Towards a United Ireland

Madam

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

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.

Republicans (I prefer nationalists) have grown up with partition of course, although that doesn't necessarly mean they like it - I suppose its the peace they like rather than the actual 'state' of NI? Saying that I can't in the near future or in most of our lifetimes see a united Ireland, no way will the Unionists(moderate or not) even contemplate such a thing! NI is changing and growing into a better society(mostly)and if the knuckledraggers are put down - all for the better:)

DEFTLEFTHAND

You're right it is evolving, the knuckle draggers on both sides have become less important, Those Billy boys can stand arse front to the slipways of Harland and Wolff and wait for the connection. Then they can snarl more nastiness when that doesn't give them satisfaction.

The Nationalists can tone the aggression down a bit too, the fights over, reunification is not possible at this time and won't be for many years.

sanbrafyffe

As a mayo man myself,,i cant see a united ireland for a long time yet but however i do think it will happen at some stage,,,maybe not in my time but definitely afterwards,,,,we need it to keep going the way it is and to keep building peace and prosperity etc,,,This thing about unionists not contemplating is ridiculious,,,,they signed up to the gfa as much as republicans did so both sides must implent it.when the prospects of a united are available it will be discussed between the governments(irish and british) on how it will work,,,,it is then that unionists(new generations) will get a better indication and some will be opened to suggestions etc,,,,,its all to do with money

Madam wrote: »

Republicans (I prefer nationalists) have grown up with partition of course, although that doesn't necessarly mean they like it - I suppose its the peace they like rather than the actual 'state' of NI? Saying that I can't in the near future or in most of our lifetimes see a united Ireland, no way will the Unionists(moderate or not) even contemplate such a thing! NI is changing and growing into a better society(mostly)and if the knuckledraggers are put down - all for the better:)

Bertie Woot

Noreen1 wrote: »

True.
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?

Sinn Fein keep telling the Protestant-Unionist-Loyalist community that their civil and religious liberties and culture shall be preserved and sustained in a united Ireland, yet every time Orangemen's feet hit the street they are bombarded with Republican protests and shouts of "triumphalism", "supremacism" and bigotry!".

Sinn Fein need to begin practicing what they preach, reign the dogs in, and accept that Orange culture is triumphalist by its very nature, as King William III of Orange was victorious over the Catholic King James II at the battle of the Boyne, and Protestantism does view the teachings of the Roamn Catholic church as man made and fundamentally flawed.

A society which permits and promotes freedom of expression must tolerate cultural aspects which are not only different, but diametrically opposed to others. It's called "tolerance", and of things which you do not like or even find offensive.

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.

Abortion must be made legal in a united Ireland. People must be given choice, and the old religious teachings of both the RC and Protestant churches must become past tense.

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.

The annual Orange marching season is controversial, for sure. PUL's view it as a big day out and a celebration of their heritage and culture, whereas Republicans and Nationalists, as already stated, view it at as triumphalist, bigoted and supremacist in nature.

The Orange Order is not gong to evaporate in a united Ireland. In fact, Gerry Adams himself has said that Orange culture shall be permitted, and in adherence to the Republican principles of tolerance for other ethnicities and cultures.

A pluralist Ireland must afford Orangeism and Loyalism their culture, as any attempted suppression or marginalisation of any culture shall only result in that culture rebelling and thus growing stronger, more volatile and unmanageable; posing a very real threat of widespread civil disobedience and disturbance.

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

Loyalism would have no desire to have a rebel whose raison d'etre was to cut all links with England within their ranks.

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.

It is essential for young Nationalists and Republicans to understand that what the Unionist regime did in the name of political self preservation happened in an era when many of us were not even born. I was born in 1968, lived through the IRA's terrorist bombardment, and didn't begin to learn about discrimination and gerrymandering until my late 20's.

Everything was a consequence, and it's astonishing to think that Unionism thought that they could do what they did and with impunity, and that future generations, mine in particular, would not have to suffer some form of consequence. Many Protestants shall never acknowledge that discrimination against the Nationalist people occurred, whilst others shall be reluctant. One thing's certain; no Protestant has or shall ever attempt to justify Unionist misrule, and in fact members of the PUP have condemned the Unionist government 1921-72, for being responsible for the subjection of people of my generation to 30 years of retaliatory PIRA violence.

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.

True, and when Unionists refer to "Ulster", they are merely referring to six of the nine counties of Ulster ie. Northern Ireland.

E

qually, 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.

Many people in NI usually use the term "Derry/Londonderry", so as not to offend one community or the other.

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.

It's a part of Unionist psychology. If with experience you find that there is no threat in a milieu, the little voice deep inside the Unionist mindset shall whisper "Ah, but there might be, I've just been fortunate enough not to experience it".

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.

Bigotry and sectarianism are endemic and run both ways in NI., with Nationalists and Republicans having been much more adept and practiced at concealing theirs. Protestants just clumsily let it all out.

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.

Unionist/Loyalist culture shall undoubtedly continue to pose problems in a UI, whilst Republicans and Nationalists continue to view it as offensive. Most Loyalist parades pass off peacefully nad without incident. It is only when Republicans stage their protests that tensions begin to rise.

And that is why "constitutional guarantees" of civil and religious liberty and the permittance of Loyalist/Orange/Unionist parades in particular are the key to a tolerant and peaceful society.

Make no mistake, I couldn't care less if the Orange Order and Loyalis bands disappeared overnight and there was never another Loyalist/Orange band parade, as I was part of all that as a teenager, and have for many years found it crude and boring. But in 2013 it is still there, shows no sign of dissipating, and far from toning it down, Orange/Loyalist marching culture is more buoyant today than it ever was, and no amount of Republican/Nationalist protests or accusations of "triumphalism" are going to drive it underground. That's not supporting Loyalism, just a factual cultural appraisal and prognosis.

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.

After the experience of discrimination, I tread warily and cautiously, and try not to put myself in a position where I am vulnerable to experiencing discrimination again. I haven't condemned all of the Nationalist community for the discrimination which I have personally experienced, but reserve the right to condemn those individuals who carried it out, and for similar reasons to the condemnations of Unionist discrimination I have issued over the years. With freedom comes responsibility, and we must all take responsibility for our actions, realising that retaliatory discrimination against innocent parties is never justified, and shall only have the effect of causing further retaliatory discrimination, thus perpetuating a vicious cycle.

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.

It's all part of the very natural and self perpetuating "Us and Them" syndrome, and despite recent measures announced by Peter Robinson and Martin McGuinnes this week to address the sectarian issue and implement measures bring the two communities closer together, I really can't see any quick fixes to traditional ethnic and religious tribalism in Northern Ireland.

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

Apparently my English colonial ancestors (on my dad's side) were a quite a "well-to-do" lot. Regrettably, by the time I came into the world, that socioeconomic status had disappeared, and I was coerced to grow up in a traditional working class environment, and consequently experience the social, economic, cultural and attitudinal barriers to educational attainment peculiar to the working class.

And this is an aspect to Protestantism/Unionism in NI which must be paid attention: most of us were born into very humble social beginnings, and continue to be people of very moderate means. Socioeconomically, not "supremacist" in the least.

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.

Agreed.

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!

We're all Irish, just with different ancestral lineage, and with Unionists, cutting the tie with mother Britain is going to take some time..

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.

Very comforting and encouraging words. I once thought of relocating to my land of ancestral origin ie. England. But the truth is, I am Irish in their eyes, and thus foreign. Then there's the phenomenon of "hibernophobia", which is still covert but prevalent in England. I just couldn't handle being referred to as "a Paddy", "an alcoholic" or "an IRA man" by an English philistine.

It still happens:

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

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.

It's both a "can't afford it" and "anti-education" culture. With annual University tuition fees now in the region of £9000 per annum, higher education is less affordable by the working class. And their antipathy towards higher education comes from a self sufficient macho culture, where in the past most Protestants felt they didn't need higher education to get ahead in life, as they had Harland and Wolff shipyard, Shortts et al.; all Protestant dominated industries.

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.

Agreed.

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.

It might take some time .. don't hold your breath.

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.

McGuinness and Robinson this week announced a 2023 deadline for all of the so-called "peace walls" in Belfast to come down. I think it's good idea, but they shall only have to resurrect them again if people on the ground haven't taken down the walls within their minds; which is the real challenge.

The walls were put in place for a purpose: to keep the two communities apart and to prevent them from rioting. That's the sad reality; the peace walls maintained the peace, and without reconciliation and integration, the divisions shall still exist, and the unemployed and unemployable within the two tribes shall still want to exchange bricks, petrol bombs and bullets in a united Ireland.

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

Great.

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.

Apologies accepted, and please try to keep your replies brief, (briefer than this post), as this is becoming like work, and it's a Sunday!

LordSutch

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

You're right it is evolving, the knuckle draggers on both sides have become less important, Those Billy boys can stand arse front to the slipways of Harland and Wolff and wait for the connection. Then they can snarl more nastiness when that doesn't give them satisfaction.

The Nationalists can tone the aggression down a bit too, the fights over, reunification is not possible at this time and won't be for many years.

People talk about 'reunification', but were Orange & Nationalist ever Unified under one Irish government? and I think the answer is NO.

Yes Ireland was indeed Unified, but it was only unified/united in the context (as part of the UK) under a British admisistration, and that can never be re-created. So Ireland can never be re-united (as it was under British rule), ergo that reunification that Nationalists/Republicans crave for was only ever possible with the whole island in the UK, and I don't see that happening anytime soon.

So I guess 'reunification' is a pipe dream? right?

Bertie Woot

WakeUp wrote: »

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.

But with that sentiment you simply reveal an inherent distrust of the British government, which isn't much different to PUL's distrust of Republicanism, Nationalism and the Irish government. If you are concerned about an invasion and recolonisation of the 26, I'll reiterate; rest assured, it ain't going to happen.

I too want to see full Irish autonomy and complete independence from Britain, with no interference by any foreign power in the domestic affairs of of a reunified Ireland, but PUL's need some measure of reassurance pre and post reunification, and until they build sufficient trust in a Dublin all Ireland government.

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.

I'm aware of relevant articles contained within the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and it is my view that the section on equality before the law contained within the current Irish Constitution can be used as a foundation to be built upon and imbued with similar and enhanced references as contained within the above.

As regards "procedures in place specifically dealing with the rights of ethnic minorities" contained within the European Convention, and commission for human rights and European court of human rights involvement in any dispute, hopefully a future all Ireland government shall be prudent and co-operative enough with a future British government so as not to cause reason for recourse to such European bodies, as the ideal would be to keep Ireland's (and indeed Britain's) affairs within our own islands.

I can't emphasise this enough: I have no desire for British governmental interference in a reunified, 32 county, independent Ireland's domestic affairs, but in light of our very turbulent and fickle 'history', Irish constitutional measures similar to those I have suggested should at least be given some consideration, and as a means of instilling full confidence within the British ethnic minority populace within the new Ireland.

