Northernisation: the erosion of democracy and the need for repartition.

MT

Having read through quite a few threads on the northern issue here I can’t resist the temptation to post my views any longer. This is something I feel strongly about. So why not a thread concerning the longer term.

Anyway, now for a long tendentious post…


Though I’ve often mused over the concept, last week was the first time I’d seen the term Northernise used in a Dublin newspaper. While the comment referred only to the launch of a new all Ireland paper it sums up IMO a much broader process that’s been going on for some time now. A trend that threatens the future well being of the Irish Republic.

In case you’re interested in my background on this subject, I’m originally from the unionist/prod. side of the divide in Northern Ireland. Despite this, I’ve long been an atheist with little sympathy left for the north/unionism. As far as I’m concerned there’s only one thing left on this island worthy of support. That’s the Irish Republic: a fully functioning democracy, in stark contrast to where I live.

It is, in my view, time for a reality check in regard to NI. Throughout the troubles and sadly with increased acceleration after the cessation society here has become more and more polarised. Settlements are mostly segregated with a depressingly small number of people mixing in a meaningful way with the ‘other side’ short of work. The peace process instead of consolidating the centre and healing the divide has seen a move in the other direction. Voters from what are now two parallel societies have eschewed the idea of lasting reconciliation seeing the current arrangement as a ‘benign’ competition where only the extremes can obtain the most for their respective sides. Consequently, support for the DUP and Sein Fein has risen inexorably and will most likely continue to do so. This trend should see the ‘moderate’ parties permanently eclipsed over the rest of this decade. In short, Northern Ireland has become balkanised into a tribal society led by two bitterly hostile electoral extremes. There’s no escaping the truth - this place is fúcked.

There will be no power sharing. It may have seemed tantalisingly close in the past but such hopes ignored the elephant in the corner. Differences of interpretation over everything from historical events to where the process was to have led would have granted the devolved executive the briefest of life spans. Unionists do not want a devolved executive if it will lead to a united Ireland. Republicans and nationalists are equally hostile to an executive that might result in the opposite – permanent partition.

With such diametrically opposite objectives a lasting settlement can never be achieved. If an assembly were seen to lead the north in either direction, as inevitably it must, it would be in either side’s interests to bring it down. Why would unionists enable all-Ireland bodies to run smoothly when it’s obvious were they could lead? Why would republicans endorse the PSNI when such support could undermine one of their most exercised complaints against the north – that it’s an oppressive police state? There’d be never ceasing tit for tat squabbles.

With the rise of Sinn Fein and the DUP, Northern Ireland isn’t turning into a two party democracy but instead into two one-party states. Each tribe views the other with a mixture of suspicion and contempt cheered on by the ethnic entrepreneurs that lead them. With such mind sets agreement has become impossible. When one side gives its support to an initiative the other suspects a threat or hidden agenda. ‘If they’re for it, we’re agin’ it’, is the prevailing mantra.

This caustic divide has resulted in the substitution of perception for fact. There is now no common acceptance of anything up here. When republicans feel satisfied, unionists feel alienated and vice versa. The former preaches that the PSNI is simply an unreformed RUC with a new name: the latter fumes at the shameful decimation of a heroic force. This tiresome dichotomy goes for everything. To listen to unionists you’d think their 50 year period of unbroken rule had resulted in strawberries and cream for all. Republicans are equally deluded – apparently the IRA never committed a crime and come a united Ireland we’ll all live happily ever after. It seems unionists will instantly come to their senses realising that the last century was just a prolonged bout of false consciousness. A refusal to compromise on anything, be it ideological or mundane, ensures that this place will never experience stable self-rule.

As you can see, I think Northern Ireland’s a write off. If it were simply a matter of containment, the north could be left to stew in its own bitterness. Funds could be disbursed generously: both child-like factions eyeing each other uneasily as they gorged on the gravy train of subsidies. But the north isn’t being contained. One side of its delusional psychosis is leaking into the Republic – the very part of this island that has succeeded as a democracy. That success is threatened IMO by the carcinogenic growth of Sinn Fein. This is a party that bears all the hallmarks of the north’s warped society. It has a fanatic’s fixation with the northern question to the exclusion of all else. Like the bogus gestures of unionists, Sinn Fein claims a false interest in a broad range of issues. Both sides are, however, merely masquerading as normal political parties. For them the day to day functioning of a normal society is irrelevant in the face of the centuries long constitutional struggle.

Every election up here is a border poll, nothing else counts. The result is always the election of a raft of single issue candidates – the more extreme the better. Is that what you want down south? Instead of schools, hospitals or the economy the main issue year in year out will be wrestling NI from the Brits. And then there’s the ambivalence to violence. A common trait of all sides up here but one Sinn Fein have taken much further than most. Northern politics seem wedded to the gun. Do you want a party that sees knee capping as an electioneering strategy running the Garda Siochana?

But even if Sinn Fein left paramilitarism behind it will still import many vices borne of a failed society. In particular, the aforementioned obsession with beating the Brits and a deeply ingrained cult of victimhood. Forget personal responsibility; instead prepare to swallow a constant diet of who’s oppressing you, whataboutary and a culture of blaming everyone else. Whether it’s the British, securocrats, capitalism, Americans, the jackboot of the Garda or anyone you can care to think of – remember, you’re a victim. How can any society ever deal with things as the really are – face up to its own flaws – if it forever passes the buck? Well that’s the infantile state of affairs up here.

Ireland dragged itself out of such a self-destructive ghetto years ago. Let’s be honest, one of the things that most held Ireland back in its early decades was the successive election of parties based not on their socio-economic credentials but rather their stance on the treaty. That and a tendency to blame misfortune on perfidious Albion did nothing to encourage a proper focus on the things that really make a difference to people’s lives. It was a contest between varying shades of green: who could be the most patriotic? Which in Ireland’s unique sense invariably meant who could be the most Anglophobic. Screwed the economy up, never mind. Just rave about the centuries of England’s oppressive yoke! Now, with the slow creep of Northernisation and the accompanying rise of one of the north’s extremes here I fear the clock is being turned back.

