Opinions on Irish identity

FrancieBrady

murphaph wrote: »

Then perhaps we shouldn't unite.

As your philosphy has it, maybe we shouldn't build that children's hospital? After all, it's going to cost a lot of money.

Bishopsback

FrancieBrady wrote: »

As your philosphy has it, maybe we shouldn't build that children's hospital? After all, it's going to cost a lot of money.

What's wrong with Northern Ireland becoming an independent state if it wants to get away from its British identity?
Why would a statelet that would want to change its identity want to do so at the burden of another already burdened state?
Look at the possible consequences on the citizens here!
I would wish that if there was a possibility of a united Ireland that it wouldn't be at any price.
I have lived in the republic all my life, a united Ireland wouldn't be my main priority. Once there are equal rights and social justice for all then Northern Ireland should be able to govern itself.
The main problem is that communities up there are prepared to murder each other to assert their own identity, until that's sorted out I don't think Northern Ireland will fit in here anyway.

FrancieBrady

Bishopsback wrote: »

What's wrong with Northern Ireland becoming an independent state if it wants to get away from its British identity?
Why would a statelet that would want to change its identity want to do so at the burden of another already burdened state?
Look at the possible consequences on the citizens here!
I would wish that if there was a possibility of a united Ireland that it wouldn't be at any price.
I have lived in the republic all my life, a united Ireland wouldn't be my main priority. Once there are equal rights and social justice for all then Northern Ireland should be able to govern itself.
The main problem is that communities up there are prepared to murder each other to assert their own identity, until that's sorted out I don't think Northern Ireland will fit in here anyway.

Well, the Northern Irish identity doesn't seem to want independence.

A Little Pony

FrancieBrady wrote: »

blanch152 wrote: »

I take it that you also agree that if there is a hard Brexit, and a hard border reimposed, that you agree that unless a major part of the republican community decide to become undemocratic, there will be no major threat of violence?

The problem with a hard border is that it flies in the face of the agreement that was signed up to.

In my opinion those who refuse to see just what McGuiness and Adams were admirably holding together will realise quick enough as another split happens and the cyclical confliuct / war begins again.
There will be a huge amount who will see the deal as broken.

Unionists of course have the same option, but no deal will have been broken. They signed up to unity if the majority vote for it.

Who is going to fire the first shot then?

FrancieBrady

A Little Pony wrote: »

Who is going to fire the first shot then?

Not too hard to work out. Those still violently opposed to partition.

A Little Pony

FrancieBrady wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

Who is going to fire the first shot then?

Not too hard to work out. Those still violently opposed to partition.

They should get over it then.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

As your philosphy has it, maybe we shouldn't build that children's hospital? After all, it's going to cost a lot of money.

Say we have equal rights North and South and the gay marriage, abortion issues etc. are sorted.

Why should we united if it will cost money?

Or put another way, how much is it worth? If a united Ireland meant a 20% drop in GDP, would you be in favour?

Before answering, think of all the poverty you would create as such as drop would not hit everyone evenly.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Not too hard to work out. Those still violently opposed to partition.

Who are they? Aren't they a small minority, and shouldn't their community, in recognition of the democratic principles, out that small minority?

James Brown

If ever there's a vote and the country is reunited, I'm sure the Unionists will take it in stride. I assume Sen. Cahill's dissident crew are stood down?
Maybe the next financial meltdown might be a good time? The next time we're wiped out financially, Northern Ireland coming on side might not really matter cost wise? I'd say anyone weighing the cost won't be voting 'yes' to unification anyway.
It would be political suicide for any Southern party to come out as a 'No'.

Bishopsback

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Well, the Northern Irish identity doesn't seem to want independence.

Why is that do you think?

FrancieBrady

Bishopsback wrote: »

Why is that do you think?

I would think because the Northern Irish identity is nothing new, it is just a flag of convenience for a host of things.
It is clear it is NOT voting for an independent NI but is voting fairly straightforwardly for the status quo.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Say we have equal rights North and South and the gay marriage, abortion issues etc. are sorted.

Why should we united if it will cost money?

