How long before Irish reunification?

markodaly

Fionn1952 wrote: »

There were many highly connected, interlaced clans. Similar to how many societies at the time were formed. Was Scotland one country before British rule?

Actually, they were.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_the_Kingdom_of_Alba
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Scotland#Origins:_400%E2%80%93943

Some federations are tighter, some are looser than others. The historical existence of an Ard Rí demonstrates that they were certainly closer to some sort of federation than the completely disconnected independent groups you seem to suggest. As I mentioned, this grouping was looser and tighter at varying times, depending on who the Ard-Rí at the time was, and how much power he held, much like many kingdoms in history.

Perhaps, but again the points stands that Ireland at the time before the Normans was never united under one kingdom or ruler. This is not meant to be a smart comment or made to slander, its just a fact.

When the Romans left, it took the Anglo-Saxons about 5 hundred years before they were united under one king, Egbert in 827.
Ireland just never got there, it probably would have but the Normans came and changed it up.

It isn't really a point for debate, we know what constitutes unification - all of the above. Pointing to the increasing similarities of British and Irish culture is irrelevant, as will be demonstrated tonight, in the North, significant differences remain.

So you admit that there are clear and marked cultural differences between Irish people and people from Ulster-Scottish decent. Why then should we unite two very different peoples, when all the other stuff (Football, food, language) means that we are already very much united in other ways.

Maybe unification isn't the be all and end all after all?

Regarding your last point, I've already mentioned on this thread that the decision of a significant swathe of the middle ground will be made on what's in their personal best interests - it's down to those who wish for either outcome to convince that middle ground that it is. I certainly accept that currently, it remains financially beneficial for the north to remain part of the union, and as such I dont believe a unification vote would pass right now. For how long this might be the case, I dont know.

100% agree with that.
There will be a subset of extremists on either side, where symbolism matters most and where a UI at any cost position will be taken. Its like the Brexit debate. It will be worth it in the end apparently, or something to that effect.

But the middle ground who hold no great love nor care for flags, or parades and all the other guff will be thinking about their tax euros or pounds and will vote accordingly.

Can you point out where exactly I've suggested, encouraged or praised dual standards? In fact my previous post in this thread was critical of the inaccuracies of both sides of this discussion.

My apologies, I did not mean it that way. But the word itself seems to have attracted some attention, more attention than its worth to be honest.
But the word itself is in the thread title, I just thought it would be nice to correct it for accuracy purposes.

Aren't you a Unionist, who identifies as British? Didnt realise there was much complexity to describing the union as belonging to the people of the United Kingdom. It is a term regularly used by British politicians to describe their continuing support for Scotland and the North remaining part of the United Kingdom, so I'm perplexed as to how you find this controversial. If I'm mistaken about the first part, I will of course withdraw that statement.

Why do you think I am a Unionist? To take your own point above, "Can you point out where exactly I've suggested, encouraged or praised" the fact that I would be a Unionist?

Boards is an odd place, the other day someone called be an Australian. I remember sometime back some called me an Israeli bot... now I am a Unionist.

I'm none of the above, I am from Brian Cowen territory, a Biffo if you will.

To what ends? What great impact will it have on the overarching topic if the title specified unification rather than reunification? I dont buy the, 'pointing out a simple fact' nonsense.

Again, I think its important to be accurate and that people know their history, before the 800 years of myth-making. There is a myth that the Brits came over here and ruined our idyllic little island for eternity, even though the Normans were not Brits (they were French origin and French-speaking) and that they were invited (yes invited!!) by us at the behest of Diarmait Mac Murchada.

markodaly

_blaaz wrote: »

You think havibg irish parliment based in ireland and near entirely irish members with legistaure powers to pass laws affecting ireland only is not irish rule...thats your own fish to fry mate...you just seem irrational now

Sigh, there is always one.

Look, if you think that we Irish actually ruled ourselves, with no influence from the British in the 18th century that is your own delusion to follow.

We all know the historical facts on the matter and the fact that Ireland, parliament or not, was ruled as a dominion or colony (pick your own word) until the 1800 act of Union which made the Kingdom of Ireland part of the United Kingdom, with the English monarchy at its head of state.

markodaly

Ush1 wrote: »

So it seems to boil down to we share a landmass so should be one country?

