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
Reunification Question
Comments
-
As to who would set up Connacht as a regional government, I don't know. Dublin, Antrim, Down and Cork each have larger populations, with each side of Dublin having a larger population.
If one were to design regional government (or consultative assemblies, or some such) on vaguely rational basis, you'd probably end up with something like the MEP constituencies a couple of iterations ago. Connacht-"Ulster"; Munster; Dublin; (rest of) Leinster.
You might not immediately have "symmetrical" devolution/federalism, though. It would make sense to start the NIA (or whatever you'd call it) with powers similar to what it has in the UK. But if you're creating the others from scratch, giving them all those might not make much sense. If you're setting them up in advance of a UI, though, that's more feasible.0 -
alaimacerc wrote: »Silly me, where would we be without the ever-moving burden of proof.
OK, Thomas: was this actually said, and if so, what's the precise quote, date, and occasion.
Jack: are you actually saying this wasn't said, or just making a shot-in-the-dark point about my supposed bias and credulity?
That was told by someone who witnessed that when Adams expressed it in public in the 1980s. I´ve tried to find some link to that Quotation but couldn´t find it now. The reference in that speech was towards a UI and when Unionists doesn´t like to live in a UI, there´s always the ferry to England. That was the core of the Quotation.
If I would find that quotation on a Unionists website, SF supporters like Crooked Jack would as well dismiss it as anti-SF Propaganda.
Personally, I have no much doubt to believe that this was said by Adams and I also have Little doubt that if the Shinners fail (as the always do) to persuade the Unionists of the benefits of a UI, as desperate as the Shinners can become on their dream of a UI, they would finally give them this "advice" regarding "the Ferry to England".
The Shinners know that they can´t get any credit from the Unionists community. Not yet in two generations to come. But it doesn´t matter, most of them Shinners simply reckon on the "higher birth rates" on the CNRs side that assures them the required majority in a border Referendum the Shinners will stress to be set up when they think that the time is right to do it. With a certain chance to win it.
Some point which Shinners like to deflect from is, that the people in the Republic of Ireland also will have a say on Irish re-unification by referendum. It is often taken for granted that a majority in the Republic is no problem at all and secure out of "patriotic" reasons. They forget that there is still some amount of people who don´t give a fiddlers about such "patriotism" and don´t want to have them trouble makers from NI in their State. The reference by the term "Trouble maker" doesn´t distinguish between Republican/Nationalists and Unionists/Loyalists. These people objecting Irish re-unification are of course anti-SF but more to the point, they don´t like to have the present Republic of Ireland replaced by a Socialist Republic of SF outset. I´ve met some people of that mindset first on boards.ie but not only here, I´ve come across such alike people on other sites too. Still, the Shinners regard them as minority that can be ignored, but that might be another point of the Shinners attitude to simply ignore things that stand in the way of their idea of a UI and press on to bring more people onto their side.0 -
alaimacerc wrote: »Silly me, where would we be without the ever-moving burden of proof.
OK, Thomas: was this actually said, and if so, what's the precise quote, date, and occasion.
Jack: are you actually saying this wasn't said, or just making a shot-in-the-dark point about my supposed bias and credulity?
Im making the totally unreasonable request for proof because no link was provided, i certainly couldnt find anything googling it, it's completely out of step with anything else Adams has said and with republican thinking and then there's the small matter of that particular poster being, how should i put this without getting another warning...unreliable at best.
But hey, my buddy once said he heard Enda Kenny say that he loves eating live puppies and grooming children on the internet. I've no proof whatsoever but my buddy swears it's totes legit. It was like in the 80s or something0 -
alaimacerc wrote: »Sure, that's the underlying reason. That plus the massive incentive of the parties to much so much as admit the possibility of coalition with each other would be electorally self-defeating.
Eventually, though, it'll have to change. You can't just dine out on the CW forever. Either they'll realign on some big, as yet unforeseen, issue in the future. Or they'll continue to become less and less dominant. Once the only way they can foreseeably get into government is with each other, they'll change their tune.
It´s more a matter of posts getting and supplying in the even of them being in government. It also depends on the common ground they (FF and FG) have or can set up for the benefit of both of them. If they would merge into a new Conservative Party in Ireland, it might put the Claim of being Republican off the centre because every old Party, even the Labour Party, sees itself in the Irish republican tradition, the hub from which they either emerged or always have been part of it. It would lead to a more common left-centre-right scheme in parliamentarian politics. Same as in many European countries. For the time being, it doesn´t seem as if they would take up such a thought.
Meanwhile, there is something else established as a result of the current FG/LAB coalition. This links was first posted on the Internet Website "Politicalworld.org" and you might have a look into that if you like:
(first the link to the site where the link was posted in a thread about it)
http://www.politicalworld.org/showthread.php?16166-The-Collins-Institute-Fine-Gael-s-just-society-just-for-whom
(here´s the link to the specific site)
http://www.collinsinstitute.ie/
Having read what this Institute is all about, it doesn´t Sound that unattractive imo. It´s a mixture of conservative and social democratic principles and suggestions how to make things better.Not necessarily: look at Democratic Left. FG may still get "Blueshirts" thrown regularly at them at on these forums, but no-one with any sense thinks they have the "indelible character" of a fascist party just because they'd some rum characters resting in their ranks 80 years ago.