Or put another way, how much is it worth? If a united Ireland meant a 20% drop in GDP, would you be in favour?

Before answering, think of all the poverty you would create as such as drop would not hit everyone evenly.

At least it is not 'think of the children'.

We have always created poverty, we just spent 20 years doing it.(look at the homeless figures released today)
Are you proposing not doing anything - build roads, train track, airports, infrastructue etc lest we create poverty?

I said it before, I believe it will create greater prosperity for all in the long run, that is a good thing.

What stars would have to align for you to want unity? (as you claim you do)

murphaph

Sounds really like the argument for Brexit...at some distant point in the future it'll all be worth the generation of pain.

FrancieBrady

murphaph wrote: »

Sounds really like the argument for Brexit...at some distant point in the future it'll all be worth the generation of pain.

You are really in love with this analogy.
It is nothing like Brexit.
The scaremongering is similar mind you.

A UI will be an investment, like building a hospital is.

murphaph

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You are really in love with this analogy.
It is nothing like Brexit.
The scaremongering is similar mind you.

A UI will be an investment, like building a hospital is.

A hospital delivers an immediate benefit. A UI may or may not at some distant point in the future increase GDP.

FrancieBrady

murphaph wrote: »

A hospital delivers an immediate benefit. A UI may or may not at some distant point in the future increase GDP.

I don't get your point. We invest in health because it pays a dividend, not only in financial terms.
That clearer?

murphaph

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I don't get your point. We invest in health because it pays a dividend, not only in financial terms.
That clearer?

No because it's not a provable quantity that a UI would pay a dividend, even in non financial terms.

FrancieBrady

murphaph wrote: »

No because it's not a provable quantity that a UI would pay a dividend, even in non financial terms.

That is what the debate will be about. No side will be able to 'prove' their thesis.


Same question for you, what stars need to align for you to vote?

murphaph

FrancieBrady wrote: »

That is what the debate will be about. No side will be able to 'prove' their thesis.


Same question for you, what stars need to align for you to vote?

Nö noticeable degradation in living standards and more or less full acceptance of a UI in NI itself.

FrancieBrady

murphaph wrote: »

Nö noticeable degradation in living standards and more or less full acceptance of a UI in NI itself.

Can't understand why you cannot be honest, it won't diminish the strength of your identity (if its Irish)
Why not just say, you don't want unity ever.

People play games with this for some reason best known to themselves.

Junkyard Tom

murphaph wrote: »

more or less full acceptance of a UI in NI itself.

You can forget that anyway. If there was a pro-UI vote there's always be a section who'd not accept it. We have people in Ireland who are still butt-hurt about independence from Britain nearly 100 years on.

murphaph

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

You can forget that anyway. If there was a pro-UI vote there's always be a section who'd not accept it. We have people in Ireland who are still butt-hurt about independence from Britain nearly 100 years on.

Then I don't see a UI happening. Not if NI is deeply divided on the issue. The RoI won't attempt to unify a deeply divided NI with itself. I'd say you'd need to see over 50% of the traditional unionists being in favour of a UI before you could be sure it would work well. The status quo just isn't a problem that needs fixing for most people so a UI needs to be "frictionless" to quote a popular phrase.

The Golden Miller

murphaph wrote: »

Then I don't see a UI happening. Not if NI is deeply divided on the issue. The RoI won't attempt to unify a deeply divided NI with itself. I'd say you'd need to see over 50% of the traditional unionists being in favour of a UI before you could be sure it would work well. The status quo just isn't a problem that needs fixing for most people so a UI needs to be "frictionless" to quote a popular phrase.

You keep talking on behalf of a state as if you believe everyone else in the state agree's with your opinion. At no point has there ever been any indication that a majority in the south would not be in favour of a UI. Just because it isn't "a problem", doesn't mean it won't happen. Your opinion does not represent "most people"

murphaph

The Golden Miller wrote: »

You keep talking on behalf of a state as if you believe everyone else in the state agree's with your opinion. At no point has there ever been any indication that a majority in the south would not be in favour of a UI. Just because it isn't "a problem", doesn't mean it won't happen. Your opinion does not represent "most people"

Of course it's just my opinion. It'll never be known until the day actually comes.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

That is what the debate will be about. No side will be able to 'prove' their thesis.

