Has partition saved democracy in Ireland?

Macmorris

nesf wrote:

The Ulster Plantation was a systematic ethnic realignment of those counties. Modern immigration is anything but that.

What do you think the result of mass immigration into Ireland will be if not an ethnic realignment of the entire country? It may not be an engineered, systematic plantation, as the Ulster plantations were, but the result will be the same. We will have a large ethnic minority in this country in the next few decades who will have the numbers and the resources to impose their will upon the majority and undermine our values and our way of life.

I personally support strict immigration laws, but even I cannot see the above as anything but rascist and sensationalist propoganda.

If you object to my use of the term plantation to describe the settlement of immigrants in this country, then you need to read more carefully. I meant the term figuratively, not literally. And I didn't say there will be violence, I just made the common-sense observation that in multicultural, multi-ethnic societies there is a greater potential for ethnic conflict than there is in ethnically homogenous societies. After all, isn't that the argument that has been advanced by MT to justify the partition of Ireland, the subject of this thread?

And I make no apology for singling out the muslims. People should rightly be careful to avoid demonising muslims, most of whom are good, law-abiding people. I see no problem with Islam or muslims in their own countries. But when it comes to defending our western way of life and our western values, then we have to be honest about where the greatest threats to those values comes from. And in my opinion, the fact that Islam is set to become the dominant religion in Europe within the next hundred years is a bad thing for the future of our civilisation.

There are solid arguments for strict immigration laws and restrictions.

You mean there are politically-correct arguments for immigration restrictions.

cdebru

Macmorris wrote:

We will have a large ethnic minority in this country in the next few decades who will have the numbers and the resources to impose their will upon the majority and undermine our values and our way of life.
.

how will they impose their will on the majority

MT

Macmorris wrote:

After all, isn't that the argument that has been advanced by MT to justify the partition of Ireland, the subject of this thread?

I believe you're looking at my argument in reverse. I have contended that partition was of benefit to the majority on the island in contrast to the popular reading of history. It seems that your reasoning looks at the outcome through the eyes of the arriving minority.

However, on your point that recent immigration is dangerous as it could lead to a situation similar to that which unfolded in the early 20th century, I'd have to disagree. Furthermore, an argument against immigration is not a corollary of my original post.

There are two key differences between the Ulster plantations and the recent immigration that Ireland has experienced. The first is geographic specificity. The current immigrants are not being placed in a specific region within the Irish Republic. Furthermore, they are quite free to move around the country. This means that no clear bond between this group and a particular area - like a county - is likely to ever materialise. Compare this to the northern plantations where due to there concentration in one part of Ireland a clear link betwee that region and the arrivals was established. Thus, they had a piece of the island that they felt they could justifiably maintain was separate from the rest of Ireland. A country - people and state - had in effect been created within a country. This was the basis for partition. This people/region bond is not there for the new immigrants.

The second is that Ireland's new immigrants - at least those in the Republic as I've encountered some up here who see themselves only as British - want to be Irish. When given the opportunity they take citizenship and from then on view themselves as part of the Irish nation. This was not the case for the planters.

Encouraged to come to Ireland by first Elizabeth and then James in exchange for land having served in the Irish wars, they had no interest in becoming one of the side they'd just helped defeat. So from the outset they saw themselves as outsiders, not a strand - or wishing to be a strand - of the indigenious society or their culture. Add this to a bond with 'their own' region, a desire to remain separate from the preceding culture and not to mention that Ireland having been invaded had no governing class or civil society to encourage their integration, and you had the basis for a whole separate identity and nation emerging in the Northeast.

The current climate of immigration is very far removed from the Ulster plantations. Where there is in particular no immigrant/region bond to the exclusion of another majority in that area then there should be no good basis for national fracture. This is a large part of why there is no movement for separation in the multi-ethnic Singapore, as opposed to Sri Lanka or the earlier case of Ireland.

nesf

Macmorris wrote:

What do you think the result of mass immigration into Ireland will be if not an ethnic realignment of the entire country? It may not be an engineered, systematic plantation, as the Ulster plantations were, but the result will be the same. We will have a large ethnic minority in this country in the next few decades who will have the numbers and the resources to impose their will upon the majority and undermine our values and our way of life.

