United Ireland Poll - please vote

FrancieBrady

Connacht15 wrote: »

Lads, if you think, The Brits, The Franco-Germanic Axis Bossed EU or The USA are going to pay for us to integrate the luvlee Nordies from both sides in to a UI, ye are on cloud cuckoo land!

Sometimes, I think even South and North Koreans have more in common with each other than us down South have with Nordies!

Nobody I know has said 'they will pay for integration'. Will they pay towards it? It's in their interests to do so. They will not want a bloodbath on their doorstep or a political mess.

downcow

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Surely Unionists wouldn't resort to reneging on the agreement made in 1998 and re-affirmed many times since?

Partitionists are always quick to tell nationalists that there will have to be give and take when it comes to a UI, but surely partitionists aren't anti-democratic and wouldn't allow a situation develop that sees the aspirations and wishes of this country yet again held to ransom by a minority?

Many are saying the deal is off. Others like myself won’t rush there, but will go there eventually if this is not sorted.
The gfa say that the constitutional position of ni cannot change without consent from both communities. That has been ignored and the gfa compromised. So why would unionists not do likewise and bin it. It can’t be cherry picked

downcow

schmittel wrote: »

Why can't we use the tricolour? It already symbolises everything about a united Ireland.

Agreed we are not taking over a country, nor colonising, but nor are we joining together with 'them'.

We would be reuniting the island, and in that context the tricolor is the perfect flag.

Haha

Fionn1952

downcow wrote: »

Many are saying the deal is off. Others like myself won’t rush there, but will go there eventually if this is not sorted.
The gfa say that the constitutional position of ni cannot change without consent from both communities. That has been ignored and the gfa compromised. So why would unionists not do likewise and bin it. It can’t be cherry picked

....that would be the decision of the British population, pushed through by the Tory Party, aided by the DUP you're referring to, right?

Weren't an awful lot of the people complaining about this the very same ones that told us all to suck it up, that it was a UK-wide decision when we highlighted that Brexit wasn't wanted by the majority of people in NI, and pointed out the inevitability of this situation?

downcow

blanch152 wrote: »

That was true up to a point.

The point when that changed was when SF/IRA at the time abused the symbolism and started draping it on the coffins of criminal thugs who had killed members of their own communities.

This is when it became beyond the pale for 1 million residents on the island

downcow

Connacht15 wrote: »

The Dominican Republic (quite a pleasant part of the world) and Haiti (hell on earth) share the same island of Hispanola!
Nobody from The Dominican Republic would ever dream of taking Haiti in to form a single state!

Do the people of Haiti want to join with so-called heaven?

igCorcaigh

That's the problem with flags and emblems. Their meaning shifts over time to be different from their original meaning, and can be perceived differently by different people. Simulacra and Simulation.

I view all of that stuff as tribal and divisive. No time for it. You won't find flags of any kind on my social media bio.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Nobody I know has said 'they will pay for integration'. Will they pay towards it? It's in their interests to do so. They will not want a bloodbath on their doorstep or a political mess.

Are the EU paying for Turkey or the North African states which are political messes and bloodbaths on our doorsteps and far more in need of economic support?

Sometimes I think the "everyone loves the Irish" approach to Irish unity gets taken to absurd lengths. Someone else described the suggestions of the EU paying as cloud cuckoo land, that may have been too generous.

blanch152

Inquirer wrote: »

I'm going to try to reply to the multiple relies to myself over the last few days, apols I couldn't quote them all off.

As I am trying to explain, this is not about logic for the Unionists. Many here are making a lot of assumptions about their mindset and about how such a complicated scenario would play out. Something which is extremely unwise if you ask me. Is there any surveys out there which essentially asked the unionists - especially the hardcore ones - 'If there was a UI Tomorrow would you accept it quietly and not resort to violence?' I think these hard questions need to be asked first, and this is underlined by the recent violence there. This is not the protestant population in Donegal/Dublin in 1921 - the population percentages have no remote comparison.

Incidently I never said the IRB/ later IRA had no logical objectives - I said they didn’t necessarily have the full support of the population at the time, which is true. Apols for bad paragraphing.

Re their objectives - since it hasn't happened yet and is entirely hypothetical, I will not commit myself to any specific objective they could have, but I'm sure they could dream something up. Given the many, many ways this could play out, is what I'm talking about really that beyond the bounds? James, you are noting that there will be violence but it shouldn’t have much support, though your not really proving your point. But how much violence? I mean, it sounds like this is playing Russian roulette with the fate of nations and its too big a risk.


