Does opposing a United Ireland automatically make you unpatriotic?

SeanSouth

And why is it important that Ireland is a free independent country. I'm genuinely interested. In my view thats just emotive nonsense that will not put food on the table for future generations.

The fact is that Ireland is a very small country and whereas we can keep our heads above water at the moment through the knowledge economy, the gap is closing and countries like India and China will shut us down eventually if we dont develop some serious survival strategy for the future. A credible strategy would be to align ourselves stongly with a serious player such as the UK. Our government is so light-weight that it cant see around the next bend!! Just my own observation.

maryishere

All other groups of islands in the world find the best strategy is to be united with each other.

Tasmania with Australia.
The Canary islands.
Sicily with Italy
The islands of Japan
North and south island New Zealand.

I agree "A credible strategy would be to align ourselves strongly with a serious player such as the UK." We have much more in common with them than anyone else.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

maryishere

end of the road wrote: »

i want the unionists to come join us and build this great nation,

Yeah? Last time more than a few were burnt out, it was made very uncomfortable in many ways, ne temere, Irish language requirements, state job discrimination etc. If there was a united Ireland there would be streets and statues named after Republican terrorists, pictures of "patriots" in the schools, a one sided view of history taught, stamps of Bobby Sands. They would be out, their numbers would be diminished, like last time.

fritzelly

Could we not just let Kerry get the independence they want and take on a different county in the north? Perhaps Fermanagh?

Win Win

Duckworth_Luas

Is their a Boards Loon Alarm that rings whenever one of these farcical threads is opened?

end of the road

end of the road wrote: »

we can afford it. the idea that we can't is a lie with no evidential basis, that is perpetuated because all the other arguments failed. transfering all the services is very doable.

there are no arguments against a UI. lots of lies which don't stack up however. a UI is going to happen.

That seems very convenient. Unrealistic too. Any suggestion that Ireland cannot support the costs of maintaining the North is a lie. Useful, that.

I assume you mean the amount of investment that the UK has spent in the North has also been lies? Or we're all lying when we suggest that the Republic barely has the revenue to upgrade our own service/infrastructure, nevermind the costs involved with helping the North too after integration?

I don't suppose you have any research/analysis showing that a united Ireland is possible without destroying the Republics economy? (based on modern economy, not the boom years)

And no, a United Ireland is not guaranteed. There's plenty of people here in the Republic, and in the North, with no interest in a UI. We would say... for practical reasons. Perhaps you could prove how those practical concerns are inaccurate?

Charles Babbage

riffmongous wrote: »

Well at the time of the micro-entities a lot of other countries we take for granted now were also at the micro entity stage, and Ireland up until the arrival of the Normans was showing signs of moving towards a more centralised system.

Whatever microentities existed, it isn't a good reason to have a modern border on the outskirts of Clones, or between Belcoo and Blacklion.

SeanSouth

A United Ireland will never happen and should never happen. Its an incompatible alliance that cannot work socially, economically or culturally. The solution is a Britain and Ireland federation.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

fritzelly

SeanSouth wrote: »

A United Ireland will never happen and should never happen. Its an incompatible alliance that cannot work socially, economically or culturally. The solution is a Britain and Ireland federation.

Yep, the UK needs somewhere for their rejected asylum seekers to go

maryishere

The UK and Ireland should work together, just as the islands of Japan work together.

Europe will not allow us to be the tax haven for multinationals in Europe for ever. Germany and France will suit themselves, just as they did during our celtic tiger, when they set interest rates to suit themselves, not our economy.

SeanSouth wrote: »

A United Ireland will never happen and should never happen. Its an incompatible alliance that cannot work socially, economically or culturally. The solution is a Britain and Ireland federation.

Correct. That is the most patriotic solution given how the world will probably evolve in the coming decades.
It is in our interests to stick with our neighbours, a G7 country, just as it is in Tasmanias interest to stick with Australia, their nearest neighbours.

SeanSouth

Ireland has been a net recipient of EU funds since accession to the EEC in 1973 however in recent years (since 2014) it has become a small net contributor.
After Brexit, its likely that the contribution will be larger. I would much prefer to see Ireland aligning itself with the UK rather than the EU. i think our very light-weight government has completely misjudged that. The EU is about Germany and France. No one else matters. Playing the small pawn in such an arrangement leaves us very exposed.

fritzelly

maryishere wrote: »

The UK and Ireland should work together, just as the islands of Japan work together.

