes - and no.
I have no doubt there will be teething problems, but, realistically, since most people wont suddenly decide to relocate, the problems, such as they may be - will largely be contained to what is now Northern Ireland, with maybe some spillover to the border Counties.

As to civil and Religious liberties, or culture being eroded - why is that even an issue?

The truth is, conflict aside, Northern (Protestant) Unionists have little or nothing to fear from a religious viewpoint. Freedom of Religion is pretty much guaranteed in the Republic, divorce is legal, and the stance on abortion is actually more similar in the Republic and Northern Ireland than it is in Northern Ireland and England, for instance.

As to civil or cultural liberties. The only complaint I can forsee there is that an OO march is generally not allowed in Dublin.
It's long been trumpeted by Willie Frazer, and his ilk.

And it's fair to say that Northern Unionists of the, er, more vehement variety, are unlikely to be allowed to choose their own route in any marches in the forseeable future.

On the other hand, a non-confrontational, non-triumphalist march, along an agreed route, by moderate Unionists, of the type that's held in Rossnowlagh, I could forsee much sooner.
But it would require co-operation from the Unionist community, and to a level that I don't think is achievable yet, given the "them" and "us" attitude that is still common in Northern Ireland.

I think smaller marches, in less politically sensitive areas, would be desirable first.

Bertie Woot wrote: »

If only 20th century Irish Republicanism had contained some like him.

True. If both communities had more like him, that would be better again.

Bertie Woot wrote: »

Despite the peace process and political progress, most members of both tribes tend to "stick to their own", and NI is still divided along sectarian lines. You'll find the same phenomena in virtually every other political/social/national/religious/ethnic/cultural et al. group around the world; taking the Palestinians and Israelis as a prime example. .

NI is still divided along sectarian lines. The ROI is not. There is no conflict in the ROI, and memories have mellowed.
Oh, I can get angry at what was done to my people with the best of them.
I can even belt out the odd rebel song once or twice a year.
But my anger is is at the political and social system that considered subjugation acceptable, and the perpetrators of some pretty despicable acts - not at the existing Protestant/Unionist community who had nothing to do with any of it.

I'm a Nationalist, and a Republican, of the strictly non-violent type.
I believe in the ideal of a democratic Republic. And I resent the fact that I have to clarify what I mean by "Nationalist" or "Republican".
Actually, I resent a lot of the "Political speak" that has distorted the true meaning of things in Northern Ireland.
Republican, and Nationalist are two words that have a different meaning in Northern Ireland to anywhere else in the world.
"Proud Ulsterman" is another. I'm a proud Ulsterwoman. I'm from Donegal, Nationalist, and Catholic. Yet if I were to drive across the border into Derry or Strabane, and announce myself as a proud Ulsterwoman, I'd be assumed to be Unionist.
Equally, the use of the word "Derry" around here just means that someone is using an old placename, that the generations used before them, and is purely habit. In Northern Ireland, saying you're going to Derry is a statement of political affiliation.
These misnomers cause a lot of misunderstanding, and need to be discussed. There's more than enough tension, as it is, without alternative meanings to the same words adding to it.

Bertie Woot wrote: »

Paranoia is a false belief that people are out to get you; that's a crude definition. Fear is interrelated, and may be either logical or illogical. Considering what the Unionist government perpetrated on Nationalists in the 6 counties, and out of a sense of fear of the Nationalist "enemy within", I do not feel that Unionist's concerns and fears are not reasoned, logical and rational.

They are reasoned, logical, and rational only in Northern Ireland.
To suggest that someone can visit a place every holiday weekend, for 20 or 30 years, without any "incidents", and still not see that the political climate is different, is, with all due respect - irrational.
In some cases, I suspect it is also a deliberate political ploy to maintain the status quo.

