Towards a United Ireland

junder

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.

Most borders are artificially drawn, it's the way of the world, argue the toss about the legitimacy all you want not going to change a thing. The border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland is a internationally recognised border. Northern Ireland is an international recognised country. Northern Ireland's is internationally recognised to be part of the UK er go British soil. Of course in reality i am being slightly obtuse but then when you start talking about 'soil' you kind of deserve it.

Bertie Woot

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?

Under the terms of the GFA all of the citizens of NI can choose a British or Irish passport. If Junder insists that his nationality is British and definitely not Irish, then he's naturally going to choose a British passport thus identifying himself as a British not Irish citizen. But the fact that he was born in a part of the UK called "Northern Ireland" means that he is also Northern Irish, and I am all too aware of the subtle but fundamental difference between professing to be Irish or Northern Irish, as in saying that you are "Northern Irish" you are essentially saying that you are British, as NI is a part of the UK and the British state.

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?

The line is not imaginary, it is real. It is the line's legitimacy which has been in question. You are Irish and have rejected Britishness not UK'ness, and like junder who rejects his Irishness, you are free to do that. You are not forced to recognise or accept anything, but it would be foolish not to recognise the fact that all of the people of NI have dual nationality, in that they are both British and Irish, as NI is on the isalnd of Ireland but is also a constituent country of the UK, with most citizens choosing to describe themselves in terms of one of these nationalities and not the other, and this is a product of historical national and political allegiances, with most Unionists describing themselves as "British, and most Nationalist's "Irish".

I choose to describe myself as "British-Irish" in a similar sense to Americans who describe themselves as "Irish-Americans", or alternatively, "Irish with British ancestry", and without fear of contradiction, knowing that I am being truthful and comprehensive about my ancestral national origins and my land of birth. I have no desire to play down my Britishness or accentuate my Irishness or vice versa. I wish to be nothing more than accurate, and hope that most Protestants in NI shall also come to terms with and accept the fact that they were born on the island of Ireland, not Great Britain.

Bertie Woot

junder wrote: »

Most borders are artificially drawn, it's the way of the world, argue the toss about the legitimacy all you want not going to change a thing. The border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland is a internationally recognised border. Northern Ireland is an international recognised country. Northern Ireland's is internationally recognised to be part of the UK er go British soil. Of course in reality i am being slightly obtuse but then when you start talking about 'soil' you kind of deserve it.

NI is not on British "soil", it is however very much on Irish "soil". The Malvinas aka Falkland islands are not on British soil, they are a British Overseas Territory (BOT) occupied by British settlers. Gibraltar too is not on British soil, it is a BOT and contains people who regard themselves as British, and like the Malvinas it is not part of Great Britain or even the UK. You are not being "obtuse", I understand you perfectly; you cannot or will not accept that your birth took place in Ireland and not Great Britain, and that comes from the Ulster Unionist allegiance and outdated and redundant loyalty to Great Britain, a sovereign state who doesn't want them.

junder

Bertie Woot wrote: »

NI is not on British "soil", it is however very much on Irish "soil". The Malvinas aka Falkland islands are not on British soil, they are a British Overseas Territory (BOT) occupied by British settlers. Gibraltar too is not on British soil, it is a BOT and contains people who regard themselves as British, and like the Malvinas it is not part of Great Britain or even the UK. You are not being "obtuse", I understand you perfectly; you cannot or will not accept that your birth took place in Ireland and not Great Britain, and that comes from the Ulster Unionist allegiance and outdated and redundant loyalty to Great Britain, a sovereign state who doesn't want them.

Your right I don't accept I was born on Irish soil

Bertie Woot

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

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.

Who said the ROI's claims were illegal? And on what basis?

Unification shall and in fact should only come about via democratic and indeed peaceful means, and the PIRA's armed campaign didn't work out for them and they had no option but to abandon violence and create a peace process, but Dissidents view the GFA and the peace it created as a legitimisation of partition and a sustainment of the Unionist veto and therefore Britain's hold on the 6 counties, and they shall continue to resist what they view as "British occupation" in arms. While this island is divided there shall always be some threat or level of Republican violence.

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.

Let's see what happens.

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?

I see no need to accept your apology, as I was not offended. You were far off the mark, but given that many Republicans and Nationalists did support the PIRA campaign, there is no need to make an issue of your lack of discernment.

You must remember that you are talking with someone who comes from the PUL community in Belfast, and who lived through the PIRA's campaign. I supported neither side in the conflict, viewing it as working class Republicans murdering working class Unionists and Loyalists and vice versa, and I was just as condemnatory of Loyalist violence throughout their tit-for-tat murderous escapade as I was of the Provisional IRA.

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.

No. Partition created the border and the border created majorities and minorities on both sides of it. Partition most certainly did not 'minimise the numbers of minorities on both sides of the border'. You are all arse about face on this one, and like your woeful inability to grasp the excruciatingly simple concept that an ethnicity is not the same as a nationality or a nation in relation to the Ulster-Scots, you seem to be sliding towards another senseless, round-a-bout, complete waste of time argument, this time on partition.

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.

Partition is "artificial". Reunification, not 'amalgamation' (terrible word) shall remove this artifice, and create the conditions for the joining together of two sets of infrastructure which are currently gratuitous, cumbersome and unnecessary, into one. This shall pave the way for a single, unified and stronger economy which both communities can benefit from. The coming together of the two tribes within NI is merely groundwork and preparation for the removal of partition. Your sentiments regarding partition are defeatist in nature, and not ones which I can admire or lend an iota of sympathy to.

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.

And that is absurd, as Northern Nationalists are just as Irish as you. In fact more so, as they are patriotic, haven't ceded territory, have not accepted partition, and possess the values, principles, morality, sense of propriety and courage to seek to remove it.

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

That's just a euphemistic way of saying "I am selfish".

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.

Money makes your world go round, as you are a selfish, narrow-minded, right-wing supporter of capitalism; the ideology of selfishness, ruthlessness and greed, and your attitude towards partition thus far bears this out.

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.

With your capitalist ideology you consistently fail to grasp that in a Socialist UI everyone shall be working for the benefit of eachother. Selfish, money power and status obsessed bourgeois elitists like you shall be at the very bottom of the dung heap; consigned to history as relics of a primitive and thankfully bygone era.

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

Wishful thinking.

*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 understand that Keynesian economists urge and justify a government's intervention in the economy through public policies that aim to achieve full employment and price stability. I am aware that their ideas have greatly influenced governments the world over in accepting their responsibility to provide full or near full employment through measures such as deficit spending that stimulate aggregate demand.

I'm also aware that economics and mathematics and anything remotely related to money and numbers has consistently bored me to tears for years, and people who are very interested in economics are some of the most tedious, mind-numbing, spirit-crushing and soul destroying individuals on the planet.

Language is a very important tool in politics.

No sh*t, Sherlock.

By saying unification I would be implying that Ireland is one country to unify.

No you wouldn't, you'd be implying that Ireland is two separate countries to unify. How can you unify one country, which by definition is already unified? Please, no waffly, circular arguments.

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.

There is no mention of "reversible" in any definition of "amalgamation", and the 'arrangement' that I have in mind is an irreversible reunification. The 26 county ROI has had an irreversible independence this last 92 years. I have no desire to change that with reunification and the establishment of a 32 county independent Republic.

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

There would be a new socioeconomic system in place different to capitalism, so a nerd's utility value would be assessed. If it was found that we needed nerds (actuaries), like you, they'd be tolerated.

Godge

Bertie Woot wrote: »

NI is not on British "soil", it is however very much on Irish "soil". The Malvinas aka Falkland islands are not on British soil, they are a British Overseas Territory (BOT) occupied by British settlers. Gibraltar too is not on British soil, it is a BOT and contains people who regard themselves as British, and like the Malvinas it is not part of Great Britain or even the UK. You are not being "obtuse", I understand you perfectly; you cannot or will not accept that your birth took place in Ireland and not Great Britain, and that comes from the Ulster Unionist allegiance and outdated and redundant loyalty to Great Britain, a sovereign state who doesn't want them.

Since I was born on this island (Dublin), which is part of the British Isles, does that entitle me to call myself British? Seeing as the other island is Great Britain (which you accept, therefore implicitly accepting the notion of the British Isles, otherwise you would use the nomenclature "Britain" for that island), shouldn't we rename our island as "Lesser Britain, also known as Ireland"

marienbad

Bertie Woot wrote: »

NI is not on British "soil", it is however very much on Irish "soil". The Malvinas aka Falkland islands are not on British soil, they are a British Overseas Territory (BOT) occupied by British settlers. Gibraltar too is not on British soil, it is a BOT and contains people who regard themselves as British, and like the Malvinas it is not part of Great Britain or even the UK. You are not being "obtuse", I understand you perfectly; you cannot or will not accept that your birth took place in Ireland and not Great Britain, and that comes from the Ulster Unionist allegiance and outdated and redundant loyalty to Great Britain, a sovereign state who doesn't want them.

Jeez Bertie ! I would hate if you were in charge !

For a guy that was afraid to visit the republic until recently you do have some very decided views on who what and where we should all be labelled.

Time to give the books a rest and go mingle with your fellow inhabitants of this little island however they designate themselves.

Bertie Woot

junder wrote: »

Your right I don't accept I was born on Irish soil

You were born in Ireland. Admittedly, a part of Ireland which is part of the UK. But it is a part of and on the island of Ireland, and regardless of whether you regard yourself as British, an Ulsterman, or a descendant of the ancient Cruthin or Norse Vikings. You are Irish by virtue of the fact that you were born in Ireland.

Royal Irish Regiment.

Northern Ireland.

Irish League, Irish cup final ....Northern Ireland Football Club ...

Ulster is in Ireland ...

Bertie Woot

Godge wrote: »

Since I was born on this island (Dublin), which is part of the British Isles, does that entitle me to call myself British? Seeing as the other island is Great Britain (which you accept, therefore implicitly accepting the notion of the British Isles, otherwise you would use the nomenclature "Britain" for that island), shouldn't we rename our island as "Lesser Britain, also known as Ireland"

If you want to belittle and degrade Ireland, go right ahead. If you're one of those fancy "West Brits" I've been hearing about, this would explain things. :rolleyes:

marienbad wrote: »

Jeez Bertie ! I would hate if you were in charge !

For a guy that was afraid to visit the republic until recently you do have some very decided views on who what and where we should all be labelled.

Time to give the books a rest and go mingle with your fellow inhabitants of this little island however they designate themselves.

Good Lord, no. I may be in favour of Irish reunification, but nowhere have I stated any remote desire to risk cultural contamination by socialising with the indigenous native Irish populace. The British part of my British-Irish dual nationality just won't allow it!

For the humourless: this was a Protestant supremacist joke, and in very poor taste.

Godge

Bertie Woot wrote: »

If you want to belittle and degrade Ireland, go right ahead. If you're one of those fancy "West Brits" I've been hearing about, this would explain things. :rolleyes:

Wait a minute.

You were the one who used the term "Great Britain". If you use that term, it implies there are other Britains (not Great). If you had used the plain term "Britain", there would be no such implication.

Your usage of the terms and clear acceptance of the term therefore implies that you accept the validity of the term "British Isles" which includes this island. When added to your view that you can only be from somewhere you were born, that means that anyone born on this island can claim to be British by virtue of the fact that they were born on the British Isles.

So, either change your usage of the term "Great Britain" or accept that I can call myself British.

In fact who are you to tell me what I identify with. I watch Royal Weddings, I watch Coronation Street, I watch Britain's Got Talent, I shop in Marks and Spencer, Tesco, Next and PC World. I have SKY television. I am probably more British than the British themselves - just have to start eating chicken curry instead of roast beef.

I find it hard to stomach those who insist on a "pure" national identity. If someone born in Dublin, identifies himself as British, why is that a problem?

Godge

Bertie Woot wrote: »

You were born in Ireland. Admittedly, a part of Ireland which is part of the UK. But it is a part of and on the island of Ireland, and regardless of whether you regard yourself as British, an Ulsterman, or a descendant of the ancient Cruthin or Norse Vikings. You are Irish by virtue of the fact that you were born in Ireland.

Royal Irish Regiment.

Northern Ireland.

Irish League, Irish cup final ....Northern Ireland Football Club ...


Ulster is in Ireland ...

But they are all part of the British Isles, legitimising the sense of Britishness.