Look at this politics board of late. It might as well be based in North Belfast. Every other thread concerns Northern Ireland – or it’s proxy, the ‘peace process’. If you dismiss it as a passing fad, think again. For as the ‘peace process’ wends its way and Sinn Fein’s support grows on the back of it, the north will likely consume all democratic debate down there. Do you want a future Dail to expend large amounts of time on nothing other than the northern question? The single-issue stuff spiced up for good measure with regular rants against evil Britannia and a stream of other oppressive tyrants. Because that’s all that concerns Sinn Fein at heart. The parties of Paisley and Adams couldn’t give a fig about any other issue save their own perpetual obsession. Politicians up here haven’t a clue about running an economy.

With Sinn Fein as a major player in the Dail, I fear elections will become a reincarnation of the old pro/anti treaty divide. Never mind schools or hospitals, it’ll be a question of who can get the north? Who’s the most patriotic? Every debate reduced to the nauseating minutiae of how to face down the unionists. Such intense single-issue politics, the like of which we suffer from up here, isn’t democratic, it’s psychotic. And with such an intense hostility between nutters on both sides violence is never far away. You import our brand of politics at your peril.

MT

previous post continued...

This post may seem alarmist but IMO something has to be done to save Ireland’s sole democracy. The source of potential instability is and always has been Northern Ireland. As it’s currently constituted it will remain in this parlous state. As we all know, the problem lies in the hardening of differences between its two sectarian groups. Now, more than ever, they see each other as two separate peoples. Yes, to those outside – and in reality – they’re remarkably alike but in the north perception is everything. They think they’re different: therefore they are. Republicans and nationalists feel that they are exclusively Irish and their Irishness has no place in the UK. Clearly, they feel irreversibly alienated from British rule. In the reverse, fewer unionists than ever – only a small minority – describe themselves as Irish. They appear to be completely at odds with the concept of a united Ireland. To me it seems a travesty that either group is or should ever be forced to inhabit a jurisdiction alien to them.

Some might argue that nationalists will put up with inclusion in the UK. Or, in the event of Irish unity unionists too would equally learn to cope. Well, I beg to differ. The people of the Republic could not accept life in the UK and rightfully took they’re independence. So, why force nationalists or unionists in the north to live under governments they cannot accept. The idea is intolerable. And is the reason why the Irish Republic risks forever being drawn into this constitutional wrangle.

I’ve always believed that people down south have long since chilled towards the concept of territorial nationalism. There no longer seems to be a strong desire for the entire island to come under Dublin’s rule. With the long struggle for your own self determination in mind I think a majority baulk at the idea of placing a large body of unionists in the north east in a similar plight. If the Irish never forgot their separate identity over the long years of British rule why should anyone expect unionists to forget theirs? Had there only been unionists in Northern Ireland the south’s interest would have long since trailed away. But this isn’t the case - almost half of its population are nationalists. They feel they’re Irish like you, and the feelings mostly mutual. This I believe is what pains people in the Republic.

Just as in the past, there are a considerable number of Irish people living under a government you once shook off. Like you, they don’t accept its legitimacy. This is the root of the south’s interest in the north, the cause of an obligation to the compatriots across the border. Guilt may well enter this equation too. Nationalists talk of the Free State’s betrayal in the earlier 1920s when they were left behind as a minority in a hostile land. This is why the claims - whether grounded in reality or not - of oppression, a longing for a just settlement and support in their struggle from the Irish left behind have such traction in the south. For many a southerner their position appears unbearable - denied the birthright you take for granted. But the grave problem this presents is that of perpetual entanglement in a blurred constitutional area. Any democracy with unstable borders and the intermittent conflict such friction will produce cannot remain healthy.

The most stable democracies have invariably been those that lie within the boundaries of a secure nation state. Where they’ve managed to avoid being drawn into neighbouring conflicts, constitutional tumult has been kept at bay. The peaceful democratic Irish Republic has an unstable and undemocratic neighbour to the north. Both its squabbling tribes have been corrupted by their long dispute. The risk you face is that those endemic problems could seep south due to a noble concern for the well being of the faction you historically identify with. Hoping that they can patch up their differences to live in harmony is akin to naively dreaming of world peace. The only option for a permanent resolution – a true peace – is to give both sides the governance they desire. Ireland for the Irish: the UK for the British. Drastic it may seem but the only answer IMO is repartition and resettlement.

Northern Ireland’s borders were never drawn in the right place. As the free state descended into civil war and with a strong unionist presence on the border commission the latter group were able to maximise the portion of Ulster granted to them. This led to a large and growing nationalist population trapped in an alien state. So, I say give them what they’ve always desired. The south and west of Northern Ireland contain considerable nationalist majorities. The smaller northeast and greater Belfast area has a sizeable unionist majority. A bit like the island as a whole. Therefore just cleave off the former region and add it to the Republic. For the minorities left behind on each side – Protestants in east Derry and Catholics in west Belfast – offer very generous resettlement packages. And I mean generous – they would need to feel that they were exchanging their current location for a life and a future at least as good as their present.

Mad, deluded… that’d be my first reaction too if the thought hadn’t taken hold. But as extreme as the idea seems I think it’s just crazy enough to actually work. The Republic’s democratic character will always be threatened by the current and foreseeable instability in the failed northern state. True, such action would be decried as ethnic cleansing but there’d be no force involved. Both sides in NI would find their reasons to object. Unionists would fume about a sell out of the prods in the west and the severing of ‘their’ country. Republicans would see it as an insurmountable barrier to total territorial unity. Each conveniently neglecting the fact that as things stand or in the event of a different outcome in a border poll the other will be/is forced to live an existence they themselves rail against.

To be blunt, both sides have lost all rights to lecture anyone. They’ll never be capable of self-governance – the will to compromise, never mind shared interests, just isn’t there. Forget devolved rule. What’s needed is to shore up the only democracy here.

Such a proposal would see the lion’s share of those who see themselves as Irish at last under the government of their choice. There’d no longer be an attachment or concern for any group in the other territory. If it was misruled by either itself or Westminster would anyone care. Possibly, but not with the passion that current nationalist distress frequently provokes. In truth, their problems would register with the same intensity as those of Wales. With no betrayed to pity, no threatened minority to stand by, Ireland could finally switch off from the northern problem. Think of the relief. No more infuriating negotiations, no more interface violence, no more dual name for Derry and so on and on. The current list of tensions is endless. A final settlement would have been achieved: an Irish Republic holding all those who aspire to its citizenship within its borders. Any issue of a territorial grey area would have been removed ending in one stroke a threat to the state’s democratic health.