If I went and analyzed insurgencies of the past, many would have asked them when they were starting out 'What are you fighting for?' Ask the Palestinians? Or the Gazans. Or the Kosovo Albanians. The former essentially have no choice except to accept Israeli rule/occupation whatever way you want to state it. Doesn't stop them fighting, over and over, year after year.
And no, I don't know what they would be fighting for in such a scenario. Would it matter? Just because its not founded in a classical Clausewitzian sense doesn't mean they couldn't make hell on earth for us. I should point out the extreme religiosity of some of their population, and their affiliation with various creationist groups in the US. No, logic is not a big part of this, and saying 'you have no choice' to them will sure as feck not make up the difference, one only needs to have a basic grasp of Irish, hell Human psychology. Would that make a difference to anybody who was sufficiently committed?

And what would this new generation of the IRA do? I don't see these guys simply going home quietly and putting the kettle on, and many are concerned (rightly, if the comments in this forum like 'the sea is a nice place to go' are anything to go by) that they will try to settle scores. Which means the Irish state could get dragged into fighting them as well, just like the British army had to fight Unionists as well at times (Granted, they were biased as hell, just making the point.)

No, they don't have to have a workable state - look at Kosovo for instance, founded by a similar insurgency (which incidently led to the ethnic cleansing of tens of thousands of Serbs.) Demographics aren't necessarily key to a given populations military effectiveness, or indeed how a campaign would normally go - otherwise the British empire itself would never have existed at all. And why exactly do you think they wouldn't be able to fight an effective campaign? Have you examined Unionists finances? Their number of men of potential fighting age? How about the numbers (considerable) who have experience of fighting in the army? Has anyone? Ulster Unionism would not have survived as long as it did if it was just some paper tiger being pushed up by the British, though I take your point that they were given considerable aid by the British government in the troubles. Overall, however, these are assumptions. That's the mother of all F-ups.

Ireland is NOT Germany. We have nowhere near the same balanced economy that they do. And indeed, that country (the eastern part anyway) went through a huge recession when they came back together anyway. If we were to go through another recession with mass unemployment as we periodically do, how do you all think the newly-integrated North would be effected by this? Wouldn’t that mean a whole bunch of disaffected youths would start going into these nasty organizations?

Pardon me for saying this, but this all sounds rather utopian. The likes of FF/FG have no interest in a massive reform of our healthcare or other systems, and are generally extremely conservative parties - as is most of the Irish political establishment. Do they have the mindset, intelligence, and imagination to handle something as large and complicated as this? I really doubt it. It also depends heavily on which of the (rare) economic studies one depends on, and there simply hasn’t been enough yet to definitively say reunification would be a good idea economically or not. Finally even if we are economically successful, look at Britain and Brexit- the obvious economic incentives to stay weren’t enough to dissuade them from separating from Europe. Ditto, the Unionists.

The Palestinians forced to share a state with Israel are a very good example. Nowhere to go with their cause but fighting on for decades and decades.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Are the EU paying for Turkey or the North African states which are political messes and bloodbaths on our doorsteps and far more in need of economic support?

Sometimes I think the "everyone loves the Irish" approach to Irish unity gets taken to absurd lengths. Someone else described the suggestions of the EU paying as cloud cuckoo land, that may have been too generous.

Nothing whatsoever to do with a ELTI approach but a historical, factual approach based on when the EU pumped millions upon millions into a peace project here. Our peace project being a microcosm of what the EU actually began as.
There is also the added carrot for all the other members of the EU of a successful UI solving many many complex problems for the security of the single market.

All you have is dogmatic rejection of this and a tour of places with no similarity to ours.

wicklowstevo

downcow wrote: »

This is when it became beyond the pale for 1 million residents on the island

the Tricolour was designed with the all the residents on the island in mind .


I m as disgusted as most people but the way terrorists tried to claim my flag but it will be hard for many decent Irish people to give it up ,

not a deal breaker but a issue none the less

blanch152

wicklowstevo wrote: »

the Tricolour was designed with the all the residents on the island in mind .


I m as disgusted as most people but the way terrorists tried to claim my flag but it will be hard for many decent Irish people to give it up ,

not a deal breaker but a issue none the less

I agree, but unfortunately the antics of SF/IRA in the 1970s and 1980s made it a symbol of division. On their heads.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

I agree, but unfortunately the antics of SF/IRA in the 1970s and 1980s made it a symbol of division. On their heads.

