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

sceptre

Flex wrote:

No need for bad language.

I'll keep that in mind if I think about using any

Find a sight on the internet to give a list of the High Kings of Ireland.Go through google.

The issue isn't whether there were high kings (there were, sometimes we had none, sometimes we had two, heck sometimes we had three or four), the issue is whether Ireland was united under these proclaimed high kings or whether it was a loose federation (in limited places at that) of tribes, some owing suzerainty to a recognised overlord or representative (the high king) while other large tracts of the island didn't. It's the "united under these proclaimed high kings" thing you need to prove for your assertion not to be made up. Hey, you can google for it.

Brian Boru is the most famous having reigned from 1002-1014.

Killed in a battle with the Vikings who ruled Dublin and Mael Morda the king of Leinster while Malachi the king of Meath told Brian to shag off. Not all that united there (and not all that united before either, he never had any control over Leinster and didn't have much input into anything outside of Munster at that). Right after the battle, with Brian dead (he was overlord of most of the country for about ten minutes if you pretend that the routing wasn't completely finished when Brodir stuck a sword in him) the tribes returned to factional fighting between the O'Briens, the MacLochlainns, the O'Connors and the UiNeills that was still in place when Strongbow arrived for a day out and a sandwich in 1169. Sigtrygg (that Viking guy) remained in control of Dublin for another thirty years after Brian's death, owing suzerainty to no-one. Sounds rather united to me.

I think the last was in the middle of the 14th century.

Rory O'Connor is generally regarded as the last one. Or at least he was the last proclaimed high king that actually ruled any territory (that'd be Connaught by the way) and his lordship in name as High King was confirmed by the Treaty of Windsor (that'd obviously be post-Norman invasion). In the end he said screw it for a bunch of tulips and spent his last seven years in a monastery. Still hardly even a united front, let alone united.

I'd suggest some further reading.

true

Flex wrote:

The 26 county state was created after the Anglo-Irish treaty which was approved as a legitimate international treaty by the League of Nations.Thus, Britain didnt simply create the FS, as they tried to claim.
".

OK, maybe the root cause of it was Republicanism. The British faciliated it when there was enough democratic will for it.

Flex wrote:

Ireland was a united kingdom under the celtic high kingship prior to Britains arrival.Just pointing that out.".

"Britains arrival". LOL When the Maoris went from the North island of New Zealand to the south island, was that to start their period of occupation?

Flex wrote:

.Besides if they were only trying to keep as many people as possible happy, then what about the people of Fermanagh,Tyrone and Derry city.I pointed out that they all elected nationalist county/city councils in 1920.".

They subsquentally voted and returned unionist MP's in later elections.

Flex wrote:

Well I dont like it. ( N. Ireland being part of UK ) Iv never made any secret of that.A majority up there like it that way because it was created to ensure that..

Its called democracy.

Flex wrote:

Ireland wasnt much smaller than Britain in 1841, in fact we had about 34% of the UK's population and was rising, we were totally unindustrialised because Ireland was treated like a granary to produce food for industrialsed Britain.
I dont know much about those Hawaiin islands.Maybe the people of Oahu are hawaiin,maybe they dont like the term Hawaiin islands,I dont know.Frnakly it doesnt concern me here in the in Ireland.British Isles means "the islands of the British".Ireland is not a region of Britain.Ireland is the island of ther Irish.
".

Re. The point we were discussing : do you still think a name is "proof" that the much smaller island ( population wise, industry wise, world influence wise , size wise ) took a "back seat" to the bigger island, then I think you have a bit of a problem. By the way, Oahu , Maui, Hawaii etc all are part of the Hawaiian islands, just as Britain and Ireland were part of the British isles.
Oahu and Maui are not less Hawaiian than Hawaii itself.

Flex wrote:

Huh? I know Protestants got a raw deal down here, but like it or not it was not as bad as Catholics got up there.

