Northern Ireland- a failure 99 years on?

BonnieSituation

Hamsterchops wrote: »

Why the graw, why the constant determination by Republicams to extract Northern Ireland from the UK?

More naivety!

Are you saying that Northern Nationalists' aspirations are an invalid expression?

Hamsterchops

You and your naivety comments.

Obviously, there is a constant graw to pull NI out of the UK, and that can't happen without a majority of the NI population voting for it, da da da ....

99.9% of Unionists will vote to keep NI within the United Kingdom, but here's the thing Bonnie, a substantial proportion of Northern Nationalists will also vote to keep NI in the UK, hence they need to be swung the other way ...

Now, what were you saying about their expression.

BonnieSituation

Hamsterchops wrote: »

You and your naivety comments.

Obviously, there is a constant graw to pull NI out of the UK, and that can't happen without a majority of the NI population voting for it, da da da ....

99.9% of Unionists will vote to keep NI within the United Kingdom, but here's the thing Bonnie, a substantial proportion of Northern Nationalists will also vote to keep NI in the UK, hence they need to be swung the other way ...

Now, what were you saying about their expression.

What are you on about "grá" for?

I go on about naivety with you because all of your posts are naive in the extreme.

RobMc59

BonnieSituation wrote: »

What's Brexit got to do with the provision for a reunification referendum?

Firstly, Brexit happened on Jan 31st.

Secondly, do you think post-transition might be so successful as to dissuade people voting for a UI in the event of a border poll? Because that's the implication of your post knowing your own politics.

No one knows whether brexit will be seen as a success or failure.I also think it will be important in regards to any potential independence vote for Scotland or NI leaving the UK as Ireland did.
Personally I believe the UK has lost out already by leaving the EU but any sort of acceptable deal and the UK will prosper.

Hamsterchops

Bonnie; I thought my idea of a United Ireland for a year (as a tester) was a great idea, tongue in cheek maybe...

BonnieSituation

You suggested that in the event of voting for a UI that we just try it out for a year to see how the Unionists get on and then if the don't like it they can leave again.

Do you not think that's a bit naive and moreover, a kick in the face of every single Nationalist finally achieving their aspiration of a 32 county republic to be told we have to deal with Unionist exceptionalism still?

I don't know why you engage on this topic when your posts are so painfully ill informed.

Ozymandius2011

Recent Yougov polls mentioned on Sky show widespread indifference in GB to whether or not NI remains in the UK. Around 69% of the English are neutral on the subject, and the rest divided more or less evenly on whether NI should remain in the UK. This is in contrast to their attitude to Scottish independence.

I think one of the great ironies of partition is that it has benefitted the part of Ireland that didn't want it, while hurting the part that demanded it. I don't agree with partition at all. But there's no doubt it spared the 26 countries from being dragged into the Troubles (other than the Dublin-Monaghan Bombings and a small number of murders like Seamus Ludlow by Loyalists which of course are to be condemned).

Northern Unionism is declining among the Protestant people with the growth of the Alliance Party. I saw the list of those on the commemorative committee's established by the British government, and they are pretty much all from the Unionist community and indeed from the Protestant community. It does not bode well for persuading the Nationalist and Catholic background community that partition was something to be celebrated. I think even among those better off Catholics who prefer to stay in the UK for now, the way their community was kicked around for 78 years is hardly something to celebrate. Collusion, gerrymandering, housing discrimination. multiple votes for largely Unionist occupations like directorships of companies, having to leave town if not NI during the annual marching season as recently as Drumcree in 1998 (I recall the news reports of thousands fleeing to the Republic).

Partition, while an abomination, gave the South a breathing space in way to industrialise and stabilise after the Civil War. Unfortunately, it also left the State bereft of a non Catholic minority that might have proved an obstacle to the over-weening dominance of the Catholic Church in our politics for 80 years. Evangelical Protestantism and the Catholic Right actually have a lot in common - homophobia, opposition to abortion, opposition to homosexuality etc. - but disagreeing on divorce and perhaps birth control.

The best way to get members of the Catholic, Nationalist and Republican communities to engage in the commemoration consultation is to make it a celebration of certain positive aspects of the past 100 years, without making it a celebration of partition itself. This could include sporting acheivements e.g. George Best, Mary Peters, musical talent e.g. Ash, the Undertones, literature e.g. Seamus Heaney.