You sound like a Brexiteer telling people there will be £350m extra for the NHS every week.

You never answered the question as to whether you would accept a united Ireland if it meant a 20% drop in GDP. As you say, neither side will be able to "prove" their thesis, so you can't deny it might happen. It would be interesting to know whether it would change your mind.

Bishopsback

The Golden Miller wrote: »

You keep talking on behalf of a state as if you believe everyone else in the state agree's with your opinion. At no point has there ever been any indication that a majority in the south would not be in favour of a UI. Just because it isn't "a problem", doesn't mean it won't happen. Your opinion does not represent "most people"

Opinions are like arses, everybody has one.
Its a moot point you make really, in all debate opinions will be divided, only a fool believes everyone follows his or her opinion.
The probability is though, that most wouldn't want a united Ireland at any or all cost.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

You sound like a Brexiteer telling people there will be £350m extra for the NHS every week.

You never answered the question as to whether you would accept a united Ireland if it meant a 20% drop in GDP. As you say, neither side will be able to "prove" their thesis, so you can't deny it might happen. It would be interesting to know whether it would change your mind.

It wouldn't, all things considered.
But why, when you were plucking figures, did you not go for 70% and that we might run out of water etc?

Samaris

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Can't understand why you cannot be honest, it won't diminish the strength of your identity (if its Irish)
Why not just say, you don't want unity ever.

People play games with this for some reason best known to themselves.

Do you not think it interesting that murphaph's conditions were as reasonable as "acceptance of a UI in NI" and "no noticeable degredation of living standards" and your response is "why don't you just admit you never want unity"?

So, you indicate that you think it is inevitable that it will be both contested and lead to a noticeable drop in living standards for either all involved or the Northern Irish and yet you have a go at people for not being that inclined for it?

Does that indicate then that you want a UI at the cost of the living conditions of the Northern Irish and even at the cost of violence breaking out? If so, why do you think you may not be part of a 100% majority view here?

FrancieBrady

Samaris wrote: »

Do you not think it interesting that murphaph's conditions were as reasonable as "acceptance of a UI in NI" and "no noticeable degredation of living standards" and your response is "why don't you just admit you never want unity"?

So, you indicate that you think it is inevitable that it will be both contested and lead to a noticeable drop in living standards for either all involved or the Northern Irish and yet you have a go at people for not being that inclined for it?

Does that indicate then that you want a UI at the cost of the living conditions of the Northern Irish and even at the cost of violence breaking out? If so, why do you think you may not be part of a 100% majority view here?

Why didn't you take into account the second part of his conditions for a UI, which is what I based my reaction on?
There will never be 'more or less full acceptance' of either unification with the UK or with Ireland.
To demand it/require it suggests to me that you don't want it to begin with.

Just my opinion, given honestly, as others have given their opinions of mine.

Samaris

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Why didn't you take into account the second part of his conditions for a UI, which is what I based my reaction on?
There will never be 'more or less full acceptance' of either unification with the UK or with Ireland.
To demand it/require it suggests to me that you don't want it to begin with.

Just my opinion, given honestly, as others have given their opinions of mine.

Ah, is that the point that you were jumping on? You weren't, tbf, very clear about it.

More or less 100% acceptance is more difficult, true, and that might put a stop to it, but there's a certain meeting point between your arguments of "solid majority acceptance + no noticeable drop in living standards" that yis could perhaps get closer on.

FrancieBrady

Samaris wrote: »

Ah, is that the point that you were jumping on? You weren't, tbf, very clear about it.

More or less 100% acceptance is more difficult, true, and that might put a stop to it, but there's a certain meeting point between your arguments of "solid majority acceptance + no noticeable drop in living standards" that yis could perhaps get closer on.

Sorry, now you will have to be clearer.

'Yis'? Who is yis and what do they have to get 'closer' on?

Samaris

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Sorry, now you will have to be clearer.