Iwasfrozen

Bertie Woot wrote: »

You were born in Ireland. Admittedly, a part of Ireland which is part of the UK. But it is a part of and on the island of Ireland, and regardless of whether you regard yourself as British, an Ulsterman, or a descendant of the ancient Cruthin or Norse Vikings. You are Irish by virtue of the fact that you were born in Ireland.

Royal Irish Regiment.

Northern Ireland.

Irish League, Irish cup final ....Northern Ireland Football Club ...

Ulster is in Ireland ...

You might as well call a Spanish person Iberian...

WakeUp

Bertie Woot wrote: »

In other words, I am now unable to trust you

That is quite alright trust is something earned not given it would be naive of you to trust somebody that you dont know.

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.

Ah here leave it out will take me a few mins to recover from the bout of laughter your new constituional demands have induced. My motives for potential unification are clear. If you care to read back over my posts highlighting any inconsistencies within my position and how Ive articulated it be my guest.

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.

There is never any harm in testing waters and talking. You seem to have a foot in "both" camps or at the very least an indepth understanding and ability to see things from both sides of the fence, an interesting if a little unique position to be in If a united Ireland does come about and negotiations begin between my government and the British representing unionsm, I would expect nothing less than the unionists to turn up with all sorts of interesting demands. It would be expected As you point out, in the unionist mindset they believe the union is safer than its ever been so why would they play a weak hand if the time to sit down and talk came about. Establishing communication is good like Ive already said you seem to have a foot both camps, communication to both shouldnt be a problem for you

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.

And I could argue that your prosposal was ridiculous from the offset and we never even reached square one but I dont think either of us want to do that though, weve done that.

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.

Iwasfrozen

Bertie Woot wrote: »

Who said the ROI's claims were illegal? And on what basis?

Extraterritorial claims are illegal under international law.

Unification shall and in fact should only come about via democratic and indeed peaceful means, and the PIRA's armed campaign didn't work out for them and they had no option but to abandon violence and create a peace process, but Dissidents view the GFA and the peace it created as a legitimisation of partition and a sustainment of the Unionist veto and therefore Britain's hold on the 6 counties, and they shall continue to resist what they view as "British occupation" in arms. While this island is divided there shall always be some threat or level of Republican violence.

Patrick Pearse famously stated "Ireland unfree shall never be at peace" I disagree with this premise. Never is a very long time and no one can predict past the foreseeable future.

Instead of giving these terrorists a platform to voice their concerns we should meet them only with silence. Meanwhile increase government funding to education and poorer parts of urban areas. Meanwhile move forward with further integration in Northern Ireland. Bring young catholics into protestant schools to undermine the hate being lobbied on both sides. In reality if the IRA see their campaign as being ineffective their members become disillusioned with lack of success they will fall away if they can't recruit from a new softened, educated catholic population.

Give people goals of their own and a future to work for an they will be less likely to throw their lives away fighting for nut cases like the Ra.

You must remember that you are talking with someone who comes from the PUL community in Belfast, and who lived through the PIRA's campaign. I supported neither side in the conflict, viewing it as working class Republicans murdering working class Unionists and Loyalists and vice versa, and I was just as condemnatory of Loyalist violence throughout their tit-for-tat murderous escapade as I was of the Provisional IRA.

You're right about working class loyalists and working class catholics, that's why we need to increase education and give these children something to work for. Make the next generation part of the establishment and they won't risk their lives to over throw it.

No. Partition created the border and the border created majorities and minorities on both sides of it. Partition most certainly did not 'minimise the numbers of minorities on both sides of the border'. You are all arse about face on this one, and like your woeful inability to grasp the excruciatingly simple concept that an ethnicity is not the same as a nationality or a nation in relation to the Ulster-Scots, you seem be sliding towards another senseless, round-a-bout, complete waste of time argument, this time on partition.

Had partition not happened 100% of Ulster unionists would have been dissatisfied. Had independence not happened 100% of nationalists would have been dissatisfied. Partition was the best solution. It minimised the number of people dissatisfied on either side of the border.

Partition is "artificial". Reunification, not 'amalgamation' (terrible word) shall remove this artifice, and create the conditions for the joining together of two sets of infrastructure which are currently gratuitous, cumbersome and unnecessary, into one. This shall pave the way for a single, unified and stronger economy which both communities can benefit from. The coming together of the two tribes within NI is merely groundwork and preparation for the removal of partition. Your sentiments regarding partition are defeatist in nature, and not ones which I can admire or lend an iota of sympathy to.

The Irish and Ulster Scots are two separate people, with separate value and customs. We do not belong in the same country and the result will be the total cultural absorption (euphemism for annihilation) of your people. All for the dubious and frankly unclear goal of creating a single set of infrastructure.

But you are aware the two governments plan their shared infrastructure together right? If we want a motorway to go from Belfast to Dublin we don't just guess where it will meet at the border. That's already pre planned.

And that is absurd, as Northern Nationalists are just as Irish as you. In fact more so, as they are patriotic, haven't ceded territory, have not accepted partition, and possess the values, principles, morality, sense of propriety and courage to seek to remove it.

There are tiers of Irishness? What are the tiers and who classifies?

That's just a euphemistic way of saying "I am selfish".

I didn't say it wasn't.

Money makes your world go round, as you are a selfish, narrow-minded, right-wing supporter of capitalism; the ideology of selfishness, ruthlessness and greed, and your attitude towards partition thus far bears this out.

When everyone works to their own interest, the entire group benefits.

With your capitalist ideology you consistently fail to grasp that in a Socialist UI everyone shall be working for the benefit of eachother. Selfish, money power and status obsessed bourgeois elitists like you shall be at the very bottom of the dung heap; consigned to history as relics of a primitive and thankfully bygone era.

So where is the incentive to work? Why not just piggy back off the work of others? Why would anyone become a doctor? Or an academic? Or an accountant? Or an actuary? Or any of the other many jobs that require a lot of frankly hard work.

I understand that Keynesian economists urge and justify a government's intervention in the economy through public policies that aim to achieve full employment and price stability. I am aware that their ideas have greatly influenced governments the world over in accepting their responsibility to provide full or near full employment through measures such as deficit spending that stimulate aggregate demand.

Exactly, but it's more then just price stability. It's about maintaining investment, keeping the wheels of industry turning and cooling the natural business cycle of boom and burst. Keynesianism is the only show in town.

I'm also aware that economics and mathematics and anything remotely related to money and numbers has consistently bored me to tears for years, and people who are very interested in economics are some of the most tedious, mind-numbing, spirit-crushing and soul destroying individuals on the planet.

How do you plan to make a socialist economy work without maths?! Are you in favour of a centrally planned economy? The Soviets devised hundreds of extremely complicated formulae during their time in power.

If you don't favour a centrally planned economy you are going to need to devise a whole new economic system and for that you're going to need lots of what you insultingly described as nerds. Don't expect much help from them though if you describe them as "bourgeois elites" who are to be thrown on the dung heap after you finish with them.

No you wouldn't, you'd be implying that Ireland is two separate countries to unify. How can you unify one country, which by definition is already unified? Please, no waffly, circular arguments.

It's the implication that is important. People talk about German unification, and Korean unification the implication being Germany and Korea have always been one country divided. This is present in the back of people's minds but when I say amalgamation it brings up the image of business amalgamation, as in the joining together of two separate business's who have never been one.

There would be a new socioeconomic system in place different to capitalism, so a nerd's utility value would be assessed. If it was found that we needed nerds (actuaries), like you, they'd be tolerated.

Tolerated? Well that's nice of you. What about an actuaries status? How would that be maintained? If it wasn't then why would I bother working for you and not just fecking off to England? Or would I be free to leave the country in your socialist utopia?

Bertie Woot

Godge wrote: »

Wait a minute.

You were the one who used the term "Great Britain". If you use that term, it implies there are other Britains (not Great). If you had used the plain term "Britain", there would be no such implication.

That bit I bolded - that had me in tears. Priceless. And I hope you said it tongue in cheek, because if you were being serious, it's probably best that I leave you to your own devices.

I used the term "Great Britain", as that is what that island to the east of Ireland is called, or more accurately, that is what the British have chosen to call their island. You can believe this or not: I was not present at the christening and thus had no input in name choice.

Your usage of the terms and clear acceptance of the term therefore implies that you accept the validity of the term "British Isles" which includes this island.

Embarrassingly presumptuous and erroneous deduction.

When added to your view that you can only be from somewhere you were born

Are you sure about this? :rolleyes:

...that means that anyone born on this island can claim to be British by virtue of the fact that they were born on the British Isles.

You say you live in Dublin? How many people born in Dublin regard themselves as British?

The 'British isles' is an outdated terminology once used to refer to both Ireland and 'Great Britain' (again, the British' chose to call their island this, not me) pre-1921, when we had "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland". As the ROI has had independence for 92 years and the UK is now the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" (not Ireland), the term "British isles" should really be dropped from popular vocabulary and usage, as it is no longer applicable and is thus irrelevant. The same could be said for "OBE" - Order of British empire, as there is no more British empire. What he have is a commonwealth of nations, and therefore the term OBE is outdated and redundant.

Having said that, if you or anyone else born in the ROI wish to call yourselves "British", go right ahead, then listen to the sound of stifled laughter.

So, either change your usage of the term "Great Britain" or accept that I can call myself British.

I call Great Britain 'Great Britain' because that is what it is officially called. You can call yourself 'British' if you want, and I am free to titter.

In fact who are you to tell me what I identify with. I watch Royal Weddings, I watch Coronation Street, I watch Britain's Got Talent, I shop in Marks and Spencer, Tesco, Next and PC World. I have SKY television. I am probably more British than the British themselves - just have to start eating chicken curry instead of roast beef.

If you wore a Union Jack t-shirt, owned a British bulldog, and got a tattoo of Queen Elizabeth II on your forehead, you'd still be Irish by virtue of the fact that you were born in Ireland not Britain, and regardless of whether you want to refer to Ireland as a 'British isle' or not.

I find it hard to stomach those who insist on a "pure" national identity. If someone born in Dublin, identifies himself as British, why is that a problem?

It's a problem because they were born in Dublin, Ireland, which is not a part of the UK, is not in Great Britain, and is therefore not British.

If I wanted to call myself French or German I'd experience similar problems.

Noreen1

Bertie Woot wrote: »

It seems that Irish and Nationalist sources typically play down the numbers slaughtered, whilst British and sympathetic to Unionism sources perhaps over-estimate them. Of course the exact numbers shall always be a matter of contention.

That does seem to be the case - which is why I believe the history syllabus should be revamped, and an impartial and unbiased one substituted.

Bertie Woot wrote: »

In a secular Irish society religion wouldn't be outlawed or banned. People shall still have a right to practice any religion of their choice, but theologians, monotheists and religionists in general shall just not have the same power, status and control over people that they did in the Roman Catholic Church dominated Ireland of the past. Ireland should rise above and far beyond the oppressive grip the devious and corrupt men of superstition have had on the Irish people.

You must know that people who practice religion generally find their morals correspond broadly with the teachings of that religion.
Getting those people to live by those morals can be more difficult.
For example, ask any Christian (or most religions, for that matter) whether they think it's wrong to steal, and they'll say "yes" - yet many will think nothing of selling a faulty item for more than it's worth, or keeping money that has been lost, etc.
At the end of they day, though, either option is theft.

So, should such people be denied the right to have what is morally right written into their laws, even though they've failed to observe the moral teaching themselves?

In other words, should a just and fair law be invalidated, because some people who profess a particular faith, don't observe that law?

At the end of the day, we live in a Democratic Country, and whereas it is right and fair to recognise the rights and needs of minorities, I don't believe that achieving equality for minorities is best served by removing any hint of religion from legislature. That's a very slippery slope - and, one which, if taken too far, can erode the rights of the majority of citizens, and cause more problems and resentment than it is intended to fix.

Bertie Woot wrote: »

The Roman Catholic Church and its hierarchy have the power that the people (parishioners) have provided them with by their acquiescence. Even today, despite the large numbers of people coming forward to report catalogues of sexual abuse at the hands of RC Priests, many Catholics are still terrified of speaking out, as the footsoldiers of "their faith" have instilled such a fear of opposing the RC hierarchy within them that they are virtually paralyzed by it. It should also be noted that it is now common knowledge that the RCC has gone to extreme lengths to conceal the physical, psychological, emotional and sexual abuse which has been perpetrated by many of its so-called "Priests".

