Northern Ireland- a failure 99 years on?

jh79

blanch152 wrote: »

Agreed, the British were the first to unite the island, it was the Irish who agreed to partition it.

Solidified by the GFA too and SF have been facilitating partition ever since.

Fionn1952

beerguts wrote: »

Same old threads popping up the whole time. Lets sum the North up.

Northern Ireland is basically the fat old bird at the bar well past its best but still with a high opinion of itself. It had suitors in its day (Rest of the UK) that gave it a rattle behind the kegs in the beer garden and were caught dirty paying maintenance for the fugly offspring that came from the moment of madness.

We down here are the lad that went to school with it back in the day that the she wouldn't spit on because we were beneath her, since school we have made something of ourselves and have spotted Northern Ireland across the bar. We think we have a shot of getting in there and fulfilling all those fantasies from back in the day. Sure she might throw the fat leg over us as the old suitor (UK) is almost free paying maintenance for the lazy bipolar bitch and she needs a baby daddy to pay for fags and booze, but a part of her will always look down on us and she will never make us happy.

All she will do is **** over our bank balance, talk down to us because her former lover (UK) was so much a better provider, impose her **** on our house (Orange parade in Dublin anyone) and basically have the final say on all decisions in our life (Unionist power brokers in the Dail).

Instead of thinking with our dick lets not go there it isnt worth it.

As one of those Nordies, albeit one who has been contributing quite heavily to the Irish budget for years now, I'd love to find this offensive, but I can't! I got a great chuckle out of it.

Shefwedfan wrote: »

It is pure ignorance. Some people in the Rep seem to think they know better than the actual people that live in Northern Ireland.

You will find most of these experts have probably never moved outside the little town they grew up in. Hardly ever set foot in Northern Ireland.

It funny how all these comments are about the "unionist" and how they hate this that and the other. While the poster has no idea the hate they are spewing themselves. This is because for most of them they have had protestant/English/British = bad.

I went to Orange march's when I lived in the North, I didn't see any hate. I just seen families have a fun day out. HUge childrens play area etc

I also went to St Patrick Day parades, which ended up with people all drunk, streets full of sick. People opening fighting on the streets. Now which would you bring your children to? which is safer.

Our resident Francie who seems to think he knows everything, with living "on the border" you would expect at some stage he was interested in what happens in an Orange march and went to see himself? I have good odds on he never bothered in his life. Shows how backward people are, unwilling to accept any change. Good Friday agreement and all

P.S. Im a catho......answers on postcard

Well as someone who grew up there, I'm taking your claims with a pinch of salt.

If you can find me a St Patrick's parade that was comparable to Drumcree or Twadell, I'd believe your post is anything but a blatant agenda ridden bit of nonsense.

In reality, heavy drinking is a significant part of many Orange parades and St Patrick's parades both. The Orange parade I had most experience was the one that used to travel up the Lisburn Road in Belfast. It was relatively non-contentious when compared to some, but still had a street full of fat blokes with their tops off, draped in union flags across their shoulders with their guts hanging out. The parade itself certainly has a degree of pageantry and music that I could see as appealing to kids, but by that evening you were wading through a sea of empty cheap lager tins to go anywhere on the Lisburn road. Fair play to the local council, who always had it cleaned up very well by the following morning.

This parade would probably, to my mind be most comparable to the absolute mayhem that descends upon the Holy Lands part of Belfast during Patrick's Day, which I'm sure you would try and paint as typical Patrick's Day activities, and point to some quaint rural village 12th parade as if it was typical of the Orange.

For the record, I couldn't care less what your religion is. I don't know too many Catholics heavily aligned with hardline Loyalism, but I wouldn't say it's impossible; I'm sure there is at least one dissident Republican out there today from a Protestant background. The conflating of religion with politics is less useful than ever today.

blanch152 wrote: »

Agreed, the British were the first to unite the island, it was the Irish who agreed to partition it.

Ah yes, because it is totally legitimate to compare the feudalist system of government in Ireland before the British to modern day systems of government.......yet the same people who keep trying to make this comparison ALWAYS seem to have the, 'it was a different time' excuse ready to defend Britain's bloody colonisation of half the world, and their treatment of native populations.

jm08

downcow wrote: »

Even if what you were saying was accurate, it is quite incredible that you are going back almost 1,000 years to find Ireland united (apart from with the support and imposition of us brits).
Have you any sense of how many nations have came and gone during that period. Are you suggesting we attempt to reinstate them all?

