Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Republican Mandate
Comments
-
The Corinthian wrote: »The vast majority of Irishmen and women would support unification, in principle, done correctly, under the right conditions, at some point in the future.
Note the caveats.
I can go along with that. However, the caveats are so big that it is extremely unlikely to happen within my lifetime.0 -
Fratton Fred wrote: »No problem at all. If the democratically elected government want that, or, even a UN resolution calling for immediate withdrawal.
Remind me, during the Falklands war, how many branches of McDonald's did Britain bomb?
If you want to compare the two conflicts, then explain why no pubs in Beunos Aries were bombed?
No it's more their style to pull into the middle of a gaa match and open fire on the crowd watching the match.
Real noble act of war alright.0 -
Fratton Fred wrote: »No problem at all. If the democratically elected government want that, or, even a UN resolution calling for immediate withdrawal.
Remind me, during the Falklands war, how many branches of McDonald's did Britain bomb?
If you want to compare the two conflicts, then explain why no pubs in Beunos Aries were bombed?
No it's more their style to pull into the middle of a gaa match and open fire on the crowd watching the match.
Real noble act of war alright.0 -
That was my point.I can go along with that. However, the caveats are so big that it is extremely unlikely to happen within my lifetime.
It's easy to get a mandate for anything patriotic as long as you keep things vague; the problems arise when whatever you propose begins to take actual shape.
For example, earlier a survey was cited whereby a majority of Irish would support unification even if it meant an increase in taxes. But how much, and for how long, would people accept an increase? And what would that increase be for?
The North presently receives a subvention of £5bn p.a. (equivalent to 20% of their economic output) from the UK. Much of this has gone into propping up much higher rates of public sector employment and free services that are not found elsewhere in the UK, let alone the Republic.
Would southerners voters be willing to bare greater taxation so that northerners could continue to enjoy employment and service that are denied to them? Or would northerners be willing to sacrifice these for the greater good?
Now, I'm not trying to piss all over the idea, but I am trying to sanity check claims of support, based upon vague hypothetical scenarios. There's a big difference between that and actually seeing what it will actually mean for you and your family. As such, in a best case scenario you'd see a loss in support once people face the reality of unification, especially if the consequences are not what they'd expected.
And then there is the question of what kind of united Ireland this would be? How many of those surveyed have even heard that the idea of a federal Ireland has been mooted? Most southerners likely see it as little more than an annexation. But if we did adopt a federal model, I can't see Lenster supporting the idea of autonomy for the other provinces, that then have to be bankrolled by Lenster. Or conversely, the autonomy presently being enjoyed by Northern Ireland being repatriated to Dublin.
And this is where the worst case scenario could rear it's ugly head; unification, followed by claims that it is "not the unification that people fought for" and, finally violence, by a new generation of dissidents.
After all, how do you think the Civil War happened? The vast majority of Irishmen and women supported independence too, in principle, done correctly, under the right conditions, at some point in the future.0 -
Crooked Jack wrote: »Again, this just betrays blind ignorance towards what is actually meant by a united Ireland. Bottom line is it will happen when people vote for it, nobody is suggesting otherwise, so are you actually suggesting that the democratic will of the people (or what passes for democracy in the north) be ignored...again?
I am fully aware of this. A united Ireland will never be forced onto the people north or south of the border unless the majority of the people in both constituents want it.
But, even if this was to happen, you cannot underestimate the men of violence on all sides. I don't think they have ever been or will ever be happy unless they are creating mayhem. But as things stand, the current situation is what I'd support (I'd vote no to united Ireland): a peaceful coexistence of the two states as we have at present. Things are going better in Northern Ireland peacewise than ever (I'm not saying that the occasional violence doesn't rare its ugly head in Belfast every now and again like the Flags Protest, etc. but there was a time when that would set off a campaign of worse violence and that is something we don't see now) and hopefully it will remain so.0 -
BuilderPlumber wrote: »I am fully aware of this. A united Ireland will never be forced onto the people north or south of the border unless the majority of the people in both constituents want it.
But, even if this was to happen, you cannot underestimate the men of violence on all sides. I don't think they have ever been or will ever be happy unless they are creating mayhem. But as things stand, the current situation is what I'd support (I'd vote no to united Ireland): a peaceful coexistence of the two states as we have at present. Things are going better in Northern Ireland peacewise than ever (I'm not saying that the occasional violence doesn't rare its ugly head in Belfast every now and again like the Flags Protest, etc. but there was a time when that would set off a campaign of worse violence and that is something we don't see now) and hopefully it will remain so.
It won't. Irish history is cyclical. There have been prolonged periods of peace before but it always breaks out again eventually. Why, because each accommodation we come to is merely a temporary stop gap. We need a permanent solution and the only permanent solution is reunification. The current arrangements can achieve that, peacefully if given time but the bottom line remains the same, reunification is the only permanent solution to the Irish question and only when that happens can this country move on and achieve its full potential.0 -
-
oscarBravo wrote: »...and that, in turn, is a goalpost shift. Suddenly the economies-of-scale argument doesn't work anymore, so a completely different counter is offered.
I'm not arguing for Ireland to rejoin the UK; I'm pointing out that the economies-of-scale argument applies equally well to Ireland rejoining the UK, so if you would argue against Ireland rejoining the UK, then economy of scale isn't the reason you want a united Ireland.
Be honest: a united Ireland would be an expensive and difficult affair for a long time, especially if it's rushed through to suit the agenda of those for whom no price is too high.
The economies of scale argument depends largely on whether a territory is an economic dependency of the state or not.
NI is an economic depenency of the UK, significanly more so than any other UK region.
It is weak in exports, it is not able to compete with Britain for the internal UK market, and British companies profit massively in the internal NI market.
It is not a fit, much like some peripheral countries in the Euro area aren't, NI neededing a multibillion pound ball out every year.
If all Ireland was in the UK, the dependency costs to the British exchequer might head towards 100 billion euro per annum. That to keep public services of equal standard. Does that look like an economy of scale to you?
Ni is a natural fit in the ROI for very obvious reasons. The ROI is set up as an open economy where traditional resources are scarce. That would suit the 6 counties as much as the 26 in a UI. In fact the north might do better in a UI by having a historically larger base of entrepeneurs than the south.
The integration of a potentially relatively very productive territory into ROI should predict a boost to the exchequer over the longer term. With real economies of scale.
There are no economies of scale by the incorporation of Ireland back into the UK. The UK could never afford Ireland: thats why you had the historical quirk of having the poorest country in Europe (Ireland) as part of one of the most powerful and richest States in the world (UK).0 -
thetwangman wrote: »My understanding of the GFA is that the South has already voted yes to reunification provided a majority in the North are in favour. Are you sure another border poll will be conducted in the South?
It will. As far as I can tell it's in the constitution that the south would also hold a referendum but I've heard conflicting reports on this0 -
Oh, the country does but self-appointed vigilantes acting in direct defiance of that country's constitution most certainly do not.
Anyone so acting is displaying less loyalty to the country they claim to act for than most non-citizens of that country as they usually don't actively act in defiance of another countries constitution.
Youre deliberately mixing up country and state.
To illustrate Hitler invaded France, setting up a State. By your logic, the Men and woman in the resistance were wrong to fight in direct defiance of that States consitition?
Now consider Hitlers argument for occupying the sudettenland: It had a majority of German speakers.
Would the czech people not have a right to fight this new state on the basis that it was against the wishes of a majority of czecks?
Now you will see how many people find the partitioning of Ireland grotesque when the vast majority of people in Ireland (28 counties out of 32) were against it. Surely Irish people have a right to say that the fate of Ireland should be decided by the people of Ireland and not by a supranational power?0 -
Advertisement
-
Are you going to claim that Ireland isn't an economic dependency of the EU?The economies of scale argument depends largely on whether a territory is an economic dependency of the state or not.
So Northern Ireland is a basket case that costs billions - just because it's in the UK. No evidence adduced as to why it's the UK that does this to NI; just a bland assertion.NI is an economic depenency of the UK, significanly more so than any other UK region.
It is weak in exports, it is not able to compete with Britain for the internal UK market, and British companies profit massively in the internal NI market.
It is not a fit, much like some peripheral countries in the Euro area aren't, NI neededing a multibillion pound ball out every year.