It isn´t just on boards.ie. You can find that same "Approach" towards FGers on politicalworld.org, politics.ie and any other political website that deals with Irish politics. Politicalworld.org is a place where - from my Impression - the majority is left-wing, from SF supporters to others but all with a strong republican background. Politics.ie is going down the gutter - from my experiences there - and other blogs to read depends on what political or cultural background the owner of the blog is.
I don´t share this stupid labelling of FGers as being "fascists". I see them just as Conservatives, nothing more. The extremists are more to find either within SF or those surrounding them on the political edges of the right or left faction.
FF gets the lot of the buckets and if it wasn´t for their republican traditions, as they see themselves to be rooted in, they would be more like a Party that serves the interests of interpreneurs and the rich. More like the LibDems in GB.Subject to being let in by the others, IIRC. But there's strong incentives to belong to an EP group, and some fairly constraining rules about minimum numbers of MEPs and numbers of countries required to form one. Not a lot of potential for a "economically left, socially not quite sure, irredentist nationalist" grouping.
So it makes for some very strange bedfellows.
Of course, that´s a certain point. I´m not argueing about that. On the other hand, they affiliate on the basis of what they have on common ground, even if it´s the minimum of it and the benefits from being in such a group does some part to it. Conservatives usually allie themselves in one group and they are all pro-EU, as well as the Social Democratic Parties are. SF chosed to join the group they are in because what they have in common is to be left-wing and anti-EU. Such is the case with the UKIP bing in the same group with other right-wing and anti-EU parties. Those members who aren´t in any of these groups are either independent or to extreme to find a place within a Party. This might change for the worse in case more representatives from far-right extremist parties get elected to the EP.But the "core" of the FF vote would say just the same. (If they have a core as such these days.)
I don´t doubt FF´s republican Tradition. The Thing is just, what does it mean to be a Republican These days apart from being in a somewhat republican Tradition that is equal to that of SF, Éirígí, RSF, 1916Societies etc.. I wonder, isn´t it quite normal to be a republican when living in a Republic and supporting that State which is the present Republic of Ireland? Most other European People within the EU live in a Republic, yet their Republicanism isn´t comparable to that of Irish Republicanism which you find among those who label themselves as "Republicans". The link to the revolutionary period in modern Irish history makes it that different because it has some link to a kind of militarism that goes with it.
Would you think that someone who is a member of the Green Party of Ireland would see himself in the same tradition like the Shinners and other "traditional" Republicans see themselves? I´d rather assume that for the Greens to be Republicans has not the same meaning as to the others, it´s a quite normal reference to the system of the State in which they live and whose politics they try to influence in accordance to their own policies. Greens are traditionally also left-wing, so to say as this is the case in many European countries.And "not legitimate", etc. As I said, they're signed up to it, and eventually the feet will surely catch up with the brain. One can only maintain that level of cognitive dissonance for so long. I hope.
Maybe.I don't think this stands up to examination or observation, as I said before. Their association with that isn't unique... or even primary, or essential.
There are more complaints and reports about Ulster Protestant Bands marching and the OO than there are of Republican ones. But besides the variety in the numbers of marches on each side, they both march.0 -
Crooked Jack wrote: »Im making the totally unreasonable request for proof because no link was provided, i certainly couldnt find anything googling it, it's completely out of step with anything else Adams has said and with republican thinking and then there's the small matter of that particular poster being, how should i put this without getting another warning...unreliable at best.
But hey, my buddy once said he heard Enda Kenny say that he loves eating live puppies and grooming children on the internet. I've no proof whatsoever but my buddy swears it's totes legit. It was like in the 80s or something
I see. You´re one of those who believe that everything has to be find on the Internet and if it isn´t there, it doesn´t exists and never has been expressed in a speech. The Internet is a wide space, and still gowing very fast but unless someone bothers to make an entry and have the facilities to scan a document or provide a link to a site where it is already quoted, it means to be of no existence.
Carry on with your attitude and bringing rather ridiculous examples to the fore in order to prove your point which can´t be proven at all times.
In fairness, I wouldn´t expect any SF follower to come up with a link to this particular Expression of the Big SF leader. No, not at all.0 -
I see. You´re one of those who believe that everything has to be find on the Internet and if it isn´t there, it doesn´t exists and never has been expressed in a speech. The Internet is a wide space, and still gowing very fast but unless someone bothers to make an entry and have the facilities to scan a document or provide a link to a site where it is already quoted, it means to be of no existence.
Carry on with your attitude and bringing rather ridiculous examples to the fore in order to prove your point which can´t be proven at all times.
In fairness, I wouldn´t expect any SF follower to come up with a link to this particular Expression of the Big SF leader. No, not at all.