Nothing should be dismissed as "out of bounds" or "off the table". Imaginative thinking, and a willingness to compromise.

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.

Nothing changes without taking risks.

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.

Being capable of agreement is a good omen.

Coffee it is dont forget the biscuits:D

I think it would be a good way to start

I hope you won't think of me as a sectarian bigot by offering a "Club Orange"?

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??

Yes. Like I've said: Unionism does not trust the Dublin government, and despite all of the European legislation and legislative bodies you've mentioned in terms of Human Rights, Human Conventions, the commission for human rights and the European court of human rights et al., the Northern Prods shall still view a Dublin all Ireland government with suspicion, and especially at a time of vulnerability ie. post reunification, post British withdrawal, and despite all assurances from "the Irish".

You must understand that a 'united Ireland' is the bitterest of bitter pills for the Ulster unionist to swallow; it is 'the poison chalice' and the antithesis of everything they are about. Vociferous opposition to Irish reunification lies at the very core of Ulster Unionist ideology.

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

True enough.

We need time to heal, reconcile, and build mutual trust; being realistic about the level of ethnic division that has existed and still does exist in the north, and the continuing potential for a swift resumption of civil disorder and political violence.

We don't have a perfect peace (dissidents are still active), but the Shinners and the DUP are (amazingly) keeping it together and making it work, and considering the level of animosity that has existed between the two tribes, that in itself is nothing less than miraculous.

*fingers crossed*

WakeUp

Bertie Woot wrote: »

But with that sentiment you simply reveal an inherent distrust of the British government, which isn't much different to PUL's distrust of Republicanism, Nationalism and the Irish government. If you are concerned about an invasion and recolonisation of the 26, I'll reiterate; rest assured, it ain't going to happen.

I too want to see full Irish autonomy and complete independence from Britain, with no interference by any foreign power in the domestic affairs of of a reunified Ireland, but PUL's need some measure of reassurance pre and post reunification, and until they build sufficient trust in a Dublin all Ireland government.

Its one thing legislating and amending a constitution its a whole other matter trying to reverse such a decision should you want it reversed especially if you afford another nation in this instance Britain a legal foothold to oppose and challenge any attempted reversal by inserting such a clause in the first place. Im not so sure you fully understand what you are proposing. There isnt a nation on earth that completely trusts another nation the real world does not work like that it has nothing to do with intent. My concern and priority would be protecting and maintaining my nations interests and nothing else. That isnt being selfish nor is it unreasonable its realpolitik and how foreign policy works. No offence or disrespect intended but British policy assurances and declarations as to what to their intentions are now or 50 years in the future, you are not in a position to make them. You can not predict a nations long term behaviour it just isnt possible unless youre a seer:)

I'm aware of relevant articles contained within the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and it is my view that the section on equality before the law contained within the current Irish Constitution can be used as a foundation to be built upon and imbued with similar and enhanced references as contained within the above.

As regards "procedures in place specifically dealing with the rights of ethnic minorities" contained within the European Convention, and commission for human rights and European court of human rights involvement in any dispute, hopefully a future all Ireland government shall be prudent and co-operative enough with a future British government so as not to cause reason for recourse to such European bodies, as the ideal would be to keep Ireland's (and indeed Britain's) affairs within our own islands.

I can't emphasise this enough: I have no desire for British governmental interference in a reunified, 32 county, independent Ireland's domestic affairs, but in light of our very turbulent and fickle 'history', Irish constitutional measures similar to those I have suggested should at least be given some consideration, and as a means of instilling full confidence within the British ethnic minority populace within the new Ireland.

You need to explain what you mean by this I know you prefer to deal in full brush strokes but the devil is in the detail as they say. You say you have no desire for British governmental interference on one hand whilst on the other believe a legal declaration should be inserted in our constitution that would make us answerable to Britain along with being answerable to a European court? or for Britain to have an enshrined right to interfere in our affairs as outlined in our constitution. Im open to compromise I would always seek to find middle ground but you need to be realistic. Proposing such a thing isnt.

Nothing should be dismissed as "out of bounds" or "off the table". Imaginative thinking, and a willingness to compromise.

Two things for me would be off the table everything else is up for discussion & compromise:)

a) giving Britain an Irish constitutional right to interfere in our affairs should they want too
b) Dublin is, has been, and always will be, the capital of Ireland

Nothing changes without taking risks.
Being capable of agreement is a good omen.

agreed.

I hope you won't think of me as a sectarian bigot by offering a "Club Orange"?

:D not at all. We only have green covered minty viscounts anyways so bring along your club oranges all good

Yes. Like I've said: Unionism does not trust the Dublin government, and despite all of the European legislation and legislative bodies you've mentioned in terms of Human Rights, Human Conventions, the commission for human rights and the European court of human rights et al., the Northern Prods shall still view a Dublin all Ireland government with suspicion, and especially at a time of vulnerability ie. post reunification, post British withdrawal, and despite all assurances from "the Irish".

You must understand that a 'united Ireland' is the bitterest of bitter pills for the Ulster unionist to swallow; it is 'the poison chalice' and the antithesis of everything they are about. Vociferous opposition to Irish reunification lies at the very core of Ulster Unionist ideology.

I dont completely trust our government either. Democracy requires you to constantly question what your government is doing and watch them and their actions carefully. Does anybody really completely trust a government with the welfare of them and their family?? in my humble opinion only a fool would entrust their welfare and that of their families to a government. So they make rules and laws and we all try our best to live and abide by them as best we can but thats the people who are living, the government do the legislating we live in a world designed by the legislaters. Not trusting a government isnt just a unionist issure. Its up to the people to live together within the rules as they are set. I do understand that unionists would have a hard time with unification nobody is forcing it upon them. Whilst I think they need to figure out their trust issues for themselves from what I can see the legal assurances are already in place that they are seeking. And if that is not enough Im not sure what else can be done to assure you we dont intend burning all unionsts at the stake and eating their babies which is an irrational fear to have though with whats happened in the North I can see where it stems from.

Bertie Woot wrote: »

We need time to heal, reconcile, and build mutual trust; being realistic about the level of ethnic division that has existed and still does exist in the north, and the continuing potential for a swift resumption of civil disorder and political violence.

We don't have a perfect peace (dissidents are still active), but the Shinners and the DUP are (amazingly) keeping it together and making it work, and considering the level of animosity that has existed between the two tribes, that in itself is nothing less than miraculous.

*fingers crossed*

We have peace like you say it isnt perfect but roll the clock back to what it was then forward to what it is now and things are better Im of the belief that the current generation of adults in the North do not have the ability to solidify a lasting peace as their legacy. I dont think that pressure like that should be upon them while people as you say are still healing. It will be the next generation and the generations who follow that will decide if peace succeeds or fails. The current generation should be tasked with laying the foundation I think the focus should be on the generation in the waiting that is where the focus should be for now and all adults up North regardless of backround owe it to them to lay the groundwork properly and work for it genuinely.

Noreen1

Bertie Woot wrote: »

Sinn Fein keep telling the Protestant-Unionist-Loyalist community that their civil and religious liberties and culture shall be preserved and sustained in a united Ireland, yet every time Orangemen's feet hit the street they are bombarded with Republican protests and shouts of "triumphalism", "supremacism" and bigotry!".

Sinn Fein need to begin practicing what they preach, reign the dogs in, and accept that Orange culture is triumphalist by its very nature, as King William III of Orange was victorious over the Catholic King James II at the battle of the Boyne, and Protestantism does view the teachings of the Roamn Catholic church as man made and fundamentally flawed.

A society which permits and promotes freedom of expression must tolerate cultural aspects which are not only different, but diametrically opposed to others. It's called "tolerance", and of things which you do not like or even find offensive.

Sinn Fein don't rule the Republic, and, short of some catastrophe, are unlikely to for quite some time, if ever!

Having said that, there is a difference between being allowed a peaceful march, and playing inflammatory tunes outside churches etc.
A celebration of culture is one thing - triumphalism, by its very nature, is an unpleasant trait, and, imo, displays a disturbing weakness of character.
Hence, though I regard myself as a tolerant individual, I do not, and never will, find triumphalism acceptable.
Tolerance has to go both ways to work.

You appear to think that Nationalists should welcome the supremacist notions that some Unionists still hold. This particular Nationalist recognises no such thing, and although I desire peace, and integration, I don't desire it enough to capitulate to nonsense ideas that any race or nationality is superior - hence that's a complete non-runner.
I want equality - not capitulation.

Bertie Woot wrote: »

Abortion must be made legal in a united Ireland. People must be given choice, and the old religious teachings of both the RC and Protestant churches must become past tense.

That is a decision for the Irish people to make.

Bertie Woot wrote: »

The annual Orange marching season is controversial, for sure. PUL's view it as a big day out and a celebration of their heritage and culture, whereas Republicans and Nationalists, as already stated, view it at as triumphalist, bigoted and supremacist in nature.

The Orange Order is not gong to evaporate in a united Ireland. In fact, Gerry Adams himself has said that Orange culture shall be permitted, and in adherence to the Republican principles of tolerance for other ethnicities and cultures.

A pluralist Ireland must afford Orangeism and Loyalism their culture, as any attempted suppression or marginalisation of any culture shall only result in that culture rebelling and thus growing stronger, more volatile and unmanageable; posing a very real threat of widespread civil disobedience and disturbance.

The orange order already exists in Ireland. It is already tolerated.
What will not be tolerated is the behaviour exhibited by some Unionists in some areas, who choose to be deliberately confrontational, and engage in inflammatory behaviour.

Bertie Woot wrote: »

Loyalism would have no desire to have a rebel whose raison d'etre was to cut all links with England within their ranks.

Wolfe Tone was a great deal more than just a rebel.
His respect for, and desire for equality for, all cultures, defines him much more clearly than any "rebel" label ever could.

Bertie Woot wrote: »

It is essential for young Nationalists and Republicans to understand that what the Unionist regime did in the name of political self preservation happened in an era when many of us were not even born. I was born in 1968, lived through the IRA's terrorist bombardment, and didn't begin to learn about discrimination and gerrymandering until my late 20's.

Everything was a consequence, and it's astonishing to think that Unionism thought that they could do what they did and with impunity, and that future generations, mine in particular, would not have to suffer some form of consequence. Many Protestants shall never acknowledge that discrimination against the Nationalist people occurred, whilst others shall be reluctant. One thing's certain; no Protestant has or shall ever attempt to justify Unionist misrule, and in fact members of the PUP have condemned the Unionist government 1921-72, for being responsible for the subjection of people of my generation to 30 years of retaliatory PIRA violence.

Fair point, although I don't know about "Protestant" but there have been a few loyalists on Boards that have attempted to do just that.

Bertie Woot wrote: »

True, and when Unionists refer to "Ulster", they are merely referring to six of the nine counties of Ulster ie. Northern Ireland.

Agreed

Bertie Woot wrote: »

Many people in NI usually use the term "Derry/Londonderry", so as not to offend one community or the other.