BonnieSituation

Hamsterchops wrote: »

Bonnie; I thought my idea of a United Ireland for a year (as a tester) was a great idea, tongue in cheek maybe...

A constant waste of engagement.

BonnieSituation

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

Recent Yougov polls mentioned on Sky show widespread indifference in GB to whether or not NI remains in the UK. Around 69% of the English are neutral on the subject, and the rest divided more or less evenly on whether NI should remain in the UK. This is in contrast to their attitude to Scottish independence.

I think one of the great ironies of partition is that it has benefitted the part of Ireland that didn't want it, while hurting the part that demanded it. I don't agree with partition at all. But there's no doubt it spared the 26 countries from being dragged into the Troubles (other than the Dublin-Monaghan Bombings and a small number of murders like Seamus Ludlow by Loyalists which of course are to be condemned).

Northern Unionism is declining among the Protestant people with the growth of the Alliance Party. I saw the list of those on the commemorative committee's established by the British government, and they are pretty much all from the Unionist community and indeed from the Protestant community. It does not bode well for persuading the Nationalist and Catholic background community that partition was something to be celebrated. I think even among those better off Catholics who prefer to stay in the UK for now, the way their community was kicked around for 78 years is hardly something to celebrate. Collusion, gerrymandering, housing discrimination. multiple votes for largely Unionist occupations like directorships of companies, having to leave town if not NI during the annual marching season as recently as Drumcree in 1998 (I recall the news reports of thousands fleeing to the Republic).

Partition, while an abomination, gave the South a breathing space in way to industrialise and stabilise after the Civil War. Unfortunately, it also left the State bereft of a non Catholic minority that might have proved an obstacle to the over-weening dominance of the Catholic Church in our politics for 80 years. Evangelical Protestantism and the Catholic Right actually have a lot in common - homophobia, opposition to abortion, opposition to homosexuality etc. - but disagreeing on divorce and perhaps birth control.

The best way to get members of the Catholic, Nationalist and Republican communities to engage in the commemoration consultation is to make it a celebration of certain positive aspects of the past 100 years, without making it a celebration of partition itself. This could include sporting acheivements e.g. George Best, Mary Peters, musical talent e.g. Ash, the Undertones, literature e.g. Seamus Heaney.

Eh, Partition insulated the South from the troubles?

The civil war was a result of Partition not to mention the grip of the Catholic church on the new state and the detangling we've had to go through for near 40 years hasn't been easy.

The Civil War in the north was caused by Partition also.

So in the space of 50 years, this island had 2 civil wars.

The Troubles don't happen without Partition.

jelem

RobMc59 wrote: »

No one knows whether brexit will be seen as a success or failure.I also think it will be important in regards to any potential independence vote for Scotland or NI leaving the UK as Ireland did.
Personally I believe the UK has lost out already by leaving the EU but any sort of acceptable deal and the UK will prosper.

no surrender "fishing grounds" uk is uk and eu along with ireland (south-eire). need to heed.
irish forget eu helped take jobs and manufacturing from eire to cheap poland and gave the
polish eu tax money as grants etc. whilst eire lost jobs. of course uk fell in same trap aswell
with the large chocolate and biscuit\cereal makers moving for low tax and wages.
i point out Trump stated "china stole our jobs" such a lie when it was usa government
that allowed usa companies move to cheap goods\labour etc from china and all for the
profit of the few.
EU was sort of communism but fail as failure to harmonise ALL--- ie apples cost same in all
countries along with gas\electricity and pay along with costs "rent\house price\service price
and tax.
EU was and is a "care home" for ex and failed politicians with no man parts to form a
community of equal. french must have x veto and germans y veto along with irish z veto.
lol so sad and citizens suckered again and again

Ozymandius2011

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Eh, Partition insulated the South from the troubles?

The civil war was a result of Partition not to mention the grip of the Catholic church on the new state and the detangling we've had to go through for near 40 years hasn't been easy.

The Civil War in the north was caused by Partition also.

So in the space of 50 years, this island had 2 civil wars.

The Troubles don't happen without Partition.

The Civil War was not caused by partition. The Civil War was caused by the Oath of Allegiance to the King, required of Irish TDs and Senators.

BonnieSituation

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

The Civil War was not caused by partition. The Civil War was caused by the Oath of Allegiance to the King, required of Irish TDs and Senators.