I am curious, has there ever been a single democratic vote encompassing this island which was not facilitated by british?
Is there an example of anywhere in the world where a group of people continue to claim an area as a nation which nowhere in history has at least pretended to hold a democratic election?
It’s fantasy stuff! The stuff of leprechauns!

I was actually only refuting the inaccurate claim about Ireland's past. Countries with boundaries are just a modern thing. I have no doubt, that if left to their own devices and not invaded by the Anglo-Saxons, Ireland would be one country now.


The key criteria for whether the island of Ireland can be considered a nation state is the fact that even in all those different kingdom, there was a common language (which the British more or less achieved in killing) and there was a similar system of law (Brehon Law) which was completely different to any system outside of the island of Ireland which all the individual kingdoms used. Just like in Europe, the kings of the Provinces, married each other and merged and broke up (for example, Queen Maeve of Connacht (whose father was the High King) married Connor Mac Nassa, Kind of Ulster (and later divorced him).


And while you mention democracy, its rather interesting to note the way leaders and kings were selected under Brehon Law. There was no heritary entitlement such as eldest son automatically entitled to be next King or tribal leader. That might explain the Irish distaste for heritary entitlement. Kings and tribal leaders usually sent their children out to live with the ordinary people so that they didn't get above themselves!


Brehan Laws are really fascinating. Here is the one on how Kings were elected.
https://www.libraryireland.com/Brehon-Laws/Kings.php

Shefwedfan

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yes Shef...all very understanding and that but where have I ever objected to 12th celebrations that are carried out with respect for the communities around them?

I object to the behaviour of the OO, I make no bones about that, they have fermented hate for another religion in this country and of that there is no doubt. If you want links to that they can be supplied.

I have been to Orange parades (not many granted) and my aunt in Fermanagh lived beside where they would gather after the local parade (the Field) and if you want to see similar activity to what you seen at a St Patrick's Day parade, try going to that part of the Orange day. Maybe it was exceptional but anecdotally I don't believe it is.

The similarity you won't see at a St. Patrick's Day parade is the behaviour you would have seen at the many contentious parades, the ones the Parades Commission (which the 'benign OO still refuses to recognise) had to deal with and still have to 'deal' with.
No similar 'Commission' had to be set up to deal with hate, triumphalism and bigotry at St Patrick's day parades. Or maybe you can contradict that with some facts?

Yes of course you have Francie, funny never mentioned before. It seems everytime you get challanged you come back with a little story.

Stick your head in the sand for another few years. Another spew of bile against a part of the Northern Ireland community. I was not expecting anything less.

FrancieBrady

Shefwedfan wrote: »

Yes of course you have Francie, funny never mentioned before. It seems everytime you get challanged you come back with a little story.

Stick your head in the sand for another few years. Another spew of bile against a part of the Northern Ireland community. I was not expecting anything less.

What has never been mentioned before?

What is 'bile'?

Ush1

jm08 wrote: »

I was actually only refuting the inaccurate claim about Ireland's past. Countries with boundaries are just a modern thing. I have no doubt, that if left to their own devices and not invaded by the Anglo-Saxons, Ireland would be one country now.


The key criteria for whether the island of Ireland can be considered a nation state is the fact that even in all those different kingdom, there was a common language (which the British more or less achieved in killing) and there was a similar system of law (Brehon Law) which was completely different to any system outside of the island of Ireland which all the individual kingdoms used. Just like in Europe, the kings of the Provinces, married each other and merged and broke up (for example, Queen Maeve of Connacht (whose father was the High King) married Connor Mac Nassa, Kind of Ulster (and later divorced him).


And while you mention democracy, its rather interesting to note the way leaders and kings were selected under Brehon Law. There was no heritary entitlement such as eldest son automatically entitled to be next King or tribal leader. That might explain the Irish distaste for heritary entitlement. Kings and tribal leaders usually sent their children out to live with the ordinary people so that they didn't get above themselves!


Brehan Laws are really fascinating. Here is the one on how Kings were elected.
https://www.libraryireland.com/Brehon-Laws/Kings.php

What do you mean left to their own devices? The Normans were invited to Ireland by an Irish king.