Fair enough, I suppose. It still doesn't change the fact that the word "Derry" in NI will result in an assumption of political affiliation.

Bertie Woot wrote: »

It's a part of Unionist psychology. If with experience you find that there is no threat in a milieu, the little voice deep inside the Unionist mindset shall whisper "Ah, but there might be, I've just been fortunate enough not to experience it".

Then that's something that Unionists might like to give a little thought to?

Bertie Woot wrote: »

Bigotry and sectarianism are endemic and run both ways in NI., with Nationalists and Republicans having been much more adept and practiced at concealing theirs. Protestants just clumsily let it all out.

That's an astonishing statement.
There are many different, and varying opinions, in both communities.
For someone who describes himself as a Nationalist, you have a very low opinion of your fellow Irishmen. Then again, you don't seem particularly impressed with Unionists, either - to a level that goes beyond trying to understand both viewpoints, imo.

Bertie Woot wrote: »

Unionist/Loyalist culture shall undoubtedly continue to pose problems in a UI, whilst Republicans and Nationalists continue to view it as offensive. Most Loyalist parades pass off peacefully nad without incident. It is only when Republicans stage their protests that tensions begin to rise.

Why do you choose to consistently ignore/fail to address the differences between the ROI and NI on this issue?
And why do you fail to acknowledge that it is not just Republican protests that cause tensions, but that some bandmembers actively encourage violence?
Or maybe it's this idea you seem to have that only Nationalists/Republicans need to show tolerance, while Unionists should be allowed to be as sectarian as they like?
There are actually laws against incitement to Religious hatred, you know!

Bertie Woot wrote: »

And that is why "constitutional guarantees" of civil and religious liberty and the permittance of Loyalist/Orange/Unionist parades in particular are the key to a tolerant and peaceful society.

There are already constitutional guarantees for equality.
There is no need for guarantees of "more" equality for Unionists.

Bertie Woot wrote: »

Make no mistake, I couldn't care less if the Orange Order and Loyalis bands disappeared overnight and there was never another Loyalist/Orange band parade, as I was part of all that as a teenager, and have for many years found it crude and boring. But in 2013 it is still there, shows no sign of dissipating, and far from toning it down, Orange/Loyalist marching culture is more buoyant today than it ever was, and no amount of Republican/Nationalist protests or accusations of "triumphalism" are going to drive it underground. That's not supporting Loyalism, just a factual cultural appraisal and prognosis.

I don't care whether they disappear, or not. That's up to them.
I do care that there appear to be no attempts made to curb excesses by some thugs.

Bertie Woot wrote: »

After the experience of discrimination, I tread warily and cautiously, and try not to put myself in a position where I am vulnerable to experiencing discrimination again. I haven't condemned all of the Nationalist community for the discrimination which I have personally experienced, but reserve the right to condemn those individuals who carried it out, and for similar reasons to the condemnations of Unionist discrimination I have issued over the years. With freedom comes responsibility, and we must all take responsibility for our actions, realising that retaliatory discrimination against innocent parties is never justified, and shall only have the effect of causing further retaliatory discrimination, thus perpetuating a vicious cycle.

I'd agree broadly with this post - and yet, I wonder if the unpleasant experience you had didn't colour your opinion more than you realise?

Bertie Woot wrote: »

It's all part of the very natural and self perpetuating "Us and Them" syndrome, and despite recent measures announced by Peter Robinson and Martin McGuinnes this week to address the sectarian issue and implement measures bring the two communities closer together, I really can't see any quick fixes to traditional ethnic and religious tribalism in Northern Ireland.

It has to start somewhere.

Bertie Woot wrote: »

Apparently my English colonial ancestors (on my dad's side) were a quite a "well-to-do" lot. Regrettably, by the time I came into the world, that socioeconomic status had disappeared, and I was coerced to grow up in a traditional working class environment, and consequently experience the social, economic, cultural and attitudinal barriers to educational attainment peculiar to the working class.

And this is an aspect to Protestantism/Unionism in NI which must be paid attention: most of us were born into very humble social beginnings, and continue to be people of very moderate means. Socioeconomically, not "supremacist" in the least.

Strange. I don't know about the rest of Ireland, but certainly the parts of Donegal that I am most familiar with would be quite the opposite - because, contrary to the assumptions of some Loyalists, Protestants were actually allowed keep their lands after partition.

Bertie Woot wrote: »

We're all Irish, just with different ancestral lineage, and with Unionists, cutting the tie with mother Britain is going to take some time..

True

Bertie Woot wrote: »

Very comforting and encouraging words. I once thought of relocating to my land of ancestral origin ie. England. But the truth is, I am Irish in their eyes, and thus foreign. Then there's the phenomenon of "hibernophobia", which is still covert but prevalent in England. I just couldn't handle being referred to as "a Paddy", "an alcoholic" or "an IRA man" by an English philistine.

It still happens:

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

And therein lies the irony of loyalty to a people that consider you "Irish".

Bertie Woot wrote: »

It's both a "can't afford it" and "anti-education" culture. With annual University tuition fees now in the region of £9000 per annum, higher education is less affordable by the working class. And their antipathy towards higher education comes from a self sufficient macho culture, where in the past most Protestants felt they didn't need higher education to get ahead in life, as they had Harland and Wolff shipyard, Shortts et al.; all Protestant dominated industries.

Third level education is free in the ROI - so far!
Protestant culture re education appears very different in NI to the Republic.

Bertie Woot wrote: »

It might take some time .. don't hold your breath.

I wasn't planning to!

Bertie Woot wrote: »

McGuinness and Robinson this week announced a 2023 deadline for all of the so-called "peace walls" in Belfast to come down. I think it's good idea, but they shall only have to resurrect them again if people on the ground haven't taken down the walls within their minds; which is the real challenge.

The walls were put in place for a purpose: to keep the two communities apart and to prevent them from rioting. That's the sad reality; the peace walls maintained the peace, and without reconciliation and integration, the divisions shall still exist, and the unemployed and unemployable within the two tribes shall still want to exchange bricks, petrol bombs and bullets in a united Ireland.

The peace walls never maintained the peace, since there was no peace.
What they achieved was a cementing of divisions, although they did help prevent/control riots

Bertie Woot

WakeUp wrote: »

Its one thing legislating and amending a constitution its a whole other matter trying to reverse such a decision should you want it reversed especially if you afford another nation in this instance Britain a legal foothold to oppose and challenge any attempted reversal by inserting such a clause in the first place. Im not so sure you fully understand what you are proposing. There isnt a nation on earth that completely trusts another nation the real world does not work like that it has nothing to do with intent. My concern and priority would be protecting and maintaining my nations interests and nothing else. That isnt being selfish nor is it unreasonable its realpolitik and how foreign policy works. No offence or disrespect intended but British policy assurances and declarations as to what to their intentions are now or 50 years in the future, you are not in a position to make them. You can not predict a nations long term behaviour it just isnt possible unless youre a seer:)

I've been called worse. , and shall address these points below.

You need to explain what you mean by this I know you prefer to deal in full brush strokes but the devil is in the detail as they say. You say you have no desire for British governmental interference on one hand whilst on the other believe a legal declaration should be inserted in our constitution that would make us answerable to Britain along with being answerable to a European court? or for Britain to have an enshrined right to interfere in our affairs as outlined in our constitution. Im open to compromise I would always seek to find middle ground but you need to be realistic. Proposing such a thing isnt

Two things for me would be off the table everything else is up for discussion & compromise:)

a) giving Britain an Irish constitutional right to interfere in our affairs should they want too
b) Dublin is, has been, and always will be, the capital of Ireland.

OK, you've sufficiently demonstrated the fact that you and indeed others have considerable difficulty with an amendment to the current Irish constitution to provide for British governmental diplomatic Intervention in the hypothetical case of either subterranean state orchestrated or accumulative individual cases of discrimination and persecution of the Unionist-Protestant ethnic minority within a reunified 32 county Republic, and that you believe that the national security of the new Republic shall be put at risk by any such constitutional amendments.

Might I therefore suggest that any draft reunification agreement/document that is drawn up after a referendum north and south of the border, where majorities in both jurisdictions have voted in favour of Irish reunification, contains at least some form of provision for the British government to diplomatically address the Irish government on behalf of potential Unionist concerns and grievances, and that by building upon (there is room for improvement) what is already contained within the Irish constitution in relation to human rights and 'equality before the law', and what is already contained within the Belfast Agreement (GFA) in relation to British-Irish relations and human rights:

http://www.wesleyjohnston.com/users/ireland/today/good_friday/synopsis.html

..both the Irish and British governments, in tandem with the Unionist and Nationalist parties, proceed with measures to draft a final reunification agreement/document, the contents of which shall achieve support and consensus right across the broad political spectrum, and thus enable the Unionist people to consent to the initiation of measures towards reunification and British troop withdrawal, in full confidence that their ethnic minority status in the new Republic shall not engender vulnerability to the experience of discrimination, persecution, marginalisation and/or alienation, and in the event that such phenomena should occur, that the British and Irish governments shall co-operate and work together to rectify the problems, and in the case of Irish governmental reluctance or refusal to co-operate, the British government shall then have recourse to an "intervention" in the form of an urgent and priority official state meeting between both British and Irish secretaries of state for foreign affairs, and attempt to resolve the situation between themselves, before any recourse to the commission for human rights and consequent application to the European court of human rights is contemplated?

These arbitrary suggestions are those of a layman having a bit of craic playing the politic on the internet you must understand, and any final reunification agreement/document shall no doubt have to be revised, edited, re-edited and re-modified countless times and have to go through similar negotiative rigours to those which led to and produced the Good Friday Agreement. The final post referendum reunification agreement shall have to be one which both Nationalists and Unionists can wholeheartedly agree to and proceed with in confidence.

:D not at all. We only have green covered minty viscounts anyways so bring along your club oranges all good

Forgot to mention: free orange juice for all Protestant children in schools, and simultaneously; a dedicated body set up to monitor the dangerous proliferation of Irish people with orange hair, and regardless of religion, professed nationality, or political affiliation. It's the sensible way forward.

I dont completely trust our government either. Democracy requires you to constantly question what your government is doing and watch them and their actions carefully. Does anybody really completely trust a government with the welfare of them and their family?? in my humble opinion only a fool would entrust their welfare and that of their families to a government. So they make rules and laws and we all try our best to live and abide by them as best we can but thats the people who are living, the government do the legislating we live in a world designed by the legislaters. Not trusting a government isnt just a unionist issure. Its up to the people to live together within the rules as they are set. I do understand that unionists would have a hard time with unification nobody is forcing it upon them. Whilst I think they need to figure out their trust issues for themselves from what I can see the legal assurances are already in place that they are seeking. And if that is not enough Im not sure what else can be done to assure you we dont intend burning all unionsts at the stake and eating their babies which is an irrational fear to have though with whats happened in the North I can see where it stems from.