'Yis'? Who is yis and what do they have to get 'closer' on?

Yis being you both; the position of "a solid majority acceptance and no noticeable drop in living standards" could be a position to get together on?

Sorry if this is supposed to be just "everyone give their position and no compromise", but I figure consensus is something that would be important to the question of a united Ireland.

We're coming into a time where a UI looks possible, far more so than it has looked before. Either way, all three places (Ireland, Britain, and NI itself) are going to have to make choices. Eventually we are all likely to have to come to some sort of consensus on it.

I agree with you that there are unreasonable demands to make on it - and more or less complete acceptance in NI is likely unreasonable (but could be worked on - the people of NI probably want to be listened to at this point!), but the basic meat of the point with a less extreme acceptance rate is a sensible one. Apologies if I jumped too hard on your response though, you are right that very close to 100% is unlikely for any political agreement (Catalonia 1931 excepted :P)

FrancieBrady

Samaris wrote: »

Yis being you both; the position of "a solid majority acceptance and no noticeable drop in living standards" could be a position to get together on?

Sorry if this is supposed to be just "everyone give their position and no compromise", but I figure consensus is something that would be important to the question of a united Ireland.

We're coming into a time where a UI looks possible, far more so than it has looked before. Either way, all three places (Ireland, Britain, and NI itself) are going to have to make choices. Eventually we are all likely to have to come to some sort of consensus on it.

I agree with you that there are unreasonable demands to make on it - and more or less complete acceptance in NI is likely unreasonable (but could be worked on - the people of NI probably want to be listened to at this point!), but the basic meat of the point with a less extreme acceptance rate is a sensible one. Apologies if I jumped too hard on your response though, you are right that very close to 100% is unlikely for any political agreement (Catalonia 1931 excepted :P)

Consensus, to my mind, is hugely important.
I have said it before; from what I have witnessed over the years and from most unionists I know (and I know a lot) they are essentially pragmatic people.
The north would have descended in to a bloodbath over so many issues if they were not. Their politicians scream and shout and a small minority riot but it has always been difficult for unionism to sustain opposition.
If a UI is passed, most will initially struggle with it, but they will get on with it, any organised violence will be localised and struggle to maintain itself and wither out imo.

Bishopsback

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Consensus, to my mind, is hugely important.
I have said it before; from what I have witnessed over the years and from most unionists I know (and I know a lot) they are essentially pragmatic people.
The north would have descended in to a bloodbath over so many issues if they were not. Their politicians scream and shout and a small minority riot but it has always been difficult for unionism to sustain opposition.
If a UI is passed, most will initially struggle with it, but they will get on with it, any organised violence will be localised and struggle to maintain itself and wither out imo.

Localised to where?
The idea that it would only be northern Ireland may be wrong imo, I think loyalist gangs would strike our capital and larger towns, particularly close to the border.

FrancieBrady

Bishopsback wrote: »

Localised to where?
The idea that it would only be northern Ireland may be wrong imo, I think loyalist gangs would strike our capital and larger towns, particularly close to the border.

You have to have the belief that an aim is achievable.
The IRA had that belief and were able to sustain a campaign based on it. *

There would be no realistically achievable aim if consensus is reached on unity. Loyalism would not be able to bludgeon or bomb their way back into the UK. Even at the height of the conflict Loyalism found it difficult to bring the fight over the border even with the alleged collusion of the British and RUC. I cannot see them organising sufficiently with all the security forces on the island against them.
For that reason pragmatism will win the day imo.
The cyclical conflict on this island would be truly over.

*I am talking about what 'they' believed by the way. Not what may or may not have been the reality. And I won't be getting into a discussion on that, before the usual starts.

The Golden Miller

Bishopsback wrote: »

Opinions are like arses, everybody has one.
Its a moot point you make really, in all debate opinions will be divided, only a fool believes everyone follows his or her opinion.
The probability is though, that most wouldn't want a united Ireland at any or all cost.