But they can't, everything has to go through Europe
Ireland can't be making their own arrangements with outside governments - can't be trusted to be doing that

As for the tax - they already want to control all the taxes, just a matter of time before it happens and then Ireland is truly screwed (ahhh but sure we'll get a little exemption to give time to adjust to it)

end of the road

SeanSouth wrote: »

And why is it important that Ireland is a free independent country. I'm genuinely interested. In my view thats just emotive nonsense that will not put food on the table for future generations.

The fact is that Ireland is a very small country and whereas we can keep our heads above water at the moment through the knowledge economy, the gap is closing and countries like India and China will shut us down eventually if we dont develop some serious survival strategy for the future. A credible strategy would be to align ourselves stongly with a serious player such as the UK. Our government is so light-weight that it cant see around the next bend!! Just my own observation.

we are an independant country. we are perfectly fine. we trade with the uk, that is enough interaction with them. we will remain an independant country. if you don't like that, that's okay, but you can live in britain. ireland won't be part of britain again as there will be plenty of us to insure it.

Donald Trump

maryishere wrote: »

All other groups of islands in the world find the best strategy is to be united with each other.

Tasmania with Australia.
The Canary islands.
Sicily with Italy
The islands of Japan
North and south island New Zealand.

I agree "A credible strategy would be to align ourselves strongly with a serious player such as the UK." We have much more in common with them than anyone else.

Oh rock on Rockall you'll never fall

For Britains greedy hands

Or you'll meet the same resistance

Like you did in many lands

kingchess

And the Falklands with Argentina ????

dok_golf

Foxhound38 wrote: »

Just as the title says really.

I notice that online at least (and I know that online isn't exactly a good representation of people in general) even mild skepticism over the benefits of a United Ireland invites immediate accusations of "west-brit" etc.

Is general support for a United Ireland a red line for being a good citizen or republican?

I happen to believe strongly in citizenship and a republican form of government. I also think that a United Ireland would be an unmitigated disaster for people living on both sides of the border from a political, economic, health and security point of view. I do think that a path for unification should be open pending a vote firstly in the north and then in the republic, but as things stand I would vote against it.

What do you reckon?

For what died the sons of Roísín, was it fame?

dd972

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I'll go one better, the solution is an independent reunified Ireland, an independent Scotland and a little England with no nuclear weapons or seat on the UN Security Council, also forced to rejoin the EU, this time under Schengen and the Euro.:pac::pac::pac:

donegal_man

end of the road wrote: »

.............. ireland won't be part of britain again as there will be plenty of us to insure it.

Ireland (with a capital I) was NEVER a part of Britain.

As far as the question posed in the OP goes while my own view is that a united Ireland will eventually happen I don't believe it to be "unpatriotic" to be opposed to it.

Irish Guitarist

I'm old enough to remember how terrifying news reports of the IRA were. When I was eleven Dessie O'Hare (The Border Fox) cut off John O'Gradys fingers and left them in Carlow Cathedral, which was a five minute walk from my house. I kept thinking what's to stop him kidnapping my father or someone else I know next.

If there were a 'united Ireland' the same shit would happen. There would be different terrorists with a different cause, but they'd still be scumbags killing innocent people for absolutely no reason.

Being able to say Northern Ireland isn't part of Britain isn't that important to me. It's more important another generation of people don't have to grow up living in fear of murderous scum.

Your birth on this piece of land was a random event, and its history has nothing to do with you. Be proud of what we are now if you like, but harking back to some nonsense before you were even born is a hobby for people who have none.

Gwynplaine

No way. The brits can keep it. A nation of people who annoy each and can never agree on anything. Meetings and discussions and talks and more meetings. Dreadful accents.

Fr Tod Umptious

end of the road wrote: »

the 1916 heroes fed nobody any lies. the people of ireland wanted to be free and we are free. we do not want to be part of britain. when we were part of britain, it was against our will. no more will we be colonised. if people want to be part of britain they are free to go and live there.

The people who took part in 1916 were a minority of a minority of a minority. (A minority of tne Irish volunteers, who were a minority of the original volunteers after the split, who were a minority of the Irish people)

They had very little public support.

It was the actions of the British post the rising that turned support, but even then it was a group of political elites that were the driving force, most ordinary people wanted to get on with their lives.
The war of Independence and civil war brought a lot of hardship on ordinary people just trying to get on with life.