Yeh, Unionism would have been happy to adopt it if the IRA had not existed.

In 1950, an exchange in the Stormont parliament underlined the symbolism of the tricolour as the flag of the minority community. The visiting mayor of New York had flown two tricolour pennants on his car. Police in Belfast told him that it was “illegal to fly the tricolour”, and he removed them. A nationalist M.P. at Stormont complained that “it was disgraceful that the flag of the Irish nation should be insulted”. When he described it as the “flag of our nation”, he was interrupted by cries of, “What nation?”

(The Irish Times, 5 July 1950, p3)

Legislation was passed by the Stormont Parliament in 1954 gave the police powers to protect the display of the Union flag, allowing them to remove the Irish tricolour if they considered that it might lead to a breach of the peace.

(Henry Patterson, Ireland since 1939 (Oxford, 2002) pp. 121-5)

A rise in the number of incidents involving disputes on the streets over the display of the tricolour between 1966 and 1971 highlighted the tensions between the two communities in the North. In 1966, two teenage girls wore tricolour emblems during a parade organised by the Rev. Ian Paisley. They were charged in court with provocative conduct. A police inspector said that it was crass stupidity to display the Tricolour in such a place.

(The Irish Press, 3 June 1966, p)

When you are not up to speed on the actual history best not to comment at all.

Junkyard Tom

It's important to note too that the Tricolour is the flag of the Irish Nation and it predates partition so cannot be appropriated as the flag of the Irish state, in its current iteration at least.

Seathrun66

schmittel wrote: »

It's symbolism is literally uniting orange and green.

If 15% of the citizens of a United Ireland cannot accept that symbolism, one wonders why the remaining 85% of the citizens should accept their wishes.

I'm one of the 85% and I understand why it's not acceptable to many of the populace in the way that the Union Jack is no acceptable to me. If you see no issue with the tricolour you've not being paying attention. It's just a flag.

And it's a fresh start for a new nation. We get a new flag. I don't think that changing the flag and anthem is going to be a major deal. Germany, South Africa and others managed it without fuss.

Fionn1952

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yeh, Unionism would have been happy to adopt it if the IRA had not existed.






When you are not up to speed on the actual history best not to comment at all.

No comment on his contradictory, 'plenty of maps on lines have never caused any problems' and 'the Irish border is one of the longest lasting stable borders in the world' statements when called on it, no comment on his nonsensical claims that APNI favour an Independent NI when called on it...quickly jump topics and attack from a different angle until called on that too.

It's almost as if he'd say just about anything if it allows a dig at SF or any others who vocally favour Unification.

An acknowledgement of being mistaken or over-egging the pudding would be nice once in a while.

Seathrun66

eire4 wrote: »

There is no question whatever anybody wants to say for or against the Irish tricolour its symbolism can only be described as laudable. To say anything else regarding its symbolism is risible and or shows ignorance of what it means symbolically.

Everybody knows what the flag's intent was. Which is indeed laudable.

But neither the Union Jack nor the Tricolour will be the symbol of the new state. Fresh start.

hometruths

Seathrun66 wrote: »

I'm one of the 85% and I understand why it's not acceptable to many of the populace in the way that the Union Jack is no acceptable to me. If you see no issue with the tricolour you've not being paying attention. It's just a flag.

And it's a fresh start for a new nation. We get a new flag. I don't think that changing the flag and anthem is going to be a major deal. Germany, South Africa and others managed it without fuss.

I think this is where we differ. I am quite happy with the nation we have. If the six counties are happy to team up with what we've got, then great.

I'm not interested in becoming a new nation with whatever changes that entails.

hometruths

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yeh, Unionism would have been happy to adopt it if the IRA had not existed.






When you are not up to speed on the actual history best not to comment at all.

This is exactly why I would not vote to give it up because it might trigger loyalists.

Pussyhands

Would be fierce funny if the North voted in favour and the Republic rejected them

I don't feel like I am the same as the lads in the north. Watching news reports from the likes of Larne or Strabane, it does feel very british.

I certainly don't feel like NI is like the rest of Ireland, just ruled by the UK.

Seathrun66

schmittel wrote: »

I think this is where we differ. I am quite happy with the nation we have. If the six counties are happy to team up with what we've got, then great.