That's news to me. I have no fear whatsoever of the Catholic hierarchy, have discussed my repugnance at the abuses committed by some priests/nuns quite openly and bluntly with more than one priest - and have spoken to some victims, for whom I have nothing but sympathy - and I most certainly have not, and would not, attempt to instill fear in any victim. That's disgusting, and is not something any Catholic should do - nor is it contained anywhere in the Cathechism, or teachings of the church.

Having said that, you clearly believe what you have written, and yet, I have to wonder at your source for these "many" Catholics, who are too terrified to speak. If they're that terrified that they haven't spoken, how do you know how many there are?
I have no doubt that there are victims who have not come forward, for a variety of reasons - but I have considerable difficulty in accepting that the reason is that they are "terrified" of the "footsoldiers" you refer to!

Bertie Woot wrote: »

I'm also aware of the fact that besides the RCC being regarded as "the largest organised paedophile ring in the world" by many, it has been proven that the Vatican contains an internal gay network. Another fact that the RCC has attempted to suppress:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/pope-resignation-linked-gay-conclave-report-article-1.1271328

...and that many gay Priests have had sex parties within the Vatican. I'm also aware of the fact that the Pope's abject failure to act upon the worldwide child sexual abuse scandal and his knowledge of this gay network within the Vatican compelled him to resign.

I'm aware of the allegations. So what? Yet another abuse of power shocker!
Tell me, how does that mean that the ordinary decent Catholic is "outside the boundaries of good taste, respectability, and social acceptability"?
You used the term "Catholicism" - not "those members of the Catholic hierarchy" who either perpetrated, or covered up, some heinous crimes.

Bertie Woot wrote: »

I'm also aware of the fact that long ago the RCC had the audacity to provide these (sub) human Priests (mere immorals not mortals) with the power to forgive "sins" and to charge financially and materially poor Catholics sums of money to make the RCC rich. That on its own was sufficient to cause revolt and pave the way for Protestantism.

A: The power to forgive sin has a biblical source, but I see no point in discussing the different interpretations of the Catholic and Protestant faiths, since it has nothing to do with a United Ireland.

B: Certainly the simony issue helped paved the way for Protestantism, which, ironically, then paved the way for some of those who wanted reform to go on to perpetrate abuses of power, while using the reformed religion as an excuse.

ie. It's amazing how Religion can be warped and abused by those with a lust for power or riches. The thing is, it would be wrong to blame the Religion itself, for the acts perpetrated in the name of that Religion, but which are against it's teachings.
Those acts are caused by the failure to live up to the teachings of the Religion -not by the Religion itself.

Bertie Woot wrote: »

Now that the RCC has hit the very bottom rung on the ladder of respectability and credibility, I see no point in offering a single segment of sympathy to a religious institution with so much exposed scandal contained within its borders, and the reputation of which has been virtually destroyed by the nefarious activities of its own Priests and the failure of the great majority of its adherents to offer any effective resistance to what was being done to ordinary decent Catholics behind a facade of piousness and sanctimoniousness, and in the name of a supernatural "God".

Would you like to tell me how they great majority of it's adherents should have offered resistance to something that they had no knowledge of, bearing in mind that the victims have only made their stories public relatively recently?

Bertie Woot wrote: »

That is not "Religious intolerance of the kind that has caused endless heartbreak in NI for too many generations". It is opening up your eyes, getting off your knees, and recognising and condemning the gross misconduct of the hypocritical Roman Catholic men of cloth, who have abused their position of authority, respect and trust within a religious institution which effectively acted as a vehicle for access to the vulnerable by sexual deviants.

That is absolutely religious intolerance.
You have quite casually inferred that Catholics were uncaring of the plight of children, and that they remain blind (while on their knees, mind you!) to the misconduct of some of the hierarchy.

For the record, the eyes of the Catholic congregation (who, as I have explained, are the Catholic church) are well and truly open, and said congregation have condemned the wrongdoing vocally. It's just that "ordinary Joe" tends not to get airtime, or interviewed by the local rag, either.

Furthermore, the only time this particular Catholic goes on her knees is to pray to God - not to blithely ignore or accept the vile behaviour of some people who call themselves Catholic.

I think you've been reading a lot of reports, and making a lot of assumptions - without bothering to check what the majority of Catholics actually think or feel - and that, I'm sorry to say, is religious intolerance, or, more accurately, perhaps, religious bias.

Bertie Woot wrote: »

I don't care if it was paedophiles who gravitated towards a career within the the RCC, viewing it as a convenient means to easy access to children, or if it was the oppressive "law of celibacy", causing a suppression of the libido, which in turn coerced many RC Priests to take sexual advantage of children. What they did in large numbers and collectively attempted to cover up was WRONG, in every single sense of the word WRONG, and the many who who have been caught and have appeared in court on charges of child abuse are simply the tip of a very large iceberg, of that you can be certain.

Sorry for the rant, but this is something I feel very strongly about, and it is relevant to this discussion on a united Ireland.

Of course it was wrong, by any and every moral standard.
It was a reprehensible abuse of power and trust, and every one of those who abused people in such a way should have the full rigor of the law applied in bringing them to justice. I'd personally support sending such people to jail for the rest of their natural lives.

I don't agree, however, that it is pertinent to a discussion on a UI - since your feelings on the matter are echoed by ordinary decent Catholics (and pretty much every decent person, Catholic or otherwise) the length and breadth of the Country - hence, the only thing to be discussed is why you feel that Catholics think any differently to you about the matter.

Bertie Woot wrote: »

The Roman Catholic Church has effectively been a den of iniquity, and many of "its people" have been subjected to the most horrendous abuse at the hands of the RCC "hierarchy", whilst others have remained silent out of a fear instilled within them by that hierarchy.

A Church like that needs "its people" to fully liberate it from such malevolence before it can ever "play a part in a United Ireland that is free, and respects the Culture and Religion of all it's citizens".

Some members of the Church have been exactly what you describe - and others have been outstanding examples of caring and compassion, and love for their fellow man.

There is no doubt in my mind that any large group of people will have some singularly nasty individuals among them. So how do we deal with the nasty individuals who are, say, teachers, or policemen, or businessmen?
Do we just get rid of every teacher, policeman, or businesman?

Bertie Woot wrote: »

The imperialist countries eg. Britain, America et al., who have written the history books shall continue to peddle the misconception and the lie that empire was great and glorious. The brutal and immoral behaviour of many British soldiers in many of its former colonies testifies to the fact that empire was much less than "glorious". It was the wholesale invasion, conquest and rape of nations, and many of the atrocities the British committed have been attempted to be swept under the carpet.

The British government through their actions, or more accurately, neglect, apathy and lack of action, caused the deaths of more than one million Irish people during the "the Great Famine", which has been described as an act of "genocide" intentionally conducted by the British as means of ethnically cleansing Ireland of its indigenous inhabitants; a people who they looked upon as ethnically, culturally and socially inferior. The British are guilty of similar cruel actions under empire in other countries throughout the world.

The truth is, the British empire was built upon the corpses of millions of Asians, Africans and native Americans. Praising British empire would be like praising the actions of Genghis Khan, Joseph Stalin or Adolph Hitler. The greatest genocide of the 20th century was not Auschwitz, it was the Bengal famine in India as late as 1943, which was caused by English atrocities committed upon the indigenous Bengali people.

Do the British acknowledge and seek atonement for the crimes of empire? Hell no, they keep their heads placed firmly up their pompous asses and continue as normal pretending that nothing ever happened. If there was ever a nation in denial about its tyrannical and brutal past, it is England:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/apr/23/british-empire-crimes-ignore-atrocities



Fine and upstanding imperialist invaders and colonisers who possessed breathtaking arrogance and a disturbing sense of entitlement.

No argument there, though I wouldn't have been quite as vehement about it as you are.

Bertie Woot wrote: »

Wow, that's quite a romantic, rebellious past. So glad you sheltered the wee Protestants. Like you've acknowledged, they were "manipulated" in being brought to Ireland, and many did become Republicans and gave their lives for Irish freedom, whose names I've listed in a previous post.

I wouldn't claim my family sheltered all the "wee Protestants". I do, however, believe that I have a right to feel proud of the last incident, where the man was falsely accused of wrongdoing, because that particular man wasn't a Nationalist, he was one of the landlords servants, and, as such, there was considerable risk involved in helping him.
I think it's important to acknowledge that there were people, on both sides, who were capable of being humane, and not reacting with complete intolerance to someone just because of their Nationality or Faith.

That's the part that gets ignored, and it perpetuates the myth that all of "the other side" were evil so and so's. Some certainly were - but not all, by any means.

Bertie Woot wrote: »

They sure did. A man who goes with his conscience and stands up for what he believes in has my respect.

A coming together is inevitable and desirable. I mean, we can't go on emphasising our differences without acknowledging the great many similarities and shared life experiences that the two tribes have had. Also, our essential humanity.

Absolutely

feargale

Godge wrote: »

Since I was born on this island (Dublin), which is part of the British Isles, does that entitle me to call myself British? Seeing as the other island is Great Britain (which you accept, therefore implicitly accepting the notion of the British Isles, otherwise you would use the nomenclature "Britain" for that island), shouldn't we rename our island as "Lesser Britain, also known as Ireland"

Or rename the neighbouring island "Greater Ireland"? While nomenclature is not a life and death issue, let's get a few things straight. The term "Great Britain" ( la Grand Bretagne, actually ) was first used by King James I of England ( VI of Scotland) in the wake of the union of the two crowns, to distinguish the territory so called from "Britain" ( i.e. England and Wales.) In the Irish language Wales is called " an Bhreatain Bheag " ( i.e. " Little Britain.") While I don't know the etymology of the latter, I would think that the Irish name for Wales didn't happen accidentally, and was possibly used on the neighbouring island as well. "British Isles" is simply a geographical term to name a clearly defined archipelago. I could never understand the fuss over it. You may as well campaign to rename the Irish Sea as the Irish, English, Scottish, Welsh and Manx Sea. And as for the Indian Ocean ...........................!

Bertie Woot

WakeUp wrote: »

That is quite alright trust is something earned not given it would be naive of you to trust somebody that you dont know.

I know that you've been unreasonable in not considering the considerable compromise which I have made, and in doing so you have instilled suspicion and a lack of confidence within the Unionist community as to your motives for Irish reunification.

Ah here leave it out will take me a few mins to recover from the bout of laughter your new constituional demands have induced. My motives for potential unification are clear. If you care to read back over my posts highlighting any inconsistencies within my position and how Ive articulated it be my guest.

I haven't accused you of inconsistencies. You've been consistent throughout in sustaining your entrenched and self defeating position by consistently refusing to consider the insertion of an article within a reunification agreement which shall act as a protector against potential persecution of the Unionist people in a reunified Ireland, and because of this, I cannot and will not do business.

There is never any harm in testing waters and talking. You seem to have a foot in "both" camps or at the very least an indepth understanding and ability to see things from both sides of the fence, an interesting if a little unique position to be in If a united Ireland does come about and negotiations begin between my government and the British representing unionsm, I would expect nothing less than the unionists to turn up with all sorts of interesting demands. It would be expected As you point out, in the unionist mindset they believe the union is safer than its ever been so why would they play a weak hand if the time to sit down and talk came about. Establishing communication is good like Ive already said you seem to have a foot both camps, communication to both shouldnt be a problem for you

I have a foot in both camps in the sense that I was born and grew up within Unionism, understand Unionists, and have the Unionist people's interests at heart, and much more so than your average/typical Nationalist, no matter how seemingly well intentioned.

The fact is, we are in the peaceful and contemplative position we have been afforded today because the IRA's campaign of violence failed to achieve a united Ireland, and the Provos were forced to abandon the bomb and embrace the ballot box. We are not here today because the PIRA, after 30 years of relentless killing and bombing, suddenly developed empathy with Unionism and realised that the decent thing to do would be to stop acting as a fascist terrorist organisation whose sole raison d'etre was to murder British Unionists, Police Officers, British Army personnel and Loyalists, and instead listen to their pleas for desistance and to pursue a peaceful and democratic path to reunification.

No, we are afforded this discussion today because the Provisional IRA were essentially defeated, and what I find abhorrent is that after refusing to listen to public opinion for 30 years, they now feel that they can suddenly transform themselves from brutal murderers into 'gentle persuaders', and that Unionists can somehow be gently guided towards the united Ireland express and be expected to pay for their own ticket to Dublin.

Not gonna happen. First up, we want proper, heartfelt and earnest apologies for every IRA murder of every Protestant/Unionist/British Army member/RUC Officer/Prison Officer and everyone else those sc*mbags murdered during their vicious armed onslaught, and if possible, in the blood of Adams, McGuinness and perhaps Danny Morrison.

