Towards a United Ireland

Bertie Woot

junder wrote: »

You really need to get out more, perhaps visit the Republic of Ireland a few more times, since your still nervous about going there.
I always look forward to the 12th, the atmospheres, the spectical, seeing old friends. Although the 24 mile walk is a killer still my band has just spent 10 grand on new uniforms so it will be nice to show them of

I was nervous the first time, but quickly realised there's nothing to fear, and have a ROI itinerary lined up for summer. I did a tour of Donegal by myself in 2003, then last year visited Carlingford, Dundalk, Drogheda and Dublin. The Battle of the Boyne site and visitor centre in Drogheda was pretty good.

I used to be a member of the Ballymacarrett Defenders Flute Band - East Belfast when I was 14-16 yrs old. We always did the country parades, preferring them over the Belfast-Edenderry walk. As you can tell, I've moved on a bit since then.

Iwasfrozen

Bertie Woot wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

I understand your concerns and I can see your point of view, but just think about what you're saying. Giving the United Kingdom power to interfere in Ireland's internal affairs is just a non runner. It's not negotiable for me imagine how the Ra heads would react. I understand you want to protect the future of your people and that's why you're better off not joining the republic. Look at what happened to the protestant population in the South after independence. If you want to see your people survive as a distinct cultural and political identity then oppose unification.

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

It was a union of three Kingdoms and a Principality. Ethnicity didn't come into it. The UK pre dates the concept of nationality.

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

If it's not too much trouble.

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

Well at least democratic socialism isn't as bad as Anarchy.

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

That doesn't matter. Just as an Irish nationalist would see the Irish as one people from Derry to Kerry so too do Unionists see all the people of the British Isles as being one. Unionists are not a minority in the House of Parliament they are a massive majority and you want to trade that in to be a powerless minority in a foreign country.

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

That's like saying Galway nationalists are 2% of the Dáil. Makes no sense. The whole concept of being Unionist is you consider the British people to be your own.

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

They won't cease to exist. There are Unionists now in the South why would Unionism disappear in a United Ireland? There will always be people in Ireland who desire Union with Britain. That's a fact of life.

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

They're the only thing standing between SF and unification. If Finn Gael were smart they'd be secretly founding them. Maybe they are.

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

Haha if you really believe that you are being naive. Unionism will always exist and the hard liners will always be there. Only this time they and not the IRA will be the romantic freedom fighters fighting against an indifferent and uncaring Dublin government, fighting for their cultural survival against gaelic hegemony in Ireland.

Why you are pushing the extinction of your own people as a seperate cultural identity is beyond me.

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

If, conditional tense. I don't live in NI I live in the South and because of that I would only be a Unionist if I was calling for the South to rejoin the UK.

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

Yep, spot on. But I don't like your use of the phrase "your part of Ireland" implying the two jurisdictions are one country. I don't see it that way, I see them as two separate countries. And if your country wants to join mine then I will only support that if it is to my countries benefit in some way.

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

Yes, again spot on. But this is the way the world works. No one is going to knowingly commit an action that would hurt them. That would be insane. It is in my interest to have a stable economy. I have that. Why would I run the risk of messing that up for your country?

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

There are no economic advantages, some people have mentioned hospitals in border regions. Ok fair point Monaghan's health care system is woeful but that would be solved by privatisation anyway. Privatisation makes the border irrelevant, helps the economy and provides a more efficient service. Win win scenario.

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

The word you are lookign for is "Partitionist" not Unionist and yes I am. For the moment anyway. I would support unification if it benefited Ireland*

*The constitutional name for what you would call the 26 counties.

Bertie Woot

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I understand your concerns and I can see your point of view, but just think about what you're saying. Giving the United Kingdom power to interfere in Ireland's internal affairs is just a non runner. It's not negotiable for me imagine how the Ra heads would react. I understand you want to protect the future of your people and that's why you're better off not joining the republic. Look at what happened to the protestant population in the South after independence. If you want to see your people survive as a distinct cultural and political identity then oppose unification.


It was a union of three Kingdoms and a Principality. Ethnicity didn't come into it. The UK pre dates the concept of nationality.


If it's not too much trouble.



Well at least democratic socialism isn't as bad as Anarchy.


That doesn't matter. Just as an Irish nationalist would see the Irish as one people from Derry to Kerry so too do Unionists see all the people of the British Isles as being one. Unionists are not a minority in the House of Parliament they are a massive majority and you want to trade that in to be a powerless minority in a foreign country.




That's like saying Galway nationalists are 2% of the Dáil. Makes no sense. The whole concept of being Unionist is you consider the British people to be your own.


They won't cease to exist. There are Unionists now in the South why would Unionism disappear in a United Ireland? There will always be people in Ireland who desire Union with Britain. That's a fact of life.


They're the only thing standing between SF and unification. If Finn Gael were smart they'd be secretly founding them. Maybe they are.


Haha if you really believe that you are being naive. Unionism will always exist and the hard liners will always be there. Only this time they and not the IRA will be the romantic freedom fighters fighting against an indifferent and uncaring Dublin government, fighting for their cultural survival against gaelic hegemony in Ireland.

Why you are pushing the extinction of your own people as a seperate cultural identity is beyond me.


If, conditional tense. I don't live in NI I live in the South and because of that I would only be a Unionist if I was calling for the South to rejoin the UK.


Yep, spot on. But I don't like your use of the phrase "your part of Ireland" implying the two jurisdictions are one country. I don't see it that way, I see them as two separate countries. And if your country wants to join mine then I will only support that if it is to my countries benefit in some way.


Yes, again spot on. But this is the way the world works. No one is going to knowingly commit an action that would hurt them. That would be insane. It is in my interest to have a stable economy. I have that. Why would I run the risk of messing that up for your country?


There are no economic advantages, some people have mentioned hospitals in border regions. Ok fair point Monaghan's health care system is woeful but that would be solved by privatisation anyway. Privatisation makes the border irrelevant, helps the economy and provides a more efficient service. Win win scenario.


The word you are lookign for is "Partitionist" not Unionist and yes I am. For the moment anyway. I would support unification if it benefited Ireland*

*The constitutional name for what you would call the 26 counties.

We don't agree on anything, and I view your sentiments as those of a self interested and defeatist Irishman who has capitulated to the partitionist mindset. To want to sustain partition for the benefit of the 26 and completely relinquish or simply not possess any remote desire to reclaim Ulster's 6 counties as part of Ireland leaves one cold, perplexed and disheartened.

Having said all of that, I accept your unpatriotic stance, but see no point in continuing to expose oneself to your chronic negativity. We have nothing to talk about.

Iwasfrozen

Bertie Woot wrote: »

We don't agree on anything, and I view your sentiments as those of a self interested and defeatist Irishman who has capitulated to the partitionist mindset.

I haven't capitulated to anything. I stand up for what I think is best for my country.

To want to sustain partition for the benefit of the 26 and completely relinquish or simply not possess any remote desire to reclaim Ulster's 6 counties as part of Ireland leaves one cold, perplexed and disheartened.

There is opportunity in everything, if in the future NI becomes an asset we should fight for it in proportion to it's expected benefit to us.

Having said all of that, I accept your unpatriotic stance, but see no point in continuing to expose oneself to your chronic negativity. We have nothing to talk about.

Fair enough but what you must understand is it not unpatriotic to want what is best for your country. Nor would I consider myself a negative person but naturally I assume a negative position when discussing a topic I disagree with. In this case the amalgamation of the countries of Ireland.

Bertie Woot

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I haven't capitulated to anything. I stand up for what I thin is best for my country.