I'm not interested in becoming a new nation with whatever changes that entails.

Then you have a vote and can decide as you wish.

I, for one, wish to compromise with the two million people we will merge with rather than enforce our will upon them.

I'm far more concerned about, for instance, the political system of the emerging state and want to ensure we retain PR rather than the archaic FPTP. Bigger battles than symbols.

Junkyard Tom

Pussyhands wrote: »

Would be fierce funny if the North voted in favour and the Republic rejected them

Pretty sure it would be anything but funny. Try gaming it out in your head.

hometruths

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Pretty sure it would be anything but funny. Try gaming it out in your head.

It’s exactly what I think will happen. And I agree the aftermath would be a disaster.

BonnieSituation

Seathrun66 wrote: »

Then you have a vote and can decide as you wish.

I, for one, wish to compromise with the two million people we will merge with rather than enforce our will upon them.

I'm far more concerned about, for instance, the political system of the emerging state and want to ensure we retain PR rather than the archaic FPTP. Bigger battles than symbols.

FPTP is only used for Westminster elections. It won't be retained.

Hamsterchops

schmittel wrote: »

I am quite happy with the nation we have. If the six counties are happy to team up with what we've got, then great.

I'm not interested in becoming a new nation with whatever changes that entails.

Wow, really?

You just want to shoehorn Unionism into the existing state, with the existing flag and anthem!

Talk about hardball, that ain't going to be pretty.

Personally I think a New Ireland would be great, fresh start, new beginning with Unionism accepting all the institutions, symbols etc. It could be exciting, new & fresh, that is if they vote for it?

BonnieSituation

Hamsterchops wrote: »

Wow, really?

You just want to shoehorn Unionism into the existing state, with the existing flag and anthem!

Talk about hardball, that ain't going to be pretty.

Personally I think a New Ireland would be great, fresh start, new beginning with Unionism accepting all the institutions, symbols etc. It could be exciting, new & fresh, that is if they vote for it?

Anything you'd like Unionism to accept in this new nation of yours?

Seathrun66

BonnieSituation wrote: »

FPTP is only used for Westminster elections. It won't be retained.

I don't think so either but it's what favours SF & the DUP in the North and they may fight for its retention or national use throughout the new state. Unlikely to succeed as you say. But this, our health service, national housing policy, civil service, environmental policy, social welfare policy and others to me are greatly more significant than flags and anthems.

FrancieBrady

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Anything you'd like Unionism to accept in this new nation of yours?

Michael Martin and Leo Varadkar need to be careful with their Unity Unit about promising things that cannot be delivered. Unionists, just like the rest of us may have to swallow hard too.
It isn't nor shouldn't be appeasement for the sake of it. If a rational reason is put forward to retain the flag then Unionists will have to accept that, just as, if a rational reason is put forward to join the Commonwealth, people like me, wholly against that, will have to accept it.
It's a two way street in a new UI.

hometruths

Hamsterchops wrote: »

Wow, really?

You just want to shoehorn Unionism into the existing state, with the existing flag and anthem!

Talk about hardball, that ain't going to be pretty.

Personally I think a New Ireland would be great, fresh start, new beginning with Unionism accepting all the institutions, symbols etc. It could be exciting, new & fresh, that is if they vote for it?

And will our country be called New Ireland? Or will that be a bit too, how can I put this...Irish... for Unionists?

I don’t see my view as hardball. It’s realistic. If we change the flag and the anthem, what else do we have to change to gain Unionist acceptance? The institutions you mention? What should we change?

There are no shortage of British people who live happily in Ireland and are not offended by our national identity, symbols, culture and institutions. If Unionists can live like theses people in our country, then great. If not, why do we want them as part of our nation?

Seathrun66

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Michael Martin and Leo Varadkar need to be careful with their Unity Unit about promising things that cannot be delivered. Unionists, just like the rest of us may have to swallow hard too.
It isn't nor shouldn't be appeasement for the sake of it. If a rational reason is put forward to retain the flag then Unionists will have to accept that, just as, if a rational reason is put forward to join the Commonwealth, people like me, wholly against that, will have to accept it.
It's a two way street in a new UI.

Rejoining the Commonwealth would be too much for many, myself included, to stomach. I'd perceive it as an acceptance of the wrongs of historical colonialism and connect us in some ways to a nation that, post-Brexit, has shown little interest in working alongside others.