The result of the Ulster Plantation was this: a traditionally catholic dominated society was replaced with a prostestant dominant one. So quite obviously this formation of a large ethnic minority by modern immigration isn't the same. Since catholics would remain as the dominant ethnic majority in the country this would in no way be the same result as the Ulster Plantation.

Ethnic Minorities can impose their will on the majority in some instances, but it is quite rare. Essentially the minority would either need to be an economic upper class or an educated and wealthy elite when compared to the majority. I don't think that ill-educated polish and turkish immigrants are going to become dominant in our society. They will be integrated into it. Well educated immigrants are not uncommon, but they generally choose to adapt to our society and live along side us rather than try to force change.

If you object to my use of the term plantation to describe the settlement of immigrants in this country, then you need to read more carefully. I meant the term figuratively, not literally. And I didn't say there will be violence, I just made the common-sense observation that in multicultural, multi-ethnic societies there is a greater potential for ethnic conflict than there is in ethnically homogenous societies. After all, isn't that the argument that has been advanced by MT to justify the partition of Ireland, the subject of this thread?

I object to your comparisson of the Ulster Plantation and modern immigration not your use of the word plantation. My reasons for such are outlined above. Where you are getting violence from my argument I'm not really sure :rolleyes: .

And I make no apology for singling out the muslims. People should rightly be careful to avoid demonising muslims, most of whom are good, law-abiding people. I see no problem with Islam or muslims in their own countries. But when it comes to defending our western way of life and our western values, then we have to be honest about where the greatest threats to those values comes from. And in my opinion, the fact that Islam is set to become the dominant religion in Europe within the next hundred years is a bad thing for the future of our civilisation.

Have you lived in mid-eastern culture? Are you aware that during the dark ages that it was mid-eastern cultures that kept the works of the Greek and Roman Philosophers alive? (although yes they did burn alot of it too..) This concept of "defending our western way of life and our western values" strikes me as highly rascist and elitist. We do not have the best way of life. We suffer from a myriad of problems such as rampant unemployment, pollution, corruption and high crime levels. We do not live in an utopian society that needs protection at all costs! Societies throughout the ages have grown by assimilating and borrowing culture from other societies! If we wall ourselves up culturally and become hostile to all foreign culture then our society will stagnate and die. Plus I do not think that our culture of binge drinking idiots with serious health problems is something that should be lauded.

Islamic societies have problems. So do we. We should learn from the mistakes from both and welcome cultural influences from islamic society.

You mean there are politically-correct arguments for immigration restrictions.

No, I don't. Myself and political correctness don't get along very well, although you seem to dismiss political correctness out of hand. Just because a point is PC doesn't necessarily invalidate it.

Discriminating on the levels you are, on the grounds of race and religion is no more valid that the discrimination against people with mental illness or people with disabilities. Yes, sure think the way you do on a personal level. You are completely entitled to do that. But trying to argue that such views are fitting for a modern day society? No that I will oppose and argue.

My personal views on strict immigration laws is due to economic factors not due to the race, religion or caste of the immigrant in question. I just feel that there should be (what is the equivilant of) discrimination on educational/job skills grounds on adults entering this country. I believe that any person immigrating into this country should either be able to show a good education or good job skills as these will aid them in integrating into the country. I do not feel that we should be a charity for people who leave their country. Our economy could not support it, we are a tiny country, we don't have the economies of scale that other European countries have. We cannot absord a big influx of immigrants without serious negative economic consequences. It needs to be planned and limited by legislation. Not a very PC view, but it's one I hold.

Edit: To make myself clear, I oppose the discrimination against immigrants on grounds such as race and religion since these are not factors that should matter on a large scale in my opinion. Job skills and education however are valid catagories with which to judge immigrants in my opinion.

I have seen immigration happen in the micro scale in my old home town in north cork. First off there was a bunch of romanian immigrants, they robbed, stole and the crime rate of the town went from negligible to being a severe problem. They refused to send their children to the schools, and made no effort to integrate with the already present society. They eventually were relocated.

