United Ireland Poll - please vote

Junkyard Tom

The Dark Knight wrote: »

- Decades and decades of violence (imagine the troubles in reverse).

There is no viable state to be fought for by the rump of never-never-never Unionism that would be left. Unionists are a minority in Belfast, Derry and four of the six counties.

- Fundamental swing in the makeup of the Daíl (or whatever we end up calling it), paralysing politics and decision making. We're bad enough as it is.

See above. There would be no gain to be had from disruption.

Cost of integration and sustaining a higher cost social system.

Says who?

This has all been done to death.

FrancieBrady

The Dark Knight wrote: »

How can you say that a UI is in Ireland's interest.
- Decades and decades of violence (imagine the troubles in reverse).
- Fundamental swing in the makeup of the Daíl (or whatever we end up calling it), paralysing politics and decision making. We're bad enough as it is.
- Cost of integration and sustaining a higher cost social system.

Can somebody convince me of the benefit of a UI to Ireland that outways these real issues? I'm open to any logical points.
Other than romantic nationalism, there are no substantial benefits worth the risk a UI brings.

As I said here earlier, I am not particularly interested in convincing anyone, all I will say is that ALL political parties currently are in favour and see it as beneficial. There will be plenty to explain it to you come a border poll campaign.

The Dark Knight

FrancieBrady wrote: »

As I said here earlier, I am not particularly interested in convincing anyone, all I will say is that ALL political parties currently are in favour and see it as beneficial. There will be plenty to explain it to you come a border poll campaign.

Just give me one reason other than romantic republicanism..... Just one good social or economic reason!
Sure, you always have the argument that we'll have a higher population driving higher national productivity and GDP, etc. But that is not worth the price we'd and our children would pay

BTW.. The political parties here are like sheep, following the votes. Can you imagine the backlash if any came out against a UI.

The Dark Knight

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

There is no viable state to be fought for by the rump of never-never-never Unionism that would be left. Unionists are a minority in Belfast, Derry and four of the six counties.



See above. There would be no gain to be had from disruption.



Says who?

This has all been done to death.

You obviously know very little about Northern Ireland or Unionism.
The dislike of Unionism for a UI is a multiple of the dislike of nationalism at being part of UK.
Don't forget, a UI would take away from them what they have enjoyed for years and they would be integrated into what they see as an inferior state from a healthcare, social perspective, etc.

Decades of violence, with Arlene Foster (or her like) holding the balance of power in the Dáil is what a UI would look like.

FrancieBrady

The Dark Knight wrote: »

You obviously know very little about Northern Ireland or Unionism.
The dislike of Unionism for a UI is a multiple of the dislike of nationalism at being part of UK.
Don't forget, a UI would take away from them what they have enjoyed for years and they would be integrated into what they see as an inferior state from a healthcare, social perspective, etc.

Decades of violence, with Arlene Foster (or her like) holding the balance of power in the Dáil is what a UI would look like.

Arlene says she will leave if there is a UI.

And Nationalists have held to their part of the GFA and accepted the majority decision to being in the UK since the GFA.

The Dark Knight

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Arlene says she will leave if there is a UI.

And Nationalists have held to their part of the GFA and accepted the majority decision to being in the UK since the GFA.

OK.... That's one good thing that would come out of a UI :-D but don't forget the more militant leaders waiting in the wing.

You are trying to equate living with the status quo to constitutional change. Two very different things. There is nothing more dangerous than giving people something, then taking it away. The Russian Tsars learned that lesson the hard way. Unionism will become loyalism very quickly if a UI happens.

FrancieBrady

The Dark Knight wrote: »

OK.... That's one good thing that would come out of a UI :-D but don't forget the more militant leaders waiting in the wing.

You are trying to equate living with the status quo to constitutional change. Two very different things. There is nothing more dangerous than giving people something, then taking it away. The Russian Tsars learned that lesson the hard way. Unionism will become loyalism very quickly if a UI happens.

Totally disagree.
Militant Unionism/loyalism has been in rapid decline since the Anglo Irish Agreement.

The Dark Knight

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Totally disagree.
Militant Unionism/loyalism has been in rapid decline since the Anglo Irish Agreement.

As has militant Nationalism/Republicanism.
Loyalist violence has almost always been in response to the republican threat. There is nothing they fear more than a UI.

Junkyard Tom

The Dark Knight wrote: »

the more militant leaders waiting in the wing.

To do what? What would they want? There is no viable state for Unionists.

Belfast has a nationalist/republican majority that is growing rapidly as does Derry. Four of the six counties have non-Unionist majorities.