Then and only then will Unionism perhaps even begin to contemplate a UI, and I am being overly optimistic. And before you pounce, Loyalism issued a full apology and "full and abject remorse" for their murderous activity. No reciprocation from the PIRA, and it is now long overdue.

And I could argue that your prosposal was ridiculous from the offset and we never even reached square one but I dont think either of us want to do that though, weve done that.

I feel that my proposal was demanding, not ridiculous. But I did make a generous compromise, and you failed to repirocate. A UI is off the cards now until the next Irish reunification thread on boards.ie.

Bertie Woot

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Extraterritorial claims are illegal under international law.

But because the territory claimed was on the island of Ireland not the UK/British mainland, Dublin felt justified in sustaining their territorial claim, and they didn't remove arts 2 & 3 because of any alleged 'illegality', they did so to assist the NI peace process in the lead up to the GFA.

Patrick Pearse famously stated "Ireland unfree shall never be at peace" I disagree with this premise. Never is a very long time and no one can predict past the foreseeable future.

He's been correct so far.

Instead of giving these terrorists a platform to voice their concerns we should meet them only with silence. Meanwhile increase government funding to education and poorer parts of urban areas. Meanwhile move forward with further integration in Northern Ireland. Bring young catholics into protestant schools to undermine the hate being lobbied on both sides. In reality if the IRA see their campaign as being ineffective their members become disillusioned with lack of success they will fall away if they can't recruit from a new softened, educated catholic population.

Education, integration and lifting young Republicans out of ghetto mentality may or may not have the effect of preventing them entering the ranks of the Dissidents. It's important to remember that the PIRA had educated active service members eg. Mairead Farrell, a Queens University undergrad. I deplore Republican and indeed all violence just as much as you, but educating all Republican youth on the brutality and barbarism of political violence may not be enough to act as a deterrent to further Republican and indeed Loyalist retaliatory violence.

Whilst there is partition, there shall always be a cause for physical force Republicanism.

Give people goals of their own and a future to work for an they will be less likely to throw their lives away fighting for nut cases like the Ra.

Not everyone is as career oriented as you. Working class youth in Catholic areas of Belfast shall always be vulnerable to attraction to the more extreme element of Irish Republicanism, because it's ideologically sound and romantic.

You're right about working class loyalists and working class catholics, that's why we need to increase education and give these children something to work for. Make the next generation part of the establishment and they won't risk their lives to over throw it.

It's a great idea, but idealistic. Not all young Protestants and Catholics want to be part of "'the establishment'. I rebelled against it when I was a youth, and continue to do so today, and with a University education.

Had partition not happened 100% of Ulster unionists would have been dissatisfied. Had independence not happened 100% of nationalists would have been dissatisfied. Partition was the best solution. It minimised the number of people dissatisfied on either side of the border.

Arse about face again. :rolleyes: You have difficulty with concepts. Partition did not minimise anything. Partition created a geographical and psychological divide on the island, and it also created majorities and minorities on each side of that divide. Neither Nationalists nor Unionists wanted partition. None of them. Partition was a very last resort which both sides were fundamentally opposed to in principle. It was suggested and implemented as an emergency measure, an unwanted and unpopular compromise worked out by Collins and the British to deliver partial home rule which would eventually lead to independence, and to avert war which was being threatened by Unionism in the north.

The Irish and Ulster Scots are two separate people, with separate value and customs. We do not belong in the same country and the result will be the total cultural absorption (euphemism for annihilation) of your people. All for the dubious and frankly unclear goal of creating a single set of infrastructure.

We have separate cultures, but many shared values. I am all too aware of the deep divisions between Ulster Unionists (not Ulster-Scots, please, don't go there again) and Irish Nationalists. Our separate national, religious and cultural identities have been an age-old source of conflict, and although you say "We do not belong in the same country", we are on the same island and in the same country in NI, and the descendants of British colonial settlers in Ulster are not going to be repatriated back to Britain. It's not going to happen.

There are two divisions on this island; the division between north and south, and the division between two ethnicities within NI. Overcoming the divisions within NI is a necessary prerequisite before reunification can even be contemplated, as there would be no point in uniting Ireland to simply place the divisions in NI within an even wider context. So you can sleep sound in your bed at night knowing that unless the two tribes in NI overcome their differences and fully integrate, there is little likelihood of a UI. In other words, unless we achieve a united Northern Ireland, there is little prospect of a united Ireland.

And I for one shall never vote for a UI without sufficient safeguards, assurances and guarantees being built into a reunification agreement to fully protect the Unionist minority against the potential "annihilation" of which you speak.

But you are aware the two governments plan their shared infrastructure together right? If we want a motorway to go from Belfast to Dublin we don't just guess where it will meet at the border. That's already pre planned.

Okay. (?)

There are tiers of Irishness? What are the tiers and who classifies?

No tiers. There are patriotic Irishmen who haven't accepted partition, and then there are those who have.

When everyone works to their own interest, the entire group benefits.

Nonsense. The very nature of capitalism ensures that the entire group does not benefit, just the wealthy minority elite ie. the owners of the means of production aka the capitalist class.

So where is the incentive to work? Why not just piggy back off the work of others? Why would anyone become a doctor? Or an academic? Or an accountant? Or an actuary? Or any of the other many jobs that require a lot of frankly hard work.

There were no doctors, academics, accountants or other professions entailing hard work in the USSR or any other so-called Communist country?

Exactly, but it's more then just price stability. It's about maintaining investment, keeping the wheels of industry turning and cooling the natural business cycle of boom and burst. Keynesianism is the only show in town.

I prefer Marxism, but it has yet to be perfected in practice, with most former so-called Communist and Socialist societies having been little more than totalitarian fascist regimes. But there must be a practicable and practical alternative to capitalism, the ideology of exploitation and greed, which creates and sustains outrageous levels of social inequality in the midst of plenty.

How do you plan to make a socialist economy work without maths?! Are you in favour of a centrally planned economy? The Soviets devised hundreds of extremely complicated formulae during their time in power.

They also devised a collectivisation process and Stalin exterminated 20 million of his own people. Maths shall be taken care of by mathematicians, and because a proper Socialist oriented or utilitarian economy would work in the interests of everyone, and not just a parasitical capitalist elite, industries would be nationalised, state owned, and we'd thus have a centrally planned economy as opposed to a privatised capitalist economy, which has been proven to not work in the best interests of the majority of the people.

If you don't favour a centrally planned economy you are going to need to devise a whole new economic system and for that you're going to need lots of what you insultingly described as nerds. Don't expect much help from them though if you describe them as "bourgeois elites" who are to be thrown on the dung heap after you finish with them.

Capitalism and privatised industry does not work in the best interests of the majority. In order for social and economic objectives to be achieved, a central authority needs to make economic decisions, hence central planning. The state shall naturally take care of manufacturing and determine how much is produced, and without waiting for or being dependent upon private investment capital.

It's important to remember that most modern economies tend to be a mixture of centrally planned economies and market economies, with governments regulating and controlling some aspects of the economy and the private sector controlling others. In a proper Socialist or utilitarian economy, all industry shall be nationalised, with the state undertaking responsibility for a much fairer distribution of wealth than has been the case under capitalism.

It's the implication that is important. People talk about German unification, and Korean unification the implication being Germany and Korea have always been one country divided. This is present in the back of people's minds but when I say amalgamation it brings up the image of business amalgamation, as in the joining together of two separate business's who have never been one.

And that is because you are business-minded and tend to view even national phenomena from a business-like perspective, and devoid of passion, principles, values and morals et al. There is much more to a nation than the nature of its economy.

Tolerated? Well that's nice of you. What about an actuaries status? How would that be maintained? If it wasn't then why would I bother working for you and not just fecking off to England? Or would I be free to leave the country in your socialist utopia?

In my ideal Ireland, actuaries, insurance brokers, economists, mathematicians, statisticians et al. would be put in stocks thrice weekly and pelted with rotten vegetables in the village square, and for the benefit of all of the community, including themselves.

If you fancy fecking off to England, I don't think anyone shall obstruct you. I certainly won't, because I'm a nice man.

WakeUp

Bertie Woot wrote: »

I know that you've been unreasonable in not considering the considerable compromise which I have made, and in doing so you have instilled suspicion and a lack of confidence within the Unionist community as to your motives for Irish reunification.

I have done nothing of the sort the suspicion and lack of confidence you allude to is already there within your community self-confessed by yourself a couple of pages back and in other thoughts throught out this thread. Im also not sure how I could install a sense of suspicion within your commuinty unless you are speaking on all their behalf.

I haven't accused you of inconsistencies. You've been consistent throughout in sustaining your entrenched and self defeating position by consistently refusing to consider the insertion of an article within a reunification agreement which shall act as a protector against potential persecution of the Unionist people in a reunified Ireland, and because of this, I cannot and will not do business.

Rhetoric, the art of persuasion. See what you are doing wrong is applying a combination of aristotelian logic & formal logic to foreign policy when you need to be applying dialectical logic - treating thought as a reflection of objective reality. You are being unrealistic. Two men, Aristotle & Plato. Both had a fundamental difference of opinion when it came to the subject of rhetoric, the center stone of foreign policy. Aristotle believed peoples basic nature is good and rational. Plato believed people needed instruction and are susceptible to deception. When it comes to foreign policy, negotiiation and issues of national interest Im firmly in the corner of Plato.

I have a foot in both camps in the sense that I was born and grew up within Unionism, understand Unionists, and have the Unionist people's interests at heart, and much more so than your average/typical Nationalist, no matter how seemingly well intentioned.

The fact is, we are in the peaceful and contemplative position we have been afforded today because the IRA's campaign of violence failed to achieve a united Ireland, and the Provos were forced to abandon the bomb and embrace the ballot box. We are not here today because the PIRA, after 30 years of relentless killing and bombing, suddenly developed empathy with Unionism and realised that the decent thing to do would be to stop acting as a fascist terrorist organisation whose sole raison d'etre was to murder British Unionists, Police Officers, British Army personnel and Loyalists, and instead listen to their pleas for desistance and to pursue a peaceful and democratic path to reunification.

No, we are afforded this discussion today because the Provisional IRA were essentially defeated, and what I find abhorrent is that after refusing to listen to public opinion for 30 years, they now feel that they can suddenly transform themselves from brutal murderers into 'gentle persuaders', and that Unionists can somehow be gently guided towards the united Ireland express and be expected to pay for their own ticket to Dublin.

Not gonna happen. First up, we want proper, heartfelt and earnest apologies for every IRA murder of every Protestant/Unionist/British Army member/RUC Officer/Prison Officer and everyone else those sc*mbags murdered during their vicious armed onslaught, and if possible, in the blood of Adams, McGuinness and perhaps Danny Morrison.

Then and only then will Unionism perhaps even begin to contemplate a UI, and I am being overly optimistic. And before you pounce, Loyalism issued a full apology and "full and abject remorse" for their murderous activity. No reciprocation from the PIRA, and it is now long overdue.

I would put forward that unionism, well certain elements of it, are indeed begining to contemplate the idea of a united Ireland as evidenced by this thread. I have no idea why you felt the need to vent at me over provisional IRA acts and such things though judging by your delivery and detail of said vent I think you needed to get that off your chest and Im geuinely happy for you if you feel better I can see that you have the interests of the unionist community closest to heart and thats fine I respect that and would expect nothing less. Like you said all we are doing is testing the water and having a chat and there is no harm in that

I feel that my proposal was demanding, not ridiculous. But I did make a generous compromise, and you failed to repirocate. A UI is off the cards now until the next Irish reunification thread on boards.ie.

I feel your proposal was ridiculous and demanding. I think your compromise was somewhere in between the previous too. And I think your reverted stance with "an even tougher" condition added - right to British miliary intervention - was downright fooking hillarious Lets be realistic if the issue of a united Ireland is on the table and up for debate, it will be put upon the table when the Irish and British governments decide its on the table. My government will be negotiating on behalf of the Irish people on the entire island whilst the British will be negotiating for themselves and on behalf of the unionist/British people. A UI is off the cards until such a time as the Irish and British government decided its on the cards. And when and if it does come up for discussion not one party shall be dictating, demanding or insisting on anything. Or as you put though slightly differently, there shall be no business that needs doing

Iwasfrozen

Bertie Woot wrote: »

But because the territory claimed was on the island of Ireland not the UK/British mainland, Dublin felt justified in sustaining their territorial claim, and they didn't remove arts 2 & 3 because of any alleged 'illegality', they did so to assist the NI peace process in the lead up to the GFA.