1641, 32 years after the plantation of Ulster began, an estimated 12-15000 British colonial settlers (mostly Protestant and most likely an underestimate) were butchered by disgruntled indigenous Irishmen whilst Catholic Priests wandered around waving banners with "Murder Without Sin" in the air to encourage the slaughter. Even in the 1798 rebellion, many Catholics turned on Protestants and subjected them to the pike (and not the fishy kind). Successive Irish rebellions have subjected many thousands of British (English and Scottish) settlers to death. In light of the fact that the most recent Irish uprising was a sustained 30 year PIRA campaign which cost the lives of more than 3000 people (admittedly, not all of them murdered by Irish Republicans), it might be fair to say that although we now, or at least should, be living in an enlightened age of civility, where that level of inhumanity and brutality should never again rear its ugly head, Unionist's collective memory and concerns are born out of precedent and bitter historical experience, and are definitely not unreasonable and/or irrational. The fact is, the indigenous Irish are not the only people to have suffered tyranny, oppression and unfair treatment (in the form of brutal and barbaric murder) in Ireland. Our history is soaked in blood, and the British too have had to fight for their survival on this island; hence unapologetic Orangeism (the Orange Institution was originally created from the Peep O' Day Boys, and as a Protestant defence organisation against Irish attacks) and the annual Orange parades phenomenon, which should be afforded some respect by Irish Republicans.

We have peace like you say it isnt perfect but roll the clock back to what it was then forward to what it is now and things are better Im of the belief that the current generation of adults in the North do not have the ability to solidify a lasting peace as their legacy. I dont think that pressure like that should be upon them while people as you say are still healing. It will be the next generation and the generations who follow that will decide if peace succeeds or fails. The current generation should be tasked with laying the foundation I think the focus should be on the generation in the waiting that is where the focus should be for now and all adults up North regardless of backround owe it to them to lay the groundwork properly and work for it genuinely.

Agreed. We can't expect ourselves to move out of an 800 (not 30) year period of ethnic conflict and because of the GFA unrealistically think that wounds are going to heal overnight, and that division, suspicion and distrust are suddenly going to evaporate.

I support a united Ireland as I have been capable of surveying Irish history from an objective and impartial perspective, as difficult as that has been, and have concluded that the "Irish problem" has only been categorised as such by the British, who created it, and in that respect has in fact been a British problem. No-one can reverse time and prevent or undo historical events, all we can do is work with what we have chronologically inherited, and having learned from the past seek never to permit a repeat of history in a finally free and independent 32 county Irish Republic, where hopefully "Protestant, Catholic and Dissenter" can live in peace and harmony.

Bertie Woot

Noreen1 wrote: »

Sinn Fein don't rule the Republic, and, short of some catastrophe, are unlikely to for quite some time, if ever!

Recently on the Nolan Show, BBC Radio Ulster, an SDLP councillor, Conall McDevitt, originally from Dublin, branded the PIRA's campaign of violence 1968-1998 as "anti-Irish" and "unpatriotic". We need some more Nationalists like him about the place; Nationalists who don't buy into the Republican armed insurrection as 'God given right' mythology. Murder is murder is murder, and more than 3000 people did not need to be killed to convey Sinn Fein into a position of political power.

Having said that, there is a difference between being allowed a peaceful march, and playing inflammatory tunes outside churches etc.
A celebration of culture is one thing - triumphalism, by its very nature, is an unpleasant trait, and, imo, displays a disturbing weakness of character.
Hence, though I regard myself as a tolerant individual, I do not, and never will, find triumphalism acceptable.
Tolerance has to go both ways to work.

Triumphalism is inherent to Orangeism, as King William III of Orange was triumphant at the Boyne, and I've visited the Battle of the Boyne memorial centre in Old bridge, Drogheda, and was mightily impressed by the Irish government's very open-minded, liberal and tolerant attitude at permittance of such a memorial centre, as the victory of William III at the Boyne effectively sustained British rule in Ireland for a further 231 years. If Irish Republican north of the border took a similar liberal, tolerant and open-minded attitude, we wouldn't have a parades commission and Republican protests. What you refer to as "inflammatory tunes" are a part of Loyalist culture, and in a pluralist Ireland where civil and religious liberty is held sacrosanct, you must tolerate that which you find offensive, just as Unionists must tolerate IRA parades, which they find deeply offensive.

You appear to think that Nationalists should welcome the supremacist notions that some Unionists still hold. This particular Nationalist recognises no such thing, and although I desire peace, and integration, I don't desire it enough to capitulate to nonsense ideas that any race or nationality is superior - hence that's a complete non-runner.
I want equality - not capitulation.

Nationalists don't have to welcome anything. What they do have to do is tolerate Orange and Loyalist culture, heritage, customs and traditions, and allow parades to go ahead in a united Ireland as envisaged by one Mr. Adams of Sinn Fein notoriety. What threat does a bunch of silly self important little working class men with bowler hats, a penchant for a colonial past, and a risibly outdated superiority complex pose to the stability of a reunified Ireland, unless Irish Republicans continue to make an issue out of marching?

The orange order already exists in Ireland. It is already tolerated.
What will not be tolerated is the behaviour exhibited by some Unionists in some areas, who choose to be deliberately confrontational, and engage in inflammatory behaviour.

Playing "offensive tunes" and pissing on a chapel by intoxicated bandsmen is just one side of a sectarian coin. I watched Republicans burn the flag of Northern Ireland on the Ormeau Road, and provocatively shout "Orange bastards!" at marchers who were marching in a peaceful, dignified manner. You cannot exclusively fault one side and expect it to brush up its act without a reciprocal gesture in terms of a complete change of attitude towards Loyalist culture by Irish Republicans. Both tribes need to reign in the intolerants and allow the other tribe to exercise their civil and religious liberties in a democratic and tolerant society.

Wolfe Tone was a great deal more than just a rebel.
His respect for, and desire for equality for, all cultures, defines him much more clearly than any "rebel" label ever could.

True enough. I have a lot of respect and admiration for the egalitarian values, beliefs and ideals of Wolfe Tone and the United Irishmen.

Fair point, although I don't know about "Protestant" but there have been a few loyalists on Boards that have attempted to do just that.

Unionists attempting to justify discrimination is not something I'm familiar with. Most shall just remain reticent or simply shy away from any discussion of Unionist misrule.

Fair enough, I suppose. It still doesn't change the fact that the word "Derry" in NI will result in an assumption of political affiliation.

The way we pronounce the letter "H" also has a political connotation ..

Then that's something that Unionists might like to give a little thought to?

Yes.

That's an astonishing statement.
There are many different, and varying opinions, in both communities.
For someone who describes himself as a Nationalist, you have a very low opinion of your fellow Irishmen. Then again, you don't seem particularly impressed with Unionists, either - to a level that goes beyond trying to understand both viewpoints, imo.

I've been just as critical of Unionism as I have of violent Republicanism, and although I am in effect 'a Nationalist', as I aspire to peaceful and democratic Irish reunification, I was born on the Unionists side of the tracks and have thus had the experience of Nationalist prejudice, discrimination and indeed intimidation towards someone that they have simply perceived as "a Prod". That is something that Nationalists need to work on and eliminate from their mentality as much as the Orange and Loyalist brigade need to focus on toning down the triumphalist and supremacist aspects of their "heritage and culture".

Why do you choose to consistently ignore/fail to address the differences between the ROI and NI on this issue?
And why do you fail to acknowledge that it is not just Republican protests that cause tensions, but that some bandmembers actively encourage violence?
Or maybe it's this idea you seem to have that only Nationalists/Republicans need to show tolerance, while Unionists should be allowed to be as sectarian as they like?
There are actually laws against incitement to Religious hatred, you know!

I'm not familiar with life in the Republic as I've never lived there, hence the lack of comparisons. I am aware that some Orangemen and band members are people of subpar intellect and thus effectively morons; and when alcohol is consumed this can have the effect of exacerbating aforesaid moronism, resulting in displays of overtly provocative and offensive behaviour.

I'm saying that the sectarian attitudes inherent and endemic to both tribes need working on, as we cannot build a future together whilst some Republicans continue to refer to members of the Loyal Orders as "Orange b*stards!", and the cognitively less able within the Unionist camp continue to look upon the Nationalist and predominantly Catholic community as "Fenian b*stards!". We need to move far above and beyond that particularly narrow, nasty and hateful mode of thinking.

There are already constitutional guarantees for equality.
There is no need for guarantees of "more" equality for Unionists.

I've already stated that the "equality before the law" aspect of the Irish constitution can be used as a foundation to be built upon.

I don't care whether they disappear, or not. That's up to them.
I do care that there appear to be no attempts made to curb excesses by some thugs.

There are thugs on both sides, and their excesses should be 'curbed'.

I'd agree broadly with this post - and yet, I wonder if the unpleasant experience you had didn't colour your opinion more than you realise?

All of our experiences 'colour' our opinions. I'm not exempt.

It has to start somewhere.

Agreed.

Strange. I don't know about the rest of Ireland, but certainly the parts of Donegal that I am most familiar with would be quite the opposite - because, contrary to the assumptions of some Loyalists, Protestants were actually allowed keep their lands after partition.

Nice one. I hope I get to keep my gardens which I have bought and paid for (not confiscated from the indigenous Irish) post reunification. I'm only an amateur gardener, but I keep them in very good order, and there's lots of pretty little flowers in the spring and summer.

And therein lies the irony of loyalty to a people that consider you "Irish".

The British 6 county Ulsterman's loyalty to GB hasn't been wanted or appreciated by GB for a long time. I see no point in sustaining loyalty to a country that doesn't want nor deserve it.

Third level education is free in the ROI - so far!
Protestant culture re education appears very different in NI to the Republic.

Yes, it is. The macho working class Northern Prods think that higher education is for homosexuals.

The peace walls never maintained the peace, since there was no peace.
What they achieved was a cementing of divisions, although they did help prevent/control riots

The prevention of riotous behaviour is what has kept them in place, and they have maintained a significant degree of peace. Many people who live beside the 'peace walls have stated clearly that without them they would have no home to live in - fact.

Noreen1

Bertie Woot wrote: »

Recently on the Nolan Show, BBC Radio Ulster, an SDLP councillor, Conall McDevitt, originally from Dublin, branded the PIRA's campaign of violence 1968-1998 as "anti-Irish" and "unpatriotic". We need some more Nationalists like him about the place; Nationalists who don't buy into the Republican armed insurrection as 'God given right' mythology. Murder is murder is murder, and more than 3000 people did not need to be killed to convey Sinn Fein into a position of political power.

I don't believe in violence. Most people in Ireland don't. Having said that, you have to ask the question - would the British Government have continued to ignore the plight of the Nationalist people of Northern Ireland without the PIRA?
Bloody Sunday suggests they would.
So whereas I can't support the death of one innocent individual, neither can I say that the PIRA campaign did not help bring about change.
Had the civil rights marches been allowed, and the required changes made by the British Government at that time - then the PIRA would never have gained the level of support that they did.
Like everything else in Northern Ireland - it's complicated.