The Dark Knight wrote: »

Loyalist violence has almost always been in response to the republican threat. There is nothing they fear more than a UI.

Loyalists killed more of each other in territorial feuds than they did IRA men.

The Dark Knight

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

To do what? What would they want? There is no viable state for Unionists.

Belfast has a nationalist/republican majority that is growing rapidly as does Derry. Four of the six counties have non-Unionist majorities.

That want what David Trimble said a numbers of years aga "To be left alone", and more than you think will resort to violence to remain in the UK

Majority means nothing in NI. In the 1970's the Catholic population was less than 30%, but it still resulted in over 3,500 deaths during the troubles.

Junkyard Tom

The Dark Knight wrote: »

Majority means nothing in NI.

What part of 'there is no viable state for Unionists' do you not understand exactly?

FrancieBrady

The Dark Knight wrote: »

That want what David Trimble said a numbers of years aga "To be left alone", and more than you think will resort to violence to remain in the UK

Majority means nothing in NI. In the 1970's the Catholic population was less than 30%, but it still resulted in over 3,500 deaths during the troubles.

Trimble also said the 'more than a little violence might be required to get rid of the Anglo Irish Agreement (yeh he got a Nobel Peace Prize )

It ddn't happen, the Anglo Irish Agreement remained to be superseded by the GFA which Ian Paisley failed to bring down.
Both men accepted the outcomes.

downcow

Fr D Maugire wrote: »

Not missing anything.

Lets keep this more simple, Scotland want to have an independence vote. I think the support for independence is less than it was in Ireland in 1918. Anyways, now lets say that people know Edinburgh will vote against Independence. Then imagine London basically saying, Scotalnd you can have independence if Edinburgh stays in GB, otherwise you cannot have independence even if a majority vote for it. Do you think in any shape or form that is a democratic process?

And lets be clear here, you are on record more than once as saying you were against Brexit, but as a democrat you accepted it as it was a Countrywide vote.

Strange you quote my question but then don’t refer to it.
Here is the question again
“ Why would the british threaten the Irish if they did not get keeping ni, or as many here refer to it the basket case? Doesn’t seem to make sense. Are you sure you are not missing something?”

Fionn1952

downcow wrote: »

Strange you quote my question but then don’t refer to it.
Here is the question again
“ Why would the british threaten the Irish if they did not get keeping ni, or as many here refer to it the basket case? Doesn’t seem to make sense. Are you sure you are not missing something?”

Why feign ignorance and play this silly, 'just asking questions' game?

As you're well aware, Belfast was the economic powerhouse of Ireland a century ago. It is amazing what a hundred years of mismanagement can do though. Just because (economically at least) NI wasn't a basket case a century ago doesn't make it untrue when looked at today.

downcow

Fionn1952 wrote: »

Why feign ignorance and play this silly, 'just asking questions' game?

As you're well aware, Belfast was the economic powerhouse of Ireland a century ago. It is amazing what a hundred years of mismanagement can do though. Just because (economically at least) NI wasn't a basket case a century ago doesn't make it untrue when looked at today.

I am just looking a simple answer to a simple question.
Posters here have (sort of) accepted that the dail voted democratically to allow Stormont to vote democratically to decide whether ni would stay in UK.
They then caveat it by saying that gb threatened to go to war with them if they did not let ni stay in UK and therefore Roi had no choice.
My question is simple. Why would gb threaten war to get holding on to ni?? Or maybe they are missing something?

Fionn1952

downcow wrote: »

I am just looking a simple answer to a simple question.
Posters here have (sort of) accepted that the dail voted democratically to allow Stormont to vote democratically to decide whether ni would stay in UK.
They then caveat it by saying that gb threatened to go to war with them if they did not let ni stay in UK and therefore Roi had no choice.
My question is simple. Why would gb threaten war to get holding on to ni?? Or maybe they are missing something?

Under the threat of war, Ireland acquiesced to Britain's demand that NI should be allowed to vote on whether to remain part of the UK. At the time Belfast was the economic powerhouse of Ireland. Democracy isn't quite the word I'd choose to describe a decision made under duress. In the hundred years since then, the NI economy has gone down the toilet due to misrule, failure to modernise, failure to maintain competitively high education standards and obviously the unrest caused by the Troubles, so some people now consider NI to be a, 'basket case'.

What exactly hasn't been answered? Your simple question is literally answered in the post you quoted.

Seathrun66

The Dark Knight wrote: »

Just give me one reason other than romantic republicanism..... Just one good social or economic reason!
Sure, you always have the argument that we'll have a higher population driving higher national productivity and GDP, etc. But that is not worth the price we'd and our children would pay

BTW.. The political parties here are like sheep, following the votes. Can you imagine the backlash if any came out against a UI.