Bertie Woot wrote: »

Militant Republicanism has assured Unionism that their "revenge shall be the laughter of their children". As someone who has been discriminated against in employment and experienced the sly, devious, duplicitous and wholly disingenuous behaviour of Northern Nationalists, I can inform you that there are elements within Republicanism/Nationalism who harbour resentment and more than a desire for the laughter of children. I have also experienced blatant intimidation and aggression at the hands of a Republican solicitor, and had no option but to request my house deeds form him and terminate all contact.

And I've experienced blatant sectarianism from some members of the Unionist community in Northern Ireland - but never from a Unionist/Protestant from the Republic.
That doesn't mean I'm willing to distrust all Northern Unionists. Just that I accept that some of them are bigoted dinosaurs who really ought to take a long hard look at the history of this Island - and then wake up and smell the coffee.
Most people, though, want to live in peace, rather than live for hate. That's what needs to be built on - by both sides.

Bertie Woot wrote: »

Republicans and Nationalists can help Unionists out with their trust issues and fear, and by being upfront and honest with Unionists about their grievances instead of playing the devious two-faced game. And Unionists can help Republicans and Nationalists to overcome their dislike, distrust and resentment towards Unionism. We need to be open and honest with eachother, instead of continuing the conflict by subtler, covert means. We need to discuss our respective issues in an honest, authentic and overt fashion, as psychological warfare is not the way forward. .

No argument from me.

Bertie Woot wrote: »

Heck, I'm 44 and still in the process of overcoming the fear the sight of the Irish tricolour and IRA memorials in NI cause me to experience. That's not paranoia or illogicality, it's purely rational..



No, it is very logical indeed. We have hated eachother, and for a reason. The hatred may be contained most of the year, but still runs deep within sections of our society, and manifests itself at the marching season every year, and without fail (Ardoyne riots in protest at Orange parade).

Let's put it this way. What makes you assume that some sections of the Nationalist community don't live in fear during the marching season?
Or live in fear at the thought that Unionists might kick off in the event of a UI?
That hatred runs deep in NI still. Not so, here.
Less political posturing, from both sides, in NI, and more genuine efforts at inclusiveness, as opposed to political point scoring, are whats required - together with a genuine, concentrated effort by the moderates on both sides to build bridges, and condemn fanatacism, will achieve more than all the constitutional guarantees in the world - especially if those guarantees are only offered to one community.

Bertie Woot wrote: »

I'm guilty of "avoiding Catholics" myself. After the experience of Catholic-Nationalist discrimination and the detected devious and disingenuous attitude and behaviour of many catholics in the University area of Belfast, I avoided them like the plague. If the devious, disingenuous people I had come into contact with had been Protestants, Muslims or Hindus, I would have avoided them too, as I have zero tolerance for dodgy, devious, disingenuous people.

I have a pretty intense dislike of discrimination and deviousness myself.
Having said that - I refuse to condemn all members of a community based on the actions of some. And it is only when the people of NI take that attitude, (And proceed with due caution) that hostility will gradually die away.

Bertie Woot wrote: »

Our coping mechanisms and "survival strategies" here in the North have been wide and varied. As already touched upon, avoidance of "the other side" has been one. Another has been to feign friendliness whilst holding the dagger behind the back (duplicity). Yet another has been all out confrontation. The art of conflict avoidance has however been mastered by most 'decent' NI citizens. The quiet and non-confrontational life has been many peoples coping mechanism, and sometimes the best way to avoid conflict is to avoid your adversaries. However, we need to begin trusting, assimilating and integrating, because that is the only practical way to overcome sectarian division, as difficult as it may be..

Agreed.

Bertie Woot wrote: »

My name sounds distinctly English, as opposed to typical Irish names like "Patrick", Seamus" or Sean". So my name marks me out as 'a Brit', and it doesn't matter if I am an Agnostic who doesn't practice the religion I was born into (Protestantism), or the fact that I am a Socialist and believe in Irish reunification; these things are not written on my forehead, and many Nationalist's label you as "an Orange bastard" or "a Hun" and discriminate accordingly, and without knowing or caring about your personal political beliefs, values and aspirations. That's the sad reality; labelling and stereotyping occurs, and it works both ways..