As bad as NI is for the UK, the rest of Ireland would be a millstone of unimaginable proportions. Wow, I guess the Republic is an even bigger basket case than NI.If all Ireland was in the UK, the dependency costs to the British exchequer might head towards 100 billion euro per annum. That to keep public services of equal standard. Does that look like an economy of scale to you?
Now, watch the magical thinking bait-and-switch:
Suddenly, Northern Ireland - the greatest millstone imaginable around the neck of the UK - would be a huge economic boon to the Republic of Ireland - which has just been written off as an even greater disaster than NI.Ni is a natural fit in the ROI for very obvious reasons. The ROI is set up as an open economy where traditional resources are scarce. That would suit the 6 counties as much as the 26 in a UI. In fact the north might do better in a UI by having a historically larger base of entrepeneurs than the south.
The integration of a potentially relatively very productive territory into ROI should predict a boost to the exchequer over the longer term. With real economies of scale.
Why? Because united Ireland. Magical thinking.
It beggars belief that you can sit there with a straight face and claim that the UK can afford neither Northern Ireland nor the republic, but that those two apparent economic black holes can afford each other.There are no economies of scale by the incorporation of Ireland back into the UK. The UK could never afford Ireland: thats why you had the historical quirk of having the poorest country in Europe (Ireland) as part of one of the most powerful and richest States in the world (UK).
The constitution is explicit that the current national territory extends only to the border. Unification would ipso facto require a referendum to amend the constitution.Crooked Jack wrote: »It will. As far as I can tell it's in the constitution that the south would also hold a referendum but I've heard conflicting reports on this0 -
Youre deliberately mixing up country and state.
To illustrate Hitler invaded France, setting up a State. By your logic, the Men and woman in the resistance were wrong to fight in direct defiance of that States consitition?
Now consider Hitlers argument for occupying the sudettenland: It had a majority of German speakers.
Would the czech people not have a right to fight this new state on the basis that it was against the wishes of a majority of czecks?
Now you will see how many people find the partitioning of Ireland grotesque when the vast majority of people in Ireland (28 counties out of 32) were against it. Surely Irish people have a right to say that the fate of Ireland should be decided by the people of Ireland and not by a supranational power?
the partition was 90 years ago. If The germans were still in charge of the sudettenland or alsace lorainne, everyone would have long got over it.
All of europe, possible all of the world has had fluctuating borders.
Refer to these maps for a clue;
http://www.euratlas.net/history/europe/1900/index.html
Seriously the way the republicans talk you could swear it was the only state in the world that changed it's border
poor auld paddy and his potatoes. Oh woe are the catholics of northern ireland.0 -
the partition was 90 years ago. If The germans were still in charge of the sudettenland or alsace lorainne, everyone would have long got over it.
All of europe, possible all of the world has had fluctuating borders.
Refer to these maps for a clue;
http://www.euratlas.net/history/europe/1900/index.html
Seriously the way the republicans talk you could swear it was the only state in the world that changed it's border
poor auld paddy and his potatoes. Oh woe are the catholics of northern ireland.
And with that your last shred of credibility goes down the toilet. Im so glad you came back into the thread to make such a valuable contribution after your dramatic exit earlier.0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »Are you going to claim that Ireland isn't an economic dependency of the EU? So Northern Ireland is a basket case that costs billions - just because it's in the UK. No evidence adduced as to why it's the UK that does this to NI; just a bland assertion. As bad as NI is for the UK, the rest of Ireland would be a millstone of unimaginable proportions. Wow, I guess the Republic is an even bigger basket case than NI.
In some senses Ireland is an economic dependency of the EU, in others it is not. The difference between NI and Britain is stark:
We can position ourselves and our limited resources to take full advantage of the common market by maximising our exports while limiting where possible the disadvantages of the marriage.
NI more or less operates in the UK market under British rules. The economic result is that it cant compete in the UK market never mind internationally, and its local economy is dominated by British imports.
That is why it needs a bailout of over 10 billion per annum. We dominate your economy but we pay your bills. Total dependency. If Britian did not pay this, NI would be the poorest region in western Europe (as Ireland was pre independence).
Within Ireland, NI counties can competer internally and by extension internationally with the protections they need in a state economically similar to their own region. NI ceases to be a basketcase.Now, watch the magical thinking bait-and-switch: Suddenly, Northern Ireland - the greatest millstone imaginable around the neck of the UK - would be a huge economic boon to the Republic of Ireland - which has just been written off as an even greater disaster than NI.
Why? Because united Ireland. Magical thinking. It beggars belief that you can sit there with a straight face and claim that the UK can afford neither Northern Ireland nor the republic, but that those two apparent economic black holes can afford each other.
But i gave my reasons clearly. NI can't compete within and without the UK, it can in Ireland. Britain is a powerful economy, NI not so, it is detached on a seperate Island with less resources. Therefore it trades and gets hammerred under UK (Britain) rules against its giant neighbour (Britain) but does not get any benefit of the larger market.
Your phrase again, but they are only black holes when married to Britain, not in an absolute sense.
If England was wedded within the German state with no protections, then it would become a massive black hole. A worse fit would not be possible as eventually the amount of support needed by the German taxpayer to support the English public services (in an economy dominated by the German one) would make the marriage unbearable for both sides. England is not a basketcase, but would be married to Germany. Is this clear now?
A marriage between Ireland and Britian might have similar results. This is why economically and geographically compatible regions make better states.
The economic and geographical compatibility points to one state in Ireland.0 -
Crooked Jack wrote: »It won't. Irish history is cyclical. There have been prolonged periods of peace before but it always breaks out again eventually. Why, because each accommodation we come to is merely a temporary stop gap. We need a permanent solution and the only permanent solution is reunification. The current arrangements can achieve that, peacefully if given time but the bottom line remains the same, reunification is the only permanent solution to the Irish question and only when that happens can this country move on and achieve its full potential.
Why do we need a permanent solution?
The current situation is one of equilibrium. In the future that equilibrium might see a shift to more involvement of Ireland in the affairs of the North, or it might see more direct rule from London or it might see more self-government. It won't see reunification.
Either a shift to reunification or a shift to full direct rule from London or a full integration in the UK would upset the current equilibrium and lead to public disorder.
The maintenance of the equilibrium is the key task. Foolish pursuit by either side of unattainable goals is a perilous risk to peace.0 -
Why do we need a permanent solution?
The current situation is one of equilibrium. In the future that equilibrium might see a shift to more involvement of Ireland in the affairs of the North, or it might see more direct rule from London or it might see more self-government. It won't see reunification.
Either a shift to reunification or a shift to full direct rule from London or a full integration in the UK would upset the current equilibrium and lead to public disorder.
The maintenance of the equilibrium is the key task. Foolish pursuit by either side of unattainable goals is a perilous risk to peace.
The current situation is fine for now but it's temporary. We need a permanent solution to finally move on from this subject or it will be there, just under the surface, ready to flare up at any moment, forever. Reunification, as people have pointed out, under the right circumstances and done in the right way, offers that permanent solution.0 -
Circular argument. The Irish question essentially asks (or did ask, the matter is essentially resolved now) what the constitutional status of Ireland should be, a united Ireland, the status quo or something else. This question in turns begs another; who make up the legitimate constituency who are entitled to have a say in answering the first question.Now you will see how many people find the partitioning of Ireland grotesque when the vast majority of people in Ireland (28 counties out of 32) were against it. Surely Irish people have a right to say that the fate of Ireland should be decided by the people of Ireland and not by a supranational power?
Your (and many others) answer to the second question is that it should be the people of the island of Ireland. But this in effect assumes that the first question has been answered in a particular way.0 -
-
This is at odds with what quite a few republicans have been saying here recently. The say (and I think they are mostly right) that the 25 year war in NI would not have happened were it not for the misrule of the British and the unionists. You appear to be saying there would likely have been some agitation regardless (I think there is some element of truth in this)Crooked Jack wrote: »The current situation is fine for now but it's temporary. We need a permanent solution to finally move on from this subject or it will be there, just under the surface, ready to flare up at any moment, forever.
That of course is an opinion. And I have yet to see any kind of compelling argument for it. And I don’t think I will either because a UI is an emotive aspiration rather than a rational one. It is just something they want to have, just as it is something unionists don’t want to have. Reason doesn’t come in to it.Crooked Jack wrote: »Reunification, as people have pointed out, under the right circumstances and done in the right way, offers that permanent solution.0 -
Advertisement
-
the partition was 90 years ago. If The germans were still in charge of the sudettenland or alsace lorainne, everyone would have long got over it.
