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
How long before Irish reunification? (Part 2) Threadbans in OP
Options
Comments
-
-
-
As for your last point, yes. This is what we all agreed as part of the Good Friday Agreement. If the majority of the people of NI vote in favour of Unification, then (subject to a vote passing in Ireland), there will be a 32 county Irish Republic. Until then, it remains part of the United Kingdom. What exactly are you asking here? This has only been established for over 20 years....
An independent Northern Ireland, a half way house between being an integral part of the UK and being absorbed into the Republic of Ireland...
I'm talking Crown Dependency, like the Isle of Man or the Channel islands, not part of the UK but still loosely connected to the Motherland
Total & utter seperation from GB would be a BIG shock to the Unionist inhabitants would it not, maybe resulting in instability?0 -
Hamsterchops wrote: »An independent Northern Ireland, a half way house between being an integral part of the UK and being absorbed into the Republic of Ireland...
I'm talking Crown Dependency, like the Isle of Man or the Channel islands, not part of the UK but still loosely connected to the Motherland
Total & utter seperation from GB would be a BIG shock to the Unionist inhabitants would it not, maybe resulting in instability?
Unfortunately for the absolutely TINY minority of people who desire an independent NI (seriously, this isn't a new idea, it has never had any support beyond some minor fringe types), the UK, NI and Ireland are all signed up to an international agreement which gives two outcomes. Remaining part of the UK, or unifying with Ireland.
Should you feel strongly about this idea of yours, I'll enjoy your efforts to pass the referenda required and secure the agreement of the British, Irish and NI governments, along with your work to ensure EU support in your plan to replace the Good Friday Agreement.
I'm not saying it's impossible.....but pretty close.
As a counterpoint, don't you think your elaborate plan would be a big shock to Republicans, who have been told they now have a legitimate and peaceful pathway to Unification, only to have it pulled out from under them to keep a minority (in the hypothetical event of a border poll passing) happy? Isn't it a bit unsettling for a large swathe of the population to be told their opinion matters less, and their vote isn't worth as much as another group?0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
Oops, I spoke too soon
The Provo apologist is back, and this is where this conversation stalls in the face of Extreme Irish Republicanism, which never gets us any further in the debate. At least with Fionn we can bat ideas around without glorifying "the armed struggle".0 -
Hamsterchops wrote: »Oops, I spoke too soon
When a referendum happens it will be 'yes' or 'no' to unification, those who vote 'yes' will be one nation Irish. Those who vote 'no' will be partitionists, unionist/British. That's how the chips will fall. if a yes vote is returned then British jurisdiction is over and any legitimacy it might have had will be gone.
Former unionists will be negotiating for their place in United Ireland as a minority and a much smaller one than they were in 1920's. Northern Ireland was designed to fail.0 -
Hamsterchops wrote: »Oops, I spoke too soon
The Provo apologist is back, and this is where this conversation stalls in the face of Extreme Irish Republicanism, which never gets us any further in the debate. At least with Fionn we can bat ideas around without glorifying "the armed struggle".
Watch your tone British empire fanboy, unlike you I'm deeply troubled by violence and I have never glorified any armed struggle unlike you with your fetishisation of brutal British colonialism.
You Unionists wet the bed over Republicans remembering their dead while building a bloody culture around a 300 year old battle, and the ghosts of hundreds of thousands of young men whose lives were wasted fighting in foreign fields for obscure reasons.
If people like you had your way the famine Queen's giant arse would still be parked in front of the Dail.
0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
Junkyard Tom wrote: »If people like you had your way the famine Queen's giant arse would still be parked in front of the Dail.
That is Leinster House in the time of RDS use.
According to Wikipedia the statue was in front of Leinster House until 1948, hard to believe.0 -
-
-
Junkyard Tom wrote: »Look at the size of it too like.
Wasn't she given to the Aussies?Guff about stuff, and stuff about guff.
0 -
-
-
.... or make a new country not like either of the other two. That never dawn on ye?
Well yes, hence my reference to the Isle of Man & Channel islands, neither of which are in the UK....one thing that obviously hasnt changed since my own visits to the south when i was a kid, is the number of people walking about who dont seem to have the slightest iota about the people living at the top end of the country. Im sure though you know the orange culture well mind you.