You're thus aware of the overwhelming voter support for a UI. So why not plan for the inevitable rather than seek to resist?

J Mysterio

downcow wrote: »

I am just looking a simple answer to a simple question.
Posters here have (sort of) accepted that the dail voted democratically to allow Stormont to vote democratically to decide whether ni would stay in UK.
They then caveat it by saying that gb threatened to go to war with them if they did not let ni stay in UK and therefore Roi had no choice.
My question is simple. Why would gb threaten war to get holding on to ni?? Or maybe they are missing something?

Talk about arguing in bad faith. What are you even talking about/ getting at?

Amazing to think a unionist in the North - whose whole identity is so intertwined in the partition of Ireland and the union with Britain - would not actually know the history of how their statelet came about.

Open a book or look at Wikipedia.

The UK threatened an immediate and terrible war if Ireland did not sign the Treaty.

All Irish found elements of the treaty unacceptable (partition of Ireland, oath of allegiance to the queen etc.), but roughly half decided to vote it through as 'the best that could be achieved' and to use the treaty as 'a stepping stone to full independence'. This of course started our Civil war and has been fundamental to our politics ever since (Fianna Fail/ Fine Gael).

Even after this point the British threatened military intervention.

The GFA is another stepping stone to full independence (reunification) of Ireland, and Brexit has simply hastened that process.

It is smart to plan for a United Ireland now.

trixi001

The Dark Knight wrote: »

Just give me one reason other than romantic republicanism..... Just one good social or economic reason!
Sure, you always have the argument that we'll have a higher population driving higher national productivity and GDP, etc. But that is not worth the price we'd and our children would pay

BTW.. The political parties here are like sheep, following the votes. Can you imagine the backlash if any came out against a UI.

How about this (yes, its an old article but still), the economy of both North & South would improve in the event of unification
https://www.irishexaminer.com/business/arid-20388959.html

Also for those outside of Dublin, reunification could have massive benefits as it could force a move away from the centralisation of everything to Dublin, and more investment across the country as the government couldn't invest in the 6 counties without also considering the massive investments needed in the rest of the Country - especially the West, Donegal would massively Benefit from a UI as they would actually be properly connected to the whole country instead of sharing the majority of their country border (all but 7km) with another jurisdiction

The inclusion of the North, would ultimately lead to a better balance in Ireland, the 2nd and 4th biggest cities in Ireland are in the North, the better balance and decentralisation also improves things for Dublin as house prices should become more affordable etc.

Basically unification is like pressing a reset button for the South too, its a chance to look at what is wrong with the current picture and sort it out. Unification is not simply a matter of bringing the 6 counties under Dublin power and the Southern society, laws, governance etc being mandated in the North - its a merging of the 2 jurisdictions, some things will change for everyone in Ireland - compromise will be required on both sides. It is the merging of 2 regions, not the submerging of the small one into the big one.

FrancieBrady

J Mysterio wrote: »

Talk about arguing in bad faith. What are you even talking about/ getting at?

Amazing to think a unionist in the North - whose whole identity is so intertwined in the partition of Ireland and the union with Britain - would not actually know the history of how their statelet came about.

Open a book or look at Wikipedia.

The UK threatened an immediate and terrible war if Ireland did not sign the Treaty.

All Irish found elements of the treaty unacceptable (partition of Ireland, oath of allegiance to the queen etc.), but roughly half decided to vote it through as 'the best that could be achieved' and to use the treaty as 'a stepping stone to full independence'. This of course started our Civil war and has been fundamental to our politics ever since (Fianna Fail/ Fine Gael).

Even after this point the British threatened military intervention.

The GFA is another stepping stone to full independence (reunification) of Ireland, and Brexit has simply hastened that process.

It is smart to plan for a United Ireland now.

It is as if they believe that NI came about by divine intervention and not through sedition and seedy political antics from the likes of Carson and Bonar Law. Actions that would have landed them in jail today...or maybe not.

Unionism, I think, is not interested in how it really happened they are nurtured on a diet of victimhood and siege. That is key to it's survival as an ideology.
How a Unionist leader today, could stand up and defend/excuse rioting by saying what this woman said with a straight face is utterly bizarre. To see a society heading slowly to normality and parity of esteem as an attack on her own 'culture' tells you all you need to know about a healthy state of victimhood.