Many were burnt out, killed, intimidated, and extremely few got jobs in government bodies / civil service. If what you say is true, why did the protestant population of the 26 counties drop so much after independence, both in percentage terms and absolute terms. For such a deprived and discriminated against minority, the number of catholics in the North have thrived, and dramitically increased in numbers .

Flex wrote:

How many government ministers publicly encouraged people to give their "jobs to Protestant lads and lasses" or that "we are a Protestant state for Protestant people" or when asked to confront employment discrimination remarked "I wouldnt have a Catholic about the place".

The remark "we are a Protestant state for Protestant people" was made in N. Ireland in direct response to a leading politician in the 26 counties declaring " we are a catholic state for a catholic people"

Flex

OK, maybe the root cause of it was Republicanism. The British faciliated it when there was enough democratic will for it.

Yeah, after sending the Blakc and Tans over for a while first.

"Britains arrival". LOL When the Maoris went from the North island of New Zealand to the south island, was that to start their period of occupation?

Dont know about the Maoris.

They subsquentally voted and returned unionist MP's in later elections.

Gerrymandering ma have played a role in that.Unionists were quite clever when it came to this (as has been documented).

Its called democracy.

Creating an artificial majority and accomadating 1 side is not democracy.Its like gerrymandering at a larger level.

Re. The point we were discussing : do you still think a name is "proof" that the much smaller island ( population wise, industry wise, world influence wise , size wise ) took a "back seat" to the bigger island, then I think you have a bit of a problem. By the way, Oahu , Maui, Hawaii etc all are part of the Hawaiian islands, just as Britain and Ireland were part of the British isles.
Oahu and Maui are not less Hawaiian than Hawaii itself

.

The term I use is IONA(islands of north atlantic).Might aswel include Iceland and Madagascar in your "British Isles" because it has as much sense as including Ireland.

Many were burnt out, killed, intimidated, and extremely few got jobs in government bodies / civil service. If what you say is true, why did the protestant population of the 26 counties drop so much after independence, both in percentage terms and absolute terms. For such a deprived and discriminated against minority, the number of catholics in the North have thrived, and dramitically increased in numbers .

God knows how many Catholics that happened to.Only after WW2 did the Catholic population start making significant gains.Prior to that it had stagnated around the mid 30's.Very few Catholics got government jobs up there.Didnt it become mandatory to swear an oath of allegiance to get a public sector job?If Protestants down here were expected to swear an oath to the republic youd probably criticise that.Also the Protestant population also declined due to inermarriages and because Protestants were such a small minority they usually had no choice but to intermarry.Besides the Protestant population is growing down here now.Quite good for a "deprived and discriminated against minority".

The remark "we are a Protestant state for Protestant people" was made in N. Ireland in direct response to a leading politician in the 26 counties declaring " we are a catholic state for a catholic people

What about the other 2 remarks?

Flex

billy the squid wrote:

map before brian boru

http://www.wesleyjohnston.com/users/ireland/maps/historical/map950.gif

during brian boru

http://www.rootsweb.com/~irlkik/ihm/ire1000.htm

At the time of the normans

http://www.wesleyjohnston.com/users/ireland/maps/historical/map1300.gif

you see at the time you claim that Ireland was united there were several states in ireland. brian boru's title of "king of Ireland" was self proclaimed. if it was not he would have lived to be an old man, but he didnt.

Well in Germany there are many little states, same as USA and so on.They all reserve state-governments.We have 4 provinces.Brian Boru lived to be a quite old man going by todays average male life expectancy.Last Norse armies were driven from Irelandby the High King in 1014ad.

Heres your High Kings List
http://www.kessler-web.co.uk/History/KingListsBritain/GaelsHighKings.htm

Ireland had High Kingships before a "King" existed in England or France.Structural united in language, religion and culture and customs.1st nation north of the Alps to produce a whole body of literature in its own language.

Flex

Ill keep that in mind if I think of using any

Touchez

I'd suggest some further reading

I cant,your post ends there.

billy the squid

rian Boru lived to be a quite old man going by todays average male life expectancy

yeah one of the vikings decided to bury the hatchet....in the back of his head.