But that's why I keep saying things like "But what do they want" in relation to their future?
"They" being the population living there in NI.
It's all very well people us in the South demanding a United Ireland, but it remains to be seen if that's what they vote for. As regards your Orange comment, I look upon them a bit like the masons, a curiosity from the past, an old-fashioned custom from the past, not sure exactly what they do apart from marching once a year (on the Queen's highway) I think is the term.
Officially they have two choices, stay in the UK or leave and become one with us here in the ROI, although 'nutters like me' sometimes suggest (in the case of a split vote) a halfway house, a stepping stone between the two, which doesn't go down too well with some 0 -
Advertisement
-
Hamsterchops wrote: »Well yes, hence my reference to the Isle of Man & Channel islands, neither of which are in the UK.
But that's why I keep saying things like "But what do they want" in relation to their future?
"They" being the population living there in NI.
It's all very well people us in the South demanding a United Ireland, but it remains to be seen if that's what they vote for. As regards your Orange comment, I look upon them a bit like the masons, a curiosity from the past, an old-fashioned custom from the past, not sure exactly what they do apart from marching once a year (on the Queen's highway) I think is the term.
Officially they have two choices, stay in the UK or leave and become one with us here in the ROI, although 'nutters like me' sometimes suggest (in the case of a split vote) a halfway house, a stepping stone between the two, which doesn't go down too well with some
Again, why? Why would any Nationalist want an independent NI or a condominium with the UK? What does it get them that would be considered desirable?
You're 22 years too late with your suggestion. Move on already.
The independent NI movement is for Loyalist loons who balk at the idea of any democratic decision that the people may make wrt a UI.
Essentially you're trying to appease a minority of a minority and goodness knows why.0 -
...... which doesn't go down too well with some
I know, the meer suggestion of a halfway house must be a hideous thought to Nationalists who demand total and utter seperation from GB ASAP, but at least it would be a compromise in the short term?
We in the South didn't leave the UK with a bang, it took from the 1920s right up until the 1970s for total and utter seperation from the rest of these islands. Incremental stages, stepping stones...
What's wrong with that?0 -
Hamsterchops wrote: »...... which doesn't go down too well with some
I know, the meer suggestion of a halfway house must be a hideous thought to Nationalists who demand total and utter seperation from GB ASAP, but at least it would be a compromise in the short term?
No more than a UI is hideous to Unionists "who demand total and utter seperation from" Ireland.
Honestly, do you read your own guff?
How do you propose this condominium be instigated?
A referendum? A referendum that no one is agitating for on a subject that no one cares about all to appease a few hypothetical Ulster Nationalists?0 -
BonnieSituation wrote: »No more than a UI is hideous to Unionists "who demand total and utter seperation from" Ireland.
Honestly, do you read your own guff?
Yes, I always read my own guff which makes a nice change from reading the demands of the two extremes. I could of course stop posting here altogether, leaving you guys to a "guff free' thread
0 -
Hamsterchops wrote: »Yes, I always read my own guff which makes a nice change from reading the demands of the two extremes. I could of course stop posting here altogether, leaving you guys to a "guff free' thread
Do as you please. But it would be nice of you to finally answer"why" to your suggestion.
Who is it meant to benefit? Why would Nationalists give up the GFA to sate the desires of Partitionists and Ulster Nationalists?0 -
Hamsterchops wrote: »...... which doesn't go down too well with some
I know, the meer suggestion of a halfway house must be a hideous thought to Nationalists who demand total and utter seperation from GB ASAP, but at least it would be a compromise in the short term?
We in the South didn't leave the UK with a bang, it took from the 1920s right up until the 1970s for total and utter seperation from the rest of these islands. Incremental stages, stepping stones...
What's wrong with that?
Again with your phraseology, Hamsterchops.
Your halfway house is rewriting an international agreement that absolutely no one beyond a minor fringe group is actually calling for.