Northern Ireland is/was very much a part of the British/UK mainland. The United Kingdom does not restrict itself to the island of Great Britain and extra territorial claims are illegal under international law. The Irish Republic never had any legal right to claim claim part of someone else's country.

He's been correct so far.

Give it time.

Education, integration and lifting young Republicans out of ghetto mentality may or may not have the effect of preventing them entering the ranks of the Dissidents. It's important to remember that the PIRA had educated active service members eg. Mairead Farrell, a Queens University undergrad. I deplore Republican and indeed all violence just as much as you, but educating all Republican youth on the brutality and barbarism of political violence may not be enough to act as a deterrent to further Republican and indeed Loyalist retaliatory violence.

Whilst there is partition, there shall always be a cause for physical force Republicanism.

On one hand you say education, integration and lifting young Republicans out of ghetto mentality may or may not have the effect of preventing them from engaging in criminal behaviour but then on the other hand you say (or threaten) that republicans will always engage in violence for as long as the border will remain in place? Well which is it?

You don't really believe the presence of the border is the real cause of violence, you're too smart for that. We need to work within the parameters of the status quo to educate youngsters and rehabilitate hardened criminals as they are instead of justifying their campaign by entertaining the thought of amalgamation.

Not everyone is as career oriented as you. Working class youth in Catholic areas of Belfast shall always be vulnerable to attraction to the more extreme element of Irish Republicanism, because it's ideologically sound and romantic.

A society that places little value on human life will experience problems with crime no matter what the cultural background. We need to place more emphasis on the lives of working class people, give them education and goals to strive for, let them know they can reach to the very top and they'll soon tell anyone who asks them to lay their lives on the line for romance where to stuff it.

It's a great idea, but idealistic. Not all young Protestants and Catholics want to be part of "'the establishment'. I rebelled against it when I was a youth, and continue to do so today, and with a University education.

But you're in the minority, as are in general the number of educated middle class people who rebel against the state. The goal here is to cut IRA recruitment out from under them and undermine their beliefs. A multi stage long program with the intent of killing off insurgency without bowing to their demands and potentially jeopardising both our countries in the process.

Arse about face again. :rolleyes: You have difficulty with concepts. Partition did not minimise anything. Partition created a geographical and psychological divide on the island, and it also created majorities and minorities on each side of that divide. Neither Nationalists nor Unionists wanted partition. None of them. Partition was a very last resort which both sides were fundamentally opposed to in principle. It was suggested and implemented as an emergency measure, an unwanted and unpopular compromise worked out by Collins and the British to deliver partial home rule which would eventually lead to independence, and to avert war which was being threatened by Unionism in the north.

I have little difficulty with most concepts believe me. Unionists never wanted to be in the Republic, that's why they are called unionists, they wanted all of Ireland to remain in the United Kingdom but for 100% of Ulster unionists to get their wish 100% of Irish nationalists had to be denied their wish of an independent Ireland.

On the other hand for 100% of Irish nationalists wanted an independent Ireland but for 100% of nationalists to get their wish 100% of unionists would have to be denied their wish.

The solution like all things lay in the middle. Split the country along an arbitrary border constructed in such a way as to maximise the number of Irish in the republic and the number of Ulster unionists in Northern Ireland. Similarly both minorities on either side of the border would have been minimised.

I'm not saying it was the perfect solution but it was the best that could have been created.

We have separate cultures, but many shared values. I am all too aware of the deep divisions between Ulster Unionists (not Ulster-Scots, please, don't go there again) and Irish Nationalists. Our separate national, religious and cultural identities have been an age-old source of conflict, and although you say "We do not belong in the same country", we are on the same island and in the same country in NI, and the descendants of British colonial settlers in Ulster are not going to be repatriated back to Britain. It's not going to happen.

You do share a country in Northern Ireland yes. And look how that turned out. I don't want the same to happen to my country. Hence why I don't want a million odd unhappy unionists in the Irish Republic.

There are two divisions on this island; the division between north and south, and the division between two ethnicities within NI. Overcoming the divisions within NI is a necessary prerequisite before reunification can even be contemplated, as there would be no point in uniting Ireland to simply place the divisions in NI within an even wider context. So you can sleep sound in your bed at night knowing that unless the two tribes in NI overcome their differences and fully integrate, there is little likelihood of a UI. In other words, unless we achieve a united Northern Ireland, there is little prospect of a united Ireland.

Couldn't agree more. Before amalgamation is even possible the divisions in Northern Ireland must first be healed. Southern Ireland won't take the North on if they feel the North is going to be a liability.

And I for one shall never vote for a UI without sufficient safeguards, assurances and guarantees being built into a reunification agreement to fully protect the Unionist minority against the potential "annihilation" of which you speak.

How can you protect against a silent annihilation of the type that happened to Southern protestants?

No tiers. There are patriotic Irishmen who haven't accepted partition, and then there are those who have.

Wanting amalgamation is not a pre requisite to being patriotic.

Nonsense. The very nature of capitalism ensures that the entire group does not benefit, just the wealthy minority elite ie. the owners of the means of production aka the capitalist class.

Without individualism how can there be freedom?

Also I disagree with your premise that capitalism only benefits the wealthy, look at the difference between North and South Korea. Or Cuba and the United States. Look at the difference between East and West Germany. The average person in a capitalist country is much better off then that of a socialist country. You call capitalism the ideology of greed, I call it the ideology of progress. The rate of technological advance in the capitalist world is crazy. I have a smart phone in my hand that simply could not have existed four years ago.

As I'm sure you are aware Marx predicted Capitalism would pre date socialism. He predicted the technological advancement of capitalism would be necessary to make socialism workable. Where I disagree with him is that socialism is an inevitable follow on from Capitalism. For my a truly equal society is neither possible nor desirable because it takes away ones goals to strive for. What's the point in living if just to exist?

There were no doctors, academics, accountants or other professions entailing hard work in the USSR or any other so-called Communist country?

The USSR banned emigration. You may have heard of the Berlin wall.

Serious question how did you feel when that came down by the way?

I prefer Marxism, but it has yet to be perfected in practice, with most former so-called Communist and Socialist societies having been little more than totalitarian fascist regimes. But there must be a practicable and practical alternative to capitalism, the ideology of exploitation and greed, which creates and sustains outrageous levels of social inequality in the midst of plenty.

Euphemism of the century

Many alternatives to Capitalism exist. I can think of feudalism or tribalism off hand. But why must a better alternative exist? Is it really too much for you to consider Capitalism really is the best system we can create given our technological level and the general human nature of greed?
.

They also devised a collectivisation process and Stalin exterminated 20 million of his own people. Maths shall be taken care of by mathematicians, and because a proper Socialist oriented or utilitarian economy would work in the interests of everyone, and not just a parasitical capitalist elite, industries would be nationalised, state owned, and we'd thus have a centrally planned economy as opposed to a privatised capitalist economy, which has been proven to not work in the best interests of the majority of the people.

That sound like my idea of hell. There is something incredibly sinister about the idea of a government bureaucrat deciding what my needs or wants are. I'll decide that myself thank you very much.

Also you haven't shown how this will be workable, you say maths will be taken care of by the mathematicians but in a truly equal society why would they bother working for you when they could earn the same money sweeping the streets? What will you do differently that Eastern Europe or China didn't?

Capitalism and privatised industry does not work in the best interests of the majority. In order for social and economic objectives to be achieved, a central authority needs to make economic decisions, hence central planning. The state shall naturally take care of manufacturing and determine how much is produced, and without waiting for or being dependent upon private investment capital.

Yes it does. There are so many problems with your plans that it would take me too long to go through them but here we go.

Customer choice. Studies have shown consumers like choice. Different brands of the same good raise consumer utility. In a centrally planned economy you will not be able to match this wish and consumer utility will fall.

Quantities. How do you predict how much of any one item to produce? In a market system price mechanisms determine supply but in a centrally planned economy that decision is taken away from you. You might have a shortage of childrens shoes and a surplus of tractor tires. As often happened in the USSR when people had plenty of money but no bread.

Capital mobility. How do you prevent capital moving in and out of the country?

Human nature. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. In your ideal Ireland too much power is rested with the government. What checks or balances would you put in place to limit the power of an all powerful entity?

It's important to remember that most modern economies tend to be a mixture of centrally planned economies and market economies, with governments regulating and controlling some aspects of the economy and the private sector controlling others. In a proper Socialist or utilitarian economy, all industry shall be nationalised, with the state undertaking responsibility for a much fairer distribution of wealth than has been the case under capitalism.

You're living in cloud cuckoo land if you think a Soviet style centrally planned economy will ever exist in Ireland. We like our Iphones too much.

In my ideal Ireland, actuaries, insurance brokers, economists, mathematicians, statisticians et al. would be put in stocks thrice weekly and pelted with rotten vegetables in the village square, and for the benefit of all of the community, including themselves.

Jesus mate what happened to you, fail your GCSEs? You have a massive chip on your shoulder. Economics is in truth the science of resource distribution. I would have thought it would be your favourite subject.

If you fancy fecking off to England, I don't think anyone shall obstruct you. I certainly won't, because I'm a nice man.

That doesn't answer my question. In your socialist Ireland how would you prevent Brain and Capital drain?

Actually let's just take a step back here and compare Ireland's GDP per capita to GNP per capita.

GDP per capita: $45,888
GNP per capita: $39,150

Do you get the picture now? Ireland is very heavily reliant on FDI, you may think we will just seize that FDI after our successful proletariat revolution but they will just pack up and go somewhere else leaving us with nothing.

You're ideas are frankly bonkers, I'm glad they'll never come true.

Bertie Woot

Noreen1 wrote: »

You must know that people who practice religion generally find their morals correspond broadly with the teachings of that religion. Getting those people to live by those morals can be more difficult.
For example, ask any Christian (or most religions, for that matter) whether they think it's wrong to steal, and they'll say "yes" - yet many will think nothing of selling a faulty item for more than it's worth, or keeping money that has been lost, etc.
At the end of they day, though, either option is theft.

So, should such people be denied the right to have what is morally right written into their laws, even though they've failed to observe the moral teaching themselves?

In other words, should a just and fair law be invalidated, because some people who profess a particular faith, don't observe that law?

There are "moral rights" and "just and fair laws" within Roman Catholicism? I have a number of major objections to Roman Catholicism as a world religion, two in particular:

1. The Vatican and its Priests assume the role of God in their assumption of the right to forgive and redeem sins:

"All bishops and priests have the power to forgive sins or absolve sins. Christ conferred this power on the apostles, and on the bishops and priests who would succeed them. However, the Church reserves the right to determine when a priest may use the power to forgive sins." (The Question and Answer Catholic Catechism, Q. 1327 p. 264).

If you really do believe in Holy Scripture as outlined in the Bible, only God has the power when to forgive sins, and unlike the RCC, he does not charge any money. If you do believe in Christianity you cannot fail to view the Holy See and the Priesthood as blatant and outrageous blasphemers.

2. I don't believe that "simony" and "the sale of indulgences" are "just and fair laws". Neither do I believe that the "Law of celibacy" is a just and fair law. In fact, it is my contention that the celibacy law has been partly if not majorly responsible for the proliferation of child rapists within the RCC. And yes, that is exactly what they are.

At the end of the day, we live in a Democratic Country, and whereas it is right and fair to recognise the rights and needs of minorities, I don't believe that achieving equality for minorities is best served by removing any hint of religion from legislature. That's a very slippery slope - and, one which, if taken too far, can erode the rights of the majority of citizens, and cause more problems and resentment than it is intended to fix.

I believe that a secular society where minimal and nominal significance is placed on the role of organised and traditional religion is the way forward. The Roman Catholic Church is finished, or more accurately, the nefarious activities of Priests have brought the RC church down to such an appallingly low and debased level, that I really can't see any respect and status it once had ever being fully restored. Trying to be a Catholic in this day and age must be a real challenge. We cannot prevent people from practicing a religion, but we can attempt to educate them that most of their beliefs are based upon superstition, which has been used as a vehicle to exercise power, control and carry out the most vile abuse by pious, sanctimonious men in the RC hierarchy. People should be allowed the liberty to attempt to undo their socialisation and social conditioning within Roman Catholicism.