Flex

billy the squid wrote:

yeah one of the vikings decided to bury the hatchet....in the back of his head.

Yeah, as he was kneeling in his tent saying a prayer to thank God for the victory the Irish won that day.He was in his 80's.Average live expectancy today is mid 70's

sceptre

Flex wrote:

I cant,your post ends there.

I'm sort of hoping you'll read up on it yourself as no-one pays me to edumicate anyone around here. It really is a fascinating time of back-stabbings, disagreements, territorial disputes and big badass Vikings in longships. Well worth the effort.

Flex wrote:

Well in Germany there are many little states, same as USA and so on.They all reserve state-governments.We have 4 provinces.

Interesting that you mention Germany as that's a very good example. Germany wasn't a single state till 1871 as it was divided into little states with their own princes (occasionally giving tribute to the Holy Roman emperor while that existed though that wasn't a single state either). The current incarnation of a federal state is something entirely different. Bottom line is that if you have evidence that Ireland was ever a single united country (even substantially and certainly not wholly, which you stated as fact) prior to the English arriving, you're hiding it under a bushel somewhere. You've got nothing because there is nothing.

Incidentally our literature and Boru's age (about 74 by the way as he was born in Killaloe around 940AD and died on April 23 1014) have nothing whatever to do with what you're trying to say is true. Neither will anything else that doesn't have direct bearing on a unified or united kingdom. It's a fudge and a bad fudge.

true

Flex wrote:

Yeah, after sending the Blakc and Tans over for a while first.

Nobody mentioned the black and tans. The point was " the root cause of it was Republicanism. The British faciliated it when there was enough democratic will for it."

Flex wrote:

Dont know about the Maoris.

You do not know anything about the Hawaiian islands, you do not know about New Zealand. Maybe An Phoblocht propoganda did not cover these areas.

Flex wrote:

Gerrymandering ma have played a role in that.Unionists were quite clever when it came to this (as has been documented).

Yes but there unionist majorities in these areas.

Flex wrote:

Creating an artificial majority and accomadating 1 side is not democracy.Its like gerrymandering at a larger level.

A bit like creating the 26 counties out of the UK at the time ?

Flex wrote:

The term I use is IONA(islands of north atlantic).Might aswel include Iceland and Madagascar in your "British Isles" because it has as much sense as including Ireland.

Iceland and Madagascar were never part of the British isles, Ireland was.
Where were you in school that day ?

Flex wrote:

Only after WW2 did the Catholic population start making significant gains.Prior to that it had stagnated around the mid 30's.

The Protestant population in 26 counties was decimated in these years, and up until the mid 1990's.
The catholic population in N. Ireland made slow gains in numbers up to the 1940's, and very significant rises since. Quite good for a "deprived and discriminated against minority".

Flex wrote:

Very few Catholics got government jobs up there.Didnt it become mandatory to swear an oath of allegiance to get a public sector job?

Really? link please. Given that some would not have had any allegiance to the UK it is perhaps not surprising.

Flex wrote:

Also the Protestant population also declined due to inermarriages and because Protestants were such a small minority they usually had no choice but to intermarry.

Why was the protestant tradition, culture and religion descriminated against in such marriages? When some protestant partners tried to bring their children up in their own faith, why did the catholic church and other authorities organise a boycott , like in Fethard on Sea ? Do you think this went un-noticed by people elsewhere, like in N. Ireland, which led to a siege mentality up there , as well as retalitory laws ?

Flex wrote:

Besides the Protestant population is growing down here now.

It is thanks mainly to immigration. Maybe in another 100 years it will be back to where it was 90 years ago.

Flex wrote:

What about the other 2 remarks?

As I have already demonstrated, people on both sides made sectarian remarks.

sceptre

true wrote:

Yes but there unionist majorities in these areas.

Not in Derry IIRC. Plenty of salamandering went on there.

Flex

Nobody mentioned the black and tans. The point was " the root cause of it was Republicanism. The British faciliated it when there was enough democratic will for it."