We are one Island so we should be United, that is the gist of it.

Fionn1952

15-20 years

markodaly wrote: »

Actually, they were.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_the_Kingdom_of_Alba
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Scotland#Origins:_400%E2%80%93943



Perhaps, but again the points stands that Ireland at the time before the Normans was never united under one kingdom or ruler. This is not meant to be a smart comment or made to slander, its just a fact.

When the Romans left, it took the Anglo-Saxons about 5 hundred years before they were united under one king, Egbert in 827.
Ireland just never got there, it probably would have but the Normans came and changed it up.







So you admit that there are clear and marked cultural differences between Irish people and people from Ulster-Scottish decent. Why then should we unite two very different peoples, when all the other stuff (Football, food, language) means that we are already very much united in other ways.

Maybe unification isn't the be all and end all after all?



100% agree with that.
There will be a subset of extremists on either side, where symbolism matters most and where a UI at any cost position will be taken. Its like the Brexit debate. It will be worth it in the end apparently, or something to that effect.

But the middle ground who hold no great love nor care for flags, or parades and all the other guff will be thinking about their tax euros or pounds and will vote accordingly.




My apologies, I did not mean it that way. But the word itself seems to have attracted some attention, more attention than its worth to be honest.
But the word itself is in the thread title, I just thought it would be nice to correct it for accuracy purposes.




Why do you think I am a Unionist? To take your own point above, "Can you point out where exactly I've suggested, encouraged or praised" the fact that I would be a Unionist?

Boards is an odd place, the other day someone called be an Australian. I remember sometime back some called me an Israeli bot... now I am a Unionist.

I'm none of the above, I am from Brian Cowen territory, a Biffo if you will.



Again, I think its important to be accurate and that people know their history, before the 800 years of myth-making. There is a myth that the Brits came over here and ruined our idyllic little island for eternity, even though the Normans were not Brits (they were French origin and French-speaking) and that they were invited (yes invited!!) by us at the behest of Diarmait Mac Murchada.

I think things are clarified enough without a point by point on your reply this time. Ultimately while I may have a stronger aspiration towards unity myself (being from the North originally being an obvious factor there), I dont think theres a huge pile of difference on where we see things currently standing, or the pathway forwards on things.

Personally, I'd consider some of the more dominant high kings to have, 'unified' Ireland, particularly Boru, ultimately beyond pedantry though, I dont think its important and totally accept that you don't. I suppose it harks back to your own question on how we define unity.

As promised, full retraction on the, 'your precious union's comment! Totally my mistake, I've clearly mixed you up with another poster on that point.

James Brown

10-15 years

markodaly wrote: »

Sigh, there is always one.

Look, if you think that we Irish actually ruled ourselves, with no influence from the British in the 18th century that is your own delusion to follow.

We all know the historical facts on the matter and the fact that Ireland, parliament or not, was ruled as a dominion or colony (pick your own word) until the 1800 act of Union which made the Kingdom of Ireland part of the United Kingdom, with the English monarchy at its head of state.

Remind me of the elections were we voted for this? Maybe we should simply take over the north and promise any unionists that there's a possibility of them getting a referendum sometime in the future?

ohnonotgmail

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Remind me of the elections were we voted for this? Maybe we should simply take over the north and promise any unionists that there's a possibility of them getting a referendum sometime in the future?

voted for what?

Tasfasdf

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

voted for what?

Whoosh

markodaly

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Remind me of the elections were we voted for this? Maybe we should simply take over the north and promise any unionists that there's a possibility of them getting a referendum sometime in the future?

??
I have no idea what you mean or what your point is, perhaps re-read the post and the context in which I was responding.

My point being that Ireland was never united under Irish rule. If you disagree with that fine, you are free to believe in historical delusions.

However, did you know Barrett is a Norman name?
I don't think your actual last name is Barrett by the way, but worth mentioning.

_blaaz

10-15 years

markodaly wrote: »

Sigh, there is always one.