You're presenting it as a reasonable middle ground, when the reality is you're suggesting a position that no one wants or is happy with. I'd prefer the majority of the population of NI were happy with things (be that in the United Kingdom or part of Ireland) over making sure almost nobody is happy with the situation, just so you can call it a compromise.
A really significant compromise has already been found. It's called the Good Friday Agreement. It had unprecedentedly high support across the UK, Ireland and NI, along with the EU and USA. It was a wonderful piece of politics to get such diametrically opposed viewpoints in agreement.....and you wish to tear that up and pick some lunatic fringe idea because.....?
For the record, Nationalists are absolutely not demanding anything ASAP. To once more reference the GFA, the vast majority of Nationalists have signed up to remaining part of the United Kingdom until such time as a majority decides to leave and unify with Ireland. That agreement was made over 20 years ago, and the vast majority of Nationalists have been waiting patiently since then. Your choice of phrasing re, 'ASAP' here is particularly telling. You paint a legitimate political aspiration as if it is some sort of taboo. It isn't.
This is on top of the obvious fact that should a vote pass, the move from UK to unification will most certainly not be overnight, and will instead be a gradual transition. This is just a matter of practical realities, and any fringe Republicans who think otherwise are in the same grouping of lunatics as the Independent NI nutters as far as I'm concerned.
My question is why are people like yourself so concerned about the ability of Unionists to accept the democratic will of the North, and the impact this will have on them, but have been totally unperturbed by the impact it has had on those of a Nationalist persuasion for the last hundred years?
Why is a democratic decision suddenly not good enough when it starts to look like there is movement towards a conclusion that was agreed in principle as a potential outcome over 20 years ago? Where was all your concern for finding a middle ground during the >20 years post GFA, where NI's position as part of the UK was solid as a rock?0 -
Junkyard Tom wrote: »Watch your tone British empire fanboy, unlike you I'm deeply troubled by violence and I have never glorified any armed struggle unlike you with your fetishisation of brutal British colonialism.
You Unionists wet the bed over Republicans remembering their dead while building a bloody culture around a 300 year old battle, and the ghosts of hundreds of thousands of young men whose lives were wasted fighting in foreign fields for obscure reasons.
If people like you had your way the famine Queen's giant arse would still be parked in front of the Dail.Junkyard Tom wrote: »Look at the size of it too like.Yes. She was deported to Australia.
Just thinking what a UI would mean for such symbolism of those from a different tradition to 'the victors'? Would it mean the erasing of the Unionist or Royal tradition from history? I mean the statue was built in honour of Queen Victoria after her death. Plus there was more of a call to build one since she also visited Ireland in 1900.
https://www.irishtimes.com/rare-footage-of-queen-victoria-s-last-visit-to-ireland-in-1900-1.3974098
The visit while dividing nationalist sentiment, but also saw IRISH institutions wanting to demonstrate thier loyalty to the crown.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/30007165?seq=1
We then to forget during Victoria's reign that Dublin was one of those city's who were given the monkier - 'The Second City of the Empire'.
If you look at this description below it shows how it was designed to style Victoria as an Irish Queen.
https://dictionaryofsydney.org/entry/statue_of_queen_victoria_druitt_street
"The statue shows an effort to portray Victoria Regina as the 'Irish Queen' rather than the 'British Sovereign'. She is seated in a low chair rather than an elaborate throne, allowing the artist to contain the figure within a sphere rather than as a towering pillar. (Other seated examples place her on a high throne.) And she wears a simple coronet rather than the royal or imperial crown."
But as usual the Republican narrative took over (in just over a decade) drowning out any other viewpoints. So we had Joyce referring to her as the 'auld bitch'.
But both Cosgrave and De Valera did not want to appear to be a bigots so it was the reason why the statue was left there so long.
https://books.google.ie/books?id=3IVAPlLOq1gC&pg=PA190&lpg=PA190&dq=broccoli+queen+victoria+statue&source=bl&ots=vmxYY318xD&sig=ACfU3U3A2veoK8PpoYAuUzohsD2UH70_hQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi31ZKD3vTqAhWZShUIHTXaBPgQ6AEwEnoECB0QAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false
John Bruton was against moving the Statue to Australia in 1986 as it was made by an Irish artist and part of Irish Heritage.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/john-bruton-objected-to-sending-queen-victoria-statue-to-sydney-1.2908974
It has got me thinking what would happen Unionist and Royal symbols if there is a UI. Would it be 'meet the new boss same as the old boss - as The Who said?