Are you for real? Partition didn't cause the civil war but the results of Partition did?

Think about what you're trying to say here.

Ozymandius2011

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Eh, Partition insulated the South from the troubles?

The civil war was a result of Partition not to mention the grip of the Catholic church on the new state and the detangling we've had to go through for near 40 years hasn't been easy.

The Civil War in the north was caused by Partition also.

So in the space of 50 years, this island had 2 civil wars.

The Troubles don't happen without Partition.

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Are you for real? Partition didn't cause the civil war but the results of Partition did?

Think about what you're trying to say here.

Both sides in the Treaty debates expected the Boundary Commission to consign NI to the dustbin of history. So much so that the Irish government did not appoint anyone to the 26 counties' seats on the proposed Council of Ireland. It seems to my surprise from recent research that in fact the NI government did nominate to it. Very few raised partition in the Treaty debates.

BonnieSituation

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

Both sides in the Treaty debates expected the Boundary Commission to consign NI to the dustbin of history. So much so that the Irish government did not appoint anyone to the 26 counties' seats on the proposed Council of Ireland. It seems to my surprise from recent research that in fact the NI government did nominate to it. Very few raised partition in the Treaty debates.

Is this reading of history of a rather new and fresh vein and and you're trying to show us what you have read?

Right, and when it became clear that Partition was going to happen...?

jelem

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

The Civil War was not caused by partition. The Civil War was caused by the Oath of Allegiance to the King, required of Irish TDs and Senators.

was caused by those whom saw power was up for grab nothing more.
FF\FG have and still rule as result of intimidation\murder etc..
i had someone with the cheek to say i cant talk about "irish history
and yet failed to answer why different named people were killed and by whom.
wasthere not recently a snippet about one party being asked to apologise on
some incident and was it varadka whom gave a waffle answer?.

FrancieBrady

Partition allowed the RC church too much influence in the sourh while Unionists set up a sectarian bigoted state in the north.

It completely imbalanced the island. Had it stayed whole we would have long ago separated church and state and all the problems that has brought would have much less.
The boys and girls of FF FG ceded too much control for reasons.

jm08

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Partition allowed the RC church too much influence in the sourh while Unionists set up a sectarian bigoted state in the north.

It completely imbalanced the island. Had it stayed whole we would have long ago separated church and state and all the problems that has brought would have much less.
The boys and girls of FF FG ceded too much control for reasons.

I think there was a bit more to it than that. The State was financially crippled and without the catholic church there would have been no schools, hospitals, orphanages etc. The State left all of that to them.

Sunny Disposition

jm08 wrote: »

I think there was a bit more to it than that. The State was financially crippled and without the catholic church there would have been no schools, hospitals, orphanages etc. The State left all of that to them.

It wasn't the church making a power grab as such, people put all their faith in it and the clergy, that'd be my take anyway.

FrancieBrady

jm08 wrote: »

I think there was a bit more to it than that. The State was financially crippled and without the catholic church there would have been no schools, hospitals, orphanages etc. The State left all of that to them.

Had we remained an autimonous island I firmly believe that we would have evolved a way to govern secularly.
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with either religion, but control was ceded to both, with terrible consequences for many in the south and devastating consequences in the north.

The balance was upset imo by partition and it hasn't been re-found really.
There are those who pretend we can continue by ignoring it as they have done for decades, but Covid and Brexit has shown we can't.

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Partition allowed the RC church too much influence in the south

wow, what a surprising coincidence.

It's almost as though the leaders of the south didn't want a load of prods getting in the way of creating a Catholic utopia with maidens dancing at the crossroads.

FrancieBrady

Aegir wrote: »

wow, what a surprising coincidence.

It's almost as though the leaders of the south didn't want a load of prods getting in the way of creating a Catholic utopia with maidens dancing at the crossroads.

Sadly the British executed the leadership of a generation.
I don't think the church would have gotten the control had men like Connolly and Clarke had been in charge.

What we got were weak selfish men (largely men) who divided the spoils really. FF and FG, and still swap the power between them.

But the biggest issue to my mind was the balance. The island was imbalanced artificially and that as we saw caused multiple problems of different degrees of devastation.

Ozymandius2011

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Is this reading of history of a rather new and fresh vein and and you're trying to show us what you have read?

Right, and when it became clear that Partition was going to happen...?