Whats actually worse than the fact that it works both ways is that it's being ingrained into the children.
My kids take part in cross cultural/cross border initiatives as part of the peace process.
With each new group they meet, the question nearly always arises "Are you Catholic or Protestant". The looks of astonishment when the reply is "I'm Catholic, she's Protestant, and he's Catholic -what difference does it make?", would be funny if it weren't so sad. These are kids in the 12-15 age bracket.

Bertie Woot wrote: »

I'm unwilling to express my nationality as "Anglo-Irish", as historically that term refers to a privileged social class in Ireland, and I hail from the proletariat. .

I can understand that angle. I hail from a combination of what my mother quaintly termed "landed gentry", and the proletariat myself.
I identify with the proletariat!:D

Bertie Woot wrote: »

I regard myself as "British-Irish" or "Irish of British ancestry", which is true and accurate. It's important to note that Wolfe Tone was also of British ancestry, a Protestant, and the most notorious Irish Republican that ever lived. Besides Tone, there have been many other Protestant Irish Nationalists:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_Irish_nationalists

The British and Irish peoples are genetically similar and connected by a pre-Gaelic common ancestry as can be seen in the ancient indigenous Irish tribe of "the Cruthin", who upon the Gaels arrival in Ireland fled from Ulidia to Scotland, then returned via the Ulster plantation. Not all were Protestant settlers, there were also many Catholic Scots among the Presbyterians.

There has been more national, religious and cultural overlap than most people realise. .

I know.

Bertie Woot wrote: »

Woah! That's a thread in itself, so I'll provide the short answer: Northern Irish Unionist-Protestants do not want to be in a minority in a reunified Ireland which they have traditionally viewed as a Catholic dominated state. They are happy with their (tenuous) majority status in NI, and view reunification as offering nothing only discrimination, persecution, powerlessness and poor treatment, so they sustain the Union as a form of political protection.
.

Then they'd need to inform themselves about the political and cultural situation in the ROI, and set themselves a goal to achieve the same level of tolerance in NI, UI or not. Nationalists need to do likewise.

Bertie Woot wrote: »

The terms of the GFA clearly stipulate that a UI shall be the product of a referendum on reunification and thus the democratic wish of the people of NI. Dissidents have argued that this arrangement simply sustains the Unionist veto on reunification, as a majority or even a sizeable minority within Unionism is never going to vote in favour of a UI, and they are correct in their analysis.

Never is a very long time.
I'm pretty sure the Unionists who remained in the Republic never thought their descendents would regard themselves as Irish - but there you go!

Bertie Woot wrote: »

Realistically, it is all that Republicans and Nationalists can do, as there is not going to be a resumption of the PIRA's armed campaign, and if at some point they did decide to resume hostilities, without nuclear weapons their second campaign would be as futile as the first.



Repatriation would simply make the Irish look like ethnic cleansers in the eyes of the world. More unpopular than Unionist discrimination and South African apartheid combined; the Irish would become national pariahs.

Eh, you were the one who mentioned repatriation, not me! I find the idea completely repugnant. I think you misunderstand the depth of ill-feeling toward such a notion among the Irish people, after the Cromwell experience.
Where would they be repatriated to, anyway? Whether they want to call themselves Irish, or not, their families have lived here for hundreds of years. That makes this their home, and, ergo, makes them Irish, in my book.

Bertie Woot wrote: »

I remember Loyalists putting up posters up on Belfast's Shankill Road which read "Irish Out". I thought that the most hilarious and idiotic statement from Loyalism ever, as Loyalists are Irish. whether they want to be or not. Besides, how exactly do you get the Irish out of Ireland? Of course this ridiculous sentiment was in response to Republican's "Brits Out", but it just made them look supremely foolish.

It seems to be all about perception, though, as opposed to the actual facts.
Part of the reason I dislike the "politically correct" terminology - and history that is tailored towards the audience as opposed to unbiased fact.