Bertie Woot wrote: »

Triumphalism is inherent to Orangeism, as King William III of Orange was triumphant at the Boyne, and I've visited the Battle of the Boyne memorial centre in Old bridge, Drogheda, and was mightily impressed by the Irish government's very open-minded, liberal and tolerant attitude at permittance of such a memorial centre, as the victory of William III at the Boyne effectively sustained British rule in Ireland for a further 231 years. If Irish Republican north of the border took a similar liberal, tolerant and open-minded attitude, we wouldn't have a parades commission and Republican protests. What you refer to as "inflammatory tunes" are a part of Loyalist culture, and in a pluralist Ireland where civil and religious liberty is held sacrosanct, you must tolerate that which you find offensive, just as Unionists must tolerate IRA parades, which they find deeply offensive.

You misunderstand me.
Marches are fine, provided the excesses of some loyalists are curbed.
Burning flags, deliberately playing in an area where the parades commission have requested silent marching, facepainting K.A.T (kill all Taigs, for those who don't know) - all of these go beyond a celebration of culture, and are not acceptable behaviour in any civilised society.

Consider the flag protests - just because the flag wasn't flown every day, it was seen as a threat to Protestant culture - yet Nationalists are meant to be "tolerant" when their flag is burned.
Respect and tolerance must go both ways.

Don't get me wrong - there are plenty of young thugs in NI just looking for an excuse to get in a fight. They're not all Nationalist though.

Bertie Woot wrote: »

Nationalists don't have to welcome anything. What they do have to do is tolerate Orange and Loyalist culture, heritage, customs and traditions, and allow parades to go ahead in a united Ireland as envisaged by one Mr. Adams of Sinn Fein notoriety. What threat does a bunch of silly self important little working class men with bowler hats, a penchant for a colonial past, and a risibly outdated superiority complex pose to the stability of a reunified Ireland, unless Irish Republicans continue to make an issue out of marching?

Marches already go ahead on this side of the border. Without problems.
There are plenty of Irish Republicans living here. And they're tolerant enough not to care whether Orangemen march, or not.

Therefore, the difficulty lies within NI. And until laws pertaining to hate crimes are enforced - or the moderates within both communities reign in the more "excitable" members - I'm very much afraid it wont change anytime soon.

Bertie Woot wrote: »

Playing "offensive tunes" and pissing on a chapel by intoxicated bandsmen is just one side of a sectarian coin. I watched Republicans burn the flag of Northern Ireland on the Ormeau Road, and provocatively shout "Orange bastards!" at marchers who were marching in a peaceful, dignified manner. You cannot exclusively fault one side and expect it to brush up its act without a reciprocal gesture in terms of a complete change of attitude towards Loyalist culture by Irish Republicans. Both tribes need to reign in the intolerants and allow the other tribe to exercise their civil and religious liberties in a democratic and tolerant society.

My point precisely.
Both sides need to curb the excessive elements within their ranks.

Bertie Woot wrote: »

True enough. I have a lot of respect and admiration for the egalitarian values, beliefs and ideals of Wolfe Tone and the United Irishmen.

It's a pity there weren't a few more like him over the past couple of decades.
Can you imagine what 3 or 4 Wolfe Tones on both sides of the political divide in NI could have achieved?

Bertie Woot wrote: »

Unionists attempting to justify discrimination is not something I'm familiar with. Most shall just remain reticent or simply shy away from any discussion of Unionist misrule.

We had an expert here on boards here for a while, before he was banned.

Bertie Woot wrote: »

I've been just as critical of Unionism as I have of violent Republicanism, and although I am in effect 'a Nationalist', as I aspire to peaceful and democratic Irish reunification, I was born on the Unionists side of the tracks and have thus had the experience of Nationalist prejudice, discrimination and indeed intimidation towards someone that they have simply perceived as "a Prod". That is something that Nationalists need to work on and eliminate from their mentality as much as the Orange and Loyalist brigade need to focus on toning down the triumphalist and supremacist aspects of their "heritage and culture".

Agreed

Bertie Woot wrote: »

I'm not familiar with life in the Republic as I've never lived there, hence the lack of comparisons. I am aware that some Orangemen and band members are people of subpar intellect and thus effectively morons; and when alcohol is consumed this can have the effect of exacerbating aforesaid moronism, resulting in displays of overtly provocative and offensive behaviour.

I'm saying that the sectarian attitudes inherent and endemic to both tribes need working on, as we cannot build a future together whilst some Republicans continue to refer to members of the Loyal Orders as "Orange b*stards!", and the cognitively less able within the Unionist camp continue to look upon the Nationalist and predominantly Catholic community as "Fenian b*stards!". We need to move far above and beyond that particularly narrow, nasty and hateful mode of thinking.

No argument there. It will not be achieved easily, though.

Bertie Woot wrote: »

I've already stated that the "equality before the law" aspect of the Irish constitution can be used as a foundation to be built upon.

How? If all people are equal before the law - how do you improve on that, without making some people more equal than others?

Bertie Woot wrote: »

There are thugs on both sides, and their excesses should be 'curbed'.

In all honesty, I think that might take another generation, or a great deal more inclusion - or both.

Bertie Woot wrote: »

All of our experiences 'colour' our opinions. I'm not exempt..

Fair enough.
It's a lot easier for someone like me, who has Nationalist and Unionist friends, who intermingle on a daily basis without problems, to accept that there are moderate Unionists in NI. I've never had to wonder about my safety, or discriminatory practices on a daily basis, only when on visits to N.I.
I've experienced both varieties of Unionist - the Irish and the British.
You've experienced the Northern Irish Nationalist discriminatory practices, without the R.O.I experience to counter that (although I presume you've also experienced moderate Nationalists in N.I!)- so we're bound to have a different outlook.

Bertie Woot wrote: »

Nice one. I hope I get to keep my gardens which I have bought and paid for (not confiscated from the indigenous Irish) post reunification. I'm only an amateur gardener, but I keep them in very good order, and there's lots of pretty little flowers in the spring and summer.

:D.
That's guaranteed. Tell you what, if Ireland becomes United in our lifetimes, I'll send you some orange flower seeds/bulbs to plant. And some evergreens for balance.:P

Bertie Woot wrote: »

The British 6 county Ulsterman's loyalty to GB hasn't been wanted or appreciated by GB for a long time. I see no point in sustaining loyalty to a country that doesn't want nor deserve it.

IMO, the Unionist/Loyalist people of N.I were cynically manipulated by the "Crown" from day one. The Plantation was built, and sustained by, blatant lies and propaganda.
I doubt if many PULs would accept that face value from a Nationalist and Republican, though - no matter how balanced, reasonable, or non-violent the Republican/Nationalist may be.

Bertie Woot wrote: »

Yes, it is. The macho working class Northern Prods think that higher education is for homosexuals.

:eek::eek:

Bertie Woot wrote: »

The prevention of riotous behaviour is what has kept them in place, and they have maintained a significant degree of peace. Many people who live beside the 'peace walls have stated clearly that without them they would have no home to live in - fact.

I don't dispute that the peace walls have prevented many a riot. The unwanted side effect, however, has been to polarise the people who live on either side of these walls. Which is why I'd love to see them torn down - but only when it's possible to do so without danger to the people who have to live there.

Bertie Woot

Noreen1 wrote: »

I don't believe in violence. Most people in Ireland don't. Having said that, you have to ask the question - would the British Government have continued to ignore the plight of the Nationalist people of Northern Ireland without the PIRA? Bloody Sunday suggests they would.
So whereas I can't support the death of one innocent individual, neither can I say that the PIRA campaign did not help bring about change.
Had the civil rights marches been allowed, and the required changes made by the British Government at that time - then the PIRA would never have gained the level of support that they did.
Like everything else in Northern Ireland - it's complicated.

I think that the Civil Rights marches were justified in the context, and that many working class Protestants should have been in their ranks, as they too were experiencing widespread social deprivation under Unionist misrule. Unionism has been traditionally right-wing and conservative by nature, the result being that class politics have never had any place within traditional Unionism.

As regards the PIRA's campaign, I don't think it was necessary to bring about political change, but accept that some shall disagree. As a teenager I avoided Loyalist paramilitary thugs like the plague, and condemned ALL Loyalist violence. So I probably would have taken a similar condemnatory attitude towards Republican violence had I been born and raised within the Nationalist community. All I can say is that the PIRA and their supporters regarded themselves as Irish freedom fighters, but that no Unionists and definitely not all Nationalists agreed.

You misunderstand me.
Marches are fine, provided the excesses of some loyalists are curbed.
Burning flags, deliberately playing in an area where the parades commission have requested silent marching, facepainting K.A.T (kill all Taigs, for those who don't know) - all of these go beyond a celebration of culture, and are not acceptable behaviour in any civilised society.

But we haven't been living in a "civilised society" in Northern ireland. We've been living in a society characterised by political violence, age-old animosity, bigotry, hatred, hostility and bitter rivalry. What you see with the things you've mentioned are the raw manifestations of that. The line between culture and resentment and vengeance is constantly blurred, and despite the positive steps forward since 1998, it takes very little to set us back.

Consider the flag protests - just because the flag wasn't flown every day, it was seen as a threat to Protestant culture - yet Nationalists are meant to be "tolerant" when their flag is burned.
Respect and tolerance must go both ways.

I've seen the flag of Northern Ireland and the Union Jack being burned by Republicans, and that to me was the one of the most offensive things I'd ever witnessed; as although I can fully understand Republican grievances, burning the flag of one's country and the United Kingdom to which one's country belongs, is not the right way to go about "persuading" Unionists that a united Ireland is in their best interests.

Don't get me wrong - there are plenty of young thugs in NI just looking for an excuse to get in a fight. They're not all Nationalist though.

No, they're not. Working class youth on both sides of the political divide in NI enjoy an exchange of hostilities. They look upon it as a bit of fun and excitement which would otherwise be missing from their dull and dreary lives.

Marches already go ahead on this side of the border. Without problems.
There are plenty of Irish Republicans living here. And they're tolerant enough not to care whether Orangemen march, or not.

That's very encouraging, and I remember attending an Orange parade in County Cavan as a 15 year old; a long time ago. Ideally I'd like to see open-minded Catholics in NI attending Orange parades, to experience for themselves what Orangeism is about, and thanks to the internet I have been able to watch videos of Irish Republican parades of IRA men in full paramilitary uniform, I have listened to their speeches and read Irish Republican literature, and whilst in disagreement with violence, I have learned a lot about the Irish Republican psyche and their experience of the British in Ireland, and shall continue to learn.

We must learn from eachother's experiences of eachother, and in doing so, learn to accept and to empathise.

Therefore, the difficulty lies within NI. And until laws pertaining to hate crimes are enforced - or the moderates within both communities reign in the more "excitable" members - I'm very much afraid it wont change anytime soon.

Agreed.

My point precisely.
Both sides need to curb the excessive elements within their ranks.

Yep.

It's a pity there weren't a few more like him over the past couple of decades.
Can you imagine what 3 or 4 Wolfe Tones on both sides of the political divide in NI could have achieved?