The people in the affected areas would not have gotton over it which is what we are discussing here. (And the Germans havent got over Alcase Lorraine and definately not over the lands annexed by Poland.)All of europe, possible all of the world has had fluctuating borders.
Again you are mixing up state and country.
There hasnt been a political border between Scotland and England for several hundred years. There has always been a Scotland and an England during that time. Thats the difference between a state and a country.
The fact that more people cross the border on the E1 in 10 mins than between NI and Britian in an entire day should tell you something: exactly where the natural country border is with regards to movements of people, and the wider cultural, economic etc flows in Ireland. It is the coastline, and barring an iron curtain..it always will be.0 -
It's hard to escape the view that you're making stuff up to suit your conclusion. There's nothing resembling an objective fact in any of the above. I'm afraid all you're doing is continue to reinforce my suspicion that some people will tell themselves whatever it takes to rationalise a conclusion at which they've already arrived for emotional reasons.We can position ourselves and our limited resources to take full advantage of the common market by maximising our exports while limiting where possible the disadvantages of the marriage.
NI more or less operates in the UK market under British rules. The economic result is that it cant compete in the UK market never mind internationally, and its local economy is dominated by British imports.
Like that most famous of economic powerhouses, Donegal?Within Ireland, NI counties can competer internally and by extension internationally with the protections they need in a state economically similar to their own region.
That's not a reason. That's a claim.But i gave my reasons clearly. NI can't compete within and without the UK, it can in Ireland.
Jutland is directly connected with mainland Europe, but much of the economic activity in Denmark is concentrated on the island of Zealand. This idea that a country can only function effectively if it's all on one landmass is exactly the sort of arguing from your conclusion that I keep pointing out.Britain is a powerful economy, NI not so, it is detached on a seperate Island with less resources.
You keep talking about UK "rules", but are thin on specifics. What are these rules?Therefore it trades and gets hammerred under UK (Britain) rules against its giant neighbour (Britain) but does not get any benefit of the larger market.
I don't suppose you'd care to outline the exact mechanisms by which being a part of the UK is economically destructive, if and only if there's a sea crossing involved?Your phrase again, but they are only black holes when married to Britain, not in an absolute sense.
It's clear that you believe it to be the case. It's not at all clear how you arrived at this theory, other than it being a convenient fit for your desired conclusion.If England was wedded within the German state with no protections, then it would become a massive black hole. A worse fit would not be possible as eventually the amount of support needed by the German taxpayer to support the English public services (in an economy dominated by the German one) would make the marriage unbearable for both sides. England is not a basketcase, but would be married to Germany. Is this clear now?
I'd love to know what "geographically compatible" means.A marriage between Ireland and Britian might have similar results. This is why economically and geographically compatible regions make better states.
So what's the permanent solution for Alsace/Lorraine? Is it "geographically compatible" with France or Germany?And the Germans havent got over Alcase Lorraine and definately not over the lands annexed by Poland.
Wow. Nationalism defined by salt water.The fact that more people cross the border on the E1 in 10 mins than between NI and Britian in an entire day should tell you something: exactly where the natural country border is with regards to movements of people, and the wider cultural, economic etc flows in Ireland. It is the coastline, and barring an iron curtain..it always will be.
It's amazing to me how this quite literally insular view applies exclusively to Ireland. It doesn't make sense for there to be a border on a landmass, if and only if that landmass is the island of Ireland. It doesn't make sense for a state to exist across multiple islands, if and only if one of those islands is Ireland.
It's almost as if the arguments are derived from the conclusion.0 -
The maintenance of the equilibrium is the key task. Foolish pursuit by either side of unattainable goals is a perilous risk to peace.
To paraphrase, seeking Irish Unity would inevatibly lead to violence, therefore those who seak Irish unity are irrisponsible and should be opposed.
The problem with that is that it essentially gives one community in the north the power to determin the destiny of the North, at the threat of voilence if it does not get its way.
This is not the basis for a lasting peace. Let us not forget that peace was achieved because enough people were convinced that their legitimate aspirations could be achieved through peacefull means.
Irish unity is not a foolish or unattainable goal, it is the legitimate aspiration of a large part of the NI population. The posibility of it being achieved peacefully is the basis of the current peace, removing the posibility of attaining a United Ireland through peacefull means because of fear that it will lead to violence, will ensure that NI will return to violence.0 -
Crooked Jack wrote: »The current situation is fine for now but it's temporary. We need a permanent solution to finally move on from this subject or it will be there, just under the surface, ready to flare up at any moment, forever. Reunification, as people have pointed out, under the right circumstances and done in the right way, offers that permanent solution.
There is no logic to the argument that reunification will remove the potential for violence or public disturbance.
There is evidence that it will eliminate the potential for violence on one side only of the divide but that is all.
The current equilibrium gives peace, why upset it unnecessarily in pursuit of something that will definitely be divisive?
Again, why do we need a permanent solution, just for its own sake? There is a logic deficit.0 -
An Coilean wrote: »To paraphrase, seeking Irish Unity would inevatibly lead to violence, therefore those who seak Irish unity are irrisponsible and should be opposed.
The problem with that is that it essentially gives one community in the north the power to determin the destiny of the North, at the threat of voilence if it does not get its way.
This is not the basis for a lasting peace. Let us not forget that peace was achieved because enough people were convinced that their legitimate aspirations could be achieved through peacefull means.
Irish unity is not a foolish or unattainable goal, it is the legitimate aspiration of a large part of the NI population. The posibility of it being achieved peacefully is the basis of the current peace, removing the posibility of attaining a United Ireland through peacefull means because of fear that it will lead to violence, will ensure that NI will return to violence.
You are paraphrasing me inaccurately, read the post again. I see nothing wrong with the aspiration to unity.
I am not arguing for the removal of the possibility of a United Ireland being achieved peacefully. The corollary of your argument is that if a large part of the NI population (say more than 30%) have the legitimate aspiration to become fully integrated with the UK, then the removal of the possibility of achieving that legitimate aspiration will also lead to violence.
That is why the current situation is so attractive. It maintains the legitimate aspirations of all sides, while maintaining a halfway house where all legitimate aspirations appear achievable thus allowing all sides to refrain from violence, while at the same time giving a government which is more inclusive than any over the last century and a society that is fairer than any over the last century.
The basis of the lasting peace is the mutual respect for each other's aspirations while maintaining peace through balancing the respective influences of Dublin, Belfast and London to ensure equilibrium and equal legitimacy of aspiration. Thus the current set-up or a variant of it (or more correctly variants that respond over time) maintains the best hope of a lasting peace.0 -
You are paraphrasing me inaccurately, read the post again. I see nothing wrong with the aspiration to unity.
But you do see something wrong with working twords achieving unity? If not then what does this mean?Foolish pursuit by either side of unattainable goals is a perilous risk to peace.I am not arguing for the removal of the possibility of a United Ireland being achieved peacefully. The corollary of your argument is that if a large part of the NI population (say more than 30%) have the legitimate aspiration to become fully integrated with the UK, then the removal of the possibility of achieving that legitimate aspiration will also lead to violence.
That is why the current situation is so attractive. It maintains the legitimate aspirations of all sides, while maintaining a halfway house where all legitimate aspirations appear achievable thus allowing all sides to refrain from violence, while at the same time giving a government which is more inclusive than any over the last century and a society that is fairer than any over the last century.
The basis of the lasting peace is the mutual respect for each other's aspirations while maintaining peace through balancing the respective influences of Dublin, Belfast and London to ensure equilibrium and equal legitimacy of aspiration. Thus the current set-up or a variant of it (or more correctly variants that respond over time) maintains the best hope of a lasting peace.
There can be no lasting peace through a strategy of deliberatly trying to frustrate the achievement of the aspirations of any community. The future of NI rests in the hands of the majority of its inhabitents, it is not the posession of one community or the other. Currently the majority favour the status quo and continuing as part of the UK. That is the only basis for NI remaining in the UK. If and when that changes, the status of NI will have to change with it, trying to maintain the status quo with arguments of stability and claims of a 'perlious risk to peace' should the majority wish for a change to that status quo would be reckless and would in reality would ensure voilence.