Your country is Ireland, and you have capitulated to partition and abandoned six of its counties.

There is opportunity in everything, if in the future NI becomes an asset we should fight for it in proportion to it's expected benefit to us.

Pure selfishness and egocentrism, and a deeply flawed attitude. The ROI is in the gutter financially, and NI is racing far ahead. The question should be, when is the ROI going to become 'an asset' to the people of NI.

Fair enough but what you must understand it is not unpatriotic to want what is best for your country.

Read the links I posted on the economic and sociocultural benefits of reunification of "your country". You said that "there are no economic benefits", and that is how I know you haven't the faintest notion what you're talking about on that particular score.

WakeUp

Bertie Woot wrote: »

Oh Lord. I was pulling yer pisser, mate, and having a laugh. I really should use more smiley emoticons as opposed to winks.

I could say something here but Im not going too

And it seems to have "gone over your head" that I've already reiterated twice that I thought I had moved beyond the constitutional issue by acknowledging the fact that you seem to have immense difficulty with any provision for a British diplomatic intervention, even in the form of an address, written into the Irish constitution, and that therefore this provision for British diplomatic intervention would be solely contained within a reunification agreement, and that this mechanism would consequently pose no threat to the current Irish constitution or Ireland's national security. In other words, "the understanding" shall be contained within a reunification agreement ratified by referendum, and not necessarily have to be subsumed into the Irish constitution. But I shall insist that pertinent modernisation, reformation, or the concept of a completely new Irish constitution be put on the table for serious consideration and negotiation.

No its your head that its going over Bertie not mine. No agreement will contain a provision, between the government of Ireland and the government of Britain, pertaininng to a form of British governmental intervention no matter what way you are attempting to dress it up or present it. Aint going to happen. That would be something people like me would resist, vehemently. And nobody will be insisting on anything you need to get real. If thats the approach you would take dont bother showing up for a chat save yourself a journey:)

I don't know "your people" in the South at all, and having spent my entire life on this island, that's what bugs me. I grew up in a staunch Unionist community in Belfast during the troubles, and consequently possess much of the attitudes and mindset of my generation. That's not going to disappear overnight. The first time I drove into the ROI alone was just last year, and I felt very nervous and apprehensive indeed, as we were inadvertently taught to look upon the ROI as a foreign country and "enemy territory" ie. a sanctuary for the Provisional IRA.

I believe in the peaceful reunification of Ireland with all my heart, but my head was programmed within a Northern Irish Unionist-Protestant environment at a time of bitter conflict, and that may take some time to overcome. For example, although I believe in peaceful Irish reunification and consider myself a Nationalist, when I'm out driving and see the Irish tricolour flying from a lamppost or encounter an IRA memorial, I get nervous and panicky, and even though I want what they want, but not in the way they have attempted (but failed) to achieve it.

Well now. You need to work on your self confessed attitude and mindset that is something you need to figure out yourself.

Yes, of course. Like I've already stated, the ROI has been a foreign country to me and my generation, and that is something which I have been desperately attempting to overcome, and by taking trips across the border into the ROI. The ROI has always been looked upon as "the other place", and I have seen much more of England and Scotland than I have of the island on which I was born, which I think is quite ridiculous. The Irish geographical border was etched into young Northern Protestant minds and deep into our psychology. It has not just been a physical manifestation of partition, but has represented the historical division between "us" and "them", and with all of the peace (dividing) walls in Belfast, I want to see it taken down, as whilst that border and partition are in place, there shall always be an "us" and "them" on this island. After more than 800 years of gratuitously turbulent history, I just want there to be an "us", and at permanent peace with one and other. I want to call all of Ireland my home, and view all of the people of Ireland, regardless of religion or political creed, my fellow countrymen.

Who knows maybe one day all of Ireland will be the home of everyone who lives on the island in a legal and sovereign sense as we already all live on the island of Ireland together as it is

Iwasfrozen

Bertie Woot wrote: »

Your country is Ireland, and you have capitulated to partition and abandoned six of its counties.

You're right, my country is Ireland. But Ireland the country stops dead at the border. Ireland the island ≠ Ireland the country. And here is the proof:

Bunreacht na h&#201 wrote: »

The name of the State is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland.

And

Article 3 wrote:

It is the firm will of the Irish Nation, in harmony and friendship, to unite all the people who share the territory of the island of Ireland, in all the diversity of their identities and traditions, recognising that a united Ireland shall be brought about only by peaceful means with the consent of a majority of the people, democratically
expressed, in both jurisdiction s in the island. Until then, the laws enacted by the Parliament established by this Constitution shall have the like area and extent of
application as the laws enacted by the Parliament that existed immediately before the coming into operation of this Constitution.

Ergo until such time as a UI comes about, Ireland the country stops at the border.

Pure selfishness and egocentrism, and a deeply flawed attitude. The ROI is in the gutter financially, and NI is racing far ahead. The question should be, when is the ROI going to become 'an asset' to the people of NI.

It's flawed to believe there is opportunity in everything? I strongly disagree with that. And don't be silly, the North will never over take the South economically, not independently. They are too reliant on British handouts.

Read the links I posted on the economic and sociocultural benefits of reunification of "your country". You said that "there are no economic benefits", and that is how I know you haven't the faintest notion what you're talking about on that particular score.

I read your link but I disagree with the premise. The writer seems to think NI is suffering because it is not exposed to the world market but as a member of the EU it is just as exposed now as it would be in an amalgamation of Ireland.

Bertie Woot

WakeUp wrote: »

No its your head that its going over Bertie not mine. No agreement will contain a provision, between the government of Ireland and the government of Britain, pertaininng to a form of British governmental intervention no matter what way you are attempting to dress it up or present it. Aint going to happen. That would be something people like me would resist, vehemently. And nobody will be insisting on anything you need to get real. If thats the approach you would take dont bother showing up for a chat save yourself a journey:)

I've compromised my initial position on an amendment to the current Irish constitution to provide for a British diplomatic intervention, and think I've been more than reasonable in altering my position to one where such provision must therefore be contained within a post referendum reunification agreement.

Your entrenched and uncompromising stand is not helpful. If you think for one moment that Unionists shall shall ever consider disembarking from the UK and entering into a UI without foolproof provision to cover them against potential persecution you might as well hang up any hope of Irish reunification, not just in your lifetime, but ever, and I'm not being radical, I'm being realistic. The Prods just will not consider any risk factor whatsoever.

As much as I desire peaceful Irish reunification, I will not contemplate any move towards it without copper-fastened guarantees and assurances, and specifically, an article contained within a reunification agreement which unequivocally provides a means for the British government to take diplomatic action should the PUL community begin to experience any form of social injustice within a united Ireland.

In fact, your reluctance to even consider such a proposal makes one wary of your motives for aspiring to a united Ireland. If you don't have any ulterior motive, why would you even object to what effectively is a very reasonable proposal?

Who knows maybe one day all of Ireland will be the home of everyone who lives on the island in a legal and sovereign sense as we already all live on the island of Ireland together as it is

Try telling the frozen guy this. He seems to think Ireland as two countries is much more desirable than Ireland as one, and he doesn't think of himself as an unpatriotic Irishman, which is something which I can't fathom.

Bertie Woot

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

You're right, my country is Ireland. But Ireland the country stops dead at the border. Ireland the island ≠ Ireland the country. And here is the proof:

And

Ergo until such time as a UI comes about, Ireland the country stops at the border.

Ireland under British rule was a united country before partition, and you have simply bought the lies that Northern Ireland is a legitimate country, and that the country that you live in is the real Ireland. Both sections of this island are Ireland, and Ireland was united and then split in two under the threat of all out war by Unionists in 1921, and people like you think that was a perfectly acceptable means to provide birth to a country whose birth fractured not just the island, but also the province of Ulster.