Given the close relationship now in existence between the two governments I’d see little difficulty in both funding and enacting such a plan. Each would have much to gain.

One final thought is that with a homogenous unionist region they might well develop the confidence to back moderates allowing a peaceful coexistence to develop. But, regardless, what should really matter to you is your future stability and prosperity. Your successful democracy should never be allowed to be Northernised. One basket case is enough.

Meh

The south and west of Northern Ireland contain considerable nationalist majorities. The smaller northeast and greater Belfast area has a sizeable unionist majority. A bit like the island as a whole. Therefore just cleave off the former region and add it to the Republic.

Do you not think that the inclusion of areas like South Armagh, and an influx of ethnically cleansed chuckies from West Belfast would destabilize the Republic even more? We'd be in a situation like Palestine or Cyprus, with refugees arguing for a "right of return".

oscarBravo

Wow. That's a lot to chew on. Your ideas intrigue me, and I wish to subscribe...

There are two distinct aspects to the original post(s): an analysis of the current situation, and a suggestion for a resolution. Taking the analysis on its own, it struck a lot of chords with me. I think it's a particularly insightful view of the tragedy that is Northern Ireland. I'll be saving a copy of it and reading it again - more than once.

The suggestion is radical. It wouldn't be without problems. It certainly wouldn't go smoothly (what ever does in the North?) - that's not to say it shouldn't be discussed.

MT

Hi Meh,

As far as I'm aware ethnically cleansing is either the extermination of forced removal of an entire population group. There's no such thing proposed in my posts. I merely suggest a generous offer of resettlement and a new life to the minorities left on the 'wrong side' after a bondary change.

We'd be in a situation like Palestine or Cyprus, with refugees arguing for a "right of return".

What I'm suggesting is a world away from this. People would only relocate of their own volition. They'd be no tossing out of either jurisdiction into poverty. To make such an offer attractive the governments would have to expend serious funds. New houses, financial support until work found, etc. Though costly it'd be a one off and if it worked providing for a true lasting settlement the benefits of future stability aiding economic prosperity would more than outweigh the costs.

Sure, there'd be wrinkles including people from a more extreme climate inhabiting your democracy. But again this short term pain - following generations/time causing a cool off in both places - would be of far greater aid to long term stabillity than the current path. With current trends it seems that you're going to suffer the destabilising rise of the northern fanatics Sinn Fein anyway. This is an idea to nip such growth in the bud. Giving their core support a large amount of what they've always wanted to ensure future generations find no need for extremism.

Yes, this proposal may seem far fetched but with current drift towards the fringes up here repartition might be the only way out in the future if severe instability is to be averted. Yes, it has its flaws but I certainly can't ever see devolution in such a divided place succeeding.

Stabshauptmann

Your proposals are unworkable, how would you divide a city in two? I think balck to East and Wast berlin. Just unworkable.

I prefer the federal idea of the O Conaill and O Braidigh leaership. An assembly like stormant in Connacht, Leinster and Munster who each handle local management and compete reasonably for tourism, investment etc and each sending representitives to an all Ireland congress (with Stormant still sending MPs to westminister).
this congress would legislate national issues such as defence, tax, trade etc and make sure no one region was becoming too monopolistic.

I thought it a nice idea, where the status quo in NI remains, those who wish to remain british remain british, those who wish to be irish are represented in ireland and those who dont care dont have to.

Meh

MT wrote:

People would only relocate of their own volition.

So what do you do with the people who don't want to move?

Pal

The Nationalists would deal because it's a bigger ROI at the expense of a smaller NI.

The Unionists would take the money on foot of the frugal Scottish Presbyterian gene factor.

Loads of Chuckies would stay behind and go back to war.

Some right mess then

Zaph0d

Summary of MT's post:
The republic is Northernising. The republic is societally healthy in comparison with the North so this is a bad thing.

The North is getting worse, polarising around extreme positions with no possibility of compromise. The national psychology of the North is diseased and infecting the Republic. The Republic now risks regressing to an anti-British divided nation obsessed with its borders to the neglect of all else. Even boards reflects the move towards the North with its coverage of Northern issues.

Unionist and nationalist identities are separating with fewer unionists seeing themselves as Irish. The two tribes will never share power. The only option is to move the border so that unionists can live in their own smaller Northern Ireland.

---

I disagree with the idea that the Republic is northernising. The north stands as a reminder to the Southern Irish of the dangers of misplaced ideology. While SF have certainly made great gains, they are only really picking up the votes from those who would formerly have supported parties advancing communism or other failed extremist ideologies.

SF, driven by the passion of the faithful, certainly do a lot of good work on the ground and pick up some local votes. My neighbour explained that SF's politics was of no consequence when local matters were at stake. She'd vote for Al'Qaeda if they fixed her footpath, she told me.

The Republic is becoming more globalised and leaving the North like a remnant of the bad times. Many Southerners are faintly embarrassed by the North and wish it would just float off somewhere.

As for the prevalence of Northern threads on boards.ie, there could be any number of explanation that don't include northernisation
- passionate chuckies have always promoted their doctrines with fervour and energy
- people are posting from the north because its so miserable up there in the winter
- these posts are orchestrated by SF's propaganda machine

So I disagree with your very well thought-out treatise on northernisation but I also disagree with your solution. I think the North can only advance when it stops looking outside its borders for solutions from its older brothers and sisters. The truth is that the many people in Britain and ROI see Northerners as a hate-fueled, squabbling gang, obstinate, violent and implacable, busy shooting themselves in the feet (or kneecaps) and willing to risk the future of their region on the chance to humiliate each other. Reasons for the impracticality of redrawing the borders are given by the other posters.

As an alternative I would suggest the following:
NI's problems stem from cultural division. Physically segregated as children throughout their schooling, each side sees the other as subhuman to some extent. This belief triggers them to behave in a divisive fashion that prolongs their national misery. Everyone in the North is guilty from the people who won't buy their groceries in a shop run by someone from the other gang, to the segregationist politicians, and the men with guns. All the energy is drained by the business of hating each other. I would advocate the opposite of further partition: further integration.

Single faith schools should not receive any state money. State schools should make no reference to religion whatsoever in their curricula. Why should the state sponsor churches to divide children with their oh-so-subtle doctrinal differences? All money from the government should be channelled into integration combined with massive Chinese style re-education to explain to people that if they practise discrimination in the minutiae of their own lives that they are contributing to the problem.