The equilibrium as you call it is a falacy, there are two compeeting communities in the North, one of which has the upper hand in numbers, the maintenance of the aspiration of that community as the status quo is only legitimate for as long as it has the upper hand in numbers. Once that changes, the maintenance of the status quo becomes untenable.
You claim a change to the status quo would be devicive, its not, the place is already devided, maintaining the status quo aor changing it will not change that. What atters is that the future of NI rests in the hands of the majority of its people, that can be the only basis for peace. Threats of voilence should the balance change should be treated just the same as threats of voilence should it be maintained.0 -
Advertisement
-
oscarBravo wrote: »It's hard to escape the view that you're making stuff up to suit your conclusion. There's nothing resembling an objective fact in any of the above.
There is, you just choose to ignore them.I'm afraid all you're doing is continue to reinforce my suspicion that some people will tell themselves whatever it takes to rationalise a conclusion at which they've already arrived for emotional reasons.
Youw ill always rationalise on the Unionist side. Even though you have demonstrated throughout all your postings on teh subject that you are completey ignorant as to the roots of sectarianism and tehrefore partition on this Island. Your objectivity on the subject consistently does not extend beyond deciding NI is a "basket-case"That's not a reason. That's a claim.
Backed by the facts which show that NI is by far the weakest region in the UK. Do you dispute this? Yes? Then refute it!Jutland is directly connected with mainland Europe, but much of the economic activity in Denmark is concentrated on the island of Zealand. This idea that a country can only function effectively if it's all on one landmass is exactly the sort of arguing from your conclusion that I keep pointing out.
A poor choice for comparison.
Zealand is bridged on all sides and is therefore hardly an island in the sense that Ireland is. Jutland and all parts of Denmark function successfully economically.
But lets look at a more pertinent example. The UK was the richest and most powerful state in the world while Ireland was the poorest country in Europe.
And a more recent example. NI is the poorest region of the UK. A country can function effectively if not on teh same landmass. but NI DOES NOT! The bailout it receives is in 10s of Billions. Does this look like a good fit?
The NI economy people and resources have more in common with the ROI than with Britain. The border is there for fundamentalist religious reasons only. Economics has nothing to dow ith it.You keep talking about UK "rules", but are thin on specifics. What are these rules? I don't suppose you'd care to outline the exact mechanisms by which being a part of the UK is economically destructive, if and only if there's a sea crossing involved?
I never claimed that. Thats a strawman. If Scotland was showing 10% less productivity than the rest of the UK and required a 50 billion annual bailout, then one wouldconclude that it cannot compete within the UK,a nd it would need independence to position its economy more beneficially.It's clear that you believe it to be the case. It's not at all clear how you arrived at this theory, other than it being a convenient fit for your desired conclusion. .
German productivity dwarfs English productivity. The German economy is 3 times larger with a population difference of only 25%.
If England was incorporated into Germany, all proetctions against this dominance would be gone. Do ytou think the remnants of Englands manufacturing industries and its Financial services industries would survive in teh long term under teh same roof as germany?
No. England seeks the benefits of the European market but needs the independence to protect itself from its dangers. NI does not have this protection against England.
NI is best suited to be part of an open small dynamic economy that can position itself to best effect in Europe.It's amazing to me how this quite literally insular view applies exclusively to Ireland. It doesn't make sense for there to be a border on a landmass, if and only if that landmass is the island of Ireland. It doesn't make sense for a state to exist across multiple islands, if and only if one of those islands is Ireland.
It's almost as if the arguments are derived from the conclusion.
Thats your own strawman, and to be honest your argument holds a lot more emotion than mine as your hot headedness means you dont actually consider any argument but your own.
Sometimes it does make sense to have a state across Multiple Islands, if all the Islands benefit from that Union. In Irelands particular case economic history has shown that it doesnt. Remember the Union between Ireland and Britain was for security not economic reasons. In fact to actually gain parliamentary support for Union a sum of 1.5 million sterling was bribed to Irish parliamentarians. Historians agree that the Union was a disaster for Ireland.
So there was never any economic reasoning behind Ireland or any part thereof being part of the UK. It has never made sense economically. Just a one sided amrriage born out of corruption as all colonial experiments generally are.
If you can explain away NIs massive defecit to the UK then please do. You wont, because you cant. And show us your self-implied objectiveness please. Youre self righteousness Unionist rhetoric is wearing thin on any substance..0 -
the partition was 90 years ago. If The germans were still in charge of the sudettenland or alsace lorainne, everyone would have long got over it.
poor auld paddy and his potatoes. Oh woe are the catholics of northern ireland.
You might have a point if things had turned out differently but the fact that the Democratic Unionist Party and Provisional Sinn Fein are the biggest parties in Stormount shows that the reason this is still being discussed is that "Northern Ireland" has never "normalized", whether you want to admit it or not its a failed statelet-comparing it to Allsace Lorainne is facile. It still exists for intents and purposes in some weird twilight zone between a full blown colony and a "home nation" of the UK. Why are plastic bullets okay in Northern Ireland but they arent okay on the UK mainland?
"People say they are sick and are tired
Of seeing place run down
But I say take the blind fold off you hypocrites
And help get us off the ground..."0 -
Youre deliberately mixing up country and state.
You may be. I am not.
Today, there is no other country called Ireland than the state (i.e. the RoI) that we currently have.To illustrate Hitler invaded France, setting up a State. By your logic, the Men and woman in the resistance were wrong to fight in direct defiance of that States consitition?
Now consider Hitlers argument for occupying the sudettenland: It had a majority of German speakers.
Would the czech people not have a right to fight this new state on the basis that it was against the wishes of a majority of czecks?
Neither of those analogies have ever applied in the history of the modern RoI so they are both irrelevant to the discussion.
Nor are they relevant to an historical discussion either since "the country" in so far as it arose in medieval times was both de jure and de facto the Kingdom of Ireland and a King can no more be an "invader" of his own Kingdom than you or I are of our own house (and I say "his own Kingdom" above because Kingdoms bordered on personal possesions of monarchs in times past).Now you will see how many people find the partitioning of Ireland grotesque when the vast majority of people in Ireland (28 counties out of 32) were against it.
How do you know they were against it? Was there a referendum on it?
Majorities of the democratically elected representatives in both parts of Ireland supported it at the time, didn't they? If you are trying to claim that had the Unionists turned up in the Dail when the vote on the treaty was being held, there'd have been a vote against the treaty, fair enough. I'd personally find that claim slighlty incredible.
As it is, there were years before partition during which the politicians of the day had ample opportunity to seek compromise. The only notable attempt I have read of such were proposals by "Southern Unionists" which were rejected by hardline Nationalists (largely northern Nationalists). The blunt reality is the politicians of the day put maximising their personal political positions before any consideration about unification.Surely Irish people have a right to say that the fate of Ireland should be decided by the people of Ireland and not by a supranational power?
They do.
As we saw in the vote on the GFA, majorities in both parts of Ireland supported the current status quo.
And as has been pointed out before anyone wishing to change the status quo has to persuade - first and foremost - a majority of people in NI to support that.
That involves persuading, in particular, people who are currently unionist to change their position.
I personally see very little evidence that anyone in NI is interested in trying to do so. Endlessly going over the rights and wrongs of decades or even centuries past seem to be far more important than devoting any energy to building a better future in any and all of political positions supported in NI.0 -
That'll be that "with us or against us" fallacy I mentioned earlier.Youw ill always rationalise on the Unionist side.
I'm not a unionist. I don't care whether Northern Ireland remains part of the United Kingdom. I do have an interest in whether it becomes a part of my country, and on what terms.
Sorry, but you're dismissing my arguments for not conforming to yours. Worse, you're dismissing them with an ad hominem that doesn't even address them.Even though you have demonstrated throughout all your postings on teh subject that you are completey ignorant as to the roots of sectarianism and tehrefore partition on this Island. Your objectivity on the subject consistently does not extend beyond deciding NI is a "basket-case"
Straw man.Backed by the facts which show that NI is by far the weakest region in the UK. Do you dispute this? Yes? Then refute it!
So a bridge or tunnel from Larne to Stranraer would transform Northern Ireland's fortunes?A poor choice for comparison.