Irish Republicans and Loyalists have a lot in common. Both elements are primarily composed of the working class, and Republicans claimed to fight for Irish freedom, whilst Loyalists claimed to have fought for Ulster's freedom. Traditionally we have fought for freedom from eachother, and recognising our similarities that is what we need to change.

How? If all people are equal before the law - how do you improve on that, without making some people more equal than others?

I just think the Irish constitution should undergo a refreshment and a revamp with reunification, and for the benefit of all Irish citizens, ethnic minorities in particular.

In all honesty, I think that might take another generation, or a great deal more inclusion - or both.

We'll always have a thuggish element, no matter how hard we try.

Fair enough.
It's a lot easier for someone like me, who has Nationalist and Unionist friends, who intermingle on a daily basis without problems, to accept that there are moderate Unionists in NI. I've never had to wonder about my safety, or discriminatory practices on a daily basis, only when on visits to N.I.
I've experienced both varieties of Unionist - the Irish and the British.
You've experienced the Northern Irish Nationalist discriminatory practices, without the R.O.I experience to counter that (although I presume you've also experienced moderate Nationalists in N.I!)- so we're bound to have a different outlook.

I wouldn't be so foolish as to tarnish all Nationalists with the same brush just because I've had experiences of discrimination and intimidation. Those are the people who need most help, as they are stuck in the past and their actions shall simply perpetuate a vicious circle. There are bitter and not so bitter people on both sides, and everyone has their own personal story.

I really know very little about life, attitudes and Protestant-Catholic relations in the Republic, and find it all quite fascinating. Perhaps you can teach me some Irish rebel songs? I must confess to being a bit partial to this one:

:D.
That's guaranteed. Tell you what, if Ireland becomes United in our lifetimes, I'll send you some orange flower seeds/bulbs to plant. And some evergreens for balance.:P

Oh, you'd be making a mistake by sending the orange flower seeds. I don't want those triumphalist bigots causing protests and riots in my garden!

IMO, the Unionist/Loyalist people of N.I were cynically manipulated by the "Crown" from day one. The Plantation was built, and sustained by, blatant lies and propaganda. I doubt if many PULs would accept that face value from a Nationalist and Republican, though - no matter how balanced, reasonable, or non-violent the Republican/Nationalist may be.

The Ulster plantation, and indeed the plantations in general, were a British colonial scheme to transplant a large Scottish, and to some extent English population in Ireland which would create a future indigenous population that would remain loyal to the British crown and thus make Ireland more easily governable. Well, times have changed; 26 counties have had their independence for the past 92 years, and the British government has been paying lip service to Northern Irish Loyalism, whilst duplicitously attempting to excommunicate the six counties from the United Kingdom.

The British colonial project in Ireland is in its closing stages, and only a fool would remain loyal to the government and monarchy of an ancestral country of origin which has been attempting to orphan them since the early 1970's.

I don't dispute that the peace walls have prevented many a riot. The unwanted side effect, however, has been to polarise the people who live on either side of these walls. Which is why I'd love to see them torn down - but only when it's possible to do so without danger to the people who have to live there.

Robinson and McGuinness are going to tear them down before 2023, but unless the people in those areas can learn to live with eachother and accept their differences, the bricks, bottles and other missiles are set to begin air travel again at some point thereafter.

Crooked Jack

Terrific debate took place in Crossmaglen last night on a united Ireland. A community group there is holding a mock border poll in the Crossmaglen/Creggan upper area (south armagh/north louth) later this month and the debate was part of the run up to it.
Eamonn Mallie chaired and Mary Lou McDonald (SF), Roy Garland(Unionist commentator), Dr Conor Patterson and Senator Jim D'Arcy(FG) took part. FF senator Mary White had to pull out due to illness. UUP, DUP and the Stoops ignored invitations to take part.
Still, the debate was intersting, stimulating and hugely entertaining. Massive crowd showed up for it as well.

Crooked Jack

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

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.

This is all wishful thinking. The BBC poll was a joke. They asked a tiny number of people a loaded question. Would you vote for a reunified Ireland tomorrow. No debate, no information, no process, no guarantees, just wake up tomorrow and vote. it was a ridiculous question designed to get the answer they wanted.

As for "joining with the south," again you totally misunderstand what the republican goal is. It's not a 32 county free state, it's a new ireland, north and south, an opportunity for us to build the country we deserve.

As for the economy, partition has retarded this country's economic development since day one, particularly in the border counties. As people settle down and start thinking what is really best for them and theirs they'll begin to realise that the border is a hinderance to our growth. Economic conditions will end partition on this island.

Happyman42

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Terrific debate took place in Crossmaglen last night on a united Ireland. A community group there is holding a mock border poll in the Crossmaglen/Creggan upper area (south armagh/north louth) later this month and the debate was part of the run up to it.
Eamonn Mallie chaired and Mary Lou McDonald (SF), Roy Garland(Unionist commentator), Dr Conor Patterson and Senator Jim D'Arcy(FG) took part. FF senator Mary White had to pull out due to illness. UUP, DUP and the Stoops ignored invitations to take part.
Still, the debate was intersting, stimulating and hugely entertaining. Massive crowd showed up for it as well.

Wonder was it recorded for online broadcast anywhere?

Crooked Jack

Happyman42 wrote: »

Wonder was it recorded for online broadcast anywhere?

It was definitely recorded. not sure where or when it will be up but ill stick up a link if i get it.

Bertie Woot

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Terrific debate took place in Crossmaglen last night on a united Ireland. A community group there is holding a mock border poll in the Crossmaglen/Creggan upper area (south armagh/north louth) later this month and the debate was part of the run up to it.
Eamonn Mallie chaired and Mary Lou McDonald (SF), Roy Garland(Unionist commentator), Dr Conor Patterson and Senator Jim D'Arcy(FG) took part. FF senator Mary White had to pull out due to illness. UUP, DUP and the Stoops ignored invitations to take part.
Still, the debate was intersting, stimulating and hugely entertaining. Massive crowd showed up for it as well.

Not surprised the DUP and UUP didn't show up, but Roy Garland still is a member of the UUP if I'm not mistaken, and it would be interesting to learn what he said at the meeting. I met him once and got him to sign a copy of his book on Gusty Spence, the Loyalist UVF leader turned peacemaker.

I've never liked the UUP, and Garland struck me as a somewhat typical right-wing Conservative Unionist politician, but his liaisons with Spence provided a book with many very surprising insights into the mindset of a man who was and still is regarded by many within the Nationalist community as a Loyalist killer.

Crooked Jack

Bertie Woot wrote: »

Not surprised the DUP and UUP didn't show up, but Roy Garland still is a member of the UUP if I'm not mistaken, and it would be interesting to learn what he said at the meeting. I met him once and got him to sign a copy of his book on Gusty Spence, the Loyalist UVF leader turned peacemaker.

I've never liked the UUP, and Garland struck me as a somewhat typical right-wing Conservative Unionist politician, but his liaisons with Spence provided a book with many very surprising insights into the mindset of a man who was and still is regarded by many within the Nationalist community as a Loyalist killer.

He was introduced as a former UUP member and he never corrected that.
He made a good few points, his central one though was "unionists dont want to be convinced of the benefits of a united ireland." Basically saying even if it could be proven that it was the best course and each individuals life would improve most unionist/loyalists would probably still be against it.
Interesting stuff.

Bertie Woot

Crooked Jack wrote: »

He was introduced as a former UUP member and he never corrected that.
He made a good few points, his central one though was "unionists dont want to be convinced of the benefits of a united ireland." Basically saying even if it could be proven that it was the best course and each individuals life would improve most unionist/loyalists would probably still be against it.
Interesting stuff.

He's right on that score. I've said it a thousand times: if you promised Unionists that their salaries and overall standard of living would rise with reunification, thus providing a better quality of life for Protestant-Unionist-Loyalists in a united Ireland, they'd still prefer to stick with life in the ghetto and the union with Great Britain.

It's not about money, it's about a perplexingly deep psychological and emotional attachment to Britain, and the Ulster Unionist tradition of "No Surrender" to (6 county) Ulster's enemies.

Crooked Jack

Bertie Woot wrote: »

He's right on that score. I've said it a thousand times: if you promised Unionists that their salaries and overall standard of living would rise with reunification, thus providing a better quality of life for Protestant-Unionist-Loyalists in a united Ireland, they'd still prefer to stick with life in the ghetto and the union with Great Britain.

It's not about money, it's about a perplexingly deep psychological and emotional attachment to Britain, and the Ulster Unionist tradition of "No Surrender" to (6 county) Ulster's enemies.

I dont even think it's an attachment to Britain, I know plenty of unionists who feel no such thing, I think it's that after all these years, agreeing that a united Ireland is best, whatever the circumstances, would be seen as defeat or surrender, which, as you pointed out, would be devastating to a no surrender mentality.
No surrender to anything, least of all logic or fact.

sanbrafyffe

yes they do have good connections with the union but so does australia and canada etc but they have their own flag,government, and all traditions reqognized,,,,,,i can assure you that the link with the uk will only last a certain lenght of time,,,,if you ask me it it dying out in a high speed,,,,,good example would be even to look at balmoral today,,,tricolour and union jack flying side by side,,,brilliant to see i think

Bertie Woot wrote: »

He's right on that score. I've said it a thousand times: if you promised Unionists that their salaries and overall standard of living would rise with reunification, thus providing a better quality of life for Protestant-Unionist-Loyalists in a united Ireland, they'd still prefer to stick with life in the ghetto and the union with Great Britain.

It's not about money, it's about a perplexingly deep psychological and emotional attachment to Britain, and the Ulster Unionist tradition of "No Surrender" to (6 county) Ulster's enemies.

Crooked Jack

sanbrafyffe wrote: »

yes they do have good connections with the union but so does australia and canada etc but they have their own flag,government, and all traditions reqognized,,,,,,i can assure you that the link with the uk will only last a certain lenght of time,,,,if you ask me it it dying out in a high speed,,,,,good example would be even to look at balmoral today,,,tricolour and union jack flying side by side,,,brilliant to see i think

Sinn Fein MP Conor Murphy (and Mary Lou backed this up) stood up to say that in the debate on a reunited Ireland everything would be on the table. Flags, anthems, symbols, the lot.

sanbrafyffe

they can rant no surrender all they want but they surrendered too when they agreed to power share and to implement the gfa,,,so,,,what will happen when scotland does go,,maybe not this time but after,,,will there be a no surrender then,,,after all i suppose thou the ulster unionists are the most liked in the united kingdown clan:P

Crooked Jack wrote: »

I dont even think it's an attachment to Britain, I know plenty of unionists who feel no such thing, I think it's that after all these years, agreeing that a united Ireland is best, whatever the circumstances, would be seen as defeat or surrender, which, as you pointed out, would be devastating to a no surrender mentality.
No surrender to anything, least of all logic or fact.