That's news to me. I have no fear whatsoever of the Catholic hierarchy, have discussed my repugnance at the abuses committed by some priests/nuns quite openly and bluntly with more than one priest - and have spoken to some victims, for whom I have nothing but sympathy - and I most certainly have not, and would not, attempt to instill fear in any victim. That's disgusting, and is not something any Catholic should do - nor is it contained anywhere in the Cathechism, or teachings of the church.

Of course it's not, and neither is the rape of children, but many RC Priests still carried it out, and on such a scale that from the outside and in the eyes of the world it looks very much like an organised and deliberate venture, as does the RCC's very deliberate attempt to cover it up, with even the previous Pope (Ratzinger) himself having been involved in cover-up activities, and been condemned for it by none other than your own Taoiseach Enda Kenny in the Dail.

You may not have instilled fear in anyone, but your Priests most certainly attempted to and did, and they went to extreme lengths to prevent the truth about what they were doing from reaching public consciousness:

"Statement by the Taoiseach on the Dáil Motion on the report of the Commission of Investigation into the Catholic Diocese of Cloyne, in Dáil Éireann

The revelations of the Cloyne report have brought the Government, Irish Catholics and the Vatican to an unprecedented juncture.
It's fair to say that after the Ryan and Murphy Reports Ireland is, perhaps, unshockable when it comes to the abuse of children.
But Cloyne has proved to be of a different order.Because for the first time in Ireland, a report into child sexual-abuse exposes an attempt by the Holy See, to frustrate an Inquiry in a sovereign, democratic republic…as little as three years ago, not three decades ago. And in doing so, the Cloyne Report excavates the dysfunction, disconnection, elitism....the narcissism that dominate the culture of the Vatican to this day. The rape and torture of children were downplayed or 'managed' to uphold instead, the primacy of the institution, its power, standing and 'reputation'. Far from listening to evidence of humiliation and betrayal with St Benedict's 'ear of the heart'......the Vatican's reaction was to parse and analyse it with the gimlet eye of a canon lawyer.

This calculated, withering position being the polar opposite of the radicalism, humility and compassion upon which the Roman Church was founded.
The radicalism, humility and compassion which are the very essence of its foundation and purpose.
The behaviour being a case of Roma locuta est: causa finita est.
Except in this instance, nothing could be further from the truth.
Victims
Cloyne's revelations are heart-breaking. It describes how many victims continued to live in the small towns and parishes in which they were reared and in which they were abused… their abuser often still in the area and still held in high regard by their families and the community.
The abusers continued to officiate at family weddings and funerals… In one case, the abuser even officiated at the victim's own wedding.
There is little I or anyone else in this House can say to comfort that victim or others, however much we want to. But we can and do recognise the bravery of all of the victims who told their stories to the Commission.
While it will take a long time for Cloyne to recover from the horrors uncovered, it could take the victims and their families a lifetime to pick up the pieces of their shattered existence......
.......
The Government awaits the considered response of the Holy See.
I believe that the Irish people, including the very many faithful Catholics who - like me - have been shocked and dismayed by the repeated failings of Church authorities to face up to what is required, deserve and require confirmation from the Vatican that they do accept, endorse and require compliance by all Church authorities here with, the obligations to report all cases of suspected abuse, whether current or historical, to the State's authorities in line with the Children First National Guidance which will have the force of law......

.....This is the 'Republic' of Ireland 2011.
A Republic of laws.....of rights and responsibilities....of proper civic order..... where the delinquency and arrogance of a particular version..... of a particular kind of 'morality'..... will no longer be tolerated or ignored.
As a practising Catholic, I don't say any of this easily. Growing up, many of us in here learned we were part of a pilgrim Church.
Today, that Church needs to be a penitent Church. A church, truly and deeply penitent for the horrors it perpetrated, hid and denied.
In the name of God. But for the good of the institution.

This report tells us a tale of a frankly brazen disregard for protecting children. If we do not respond swiftly and appropriately as a State, we will have to prepare ourselves for more reports like this.
I agree with Archbishop Martin that the Church needs to publish any other and all other reports like this as soon as possible.....

.....Cardinal Josef Ratzinger said: ‘Standards of conduct appropriate to civil society or the workings of a democracy cannot be purely and simply applied to the Church.’
As the Holy See prepares its considered response to the Cloyne Report, as Taoiseach, I am making it absolutely clear, that when it comes to the protection of the children of this State, the standards of conduct which the Church deems appropriate to itself, cannot and will not, be applied to the workings of democracy and civil society in this republic.
Not purely, or simply or otherwise.
CHILDREN.... FIRST."

I couldn't agree with Enda Kenny more. He should be commended, because that was the first time an Irish Taoiseach has ever made any such unequivocal condemnation of the RCC and it's Pope, and it was justified.

Having said that, you clearly believe what you have written, and yet, I have to wonder at your source for these "many" Catholics, who are too terrified to speak. If they're that terrified that they haven't spoken, how do you know how many there are?
I have no doubt that there are victims who have not come forward, for a variety of reasons - but I have considerable difficulty in accepting that the reason is that they are "terrified" of the "footsoldiers" you refer to!

Just watch it:

I'm aware of the allegations. So what? Yet another abuse of power shocker!
Tell me, how does that mean that the ordinary decent Catholic is "outside the boundaries of good taste, respectability, and social acceptability"?
You used the term "Catholicism" - not "those members of the Catholic hierarchy" who either perpetrated, or covered up, some heinous crimes.

Priests were up to their necks in abusive behaviour, the Pope himself attempted a cover-up, as did the Irish Cardinal Sean Brady. Children were being abused in every diocese, and the silence from the "ordinary, decent, Catholic" was deafening. Some remained silent out of denial, whilst others were afraid to speak out because of fear.

A: The power to forgive sin has a biblical source, but I see no point in discussing the different interpretations of the Catholic and Protestant faiths, since it has nothing to do with a United Ireland.

Regardless, I'd appreciate it if you could post a link to where in the Bible it says that a Roman Catholic Priest has the power to forgive sins for money.

B: Certainly the simony issue helped paved the way for Protestantism, which, ironically, then paved the way for some of those who wanted reform to go on to perpetrate abuses of power, while using the reformed religion as an excuse.

You are attempting to deflect away from what the RCC has perpetrated on children by diverting attention to Protestant abuses of power? Name some, and keep it relevant and comparative to what the RCC has been guilty of, not just in Ireland, but throughout the world.

ie. It's amazing how Religion can be warped and abused by those with a lust for power or riches. The thing is, it would be wrong to blame the Religion itself, for the acts perpetrated in the name of that Religion, but which are against it's teachings.
Those acts are caused by the failure to live up to the teachings of the Religion -not by the Religion itself.

I'm not blaming the RC religion itself for the conduct of child rapists contained within it, but as a humanitarian and an Agnostic, I object forcefully to the activities of peadophile RC Priests, and indeed the many spurious teachings contained within the Roman Catholic faith.

Some factual truth about your religion:

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Roman%20Catholicism/roman_catholicism_exposed.htm

Would you like to tell me how they great majority of it's adherents should have offered resistance to something that they had no knowledge of, bearing in mind that the victims have only made their stories public relatively recently?

I do not believe for one moment that ordinary decent Catholics had "no knowledge" of the widespread abuse being perpetrated on their doorstep and to their own children. Reports of widespread abuse go back a long way, and the Clonard report mapped this out. Roman Catholics were living in fear and denial, and their inaction and failure to "resist" effectively enabled the pervert Priests to sustain their abuse.

That is absolutely religious intolerance.
You have quite casually inferred that Catholics were uncaring of the plight of children, and that they remain blind (while on their knees, mind you!) to the misconduct of some of the hierarchy.

I am stating that the inability and reluctance to act against perverted Priests was what effectively perpetuated their abuse. They carried on for a slong as they thought they could get away with it, and we are only witnessing large numbers of revelations of widespread abuse and an Irish governmental condemnation of that abuse as late as 2011. The abuse has been going on for decades, since the birth of the ROI and probably much further back.

For the record, the eyes of the Catholic congregation (who, as I have explained, are the Catholic church) are well and truly open, and said congregation have condemned the wrongdoing vocally. It's just that "ordinary Joe" tends not to get airtime, or interviewed by the local rag, either.

Rubbish. The ordinary Catholic Joe has remained mostly silent, and out of fear. What condemnations have been made by "ordinary, decent, Catholics" have been protestational murmurs. You really need to get off your knees and begin shouting for justice to be done to the paedophiles who have raped and abused your children, and from the rooftops. Until you do that you'll only have an ambivalent sympathy.

Furthermore, the only time this particular Catholic goes on her knees is to pray to God - not to blithely ignore or accept the vile behaviour of some people who call themselves Catholic.

If I was a Roman Catholic and a priest had sexually abused my child, I would hunt him down and force feed him his own genitalia, not get down on my knees and pray to a supernatural entity that allegedly governs the universe.

I think you've been reading a lot of reports, and making a lot of assumptions - without bothering to check what the majority of Catholics actually think or feel - and that, I'm sorry to say, is religious intolerance, or, more accurately, perhaps, religious bias.

I have read a lot of reports, and I am aware that ordinary Catholics have not acted in the best interests of their vulnerable children by remaining close to silent about clerical abuse. I am not intolerant of religion, I think religion shall regrettably be around for a very long time, but there are aspects of many religious people's behaviour, for example, child sodomoy carried out by by large numbers of RC Priests, which I find objectionable and unacceptable.

Of course it was wrong, by any and every moral standard.
It was a reprehensible abuse of power and trust, and every one of those who abused people in such a way should have the full rigor of the law applied in bringing them to justice. I'd personally support sending such people to jail for the rest of their natural lives.

Given the seriousness of their offences, how about an introduction of capital punishment?

I don't agree, however, that it is pertinent to a discussion on a UI - since your feelings on the matter are echoed by ordinary decent Catholics (and pretty much every decent person, Catholic or otherwise) the length and breadth of the Country - hence, the only thing to be discussed is why you feel that Catholics think any differently to you about the matter.

I haven't witnessed any mass protests by ordinary decent Catholics in the ROI or indeed anywhere else on the issue of child abuse. I have heard some Catholic priests reluctantly murmur that they regret what has happened and make apologies under great duress which are much too little much too late. My concern is that if Roman Catholics do not eliminate abuse within their church, it shall continue post reunification, and may even put Protestant children who attend integrated schools at risk.

Some members of the Church have been exactly what you describe - and others have been outstanding examples of caring and compassion, and love for their fellow man.

No doubt, and they are the ones we don't hear that much about.

There is no doubt in my mind that any large group of people will have some singularly nasty individuals among them. So how do we deal with the nasty individuals who are, say, teachers, or policemen, or businessmen?
Do we just get rid of every teacher, policeman, or businesman?

Of course not. You section the herd and weed out the perpetrators; the sick animals. Then castrate them, and this instance, not metaphorically.

No argument there, though I wouldn't have been quite as vehement about it as you are.

I can be quite passionate and spirited, as indeed can you.

I wouldn't claim my family sheltered all the "wee Protestants". I do, however, believe that I have a right to feel proud of the last incident, where the man was falsely accused of wrongdoing, because that particular man wasn't a Nationalist, he was one of the landlords servants, and, as such, there was considerable risk involved in helping him.
I think it's important to acknowledge that there were people, on both sides, who were capable of being humane, and not reacting with complete intolerance to someone just because of their Nationality or Faith.

That's the part that gets ignored, and it perpetuates the myth that all of "the other side" were evil so and so's. Some certainly were - but not all, by any means.

Each side demonises the other ie. "the enemy" so as to make annihilation that little bit easier. That's why in 2013 we need to have finally learned our lesson, and grasped the reality that liquidation of traditional foes is not the way forward; empathy, understanding, acceptance of our differences and peaceful coexistence most certainly is.

LordSutch

Once Salmond is defeated on the Scottish question (next year), any thoughts of a UK break up will be gone for another generation.
Anyhow, Northern Ireland is no closer to leaving the United Kingdom now than it was thirty years ago.

Waits for a ten thousand word reply )

Bertie Woot

WakeUp wrote: »

I have done nothing of the sort the suspicion and lack of confidence you allude to is already there within your community self-confessed by yourself a couple of pages back and in other thoughts throught out this thread. Im also not sure how I could install a sense of suspicion within your commuinty unless you are speaking on all their behalf.

Suspicion and fear have been a staple characteristics of PUL psychological makeup, for sure. And by not agreeing to the insertion of an article into a reunification agreement which shall act as protection for PULs against persecution, you exacerbate that suspicion and fear.