Facilitated after the sending the Black and Tans over for a while first.Maybe they were just testing how strong our will was.

You do not know anything about the Hawaiian islands, you do not know about New Zealand. Maybe An Phoblocht propoganda did not cover these areas.

How the hell do ya think you are?Did nothing but tease,taunt and antagonise cdebru in an unbelievably childish and nasty way to the point were he refuses to have any dialogue with you.Im a nationalist, want a UI and so on, I dont agree with your PoV or some other peoples but I accept them and I dont resort to cheap, sly and provocative insults.

Yes but there unionist majorities in these areas.

Then why were the county councils nationalist?In 1920 nationalists won 25 of the 80 councils, in 1924 they only won 2.Gerrymandering?

A bit like creating the 26 counties out of the UK at the time ?

But didnt you imply the UK created the 26 county state.

Iceland and Madagascar were never part of the British isles, Ireland was.
Where were you in school that day ?

Seem to have misinterpreted my post the way you purposefully did the same to cdebru's.

Why was the protestant tradition, culture and religion descriminated against in such marriages?

Ne Temerre passed by the Catholic Church.Catholic religion, Irish language, native Irish people had been discriminated before that.

It is thanks mainly to immigration. Maybe in another 100 years it will be back to where it was 90 years ago.

Gosh, they must be some misguided people to be immigrating to a state were theyll be persecuted.Maybe in another 100 years the population of Ireland will be were it was prior to the Famine.

true

Flex wrote:

Facilitated after the sending the Black and Tans over for a while first.Maybe they were just testing how strong our will was. .

I was wondering how long it would be before you'd bring up the black and tans. They came and went a long long time before I was born. I do not think we would have heard of them if it were not for republican terrorist attacks in the first place. Some people felt society was safer with the black and tans around, and certain others made sure it was not.

Flex wrote:

How the hell do ya think you are?Did nothing but tease,taunt and antagonise cdebru in an unbelievably childish and nasty way to the point were he refuses to have any dialogue with you.Im a nationalist, want a UI and so on, I dont agree with your PoV or some other peoples but I accept them and I dont resort to cheap, sly and provocative insults..

How the h*** l do ya think you are? I do not tease and taunt. Cdebru lost his childish republican arguments ; that is his problem, not mine. You spoke with the utmost conviction about how "Personally I ( flex) find the title "British Isles" an outdated relic of Britains presence in Ireland and proof that the Irish took a back seat to their "fellow UK'ers.". When I explained more about the history of these Islands you did not understand : when I explained about the Hawaiian islands it seems you had'nt a clue , and the same with New Zealand islands. You see Flex, sometimes a group of island may be called after one of the islands, which may not necessarily even be the largest island.

Flex wrote:

Then why were the county councils nationalist?In 1920 nationalists won 25 of the 80 councils, in 1924 they only won 2.Gerrymandering?.

The vast majority of the MPs over the years in N. Ireland have been unionist.
Democracy?

Flex wrote:

But didnt you imply the UK created the 26 county state.
.

In accordance with the wishes on many people in the 26 counties. Or would you prefer to have stayed with UK rule ?

Flex wrote:

Seem to have misinterpreted my post the way you purposefully did the same to cdebru's.
.

My statement made a lot more sense that your statement, which was "The term I use is IONA(islands of north atlantic).Might aswel include Iceland and Madagascar in your "British Isles" because it has as much sense as including Ireland."

Ireland is a lot closer to, and has a lot more in common with , the people of Scotland, Wales and England than Iceland or Madagascar. We watch more or less the same TV, eat the same food, read the same magazines and papers, follow Man united, and have many social and family ties. As you would expect with neighbours seperated only by a channel of water, not unlike other island groups in the world.

Flex wrote:

Ne Temerre passed by the Catholic Church.Catholic religion, Irish language, native Irish people had been discriminated before that.
.