Given the "right to be forgotten" changes that have been brought in by the EU, you can be certain that there is a huge amount of airbrushing taking place (by both sides) of what happened in the North and what was said by various political leaders. They probably have someone employed full-time in Shinner Central working away on it.0 -
I see. You´re one of those who believe that everything has to be find on the Internet and if it isn´t there, it doesn´t exists and never has been expressed in a speech. The Internet is a wide space, and still gowing very fast but unless someone bothers to make an entry and have the facilities to scan a document or provide a link to a site where it is already quoted, it means to be of no existence.
Carry on with your attitude and bringing rather ridiculous examples to the fore in order to prove your point which can´t be proven at all times.
In fairness, I wouldn´t expect any SF follower to come up with a link to this particular Expression of the Big SF leader. No, not at all.
But i would expect an ardent anti-shinner to go to the ends of the earth to find proof for such a statement, and yet here we are, with nothing but "your mate's" word from 30 odd years ago0 -
Given the "right to be forgotten" changes that have been brought in by the EU, you can be certain that there is a huge amount of airbrushing taking place (by both sides) of what happened in the North and what was said by various political leaders. They probably have someone employed full-time in Shinner Central working away on it.
Definitely! It's definitely more likely that there is a shady Sinn Fein team working away in a 1984 style Ministry of Truth Records Department than the possibility that Thomas is just telling naughty fibs.
My God, sometimes I think you guys are actually really clever Shinners on here parodying the anti-shinners to make them look even more ridiculous and narrow minded0 -
Crooked Jack wrote: »But i would expect an ardent anti-shinner to go to the ends of the earth to find proof for such a statement, and yet here we are, with nothing but "your mate's" word from 30 odd years ago
I wouldn´t go to the end of the earth to prove anything to a Shinner because it´s all in vain. They just believe what they like to believe even if someone is rubbing them the truth under their nose.0 -
Given the "right to be forgotten" changes that have been brought in by the EU, you can be certain that there is a huge amount of airbrushing taking place (by both sides) of what happened in the North and what was said by various political leaders. They probably have someone employed full-time in Shinner Central working away on it.
Yes, I got your point there.:)0 -
Advertisement
-
I wouldn´t go to the end of the earth to prove anything to a Shinner because it´s all in vain. They just believe what they like to believe even if someone is rubbing them the truth under their nose.
Of course, very convenient. Well in that case my accusation about Enda has the same validity as your about Adams.
And what exactly is this truth youre rubbing under my nose? 'Cause so far all I've seen is "my mate sez" and then outrage at being asked for proof0 -
Crooked Jack wrote: »Definitely! It's definitely more likely that there is a shady Sinn Fein team working away in a 1984 style Ministry of Truth Records Department than the possibility that Thomas is just telling naughty fibs.
My God, sometimes I think you guys are actually really clever Shinners on here parodying the anti-shinners to make them look even more ridiculous and narrow minded
You may find the mirror Image of that assumption on LAD (Loyalists against Democracy), which is a "Satire" site and the posters there like to appear as being Loyalists while in fact, they are just Shinners ridiculing the Loyalists.
As for me telling naughty fibs, the day Gerry Adams will admit his Membership in the PIRA and his place within the IRA Army Council with nothing withholding and expressing that publicly will be the day when I accept your saying about me telling naughty fibs. Until then, I stay to what I said and I merely repeated what some others have heard.0 -
Crooked Jack wrote: »Of course, very convenient. Well in that case my accusation about Enda has the same validity as your about Adams.
And what exactly is this truth youre rubbing under my nose? 'Cause so far all I've seen is "my mate sez" and then outrage at being asked for proof
I wasn´t outraging at all. In contrast to you, I have no problem to admit when I couldn´t find any link on the Internet to back up what I said.0 -
You may find the mirror Image of that assumption on LAD (Loyalists against Democracy), which is a "Satire" site and the posters there like to appear as being Loyalists while in fact, they are just Shinners ridiculing the Loyalists.
As for me telling naughty fibs, the day Gerry Adams will admit his Membership in the PIRA and his place within the IRA Army Council with nothing withholding and expressing that publicly will be the day when I accept your saying about me telling naughty fibs. Until then, I stay to what I said and I merely repeated what some others have heard.
So then you agree, Enda eats lives puppies and grooms children? i mean, i have the same source as you do.0 -
Crooked Jack wrote: »So then you agree, Enda eats lives puppies and grooms children? i mean, i have the same source as you do.
No, I do not agree with your example and it´s obvious that you couldn´t come up with anything more sustainable than that.0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Iwasfrozen wrote: »I can see Northern Ireland exiting with a devolved Parliament within a United Ireland but there won't be a Parliament in the other provinces.
In that case, what would be the point? It wouldn't be a unified nation.0 -
PokeHerKing wrote: »Just like any immigrant minority in any country, either ship up or ship out.
"Imigrant minority"???
They've been there for five hundred years...0 -
Crooked Jack wrote: »Reunited Ireland. Nobody says reunited republic.
Ireland was never united in the first place. It was a collection of individual tribal kingdoms.0 -
Crooked Jack wrote: »Were talking about the Irish nation here, as a distinct cultural entity from Britain. .