But if the men of 1916 looked back would they think that it was all worth it, seeing as after I post this I'm going to watch Sky TV for a while and then see if there is anything left in the sales in Next or Debenhams.

markodaly

The Golden Miller wrote: »

Being opposed to a United Ireland in principle is unpatriotic by definition. For example, how could a Scottish person be patriotic if he supported the annexation of Scotland? Goes against the definition of patriotism. Of course, there are those who are 26 county nationalists, so they would see themselves as patriots of the "Republic of Ireland". Clowns in otherwords

How so? Ireland was never united in the first place under some Irish king or ruler, so why is the concept of not wanting a united Ireland unpatriotic by principle.

It is a subjective term used in a nostalgic and romantic way to stoke up notions of patriotism.

tomwaterford

markodaly wrote: »

How so? Ireland was never united in the first place under some Irish king or ruler, so why is the concept of not wanting a united Ireland unpatriotic by principle.

Surly it's unpatriotic to go againest the wishes of the constitution??

Skylinehead

tomwaterford wrote: »

Surly it's unpatriotic to go againest the wishes of the constitution??

So it's unpatriotic to oppose the 8th, for example? That's in the constitution too.

markodaly

tomwaterford wrote: »

Surly it's unpatriotic to go againest the wishes of the constitution??

Wasn't this taken out for the Good Friday Agreement?

Gay marriage was not in the constitution, yet we changed it.

tomwaterford

Skylinehead wrote: »

So it's unpatriotic to oppose the 8th, for example? That's in the constitution too.

If people don't want a united Ireland. ...perhaps they should campaign to have the aspirations for one removed from the constitution???


Nothing wrong with wanting to change the constitution like??....one look at how ridedly Americans stick to it and won't contemplate change to see how ridcolus it is to not seek to update it for modern means

tomwaterford

markodaly wrote: »

Wasn't this taken out for the Good Friday Agreement?

Gay marriage was not in the constitution, yet we changed it.

THis part of what was inserted

It is the firm will of the Irish nation, in harmony and friendship, to unite all the people who share the territory of the island of Ireland, in all the diversity of their identities and traditions, recognising that a united Ireland shall be brought about only by peaceful means.

tomwaterford

tomwaterford wrote: »

If people don't want a united Ireland. ...perhaps they should campaign to have the aspirations for one removed from the constitution???


Nothing wrong with wanting to change the constitution like??....one look at how ridedly Americans stick to it and won't contemplate change to see how ridcolus it is to not seek to update it for modern means

Because it's easier and cheaper just to ignore it, and assume that most people understand that a United Ireland is obviously more trouble than it's worth.

tomwaterford

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Because it's easier and cheaper just to ignore it, and assume that most people understand that a United Ireland is obviously more trouble than it's worth.

If people took this attitude any constitution changes like gay marragie,abortion etc would never get done


These will never affect me (seriously don't see pint of marriage anyway?) ,but deosnt stop me from taking an interest in them like??

Canis Lupus

I would have thought opposing a united Ireland was just sensible rather than unpatriotic.

markodaly

tomwaterford wrote: »

THis part of what was inserted

Yes, we got rid of our territorial claim on the North and accepted that if it was to come about it would be through democratic means only by the will of the people North and South.

So, where does it say that one is unpatriotic if they do not want a UI?

Jawgap

tomwaterford wrote: »

Surly it's unpatriotic to go againest the wishes of the constitution??

Seriously??

The Shinners doubtless regard themselves as the ultimate when it comes to patriotism and they tried for decades to subvert the Constitution!!!

Skylinehead

tomwaterford wrote: »

If people don't want a united Ireland. ...perhaps they should campaign to have the aspirations for one removed from the constitution???


Nothing wrong with wanting to change the constitution like??....one look at how ridedly Americans stick to it and won't contemplate change to see how ridcolus it is to not seek to update it for modern means

My point is taking the constitution as a barometer for "patriotism" is a pretty silly thing, it means different things to different people. You can have pride in your country without having to refer to a document.

tomwaterford

markodaly wrote: »

So, where does it say that one is unpatriotic if they do not want a UI?

It deosnt say this anywhere?

And I've not said it says such a thing....just wondered (as per title) if it's unpatriotic to not want a united Ireland while the constitution aspires for it??


Wheter you think it's patriotic to go againest the aspirations of constitution,while not wanting or working to change it...is up to yourself like,who am I to pass judgement on others

tomwaterford

Skylinehead wrote: »

My point is taking the constitution as a barometer for "patriotism" is a pretty silly thing, it means different things to different people. You can have pride in your country without having to refer to a document.