Oh, protestants are not "native Irish people". How long have they to be here for that 400 years? 500 years ? If they are not native, what do you call them ? B;low in ? If do, do you want them to blow out again ? Do you want white man to blow out of America? They have not been there that long either. Perhaps the laws in America should be changed , to favour the native Americans, as they have been discriminated against.
What happened in certain areas in Ireland when the Protestant partner wanted to avoid bringing all his / her kids up as Roman Catholics ? Look at what happened in Fethard on Sea - the protestant partners business was boycotted. Not all descrimination was against catholics in N. Ireland. Very far from it.

Flex wrote:

Gosh, they must be some misguided people to be immigrating to a state were theyll be persecuted.Maybe in another 100 years the population of Ireland will be were it was prior to the Famine.

THere is no persecution or descrimination in Ireland now, north or south. Nobody suggested there was, so I do not see why you make a comment suggesting there is.

Johnny_the_fox

true wrote:

I do not think we would have heard of them if it were not for republican terrorist attacks in the first place. Some people felt society was safer with the black and tans around, and certain others made sure it was not.

Can you be serious? Your justifying the work of murders. :eek:

no wonder the ira got support from the community with these people around.

cdebru

Flex wrote:

How the hell do ya think you are?Did nothing but tease,taunt and antagonise cdebru in an unbelievably childish and nasty way to the point were he refuses to have any dialogue with you.Im a nationalist, want a UI and so on, I dont agree with your PoV or some other peoples but I accept them and I dont resort to cheap, sly and provocative insults.



Seem to have misinterpreted my post the way you purposefully did the same to cdebru's.




.

I have put him on the ignore list I would prefer not to do that but the guy is incapable of having a reasoned debatei honestly think you are wasting your time replying to him
if you put him on the ignore list his posts dont come up unfortunately with someone like this i think it is the only way to go

true

Johnny_the_fox wrote:

Can you be serious? Your justifying the work of murders. :eek:

no wonder the ira got support from the community with these people around.

I only justify the peace keeping work of any security force : not illegial murders. Did they not come here as a result of republican violence ?
Was not their aim to reduce or eliminate republican violence, which was a worthwhile aim, especially to those victims of it.
Anyway this is an aside , off the main topic.

true

cdebru wrote:

I have put him on the ignore list I would prefer not to do that but the guy is incapable of having a reasoned debatei honestly think you are wasting your time replying to him
if you put him on the ignore list his posts dont come up unfortunately with someone like this i think it is the only way to go

I have made many points, cdebru. It is you who cannot have a reasoned debate because you lost most, if not all, of the many interesting points we debated. Just because I am not a fanatical republican like you does not mean I am not entitled to a point of view.

sceptre

Johnny_the_fox wrote:

Can you be serious? Your justifying the work of murders. :eek:

Indeed. I've never heard of anyone who experienced the individuals who thought society was safer with the auxiliaries or the RIC reserve forces roaming the streets (the two are often confused but they were two separate organisations and the auxies were paid a quid a day whereas the others only got ten bob). Even from those of my aquaintance who were sons and daughters of RIC members. Frank Crozier (ex-officer of the UVF) even resigned as commander of the auxies as he thought they were a shower of uncontrollable scumbags.

Some source would be advisable, true, lest some (me included) think you're just making stuff up. As you can see we've become somewhat bored with that of late.

Johnny_the_fox

true wrote:

I only justify the peace keeping work of any security force : not illegial murders. Did they not come here as a result of republican violence ?
Was not their aim to reduce or eliminate republican violence, which was a worthwhile aim, especially to those victims of it.

worthwhile driving into croke park and killing 12 people. :rolleyes:

true

Johnny_the_fox wrote:

worthwhile driving into croke park and killing 12 people. :rolleyes:

I always condemned the murder of innocent people, and I know, as everyone knows, that incident in croke park was very wrong. I am in favour of the people responsible in the security forces at the time being severely punished.
However, you cannot tar a complete force with the actions of a group of men.

I know most people in Ireland did not like the Black n' Tans, but not everyone was anti-British. The pro-British/ pro-Union people welcomed some sort of countermeasure to the IRA - why would they not? Why do you think the black and tans were sent in , as a last resort to restore order? We all know it did not work and was counterproductive, is'nt hindsight great.