Trust me, no member of the PUL community shall vote for a UI in a border poll or ratify any reunification agreement in a referendum which does not contain adequate protection from potential discrimination and persecution. It's not going to happen.

Rhetoric, the art of persuasion. See what you are doing wrong is applying a combination of aristotelian logic & formal logic to foreign policy when you need to be applying dialectical logic - treating thought as a reflection of objective reality. You are being unrealistic. Two men, Aristotle & Plato. Both had a fundamental difference of opinion when it came to the subject of rhetoric, the center stone of foreign policy. Aristotle believed peoples basic nature is good and rational. Plato believed people needed instruction and are susceptible to deception. When it comes to foreign policy, negotiiation and issues of national interest Im firmly in the corner of Plato.

I need no instruction, and do my best to avoid being deceived. I haven't been thinking along the lines of Aristotelian or Platonic philosophy in relation to foreign policy, and therefore have not been "applying a combination of aristotelian logic & formal logic to foreign policy", and don't appreciate being told what I am doing wrong and what I should be doing. But your attempt at philosophical enlightenment and instruction has been amusing, if not a tad patronising.

I would put forward that unionism, well certain elements of it, are indeed begining to contemplate the idea of a united Ireland as evidenced by this thread. I have no idea why you felt the need to vent at me over provisional IRA acts and such things though judging by your delivery and detail of said vent I think you needed to get that off your chest and Im geuinely happy for you if you feel better I can see that you have the interests of the unionist community closest to heart and thats fine I respect that and would expect nothing less. Like you said all we are doing is testing the water and having a chat and there is no harm in that

I "vented" about IRA atrocities as a means of attempting to communicate the bad experience of Irish Republicanism by Ulster Unionists, and the huge compromise that shall have to be made by them to even contemplate a UI.

You must understand that the PIRA effectively ignored the Unionist people's objections to their violence for 30 years, and attempted to violently push them into a UI against their will. They shall require a very clear guarantee that if they are treated in a similar fashion by Republicans or an Irish gvt in a UI, that the British government shall have the right to some form of intervention to rectify the situation, as they have not and shall continue to have no faith in a post reunification all Ireland gvt, and shall not be putting all their eggs in one basket by placing complete blind faith in the professed good intentions of a post reunification all Ireland government to help them out. To do so would be a act of sheer and utter madness.

I feel your proposal was ridiculous and demanding. I think your compromise was somewhere in between the previous too. And I think your reverted stance with "an even tougher" condition added - right to British miliary intervention - was downright fooking hillarious Lets be realistic if the issue of a united Ireland is on the table and up for debate, it will be put upon the table when the Irish and British governments decide its on the table. My government will be negotiating on behalf of the Irish people on the entire island whilst the British will be negotiating for themselves and on behalf of the unionist/British people. A UI is off the cards until such a time as the Irish and British government decided its on the cards. And when and if it does come up for discussion not one party shall be dictating, demanding or insisting on anything. Or as you put though slightly differently, there shall be no business that needs doing

The art of politics is that you begin with a hard stance and very clear demands, then compromise with your negotiating opposite number somewhere in the middle. You failed to reciprocate my compromise and thus brought the negotiating process not just to a standstill, but actually reversed it by coercing me to revert to my original hard stance. I chose to add "military intervention" to demonstrate that you're not the only one who can be unreasonable.

Iwasfrozen

LordSutch wrote: »

One Salmond is defeated on the Scottish question (next year), any thoughts of a UK break up will be gone for another generation.
Anyhow, Northern Ireland is no closer to leaving the United Kingdom now than it was thirty years ago.

Waits for a ten thousand word reply )

This. When (not if) Salmon is defeated in the referendum next year it will cement NI's place in the union. I can imagine SF are praying for an SNP victory.

WakeUp

Bertie Woot wrote: »

Suspicion and fear have been a staple characteristics of PUL psychological makeup, for sure. And by not agreeing to the insertion of an article into a reunification agreement which shall act as protection for PULs against persecution, you exacerbate that suspicion and fear.

Trust me, no member of the PUL community shall vote for a UI in a border poll or ratify any reunification agreement in a referendum which does not contain adequate protection from potential discrimination and persecution. It's not going to happen.

And thats fine by me When your community come to terms with their own hopes and fears perhaps then will be the time to talk details. But dont expect my nation to issue Britain with a right to intervene in our internal affairs in any way, shape, form or text. The irrational fear that your community apparently contains is something that unionists need to sort out before you even consider joining with the south. You shouldnt walk before you crawl.

I need no instruction, and do my best to avoid being deceived. I haven't been thinking along the lines of Aristotelian or Platonic philosophy in relation to foreign policy, and therefore have not been "applying a combination of aristotelian logic & formal logic to foreign policy", and don't appreciate being told what I am doing wrong and what I should be doing. But your attempt at philosophical enlightenment and instruction has been amusing, if not a tad patronising.

Well you see you have been applying a combination of both and quite clearly you didnt and still dont realise it. And I think you missed the point. Viewing issues of foreign policy from a purely subjective reality is doing it wrong it does not work like that in the real world. Im sure you are familiar with the term realpolitik, such is life.

I "vented" about IRA atrocities as a means of attempting to communicate the bad experience of Irish Republicanism by Ulster Unionists, and the huge compromise that shall have to be made by them to even contemplate a UI.

You must understand that the PIRA effectively ignored the Unionist people's objections to their violence for 30 years, and attempted to violently push them into a UI against their will. They shall require a very clear guarantee that if they are treated in a similar fashion by Republicans or an Irish gvt in a UI, that the British government shall have the right to some form of intervention to rectify the situation, as they have not and shall continue to have no faith in a post reunification all Ireland gvt, and shall not be putting all their eggs in one basket by placing complete blind faith in the professed good intentions of a post reunification all Ireland government to help them out. To do so would be a act of sheer and utter madness.

The British government will never have any right to intervene in our affairs. Do you still want to keep doing this?

The art of politics is that you begin with a hard stance and very clear demands, then compromise with your negotiating opposite number somewhere in the middle. You failed to reciprocate my compromise and thus brought the negotiating process not just to a standstill, but actually reversed it by coercing me to revert to my original hard stance. I chose to add "military intervention" to demonstrate that you're not the only one who can be unreasonable.

The art of politics is knowing when you have a hand to play and knowing when your on a spaceship zipping pass Pluto and shouldnt even bother. There wasnt any negotiating process to begin with as a fundamental part of your position, I know it took you forty odd pages to get to it, is both unrealistic and a non-starter. If you are basing your entire strategy around such an unreasonable and unrealistic center stone, you need a new strategy:)

Richard

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

This. When (not if) Salmon is defeated in the referendum next year it will cement NI's place in the union. I can imagine SF are praying for an SNP victory.

I don't think the Scottish situation will have much effect either way, at least not in the short term. If (and if that is a big if) Scotland does become independent and is successful, there may be an effect 10 years down the line. Still don't think a UI will happen in any of our lifetimes.

Richard

WakeUp wrote: »

The British government will never have any right to intervene in our affairs. Do you still want to keep doing this?

Maybe not in your affairs, but in the affairs of NI, obviously yes! Post any unification, it really depends on what deal there is.

Bertie Woot

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Northern Ireland is/was very much a part of the British/UK mainland. The United Kingdom does not restrict itself to the island of Great Britain and extra territorial claims are illegal under international law. The Irish Republic never had any legal right to claim claim part of someone else's country.

NI is not a part of the British mainland. It is part of the UK, but not the British mainland. The Irish government's claims may have been illegal in a strictly (arbitrary) international law sense, but in a national territorial sense they were perfectly legitimate, as NI is on the isalnd of Ireland, and the legitimacy of partition has been the source of decades of political contention.

On one hand you say education, integration and lifting young Republicans out of ghetto mentality may or may not have the effect of preventing them from engaging in criminal behaviour but then on the other hand you say (or threaten) that republicans will always engage in violence for as long as the border will remain in place? Well which is it?

I'm not threatening anything. Education may have a deterrent effect on some young Republicans, whilst others via education of Irish history may actually gravitate towards militancy, and for as long as partition continues.

You don't really believe the presence of the border is the real cause of violence, you're too smart for that. We need to work within the parameters of the status quo to educate youngsters and rehabilitate hardened criminals as they are instead of justifying their campaign by entertaining the thought of amalgamation.

You're incredibly naive if you believe that the border has not been the cause of violence. Poverty and social deprivation has played its role in IRA recruitment, for sure, but it's unrealistic to expect everyone on the bottom rung of the social ladder and involved in crime to put themselves through University, and even if they did, that is no guarantee of an end to Republican militancy.

A society that places little value on human life will experience problems with crime no matter what the cultural background. We need to place more emphasis on the lives of working class people, give them education and goals to strive for, let them know they can reach to the very top and they'll soon tell anyone who asks them to lay their lives on the line for romance where to stuff it.

You've fallen for the UK/Irish equivalent to the American lie ie. that everyone can make it. Capitalism by its very nature ensures that only a tiny minority 'make it', and because those who do monopolise the means of production to the exclusion of everyone else, the majority of the nation's wealth remains concentrated in the hands of a very small privileged minority.

There shall always be people prepared to take up violence in pursuit of a political objective, and increased education may even act as a facilitator as opposed to a deterrent in the case of Ireland.

But you're in the minority, as are in general the number of educated middle class people who rebel against the state. The goal here is to cut IRA recruitment out from under them and undermine their beliefs. A multi stage long program with the intent of killing off insurgency without bowing to their demands and potentially jeopardising both our countries in the process.

I may be 'educated', but I don't come from a middle class background, and like I've already stated; education is no guarantee of a deterrent against Republican dissidence and militancy. Only the removal of partition shall remove the chief source of grievance and conflict in Ireland.

I have little difficulty with most concepts believe me. Unionists never wanted to be in the Republic, that's why they are called unionists, they wanted all of Ireland to remain in the United Kingdom but for 100% of Ulster unionists to get their wish 100% of Irish nationalists had to be denied their wish of an independent Ireland.

On the other hand for 100% of Irish nationalists wanted an independent Ireland but for 100% of nationalists to get their wish 100% of unionists would have to be denied their wish.

True enough, but look what happened; partition created minorities in both jurisdictions, and the Nationalist minority in the north experienced institutionalised discrimination which paved the way for CR and Republican violence. It would have been much better to sustain British rule of the 32 or grant home rule and full independence for the 32 and contain the resulting civil war between Unionists and Nationalists until Unionism had been defeated. Now there is a possibility that we have all of that in front of us instead of behind us.

The solution like all things lay in the middle. Split the country along an arbitrary border constructed in such a way as to maximise the number of Irish in the republic and the number of Ulster unionists in Northern Ireland. Similarly both minorities on either side of the border would have been minimised.

See above, partition created the conditions for political violence in NI - fact.

I'm not saying it was the perfect solution but it was the best that could have been created.

Partition caused civil war in the new Irish Free State and paved the way for two consecutive IRA campaigns in the north; the border campaign and the 68-98 campaign. Granting full independence in one fail swoop and allowing the Nationalists and Unionists to get on with it would probably have been better. Seldom does change come about without resistance and war.

You do share a country in Northern Ireland yes. And look how that turned out. I don't want the same to happen to my country. Hence why I don't want a million odd unhappy unionists in the Irish Republic.

I can understand and appreciate that, and although I think reunification is the destiny of this island, I'm not claiming to know how to make reunification appealing to Unionism and make them happy about the prospect of it, as I'm aware of the depth of traditional Unionist antipathy to the concept of a UI.

As already stated, until we have integration and a united Northern Ireland there is very little prospect of a united Ireland.

Couldn't agree more. Before amalgamation is even possible the divisions in Northern Ireland must first be healed. Southern Ireland won't take the North on if they feel the North is going to be a liability.

I concur.

How can you protect against a silent annihilation of the type that happened to Southern protestants?

This time, with reunification, the PUL's shall want to be in a (safe and protected) ethnic minority, instead of having minority status imposed upon them. Adequate safeguards, guarantees and assurances to protect the PUL community against discrimination and persecution must be written into any reunification agreement, or they will simply not consent to entering into a UI.

Wanting amalgamation is not a pre requisite to being patriotic.

All depends on your definition of 'patriotic'.

Without individualism how can there be freedom?

It's important to make a distinction between individualism and selfishness, ruthlessness and greed. With freedom comes responsibility, and that's why governments are coerced to act as regulators of the capitalist system which permits excess and the abuse of freedom.