It would take 60 years for the single religion educated people to finally remove themselves from the poulation. At that point Northerners might start to forget who's in one gang and who's in the other.

Sand

Nice post MT - I share your concern that the political landscape of Ireland has been shifted back 80 years, to the days when the murders of TDs and party gatherings protected by armed wings were commonplace, by the seepage of Sinn Fein into the Dail. The most disturbing aspect is that Sinn Fein are normalising the the concept of voting for a party that is a front for a paramilitary group. It's now acceptable for a party with an armed wing to participate in democratic institutions. This is trampling all over the most basic tenet of democracy, that all participants place themselves under the rule of law. Sinn Fein dont.

Your solution is unfortunately politically incorrect. It might well work but the idea that the two communities cant somehow find common ground between wanting to be in the UK or being in a United Ireland leaves a bad taste in many peoples mouths. Its not a happy ending.

Thus whilst it might present a real stumbling block for the idealogy of both extremist camps ( take what they can get, or hold out for the whole deal - we had a civil war over the last time that came up ) it will still face considerable opposition from the real "not an inch" die hards, and there will be many people who want to remain in the UK *and* Derry, no matter how nice the package deal is.

All money from the government should be channelled into integration combined with massive Chinese style re-education to explain to people that if they practise discrimination in the minutiae of their own lives that they are contributing to the problem.

Unfortunate example - Chinese re-education involves gulags and torture last I heard. Though, the scale of the task in some cases might require something that drastic.

arcadegame2004

MT, I understand what you are saying, but I don't fully agree.

Firstly, I don't agree with your implication that Southerners don't aspire any more to a 32 county Republic. Polls taken since the GFA have shown 70-80% in favour.

I agree with you that Southern Ireland has advanced to a stage far better than that of NI (including economically being better off).

I used to agree with the idea of repartition a few years ago. However, I no longer do. Repartition would create a giant Gibraltar on our doorstep, in the sense that like that place, there would be no Nationalist minority there wanting a UI (or virtually none). This is not acceptable to me. As far as I am concerned, British rule on this island is simply malign, regardless of the actions or political character of it a particular British Government at a particular time. It is the incorporation of part of this island into the UK that is itself the cause of all the problems found in NI.

To accept repartition is to accept the permanence of partition and I steadfastly refuse to do so. Having endured centuries of genocidal repression, the Irish people should not roll over. Sooner of later the electoral cycle will bring the Conservatives back into office in the UK, and then the kind of scandalous behaviour seen in the years of the Bad Drumcrees and/or collusion between the British/NI security forces and their Loyalist lovvies will return (I fear). A leopard doesn't change its spots. Having said that, polls in the UK have shown 40% for a UI, 25% against, so I feel that if the British had their way, they would be out of NI in the morning, but NI is hardly going to be the issue that determines how they will vote in a General Election, and none of the main parties advocates withdrawal without a majority in NI favouring a UI.

No. Repartition is unacceptable. BTW I assure you I am NO fan of SF. But to accept permanent partition would be like saying that centuries of genocidal repression should be rewarded and I don't think that is on.

pete

arcadegame2004 wrote:

centuries of genocidal repression

Eh? Jog my memory there like a good lad.

arcadegame2004

pete wrote:

Eh? Jog my memory there like a good lad.

Sure. Cromwell and the Famine, not to mention the plantations (when many of the dispossesed Irish were killed or sold into slavery in Sweden).

Amz

arcadegame, the definition of genocide is "The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group"

true

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Sure. Cromwell and the Famine, not to mention the plantations (when many of the dispossesed Irish were killed or sold into slavery in Sweden).

LOL LOL I thought now there was something Irish looking about Abba, all right. One of them ( Agnetha? ) had red hair. Oh , its long before my time and yours, Arcadegame, and be careful about what propaganda you read. Many of the Irish were not killed or sold into slavery in Sweden.

Do the red indians blow up Manhattan to get their land back ?

billy the squid

Sure. Cromwell and the Famine, not to mention the plantations (when many of the dispossesed Irish were killed or sold into slavery in Sweden).

I have an interest in Irish history. could you point me in the right direction as to where these irish people were sold into slavery in Sweeden.

thanks.

pete

billy the squid wrote:

I have an interest in Irish history. could you point me in the right direction as to where these irish people were sold into slavery in Sweeden.

thanks.

awww now we'll never find out. well, ok, in 2 weeks we might.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=2371607&postcount=161

m1ke

But to accept permanent partition would be like saying that centuries of genocidal repression should be rewarded and I don't think that is on.

The idea of centuries of genocidal repression is an absolute historical myth and totally imaginary. Furthermore, throughout history, people from Ireland have enslaved more people from Britain than vice-versa. However this is aside to the dicussion so i'm not going to elaborate on it further.

I found your post interesting MT, but I do think that it was perhaps a little too extreme and pesimistic. What i'd propose is looking at things in simple realist terms from the Republics perspective:

1. The peace process is vital, if anything it can leave some room for normalisation of relations between the Rep and NI and leave room for economic development.... just simply having an ongoing 'process' helps to alleviate tension to a certain extent. You're advocating massive structural reforms where I believe concentrating on process rather than structure is a way things can be changed.

2. Having a party such as SF in our democracy isn't necessarily a bad thing, it's always good to have a disenting voice no matter how incorrect they may be, it actually strengthened our democracy because normal people see the extreme.

3. The UK is heavily subsidising the north, especially in public sector jobs. This means the economy is always at a good standard regardless of anything else and the Republic sees benefits in the economic spillover from the north, which would otherwise be totally economically unstable in recession which would negatively affect the republic.

So overall, containing northern ireland as best as possible through all these measures is the most advantageous thing for the Republic economically, politically and socially. The UK have been very generous in the partnership to contain NI and have bore most if not all of the brunt. It is unfortunate that NI is a failed statelet and unable to manage its own affairs but for the moment this is a reality, with years of containment and a concentration on the peace process and a positive outlook, things can definitely change there.

solas

great post, thanks for sharing.

I think many people here might have been in a position at one time to have had similar thoughts, that or gouge a trench 20metres wide along the entire border and fill it with water.

Repartition does sound a bit extreme, but it might give the term Gerrymandering a whole new meaning.