Zealand is bridged on all sides and is therefore hardly an island in the sense that Ireland is.
Of course it wouldn't. Why not? Because being an island is not the reason why Northern Ireland is an economic basket case. The primary reason for it being an economic basket case is tribalism and violence. This is obvious from the fact that it's less of a basket case since most of the violence stopped, but still something of a basket case because of the constant threat of violence from people for whom democracy is an inconvenient obstacle.
...that implies to me that there's no causal relationship between Northern Ireland being on a different island and its economic woes. For some reason, this hasn't occurred to you.A country can function effectively if not on teh same landmass. but NI DOES NOT!
You realise you're making a compelling argument for Belgium not to exist?The NI economy people and resources have more in common with the ROI than with Britain. The border is there for fundamentalist religious reasons only. Economics has nothing to dow ith it.
Sorry, I forgot. Your objective facts apply only to the island of Ireland, which operates in a different causal domain from the rest of the world.
I'm not sure where you're seeing hot-headedness; all I'm doing is pointing out flaws in your arguments.Thats your own strawman, and to be honest your argument holds a lot more emotion than mine as your hot headedness means you dont actually consider any argument but your own.
I'd have a lot more respect for your argument if you admitted that there's no economic reasoning behind your desire for a united Ireland either; that you've invented all this armchair economic theory as a figleaf to try to make it look like a united Ireland would be anything other than a fiscal catastrophe.So there was never any economic reasoning behind Ireland or any part thereof being part of the UK.
I haven't attempted to. You're the one using Sinn Féin-esque magical economics to "prove" that Northern Ireland's massive deficit would suddenly vanish and be replaced with a powerhouse economy by dint of being removed from the soul-sucking embrace of the UK.If you can explain away NIs massive defecit to the UK then please do. You wont, because you cant.
It's actually quite funny - you rail about objectivity, but you are incapable of distinguishing the slightest deviation from your creed as anything other than that most heinous of heresies, unionism.And show us your self-implied objectiveness please. Youre self righteousness Unionist rhetoric is wearing thin on any substance..
I'll repeat for the record that I'm not a unionist. You'll disagree, implying that I'm a liar, because fundamentalist nationalism is like fundamentalist Christianity - if I deviate in any small way from the One True Path, I'm going to burn in hell. There is no middle ground.
Oh yeah: are Alsace and Lorraine more geographically compatible with Germany or France?0 -
who is "Provisional" Sinn Fein? Sinn Fein has never been known as this except by the media to distinguish Sinn Fein from Official Sinn Fein who left the party. The IRA split in January 1970 and was known as the Provisional IRA until October 1970 when they regularised it's structures and ended the provisional period which applied after the IRA split. Sinn Fein has been Sinn Fein since 1905.SoulandForm wrote: »You might have a point if things had turned out differently but the fact that the Democratic Unionist Party and Provisional Sinn Fein are the biggest parties in Stormount shows that the reason this is still being discussed is that "Northern Ireland" has never "normalized", whether you want to admit it or not its a failed statelet-comparing it to Allsace Lorainne is facile. It still exists for intents and purposes in some weird twilight zone between a full blown colony and a "home nation" of the UK. Why are plastic bullets okay in Northern Ireland but they arent okay on the UK mainland?
Why don't you apply Ulster Resistance to the DUP to signify that they themselves formed their own paramilitary group in 1986?
More recently the 32CSM have started referring to Sinn Fein as "Provisional Sinn Fein" so I presume you are aligning yourself with these people by applying this moniker?0 -
Advertisement
-
There is also Republican Sinn Fein.who is "Provisional" Sinn Fein? Sinn Fein has never been known as this except by the media to distinguish Sinn Fein from Official Sinn Fein who left the party. The IRA split in January 1970 and was known as the Provisional IRA until October 1970 when they regularised it's structures and ended the provisional period which applied after the IRA split. Sinn Fein has been Sinn Fein since 1905.
Why don't you apply Ulster Resistance to the DUP to signify that they themselves formed their own paramilitary group in 1986?
More recently the 32CSM have started referring to Sinn Fein as "Provisional Sinn Fein" so I presume you are aligning yourself with these people by applying this moniker?0 -
An Coilean wrote: »But you do see something wrong with working twords achieving unity? If not then what does this mean?
There can be no lasting peace through a strategy of deliberatly trying to frustrate the achievement of the aspirations of any community. The future of NI rests in the hands of the majority of its inhabitents, it is not the posession of one community or the other. Currently the majority favour the status quo and continuing as part of the UK. That is the only basis for NI remaining in the UK. If and when that changes, the status of NI will have to change with it, trying to maintain the status quo with arguments of stability and claims of a 'perlious risk to peace' should the majority wish for a change to that status quo would be reckless and would in reality would ensure voilence.
The equilibrium as you call it is a falacy, there are two compeeting communities in the North, one of which has the upper hand in numbers, the maintenance of the aspiration of that community as the status quo is only legitimate for as long as it has the upper hand in numbers. Once that changes, the maintenance of the status quo becomes untenable.
You claim a change to the status quo would be devicive, its not, the place is already devided, maintaining the status quo aor changing it will not change that. What atters is that the future of NI rests in the hands of the majority of its people, that can be the only basis for peace. Threats of voilence should the balance change should be treated just the same as threats of voilence should it be maintained.
The problem with your argument is that it contains certainties where there are none. For example, "Once that changes", "If and when that changes".
I am coming from the realistic point of view that there is no guarantee that the will of the people of Northern Ireland will ever change. The equilibrium has to maintain the potential for that change, but in normalising civilian activity in the North, the equilibrium reinforces itself and moves the change further away. That is why you see polls with increasing numbers of Catholics and nationalists satisfied (not saying happy) with the status quo and reluctant to change. Ditto down south, while you see stable numbers happy with the idea of a UI eventually, the numbers anxious to see it tomorrow go down.
For peace, it is important that the aspiration to unity is maintained, it is not necessary that that aspiration is made immediately achieveable. Didn't the aspiration in Article 2 keep the South peaceful for generations?0 -
There is no logic to the argument that reunification will remove the potential for violence or public disturbance.
There is evidence that it will eliminate the potential for violence on one side only of the divide but that is all.
Logically, it would remove violence on all sides. Obviously, even the most ardent dissident republicans would have no further basis for existing as a violent group. The British government and their (official) forces would also cease to be a player, leaving only violent loyalism. With no northern Ireland to defend what exactly would they be fighting for? Killing taigs so the Brits come back? Or set up an independent north, despite the fact that people have voted for reunification (as that's the only way it can happen)? Perhaps just protestant areas would go their own way? it's ludicrous. Add in the fact that loyalist paramilitaries, even at their most craven, could rarely achieve anything without the state either, at least turning a blind eye or at most actively assisting them to the point of firing the actual shots or planting the actual bombs.The current equilibrium gives peace, why upset it unnecessarily in pursuit of something that will definitely be divisive?
How can you condemn violence on one hand and then on the other be so willing to kowtow to the threat of violence? It's a perfectly legitimate political aspiration and more than that, in the interests of long term peace and prosperity, it's a necessary one. The north right now is at a stage of peace but it's an imperfect, in all likelihood, temporary peace. The statelet itself still remains a half way house and still remains disputed territory, the issue will always be there, until it's resolved.Again, why do we need a permanent solution, just for its own sake? There is a logic deficit.
There's a logic deficit here alright but it's not on my end. I cant believe there's somebody actually questioning why we need a permanent solution to the Irish question.0 -
Thinking there will be peace in a United Ireland is just delusions of grandeur.0
-
Manassas61 wrote: »Thinking there will be peace in a United Ireland is just delusions of grandeur.
Do you even know what this phrase means?0 -
Crooked Jack wrote: »Logically, it would remove violence on all sides. Obviously, even the most ardent dissident republicans would have no further basis for existing as a violent group. The British government and their (official) forces would also cease to be a player, leaving only violent loyalism. With no northern Ireland to defend what exactly would they be fighting for? Killing taigs so the Brits come back? Or set up an independent north, despite the fact that people have voted for reunification (as that's the only way it can happen)? Perhaps just protestant areas would go their own way? it's ludicrous. Add in the fact that loyalist paramilitaries, even at their most craven, could rarely achieve anything without the state either, at least turning a blind eye or at most actively assisting them to the point of firing the actual shots or planting the actual bombs.