Ireland does NOT stop at any ****ing arbitrary, man-made border drawn up in 1921 to satisfy the selfish demands of a warring minority. Ireland transcends the border, as Ireland is to be found on both sides of that border, and shall be reunited with the elimination of that border.

You need to wake up and smell Ireland, my friend. All of it, not just your sector.

It's flawed to believe there is opportunity in everything? I strongly disagree with that. And don't be silly, the North will never over take the South economically, not independently. They are too reliant on British handouts.

I never mentioned anything about the North overtaking the South as an independent nation. In fact, I have never been an exponent of an independent NI.

I read your link but I disagree with the premise. The writer seems to think NI is suffering because it is not exposed to the world market but as a member of the EU it is just as exposed now as it would be in an amalgamation of Ireland.

We have two sets of infrastructure on this isalnd. The ROI, having mismanaged its own economy, is heavily dependent on EU subsidy and bail-out, whilst NI is not an economically viable entity, never has been; having been heavily dependent upon Westminster funding since its very conception.

A united Ireland would create one set of infrastructure, and whilst its creation may require EU sympathy and funding to get off the ground, in the long term an independent Ireland as one reunited country with one set of economic infrastructure has enormous potential to attain total self sufficiency in production and public services, and become an economically viable and successful unit.

Iwasfrozen

Bertie Woot wrote: »

Ireland under British rule was a united country before partition, and you have simply bought the lies that Northern Ireland is a legitimate country, and that the country that you live in is the real Ireland. Both sections of this island are Ireland, and Ireland was united and then split in two under the threat of all out war by Unionists in 1921, and people like you think that was a perfectly acceptable means to provide birth to a country whose birth fractured not just the island, but also the province of Ulster.

You didn't even address my logic and just repeated the same old tired republican mantra that the whole island of Ireland is one country when it patently isn't. You might as well be back in the sixties. If the threat of violence is not a legitimate means of securing self determination and any state resulting from the threat of violence is not legitimate then that means the Republic of Ireland is not legitimate either and again it patently is.

Ireland does NOT stop at any ****ing arbitrary, man-made border drawn up in 1921 to satisfy the selfish demands of a warring minority. Ireland transcends the border, as Ireland is to be found on both sides of that border, and shall be reunited with the elimination of that border.

Ireland was split to maximise voter utility and prevent a tyranny of the majority encompassing the unionist minority. As an advocate of democracy I'm surprised you don't agree with this.

You need to wake up and smell Ireland, my friend. All of it, not just your sector.

Right back at you. You must understand that Ireland and Northern Ireland are two separate nations and any artificial amalgamation will result in the cultural destruction of your own people.

I never mentioned anything about the North overtaking the South as an independent nation. In fact, I have never been an exponent of an independent NI.

Even in the UK NI will never overtake Ireland. If I thought it would I would be campaigning for unification so we could utilise it's resources.

We have two sets of infrastructure on this isalnd. The ROI, having mismanaged its own economy, is heavily dependent on EU subsidy and bail-out, whilst NI is not an economically viable entity, never has been; having been heavily dependent upon Westminster funding since its very conception.

A united Ireland would create one set of infrastructure, and whilst its creation may require EU sympathy and funding to get off the ground, in the long term an independent Ireland as one reunited country with one set of economic infrastructure has enormous potential to attain total self sufficiency in production and public services, and become an economically viable and successful unit.

This is the part I'm frankly baffled by. First off self sufficiency is neither desirable or obtainable. This is 2013 and specialisation is the name of the game.

Secondly there is no evidence to show amalgamation would result in any marked improvement in southern infrastructure. Yes we would have a higher population but we would also cover a larger area. And the majority of the people we would be taking on would be out of work former British civil servants. If there is one thing we don't need in the South it's more civil servants.

Thirdly I live in Dublin and currently we dominate the Irish economy and resources. Dublin is totally dominant in the South and the introduction of Belfast into the economy would provide a viable counter weight to Dublin hegemony diverting resources away from the capital. This is against my interest.

Another problem to the Irish economy is the inevitable political destabilisation that would result from this un natural amalgamation. Fair enough you say this will only be for the short term but as Keynes said "in the long run we're all dead."

I could go on and on for pages on the economic downsides to amalgamation but I'm on my phone so I'll stop there.

You seem to be a well meaning guy but I just wish I could convey to you and every other proponent of amalgamation the stupidity of your position and the destruction you will inevitably inflict on both our countries. Thankfully it won't happen in either of our life times so we won't have to witness it.

junder

Bertie Woot wrote: »

Ireland under British rule was a united country before partition, and you have simply bought the lies that Northern Ireland is a legitimate country, and that the country that you live in is the real Ireland. Both sections of this island are Ireland, and Ireland was united and then split in two under the threat of all out war by Unionists in 1921, and people like you think that was a perfectly acceptable means to provide birth to a country whose birth fractured not just the island, but also the province of Ulster.

Ireland does NOT stop at any ****ing arbitrary, man-made border drawn up in 1921 to satisfy the selfish demands of a warring minority. Ireland transcends the border, as Ireland is to be found on both sides of that border, and shall be reunited with the elimination of that border.

You need to wake up and smell Ireland, my friend. All of it, not just your sector.



I never mentioned anything about the North overtaking the South as an independent nation. In fact, I have never been an exponent of an independent NI.



We have two sets of infrastructure on this isalnd. The ROI, having mismanaged its own economy, is heavily dependent on EU subsidy and bail-out, whilst NI is not an economically viable entity, never has been; having been heavily dependent upon Westminster funding since its very conception.

A united Ireland would create one set of infrastructure, and whilst its creation may require EU sympathy and funding to get off the ground, in the long term an independent Ireland as one reunited country with one set of economic infrastructure has enormous potential to attain total self sufficiency in production and public services, and become an economically viable and successful unit.

The common mistake that nationalist make is the belief that its the border is the thing that prevents a united Ireland. As if the removal of the border is some sort of panacea. As somebody that allegedly grew up in a unionist community you should know that already. I am not Irish, don't feel Irish, don't want to be Irish and removing the border won't change that. Indeed other then the things that all humans have in common with each other, I feel no kinship to those over the border. I don't hate them, don't wish them any ill will just seem them in the same way I see somebody from France ie foreign and all the changing of flags, anthems whatever is not going to ever change that.

OCorcrainn

junder wrote: »

I am not Irish, don't feel Irish, don't want to be Irish and removing the border won't change that.

Nobody is denying that there are people who share and hold those sentiments. But what is strange is that you constantly feel the need to tell us, it gets very repetitive, it is as if you are trying to prove something or score points.

junder

OCorcrainn wrote: »

Nobody is denying that there are people who share and hold those sentiments. But what is strange is that you constantly feel the need to tell us, it gets very repetitive, it is as if you are trying to prove something or score points.

Then don't read my posts.

Iwasfrozen

junder wrote: »

Then don't read my posts.

He doesn't like to be reminded there are assertive unionists willing to stand up to republican hegemony.

OCorcrainn

junder wrote: »

Then don't read my posts.

So you are admitting that the reason you are here is not to engage in constructive discussion and debate intelligently but to be antagonistic?

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

He doesn't like to be reminded there are assertive unionists willing to stand up to republican hegemony.