Flex

Interesting thread.Im on a similar forum elsewhere, but id like to give my opinion.I live in Dublin but my grandparents were republican volunteers in NI.

1)Repartition wont work because it would leave the new NI to small to exist.Thats why Carson and Craig demanded Fermanagh,Tyrone and other nationalist areas when the border was being drawn up.So forget it.

2)Every red blooded Irishman/woman is nationalist/republican.As a "typical" nationalist Id never consent to repartition because as post 11 stated it would cause permanence of that scar on our nation and the overwhelming majority want a peaceful settlement but also want a United Ireland.

3)You said its unreasonable to expect Unionists to live in a UI because they dont want to be Irish and that we left the UK because we werent British.Nonsense, if they want to be British thats fine, but why should they be allowed to carve up our island?Theres huge Irish communities in Britain(ie Glasgow,Liverpool,etc.), so if they get to partition Ireland coz they dont "identify" with the Irish Nation, why cant we partition Britain to allow these Irish over there to be a part of Ireland?

4)It would be rewarding Britains treatment of Ireland somehow, which is true.During the Famine enough food was produced to feed over 13million people each year in Ireland and since the population was only 9million there should have been no mass deaths.The reason there was is because Britain intentionally starved us to depopulate Ireland(as England did to Scotland a century earlier).If that isnt genocide then what is?

I am not a SF supporter because i think(like everyone else im sure) that todays paramilitaries have nothing in common with the "old" IRA.Back then it was ordinary people fighting to free their nation, with no secret motives and no material wealth.Today, there all drug dealing and racketeering scumbags, more interested in lining their own pockets than freeing this island.I would never consent to any form of repartition.All we have to do is wait 2 or 3 more generations and therell be an Irish majority.Also, when that does happen we shouldnt change our flag, our national anthem or anything else which would reduce our Irishness.And we shouldnt allow any devolved northern assembly,because if a majority of NI consent to a UI,then whats the need?The French wont change for German minorities in France,the USA wont change for Hispanic minorities,Britain wont change fo Irish minorities; why should the Irish change for British minorities?Ireland has never consented to partition and the simple way it was instituted and maintained is enough to justify it being revoked.

true

Flex wrote:

Interesting thread.Im on a similar forum elsewhere, but id like to give my opinion.I live in Dublin but my grandparents were republican volunteers in NI. .

From your correspondence below, I would never have guessed that your "grandparents were republican volunteers in NI." This sounds like they were charity volunteers or something. At best they were freedom fighters. At worst, they were terrorists. It depends on your point of view. I know some IRA actions in the 40's and 50's raised the sectarian temperature in the North and led to events which caused the troubles. Did they shoot and bomb? Or did they tell you only the nice bits ?

,

Flex wrote:

1)Repartition wont work because it would leave the new NI to small to exist.Thats why Carson and Craig demanded Fermanagh,Tyrone and other nationalist areas when the border was being drawn up.So forget it..

At the time, many of the residents of Fermanagh and Tyrone would say it was closer to being 50/50 rather than "a nationalist area".

Flex wrote:

2)Every red blooded Irishman/woman is nationalist/republican.As a "typical" nationalist Id never consent to repartition because as post 11 stated it would cause permanence of that scar on our nation and the overwhelming majority want a peaceful settlement but also want a United Ireland..

You claim the Irishmen/woman who are not nationalist/republican are not red blooded? What a sectarian insult. Oh, and by the way, the majority in N. Ireland ( inc 32% of catholics) do not want a United Ireland, and want to stay in the United Kingdom.

Flex wrote:

3)You said its unreasonable to expect Unionists to live in a UI because they dont want to be Irish and that we left the UK because we werent British.Nonsense, if they want to be British thats fine, but why should they be allowed to carve up our island?Theres huge Irish communities in Britain(ie Glasgow,Liverpool,etc.), so if they get to partition Ireland coz they dont "identify" with the Irish Nation, why cant we partition Britain to allow these Irish over there to be a part of Ireland?.

We did leave the UK because "we" did not want to remain with Britain.
The Iberian Peninsula is "carved up" to Spain and Portugal. If the lads with the klashnikovs got N. Ireland, do you think they will stop robbing banks then ? They will be looking for Rockall, Glasgow and Liverpool as you suggest : oh , all to be part of a " socialist " republic.

Flex wrote:

4)It would be rewarding Britains treatment of Ireland somehow, which is true.During the Famine enough food was produced to feed over 13million people each year in Ireland and since the population was only 9million there should have been no mass deaths.The reason there was is because Britain intentionally starved us to depopulate Ireland(as England did to Scotland a century earlier).If that isnt genocide then what is?.

Absolute rubbish. You have swallowed too much republican propoganda. Do you believe the bit about Irish "slaves" being sold by the British to Sewden, as posted a few posts above. That will be taught to the next generation of kids next. It is rubbish to suggest that enough food was produced to feed over 13 million during the potato famine, or to suggest Britain intentionally starved us. Shame on you for such racist bigotry.

Flex wrote:

The French wont change for German minorities in France,the USA wont change for Hispanic minorities,Britain wont change fo Irish minorities; why should the Irish change for British minorities?Ireland has never consented to partition and the simple way it was instituted and maintained is enough to justify it being revoked.

I never heard Germans bombing or shooting French People in order to expand the border of Germany : or Hispanic minorities looking for California to join Mexico. You say " Britain wont change fo Irish minorities ". Why did so many Irish people go there in the first place ? To get away from Ireland.
The Irish people I know in Britain would not want Britain to change for them.

Flex, instead of hating Britain and picking holes the whole time, I think you need to broaden your mind. Look at some of the crimes that have been commited in the name of your ideals. You may not recognise them as crimes ( eg abduction and murder of a mother of ten ), but they are crimes. And all was not rosy in our little republic either. Look at all the descrimination, burnings out and intimidatiuon in the early part of last century that resulted in over 100,000 ordinary civilian protestants leaving the state then. Oh, your grandparents did not tell you about that that ? How very convenient. Read a book called " The IRA and its enemies" by Peter Harte, or Marcus Tanners " Holy Wars in Ireland". There are many reasons why the people of Northern Ireland do not want to join the 26 counties. We will not see a 32 county Ireland in our lifetime.