That's not the same as a united Ireland. We are still a different cultural entity. But we have never been a politically united country.0 -
And others hate the notion that you could have a new flag for Ireland and that would somehow be inclusive of unionists/loyalists.
We could adopt a variation of the Australian flag with the Union Jack superimposed on a portion of the Irish flag.
There's a snowball's chance in hell of that happening.
Australia is still a dominion of the UK, the queen of England is their head of state. We are a sovereign independent country.0 -
In common with many topics on this thread, then.There's a snowball's chance in hell of that happening.Australia is still a dominion of the UK, the queen of England is their head of state. We are a sovereign independent country.
Australia is also a sovereign independent country. Dominion status ended in 1953 -- you must not be getting all your memos! </RichardDeanAnderson> Australia and the UK (there is no "Queen of England" -- there's not an English government of any sort, come to that) share the same monarch, that's all.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
Indeed not. It'd be something to be contemplated only once they'd exhausted every other possible alternative. For the foreseeable future, I expect them to go to pretty extreme lengths to even avoid coalition -- much less merger -- as that would very likely entail many of the same negative consequences.If they would merge into a new Conservative Party in Ireland, it might put the Claim of being Republican off the centre because every old Party, even the Labour Party, sees itself in the Irish republican tradition, the hub from which they either emerged or always have been part of it. It would lead to a more common left-centre-right scheme in parliamentarian politics. Same as in many European countries. For the time being, it doesn´t seem as if they would take up such a thought.
Never heard of them -- does that measure their impact since they were set up? If FG were ever to catch a coherent ideology, or set of policy ideas, would they even know what to do with it? Nice trippy green mandala, though (if you ignore the distracting and meaningless slogans daubed across it.http://www.collinsinstitute.ie/
Having read what this Institute is all about, it doesn´t Sound that unattractive imo. It´s a mixture of conservative and social democratic principles and suggestions how to make things better.
Of course they are. A conservative party for a deeply conservative electorate. Hence the need to a more hypobolical insult for their political opponents -- especially for those that are just as conservative, or indeed keen to deflect from their own tactics' resemblance to fascism's. Though of course that's what the nasty UK party is called, so you'd think it was good for a jibe on that score, at least.I don´t share this stupid labelling of FGers as being "fascists". I see them just as Conservatives, nothing more.
Possibly. I'm not sure their European affiliation has any more significance than where their Drunkard's Walk has taken them to for the time being.FF gets the lot of the buckets and if it wasn´t for their republican traditions, as they see themselves to be rooted in, they would be more like a Party that serves the interests of interpreneurs and the rich. More like the LibDems in GB.
These rightist groups are amazingly unstable, though. The pretty-far-right don't want to associated with the slightly-more-far-right. And if you're trading on xenophobia, there's little play to be had from palling around with foreigners... who just happen to hate other foreigners. Likely including you, to some extent. Hence these tend to bump along the minimum qualifying criteria for a while, then split apart and reform as something slightly different.This might change for the worse in case more representatives from far-right extremist parties get elected to the EP.
Very little. It's mainly a sliding scale of denial of the political facts. At one extreme you have the remnants of physical force Republicanism; then there's the non-violent Legitimatists, who have the same dogma, just a different strategy; then you have the "ship out", "greening of the north" types; then you have the people that claim to suypport the GFA, but say NI is still somehow "illegitimate" anyway -- which I can't make any sense of; then there's the people who can't quite bring themselves to refer to either jurisdiction by its official, preferred name. Eventually you get down to people in FF for whom it's just the lineage from their great-grandfather, a tagline on their party, something to write snotty letters to the British Embassy regarding, and a way to feel vaguely more "patriotic" than FG.I don´t doubt FF´s republican Tradition. The Thing is just, what does it mean to be a Republican These days apart from being in a somewhat republican Tradition that is equal to that of SF, Éirígí, RSF, 1916Societies etc..
I think it's very different for people who got rid of their monarchy centuries ago, or whose "domestic" rulers were gotten ridden in circumstances that were either relatively civilised, or just plain overshadowed by other events. Clearly in Ireland the circumstances were very different, and relatively recent, too.I wonder, isn´t it quite normal to be a republican when living in a Republic and supporting that State which is the present Republic of Ireland? Most other European People within the EU live in a Republic, yet their Republicanism isn´t comparable to that of Irish Republicanism which you find among those who label themselves as "Republicans". The link to the revolutionary period in modern Irish history makes it that different because it has some link to a kind of militarism that goes with it.
Very clearly not. As I think I mentioned earlier, the GP is organised on an all-Ireland basis in a manner designed to mirror the GFA dispensation. Not to cherrypick it.Would you think that someone who is a member of the Green Party of Ireland would see himself in the same tradition like the Shinners and other "traditional" Republicans see themselves?