I can accept this...as there is an endless list of areas to measure patriotism in


We don't want end up like America and with an out of date but untouchable constitution...but surly anyone this dead set againest it,would propose changes to prevent it from happening?

FrancieBrady

_Kaiser_

It's impossible to have a rational discussion about this topic because of the emotion involved.

The reality is no, a United Ireland would be a very bad idea for what we know today as the Republic. Our "recovery" is built upon property dealings (once again!) and being able to sell our tax haven status to the US multinationals - neither of which are situations which are sustainable in the long term.

The North is an economic sinkhole, and seeing as we are barely breaking even on a day-to-day basis, can't even develop the infrastructure of one average-sized city (which the rest of the country absolutely financially depends on), have massive issues that continue to be unaddressed in the public sector (especially Health and Welfare), and a political class whose only driving goal is to milk the taxpayer for as much as and for as long as they can, then the notion that we can just take on NI is farcical.

Even if we did, the security and civil issues would be immense because the Unionists are unlikely to just shrug and say "oh well, never mind!" now are they? Do we really want a return to troops on the street (even if they are wearing Irish Army uniforms this time)

No, a United Ireland is a fundamentally bad idea but it does serve to distract from a lot of our other problems, and it makes the armchair Republicans (spouting lines and bile they know only from news archives and stories they were told by their older relatives) feel better I suppose, but for most people - on both sides of the current border - it would be a disaster IMO.

There is merit in closer ties with the UK (who we are far more naturally allied and aligned with than the rest of Europe or the USA), but that's even more unlikely so I suppose the status quo is probably the best we can hope for in the medium term.

end of the road

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Even if we did, the security and civil issues would be immense because the Unionists are unlikely to just shrug and say "oh well, never mind!" now are they? Do we really want a return to troops on the street (even if they are wearing Irish Army uniforms this time)

again this is scaremongering. the unionists would not be able to put up any kind of campaign now. they have no support either from their community or the british army/government. they most they would be able to do is a bit of rioting and the riot squad will sort them out in no time.

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

it makes the armchair Republicans (spouting lines and bile they know only from news archives and stories they were told by their older relatives) feel better I suppose

i think you will find it's not just the 1 or 2 arm chair republicans who want to see a UI, but real republicans who actually do know what we are talking about, based on the actual realities and evidence.

_Kaiser_

end of the road wrote: »

again this is scaremongering. the unionists would not be able to put up any kind of campaign now. they have no support either from their community or the british army/government. they most they would be able to do is a bit of rioting and the riot squad will sort them out in no time.



i think you will find it's not just the 1 or 2 arm chair republicans who want to see a UI, but real republicans who actually do know what we are talking about, based on the actual realities and evidence.

This entire post is nationalist romanticism. The actual realities and evidence you mention are overwhelmingly unfavorable to this idea.

But go on then.. how exactly do you suggest that the Republic pays for this idea (or are you assuming that the UK and/or EU will cough up?). Also, if you think any resistance would be limited to "a bit of rioting" I'd suggest you go back and look at the history (of both sides, and similar situations elsewhere).

Besides, where's your evidence that (outside of online polls or generic questions around the idea along the lines of "sure, it'd be nice yea") the majority of people would SUPPORT such an idea?

FrancieBrady

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

This entire post is nationalist romanticism. The actual realities and evidence you mention are overwhelmingly unfavorable to this idea.

But go on then.. how exactly do you suggest that the Republic pays for this idea (or are you assuming that the UK and/or EU will cough up?). Also, if you think any resistance would be limited to "a bit of rioting" I'd suggest you go back and look at the history (of both sides, and similar situations elsewhere).

Besides, where's your evidence that (outside of online polls or generic questions around the idea along the lines of "sure, it'd be nice yea") the majority of people would SUPPORT such an idea?

Yes the 'evidence' you have presented that the majority would not 'support' it is very overwhelming in a 'few of the lads down the pub said' kinda way. :rolleyes:

_Kaiser_

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yes the 'evidence' you have presented that the majority would not 'support' it is very overwhelming in a 'few of the lads down the pub said' kinda way. :rolleyes:

As I said, I'm sure most would support it if asked as a theoretical question. But if it actually came about, I think you'd find that support evaporate rapidly in the face of a(nother) massive economic burden on people, and the unfortunately inevitable security issues.