Dyr

true wrote:

Flex, instead of hating Britain and picking holes the whole time, I think you need to broaden your mind.

lol, pot: meet kettle. This debate has nothing to do with the waste of resources in the irish education system, theres plenty more examples of that for you to get all hot under the collar about but they dont seem to bother you at all. You simply seem to have a problem with many aspects of what makes irish culture distinctly irish. After all, this stuff might give credence to them shinners dont you know? We had better discredit it fast, old bean :rolleyes:

Personally, i would hate to see any cultures language or heiritage fall to the wayside when it could still be preserved, and it disgusts me that you are happy to use the issue as nothing more than a political football.

Flex

My first post should have read Great grandparents, not grandparents.Active volunteers during War of Independence in Co.Tyrone.I have never read anywhere or heard anyone describe the War of Independence as a terrorist campaign or the volunteers of it as terrorists.My GGfather was treated quite badly after partition, for fighting for Ireland, but as far as your concerned hes only a common terrorist who murdered people.So are alot of other peoples if thats the case.

"At the time, many of the residents of Fermanagh and Tyrone would say it was closer to being 50/50 rather than "a nationalist area".

True, the population was closer to 50/50 back then, but there was a nationalist majority of similar size to the unionist majority in Derry &Armagh.Today if you look at wards (local government constituencies) in NI you see that only north of the Lagan and east of Coleraine is there a Protestant "enclave",which is what i meant when i said to repartition NI is unrealistic, the Protestant area woulds be to small.Also in north east Antrim theres a Catholic area.

"You claim the Irishmen/woman who are not nationalist/republican are not red blooded? What a sectarian insult.Oh, and by the way, the majority in N. Ireland ( inc 32% of catholics) do not want a United Ireland, and want to stay in the United Kingdom."

How is that sectarian?I dont call Unionists Irish because theyve told me they take it as offensive, like if your abroad and people call you English.Your right that some Catholics are ambigous to a UI, however reasons given are usually economic(ie the RoI couldnt cope with NI at the moment), most aspire to a UI

"We did leave the UK because "we" did not want to remain with Britain.
The Iberian Peninsula is "carved up" to Spain and Portugal. If the lads with the klashnikovs got N. Ireland, do you think they will stop robbing banks then ? They will be looking for Rockall, Glasgow and Liverpool as you suggest : oh , all to be part of a " socialist " republic."

I dont quite see what your saying about the Iberian peninsula bit.I think the IRA did rob that bank too and have no reason to doubt the PSNI,IMC and Garda judgement.And youll see from my last post i think their all scumbags.I used Glasgow & Liverpool as examples;if Britain can partition Ireland, why cant Ireland partition Britain?Thats what i asked(hypothetically).

"Absolute rubbish. You have swallowed too much republican propoganda. Do you believe the bit about Irish "slaves" being sold by the British to Sewden, as posted a few posts above. That will be taught to the next generation of kids next. It is rubbish to suggest that enough food was produced to feed over 13 million during the potato famine, or to suggest Britain intentionally starved us. Shame on you for such racist bigotry."

Absolutely huge amounts of grain was grown in the east and south and so on.There was 120,000 British soldiers in Ireland at any given time backing up the police and militias.I never heard of that slave thing though.At the time of the Act of Union(1801) Ireland possessed around 22% of the UK population, by 1841 it had risen to 34%, and was climbing.Tell why you think 1.5 million people or so were able to die of starvation in the UK of GB&Ire; at that time the richest nation and empire on earth?

"I never heard Germans bombing or shooting French People in order to expand the border of Germany"
Then what was WW2 over?

I dont want a slagging match,Id prefer a discussion between adults:) and from what yo wrote i think ya picked something up wrong.However, I am a nationalist and want a united Ireland and thats my point of view and I regard the history of the NI area as being an integral part of what makes me Irish,just like the history of the other 26 counties.I agree with ya beyond doubt that none of us here today will live to see Ireland united nad that Protestants have got plenty of reasons for not wanting a UI and i know alot of these because Ive had correspondance with Unionists/Loyalists.You also accused me of supporting murderers and terrorists, which i can say i dont.Id be an SDLP voter if i was up there and I will never as long as live give SF a single preference in any election.

I know Southern Unionists were treated awfully down here for decades, just like Catholics were in NI, I never said they werent, but in my view Protestants Stormont Assembly seemed to be worse.Our first President was a Protestant, which was quite a gesture as Im sure youd agree.I believe each side is to blame but I think the Unionists are more responsible, along with Westminster for turning a blind eye so as that the "Irish Question" might go away.
Perhaps you could give me your opinion on Orange Order parades.A friend of mine from NI told me what used to happen; armoured cars would arrive early that morning, block off the road and maintain a "presence" all day.Not pleasant.Oh and by the way I am 100% against the O.O. because they are a sectarian & anti-Irish organisation.Could ya also give me your opinion on the name of "Derry" please.

passive

"I never heard Germans bombing or shooting French People in order to expand the border of Germany"
Then what was WW2 over?

Damn...i was gonna take that point. Franco-Prussian war would have been a better example.

..not that his point made much sense anyway.. or that any of what you're saying regarding the north being Ireland having bent to suit minorities makes sense in a historical context. (maybe i'm misunderstanding but...) The current Irish republic would be an example of the UK having bent to accommodate the Irish minority that was pretty restless and violent at the time (war of independance and all that). ignoring the wishes of the Unionist's in the north was just unworkable (despite the very best efforts of nationalist leaders) and so the free state didn't quite get all the land it would have wanted...

we shouldnt change our flag, our national anthem or anything else which would reduce our Irishness

*shudders* Are you actually serious? our Irishness can now be quantified and is given value by a stupid song that the majority of those who rise for it do not/will never understand and some strips of green white and orange? Irishness seems pretty absurd and pointless in that light...

Flex

I didnt mean that the north is Irelands way of historically bending to suit minorities.I used to be of the opinion that we should make whatever concessions necessary to Unionists and take a over critical stance towards nationalists in the north to try convince them to join a UI.However this is totally unfair.Each of the 2 communities is to blame but historically its hard to argue that Unionists have not been more to blame, because even when Unionist politicians took a moderate stance toward the catholic minority or attempts at reform were made, it was met with fierce hostility amongst unionists(Terence O Neill,Sunningdale,1985 Anglo-Irish treaty).And the fact is that while most people still follow that logic of thinking which most of us were brought up with(each side equally to blame), its just not fair.