And there's more of the Orange ones that are just gratuitously, stupidly obnoxious to the neighbourhoods they march through -- for whatever reason or combination of reasons that is, exactly. There's more in total, so you get more "bad outliers" just because of expected variation in idiocy? Cycles of antagonism with residents? PUL are inherently worse people than CNR? Doubtless there's a QUB master's dissertation in this at the least.There are more complaints and reports about Ulster Protestant Bands marching and the OO than there are of Republican ones. But besides the variety in the numbers of marches on each side, they both march.0 -
Crooked Jack wrote: »Im making the totally unreasonable request for proof because no link was provided, i certainly couldnt find anything googling it, it's completely out of step with anything else Adams has said and with republican thinking and then there's the small matter of that particular poster being, how should i put this without getting another warning...unreliable at best.
It's a reasonable request as such, sure. What's a bit more striking, though, is the "OMG, you didn't call him a liar and demand cast-iron proof, totally showing your bias there!" gloss you're putting on it.
I too googled it at the time, and likewise couldn't find anything. So far, so equally skeptical, it seems. I think where we part company is that you assume this is "out of step with Republican thinking", and hence dismiss it as an extraordinary claim, requiring extraordinary evidence. Whereas frankly, given the "Republican thinking" in the '80s was all about the bombing and the shooting, it doesn't seem that much of a stretch to throw in a mention of ferries. Not to mention the context of, lest we forget, having gotten onto this subject from someone here having made a very similar remark. And you, the contributor of the very next post, saying not a thing about it.
Precisely whose biases is this really more revealing of?0 -
-
Ireland was never united in the first place. It was a collection of individual tribal kingdoms.
There was the revolutionary state called the Irish Republic from 1919 - 1922 that claimed all of the island & was able to enforce a lot of it's decisions in most of the country & was partially recognized. Plus the Irish Free State was united for about 36 hours before the North decided to opt of that state.0 -
Advertisement
-
Iwasfrozen wrote: »By that criteria Ireland will never be a unified nation.
As to the point? There is none but some people get their panties in a twist over this crap.
I think katydid is wrong it would be a united nation. But if we can't be a united nation ever I'd rather join the North & be a part of the UK. I don't like the thought of my fellow countrymen being isolated in state they have no desire to be apart of.0 -
It wouldn't be a united nation if one part of it was treated differently and had its own parliament or special political conditions.DarkyHughes wrote: »I think katydid is wrong it would be a united nation. But if we can't be a united nation ever I'd rather join the North & be a part of the UK. I don't like the thought of my fellow countrymen being isolated in state they have no desire to be apart of.
You'd rather join the UK and be a subject of her majesty than be a proud citizen of a republic? Hmmm.0 -
It wouldn't be a united nation if one part of it was treated differently and had its own parliament or special political conditions.
You'd rather join the UK and be a subject of her majesty than be a proud citizen of a republic? Hmmm.
The UK is a United nation & different parts of it have their own parliaments with different political conditions.
I wouldn't rather it but I'd sacrifice myself for the oppressed minorities in places like Tyrone, Derry, West Belfast, Fermanagh & South Armagh who did so much to win their freedom & to become apart of this Republic which doesn't seem to care about those people who were so loyal to this country like the Armagh Sniper (forget American Sniper) did so much for the freedom of this whole island & this state treated them like subversives. If all my countrymen & women can't enjoy freedom then I don't want it without them.0 -
Leaving aside Northern Ireland, the UK is comprised of THREE countries. Each of those is a nation in itself, and are held together by their connection to the monarchy. It's not a united country, it's a united KINGDOM. The recent referendum in Scotland shows how precarious that union is.DarkyHughes wrote: »The UK is a United nation & different parts of it have their own parliaments with different political conditions.
I wouldn't rather it but I'd sacrifice myself for the oppressed minorities in places like Tyrone, Derry, West Belfast, Fermanagh & South Armagh who did so much to win their freedom & to become apart of this Republic which doesn't seem to care about those people who were so loyal to this country like the Armagh Sniper (forget American Sniper) did so much for the freedom of this whole island & this state treated them like subversives. If all my countrymen & women can't enjoy freedom then I don't want it without them.
Ireland is one country, not two. If we want a united Ireland, we can't have different conditions in one part of the country than everywhere else. As long as they need their own parliament and special political arrangements in Northern Ireland, they are not ready to join our sovereign republic. You might want to make some kind of noble sacrifice and become a subject of the British monarch, but I don't think your attitude would have much support in this republic. If people in Fermanagh or wherever want to live in a republic, they are free to move here.
The reality is they will never be ready and it will never happen, so this is just idle talk anyway.0 -
That's quite the jumble of assertions, isn't it? Do you have any particular procedure to determine "country-ness"? We're perilously close to Stephen Colbert territory here, I fancy.Leaving aside Northern Ireland, the UK is comprised of THREE countries. Each of those is a nation in itself, and are held together by their connection to the monarchy. It's not a united country, it's a united KINGDOM. The recent referendum in Scotland shows how precarious that union is.
Ireland is one country, not two.
Also, they're not "connected via the monarchy". Unlike the commonwealth realms (see my earlier reply to "Australia is a dominion"), they're all in the same single, essentially unitary, state. The monarch just has one title for the UK: to wit, being queen of it. (And separately, of Canada, Belize, etc.) A kingdom is, after all, a type of country, not some mysteriously disjoint concept.