Sceptre says "Some source would be advisable, true, lest some (me included) think you're just making stuff up. As you can see we've become somewhat bored with that of late." What source do you want , Sceptre? In fact, how could I give a source for the above ? I only know the above about the b+t from general history knowledge and talking to some elderly people when I was younger.
I have always said there are good and bad people on both sides. Most people on both sides are fundamentally good people, I believe.

Johnny_the_fox

true wrote:

I always condemned the murder of innocent people, and I know, as everyone knows, that incident in croke park was very wrong. I am in favour of the people responsible in the security forces at the time being severely punished.
However, you cannot tar a complete force with the actions of a group of men.

so the actions of a group of men. for example the ira in recent weeks cannot be 'tarred'. :eek:

true

Johnny_the_fox wrote:

so the actions of a group of men. for example the ira in recent weeks cannot be 'tarred'. :eek:

No, it would be wrong to claim that all of the republican movement are bank robbers, on the evidence to date. We know roughly how many men were involved in the atrocity in croke parke, and I am sure the authorities knew how many black n' tans there were in the country. I do not know off the tip of my head, but lets says thousands.

We do not know exactly how many people are in the IRA, because it is such a secret organisation. Re the murder in Belfast, I agree the actions of a group of men - for example the ira in recent weeks cannot be 'tarred'. However, I believe the people who killed the person in Belfast should be punished.

sceptre

true wrote:

What source do you want , Sceptre? In fact, how could I give a source for the above ?

Something written by someone present at the time that we can all read. It's rather easy, people give sources here all the time to support things they present as fact. Otherwise I'm limited to believing the commander of the forces and what he said in his own books over your own beliefs (incidentally Crozier's personal diary entry on the day of the Croke Park incident read "Croke Park massacre" but obviously you don't dispute this). At least saying that you're basing your statement on stuff you remember hearing as a youngster is something more than you mentioned in your initial post, though something first-hand from anywhere would be a little more authoritative.

true

sceptre wrote:

Something written by someone present at the time that we can all read. It's rather easy, people give sources here all the time to support things they present as fact. Otherwise I'm limited to believing the commander of the forces and what he said in his own books over your own beliefs (incidentally Crozier's entry on the day of the Croke Park incident read "Croke Park massacre" but obviously you don't dispute this). At least saying that you're basing your statement on stuff you remember hearing as a youngster is something more than you mentioned above, though something first-hand from anywhere would be a little more authoritative.

Fair enough, I do not know very much about that Croke Park but I know it was wrong and I condemn it. The murder of civilians is always wrong. Once a war or terrorist campaign / freedom fight ( whatever you want to call it ) commences, sooner or later innocent people get killed. I condemn all intimidation and any wrongs and murders the black n'tans committed., just as I condemn murders from the other side.

Roisin Dubh

true wrote:

I only justify the peace keeping work of any security force : not illegial murders. Did they not come here as a result of republican violence ?
Was not their aim to reduce or eliminate republican violence, which was a worthwhile aim, especially to those victims of it.

You could make a justification for the British trying to put down the American War of Independence if you follow that line of reasoning. For example, pro-British Americans had their property confiscated, or else were beaten or even executed. The British would have an argument then, under your apparent line of reasoning, that they were in the right in trying to put down the rebellion. Is that your view?

War by definition entails violence, but if it is directed against an army rather than civilians then it can be legitimate. Look at an atlas and you will see that probably most countries on that globe threw out a foreign imperial power e.g. Spain, Britain, France, especially since the late 1700's. Now are you saying that this was unjustified violence on the part of the freedom-fighters in Mexico, Peru, Bolivia etc.? If not then what is it that causes you to differentiate between the Irish independence war and these uprisings? How are they different? I ask this because I read one of your posts I think in a different thread where you said that the US War of Independence was justified, and that has made me curious as to why you think that was legitimate but our war of independence was not?