Not true and you know that. I welcome objective political debate and people who can see things from a different perspective rather than irrationally and egocentrically. Unfortunately that is rather uncommon here,

Iwasfrozen

OCorcrainn wrote: »

Not true and you know that. I welcome objective political debate and people who can see things from a different perspective rather than irrationally and egocentrically. Unfortunately that is rather uncommon here,

It's very hard to debate rationally with people who deny objective reality. If I had a euro for every time I've read a republican claim Ireland was one country I'd probably have enough for a nice new pair of shoes.

OCorcrainn

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

It's very hard to debate rationally with people who deny objective reality. If I had a euro for every time I've read a republican claim Ireland was one country I'd probably have enough for a nice new pair of shoes.

They don't represent all republicans and just because they refer to themselves as republicans does not mean they are.

junder

I think it's a fairly reasonable point when the discussion is about a united Ireland is to point out that unless you are talking purely about a geographical united ireland i.e. just removing the border, then a united people's is an impossibility while a large body of people on this island, reject the very notion of being Irish. Indeed it is incumbent upon me as one of the very few unionists on this site that tbe nationalist / republican belief that unionists are just confused Irishmen is horse****

Bertie Woot

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

You didn't even address my logic and just repeated the same old tired republican mantra that the whole island of Ireland is one country when it patently isn't. You might as well be back in the sixties. If the threat of violence is not a legitimate means of securing self determination and any state resulting from the threat of violence is not legitimate then that means the Republic of Ireland is not legitimate either and again it patently is.

What, because you say or think it is? Sinn Fein and the IRA argued just that; that both NI and the ROI were illegitimate states throughout their armed campaign, and they rejected public opinion on both sides of the border for most of 30 years and carried on with their "struggle". They compromised with a cessation of violence in 94 and signed up to the GFA in 98, but that is pure strategy; they play the game within the 'illegitimate Northern Irish statelet' as a means to non-violent reunification.

The Dissidents too still view both NI and the ROI as illegitimate geographical and political entities, but unlike the Provisionals, insist on pursuing the tradition of physical force Republicanism. What you are consistently failing to grasp is that whilst partition is in place on this island Irish Republicans shall perpetually seek to end it, and a full scale return to military operations by the Provos at some stage in the future is not an impossibility. With peaceful reunification the major cause of conflict, war and death in Ireland shall be over.

Ireland is not one country because Unionist refusal to consent to full Irish independence 92 years ago resulted in the imposition of partition on the island as a compromise measure between Collins and the British negotiators. It should have been an all or nothing scenario; full independence or none. Partition was a disaster for both the Northern Nationalist minority and the Unionist majority, as it created the conditions for fear, paranoia, discrimination, civil rights and further IRA violence just after their fifties border campaign.

Ireland was split to maximise voter utility and prevent a tyranny of the majority encompassing the unionist minority. As an advocate of democracy I'm surprised you don't agree with this.

You need to elaborate and properly explain it before I agree or disagree with anything.

Right back at you. You must understand that Ireland and Northern Ireland are two separate nations and any artificial amalgamation will result in the cultural destruction of your own people.

Ireland was artificially separated with partition. Reunification and the removal of the geographical border shall only come about when Unionist's feel safe to fully recognise and embrace their fundamental Irishness and realise that the mainland British don't want them, don't care about them, and view Loyalist's loyalty as anachronistic, outdated, embarrassing, irrelevant and definitely not wanted or appreciated. The Unionist people shall choose to consent to a UI as Irishmen when they feel they have sufficient assurances and guarantees that they shall not experience persecution in a UI. They shall not be choosing to walk into a UI with there being any remote prospect of being "destroyed", I can assure you that.

Even in the UK NI will never overtake Ireland. If I thought it would I would be campaigning for unification so we could utilise it's resources.

NI is not in the financial dire straits that the ROI is currently in, and quite frankly, I'm sick to the back gnashers of your chronically selfish, egocentric attitude towards NI; viewing it as an alien land that should only be considered in terms of how it can line your pocket. Try thinking outside the box, look at the wider, long term and less selfish, egocentric and greedy picture, that is if you have any sense of vision beyond your own interests.

This is the part I'm frankly baffled by. First off self sufficiency is neither desirable or obtainable. This is 2013 and specialisation is the name of the game.

Secondly there is no evidence to show amalgamation would result in any marked improvement in southern infrastructure. Yes we would have a higher population but we would also cover a larger area. And the majority of the people we would be taking on would be out of work former British civil servants. If there is one thing we don't need in the South it's more civil servants.

Thirdly I live in Dublin and currently we dominate the Irish economy and resources. Dublin is totally dominant in the South and the introduction of Belfast into the economy would provide a viable counter weight to Dublin hegemony diverting resources away from the capital. This is against my interest.

Another problem to the Irish economy is the inevitable political destabilisation that would result from this un natural amalgamation. Fair enough you say this will only be for the short term but as Keynes said "in the long run we're all dead."

I could go on and on for pages on the economic downsides to amalgamation but I'm on my phone so I'll stop there.

Your exclusively negative attitude toward reunification is a product of selfishness and egocentricity seldom encountered. But this fits perfectly well with your obvious right-wing and pro-capitalist stance towards the economy. How on earth you feel that "self sufficiency is neither desirable or obtainable" frankly leaves me cold and baffled. How you feel that reunification would result in the South having to take on out of work former British civil servants, and by insinuation, no-one else with or without value, defies comprehension. And your insistence that Dublin would have a competitor in Belfast that would threaten Dublin's 'hegemony' is typical of someone who views Ireland not as one island but two countries, with the smallest of those countries threatening his own country's self interest. And to top off the most chronically selfish and indeed deluded diatribe I've read, you then go on to state that amalgamation would be unnatural, and that 'in the long run we are all dead'.

Few people leave me speechless with their chronic selfishness, self importance, egocentricity and chronic negativity, but congrats, I am speechless. You've made it clear that you view NI exclusively in terms of what it can do for you, not what reunification can do for ALL of the people of Ireland, and that reveals a very unattractive set of personality characteristics as well as a very negative and unhealthy attitude towards the whole of Ireland. You're the sort of person who views people in terms of what they can do for you, and who only makes friends with those who you can take full advantage of and exploit. Am I right? Wait, you don't have any friends. Am I wrong?

You seem to be a well meaning guy but I just wish I could convey to you and every other proponent of amalgamation the stupidity of your position and the destruction you will inevitably inflict on both our countries. Thankfully it won't happen in either of our life times so we won't have to witness it.

So possessing an aspiration for peaceful reunification and a desire for the two communities to become one and for one people, one country to live in peace and harmony with itself is in your eyes stupid and destructive, and you can't see the breathtaking negativity and blatantly outrageous error in your thinking?

Bertie Woot

junder wrote: »

The common mistake that nationalist make is the belief that its the border is the thing that prevents a united Ireland. As if the removal of the border is some sort of panacea. As somebody that allegedly grew up in a unionist community you should know that already. I am not Irish, don't feel Irish, don't want to be Irish and removing the border won't change that. Indeed other then the things that all humans have in common with each other, I feel no kinship to those over the border. I don't hate them, don't wish them any ill will just seem them in the same way I see somebody from France ie foreign and all the changing of flags, anthems whatever is not going to ever change that.

The national border shall only be removed when Unionists decide to attempt to remove the deeply embedded psychological border which has been placed within their minds as a result of partition. Robbo and McGuiness are going to remove all of the peace walls in West Belfast before 2013. They'll be back up again by 2016 or sooner if Unionists and Nationalists do not make a conscious and deliberate effort to understand eachother, develop mutual empathy, and learn to accept and respect one and others national, religious and cultural differences, and tolerate eachother's traditions.