Bertie Woot wrote: »

You can encourage them though, and working class Protestant need encouragement, as there exists a virtual culture of anti-education among the Protestant wc.

Is it an anti-education culture, or a "Can't afford it" culture, though?
I can see financial encouragement working in the latter.
No offense, but I'm not sure what would work in the former.
I think if Unionists/Protestants can convince themselves that they are the injured party, and entirely blameless for the conflict in NI, rather than accept that there were wrongs perpetrated by both sides, then they're equally capable of digging their heels in on education. You can drag a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.
Fewer conditions for fear/hatred might help.

Bertie Woot wrote: »

Ulster Protestants do tend to be very wary of their opposite numbers within and outside of Northern Ireland. It's a product of 30 years of PIRA and indeed Loyalist violence ie. conflict; which has cultivated a deep, inherent and virtually indelible distrust.

Again. If the ROI can get over 800 years, then NI can get over 30.
Whether they want to, or not, is an entirely different matter.

Bertie Woot wrote: »

Integration is easier said than done, unfortunately. Realistically, I think the "us and them" syndrome and ethnic tribalism shall endure well into the future, and despite all efforts to eradicate ethnic and religious division.

I never said it would be easy. Nor that I think it will happen anytime soon.
First there would have to be a will for integration, and, imo, that will does not yet exist.

Bertie Woot wrote: »

Oh bad idea. The political wall murals of Belfast tell the story of our conflict and are huge tourist attraction, generating revenue for tour companies and even taxi drivers. It would be like burning hard currency to tear them down.

They're a tourist attraction for visitors who haven't experienced the hell hole that NI became.
For the residents, they're a constant reminder - and a source for passing hatred on to the next generation.
How about a compromise?
Tear the damn things down, and rebuild them in a museum.
Cash cow intact, cultural division eliminated.

Bertie Woot wrote: »

Or even hurling or Gaelic football, which like a typical Prod, I can't play and know nothing about.

Meh! I'm a typical Catholic, and I don't know anything about them, either.:)

And on that note, I'll say goodnight, and I'll get back to this thread when I can, but I'm very busy right now, so replies are likely to be erratic. Apologies in advance.

WakeUp

Bertie Woot wrote: »

I'm not a constitutional architect or a world authority on national constitutions. Suffice to say, a reunified Ireland under a revised or completely new constitution should seek to keep Ireland's sovereign constitutional affairs within its own borders and boundaries, and with friendly and co-operative relations, understandings and arrangements with Great Britain in relation to the Protestant-Unionist-Loyalist minority. In the event that a 32 county ROI government should seek to ignore the concerns and/or petitions of Unionists via a diplomatic address by a future British government to the Irish government, then EU, UN and/or international court of law involvement may be necessary, but only as a very last resort and if all else failed.

Im no constitutional architect myself but you dont have to be one to understand that you would never enshrine a mechanism into your nations constitution that maybe enacted or triggered for whatever reason oneday by the actions of another nations government. Ireland has a friendly and co-operative relationship with Britain and has done for many years.
Ireland is a party to the European convention for the protection of human rights which is a binding international agreement. Britain is signed up too. The European convention is akin to a super-constitution if you will with procedures in place specifically dealing with the rights of ethnic minorities. If Britain ever felt the need to become involved on behalf of the unionists ( assuming two-way talking broke down and all avenues had been exhausted ) they would make their case first to the commision for human rights and if the commision decided action was warranted it would be then put forward to European court of human rights to which Ireland is answerable. The legal protection & assurances you are seeking are already in place with all the required mechanisms and steps should a violation of some description happen which is extremely unlikely. There is no need to insert such a paragraph into an amended Irish constitution.

As regards the British possibly harbouring "interests other than Unionist people's welfare", rest assured; the British have absolutely no desire to re-colonise the 26, and shall be tripping over themselves to finally relinquish (wash their hands of!) the 6 northern counties and provide Ireland with its very long anticipated 32 county Republic, with national self determination and total independence from Britain.