Just like most things in this country, it's all good until people are asked to pay for it and/or adjust their expectations.. but let's leave that aside fr a moment - I don't think most people actually living in the North would want a return to the violence of the past, and I really can't see them being happy with the likes of the HSE, can you?

FrancieBrady

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

As I said, I'm sure most would support it if asked as a theoretical question. But if it actually came about, I think you'd find that support evaporate rapidly in the face of a(nother) massive economic burden on people, and the unfortunately inevitable security issues.

Just like most things in this country, it's all good until people are asked to pay for it and/or adjust their expectations.. but let's leave that aside fr a moment - I don't think most people actually living in the North would want a return to the violence of the past, and I really can't see them being happy with the likes of the HSE, can you?

Yes, the evidence you present is overwhelming, we'll all go away now and think of another question.

end of the road

eventually it's going to get to the stage where what the majority want or don't want won't matter. reunification will happen and it will be forced. britain wants out of NI and they will reduce spending on it accordingly and both it and the EU will force both north and south together via trade embargo's and sanctions if needs be. so people would be stupid not to vote for reunification as what britain and the EU will do if reunification doesn't happen would damage the country more then reunification ever could. reunification is going to happen, it would be better if it is voted for then forced.

end of the road

end of the road wrote: »

again this is scaremongering. the unionists would not be able to put up any kind of campaign now. they have no support either from their community or the british army/government. they most they would be able to do is a bit of rioting and the riot squad will sort them out in no time.

The British probably thought the same of the IRA when the Treaty was passed and assumed that the 'movement' in the North would disappear without support. I've seen nothing to suggest that Unionists are less ideologically driven than Republicans.

And these groups already have existing forms of support established, and likely have their own caches of weaponry, along with the support they might receive from the British Army when/if they were leaving.

i think you will find it's not just the 1 or 2 arm chair republicans who want to see a UI, but real republicans who actually do know what we are talking about, based on the actual realities and evidence.

I'm still waiting to see this research and analysis that would prove a UI feasible... (without destroying the Republics economy) You have already stated that any objection is based on lies. So it should be easy for you to produce heaps of supporting evidence based on modern circumstances...

So. lets see these actual realities and evidence...

end of the road

Deleted User wrote: »

The British probably thought the same of the IRA when the Treaty was passed and assumed that the 'movement' in the North would disappear without support. I've seen nothing to suggest that Unionists are less ideologically driven than Republicans.

the ira had world wide support along with support for many other sources which are no longer in a position to provide any support.

Deleted User wrote: »

And these groups already have existing forms of support established, and likely have their own caches of weaponry, along with the support they might receive from the British Army when/if they were leaving.

that would be very hard as all weapons within the british army i believe are recorded and checked so if any are missing there will be hell to pay. the british soldiers leaving NI giving support in the form of arms would be very very hard to cary out. both the ira and loyalist destruction of weaponry was over-saw when it was caried out. so a campaign by the loyalists would be very small and would easily be shut down.

end of the road

end of the road wrote: »

the ira had world wide support along with support for many other sources which are no longer in a position to provide any support.

Worldwide support in the 1920s/1930s? DeValera went 'hat in hand' for help for the War of Independence and received sweet feck all. At the time of the partition, the IRA had very little worldwide support available to them. Most of that came later.

that would be very hard as all weapons within the british army i believe are recorded and checked so if any are missing there will be hell to pay. the british soldiers leaving NI giving support in the form of arms would be very very hard to cary out. both the ira and loyalist destruction of weaponry was over-saw when it was caried out. so a campaign by the loyalists would be very small and would easily be shut down.

The British government could easily leave "out-dated" weaponry behind "off the books". Without trying hard, I can think of a dozen scams relating to the maintenance of weaponry which would allow plenty to be lost/stolen/etc over the months prior to leaving. It's not as if the British government hasn't supplied paramilitary groups before...

And even without such support, Modern terrorism doesn't require the use of such weaponry. Explosives and DIY weapons can be made with the expertise, and there are former-soldiers/paramilitary groups in the north with the knowledge to do it.

I notice you have once again moved on without proving the feasibility of a UI. Where is all this evidence that you claim exists?

FrancieBrady

Deleted User wrote: »

Worldwide support in the 1920s/1930s? DeValera went 'hat in hand' for help for the War of Independence and received sweet feck all.

Eh?
Have you a link to back that up?