... says who? Lots of countries have regions with "special political arrangements". Are you going to tell me that China and Belgium aren't countries, either? Bosnia "wasn't ready" to be a single country, so should have killed a few hundred thousand more people until they decided they were, with none of this namby-pamby "own parliament" stuff?If we want a united Ireland, we can't have different conditions in one part of the country than everywhere else. As long as they need their own parliament and special political arrangements in Northern Ireland, they are not ready to join our sovereign republic.
There's nothing to preclude such solutions in Ireland. Equally, they're moot at the moment, because Unionists don't want them, and Republicans are too stiff-necked to even contemplate "concessions" or "compromises". Or at least, don't want to sell the pass ahead of any actual negotiations, which could be a long, long way away.0 -
... says who? Lots of countries have regions with "special political arrangements". Are you going to tell me that China and Belgium aren't countries, either? Bosnia "wasn't ready" to be a single country, so should have killed a few hundred thousand more people until they decided they were, with none of this namby-pamby "own parliament" stuff?alaimacerc wrote: »That's quite the jumble of assertions, isn't it? Do you have any particular procedure to determine "country-ness"? We're perilously close to Stephen Colbert territory here, I fancy.
Also, they're not "connected via the monarchy". Unlike the commonwealth realms (see my earlier reply to "Australia is a dominion"), they're all in the same single, essentially unitary, state. The monarch just has one title for the UK: to wit, being queen of it. (And separately, of Canada, Belize, etc.) A kingdom is, after all, a type of country, not some mysteriously disjoint concept.
[quite]If we want a united Ireland, we can't have different conditions in one part of the country than everywhere else. As long as they need their own parliament and special political arrangements in Northern Ireland, they are not ready to join our sovereign republic.
There's nothing to preclude such solutions in Ireland. Equally, they're moot at the moment, because Unionists don't want them, and Republicans are too stiff-necked to even contemplate "concessions" or "compromises". Or at least, don't want to sell the pass ahead of any actual negotiations, which could be a long, long way away.[/QUOTE]
sensible post0 -
sensible post[/QUOTE]... says who? Lots of countries have regions with "special political arrangements". Are you going to tell me that China and Belgium aren't countries, either? Bosnia "wasn't ready" to be a single country, so should have killed a few hundred thousand more people until they decided they were, with none of this namby-pamby "own parliament" stuff?
There's nothing to preclude such solutions in Ireland. Equally, they're moot at the moment, because Unionists don't want them, and Republicans are too stiff-necked to even contemplate "concessions" or "compromises". Or at least, don't want to sell the pass ahead of any actual negotiations, which could be a long, long way away.
We're not "lots of countries". We're Ireland. We don't have special arrangements for Kerry or Donegal or Wexford. Why should we have one for what is now Northern Ireland? I have no interest in being a citizen of a republic where people in one part of the country are treated differently to everyone else; why should we change our political system to suit them?
As you said, it's all moot anyway. The Unionists have no interest in joining with us, and we have no interest in them. And the idea of us re-joining the UK in order to make them happy is absolutely ridiculous and would find no support.0 -
Leaving aside Northern Ireland, the UK is comprised of THREE countries. Each of those is a nation in itself, and are held together by their connection to the monarchy. It's not a united country, it's a united KINGDOM. The recent referendum in Scotland shows how precarious that union is.
Ireland is one country, not two. If we want a united Ireland, we can't have different conditions in one part of the country than everywhere else. As long as they need their own parliament and special political arrangements in Northern Ireland, they are not ready to join our sovereign republic. You might want to make some kind of noble sacrifice and become a subject of the British monarch, but I don't think your attitude would have much support in this republic. If people in Fermanagh or wherever want to live in a republic, they are free to move here.
The reality is they will never be ready and it will never happen, so this is just idle talk anyway.
No reason why Ireland cannot have different conditions in different parts of the country and still be a country. It happens in many parts of the world. In fact as things stand today in the Republic of Ireland we have a system where power is overly centralized within the executive branch of government. Consistently since independance local government has lost more and more power to the central government where to the point now that given the top persons in local government are not elected but appointed officials thus removing decision making from local hands to officials such as the city and county managers who are appointed civil servants and thus answerable to the central government not to the needs of the local population for whom they do though make decisions.0 -
sensible post
We're not "lots of countries". We're Ireland. We don't have special arrangements for Kerry or Donegal or Wexford. Why should we have one for what is now Northern Ireland? I have no interest in being a citizen of a republic where people in one part of the country are treated differently to everyone else; why should we change our political system to suit them?
As you said, it's all moot anyway. The Unionists have no interest in joining with us, and we have no interest in them. And the idea of us re-joining the UK in order to make them happy is absolutely ridiculous and would find no support.[/QUOTE]
No we currently don't have special arrangements for any part of our country and it is a major problem. Our overly contralized system of governmnet does not work well for local needs around the country especially outside the greater Dublin metro area. Real local government and special arrangements to develop our country as a whole are very much needed. Plus there is also the factor that having a system where power resides almost exclusively within the executive branch of government as is the case in Ireland leaves great potential for harm given the lack of checks on the power of the executive.