LordSutch

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Sinn Fein MP Conor Murphy (and Mary Lou backed this up) stood up to say that in the debate on a reunited Ireland everything would be on the table. Flags, anthems, symbols, the lot.

Now look what you've made me do > http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056949277

No poll option in politics 4 some reason . . .

Crooked Jack

LordSutch wrote: »

Now look what you've made me do > http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056949277

No poll option in politics 4 some reason . . .

Interesting but your poll is slightly different from what's being discussed.
It wouldn't be so much to woo them over as something that's implemented one reunification happens.
I'm very attached to the tricolour and anthem but in a new Ireland I'd have no issue with the state adopting new symbols.

Bertie Woot

Crooked Jack wrote: »

I dont even think it's an attachment to Britain, I know plenty of unionists who feel no such thing, I think it's that after all these years, agreeing that a united Ireland is best, whatever the circumstances, would be seen as defeat or surrender, which, as you pointed out, would be devastating to a no surrender mentality.
No surrender to anything, least of all logic or fact.

Most Unionists have an ambivalent attitude towards Britain. On one hand they want to sustain the ancestral and cultural connection and are loyal to British institutions such as the monarchy, and this has to be understood in the historical context. On the other hand they are aware that the mainland British, English in particular, view Ulster's loyalty as anachronistic and no longer wanted. Yet the No Surrender attitude towards Irish Nationalism is still pervasive, and that comes from a combination of fear, tenacity and obstinance.

sanbrafyffe wrote: »

yes they do have good connections with the union but so does australia and canada etc but they have their own flag,government, and all traditions reqognized,,,,,,i can assure you that the link with the uk will only last a certain lenght of time,,,,if you ask me it it dying out in a high speed,,,,,good example would be even to look at balmoral today,,,tricolour and union jack flying side by side,,,brilliant to see i think

I long for the day when the Irish tricolour (or a new Irish flag post reunification) and the Union Jack can fly side by side, as symbols of two neighbouring countries living together in a new context of peace, equality, mutual respect and friendship. For too long our national flags have represented two diametrically opposed sides who have been at loggerheads and at war.

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Sinn Fein MP Conor Murphy (and Mary Lou backed this up) stood up to say that in the debate on a reunited Ireland everything would be on the table. Flags, anthems, symbols, the lot.

That's sensible news. After the turbulent history Ireland has had, and with us now finally inching slowly towards reunification and full Irish independence, no reasonable Irish person could object to a new national flag and a new anthem to represent the new Ireland, unless of course they're awkward old batsards.

Noreen1

Bertie Woot wrote: »

I think that the Civil Rights marches were justified in the context, and that many working class Protestants should have been in their ranks, as they too were experiencing widespread social deprivation under Unionist misrule. Unionism has been traditionally right-wing and conservative by nature, the result being that class politics have never had any place within traditional Unionism.

That's an interesting thought.
I suppose it would have been in the interests of the working class Protestant population to have joined the protest.
Having said that, is it possible that those in power engaged in some cynical manipulation/rumours/propaganda to ensure that didn't happen?

Or was it just a case of (sorry, not meant in an offensive way!) "herd mentality" - by which I mean the idea that one remains loyal to one's "own" community, and/or "we" as a group, don't have anything to give - a la the way the Irish people are currently being manipulated into a public vs private sector, employed vs unemployed situation.

"Divide and conquer" has long been an established method of political control, and a good dose of poverty tends to make for a more passive population - until they're pushed past the point where it's bearable, at any rate.

Bertie Woot wrote: »

As regards the PIRA's campaign, I don't think it was necessary to bring about political change, but accept that some shall disagree. As a teenager I avoided Loyalist paramilitary thugs like the plague, and condemned ALL Loyalist violence. So I probably would have taken a similar condemnatory attitude towards Republican violence had I been born and raised within the Nationalist community. All I can say is that the PIRA and their supporters regarded themselves as Irish freedom fighters, but that no Unionists and definitely not all Nationalists agreed.

Don't make the mistake of confusing someone wondering what effect an action has had, with their supporting that action.
I've never supported violence. Never will, unless I'm forced into it from a self-defence position.
That doesn't mean that I can't consider that violence can sometimes force a Governments hand, or at least, influence their thinking.

Bertie Woot wrote: »

But we haven't been living in a "civilised society" in Northern ireland. We've been living in a society characterised by political violence, age-old animosity, bigotry, hatred, hostility and bitter rivalry. What you see with the things you've mentioned are the raw manifestations of that. The line between culture and resentment and vengeance is constantly blurred, and despite the positive steps forward since 1998, it takes very little to set us back.

True.

Bertie Woot wrote: »

I've seen the flag of Northern Ireland and the Union Jack being burned by Republicans, and that to me was the one of the most offensive things I'd ever witnessed; as although I can fully understand Republican grievances, burning the flag of one's country and the United Kingdom to which one's country belongs, is not the right way to go about "persuading" Unionists that a united Ireland is in their best interests.

The funny thing is, the motivation behind burning flags, by both sides, is not so much to show contempt for the culture, or Country, but to be provocative, and enrage the other "side".

Bertie Woot wrote: »

No, they're not. Working class youth on both sides of the political divide in NI enjoy an exchange of hostilities. They look upon it as a bit of fun and excitement which would otherwise be missing from their dull and dreary lives.

Too much testosterone, and not enough sense.

Bertie Woot wrote: »

That's very encouraging, and I remember attending an Orange parade in County Cavan as a 15 year old; a long time ago. Ideally I'd like to see open-minded Catholics in NI attending Orange parades, to experience for themselves what Orangeism is about, and thanks to the internet I have been able to watch videos of Irish Republican parades of IRA men in full paramilitary uniform, I have listened to their speeches and read Irish Republican literature, and whilst in disagreement with violence, I have learned a lot about the Irish Republican psyche and their experience of the British in Ireland, and shall continue to learn.

I'm going to recommend a book, if I'm allowed. (If not, mods please remove)
It's "Cloughaneely, Myth and Fact" by Gerry McLaughlin. Printed by Johnswood Press.
It's a history of one parish in County Donegal. It is also a very different perspective to that you will learn about by watching Irish Republican parades, in that it is written, quite simply, as a history, complete with photographs, of an area, rather than from a "them and us" perspective, though it does take account of the political situation. It is written by a local historian, and is a collection of photos and local history as gathered from local people, condensed into as factual a book as you're likely to find.
I'll personally vouch for the integrity of the author. (I'd kill (not really!) to get hold of his history notes). I've had the privilege of reading some of his teaching notes, and have tried hard to convince him to write an educational History book.
I suspect the "myth" is to cover the publishers, since many written sources were destroyed for this area in a fire. I can personally verify the parts of the book that deal with my own family history, - and no! I'm not telling you which one it is!:D:D


@ Iwasfrozen, I'm going to be cheeky, and recommend it to you also.
It's an eye-opener re: what life was like for the average tenant farmer, for instance

Bertie Woot wrote: »

We must learn from eachother's experiences of eachother, and in doing so, learn to accept and to empathise.

I'm going to ask if you know of a similar book, about what life was like for the average Northern Protestant.
It seems to me, that history is taught according to the audiences perceived
politics. On discussion boards, as you've undoubtedly noticed, these threads often descend into a defensive tit for tat exchange, degenerating into and exchange of insults, and it would be a lot more progressive if we were to exchange experiences in a non-confrontational way.

Bertie Woot wrote: »

Irish Republicans and Loyalists have a lot in common. Both elements are primarily composed of the working class, and Republicans claimed to fight for Irish freedom, whilst Loyalists claimed to have fought for Ulster's freedom. Traditionally we have fought for freedom from eachother, and recognising our similarities that is what we need to change.

Agreed

Bertie Woot wrote: »

I just think the Irish constitution should undergo a refreshment and a revamp with reunification, and for the benefit of all Irish citizens, ethnic minorities in particular.

That could be opening a whole can of worms.
The Irish constitution has been held up as an example by various civil and human rights groups, worldwide.
In the interest of preserving those human and civil rights, that's something I'd approach with extreme caution, tbh.

Bertie Woot wrote: »

We'll always have a thuggish element, no matter how hard we try.

That's the case in any Country. It would be better if the thugs were just thugs, though, rather than sectarian thugs. There's less potential for political conflict, that way.

Bertie Woot wrote: »

I wouldn't be so foolish as to tarnish all Nationalists with the same brush just because I've had experiences of discrimination and intimidation. Those are the people who need most help, as they are stuck in the past and their actions shall simply perpetuate a vicious circle. There are bitter and not so bitter people on both sides, and everyone has their own personal story.

Agreed. Unfortunately, they're also the people who are least likely to recognise their need for help, much less accept it.

Bertie Woot wrote: »

I really know very little about life, attitudes and Protestant-Catholic relations in the Republic, and find it all quite fascinating. Perhaps you can teach me some Irish rebel songs? I must confess to being a bit partial to this one:

I'll have a listen to that, later. I'll confess I've never heard it.

edit. Ah! I remember that one now. Good tune. I did say I only belt out the odd rebel song once or twice a year!

I'll find some links, later.

Bertie Woot wrote: »

Oh, you'd be making a mistake by sending the orange flower seeds. I don't want those triumphalist bigots causing protests and riots in my garden!

:D:D

Bertie Woot wrote: »

The Ulster plantation, and indeed the plantations in general, were a British colonial scheme to transplant a large Scottish, and to some extent English population in Ireland which would create a future indigenous population that would remain loyal to the British crown and thus make Ireland more easily governable. Well, times have changed; 26 counties have had their independence for the past 92 years, and the British government has been paying lip service to Northern Irish Loyalism, whilst duplicitously attempting to excommunicate the six counties from the United Kingdom.

The British colonial project in Ireland is in its closing stages, and only a fool would remain loyal to the government and monarchy of an ancestral country of origin which has been attempting to orphan them since the early 1970's.

I'm going to be controversial here, and wonder how much "Orange" culture has to do with this allegiance?
Note, I'm not knocking orange culture - just wondering what effect some of the songs and tunes have on impressionable young minds, especially since children learn particularly well through song. It would be interesting to see what an unbiased sociologist would say.

Bertie Woot wrote: »

Robinson and McGuinness are going to tear them down before 2023, but unless the people in those areas can learn to live with eachother and accept their differences, the bricks, bottles and other missiles are set to begin air travel again at some point thereafter.

Hard to predict. I will say I think it's a mistake to set a definite time frame, since some areas are more volatile than others.

Bertie Woot wrote: »

He's right on that score. I've said it a thousand times: if you promised Unionists that their salaries and overall standard of living would rise with reunification, thus providing a better quality of life for Protestant-Unionist-Loyalists in a united Ireland, they'd still prefer to stick with life in the ghetto and the union with Great Britain.

It's not about money, it's about a perplexingly deep psychological and emotional attachment to Britain, and the Ulster Unionist tradition of "No Surrender" to (6 county) Ulster's enemies.