Well no, I will take point when people use the royal "we", and attempt to tell people in the north that "we" in the south don't want them, a completely baseless remark. Speak for yourself, not others.

murphaph

murphaph wrote: »

Then I don't see a UI happening. Not if NI is deeply divided on the issue. The RoI won't attempt to unify a deeply divided NI with itself. I'd say you'd need to see over 50% of the traditional unionists being in favour of a UI before you could be sure it would work well. The status quo just isn't a problem that needs fixing for most people so a UI needs to be "frictionless" to quote a popular phrase.

I clarified what I meant by broad acceptance in NI and it is nowhere near 100%. I assume all or most traditional green voters would vote in favour and believe for it to work you'd need 50%+ of the traditional orange voters to be in favour. That would be enough evidence for me that a UI could function. A simple majority is a Brexit like disaster waiting to happen.

FrancieBrady

murphaph wrote: »

I clarified what I meant by broad acceptance in NI and it is nowhere near 100%. I assume all or most traditional green voters would vote in favour and believe for it to work you'd need 50%+ of the traditional orange voters to be in favour. That would be enough evidence for me that a UI could function. A simple majority is a Brexit like disaster waiting to happen.

The unionist identity in the main signed up to the GFA, and therefore the acceptance of unity if a majority are in favour.
They may not like it but they accept it is the democratic choice of the majority.

Unless the majority of unionists suddenly decide not to be democrats (unlikely) I don't see this disaster.

recedite

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Consensus, to my mind, is hugely important.
I have said it before; from what I have witnessed over the years and from most unionists I know (and I know a lot) they are essentially pragmatic people.
The north would have descended in to a bloodbath over so many issues if they were not. Their politicians scream and shout and a small minority riot but it has always been difficult for unionism to sustain opposition.
If a UI is passed, most will initially struggle with it, but they will get on with it, any organised violence will be localised and struggle to maintain itself and wither out imo.

Good point. Sometimes I think people in the south give too little credit to northern unionists, considering them to be un-reformable bogey men. IMO they are basically pragmatic, but they are a bit scared of being dominated and oppressed in a UI. But once their rights are guaranteed and their history and views taken into account, they would have a stake in making a UI work and could be as keen as anyone else to make a go of it. Plenty of republicans in the past came from a unionist background; Parnell, Emmet, Tone, Childers, Monteith, Casement etc etc..

Also, consider what happened to the southern unionists after partition. Some left, but the majority stayed. They did not start a guerilla war against the SF govt, because generally they were busy carrying on with their own lives.
Then consider how the RoI developed. After the civil war, and up until the 1960's -1970's it was overly dominated by the RCC church. Then it gradually became more modernised, and after the 1990's the power of the church waned dramatically.
We are now potentially on the cusp of a new era, because the modern RoI identity and the modern NI identity may have converged to the point where they are again compatible with each other, maybe for the first time in 100 years.

murphaph

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The unionist identity in the main signed up to the GFA, and therefore the acceptance of unity if a majority are in favour.
They may not like it but they accept it is the democratic choice of the majority.

Unless the majority of unionists suddenly decide not to be democrats (unlikely) I don't see this disaster.

Yeah I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this. I'm not going to convince you and you're not going to convince me.

A Little Pony

recedite wrote: »

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Consensus, to my mind, is hugely important.
I have said it before; from what I have witnessed over the years and from most unionists I know (and I know a lot) they are essentially pragmatic people.
The north would have descended in to a bloodbath over so many issues if they were not. Their politicians scream and shout and a small minority riot but it has always been difficult for unionism to sustain opposition.
If a UI is passed, most will initially struggle with it, but they will get on with it, any organised violence will be localised and struggle to maintain itself and wither out imo.

Good point. Sometimes I think people in the south give too little credit to northern unionists, considering them to be un-reformable bogey men. IMO they are basically pragmatic, but they are a bit scared of being dominated and oppressed in a UI. But once their rights are guaranteed and their history and views taken into account, they would have a stake in making a UI work and could be as keen as anyone else to make a go of it. Plenty of republicans in the past came from a unionist background; Parnell, Emmet, Tone, Childers, Monteith, Casement etc etc..