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/republicans-waging-cultural-war-on-unionists-says-arlene-foster-40313852.html

BonnieSituation

The Dark Knight wrote: »

That want what David Trimble said a numbers of years aga "To be left alone", and more than you think will resort to violence to remain in the UK

Majority means nothing in NI. In the 1970's the Catholic population was less than 30%, but it still resulted in over 3,500 deaths during the troubles.

Someone was reading his Irish Times yesterday.

jh79

trixi001 wrote: »

How about this (yes, its an old article but still), the economy of both North & South would improve in the event of unification
https://www.irishexaminer.com/business/arid-20388959.html

Also for those outside of Dublin, reunification could have massive benefits as it could force a move away from the centralisation of everything to Dublin, and more investment across the country as the government couldn't invest in the 6 counties without also considering the massive investments needed in the rest of the Country - especially the West, Donegal would massively Benefit from a UI as they would actually be properly connected to the whole country instead of sharing the majority of their country border (all but 7km) with another jurisdiction

The inclusion of the North, would ultimately lead to a better balance in Ireland, the 2nd and 4th biggest cities in Ireland are in the North, the better balance and decentralisation also improves things for Dublin as house prices should become more affordable etc.

Basically unification is like pressing a reset button for the South too, its a chance to look at what is wrong with the current picture and sort it out. Unification is not simply a matter of bringing the 6 counties under Dublin power and the Southern society, laws, governance etc being mandated in the North - its a merging of the 2 jurisdictions, some things will change for everyone in Ireland - compromise will be required on both sides. It is the merging of 2 regions, not the submerging of the small one into the big one.

A 35.5 bn increase in GDP is only a 10% increase but our population would increase by 40% meaning we would still be worse off.

Also the research that was based on assumes FDI into NI would follow the same pattern as the Republic which isn't likely given the lower levels of 3rd level educated workers in the North.

downcow

Fionn1952 wrote: »

Under the threat of war, Ireland acquiesced to Britain's demand that NI should be allowed to vote on whether to remain part of the UK. At the time Belfast was the economic powerhouse of Ireland. Democracy isn't quite the word I'd choose to describe a decision made under duress. In the hundred years since then, the NI economy has gone down the toilet due to misrule, failure to modernise, failure to maintain competitively high education standards and obviously the unrest caused by the Troubles, so some people now consider NI to be a, 'basket case'.

What exactly hasn't been answered? Your simple question is literally answered in the post you quoted.

That’s a good answer. Thank you. Sounds like their are a few similarities to how the introduction of the protocol may be explained in 2121

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

That’s a good answer. Thank you. Sounds like their are a few similarities to how the introduction of the protocol may be explained in 2121

Now we see why somebody who knew the answer (because he was told it on another thread) was introducing this again as an ingenu of Irish and British history.

downcow

J Mysterio wrote: »

Talk about arguing in bad faith. What are you even talking about/ getting at?

Amazing to think a unionist in the North - whose whole identity is so intertwined in the partition of Ireland and the union with Britain - would not actually know the history of how their statelet came about.

Open a book or look at Wikipedia.

The UK threatened an immediate and terrible war if Ireland did not sign the Treaty.

All Irish found elements of the treaty unacceptable (partition of Ireland, oath of allegiance to the queen etc.), but roughly half decided to vote it through as 'the best that could be achieved' and to use the treaty as 'a stepping stone to full independence'. This of course started our Civil war and has been fundamental to our politics ever since (Fianna Fail/ Fine Gael).

Even after this point the British threatened military intervention.

The GFA is another stepping stone to full independence (reunification) of Ireland, and Brexit has simply hastened that process.

It is smart to plan for a United Ireland now.

That is helpful and honestly informative to me. Thank you. I wasn’t aware of exactly what your civil war was about, but that is very succinct. Can I guess ff were in the 32 county side and fg on the partition side?
I think you forget that our position hasn’t changed significantly in hundreds of years. I am not sure what you mean about our identity intertwined in partition. It was you country that was formed by partition, we remained in the UK nation. Hence maybe that’s why that era is not big in my identity or knowledge.
It’s quite reassuring the gfa is just another stepping stone to UI, same as Roi leaving UK. These appear to be very big 100year stepping stones. I wonder what the next one will be - seems we won’t be around to see it.
How many more of these stepping stones do you think will be required

BonnieSituation

downcow wrote: »

That is helpful and honestly informative to me. Thank you. I wasn’t aware of exactly what your civil war was about, but that is very succinct. Can I guess ff were in the 32 county side and fg on the partition side?
I think you forget that our position hasn’t changed significantly in hundreds of years. I am not sure what you mean about our identity intertwined in partition. It was you country that was formed by partition, we remained in the UK nation. Hence maybe that’s why that era is not big in my identity or knowledge.
It’s quite reassuring the gfa is just another stepping stone to UI, same as Roi leaving UK. These appear to be very big 100year stepping stones. I wonder what the next one will be - seems we won’t be around to see it.
How many more of these stepping stones do you think will be required

Didn't your dad leave Donegal because of apparent harassment? Your existence is entwined with partition.