Look, if you think that we Irish actually ruled ourselves, with no influence from the British in the 18th century that is your own delusion to follow.

Except noone said this?

We all know the historical facts on the matter and the fact that Ireland, parliament or not, was ruled as a dominion or colony (pick your own word) until the 1800 act of Union which made the Kingdom of Ireland part of the United Kingdom, with the English monarchy at its head of state.

Mate....parliment here = ruled from here....quite why you refuse to accept this and try argue black is white...is your own issue to come.to terms with

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

It makes perfect sense. The rules for the SOS cannot be set in advance says the court. Absolutely correct, absolutely fine and I have no issue with that.

It is a completely different thing to subject the decision once taken to judicial review for reasonableness. You are then into common law issues which have no relevance to the statutory framework. I have explained this clearly already, but UI fantasists will not be able to discern the difference as it goes against their thinking.

You have invented this word 'reasonableness'.

The word is 'appropiate' and as the judge said, nobody has the right to tell the SOS what is appropiate on this issue.

In essence it must be for the Secretary of State to decide what matters should be taken into account on the political question of the appropriateness of a poll.

markodaly

Fionn1952 wrote: »

I think things are clarified enough without a point by point on your reply this time. Ultimately while I may have a stronger aspiration towards unity myself (being from the North originally being an obvious factor there), I dont think theres a huge pile of difference on where we see things currently standing, or the pathway forwards on things.

Personally, I'd consider some of the more dominant high kings to have, 'unified' Ireland, particularly Boru, ultimately beyond pedantry though, I dont think its important and totally accept that you don't. I suppose it harks back to your own question on how we define unity.

As promised, full retraction on the, 'your precious union's comment! Totally my mistake, I've clearly mixed you up with another poster on that point.

I take your point on board and will agree to disagree to the smaller nuances of the point in regards the high kings of Ireland, it is, after all, a detail of history that has no big bearing on today's world.

I will say this though, it is nice to debate unification with someone who is level headed and honest and who is not an ideologue in the sense that there has to be unity at any costs and the low-level dishonest tactics that then emanate from that type of discussion so kudos to you on that.

markodaly

_blaaz wrote: »

Mate....parliment here = ruled from here....quite why you refuse to accept this and try argue black is white...is your own issue to come.to terms with

I guess that Northern Ireland has its own parliament means that they are not ultimately ruled by Westminister or that the Monarch is the head of state?

I guess that is another example of the 'Irish' ruling themselves. :P

Seanachai

10-15 years

I can imagine loyalists refusing to even enter an Irish post office or any other institution if reunification happens. They already turn apoplectic if they see a tricolour or a shamrock 50ft away from them.

facehugger99

https://www.rte.ie/news/ulster/2019/0711/1061417-northern-ireland-bonfires/

Just remember folks what the pro-unification lads want us to be dealing with.

Now thank your lucky stars that it's the Brit's problem and will remain so.:D

FrancieBrady

facehugger99 wrote: »

https://www.rte.ie/news/ulster/2019/0711/1061417-northern-ireland-bonfires/

Just remember folks what the pro-unification lads want us to be dealing with.

Now thank your lucky stars that it's the Brit's problem and will remain so.:D

It's my fellow Irish men and women's problem, actually. Something you forget as you spew out your bias.

ohnonotgmail

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You have invented this word 'reasonableness'.

The word is 'appropiate' and as the judge said, nobody has the right to tell the SOS what is appropiate on this issue.

In essence it must be for the Secretary of State to decide what matters should be taken into account on the political question of the appropriateness of a poll.

he didnt invent the word reasonableness. It is one of the tests that a JR would apply to the SoS decision.

James Brown

10-15 years

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

voted for what?

Anything pertaining to British rule.

James Brown

10-15 years

markodaly wrote: »

??
I have no idea what you mean or what your point is, perhaps re-read the post and the context in which I was responding.

My point being that Ireland was never united under Irish rule. If you disagree with that fine, you are free to believe in historical delusions.

However, did you know Barrett is a Norman name?
I don't think your actual last name is Barrett by the way, but worth mentioning.