There was no such thing as being left to your own devices, we had already had the vikings and others by that stage.

The Gaelic kings of the time did what other kings did, they used their daughters as political bartering tools to marry off to create alliances. They took enemies relatives as hostages or worse. Don't try to make out they were any different to overseas kings, they were men who craved power.

By the way, Irish kings had tried to take over oversea lands also:

https://www.libraryireland.com/SocialHistoryAncientIreland/I-III-2.php

jm08

Ush1 wrote: »

What do you mean left to their own devices? The Normans were invited to Ireland by an Irish king.

There was no such thing as being left to your own devices, we had already had the vikings and others by that stage.

The Gaelic kings of the time did what other kings did, they used their daughters as political bartering tools to marry off to create alliances. They took enemies relatives as hostages or worse. Don't try to make out they were any different to overseas kings, they were men who craved power.

By the way, Irish kings had tried to take over oversea lands also:

https://www.libraryireland.com/SocialHistoryAncientIreland/I-III-2.php

The Normans (Anglo-French, not Anglo-Saxon) mainly assimiliated and ''became more Irish than the Irish themselves'', speaking gaelic etc. Similarly with the Vikings - they assimilated or went back home. (Similar to how Leo's father married an Irish woman and stayed). Leo is Irish (with Indian heritage).


Remind me who invited William of Orange and Cromwell into Ireland?


For the record, I don't think Queen Maeb was used much by her father - she seemed to have her own mind. Mind you, I can't see what the argument is that there was marriages between the families of the different tribes. Surely that supports the merging of the various kingdoms?

Ush1

jm08 wrote: »

The Normans (Anglo-French, not Anglo-Saxon) mainly assimiliated and ''became more Irish than the Irish themselves'', speaking gaelic etc. Similarly with the Vikings - they assimilated or went back home. (Similar to how Leo's father married an Irish woman and stayed). Leo is Irish (with Indian heritage).


Remind me who invited William of Orange and Cromwell into Ireland?


For the record, I don't think Queen Maeb was used much by her father - she seemed to have her own mind. Mind you, I can't see what the argument is that there was marriages between the families of the different tribes. Surely that supports the merging of the various kingdoms?

Seriously?

The Cambro Normans which came did so because they likely were not to inherit much territory and were given permission to take over the lands. After lots of war and conquest, they inter-married with Irish royal families, unfortunately for that old quip, this did not make them more Irish than the Irish themselves. This was bargaining between kings as using women as pawns, those Cambro Normans and descedants formed the ruling aristocracy for many generations after(to this day arguably). They didn't want what they had threatened.

I don't need to remind you who invited William of Orange, I never said all invaders are invited, I'm saying the concept of Ireland as a country of peace pre conquest is patently false.

Are you suggesting that the marriages of the times between royalty were not arranged marriages for political purposes? Most of the "women" were aged about 12!

Fionn1952

Ush1 wrote: »

Seriously?

The Cambro Normans which came did so because they likely were not to inherit much territory and were given permission to take over the lands. After lots of war and conquest, they inter-married with Irish royal families, unfortunately for that old quip, this did not make them more Irish than the Irish themselves. This was bargaining between kings as using women as pawns, those Cambro Normans and descedants formed the ruling aristocracy for many generations after(to this day arguably). They didn't want what they had threatened.

I don't need to remind you who invited William of Orange, I never said all invaders are invited, I'm saying the concept of Ireland as a country of peace pre conquest is patently false.

Are you suggesting that the marriages of the times between royalty were not arranged marriages for political purposes? Most of the "women" were aged about 12!

'A country of peace' is a bit of a goalposts shift from stating there was never an Irish nation, just a series of warring tribes unconnected to eachother in such a way that they could be described as never having been unified as a nation, which was the starting point of this discussion....

fr336

The amount of people here who clearly havent visited the north in years perhaps decades yet claim to be an authority on it and describe belfast as a kip etc. Laughable. As an english guy with southern irish family i visited belfast for the first time last year and found it far friendlier and less pretentious than dublin. Oh and not a drug addict in sight.

Ush1

Fionn1952 wrote: »

'A country of peace' is a bit of a goalposts shift from stating there was never an Irish nation, just a series of warring tribes unconnected to eachother in such a way that they could be described as never having been unified as a nation, which was the starting point of this discussion....