Also I disagree with your premise that capitalism only benefits the wealthy, look at the difference between North and South Korea. Or Cuba and the United States. Look at the difference between East and West Germany. The average person in a capitalist country is much better off then that of a socialist country. You call capitalism the ideology of greed, I call it the ideology of progress. The rate of technological advance in the capitalist world is crazy. I have a smart phone in my hand that simply could not have existed four years ago.

Capitalism generates and susurains appalling social inequalities in the midst of plenty. There is sufficient resources to provide for everyone's material need in the world, but under capitalism food mountains are left to rot instead of being used to feed those in need, as that would upset the equilibrium of 'the markets'.

Making comparisons between capitalist and so-called Socialist economies is unrealistic, as the relative poverty to be found within so-called Socialist countries is the product of comparing two very different economic systems, and one of those has been totalitarianism and red fascism, not real Socialism. Socialism was Marx's idea of a stepping stone to full on Communism, and as we know, the Communist experiment didn't work out. So the search for a suitable alternative to parasitical capitalism where the many are exploited by the few goes on, and a system based upon co-operation as opposed to competition whose raison d'etre is to provide for the needs for everyone as opposed to a privileged, wealthy, elite is the best way forward.

As I'm sure you are aware Marx predicted Capitalism would pre date socialism. He predicted the technological advancement of capitalism would be necessary to make socialism workable. Where I disagree with him is that socialism is an inevitable follow on from Capitalism. For my a truly equal society is neither possible nor desirable because it takes away ones goals to strive for. What's the point in living if just to exist?

Perfect egalitarianism shall never exist. I'm not a Cultural Marxist, and therefore believe that many inequalities are unavoidable, inevitable and ineradicable. I simply believe that the proletariat, the people who actually generate a nation's wealth, should be provided with a fairer share of the wealth which they generate, and that under capitalism this does not happen.

The USSR banned emigration. You may have heard of the Berlin wall.

The USSR was a totalitarian red fascist state, and I walked through checkpoint Charlie in 1986, from West into East Berlin and observed the differences for myself.

Serious question how did you feel when that came down by the way?

Happy for the people of East Berlin, as what they were subjected to was long term imprisonment within a section of their own city, and what they lived under was not Communism but oppressive totalitarianism.

Many alternatives to Capitalism exist. I can think of feudalism or tribalism off hand. But why must a better alternative exist? Is it really too much for you to consider Capitalism really is the best system we can create given our technological level and the general human nature of greed?

Ah, but are human's selfish, ruthless and greedy by nature, or have they simply been socially conditioned to be that way by a system which sanctions, promotes and glorifies greed?

I view capitalism as a manifestation of human competitiveness, but recognise that human nature is self destructive. If we allow our competitive nature to run an economy it's obviously going to self destruct, as has been the case with the banking crisis, caused by ruthless, competitive and greedy bankers.

Capitalism needs intervention and constant regulation, as if we were to permit laissez faire, the capitalist class would abolish the minimum wage, make the proles work for pittance, cause mass unemployment with redundancies, and widespread homelessness and social destitution for millions, as all the capitalist class is interested in is generating increasingly higher profits for themselves; viewing the workers as mere overheads as opposed to human beings with a right to expect a decent standard of living in return for their labours.

That sound like my idea of hell. There is something incredibly sinister about the idea of a government bureaucrat deciding what my needs or wants are. I'll decide that myself thank you very much.

If we allowed the capitalist class to decide what your needs and wants were you'd be living on a subsistence salary in primitive conditions with your basic human needs barely being met.

Also you haven't shown how this will be workable, you say maths will be taken care of by the mathematicians but in a truly equal society why would they bother working for you when they could earn the same money sweeping the streets? What will you do differently that Eastern Europe or China didn't?

Like I've said, there shall never be a truly egalitarian society, as people possess different levels of intelligence, skills and aptitudes. But that doesn't mean that we should accept the gross inequalities imposed and sustained by capitalism. The key is to minimise social inequality, whilst providing incentive for those with specific abilities to enter professions where they can exploit their full potential, not just for their own benefit, but for utilitarian betterment of the whole of society as opposed to a capitalist minority elite.

Yes it does. There are so many problems with your plans that it would take me too long to go through them but here we go.

Customer choice. Studies have shown consumers like choice. Different brands of the same good raise consumer utility. In a centrally planned economy you will not be able to match this wish and consumer utility will fall.

Quantities. How do you predict how much of any one item to produce? In a market system price mechanisms determine supply but in a centrally planned economy that decision is taken away from you. You might have a shortage of childrens shoes and a surplus of tractor tires. As often happened in the USSR when people had plenty of money but no bread.

Capital mobility. How do you prevent capital moving in and out of the country?

Human nature. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. In your ideal Ireland too much power is rested with the government. What checks or balances would you put in place to limit the power of an all powerful entity?

Customer choice shall still be possible, even tough you'll be living and working within an economy geared to the satisfaction of human need as opposed to human greed, and producing variations in goods.

Quantities shall be produced in line with human need, not profiteering and meeting increasingly unrealistic sales quotas under the current system, which is simply geared to satiating capitalist greed.

Capital shall move in a number of directions, but to the advantage of all, not a parasitical minority, as there shall be a much fairer and even distribution of wealth than under capitalism. This is shall fail to meet the personal wants and desires of selfish, greedy people like you.

You're living in cloud cuckoo land if you think a Soviet style centrally planned economy will ever exist in Ireland. We like our Iphones too much.

I have no desire for a Soviet style economy, as that was not Socialism or indeed Communism, it was totalitarianism. I'd like to see a perfection of Socialist ideology with a view to utilitarianism. Iphones or their equivalent shall still be available and sustainable. I have no desire to eradicate technology, just to better utilise it to the advantage of everyone.

Jesus mate what happened to you, fail your GCSEs? You have a massive chip on your shoulder. Economics is in truth the science of resource distribution. I would have thought it would be your favourite subject.

I did OK in my GCSE's, I'm just not that keen on the quantitative, preferring the qualitative aspects of life.

That doesn't answer my question. In your socialist Ireland how would you prevent Brain and Capital drain?

By providing a social and economic system that enriches the life of everyone, not just a selfish, ruthless and greedy minority elite. An ideological shift shall of course have to occur for this to happen, with people being encouraged to think along utilitarian lines, not just about themselves. This is going to be a real challenge for people like you.

Actually let's just take a step back here and compare Ireland's GDP per capita to GNP per capita.

GDP per capita: $45,888
GNP per capita: $39,150

Do you get the picture now? Ireland is very heavily reliant on FDI, you may think we will just seize that FDI after our successful proletariat revolution but they will just pack up and go somewhere else leaving us with nothing.

Ireland's economic problems are not insurmountable. With time they shall be overcome and Ireland can become independent from form FDI by becoming as self sufficient as is possible.

I'm not claiming to have the answers to all Of Ireland's financial ills as have been perpetrated upon it by capitalism, a corrupt banking elite and indigenous mismanagement. I simply see no point in liberating Ireland from one form of exploitation and tyranny (imperialism) to permit the sustainment of another (capitalism).

You're ideas are frankly bonkers, I'm glad they'll never come true.

Minimising gratuitous and avoidable social inequality and the ruthless exploitation of the Irish working class by a parasitical capitalist class seems perfectly rational, reasonable and sensible to me. I wasn't expecting someone who supports capitalist exploitation and greed to view my ideas as anything less than 'bonkers'.

I'll leave you with this, from the Republican Network for Unity; dissident Republicans with alleged links to new Óglaigh na hÉireann, whose violence I deplore, but whose values, principles and objectives I cannot help but agree with:

"Socialism occurs when the wealth of a country is taken back from the rich and placed in control of the Working Class, to be
used for the betterment of society as a whole.
This is the opposite of the current
capitalist/neo-liberal system, in which a
selfish privileged class control the world’s
resources and force the rest of us to work for
very little, creating for them untold profit
margins at our expense
.
All credible studies show that there are enough resources in the world to provide for the needs of all
people, but that because a minority of wealthy people monopolise these resources, they are
withheld from the rest of us, creating endless suffering worldwide. “The income of the world’s
richest 1,75% matches the income of the poorest 77% . (Milanovic, Branko (2011), The Haves and the
Have-Nots).
We believe that Socialism is necessary for a number of reasons, firstly to reverse the Capitalist
system mentioned above and in doing so; help to end the widespread suffering that system has
created.

A socialist society has the power to end needless scourges like poverty, pollution, exploitation and
war, and in turn provide sufficient food, water, healthcare and homes for all people. Under the
current system these things are deliberately kept from working class people creating epic levels of
starvation, poverty and suffering the world over.
Ireland has suffered its fair share of this Capitalist nightmare, from the so called 'famine' (the proven
deliberate theft of Irish food from these shores) the horrors of slum tenement dwelling, mass
emigration of whole generations and right up to today wherein hundreds of thousands of our people
face hopeless lives of unemployment, poverty, renewed emigration, eviction and the absence of
basic resources’ and services needed to live a decent life.
We believe our people deserve better than this, but that a permanently better life for all can only be
guaranteed by seizing wealth back from the business class and putting it to use for the public good.

Under Capitalism, our futures are decided not so much by our ‘free will’ but significantly by market
forces and the monopolisation of resources by the wealthy. German Revolutionary Karl Marx
correctly observed that as a result capitalism created 'Wage slaves', because while wealth is in the
hands of the rich, the rest of us are forced to labour for them in order to get a wage and thus
survive. This effectively means that our lives are controlled – in no small way - by the wishes of the capitalist
class.

Marx believed correctly that free people cannot live under such circumstances and so while
capitalism exists 'The Worker has no country', Revolutionary Republicanism agrees with this analysis,
and states that until Ireland is Socialist, true freedom cannot exist for anyone here but the rich.
It also makes tactical and logistical sense for Republicans in Ireland to embrace Socialism. The future
class and national struggle, a fight to take control of the country’s wealth and put it in the hands of
the people would give the Irish Working Class a real and concrete reason to fight, struggle and suffer
for Irish freedom. Under capitalism no such motivation exists.
Nationalism offers people only feelings of patriotic
satisfaction in struggling for their nation’s parliamentary
independence.

We have seen how such patriotism
(though well meaning) is not enough to sustain
revolutionary struggle to the extent where upon a British
withdrawal from Ireland can be secured.
We believe that the struggle for Socialism is perfectly
compatible with the principles of the 1916 proclamation,
which declared “We declare the right of the people of
Ireland to the ownership of Ireland” and which resolved
to “Cherish all the children of the Nation equally”.
Both lines, when considered alongside the closing
comments of Padraig Pearse in his final pamphlet (the
Sovereign Nation) which states that “no private right to
property holds good against the public right of the nation” and that the nation must “exercise its
public right so as to secure strictly equal rights and liberties to every man and woman within the
nation” clearly indicates that the authors of the proclamation had more than patriotic sentiment in
mind when they spoke of ownership of Ireland.

Nowhere within the 1916 proclamation did it specify that ownership of Ireland and its resources
could be monopolised by a minority of Irish people within the privileged business class.
We hold that it is unlikely that the Irish People across the 32 Counties will ever rally for a United
Ireland if they hear only Nationalist or Patriotic arguments; Republican Socialist struggle on the other
hand will give them a concrete reason to fight and liberate their country.
Historical experience (with some honourable exceptions) also teaches us, that within the Irish
Freedom struggle, those with an Anti-Working Class sentiment, the same people who have business
interests at heart are often the very people who give up on National Independence when they see
the disabling effect their struggle is having on commercial interests.

The Nationalist capitalist class - by and large - historically abandons the Irish Freedom struggle the
moment it affects their profits or long term stability, Socialists or Working Class Republicans have no
such interests and as such are less likely to sell out in the face of compromise.

“No private right to property holds good against the
public right of the nation”.... P.H Pearse Thus for both tactical and humanistic reasons, Revolutionary Republicans seek to combine the
struggle for National Liberation and Socialism into one fight for greater Irish Freedom."

http://www.republicanunity.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Core-Principles-of-Revolutionary-Republicanism..pdf

WakeUp

Richard wrote: »

Maybe not in your affairs, but in the affairs of NI, obviously yes! Post any unification, it really depends on what deal there is.

Obviously, no they wont I dont know what gives you that idea. Why would we bother absorbing that territory into ours if the British were still in a position to exercise power over that territory?? If a UI comes to fruition and an agreement is agreed upon, effectively Britain is transferring sovereignty over to us and thats them out of the game.