The point is we can't be held to the fact that we were ruled 'united' by a foreign power when it was by force and not democratic will. In other words we had no choice in the matter, therefore it wasn't and isn't, (as regards N.I.) legitimate democratically speaking.

markodaly

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Anything pertaining to British rule.

We didn't, that is why we under British rule, even when we had an Irish Parliament.

Then again, when England vote to be under Norman rule?

ohnonotgmail

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Anything pertaining to British rule.

we didnt. most of the population didnt get to vote for grattans parliament either.

James Brown

10-15 years

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

we didnt. most of the population didnt get to vote for grattans parliament either.

So what? My point stands.

James Brown

10-15 years

markodaly wrote: »

We didn't, that is why we under British rule, even when we had an Irish Parliament.

Then again, when England vote to be under Norman rule?

You're talking shyte Marko. Did you make yourself dizzy? Whataboutery.
Let the English worry about England, which is a mismatch of several cultures in itself.

ohnonotgmail

Matt Barrett wrote: »

So what? My point stands.

you keep mentioning grattans parliament as if it was some golden age of irish democracy. not much different to what came before or after. Rich protestant loyalists running the country.

facehugger99

Matt Barrett wrote: »

So what? My point stands.

You didn't have a point and if you did it fell over ages ago.

markodaly

Matt Barrett wrote: »

The point is we can't be held to the fact that we were ruled 'united' by a foreign power when it was by force and not democratic will. In other words we had no option in the matter, therefore it wasn't and isn't, (as regards N.I.) legitimate democratically speaking.

Of course, it was legitimate, it was legit by the might of the sword.
Now if you think we are going to hold modern morals and values of democracy to the standard of the 12th or 18th century then have at you.

James Brown

10-15 years

markodaly wrote: »

Of course, it was legitimate, it was legit by the might of the sword.
Now if you think we are going to hold modern morals and values of democracy to the standard of the 12th or 18th century then have at you.

So's robbing a house so. Quite the opposite. You are the one using ye olden times to justify your claim we were legitimately ruled by the British. Back to D&D with you

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you keep mentioning grattans parliament as if it was some golden age of irish democracy. not much different to what came before or after. Rich protestant loyalists running the country.

Never mentioned it once. There must be another handsome lad posting on here.
Point is we never voted for any form of British rule so saying we've only ever been united under them, by relatively modern standards, was not of our choosing.

James Brown

10-15 years

facehugger99 wrote: »

You didn't have a point and if you did it fell over ages ago.

Very poor hugs. Take another run at it

facehugger99

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It's my fellow Irish men and women's problem, actually. Something you forget as you spew out your bias.

Good luck convincing your fellow Irish men and women to fork out €10 billion a year keeping trhe crowd up North in the style they've become accustomed to.

Still, 37% have said they absolutely, positively are willing to pay for it, and won't be changing their minds when it comes to putting their hand in their pockets. No sir-e.;)

markodaly

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You're talking shyte Marko. Did you make yourself dizzy? Whataboutery.
Let the English worry about England, which is a mismatch of several cultures in itself.

I'm just again showing up your hypocritical attitude to this.

You do know for example Dublin is a Viking town? When did the Irish vote for these Norsemen to come and settle in our country? Never....
Guess we should raise Dublin to the ground and ask for reparations from the Scandinavian countries.

I jest of course, but it shows the shallowness of your argument.

We didn't get to vote on the Normans coming over here, just like the English didn't get to vote on William the Conquerer ruling them either.

RoyalCelt

Ulster Says No. It will never happen

Not anytime soon and rightly so. The South needs to get it's finances under control. I wouldn't even consider it until 2050. Let's see what we've reduced our debt to by then. There could well be another boom and boost by then so let's see if we handle it better.

I do believe long term with the population growing we'll get on top of our debt and start reducing it. If we do and the economy is booming but in a stable fashion it should be considered by 2050. You'd like to think NI will be doing better by then too. But when push comes to shove I wonder will over half of the North actually vote for reunification?

Probably best to go for a soft reunification first, bit like Hong Kong with the aim to eventually integrate. I know the population demographics will strongly favour the Catholic side by then but there's no guarantee they'll want to rejoin.