I understand your sentiment "I am not Irish, don't feel Irish, don't want to be Irish and removing the border won't change that". For most of my adult life I regarded myself as British, as I was descended from the British, was born into a culture which celebrated Britishness, was born and raised in a part of Ireland which was also a part of the UK and thus British, and the fact that I held a full British passport, was thus a British citizen, and gave only nominal significance to also being "Northern Irish".

But the fact is, I was born on Irish soil, I am descended from 400 years or more generations of people who were also born on Irish soil, I respect Irish culture, I am entitled to hold a full Irish passport as a result of being born and raised in Ireland, and whether I want to be Irish or not, I am, and so are you, unless of course you were not born on Irish soil.

The problem with the Prods is that we are British at home and Irish abroad. Regarding ourselves as British in Northern Ireland is no problem. No issue there. But when you set foot in England or any other country and speak, people identify your accent as 'Irish', and you are described and referred to as "Irish". I have not once disagreed or taken issue with this description of being "Irish". Have you?

WakeUp

Bertie Woot wrote: »

I've compromised my initial position on an amendment to the current Irish constitution to provide for a British diplomatic intervention, and think I've been more than reasonable in altering my position to one where such provision must therefore be contained within a post referendum reunification agreement.

Your entrenched and uncompromising stand is not helpful. If you think for one moment that Unionists shall shall ever consider disembarking from the UK and entering into a UI without foolproof provision to cover them against potential persecution you might as well hang up any hope of Irish reunification, not just in your lifetime, but ever, and I'm not being radical, I'm being realistic. The Prods just will not consider any risk factor whatsoever.

Seriously, what part of giving another nation a right to intervene in your nations internal affairs dont you get?? You arent being reasonable you are being unreasonable and you certainly are not being realistic if you believe we would agree to such a thing:) I dont speak for the people of Ireland and I certainly dont speak for the government but from my point of view two things are off the table and will never be on it. The above along with a possible change of capital. Everything else can be thrashed out and reassembled in the middle. If that strikes you as being uncompromising and unhelpful Im afraid thats too bad.

Bertie Woot wrote: »

As much as I desire peaceful Irish reunification, I will not contemplate any move towards it without copper-fastened guarantees and assurances, and specifically, an article contained within a reunification agreement which unequivocally provides a means for the British government to take diplomatic action should the PUL community begin to experience any form of social injustice within a united Ireland.

In fact, your reluctance to even consider such a proposal makes one wary of your motives for aspiring to a united Ireland. If you don't have any ulterior motive, why would you even object to what effectively is a very reasonable proposal?

You know what I think, behind close doors the intelligent thinkers of the unionist movement maybe realise and are perhaps contemplating that a unified island might one day happen. They wont be saying this to the grass roots level people but events from the Anglo-Irish agreement through to the GFA and the mechanisms those documents and agreements have set into motion, well it would be neglegent of them not to contemplate among other things. I believe one day this island will be unified the wheels are turning I dont know when it will happen but I think it will a couple of generations from now. I will respect whatever stance and position unionism decides to take if they are faced with such a choice. That doesnt mean I would agree nor give in to it.

My motives are quite clear. I would support and indeed like to see a united Ireland but only if its peaceful, everyone wants it, and its in our economic interests to do so. The romantic side of a unified Ireland is all well and good and lovely. But in the real world it needs to work. I would be inclined to focus on the strategic benefits of absorbing that territory into ours, northern ports, sea & shipping lanes, extending our EEC, farm land, property deeds, land minerals stuff like that. If the time comes when we have to sit down with the British and negotiate all sorts of deals and agreements, I dont want our hand being anyway weakened which it would be, if we signed a reunification agreement giving the British a right to intervention. My reluctance to even consider your "reasonable" provision is reality. My motives are perfectly clear Ive been consistent since we started talking:)

junder

Bertie Woot wrote: »

The national border shall only be removed when Unionists decide to attempt to remove the deeply embedded psychological border which has been placed within their minds as a result of partition. Robbo and McGuiness are going to remove all of the peace walls in West Belfast before 2013. They'll be back up again by 2016 or sooner if Unionists and Nationalists do not make a conscious and deliberate effort to understand eachother, develop mutual empathy, and learn to accept and respect one and others national, religious and cultural differences, and tolerate eachother's traditions.

I understand your sentiment "I am not Irish, don't feel Irish, don't want to be Irish and removing the border won't change that". For most of my adult life I regarded myself as British, as I was descended from the British, was born into a culture which celebrated Britishness, was born and raised in a part of Ireland which was also a part of the UK and thus British, and the fact that I held a full British passport, was thus a British citizen, and gave only nominal significance to also being "Northern Irish".

But the fact is, I was born on Irish soil, I am descended from 400 years or more generations of people who were also born on Irish soil, I respect Irish culture, I am entitled to hold a full Irish passport as a result of being born and raised in Ireland, and whether I want to be Irish or not, I am, and so are you, unless of course you were not born on Irish soil.

The problem with the Prods is that we are British at home and Irish abroad. Regarding ourselves as British in Northern Ireland is no problem. No issue there. But when you set foot in England or any other country and speak, people identify your accent as 'Irish', and you are described and referred to as "Irish". I have not once disagreed or taken issue with this description of being "Irish". Have you?

Yes I have and repeatedly point out that I am not Irish. I do not define myself by what other people call me. I am British at home and abroad since I was born in Northern Ireland, which is British soil. Moreover I have stated on here before and for you benefit I will do so again, I reject my right to an Irish passport.

Iwasfrozen

Bertie Woot wrote: »

What, because you say or think it is? Sinn Fein and the IRA argued just that; that both NI and the ROI were illegitimate states throughout their armed campaign, and they rejected public opinion on both sides of the border for most of 30 years and carried on with their "struggle". They compromised with a cessation of violence in 94 and signed up to the GFA in 98, but that is pure strategy; they play the game within the 'illegitimate Northern Irish statelet' as a means to non-violent reunification.

The Dissidents too still view both NI and the ROI as illegitimate geographical and political entities, but unlike the Provisionals, insist on pursuing the tradition of physical force Republicanism. What you are consistently failing to grasp is that whilst partition is in place on this island Irish Republicans shall perpetually seek to end it, and a full scale return to military operations by the Provos at some stage in the future is not an impossibility. With peaceful reunification the major cause of conflict, war and death in Ireland shall be over.

I don't argue that either state is illegitimate, I argue both states are legitimate and the sovereignty and territorial borders of the United Kingdom should be respected once and for all by both nationalists and the Irish government alike.

We cannot allow dissidents to bully us into a United Ireland or force their views by means of physical violence. The only correct answer to terrorism is condemnation. No compromise or dialogue should be opened with them until they permanently lay down arms. When they do their views should be taken on board as is their right as citizens of Ireland or Britain, however the case may apply.

Ireland is not one country because Unionist refusal to consent to full Irish independence 92 years ago resulted in the imposition of partition on the island as a compromise measure between Collins and the British negotiators. It should have been an all or nothing scenario; full independence or none. Partition was a disaster for both the Northern Nationalist minority and the Unionist majority, as it created the conditions for fear, paranoia, discrimination, civil rights and further IRA violence just after their fifties border campaign.

You say partition "resulted" in IRA violence as if violence was the inevitable result that occurred from partition. This is typical language used by murderers and those who sympathise with them in an effort to clear their own conscience but it doesn't sit with me. The only group responsible for IRA violence is the IRA. No one else.

You need to elaborate and properly explain it before I agree or disagree with anything.

Nationalists wanted independence, Unionists didn't. Unionists conveniently lived in a demarcated territory that could be easily cut off from the rest of the population. By cutting the old jurisdiction in two the British were able to achieve maximum voter utility for each of the people both sides of the border.