I would also suggest you speak for yourself instead of using the royal we. I certainly do have a lot of interest in working towards a peaceful prosperous and united Ireland that actually works for all its citizens.0 -
No we currently don't have special arrangements for any part of our country and it is a major problem. Our overly contralized system of governmnet does not work well for local needs around the country especially outside the greater Dublin metro area. Real local government and special arrangements to develop our country as a whole are very much needed. Plus there is also the factor that having a systme where power resides almost exclusively within the executive branch of government as is the case in Ireland leaves great potential for harm given the lack of checks on the power of the executive.
I would also suggest you speak for yourself instead of using the royal we. I certainly do have a lot of interest in working towards a peaceful prosperous and united Ireland that actually works for all its citizens
There is a difference between de-centralisation, which is a good idea, and having one part of the country with a special arrangement in terms of political representation. We don't need regional parliaments in a country of four million people, and we certainly don't need an arrangement where one part of the country is treated differently in regard to how people are elected, just because the two communities there can't see eye to eye.
I am speaking for myself, but I am also reflecting the reality in this country. There are very few people who would contemplate having a two-tier country, or re-entering the UK and becoming subjects of a monarch in order to keep unionists happy. If you think otherwise, you know very little about this proud republic.0 -
Advertisement
-
There is a difference between de-centralisation, which is a good idea, and having one part of the country with a special arrangement in terms of political representation. We don't need regional parliaments in a country of four million people, and we certainly don't need an arrangement where one part of the country is treated differently in regard to how people are elected, just because the two communities there can't see eye to eye.
I am speaking for myself, but I am also reflecting the reality in this country. There are very few people who would contemplate having a two-tier country, or re-entering the UK and becoming subjects of a monarch in order to keep unionists happy. If you think otherwise, you know very little about this proud republic.
Indeed decentralization is a good idea and is something Ireland as a whole needs badly and a whole lot more of.
The population of Ireland is roughly 6.6m not 4m. I would agree we should not have 2 systems of electing representatives. I would keep PR for all elections throughout Ireland.
I am certainly not interested in having a two tiered country at all either. We already have had that in the Republic of Ireland since the state was founded as has been the case in the north. We have very high levels of poverty and for decades have seen thousands forced to emigrate.0 -
Indeed decentralization is a good idea and is something Ireland as a whole needs badly and a whole lot more of.
The population of Ireland is roughly 6.6m not 4m. I would agree we should not have 2 systems of electing representatives. I would keep PR for all elections throughout Ireland.
I am certainly not interested in having a two tiered country at all either. We already have had that in the Republic of Ireland since the state was founded as has been the case in the north. We have very high levels of poverty and for decades have seen thousands forced to emigrate.
Fair enough, six million if you include the North. Smaller than the population of London. We don't need regional parliaments. The only reason it is proposed is to pander to the unique demands of the communities up there.
The proposition here was that the bizarre political arrangement in the North would continue as now.0 -
Fair enough, six million if you include the North. Smaller than the population of London. We don't need regional parliaments. The only reason it is proposed is to pander to the unique demands of the communities up there.
The proposition here was that the bizarre political arrangement in the North would continue as now.
Again the population of Ireland is roughly 6.6m. In terms of how things could be structured politcally I think the key is extensive decentralization to local bodies throughout Ireland that have real powers and real tax bases and thus are in touch with and have to be responsive to the local needs. Beyond that I still have an open mind.0 -
Again the population of Ireland is roughly 6.6m. In terms of how things could be structured politcally I think the key is extensive decentralization to local bodies throughout Ireland that have real powers and real tax bases and thus are in touch with and have to be responsive to the local needs. Beyond that I still have an open mind.
Decentralisation is not the same as having regional parliaments, which is what the poster to whom I replied was suggesting. Regional parliaments, with continuing power sharing in the northern one. We have city councils and county councils, they should have more power.
That has nothing to do with unification.0 -
Decentralisation is not the same as having regional parliaments, which is what the poster to whom I replied was suggesting. Regional parliaments, with continuing power sharing in the northern one. We have city councils and county councils, they should have more power.
That has nothing to do with unification.
It's related, or at least relatable. We have local government that's in too small units, and has too little power, democratic accountability, and responsibilities. The island has a large "region" that sees itself as very different from the other jurisdiction. It's not rocket science to see a way to try to solve both problems with a similar solution.0 -
alaimacerc wrote: »It's related, or at least relatable. We have local government that's in too small units, and has too little power, democratic accountability, and responsibilities. The island has a large "region" that sees itself as very different from the other jurisdiction. It's not rocket science to see a way to try to solve both problems with a similar solution.
What we don't need is another layer of government. We need to make the system we have function properly. And we certainly don't need to make an exception for NI. If they want to join us, a normal, functioning democracy, they do it on our terms.0 -
alaimacerc wrote: »That's quite the jumble of assertions, isn't it? Do you have any particular procedure to determine "country-ness"? We're perilously close to Stephen Colbert territory here, I fancy.