Prime example would be Edward Carson
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/news-analysis/eilis-ohanlon-why-toppling-carsons-statue-at-stormont-is-the-height-of-nonsense-36059173.html
Would the Dub be brought 'home' to Dublin? His Dublin gaff was only a few doors down from Conradh na Gaeilge after all!
https://comeheretome.com/2011/03/19/the-plaques-of-dublin-lord-edward-carson-harcourt-street/
Plus Carson was a keen hurler and Gaeilgoir (Which in my opinion makes him more 'Irish' than many die hard Republican self professed 'Gaels' on this thread. )
So would all this talk of inclusiveness be just lip service in a UI (statues taken down etc) or is the annual Orange parade in Donegal a sign that a UI could work and let people carry on traditions?
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-48894682Guff about stuff, and stuff about guff.
0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
And back then, Ireland was only seeking Home Rule. Some other interesting analysis from some of the Anglo Irish elite is that a State visit from the Queen elevated the Irish to the same standing of that of the Welsh & Scots (Lord Clarendon I think it was who said that).gormdubhgorm wrote: »Just thinking what a UI would mean for such symbolism of those from a different tradition to 'the victors'? Would it mean the erasing of the Unionist or Royal tradition from history? I mean the statue was built in honour of Queen Victoria after her death. Plus there was more of a call to build one since she also visited Ireland in 1900.
The visit while dividing nationalist sentiment, but also saw IRISH institutions wanting to demonstrate thier loyalty to the crown.We then to forget during Victoria's reign that Dublin was one of those city's who were given the monkier - 'The Second City of the Empire'.If you look at this description below it shows how it was designed to style Victoria as an Irish Queen.
She was an Irish Queen as she was Queen of the Kingdom of Ireland (like Lizzy is Queen of Scotland and England).But as usual the Republican narrative took over (in just over a decade) drowning out any other viewpoints. So we had Joyce referring to her as the 'auld bitch'.
She is also known as The Famine Queen (because of her complete lack of support for the suffering of Ireland to the extent that she donated £2,000 to famine relief and blocked everyone else from donating more. The Sultan of Turkey wanted to gift £10,000 but was told it would hurt the Queen's feelings.But both Cosgrave and De Valera did not want to appear to be a bigots so it was the reason why the statue was left there so long.
Ireland was a Free State. What you are suggesting is something like the Scots removing a statue of Queen Elizabeth from the grounds of the Scottish Parliament.John Bruton was against moving the Statue to Australia in 1986 as it was made by an Irish artist and part of Irish Heritage.
Problem was at the time that it was in storage in an orphange in Offaly hidden from everyone. The OPW couldn't come up with a location to put it. Far better to gift it to someone who wanted it (the Australians). If it was another country, and with a similar track record to her one in Ireland, it would have been smashed to pieces.It has got me thinking what would happen Unionist and Royal symbols if there is a UI. Would it be 'meet the new boss same as the old boss - as The Who said?
Prime example would be Edward Carson
Plenty symbols of British heritage here - for example, very few of the street names were changed (we have George's Street, Sackville, Lansdowne etc). We also have the Royal Lifeboats, The Royal Dublin Society, The Royal College of Surgeons, Wellington Monumement in Pheonix Park etc. etc.
I'd imagine the only street name not popular would be Cromwell!Would the Dub be brought 'home' to Dublin? His Dublin gaff was only a few doors down from Conradh na Gaeilge after all!
I'd imagine he would stay in Belfast, but it wouldn't bother me if he was moved to Dublin. He was an Irishman.So would all this talk of inclusiveness be just lip service in a UI (statues taken down etc) or is the annual Orange parade in Donegal a sign that a UI could work and let people carry on traditions?
Very little has been taken down or names changed (Dun Laoghaire and Huston Station). I can't think why we would start changing them now.0
Advertisement