Of course there were still some people left on the wrong side in both cases but by splitting the country as they did the British were able to minimise the people left on the "wrong" side.

Ireland was artificially separated with partition. Reunification and the removal of the geographical border shall only come about when Unionist's feel safe to fully recognise and embrace their fundamental Irishness and realise that the mainland British don't want them, don't care about them, and view Loyalist's loyalty as anachronistic, outdated, embarrassing, irrelevant and definitely not wanted or appreciated. The Unionist people shall choose to consent to a UI as Irishmen when they feel they have sufficient assurances and guarantees that they shall not experience persecution in a UI. They shall not be choosing to walk into a UI with there being any remote prospect of being "destroyed", I can assure you that.

So when unionists stop being unionist? The reason I call Irish amalgamation artificial is simple, we are two separate people with two separate cultures and traditions who do not belong in the same country. They have their nation, we have ours.

The sad truth for you is that a lot of what you say about the Unionists being abandoned by their own country is exactly the same thing happening to nationalists in the south. An increasing number of people want nothing to do with them and don't even consider them Irish. Martain McGuiness was heckled on the Late Late show during the presidential election by an audience member who accused him of not being Irish. Personally I would see him as Northern Irish. Irish in the sense that I am European or a Spanish person in Iberian but not the same nationality as me.

NI is not in the financial dire straits that the ROI is currently in, and quite frankly, I'm sick to the back gnashers of your chronically selfish, egocentric attitude towards NI; viewing it as an alien land that should only be considered in terms of how it can line your pocket. Try thinking outside the box, look at the wider, long term and less selfish, egocentric and greedy picture, that is if you have any sense of vision beyond your own interests.

Currently being the optimal word there, the ROI will recover it's only in a bad place for the time being.

And of course I can see vision past my own interest I just don't act on said vision unless it is in my interest.

Your exclusively negative attitude toward reunification is a product of selfishness and egocentricity seldom encountered. But this fits perfectly well with your obvious right-wing and pro-capitalist stance towards the economy. How on earth you feel that "self sufficiency is neither desirable or obtainable" frankly leaves me cold and baffled.

Ricardian economics.
Comparative Advantage.
Hecksher Ohlin model.

It's not selfish to want what is best for the people as a whole. Trade and specialisation benefits everyone in the economy. We live in an open economy where free trade and capital mobility is legally enforced by the EU. As such self sufficiency is neither necessary (because we live in the EU so no other EU country can place tariffs against us) or needed (because most things we can make by ourself we could buy cheaper from somewhere else, so we should only produce that which we have a comparative advantage in, or specialisation.)

And to top off the most chronically selfish and indeed deluded diatribe I've read, you then go on to state that amalgamation would be unnatural, and that 'in the long run we are all dead'.

Haven't you heard of John Keynes?

You're the sort of person who views people in terms of what they can do for you, and who only makes friends with those who you can take full advantage of and exploit. Am I right? Wait, you don't have any friends. Am I wrong?

Ah here, that's not very nice. I'm quite a popular chappy. But it's true that I try to see each situation as an opportunity to be exploited. It's just that I can't see any thing that can be exploited from Irish amalgamation. It's not that I'm an over pessimistic person but naturally I come across that way when discussing a topic I disagree with. In this case Irish amalgamation.

So possessing an aspiration for peaceful reunification and a desire for the two communities to become one and for one people, one country to live in peace and harmony with itself is in your eyes stupid and destructive, and you can't see the breathtaking negativity and blatantly outrageous error in your thinking?

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. You mean well but I believe you're leading us down the shítter.

Bertie Woot

WakeUp wrote: »

Seriously, what part of giving another nation a right to intervene in your nations internal affairs dont you get?? You arent being reasonable you are being unreasonable and you certainly are not being realistic if you believe we would agree to such a thing:) I dont speak for the people of Ireland and I certainly dont speak for the government but from my point of view two things are off the table and will never be on it. The above along with a possible change of capital. Everything else can be thrashed out and reassembled in the middle. If that strikes you as being uncompromising and unhelpful Im afraid thats too bad.

Okey dokey, no Irish reunification for you then. As you have failed to reciprocate my generous compromise, and have instead referred to it as unreasonable and unrealistic, you leave me with no option but to withdraw aforementioned compromise and revert to my original hard stance that an article be inserted into the Irish constitution providing for not just diplomatic intervention, but military intervention, as I have now have reason to view your motives for reunification with the utmost suspicion, and am compelled to question your real intent. Also, because I enjoy playing the politician on the internet.

One step forward, two steps back.

You know what I think, behind close doors the intelligent thinkers of the unionist movement maybe realise and are perhaps contemplating that a unified island might one day happen. They wont be saying this to the grass roots level people but events from the Anglo-Irish agreement through to the GFA and the mechanisms those documents and agreements have set into motion, well it would be neglegent of them not to contemplate among other things. I believe one day this island will be unified the wheels are turning I dont know when it will happen but I think it will a couple of generations from now. I will respect whatever stance and position unionism decides to take if they are faced with such a choice. That doesnt mean I would agree nor give in to it.

It shall be out of both your and my hands. As the union is safer and more secure than it has ever been, and the vast majority of Unionists are just opposed to a UI today as they were forty years ago, and there is no real pressure upon them to even begin contemplating a UI, this little cyber-exercise we are engaged in is little more than a means to establish communication between real people not politicians, gauge eachother's opinion, and test the waters. And there is no harm in that.

My motives are quite clear. I would support and indeed like to see a united Ireland but only if its peaceful, everyone wants it, and its in our economic interests to do so. The romantic side of a unified Ireland is all well and good and lovely. But in the real world it needs to work. I would be inclined to focus on the strategic benefits of absorbing that territory into ours, northern ports, sea & shipping lanes, extending our EEC, farm land, property deeds, land minerals stuff like that. If the time comes when we have to sit down with the British and negotiate all sorts of deals and agreements, I dont want our hand being anyway weakened which it would be, if we signed a reunification agreement giving the British a right to intervention. My reluctance to even consider your "reasonable" provision is reality. My motives are perfectly clear Ive been consistent since we started talking:)

I could argue that you've been tenacious and uncompromising and that your refusal to accept a perfectly valid and more than reasonable offer has set Irish reunification right back to square one.

As stated, I have been left with no option but to revert to my original stance and add an even tougher condition; that British military intervention must now be included in the Irish constitution or a rewritten Irish constitution to provide a means to swiftly rectify the situation should the Irish state perpetrate institutionalised discrimination against the PUL ethnic minority in a UI.

In other words, I am now unable to trust you. Your move.

This is going to be laborious ...feck it, I'm considering joining the Orange Order ...

Bertie Woot

junder wrote: »

Yes I have and repeatedly point out that I am not Irish. I do not define myself by what other people call me. I am British at home and abroad since I was born in Northern Ireland, which is British soil. Moreover I have stated on here before and for you benefit I will do so again, I reject my right to an Irish passport.

You are within your right to reject an Irish passport, but you cannot expect to be taken seriously when you say Northern ireland is on British soil, and I'll tell you why. If you look at any map of Ireland you can't help but notice that Northern Ireland is on the island of Ireland, and whilst there is an artificial, man made, arbitrary "border" which partitioned the island 92 years ago thus creating NI and keeping it as part of the UK, the country you refer to as Northern Ireland is unquestionably a part of Ireland. If you haven't spotted it already, the clue is in the name.

When you walk in the park, you are walking on irish soil. When you take a stroll through Belfast city centre, you walk on pavements and roads which have been built upon Irish soil, and you are an Irish person by virtue of the fact that you were born in a part of Ireland and regardless of whether you want or don't want to be Irish.