How can you condemn violence on one hand and then on the other be so willing to kowtow to the threat of violence? It's a perfectly legitimate political aspiration and more than that, in the interests of long term peace and prosperity, it's a necessary one. The north right now is at a stage of peace but it's an imperfect, in all likelihood, temporary peace. The statelet itself still remains a half way house and still remains disputed territory, the issue will always be there, until it's resolved.
There's a logic deficit here alright but it's not on my end. I cant believe there's somebody actually questioning why we need a permanent solution to the Irish question.
The bit in bold above is not logial. Neither is the rest of the paragraph. There is a huge assumption in the paragraph which is that the then large minority of unionists would be happy to roll over and accept a change in status without there being a change in their levels of support for violence or participation in violence. That is a reckless assumption at best and not one supported by logic given the history of support of violence by minorities in Northern Ireland. To make this argument stick, you would have to argue that Northern unionists are morally superior to the Northern republicans that supported violence over the last 30/40 years. I wouldn't make that argument.
The key point is that the current equilibrium gives peace. This peace is something that wasn't there under previous arrangements and agreements and there is no guarantee that it would be maintained under any future change. To win the argument for change, the united Irelanders will have to show that the future united Ireland will guarantee peace. Yes, it will guarantee an end to republican violence but that is not equal to peace. without a convincing argument (and I have not heard one) a lot of people, including moderate nationalists, will be afraid that a change in status will bring a return to violence and for that reason (aside from other reasons about change resistance and fear of economic loss) it will lead a significant minority of nationalists to vote against a change in the status quo.0 -
You may be. I am not.
Today, there is no other country called Ireland than the state (i.e. the RoI) that we currently have.
On the contrary, Other than the political state, Ireland the Island is viewed as the national boundary for religeous, cultural, sporying and social groups. Ireland is also seen as a whole in terms of eligibility for citizen ship.Nor are they relevant to an historical discussion either since "the country" in so far as it arose in medieval times was both de jure and de facto the Kingdom of Ireland and a King can no more be an "invader" of his own Kingdom than you or I are of our own house (and I say "his own Kingdom" above because Kingdoms bordered on personal possesions of monarchs in times past).
Then by your logic the Vichy government was the legitimate power in to be propped up by a large supranational power is ireelevant.How do you know they were against it? Was there a referendum on it?
70% of all seats in the 1917 election went to Sinn Fein who were for complete all Ireland independence.Majorities of the democratically elected representatives in both parts of Ireland supported it at the time, didn't they?
The choice was forced upon them by the British.....and the British army who made it clear that they would not enforce an all-country solution.
"Immediate and terrible war..". And we all knew exactly what the Brits meant by that...... (terrorism of the civilian population has long been British policy in supressing Ireland and in other colonies.)As it is, there were years before partition during which the politicians of the day had ample opportunity to seek compromise.
On the contrary, Unionists refused point blank to discuss anything that involved a negoiated Ireland. They wanted full and permanent partition and even though only 4 counties had a majority of Unionists they were granted their wish in full without compromise. They did not defer never mind refer to teh majority of Irish people. If Unionists tried to negotiate and failed then perhaps they could demonstate that they faced discrimination in an all Ireland state. Or at least to demonstrate that their beliefs were not rooted in anti-catholic sectarianism. They could do no such thing and thus granting them the sectarian partition they sought was wrong. This was born out clearly by the Orange state which ensued. In a localised sectarian conflict you do not create an artifical border to officialise one side's absolute power over the other.They do.
As we saw in the vote on the GFA, majorities in both parts of Ireland supported the current status quo.
In the south in particular it was peddled as a vote for peace. The implication was that if you voted against it you were in the same category as dissident republicans.And as has been pointed out before anyone wishing to change the status quo has to persuade - first and foremost - a majority of people in NI to support that.
That is the unfortunate situation. And while there is sectarianism in NI tehre will never be a united Ireland, therefore there will always be sectarianism in NI.That involves persuading, in particular, people who are currently unionist to change their position.
As long as their politics is attached to a fundamentalist religion which tells them that Catholics are less than them then they will never be persuaded.I personally see very little evidence that anyone in NI is interested in trying to do so. Endlessly going over the rights and wrongs of decades or even centuries past seem to be far more important than devoting any energy to building a better future in any and all of political positions supported in NI.
I agree to a certain extent. But lessons must be learned from history. As longa s Unionism is allied to any degree with anti-catholic sectarianism, the sectarianism issue is unresolved.
And pelase dont blame Catholics for Unionists position. Ant-Catholicism is ingrained in the actual religion...which is passed on to individual Catholics sicially, economically and politically.0 -
The problem with your argument is that it contains certainties where there are none. For example, "Once that changes", "If and when that changes".
I am coming from the realistic point of view that there is no guarantee that the will of the people of Northern Ireland will ever change. The equilibrium has to maintain the potential for that change, but in normalising civilian activity in the North, the equilibrium reinforces itself and moves the change further away. That is why you see polls with increasing numbers of Catholics and nationalists satisfied (not saying happy) with the status quo and reluctant to change. Ditto down south, while you see stable numbers happy with the idea of a UI eventually, the numbers anxious to see it tomorrow go down.
For peace, it is important that the aspiration to unity is maintained, it is not necessary that that aspiration is made immediately achieveable. Didn't the aspiration in Article 2 keep the South peaceful for generations?
So essentially you are saying that given the goal of achieving Unity, Sinn Féin were wrong and the disidents were correct about the impact of the GFA on achieving that goal?0 -
An Coilean wrote: »So essentially you are saying that given the goal of achieving Unity, Sinn Féin were wrong and the disidents were correct about the impact of the GFA on achieving that goal?
The goal shouldn't be about achieving unity, the goal should be about achieving peace on this island in a fair society(s). If the goal of achieving unity has to be sacrificed in order to achieve peace and fairness, what is wrong with that?0 -
The bit in bold above is not logial. Neither is the rest of the paragraph. There is a huge assumption in the paragraph which is that the then large minority of unionists would be happy to roll over and accept a change in status without there being a change in their levels of support for violence or participation in violence. That is a reckless assumption at best and not one supported by logic given the history of support of violence by minorities in Northern Ireland. To make this argument stick, you would have to argue that Northern unionists are morally superior to the Northern republicans that supported violence over the last 30/40 years. I wouldn't make that argument.
I would require that assumption only if Unionists were inflicted with the same kind of discrimination and sectarian violence on the part of the states security forces as was inflicted on the nationalist community in the run up to the troubles.
In the absence of this, asuming there would be greater violence eminating from the Unionist community than there is from the nationalist community currently, makes the asumption that the Unionist community are morally inferior to Northern Republicans who have been able to work to achieve their goals peacefully by and large for over a decade once the excessive discriminatory tendencies of the state were removed.The key point is that the current equilibrium gives peace. This peace is something that wasn't there under previous arrangements and agreements and there is no guarantee that it would be maintained under any future change.
I think you are misinterperating the 'equilibrium'. The status quo, NI remaining part of the UK, is not the equilibrium. The equilibrium is that NI's future is in the hands of the majority of its population. For as long as the majority wants to maintain the ststus quo, then it will be maintained, should they wish to change the status quo, then it must be changed or the equilibrium will be destabelised and it is quite likely that violence will ensue.To win the argument for change, the united Irelanders will have to show that the future united Ireland will guarantee peace. Yes, it will guarantee an end to republican violence but that is not equal to peace. without a convincing argument (and I have not heard one) a lot of people, including moderate nationalists, will be afraid that a change in status will bring a return to violence and for that reason (aside from other reasons about change resistance and fear of economic loss) it will lead a significant minority of nationalists to vote against a change in the status quo.
The big problem with this, as mentioned earlier, is that it places the future of NI into the hands of those who are happy to threaten violence if they dont get their own way. If NI is to stay in the UK on the basis of a threat of voilence by Loyalists if that changes, then there can really be no moral obligation on the nationalist community to not resort to the same tactic and threaten violence if the status of NI is not changed, and then we are right back to the bad old days.0 -
Advertisement
-
The goal shouldn't be about achieving unity, the goal should be about achieving peace on this island in a fair society(s). If the goal of achieving unity has to be sacrificed in order to achieve peace and fairness, what is wrong with that?