Also, they're not "connected via the monarchy". Unlike the commonwealth realms (see my earlier reply to "Australia is a dominion"), they're all in the same single, essentially unitary, state. The monarch just has one title for the UK: to wit, being queen of it. (And separately, of Canada, Belize, etc.) A kingdom is, after all, a type of country, not some mysteriously disjoint concept.
... says who? Lots of countries have regions with "special political arrangements". Are you going to tell me that China and Belgium aren't countries, either? Bosnia "wasn't ready" to be a single country, so should have killed a few hundred thousand more people until they decided they were, with none of this namby-pamby "own parliament" stuff?
There's nothing to preclude such solutions in Ireland. Equally, they're moot at the moment, because Unionists don't want them, and Republicans are too stiff-necked to even contemplate "concessions" or "compromises". Or at least, don't want to sell the pass ahead of any actual negotiations, which could be a long, long way away.
Just saw this post now. Sorry for not replying earlier.
Countries - yep, a very difficult thing to define. As a Scotsman if Britain
or the UK is his "country", and you'll get a very clear answer. Especially if he's at a rugby match... :-)
And yes, the countries of the UK are connected via the monarchy. It is the UNITED Kingdom; until the beginning of the 17th century, Scotland was a totally separate kingdom with a different monarch, and for another century or so remained two separate realms with the same monarch (metaphorically wearing two crowns). They have only been united under the one crown since 1707. So what unites them politically is the monarchy. They are nevertheless two very distinct countries/nations or however you describe it.
The point is that we are not. We have nothing whatsoever to do with the British monarchy or indeed any other monarchy. It would be nonsensical and politically impossible for a republic to become part of a kingdom of any kind, united or otherwise.
So no, that option is not on the table. Not even in the room.0 -
Why not? Is Switzerland some sort of over-governed statist nightmare? Having three levels of government would be perfectly normal by international standards. (Cue more scoffing on traditional Irish Exceptionalist grounds.)What we don't need is another layer of government.
Even if for some dogmatic reason one can only have one subsidiary level of government, it's not exactly obvious there's a superb case for that being based on the 30K-odd people in Leitrim and Longform as the fundamental unit.
Sure, let's be ignoring all the evidence that we actually should, and will very likely eventually indeed need to, and let's be stiff-necked about this for no good reason.And we certainly don't need to make an exception for NI.
Well, they don't. And are we? Jury may be out on that, too. And maybe speak for yourself, rather than for everyone else.If they want to join us, a normal, functioning democracy, they do it on our terms.
If there were a referendum process tomorrow, and NI were seeking to negotiate unification on terms of preserving GFA-like institutions in a UI, I think you'll find "our terms" would in fact be perfectly happy with that. (With writing the cheque for their expectations in terms of UK-type public services, maybe not so much.)0 -
You'll get a whole range of answers -- at least away from the rugger (... and football, and the shurling internationals...). There were actual attitude surveys on this in the runup to the indieref (in particular, though before that, too).Countries - yep, a very difficult thing to define. As a Scotsman if Britain
or the UK is his "country", and you'll get a very clear answer. Especially if he's at a rugby match... :-)
And you'll very clearly get a range of opinions on how many "countries" are on the island of Ireland, too.
They're "connected" by forming a single sovereign state. If the UK became a republic tomorrow it would still be a single sovereign state. (Though it might have to hurry along with thinking up a new name.) Other countries, I once again am forced to point out, share the same monarch, and are entirely separate sovereign states.And yes, the countries of the UK are connected via the monarchy.
That's not the "option" I was referring to. You may be conflating with another poster's musings.It would be nonsensical and politically impossible for a republic to become part of a kingdom of any kind, united or otherwise.0 -
Advertisement
-
alaimacerc wrote: »Why not? Is Switzerland some sort of over-governed statist nightmare? Having three levels of government would be perfectly normal by international standards. (Cue more scoffing on traditional Irish Exceptionalist grounds.)
Even if for some dogmatic reason one can only have one subsidiary level of government, it's not exactly obvious there's a superb case for that being based on the 30K-odd people in Leitrim and Longform as the fundamental unit.
Sure, let's be ignoring all the evidence that we actually should, and will very likely eventually indeed need to, and let's be stiff-necked about this for no good reason.
Well, they don't. And are we? Jury may be out on that, too. And maybe speak for yourself, rather than for everyone else.
If there were a referendum process tomorrow, and NI were seeking to negotiate unification on terms of preserving GFA-like institutions in a UI, I think you'll find "our terms" would in fact be perfectly happy with that. (With writing the cheque for their expectations in terms of UK-type public services, maybe not so much.)
The Swiss model is not followed in many other places, because it suits the particular needs of the Swiss, with its different ethnic and linguistic groupings and its particular history. Small countries with small populations and a more or less homogenous culture don't need regional parliaments. There has never been any call for such a thing before, and the only reason it's proposed now is to pander to those of the Unionist tradition, who in any case haven't the slightest intention or wish to be part of any kind of united Ireland independent of Britain.
If you think that there was a snowball's chance in hell of them accepting a united Ireland in a potential referendum, you are deluded.
So what evidence do you offer as to why we should have this extra layer of government for which there is no lobby or evident demand?0
Advertisement