Karl Stein

Bertie Woot wrote: »

You are within your right to reject an Irish passport, but you cannot expect to be taken seriously when you say Northern ireland is on British soil, and I'll tell you why. If you look at any map of Ireland you can't help but notice that Northern Ireland is on the island of Ireland, and whilst there is an artificial, man made, arbitrary "border" which partitioned the island 92 years ago thus creating NI and keeping it as part of the UK, the country you refer to as Northern Ireland is unquestionably a part of Ireland. If you haven't spotted it already, the clue is in the name.

When you walk in the park, you are walking on irish soil. When you take a stroll through Belfast city centre, you walk on pavements and roads which have been built upon Irish soil, and you are an Irish person by virtue of the fact that you were born in a part of Ireland and regardless of whether you want or don't want to be Irish.

I agree with most of this but shouldn't Junder be allowed to identify himself whatever the hell way he likes? Surely allowing someone to identify himself how he chooses is a natural right?

I have a UK birth cert, having been born north of the imaginary line, and an Irish Passport. I'm primarily Irish and reject my UK'ness - should I be forced to accept that I'm of the UK rather than Irish?

Bertie Woot

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I don't argue that either state is illegitimate, I argue both states are legitimate and the sovereignty and territorial borders of the United Kingdom should be respected once and for all by both nationalists and the Irish government alike.

The Irish government does respect them, as they dropped the constitutional claim (Arts 2 & 3) to NI pre GFA. But that doesn't mean that what they did or what the majority of Nationalist People voted for was right. The Dublin gvt dropped its claim to help assist the peace process, create a deal, and help achieve a permanent peace in NI. They were under tremendous pressure to bow to Unionist demands, and they caved in and legitimised partition under duress.

We cannot allow dissidents to bully us into a United Ireland or force their views by means of physical violence. The only correct answer to terrorism is condemnation. No compromise or dialogue should be opened with them until they permanently lay down arms. When they do their views should be taken on board as is their right as citizens of Ireland or Britain, however the case may apply.

I disagree with Dissident violence, but I know that it is not going to go away with "condemnations". Thirty years of daily condemnations did not prevent the PIRA from continuing with their campaign, and Dissidents by their very nature look upon the current political process as futile and permitting the sustainment of partition and British rule in a part of Ireland. If they laid down their weaponry I'd be happy, but the new IRA have no intention of abandoning their low level campaign and periodic acts of violence are set to continue, because of partition.

You say partition "resulted" in IRA violence as if violence was the inevitable result that occurred from partition. This is typical language used by murderers and those who sympathise with them in an effort to clear their own conscience but it doesn't sit with me. The only group responsible for IRA violence is the IRA. No one else.

I've condemned the IRA all my life, so to refer to my language as that of a murderer or someone who sympathises with murderers is about as far off the mark as you could possibly be, and I can assure you I have nothing in my conscience to clear. Discrimination created the civil rights movement and on the back of that the PIRA launched what it viewed as a legitimate campaign. If discrimination ad CR had not occurred it is extremely unlikely that the IRA would have embarked upon another violent episode so soon after their failed border campaign. Partition, discrimination, CR ...all gave way to political violence - historical fact.

Nationalists wanted independence, Unionists didn't. Unionists conveniently lived in a demarcated territory that could be easily cut off from the rest of the population. By cutting the old jurisdiction in two the British were able to achieve maximum voter utility for each of the people both sides of the border.

Of course there were still some people left on the wrong side in both cases but by splitting the country as they did the British were able to minimise the people left on the "wrong" side.

This reads like utter b*llocks. By cutting the old jurisdiction in two the British were able to achieve maximum voter utility for each of the people both sides of the border? How do you come to this conclusion? The British via partition washed their hands of 26 counties of a colony, and were reluctantly forced to hold onto the other 6 because of a Unionist threat of revolt and war. Via partition the British were able to "minimise" people left on the wrong side!? Nonsense! Via partition the British and indeed Collins created the people "on the wrong side". It was inevitable that there would be minorities in both jurisdictions, and the treatment of the Northern Nationalist minority by a Unionist government is what ultimately led to the PIRA's 68-98 campaign of violence.

So when unionists stop being unionist? The reason I call Irish amalgamation artificial is simple, we are two separate people with two separate cultures and traditions who do not belong in the same country. They have their nation, we have ours.

Holy f*ck, your head really has been infested by the apartheid demon. So what do you suggest? That all plans to integrate NI and bring the two tribes closer together be abandoned, and that we accept our differences and build upon them by erecting even higher walls, perhaps exacerbate segregation in housing, abolish integrated schooling and dispense with all desire for a better and shared future where both sides can ultimately become one? Perhaps repatriate the British back to Britain and leave the Irish where they are? Is that what you want?

The sad truth for you is that a lot of what you say about the Unionists being abandoned by their own country is exactly the same thing happening to nationalists in the south. An increasing number of people want nothing to do with them and don't even consider them Irish. Martain McGuiness was heckled on the Late Late show during the presidential election by an audience member who accused him of not being Irish. Personally I would see him as Northern Irish. Irish in the sense that I am European or a Spanish person in Iberian but not the same nationality as me.

He is as Irish as you, Enda Kenny or Michael D. Higgins, and he has a right to call himself an Irishman as he was born on the isalnd of Ireland. I've never been a fan of the PIRA, but those people who heckled Martin McGuinness were philistines and morons and people who have swallowed the partitionist lie that anyone born on the other side of the border must therefore be British. The fact that the GFA provides for anyone in NI to hold an Irish passport illustrates my point, and I have no doubt that McGuinness holds an Irish passport.

And of course I can see vision past my own interest I just don't act on said vision unless it is in my interest.

You're not doing yourself any favours. It's uncomfortable witnessing someone dig his own hole and then leap into it.

Ricardian economics.
Comparative Advantage.
Hecksher Ohlin model.

You are crudely reducing Irish reunification to mere economics, and that quite frankly is absurd. Irish Nationalism is about much more than the current state of an economy, mathematical formulas, economic theories, or cold hard fiscal pseudoscience. It's about the desire of a people to seek an end to the imposed and unrequested division of their country, and that is something you don't understand, as you view things from a purely functional, selfish, egocentric and exploitative perspective. You don't understand passion, values, beliefs, principles and aspirations, you only understand money and what other countries and other people can do for you financially, and how they can best serve your interests, and that is what makes you a cold and unattractive individual.

It's not selfish to want what is best for the people as a whole. Trade and specialisation benefits everyone in the economy. We live in an open economy where free trade and capital mobility is legally enforced by the EU. As such self sufficiency is neither necessary (because we live in the EU so no other EU country can place tariffs against us) or needed (because most things we can make by ourself we could buy cheaper from somewhere else, so we should only produce that which we have a comparative advantage in, or specialisation.)

And you think that cold, hard, dispassionate, economics is going to offer dissident Republicans the reason they need to desist from political violence?

Haven't you heard of John Keynes?

I know that he was a British economist whose ideas have fundamentally affected the theory and practice of modern macroeconomics, and that in being an economist he was also a dull, boring and uninteresting character.

Ah here, that's not very nice. I'm quite a popular chappy. But it's true that I try to see each situation as an opportunity to be exploited. It's just that I can't see any thing that can be exploited from Irish amalgamation. It's not that I'm an over pessimistic person but naturally I come across that way when discussing a topic I disagree with. In this case Irish amalgamation.