Yes, there was no Irish nation. There was constant warring kingdoms.

mariaalice

fr336 wrote: »

The amount of people here who clearly havent visited the north in years perhaps decades yet claim to be an authority on it and describe belfast as a kip etc. Laughable. As an english guy with southern irish family i visited belfast for the first time last year and found it far friendlier and less pretentious than dublin. Oh and not a drug addict in sight.

I think it depends on what part of NI that is visited, to be honest, I was in NI about two weeks ago on a visit, a pleasant affluent coastal town it was a gorgeous day, teenagers pier jumping, people walking, cycling, eating ice cream beautiful scenery not a flag anywhere. It would be a very nice place to live.

That does not take from the fact that some areas of NI have a very unpleasant atmosphere they might not be dangerous or a kip but still unpleasant.

onh81

mariaalice wrote: »

I think it depends on what part of NI that is visited, to be honest, I was in NI about two weeks ago on a visit, a pleasant affluent coastal town it was a gorgeous day, teenagers pier jumping, people walking, cycling, eating ice cream beautiful scenery not a flag anywhere. It would be a very nice place to live.

That does not take from the fact that some areas of NI have a very unpleasant atmosphere they might not be dangerous or a kip but still unpleasant.

100%. Like anywhere else there are nice places and not-so-nice places.

cameramonkey

fr336 wrote: »

The amount of people here who clearly havent visited the north in years perhaps decades yet claim to be an authority on it and describe belfast as a kip etc. Laughable. As an english guy with southern irish family i visited belfast for the first time last year and found it far friendlier and less pretentious than dublin. Oh and not a drug addict in sight.

Belfast is a bit like a northern English post industrial city. It has seen much better years. There are good parts in the city but overall the main interest for tourist are to see the war stuff and the Titanic exhibition which from my point of view is pretty poor.

The city is still divided and you don't need to see the myriad of wall delineating the sectarian enclaves or the pro violence graffiti to feel the divided nature of the city. Dublin has many faults and many junkies and it may be less friendly and more pretentious although that is something I have never heard from the many foreign people I know. Dublin is a far superior city in terms of living, architecture, culture, food,sports, infrastructure and nearly every metric to judge an urban space.
Belfast is the capital of a failed political entity and will not prosper until the dead hand of UK rule is removed, economically it is a basket case, it needs to be able to stand on its own feet not be to perpetually hold out the begging bowl for crumbs off the UK's table.

blanch152

Fionn1952 wrote: »

'A country of peace' is a bit of a goalposts shift from stating there was never an Irish nation, just a series of warring tribes unconnected to eachother in such a way that they could be described as never having been unified as a nation, which was the starting point of this discussion....

There never was an Irish nation, it is a fable created by the Gaelic League and perpetuated ever since.

blanch152

fr336 wrote: »

The amount of people here who clearly havent visited the north in years perhaps decades yet claim to be an authority on it and describe belfast as a kip etc. Laughable. As an english guy with southern irish family i visited belfast for the first time last year and found it far friendlier and less pretentious than dublin. Oh and not a drug addict in sight.

visited Belfast again this summer. Yes, there are nice new modern parts but stray a little from the centre and you run into the sectarian bigotry of both sides fairly quickly.

Five Eighth

Shefwedfan wrote: »

I do agree with this, Rep of Ireland cannot afford the North. Not with the mess SF and the DUP have left it in.

You obviously accept the premise that ‘Northern Ireland is a failure 99 years on’. It survives on a UK exchequer subvention life-support machine. My contention is that as an economic and political entity Northern Ireland was always going to fail. The Northern State was established with an artificially contrived majority. A state built on quicksand.
With Brexit looming and the Covid-19 economic earthquake about to hit, I do not believe the status quo will be acceptable to the British political class. The question for unionists is where do they go from here?

FrancieBrady

The Church Of Ireland Gazette of 1916 succinctly and accurately laid out what most most knew would happen and what we today tragically know did happen if the island was partitioned.

‘We are expressing the opinion of all Southern Unionists and, we believe, the bulk of Nationalists and Ulster Unionists, when we invite the leaders of both political parties to call an instant halt to a hasty and ill-advised policy which is leading our country straight for disaster.’