You say "the UK example...Irish minority", but thats not fair.Its more or less like your saying Ireland was belonging to the British and was their native land, like Scotland, Wales or England.Im afraid I dont agree with that or the title "British Isles".This land was inhabited by an established race of people with a common language and religion and customs before the British arrived.Rather than accomadating a restless and violent minority, it could be viewed as the restoration of (some) of our country.Would you regard the Israelis finally making way for the establishment of a Palestinian homeland as "accomadating a violent minority" or as a little bit of justice (at last) for the Palestinians?

I understand what your saying about the flag and anthem thing passive, and im sorry because im obviously being to abrupt in my posts.What i mean is that we shouldnt change things which are integral parts of our nation now okay, maybe the anthem isnt entirely the best example, but by changing everything we have now would be like taking 1 step forward and 1 back;no progress.Im proud to be Irish and I dont take it for granted.I dont mean to imply i think anyone here does or anything, but to have a legally recognised Irish nationality is something our ancestors didnt;100 years ago a person from Ireland was British.Do ya get me?We should take pride in the fact we're members of a 450million person EU, but still have a strong sense of "who we are" and that Irish will soon be a working EU language.Next to Norway, we're the youngest nation in Western Europe, and one of the smallest so we need to be protective of our nationality.But I see what your saying in your point and hope ive made myself a bit clearer.

"ignoring the wishes of the unionists in the north was just unworkable"
An English MP said in the House of Commons in 1920 that "Ulster Unionism is not Irelands problem, it is Britains excuse".Britain cared as little for the Protestants as it did for the Catholics in 1920 and before that and indeed after aswel.If the Protestants had wanted seperation and the Catholics wanted the union, the British would have used the Catholics to coerce the Protestants.Dont forget the rebellion of 1798 was led and fought for by (mainly) Protestants and they were quelled as forcefully as any "Catholic" insurrection.Do you honestly think if the border was gone tommorow that mobs of people would flood into Belfast from the south to murder every Protestant up there?A united sovereign Irish Nation has never been tried and has been condemned(seemingly by everyone) before its even had a chance.

true

Bambi wrote:

lol, pot: meet kettle. This debate has nothing to do with the waste of resources in the irish education system, theres plenty more examples of that for you to get all hot under the collar about but they dont seem to bother you at all. You simply seem to have a problem with many aspects of what makes irish culture distinctly irish. After all, this stuff might give credence to them shinners dont you know? We had better discredit it fast, old bean :rolleyes:

Personally, i would hate to see any cultures language or heiritage fall to the wayside when it could still be preserved, and it disgusts me that you are happy to use the issue as nothing more than a political football.

What are you on about Bambi? Or rather should I ask what are you on ?

I know "This debate has nothing to do with the waste of resources in the irish education system" : I never said it had or even mentioned that subject in this debate. You then say "it disgusts me that you are happy to use the issue as nothing more than a political football ". I never even mentioned that issue.

Stay taking the tablets, "old bean" yourself.

true

Flex wrote:

My first post should have read Great grandparents, not grandparents.Active volunteers during War of Independence in Co.Tyrone.I have never read anywhere or heard anyone describe the War of Independence as a terrorist campaign or the volunteers of it as terrorists.My GGfather was treated quite badly after partition, for fighting for Ireland, but as far as your concerned hes only a common terrorist who murdered people.So are alot of other peoples if thats the case. .

You are misquoting again, Flex. I said " At best they were freedom fighters. At worst, they were terrorists. It depends on your point of view ". I did not call your grandparents, now your great grandparents common terrorists, although
many would. As I said, it depends on your point of view. When the IRA men came out of the GPO in 1916 they were booed by the crowd. They had not popular support then. There was a huge amount of Irishmen fighting in British uniforms in WW1. Even in WW2 120,000 Irishmen volunteers fought with the British armed services : not as many as in WW1, but still a hell of a lot many times more than ever was in the IRA.

Flex wrote:

"At the time, many of the residents of Fermanagh and Tyrone would say it was closer to being 50/50 rather than "a nationalist area".

True, the population was closer to 50/50 back then, but there was a nationalist majority of similar size to the unionist majority in Derry &Armagh.Today if you look at wards (local government constituencies) in NI you see that only north of the Lagan and east of Coleraine is there a Protestant "enclave",which is what i meant when i said to repartition NI is unrealistic, the Protestant area woulds be to small.Also in north east Antrim theres a Catholic area. .

I think you are a bit confused flex. You say "True,the population was closer to 50/50 back then, but there was a nationalist majority of similar size to the unionist majority in Derry &Armagh." Look at the MPs returned in Fermanagh / South Tyrone since partition.

Flex wrote:

True said "You claim the Irishmen/woman who are not nationalist/republican are not red blooded? What a sectarian insult.Oh, and by the way, the majority in N. Ireland ( inc 32% of catholics) do not want a United Ireland, and want to stay in the United Kingdom."

How is that sectarian?I dont call Unionists Irish because theyve told me they take it as offensive, like if your abroad and people call you English.Your right that some Catholics are ambigous to a UI, however reasons given are usually economic(ie the RoI couldnt cope with NI at the moment), most aspire to a UI
.

You said in your earlier post "Every red blooded Irishman/woman is nationalist/republican". That is a sectarian insult. The people in the north of Ireland are Northern Irish. Look at the name of the "Royal Irish Regiment." etc etc. And what about those Irish people who are not "nationalist/republican" as you say ? Or people who do not have political or religous affiliations to your liking. Is there something wrong with them ? According to you, obviously there is.

Flex wrote:

"Absolute rubbish. You have swallowed too much republican propoganda. Do you believe the bit about Irish "slaves" being sold by the British to Sewden, as posted a few posts above. That will be taught to the next generation of kids next. It is rubbish to suggest that enough food was produced to feed over 13 million during the potato famine, or to suggest Britain intentionally starved us. Shame on you for such racist bigotry."

Absolutely huge amounts of grain was grown in the east and south and so on.There was 120,000 British soldiers in Ireland at any given time backing up the police and militias.I never heard of that slave thing though.At the time of the Act of Union(1801) Ireland possessed around 22% of the UK population, by 1841 it had risen to 34%, and was climbing.Tell why you think 1.5 million people or so were able to die of starvation in the UK of GB&Ire; at that time the richest nation and empire on earth?
.