How you come into these threads every day and spout so much nonsense and do it with a straight face is beyond me.

Mustn't have much farming to be doing.

FrancieBrady

What has happened in the intervening 100 years since partition is that the seditious sentiments of Bonar Law (an MP and future Tory PM) no longer come from the mouths of Tory MPs, but from the mouths of Unionists MP's and Loyalist agitators like Jamie Bryson. Plenty of recent echoes of the right hnourable Mr. Bonar Law in the rethoric of the above in recent times:

Government's policy is a part of a corrupt Parliamentary bargain, and it has no right to carry such a revolution by such means. Circumstances being what they are, I could imagine no lengths to which Ulster Unionists might go where the Unionist Party, and the public at large, would not follow them in sympathy'.

or,

Whatever steps you may feel compelled to take, whether they are constitutional, or whether in the long run they are unconstitutional, you have the whole Unionist Party, under my leadership, behind you.

and for good measure a call to rise up against Westminster if they went through with Home Rule:

I remember this, that King James had behind him the letter of the law just as completely as Mr. Asquith has now. He made sure of it. He got the judges on his side by methods not dissimilar from those by which Mr. Asquith has a majority in the House of Commons on his side. There is another point to which I would specially refer. In order to carry out his despotic intention the King had the largest army which had ever been seen in England. What happened? There was no civil war. Why? Because his own army refused to fight for him.

The Tory's and Unionists, always such a great bunch of lads.

J Mysterio

Hilarious, genuinely.

downcow wrote: »

That is helpful and honestly informative to me. Thank you. I wasn’t aware of exactly what your civil war was about, but that is very succinct. Can I guess ff were in the 32 county side and fg on the partition side?

You 'guessed' correctly. Imagine that.

Downcow wrote:

I think you forget that our position hasn’t changed significantly in hundreds of years.

Northern Ireland just 'celebrated' its centenary. Did that make you think at all? What was it about?

Downcow wrote:

I am not sure what you mean about our identity intertwined in partition. It was you country that was formed by partition, we remained in the UK nation. Hence maybe that’s why that era is not big in my identity or knowledge.

Ireland was previously as one, then it was partitioned. And when it was partitioned, it was done in such a way as to give unionists full control over 'their' corner of this island.

That control is gone and unionists such as yourself are having difficulty accepting it.

Downcow wrote:

It’s quite reassuring the gfa is just another stepping stone to UI, same as Roi leaving UK. These appear to be very big 100year stepping stones. I wonder what the next one will be - seems we won’t be around to see it.
How many more of these stepping stones do you think will be required

The GFA is the last stepping stone.

Ironically, the Brexit that unionists so enthusiastically supported has hastened a United Ireland, by changing the status quo many had grown to live with.

But... The NI Protocol is actually a great deal for Northern Ireland. So, if NI implement what has actually been agreed, unionists might realise they are in a unique and priviliged position. However, if unionists continue to piss, moan and obfusticate, a UI again comes inexorably closer.

downcow

J Mysterio wrote: »

Northern Ireland just 'celebrated' its centenary. Did that make you think at all? What was it about?

Ironically, the Brexit that unionists so enthusiastically supported has hastened a United Ireland, by changing the status quo many had grown to live with.

But... The NI Protocol is actually a great deal for Northern Ireland. So, if NI implement what has actually been agreed, unionists might realise they are in a unique and priviliged position. However, if unionists continue to piss, moan and obfusticate, a UI again comes inexorably closer.

It was about us escaping being part of a new independent country and staying in The union.

I agree with you that we can end up in a privileged position, but we have watched the crocodiles for years and are now just being crocodiles ourselves to ensure we maximise that privilege and thereby ensure an increased majority in ni wish to maintain our current position

Fionn1952

downcow wrote: »

That’s a good answer. Thank you. Sounds like their are a few similarities to how the introduction of the protocol may be explained in 2121

Apart from Perfidious Albion ignoring the wishes of the people of the island of Ireland, care to point out any other similarities? No threat of war, and indeed encouraged by the DUP and defended by you as a UK-wide vote until it didn't go the way you wanted, I struggle to see many similarities, apart from both Brexit and the partition of Ireland both being sh*te ideas in my own view.