Partition within the UK had already happened in 1920, while the Treaty turned that into partition between the UK and the Irish Free State. But the Boundary Commission was supposed to redraw the border, and there was supposed to be a Council of Ireland. The Council of Ireland in the original Government of Ireland 1920 was actually described in the GOI Act 1920 as possibly leading to reunification down the road. Then we left the UK in 1922 under the 1921 Treaty, and the Nationalists believed wrongly that the Boundary Commission would resolve the border issue by giving large Nationalist areas like Fermanagh, Tyrone, South Armagh, South Down and Derry City to the Irish Free State, which they thought would make the rest of NI collapse under the economic weight of losing these regions. Hence the lack of mention of NI in the Treaty debates. This mirage fell apart with the leak of the Boundary Commission report in 1925 and the subsequent cancellation of it.

Fritzbox

The Catholic Church in Ireland gained its overweening and dominant influence over Irish society long before Irish independence or partition. The Devotional Revolution with Paul Cardinal Cullen at its head began in the 1850s when Ireland was still ensconced within the bosom of the United Kingdom.

In fact, for most of the almost 100 years duration of the "independent" Irish state the Catholic Church has been loosing its power and influence - the church was far more powerful in the year 1900 than in the year 2000.

Junkyard Tom

I think it's not unreasonable to view partition as allowing the worst aspects of each tradition to concentrate and consolidate power. Would the RCC have gotten away with what it did had a big block of unionists been sitting in the Dail? Doubtful. Likewise Protestants/Unionists wouldn't have had their one-party sectarian statelet in the north without the divide.

In both cases there was a lack of civil courage which is where the ultimate responsibility lies.

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Sadly the British executed the leadership of a generation.
I don't think the church would have gotten the control had men like Connolly and Clarke had been in charge. .

Rubbish. They were romantic idealistic fools.

The biggest failing was the death of a different man in August 1922.

FrancieBrady

Aegir wrote: »

Rubbish. They were romantic idealistic fools.

The biggest failing was the death of a different man in August 1922.

Connolly was no fool, idealistic or otherwise and certainly had the capacity to lead. The church would have gotten no foothold with him about IMO.

Collins was also a leader.

We ended up with largely selfish men, riven by what side they were on in the war. The church stepped in as they were wont to do.

FrancieBrady

Fritzbox wrote: »

The Catholic Church in Ireland gained its overweening and dominant influence over Irish society long before Irish independence or partition. The Devotional Revolution with Paul Cardinal Cullen at its head began in the 1850s when Ireland was still ensconced within the bosom of the United Kingdom.

In fact, for most of the almost 100 years duration of the "independent" Irish state the Catholic Church has been loosing its power and influence - the church was far more powerful in the year 1900 than in the year 2000.

I think Tom's answer next to your post is spot on in answer to this. They may have had local power but they wouldn't have embedded themselves in the halls of power.

Capt'n Midnight

BonnieSituation wrote: »

What's Brexit got to do with the provision for a reunification referendum?

Firstly, Brexit happened on Jan 31st.

Secondly, do you think post-transition might be so successful as to dissuade people voting for a UI in the event of a border poll? Because that's the implication of your post knowing your own politics.

The order was placed but the package hasn't arrived yet.

Brexit hasn't happened yet. You are still falling and a sudden stop awaits.

Holyhead has no place to hold trucks. (the other UK port are similar , Dover doesn't have enough space for predictable volumes) The plan for Holyhead is to not inspect trucks coming off the ferries until the middle of next year. Every country the UK doesn't have a trade deal with can scream Most Favourable Nation ! and demand the same access to the UK because WTO rules.

Junkyard Tom

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

The dirty Fenians are to blame, is it?

You just can't help yourself can you DC?

A glimpse inside a Unionist mind.

https://twitter.com/DarranMarshall/status/1317182076702121985?s=20

downcow

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

A glimpse inside a Unionist mind.

https://twitter.com/DarranMarshall/status/1317182076702121985?s=20

I am not sure what your point is. I told you a week ago that you can superimpose the political map and the covid map and they align exactly.
The chief medical officer has said privately to some politicians that the gaa have been a driver of covid , but he won’t dare say it publicly.

Do you disagree with his point???

The evidence is out there. Poots does a piece on radio ulster lunchtime yesterday and phone-ins from public saying they are nationalists but agree with the sense he is talking.