It leaves those with the legitimate aspiration for unity with the question, why should I sacrifice my aspirations to maintain peace, why don't I become violent and expect the other side to sacrafice their aspirations for peace.
Its a game that was played by both sides for far too long, expecting either community to sacrafice their aspirations under the threat of violence is never going to work. It will only breed further violence.
Do you not see how flawed it is to say to one community, you have to sacrifice your aspirations and make do with the status quo because if you don't the other community will be upset and will turn to violence, and that violence will be all your fault, not theirs because you just didnt do what you were told.
One community maintaining its aspirations over the other through threat of violence is essentially a tyranny, such a situation can not maintain peace.0 -
The bit in bold above is not logial. Neither is the rest of the paragraph. There is a huge assumption in the paragraph which is that the then large minority of unionists would be happy to roll over and accept a change in status without there being a change in their levels of support for violence or participation in violence. That is a reckless assumption at best and not one supported by logic given the history of support of violence by minorities in Northern Ireland.
It's completely logical because it acknowledges that in the event of a united Ireland they would have nothing to fight for, as I pointed out but you chose to ignore as it doesnt suit your argument. This is the future we're talking about here, they're all assumptions but if we're going strictly on logic then looking at the north since partition one could only conclude that continued partition will result in, at some point, continued violence. Reunification however, as I pointed out, leaves loyalists with nothing to fight for and noone to fight their battles for them. Now Im not saying there would be no loyalist violence but it would firstly be manageable and secondly, not nearly as bad as it will be if the north is left to continue to fester away indefinitely.To make this argument stick, you would have to argue that Northern unionists are morally superior to the Northern republicans that supported violence over the last 30/40 years. I wouldn't make that argument.
Really pathetic attempt to get me to back track. What did you think, that you somehow saying my argument inferred that unionists were "better" would make me do a u-turn. Jesus.The key point is that the current equilibrium gives peace.
It gives a temporary peace, one that has already been punctured with violence many times. This is the peace that you want us to live with forever?This peace is something that wasn't there under previous arrangements and agreements and there is no guarantee that it would be maintained under any future change. To win the argument for change, the united Irelanders will have to show that the future united Ireland will guarantee peace. Yes, it will guarantee an end to republican violence but that is not equal to peace. without a convincing argument (and I have not heard one) a lot of people, including moderate nationalists, will be afraid that a change in status will bring a return to violence and for that reason (aside from other reasons about change resistance and fear of economic loss) it will lead a significant minority of nationalists to vote against a change in the status quo.
Why didnt you just say yes to my earlier question, yes you are willing to on one hand ignore the will of the people and kowtow to unionist violence while on the other berating republican violence. What if the IRA threatened to restart their campaign if partition wasnt ended immediately, would you then do an about-face on your argument?0 -
In summary, your point is that some republicans will never, ever stop using violence to subvert democracy, but loyalists are more likely to accept the will of the people and permanently renounce violence?Crooked Jack wrote: »This is the future we're talking about here, they're all assumptions but if we're going strictly on logic then looking at the north since partition one could only conclude that continued partition will result in, at some point, continued violence. Reunification however, as I pointed out, leaves loyalists with nothing to fight for and noone to fight their battles for them. Now Im not saying there would be no loyalist violence but it would firstly be manageable and secondly, not nearly as bad as it will be if the north is left to continue to fester away indefinitely.
Interesting.0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »In summary, your point is that some republicans will never, ever stop using violence to subvert democracy, but loyalists are more likely to accept the will of the people and permanently renounce violence?
Interesting.
*sigh* You take whatever you want from it Oscar. Judging by your replies to other posters in this thread you only see what you want to see anyway.0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »In summary, your point is that some republicans will never, ever stop using violence to subvert democracy, but loyalists are more likely to accept the will of the people and permanently renounce violence?
Interesting.
I think the point is that both comunities are mainly comprised of reasonable people, the nationalist community has by and large left voilence aside once the excessive discrimination on the part of the state was resolved, and the pathway to achieve their aspirations through peacefull means was opened up. Some hardliners are willing to continue to use violence even in the absence of excessive discrimination, but they are very much a minority and have had a limited impact. In the event of a majority vote in favour of a United Ireland, there is no rational reason to assume that the majority of the Unionist community will react voilently, a small core of hardliners might, but there is no reason to assume that that small minority will have a greater impact than disident republicans are having currently.
The North will return to violence if a United Ireland is forced on the North against the will of the majority, or if a United Ireland is prevented despite being the will of the majority.0 -
You seem to feel I've misinterpreted you. Let's review.Crooked Jack wrote: »*sigh* You take whatever you want from it Oscar. Judging by your replies to other posters in this thread you only see what you want to see anyway.
You have claimed, and you're not alone in this, that republican violence will never, ever end without a united Ireland, even if a united Ireland is not what the people want.
You have also claimed, and you're not alone in this either, that loyalist violence will end if a united Ireland is what the people want and get.
In other words, loyalists will accept (however reluctantly) the will of the people and stop fighting to overturn democracy. Some republicans, on the other hand, will never stop fighting to overturn the will of the people.
Which part contradicts what you've said?0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »You seem to feel I've misinterpreted you. Let's review.
You have claimed, and you're not alone in this, that republican violence will never, ever end without a united Ireland, even if a united Ireland is not what the people want.
You have also claimed, and you're not alone in this either, that loyalist violence will end if a united Ireland is what the people want and get.
In other words, loyalists will accept (however reluctantly) the will of the people and stop fighting to overturn democracy. Some republicans, on the other hand, will never stop fighting to overturn the will of the people.
Which part contradicts what you've said?
It has been suggested that the current status quo in the North should be maintained, despite what people may actually want, because the current status quo delivers peace.
For those that are opposed to the status quo, voilence becomes an attractive tool as a return to violence would undermine the raison d'etre of maintaining the status quo.0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »You seem to feel I've misinterpreted you. Let's review.
You have claimed, and you're not alone in this, that republican violence will never, ever end without a united Ireland, even if a united Ireland is not what the people want.oscarBravo wrote: »No I have not, I said political violence, in general, will never end, without a permanent settlement. I then said that the only workable permanent settlement is reunification.oscarBravo wrote: »You have also claimed, and you're not alone in this either, that loyalist violence will end if a united Ireland is what the people want and get.
I said loyalist violence would be pointless in the event of reunification as there would be nothing to fight for at that stage. i also claimed it would be relatively easily defeated as they would no longer have the backing of the state. I would hope most loyalists would realise this.oscarBravo wrote: »In other words, loyalists will accept (however reluctantly) the will of the people and stop fighting to overturn democracy. Some republicans, on the other hand, will never stop fighting to overturn the will of the people.
That is some leap you took there. But like I said, you see what you want to see. That's without even getting into the issue of what the will of the people is.0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »That'll be that "with us or against us" fallacy I mentioned earlier.
You started it! My labelling you unionist was a direct response to you labelling me nationalist (your narrow view of it). Does the falacy not apply to you?
Wanting all tribes on this Island to live as one state without prejudice to religion, culture etc may represent Irish nationalism but does not represent the narrow view of nationalism you hold......I'm not a unionist. I don't care whether Northern Ireland remains part of the United Kingdom. I do have an interest in whether it becomes a part of my country, and on what terms.
But you believe that the larger part of Ireland's departure from the UK was based on the nationalism you despise. You believe that we did not have a right to self determination and we were bound by the democratic parliament of the UK. Are you abandoning this belief in democracy? do you now advocate that violent revolution is permissable against a "democracy" as long as some kind of democracy is established thereafter? Otherwise i must assume that you are still a Unionist.Sorry, but you're dismissing my arguments for not conforming to yours.
Ignorantly claiming that Northern Ireland is a basket case is not an argumentOf course it wouldn't. Why not? Because being an island is not the reason why Northern Ireland is an economic basket case.
Again you use the same strawman. NI does not suffer just because it is a seperate Island. It suffers because the Island its on has less resources than the Island of Britain. With a subsidy of 10.5 billion it dwarves any other area in the UK. The only era of significant growth coincided with the Celtic Tiger in the south---signifying how integrated these economies are. NI can compete in Ireland. It cant compete in the UK.The primary reason for it being an economic basket case is tribalism and violence. This is obvious from the fact that it's less of a basket case since most of the violence stopped, but still something of a basket case because of the constant threat of violence from people for whom democracy is an inconvenient obstacle. ...that implies to me that there's no causal relationship between Northern Ireland being on a different island and its economic woes. For some reason, this hasn't occurred to you.