You seem in your posts to sympathise with the Unionist position - including the Southern Unionist opposition to the South becoming independent. It seems to me somewhat unpatriotic to label those who liberated Southern Ireland as being in the wrong. Is that what you are doing?

BTW someone here referred to how large parts of Ireland were under separate kings at points in history. This is true, but the same could be said about Norway, which had civil wars between separate kings before the country was united. That doesn't in any way undermine the idea that Norwegians are a single nation. Just because you have separate administrative structures or "a state within a state" does not mean that the constituent inhabitants of that geographic area do not consider themselves to be part of the same nation. As I understand it, at the time of the English invasion, Ireland was under a High King, to which all other Irish kings were theoretically subordinate. The kings fought over the throne at various times.

When Germany was divided between East and West that didn't suddenly mean that East and West Germans were no longer part of the one nation. Their country was divided because of the Soviet machinations after WW2. In the same sense, I consider the entire island to be the Irish homeland. While I do not begrudge the NI Protestants their rights to continue living on this island, I do insist that the artificial statelet of NI come to an end at some stage. I accepted the GFA's provisions on the so-called principle of consent giving the "people of NI" a veto on reunification, but I do so grudgingly, since I recognise that the "majority" in NI are in fact the "minority" on the island of Ireland, which I consider to be one country. The collusion of the British state with Loyalist terrorists to murder Pat Finucane and others confirms my view that there is something malign about partition. The constant violence and instability in NI also confirms me in my belief that NI is a failed political entity. Partition was not a natural state of affairs. It is the Frankenstein's monster of states, and while it remains part of the UK, its problems can ultimately only get worse as far as I can see.

toiletduck

Roisin Dubh wrote:

In the same sense, I consider the entire island to be the Irish homeland. While I do not begrudge the NI Protestants their rights to continue living on this island, I do insist that the artificial statelet of NI come to an end at some stage. I accepted the GFA's provisions on the so-called principle of consent giving the "people of NI" a veto on reunification, but I do so grudgingly, since I recognise that the "majority" in NI are in fact the "minority" on the island of Ireland, which I consider to be one country.

do you really think that the majority here in the south would vote for an end to partition? most people dont really care about the North, but might be tempted to vote for unification. however i suspect many would vote against once they realise how much extra we in the south would have to pay for security etc.

Roisin Dubh

toiletduck wrote:

do you really think that the majority here in the south would vote for an end to partition? most people dont really care about the North, but might be tempted to vote for unification. however i suspect many would vote against once they realise how much extra we in the south would have to pay for security etc.

"would" is hypothetical. Also, the possible privatisation of the large public-sector in NI by future British govenments would greatly reduce the cost of NI.

Also, I completely reject your claim that we don't care about the North. Polls always show a big majority in favour of the ending of partition and the injustices it symbolises.

toiletduck

Would you have any links to those polls?
Also, could you ellabarate on what "injustices" the existance of Northern Ireland symbolises?

Roisin Dubh

toiletduck wrote:

Would you have any links to those polls?
Also, could you ellabarate on what "injustices" the existance of Northern Ireland symbolises?

Can't find the polls in Southern Ireland at present but I DEFINITELY recall this issue getting 70%-80% support (ie for UI) in polls since the GFA.

The injustices include a border which - although created in the name of Unionism - includes a majority of counties that are not Protestant, including 2 which were Catholic/Nationalist at the time of partition in 1920. Also, the partition symbolises the rewarding of 700 years of aggression with what Hitler might have described as "lebensraum/living space" for the British state.

The statelet is an aberration and the British public will eventually get sick of the trouble partition brings to them.

oscarBravo

Roisin Dubh wrote:

When Germany was divided between East and West that didn't suddenly mean that East and West Germans were no longer part of the one nation.

What about Alsace and Lorraine - are they part of that same nation?

Roisin Dubh

oscarBravo wrote:

What about Alsace and Lorraine - are they part of that same nation?

I think an island nation has far more obvious boundaries than continental countries. But since Germany doesn't want it back, I would say it is part of France.