I'm not sure it's all that perplexing, really.
It's my personal opinion that the "No surrender" attitude is, in the more militant cases at least, born out of a total refusal to recognise that there was anything wrong with the plantation of Ulster/civil rights abuses from a moral viewpoint, leading to a desire to claim victimhood that is excessive/unbalanced.
Before anyone gets defensive, the same phenomena can be observed in some Nationalists, who become overly defensive whenever atrocities perpetrated on Ulster Protestants are mentioned.

To the objective observer, it seems that tribalism triumphs over morals - even in people who would regard themselves as "upstanding citizens", with a decent moral code.
If the moral code can be made to triumph over the tribalism - then progress will be much faster.

Bertie Woot

Noreen1 wrote: »

That's an interesting thought.
I suppose it would have been in the interests of the working class Protestant population to have joined the protest.
Having said that, is it possible that those in power engaged in some cynical manipulation/rumours/propaganda to ensure that didn't happen?

Or was it just a case of (sorry, not meant in an offensive way!) "herd mentality" - by which I mean the idea that one remains loyal to one's "own" community, and/or "we" as a group, don't have anything to give - a la the way the Irish people are currently being manipulated into a public vs private sector, employed vs unemployed situation.

The Civil Rights Movement was looked upon by the Unionist establishment as a threat to law and order and a Nationalist ploy to destabilise Northern Ireland. Civil Rights marchers were viewed as Irish Republicans on a mission to create a united Ireland, and thus a threat to the Northern Irish state.

For the Unionist/Loyalist working class to have sided with the civil rights marchers would have been viewed as an act of treachery, and the 'herd mentality' you mention, coupled with a desire not to be seen as disloyal, compelled many wc Protestants to not only not empathise with Nationalist grievances, but to actually attack civil rights marches.

It was ethnic and sectarian tribalism as its very worst; ignoring social injustices being experienced by the 'other side' in order to perpetuate one's own side's tenuous hold on political power.

"Divide and conquer" has long been an established method of political control, and a good dose of poverty tends to make for a more passive population - until they're pushed past the point where it's bearable, at any rate.

The British capitalist imperialist class have known only too well that to have allowed or encouraged the Protestant/Unionist and Catholic/Nationalist working class to reconcile and unite so as to establish peace would have been detrimental to their selfish and economic interests in Ireland.

Don't make the mistake of confusing someone wondering what effect an action has had, with their supporting that action.
I've never supported violence. Never will, unless I'm forced into it from a self-defence position.
That doesn't mean that I can't consider that violence can sometimes force a Governments hand, or at least, influence their thinking.

Most revolutions have been bloody and violent, and very few democratic and peaceful. But violence failed the Republican Movement in Northern Ireland. Sure, the men of 1916 'struck for Ireland', and it was the sense of outrage caused by the way in which the rebels were executed by the British that compelled many who were otherwise indifferent to national liberation to take the fight to the British, and they succeeded.

30 years of PIRA violence may have taken Sinn Fein into a coalition government with Unionists at Stormont, but that is looked upon as abandonment and an act of betrayal of Republican values, ideals and principles as enshrined in the 1916 proclamation. So what has changed for the benefit of the Republican Movement after such a long period of struggle? Reunification is now on the distant horizon, with many Nationalists now feeling that it can never be achieved in their lifetime, if ever.

What we have is a painfully slow evolution, not revolution.

The funny thing is, the motivation behind burning flags, by both sides, is not so much to show contempt for the culture, or Country, but to be provocative, and enrage the other "side".

It usually works too.

I'm going to recommend a book, if I'm allowed. (If not, mods please remove)
It's "Cloughaneely, Myth and Fact" by Gerry McLaughlin. Printed by Johnswood Press.
It's a history of one parish in County Donegal. It is also a very different perspective to that you will learn about by watching Irish Republican parades, in that it is written, quite simply, as a history, complete with photographs, of an area, rather than from a "them and us" perspective, though it does take account of the political situation. It is written by a local historian, and is a collection of photos and local history as gathered from local people, condensed into as factual a book as you're likely to find.
I'll personally vouch for the integrity of the author. (I'd kill (not really!) to get hold of his history notes). I've had the privilege of reading some of his teaching notes, and have tried hard to convince him to write an educational History book.
I suspect the "myth" is to cover the publishers, since many written sources were destroyed for this area in a fire. I can personally verify the parts of the book that deal with my own family history, - and no! I'm not telling you which one it is!:D:D

You come from a long line of IRA 'activists", and your ancestors were involved in the post 1916 war of Independence and then the Irish civil war. Am I right?

I'm going to ask if you know of a similar book, about what life was like for the average Northern Protestant.

"Northern Protestants- an unsettled people" by Susan McKay, for an examination of Unionist-Protestant psychology and mindset.

"The Faithful Tribe" by Ruth Dudley Edwards (a Southern Irish Catholic), for a thorough and surprisingly sympathetic examination of the Orange Order.

If you want an insight into Loyalist paramilitarism:

"Gusty Spence" by Roy Garland; an autobiography of the Loyalist UVF leader and political prisoner turned peacemaker. A very surprising read (he attended an IRA man's funeral, sent a letter of sympathy to his widow, and encouraged Loyalist prisoners to learn Gaelic and told them that violence was futile).

"David Ervine" by Henry Sinnerton; another autobiography of a Loyalist UVF prisoner turned peacemaker, and former Progressive Unionist Party leader who made a huge contribution to the peace process, and whose funeral was attended by Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness. A man of intelligence, courage and wisdom and perhaps the only Unionist politician I ever felt any respect and admiration for, as he made very wise and thoughtful statements form personal experience and spoke from the heart.

It seems to me, that history is taught according to the audiences perceived
politics. On discussion boards, as you've undoubtedly noticed, these threads often descend into a defensive tit for tat exchange, degenerating into and exchange of insults, and it would be a lot more progressive if we were to exchange experiences in a non-confrontational way.

I've argued with people on forums for years, usually about stupid sh*t, and until blue in the face. In the end it usually degenerates to the level of "U stoopid - no U!". You seem like a mature, adult sort of person who can talk about things calmly, logically and rationally, without the puerile sectarianism characteristic of most discussions of this nature.

That could be opening a whole can of worms.
The Irish constitution has been held up as an example by various civil and human rights groups, worldwide.
In the interest of preserving those human and civil rights, that's something I'd approach with extreme caution, tbh.

Fair enough. A reunification agreement shall have to contain unequivocal safeguards, guarantees and assurances to the Unionist people on equality and freedom from persecution, and my personal thinking is that a relevant update or completely new Irish constitution might be desirable, along with a new flag and national anthem. As Sinn Fein recently stated; 'everything is on the table'.

That's the case in any Country. It would be better if the thugs were just thugs, though, rather than sectarian thugs. There's less potential for political conflict, that way.

Ah, but how do you prevent thugs from joining paramilitary organisations? Most so-called Loyalist paramilitary organisations were full of them.

I'm going to be controversial here, and wonder how much "Orange" culture has to do with this allegiance?
Note, I'm not knocking orange culture - just wondering what effect some of the songs and tunes have on impressionable young minds, especially since children learn particularly well through song. It would be interesting to see what an unbiased sociologist would say.

The Orange order is just one (central, prominent and influential) aspect of Protestant-Unionist-Loyalist culture. I never questioned the songs and tunes I heard as a kid growing up in a Belfast Unionist environment. Neither did I question or analyse Unionism. I accepted who and what I was, as questioning things was dangerous.

Suffice to say, I began to question and analyse the culture into which I was born in adulthood, and after a very long, winding and reflective road, can only say that I understand Unionism and Unionists and empathise with their concerns on an emotional level, as that is where I come from but did not choose, but on a purely logical, rational and intellectual level, cannot agree with the partition of this island, as my politics have been traditionally left-wing and become increasingly Nationalist. For that I make no apology, as I am being true to what I think and feel is the best and only way forward for all of the post colonial period people of Ireland, including Unionists.

I'm not sure it's all that perplexing, really.
It's my personal opinion that the "No surrender" attitude is, in the more militant cases at least, born out of a total refusal to recognise that there was anything wrong with the plantation of Ulster/civil rights abuses from a moral viewpoint, leading to a desire to claim victimhood that is excessive/unbalanced.
Before anyone gets defensive, the same phenomena can be observed in some Nationalists, who become overly defensive whenever atrocities perpetrated on Ulster Protestants are mentioned.

The Ulster plantation was simply a British colonial strategy to sow the seeds of British imperialist power and watch the planted "loyal" grow and secure Ireland's status as a colony. Ulster was essentially colonised to prevent further rebellion, as it had been the region most resistant to English control during the preceding century. But with land taken the Ulster plantation resulted in widespread resentment among the Irish towards the Scottish and English settlers, which in turn led to a mass Irish uprising in 1641 which claimed the lives of thousands. Did the British government of the day foresee long term problems as a result of the plantations and forewarn the settlers about such a probability before they came over? Probably not.

Civil Rights abuses took place, of that there can be no dispute, but you won't hear too many Protestant-Unionists condemn what happened. Human competitive nature has simply predisposed both sides to want to play the 'victim' more than the other, and if we were to begin counting the 'victims' on both sides from the 12th century to the present day to establish who has been the real victim in all of this, we'd be hear to eternity. Suffice to say, if I'd been around and a person of political influence in the 12th century I'd probably have whispered in King Henry II's ear; 'ignore McMurrough's pleas for assistance, or if you do decide to go over, come back quickly and don't accept any offer of land or the hand of one of his daughters in marriage'. In other words; stay out of Ireland, it's going to cause a ruckus among the locals which might last a week or two. :rolleyes:

800 years later, and after the invention of "the internet" ...

To the objective observer, it seems that tribalism triumphs over morals - even in people who would regard themselves as "upstanding citizens", with a decent moral code.
If the moral code can be made to triumph over the tribalism - then progress will be much faster.

Agreed.

FamousSeamus

While I think there will be a united Ireland eventually I think it won't be for another while yet....What will really mess up the unionists is if Scotland leave the union, what will they cling to then!!

TBH I don't think many in the South want the north right now, its a financial black hole with a false economy (as far as I know anyway) that cost the UK billions a year. Also the North doesn't want to join the south cause we're broke and they would suffer from a union, maybe in the future if we become very profitable then it could happen but until then 'd say not!!

sanbrafyffe

your quiet right seamus,,no wonder your famous,,,money has a lot to do with it really,,during the boom here 99% of nationalists looked south,,many of them came south to work etc and aswell as many unionists,,,i suppose when scotland breaks away it will shatter unionism all together,,hey maybe they might look for some of the money that westminister used to give them:D

FamousSeamus wrote: »

While I think there will be a united Ireland eventually I think it won't be for another while yet....What will really mess up the unionists is if Scotland leave the union, what will they cling to then!!

TBH I don't think many in the South want the north right now, its a financial black hole with a false economy (as far as I know anyway) that cost the UK billions a year. Also the North doesn't want to join the south cause we're broke and they would suffer from a union, maybe in the future if we become very profitable then it could happen but until then 'd say not!!