We just dont know what the future holds nobody does dont we all wish we did well not all of the future some things you dont wanna know:). You dont take chances no matter how remote they maybe when deciding upon and negotiating matters of national interest present and future.

That's OK mate, I can handle that. I'm aware of the fact that the Irish constitution contains a section on equality before the law, whereby all citizens in Ireland are held equal before Irish constitutional law. In theory this means that the state cannot unjustly, unreasonably or arbitrarily discriminate between citizens, and that you cannot be treated as "inferior" or "superior" to any other person in society simply because of your human attributes or your ethnic, racial, social or religious background.

But I've used the term "theory", and for a reason: not all constitutions are adhered to, and regrettably, despite what it says in a constitution, not everyone is viewed as "equal" by everyone else. In a reunified Republic the Northern Unionist Protestant minority shall not all of a sudden become a pristine people with an unblemished record. Or more accurately, the misdemeanours of the Unionist government 1921-72 shall not suddenly be forgotten. The "idiots" you speak of are contained within the Unionist as well as the Nationalist community, and I have no doubt that some Nationalist idiots shall view a reunification where a complete abandonment of the Unionist people by the British government takes place as providing opportunity for some retribution. And the idiots on the Unionist side shall be happy to noisily and violently respond.We must build on the section on equality contained within the current Irish constitution, or word a modified or agreed completely new Irish constitution, so as to set in place unequivocal safeguards, assurances and guarantees to ALL ethnic minority groups in the new Republic that discrimination against and persecution of ethnic minorities shall not be tolerated, and if individual instances should occur, they shall be met with the full rigours of the law. I wouldn't object to the specific mentioning of the 'British-Unionist-Protestant' ethnic minority in particular, and I'm sure they wouldn't either. If you think that positive discrimination within a new Irish constitution is a step too far; that's fair enough.

Nobody will be discriminated against the current Irish constitution notwithstanding the European convention does not discriminate against any minority as things are, though I do agree with the moral tone of what you are saying.

They are a demanding (and trying) people. I should know, I'm one of them, and I drink coffee not tea.

Milk and two sugars, please. :P

Coffee it is dont forget the biscuits:D

All sounds practical and reasonable as an intermediate step towards full reunification, 32 county independence and national self determination. I'm not great on the nitty gritty of politics, preferring to think in full brush strokes, but the steps you have outlined seem innovative and pragmatic, and conducive to harmonisation.

I think it would be a good way to start

Irish constitutional law, and by the Irish government acting upon advice and/or concerns from whatever source eg. Unionists and/or the British government.

Ok. You need to correct me if Im wrong here but in a previous comment if I remember correctly you wanted this amendment inserted so as to protect against State sanctioned discrimination or acquiescence to the same. Have I got that right??

Unionists are insecure and fearful about their future on this island, and the Irish government would be acting in a positive manner my doing all in its power to assure the Unionists that nothing negative is going to happen once Britain has pulled out of the 6 counties and reunification has taken place.
When most are suffering from an ailment they go and see a doctor, they don't attempt to treat it themselves.

This is something that I know will take time what happened up North was a traumatic experience for everyone touched by it just as people not nationalist or unionist just people. Trauma of such magnitute is going to take time to heal and I dont think people have healed yet. And you cant build trust if you are still in many ways coming to terms with what has happend the mind has enough to deal with it without confronting trust issues of the scale that exist in the North. Insecurity and being afraid are things that people on all sides have had to deal with when the conflict was happening. Both those things need to be put to bed before a united Ireland should happen and we can be confident that it will work and will be peaceful. The first step toward a united Ireland should be addressing and trying to deal with that conclusively and not hoping some sentences in a document are truly going to deal it all by themself

DEFTLEFTHAND

Judging by the last BBC poll reunification is a long way off, the worrying aspect for Republicans is that a significant number of Catholics want to stay within the Union. For me this signals the death toll of the Republican ideal, this generation has grown up with partition and they are comfortable with it. They look at the basket case Republic and they don't want any part of it. Economic conditions could permanently cement partition on this island.