The potato was the main crop in Ireland in the 1840's, not grain. There was not "120,000 British soldiers in Ireland at any given time backing up the police and militias". Whoever taught IRA volunteers that had an easier job getting them to go out and kill and burn ( that is what IRA volunteers did ). Many people also died of hunger in mainland Europe in that era ; but I bet you were not taught that.

Flex wrote:

"I never heard Germans bombing or shooting French People in order to expand the border of Germany"
Then what was WW2 over?

.

I thought we were talking about the modern day situation.
You said "The French wont change for German minorities in France,the USA wont change for Hispanic minorities,Britain wont change fo Irish minorities"
You cannot compare WW2 with the situation in N. Ireland. ( even though Mary McAleese did, and insulted a lot of people both inside Ireland and outside Ireland )

Flex wrote:

I dont want a slagging match,Id prefer a discussion between adults:)
.

Well said, same here.

Flex wrote:

and from what yo wrote i think ya picked something up wrong.However, I am a nationalist and want a united Ireland and thats my point of view and I regard the history of the NI area as being an integral part of what makes me Irish,just like the history of the other 26 counties.I agree with ya beyond doubt that none of us here today will live to see Ireland united nad that Protestants have got plenty of reasons for not wanting a UI and i know alot of these because Ive had correspondance with Unionists/Loyalists.You also accused me of supporting murderers and terrorists, which i can say i dont. .

In fairness, I did not accuse you of supporting murderers and terrorists. Please withdraw your allegation.

Flex wrote:

I know Southern Unionists were treated awfully down here for decades, just like Catholics were in NI, I never said they werent, but in my view Protestants Stormont Assembly seemed to be worse.Our first President was a Protestant, which was quite a gesture as Im sure youd agree.I believe each side is to blame but I think the Unionists are more responsible, along with Westminster for turning a blind eye so as that the "Irish Question" might go away.
Perhaps you could give me your opinion on Orange Order parades.A friend of mine from NI told me what used to happen; armoured cars would arrive early that morning, block off the road and maintain a "presence" all day.Not pleasant.Oh and by the way I am 100% against the O.O. because they are a sectarian & anti-Irish organisation.Could ya also give me your opinion on the name of "Derry" please.

I know our first President was a Protestant, but that was a token gesture and not much use to the Protestants who were killed or intimidated out. And you blame Westminster for turning a "blind eye". I know many Catholics who were happy and led good lives in N. Ireland in the 50's and 60's, and who looked down on people here (south of the border ) as being worse off. There was one Catholic from west Belfast who won a Victoria Cross in WW2 : when he returned home after the war the local thugs in West Belfast intimidated him out. That said, I know there was injustices done against the Catholic population in the North. I condemn those injustices. I know one Protestant factory owner who had a factory in N. Ireland then and he did not employ any catholics. I asked him why and he said " because they would throw a spanner in the works ".

You ask about Orange parades. 99% of them pass off peacefully. I do not think they should insist on going where they are currently not wanted ( just because they normall paraded there before it became a catholic area) eg Garvaghy road. In the 50's and 60's there was not as much opposition to them from some Catholics in rural areas. Now, I know it divides people.
Still, if people want to parade once a year in a peaceful manner in their own area / where there is no opposition, I think they should be allowed to. Many in that community look on it as a sort of festival, a sort of Paddys day parade. You say you are " 100% against the O.O. because they are a sectarian & anti-Irish organisation " . It is actually not anti-Irish, because it is based in Ireland and many , if not most of its members are from Ireland. Are you also 100% against Opus Dei and the Knights of St. Columbanus? And what about the masonic order. There are some catholics and muslims in it : are you against it also?

Bt the way, I am not in the Orange Order, nor do I want to be. However, I think it is not as evil an organisation , or contain as many convicted murderers and gun runners etc as Sinn Fein / IRA. From what I have been told, I believe it also raises money for charity. However, there are a lot of extremists associated with it.

RE Derry, I normally call it Derry 99% of the time I mention the word. However, the only time I sometimes may call it Derry/Londonderry or Stroke city or Londonderry is when I may be in Unionist company up North. It depends on the company as it is best sometimes not to give offence. When in Munich, I would call it the German "Munchen" if that is what the natives there wanted.
I am not bothered what people call Derry.

I answered your two questions honestly ( O.O. and Derry ).

billy the squid

I never heard Germans bombing or shooting French People in order to expand the border of Germany

May 10, 1940 - Nazis invade France, Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands; Winston Churchill becomes British Prime Minister.

June 3, 1940 - Germans bomb Paris; Dunkirk evacuation ends.

June 14, 1940 - Germans enter Paris.

Source

or Hispanic minorities looking for California to join Mexico.

California was originally part of Mexico. The US invaded mexico and won california to expand its borders.

You say " Britain wont change fo Irish minorities ". Why did so many Irish people go there in the first place ? To get away from Ireland.

Not necessarily. many people left ireland for a better life. Given the choice, and this is my opinion here, most of them would have rathered to have stayed in ireland.

AmenToThat

Seems to be going kind of off topic here but my views on the matter are simple.
Call them simplistic if you want at this stage I really dont care.

The most important single issue for me is a united Ireland, all else is secondary, job security, better infrastructer, the whole lot of it. Now I and a few of my friends have always held to this postion but thankfully with the higher profile of SF in the 26 more people who would formaly have just got pissed at the weekends and sang 'the boys of the old brigade' down their local without actually comming into contact with Republicanism are being given a chance to decide if they would prefere to keep getting pissed or would rather become involved. The more that become involved the closer we get to where the people on this island are really gonna have to make some stark choices.

m1ke

Think about it..... if we had a united Ireland we'd have to put up with northern ireland being part of it? is it really worth all the the shyteee that comes with it. I'd take repartition(even though its mad in the first place) before a utd ireland thanks.

oscarBravo

Flex wrote:

This land was inhabited by an established race of people with a common language and religion and customs before the British arrived.

When did the British arrive, exactly? And weren't there all those pesky Scandinavians and Normans around before then?

Flex wrote:

Im proud to be Irish and I dont take it for granted.I dont mean to imply i think anyone here does or anything, but to have a legally recognised Irish nationality is something our ancestors didnt;100 years ago a person from Ireland was British.

Do you think that's something they should have been ashamed of? If so, why?