The proposals will ‘set up in Ireland an utterly artificial system of government under partition which will stereotype existing political divisions, and stifle political and economic progress in our country for generations to come’.

jm08

blanch152 wrote: »

There never was an Irish nation, it is a fable created by the Gaelic League and perpetuated ever since.

According to UNESCO, the nation-state "is one where the great majority are conscious of a common identity and share the same culture".

Having a common language and a common set of laws, long before the Gaelic League would suggest that there is such a thing as the Irish nation.

Sunny Disposition

Five Eighth wrote: »

You obviously accept the premise that ‘Northern Ireland is a failure 99 years on’. It survives on a UK exchequer subvention life-support machine. My contention is that as an economic and political entity Northern Ireland was always going to fail. The Northern State was established with an artificially contrived majority. A state built on quicksand.
With Brexit looming and the Covid-19 economic earthquake about to hit, I do not believe the status quo will be acceptable to the British political class. The question for unionists is where do they go from here?

I think some may start to ask fairly existential questions next year, like what is the point of the union if this is what it has brought, a divided country and weak economy? Is it redeemable or are they better off being part of a united Ireland?

tayto lover

Sunny Disposition wrote: »

I think some may start to ask fairly existential questions next year, like what is the point of the union if this is what it has brought, a divided country and weak economy? Is it redeemable or are they better off being part of a united Ireland?

The diehard Unionists would die of starvation rather than join a United Ireland.
They’d rather commit suicide.
A breed apart which becomes evident with the personality change and itchy feet come July.
Hard for anyone who hasn’t lived or worked there to comprehend.

mariaalice

tayto lover wrote: »

The diehard Unionists would die of starvation rather than join a United Ireland.
They’d rather commit suicide.
A breed apart which becomes evident with the personality change and itchy feet come July.
Hard for anyone who hasn’t lived or worked there to comprehend.

https://sluggerotoole.com/2019/07/11/the-orange-order-an-insiders-view/

Kaybaykwah

blanch152 wrote: »

There never was an Irish nation, it is a fable created by the Gaelic League and perpetuated ever since.

What does it matter?

The British concocted a British nation from the likes of the English, Scots, Welsh, Irish whatnot. They all still feel independent from one another, which means that they are nations, duh.

FrancieBrady

Kaybaykwah wrote: »

What does it matter?

The British concocted a British nation from the likes of the English, Scots, Welsh, Irish whatnot. They all still feel independent from one another, which means that they are nations, duh.

A lot of people have a difficulty with the word 'partition' around here. They do not understand the simple truth that in order to 'partition' something, it has to be together or whole first.

Kaybaykwah

FrancieBrady wrote: »

A lot of people have a difficulty with the word 'partition' around here. They do not understand the simple truth that in order to 'partition' something, it has to be together or whole first.

Yes, partition is a difficult concept insofar as "Union" means something specific to Unionists , and "United" something else, in spite of the geographic and historic certainty of Ireland. They will keep on banging their silly drums and wearing their sorry sashes to the precipice.

Fionn1952

Most amusingly, and still with no reply to my questioning of it, our resident proponent for the reduction of the importance of nation states and nationalities has a wonderful plan for sorting out the whole situation in the North....the creation of a new independent nation state that no one wants, complete with it's own nationality.

The mind boggles.

Shefwedfan

FrancieBrady wrote: »

A lot of people have a difficulty with the word 'partition' around here. They do not understand the simple truth that in order to 'partition' something, it has to be together or whole first.

The problem is with the person and the use of it as some sort of slur. Not the word

But sure you know that don’t you?

Ush1

FrancieBrady wrote: »

A lot of people have a difficulty with the word 'partition' around here. They do not understand the simple truth that in order to 'partition' something, it has to be together or whole first.

No more than the partition between France and Germany, those bloody French and German partitionists!

FrancieBrady

Shefwedfan wrote: »

The problem is with the person and the use of it as some sort of slur. Not the word

But sure you know that don’t you?

If you are arguing that the island was never whole or united then you don't understand the word 'partition' to begin with.

Shefwedfan

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If you are arguing that the island was never whole or united then you don't understand the word 'partition' to begin with.

As usual you are in such a rush to post you don't even bother reading the post.....