I just wish you'd stop using the term "amalgamation", and stop viewing Irish reunification form such a cold, clinical and dispassionate perspective. It's not all about economics and the capitalist exploitation of the proletariat. In my Socialist Ireland the capitalist class shall be made redundant.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. You mean well but I believe you're leading us down the shítter.

Stay positive, as always. :rolleyes:

junder

Cathal Cloch wrote: »

I agree with most of this but shouldn't Junder be allowed to identify himself whatever the hell way he likes? Surely allowing someone to identify himself how he chooses is a natural right?

I have a UK birth cert, having been born north of the imaginary line, and an Irish Passport. I'm primarily Irish and reject my UK'ness - should I be forced to accept that I'm of the UK rather than Irish?

I believe you are perfectly entitled to reject your UK'ness as you put it. I know people born and reared in London with London accents but born of Irish parents and so define themselves as Irish, who am I to say any different. The tv and radio host dermont o'leary is one such person

fasttalkerchat

Whatever way a United Ireland comes about there will always be thousands who will take up a gun looking to oppose it. Hopefully defence will not cross over into retaliation and eventually loyalists will see that we don't intend to treat them as we were treated.

The only way we can reassure them is by actually doing it.

Iwasfrozen

Bertie Woot wrote: »

The Irish government does respect them, as they dropped the constitutional claim (Arts 2 & 3) to NI pre GFA. But that doesn't mean that what they did or what the majority of Nationalist People voted for was right. The Dublin gvt dropped its claim to help assist the peace process, create a deal, and help achieve a permanent peace in NI. They were under tremendous pressure to bow to Unionist demands, and they caved in and legitimised partition under duress.

They dropped illegal territorial claims they should have never held in the first place. Though I'm glad they did, it helped to cement partition for the foreseeable future and made sure unification would only come about under the democratic wish of the majority of the people on both sides of the border. The provos were denied their sick wish of bullying unionists into a UI democracy won through. The only true democratic mandate.

I disagree with Dissident violence, but I know that it is not going to go away with "condemnations". Thirty years of daily condemnations did not prevent the PIRA from continuing with their campaign, and Dissidents by their very nature look upon the current political process as futile and permitting the sustainment of partition and British rule in a part of Ireland. If they laid down their weaponry I'd be happy, but the new IRA have no intention of abandoning their low level campaign and periodic acts of violence are set to continue, because of partition.

Thirty years is not a long period of time. Imagine if Provo violence had always been met with silence by both governments. How long would they continue for 50 years? 80? 120? Or would it be better to count the years in generations as the old embittered republicans die off. Eventually they would become disillusioned and their numbers would fall away. They would exist far into the foreseeable future but their ability to mount campaigns can only fall as they become more and more irrelevent as the decades pass and partition is cemented.

I've condemned the IRA all my life, so to refer to my language as that of a murderer or someone who sympathises with murderers is about as far off the mark as you could possibly be, and I can assure you I have nothing in my conscience to clear. Discrimination created the civil rights movement and on the back of that the PIRA launched what it viewed as a legitimate campaign. If discrimination ad CR had not occurred it is extremely unlikely that the IRA would have embarked upon another violent episode so soon after their failed border campaign. Partition, discrimination, CR ...all gave way to political violence - historical fact.

I apologise for the mark it was too much but there are a lot of people on this site who really do sympathise with their actions. But surely if you agree that discrimination started the IRA's terrorist campaign then healing that division would undermine their campaign without amalgamation being a necessary step?

This reads like utter b*llocks. By cutting the old jurisdiction in two the British were able to achieve maximum voter utility for each of the people both sides of the border? How do you come to this conclusion? The British via partition washed their hands of 26 counties of a colony, and were reluctantly forced to hold onto the other 6 because of a Unionist threat of revolt and war. Via partition the British were able to "minimise" people left on the wrong side!? Nonsense! Via partition the British and indeed Collins created the people "on the wrong side". It was inevitable that there would be minorities in both jurisdictions, and the treatment of the Northern Nationalist minority by a Unionist government is what ultimately led to the PIRA's 68-98 campaign of violence.

Yes, partition minimised the numbers of minorities on both sides of the border. What part of that don't you grasp? I'm not being smart I'm honestly perplexed you don't grasp the concept.

Holy f*ck, your head really has been infested by the apartheid demon. So what do you suggest? That all plans to integrate NI and bring the two tribes closer together be abandoned, and that we accept our differences and build upon them by erecting even higher walls, perhaps exacerbate segregation in housing, abolish integrated schooling and dispense with all desire for a better and shared future where both sides can ultimately become one? Perhaps repatriate the British back to Britain and leave the Irish where they are? Is that what you want?

On the contrary a stable NI is in our interest and integration between the two tribes promotes that. But artificial amalgamation of NI into Ireland will only result in the destabilisation of the new UI damaging the economy, putting people out of work, and re opening old wounds. We are better off working to heal wounds with partition accepted as an unchangeable fact for the foreseeable future and moving on from there.

He is as Irish as you, Enda Kenny or Michael D. Higgins, and he has a right to call himself an Irishman as he was born on the isalnd of Ireland. I've never been a fan of the PIRA, but those people who heckled Martin McGuinness were philistines and morons and people who have swallowed the partitionist lie that anyone born on the other side of the border must therefore be British. The fact that the GFA provides for anyone in NI to hold an Irish passport illustrates my point, and I have no doubt that McGuinness holds an Irish passport.

A person who holds an Irish passport is as Irish as me no doubt about that but allowing northern nationalists to hold citizenship is definitely one of the things I would like see changed in the GFA.

You're not doing yourself any favours. It's uncomfortable witnessing someone dig his own hole and then leap into it.

I openly admit I work to my best interest. Everyone should. I'm a committed individualist.

You are crudely reducing Irish reunification to mere economics, and that quite frankly is absurd. Irish Nationalism is about much more than the current state of an economy, mathematical formulas, economic theories, or cold hard fiscal pseudoscience.

whoa whoa whoa whoa, Money makes the world go round and everything is related to money but let's not label any of what I posted to you as "pseudoscience" it most definitely isn't.

It's about the desire of a people to seek an end to the imposed and unrequested division of their country, and that is something you don't understand, as you view things from a purely functional, selfish, egocentric and exploitative perspective. You don't understand passion, values, beliefs, principles and aspirations, you only understand money and what other countries and other people can do for you financially, and how they can best serve your interests, and that is what makes you a cold and unattractive individual.

Well if you want to spend your time working for the benefit of ours fair play to you but the others you are working to benefit are really working to benefit themselves. They'll end up at the top and you'll end up with nothing.

And you think that cold, hard, dispassionate, economics is going to offer dissident Republicans the reason they need to desist from political violence?

No but it can undermine their beliefs, persuade people away from their cause and make them irrelevant.

I know that he was a British economist whose ideas have fundamentally affected the theory and practice of modern macroeconomics, and that in being an economist he was also a dull, boring and uninteresting character.

*facepalm* He is the father of modern economics and a primary influence in leftist thought. An ideology you admire. It's also telling you dismiss David Ricardo when he was one of the many influences on Marx.

If you don't understand Keynes or his work I don't expect you to grasp the meaning of my quote.

I just wish you'd stop using the term "amalgamation", and stop viewing Irish reunification form such a cold, clinical and dispassionate perspective. It's not all about economics and the capitalist exploitation of the proletariat. In my Socialist Ireland the capitalist class shall be made redundant.

Language is a very important tool in politics. By saying unification I would be implying that Ireland is one country to unify. But by using the term "amalgamation" I'm implying that Ireland is two separate countries and the joining of the two would be the joining of two separate countries into a reversible arrangement.

Question, what would happen to Actuaries in your socialist Ireland?


Stay positive, as always. :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]