You are correct, tribalism is an issue. Tribalism in NE Ireland has been around for 400 years.
From the Roots of Sectarianism in Northern Ireland by Higgins and Brewer (google it)Thus we defined anti-Catholicism as the determination of actions, attitudes and practices by negative beliefs about individual Catholics, the Catholic Church as an institution, or Catholic doctrine. These negative beliefs become invoked as an ethnic boundary marker, which can be used in some settings to represent social stratification and conflict. In terms of its three levels, anti-Catholicism is expressed at the level of ideas in negative stereotypes and pejorative beliefs, notions and language about Catholics and the Catholic Church. At the level of individual action, it shows itself in various forms of direct discrimination, intimidation and harassment against Catholics or the Catholic Church because of their Catholicism. At the level of the social structure, anti-Catholicism expresses itself in patterns of indirect and institutional discrimination and social disadvantage experienced by Catholics because they are Catholics. There is nothing inevitable about the progression through these levels, for anti-Catholicism can remain as a set of ideas without them affecting behaviour or having implications at the social structural level. In its worst manifestations however, it occurs at all three levels, although the number of these case is becoming fewer and fewer. Great Britain was once a good example; Northern Ireland still is.
Do you now understand how the tribal boundaries that you abhor are drawn in NI?
These are not Nationalist authors.......
Do you not see (what most historians do) that setting a border which makes a tribal issue more acute, giving one side absolute power over the other, might be a very very bad thing?...and that the reasons for such a border..are not economic?
.....that having this border has more to do with the tribalism you abhor.... than not having it has.You realise you're making a compelling argument for Belgium not to exist?
In your strawman perhaps....Sorry, I forgot. Your objective facts apply only to the island of Ireland, which operates in a different causal domain from the rest of the world.
So you claim. Youll have to demonstrate that objectively. Cyprus? Iceland?I'm not sure where you're seeing hot-headedness; all I'm doing is pointing out flaws in your arguments.
Your argument is that im a nationalist...and theerfore my arguments must be flawed....oh yes..and NI is a basket case...I'd have a lot more respect for your argument if you admitted that there's no economic reasoning behind your desire for a united Ireland either; that you've invented all this armchair economic theory as a figleaf to try to make it look like a united Ireland would be anything other than a fiscal catastrophe. You're the one using Sinn Féin-esque magical economics to "prove" that Northern Ireland's massive deficit would suddenly vanish and be replaced with a powerhouse economy by dint of being removed from the soul-sucking embrace of the UK.
I didnt invent the 10.5 billion annual deficit which NI now holds as part of the UK. This would be the equivalent of a 32 billion deficit in the ROI.
I actually dislike Sinn Fein. Their policy of complaining about cuts from west minister is foolish if their intention is for a UI. The less dependency on Britain the better for people in NI, and the more likely a UI is for economical and popular reasons. Unionists clearly recognise this.
The root of the border is religious fundamentalism. I would like to see tribalism eliminated so the border reflects the cultural, economic and social unit that the Island is.
If you can think of one objective long term economic reason for why the border should be where it is, lets hear it. Yet again you wont because you cant.It's actually quite funny - you rail about objectivity, but you are incapable of distinguishing the slightest deviation from your creed as anything other than that most heinous of heresies, unionism.
You have demonised my position as nationalism without substantiation many times already. How do you look like on your high moral ground from your position below?I'll repeat for the record that I'm not a unionist. You'll disagree, implying that I'm a liar, because fundamentalist nationalism is like fundamentalist Christianity - if I deviate in any small way from the One True Path, I'm going to burn in hell. There is no middle ground.
Again you decry being labelled as Unionist while denouncing me as nationalist! Lesson learnt i hope?Oh yeah: are Alsace and Lorraine more geographically compatible with Germany or France?
Fairly compaitibe with both, as movement of people, languages, goods, ideas, culture are facilitated by their geographic proximity.
To illustrate to you:
Spain would be more geographically compatible with Portugal than it would with Italy. Ireland would be more geographically compatible with Britain than it would with Germany. NI would be more geographically compaitible with ROI than it would with Britain. More people pass betweeb NI and ROI on the E1 in 10 minutes than between NI and GB in 1 day. Geography is a major factor amongst others...in determining the location of International borders. As are similar and shared resources..(heavily dependent on geography also)...Unfortuanely religious fundamentalism can play a part......as with the border in Ireland.0 -
Advertisement
-
Ah, I see. You're not a nationalist. You want a united Ireland, but you're not a nationalist. In fact, you're so offended at the idea of being called a nationalist, you reflexively retaliated by calling me a unionist, even after I said I'm not one.You started it! My labelling you unionist was a direct response to you labelling me nationalist (your narrow view of it). Does the falacy not apply to you?
Gotcha.
Ok, so you are a nationalist, but you resent me calling you the sort of nationalist that you assume I think you are...Wanting all tribes on this Island to live as one state without prejudice to religion, culture etc may represent Irish nationalism but does not represent the narrow view of nationalism you hold......
I'm getting confused.
Now you're just blatantly making stuff up.You believe that we did not have a right to self determination...
I have never - ever - expressed the view that we didn't have a right to self-determination. I have expressed the view that we didn't need to start a war to achieve independence, and been roundly ridiculed by those who can't imagine ever achieving anything without killing someone in the process, but if you can't contemplate self-determination without violence, that's your problem, not mine.
What you need to assume in order to maintain the internal consistency of your carefully-crafted worldview is not my concern.Otherwise i must assume that you are still a Unionist.
Tell you what: why don't you find a post of mine where I've suggested that the reason for the border is economic, because I'm not particularly interested in tilting at straw men.Do you not see [...] that the reasons for such a border..are not economic?
Hispaniola? New Guinea? Timor? Borneo? Tierra del Fuego? St Martin?So you claim. Youll have to demonstrate that objectively. Cyprus? Iceland?
No, you just invented a reason for it. Apparently being a relatively poor part of a rich country makes for an inherent fiscal instability that can only be solved be redrawing national boundaries. Apparently there are no other rich countries in the world with poor regions.I didnt invent the 10.5 billion annual deficit which NI now holds as part of the UK.
I would like to see tribalism eliminated so people stopped killing each other for reasons that are objectively stupid, like where a line is drawn on a map, or which government is wasting your tax money.The root of the border is religious fundamentalism. I would like to see tribalism eliminated so the border reflects the cultural, economic and social unit that the Island is.
I have never attempted to make an economic case for the border. All I've done is pointed out that your so-called economic case for getting rid of it is completely fabricated.If you can think of one objective long term economic reason for why the border should be where it is, lets hear it.
Clear this up for me: are you saying you don't consider yourself a nationalist, and are offended by the idea that someone would consider you one?You have demonised my position as nationalism without substantiation many times already.
I have no idea what this means.How do you look like on your high moral ground from your position below?
I've made it clear that I'm not a unionist. I've explained why. You're still trying to describe me as one, because you're using it as a pejorative term.Again you decry being labelled as Unionist while denouncing me as nationalist! Lesson learnt i hope?
If you tell me that you are offended at being described as a nationalist, then I'll apologise for suggesting that you are one. I will, however, ask you to explain how a non-nationalist can hold views that are indistinguishable from nationalism.
So Spain and Portugal should be one country? Ireland and Britain should be one country?Fairly compaitibe with both, as movement of people, languages, goods, ideas, culture are facilitated by their geographic proximity.
To illustrate to you:
Spain would be more geographically compatible with Portugal than it would with Italy. Ireland would be more geographically compatible with Britain than it would with Germany. NI would be more geographically compaitible with ROI than it would with Britain.
If your answer to these is "no", but you still maintain that Northern Ireland and Ireland should be one country, then you're clearly illustrating that "geographic compatibility" isn't a reason for a united Ireland; just a pretext.
So if more people drive between Dusseldorf and Amsterdam than between Amsterdam and Groningen, that means the Netherlands should be part of Germany?To ilustrate more people pass betweeb NI and ROI on the E1 in 10 minutes than between NI and GB in 1 day.0
Advertisement