Also, consider what happened to the southern unionists after partition. Some left, but the majority stayed. They did not start a guerilla war against the SF govt, because generally they were busy carrying on with their own lives.
Then consider how the RoI developed. After the civil war, and up until the 1960's -1970's it was overly dominated by the RCC church. Then it gradually became more modernised, and after the 1990's the power of the church waned dramatically.
We are now potentially on the cusp of a new era, because the modern RoI identity and the modern NI identity may have converged to the point where they are again compatible with each other, maybe for the first time in 100 years.

That in the south though not Ulster which is a different cattle of fish.

KN1231999

A Little Pony wrote: »

That in the south though not Ulster which is a different cattle of fish.

very much different

FrancieBrady

A Little Pony wrote: »

That in the south though not Ulster which is a different cattle of fish.

It's not that different. Unionism has not sustained any opposition since the GFA.
Basically they have accepted changes to normality (flegs and parades etc) and got on with it, after some localised rioting and belligerence.

KN1231999

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It's not that different. Unionism has not sustained any opposition since the GFA.
Basically they have accepted changes to normality (flegs and parades etc) and got on with it, after some localised rioting and belligerence.

Have you been to Loyalist areas by any chance?

FrancieBrady

KN1231999 wrote: »

Have you been to Loyalist areas by any chance?

Yes - to some. And some of them will wreck their own areas = localised.

I see no capabilities to organise and sustain a campaign that most unionist/loyalists would believe was an unachievable aim - i.e. trying to get back into the UK.

A Little Pony

FrancieBrady wrote: »

KN1231999 wrote: »

Have you been to Loyalist areas by any chance?

Yes - to some. And some of them will wreck their own areas = localised.

I see no capabilities to organise and sustain a campaign that most unionist/loyalists would believe was an unachievable aim - i.e. trying to get back into the UK.

It wouldn't  be about that. It would be about ruining the Irish economy via armed struggle.

FrancieBrady

A Little Pony wrote: »

It wouldn't  be about that. It would be about ruining the Irish economy via armed struggle.

Lay out how that would work with both the British and Irish security forces vehemently against them and no discernible large scale support for a violent campaign among unionists as a whole.

kravmaga

Ulsterman96 wrote: »

My question is, I am a 19 year old from the north and come from a very mixed religious background family,  and growing up I was raised not to judge people on where they're from or what religion, political stance they belong to and I am thankful for this. I am aware of both my linage of having both grandparents from the south and grandparents of Scottish decent, and recently have become very compelled to embrace both cultures, but whilst doing so, especially in the north it feels like its either, you're British or you're Irish, and I honestly feel I do not belong to any of these and struggle with my identity because of the divide of the island and so I feel Northern Irish is the only identity I feel comfortable expressing and so I just wanted to get other peoples opinions of this identity from across Ireland.

If your living on the island of Ireland imo your Irish.

I lived in London UK for many years and my English colleagues in my work always referred to Northern Irish as Irish and not British even though they may have been a British passport holder.

Obviously Northern Ireland is a divided society between catholic and protestant religions for hundreds of years, depending on what side of the divide your were raised and brought up in.

Most Northern Irish Catholics hold Irish passports and Northern Irish protestants hold British passports so again you are going to feel or gravitate towards what ever side you were brought up and raised in.

A lot of COI protestants in ROI always refer to GB/UK as the mainland which I never really understood as to me GB/UK is an island nation and the mainland to me would mean mainland continental Europe

Junkyard Tom

A Little Pony wrote: »

It would be about ruining the Irish economy via armed struggle.

To what ends?
To force the British go back to the northeast? Not going to happen.
Re-partition? Not going to happen.
Unionist cantons? They'd be welcome to them.

A Little Pony

FrancieBrady wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

It wouldn't  be about that. It would be about ruining the Irish economy via armed struggle.

Lay out how that would work with both the British and Irish security forces vehemently against them and no discernible large scale support for a violent campaign among unionists as a whole.

Never was for the IRA with nationalists. Armed struggles tend to go that way, people will kill for what they believe in. Bombs would inevitable.