Then there was an influx of Nigerian immigrants. Now culturally, these guys were miles away from us when compared to the Romanians. The difference? There have been few problems with their integration. They joined the society and began working very hard. They sent their kids to go to school with the irish children, and now 5 years on they are an integral part of the society.

Lesson: Culturally similarity does not mean immigrants can integrate well.

mycroft

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

How was the situation 80 years ago radically different? Partition was a key issue in Irish politics then and it is now. Also you go on to say:

New around here are we? pre world war one tens of thousands of men on both sides of the border, were willing to take up arms to remain in the union or for home rule. Massive private arms existed. The level of popular support was unmatched. The situation was radically different in that Partition was a key issue in Irish politics then and now, I don't think the general public still feel that to the same degree that they did then. What with the not having citizen miltias n all.

Here you have given a hypothetical situation of future events! How can you be sure the political landscape won't resemble what it does now? The issue of partition will continue to remain in my opinion. I posed a hypothetical situation to you and you won't even have the decency to share your views on the issue. Your reluctance to give an answer to a question would make any Shinner proud. Disappointing.

I don't have the decency?
:rolleyes:

Look It's a stupid bloody question. Period.

I cited two hypothetical parameters which might affect the existance of this state, to point out how ludicrous your suggestion was. Don't try and twist this to make me seem like a hyprocrit, I'm merely pointing out the diverse set of variables that would make this seem highly unlikely. This ludricously vague notion of yours.

You may as well ask me, how the rise of atlantis will effect fishery borders in the EU. Or the return of Avalon will effect the privatisation structure of british rail.

You haven't explained the population of this mythical state? Does your proposed population take into consideration falling rural population density. Is it independentally financially sustainable? Or economically? Or will it have enough natural resources? Will it need to import food? Will it remain part of the union? Or a seperate state? Will it have an agressive foreign policy towards to the rest of NI? Will it be mild mannered orange men, or rabid combat 18/UVF style thugs? WIll it be able to meet it's own electrical power needs? How large will it be?

I'm not going to answer inane question posed to me, unrelated to the topic of this thread, and then have someone say "have the decency to answer" when the question is purile nonsense. Approach this with a more mature attitude, and don't start whinging when people don't want to play the game using your simplisitic rules.

it seems like a simple enough question mycroft

Too simple. It ignores the reality of what would have to occur for this to become an eventuality.

Oh and cdebru, you've ignore plenty of my points addressed to you, maybe you should considering answering my reply to you, before you join in hassling me to answer niceguy.

cdebru

mycroft wrote:

You haven't explained the population of this mythical state? Does your proposed population take into consideration falling rural population density. Is it independentally financially sustainable? Or economically? Or will it have enough natural resources? Will it need to import food? Will it remain part of the union? Or a seperate state? Will it have an agressive foreign policy towards to the rest of NI? Will it be mild mannered orange men, or rabid combat 18/UVF style thugs? WIll it be able to meet it's own electrical power needs? How large will it be?

I'm not going to answer inane question posed to me, unrelated to the topic of this thread, and then have someone say "have the decency to answer" when the question is purile nonsense. Approach this with a more mature attitude, and don't start whinging when people don't want to play the game using your simplisitic rules. .

he is not asking you wether it would be economically viable the question is simply if two referendums were held and the 26 counties and the 6 counties both accepted reunification
what would your view be if 2 counties with a large unionist majority refused to accept the outcome of the referendums and threatened to oppose it with force

cdebru

mycroft wrote:

No it's not. He is talking about a specific point about a specific instance. For example you could take it that the Rwanda genocide means two tribes can't co exist in a single society. Despite the evidence that it occurs regularly in african societies, and countries.

He's taking the argument that the case of NI, where if the republican forces had forced a united ireland, the unionist majority would have rejected and there would have been disasterous implications when they rebelled at forced intergration.

Theres a radical difference in forcing two ethic groups to co exist, when one ethic group objects to the presence of another. To what he's suggesting;.

see what it ignores is that the root cause of the problem in the North is british imperialism
why the fighting has continued for over 80 years is the nature of the british propped sectarian state that offered privilege to one section and denied basic human rights to another there is no reason why protestants and catholics cannot live together in harmony as they do in the south and all over the world
once the reason for the conflict has been removed ie british imperialism




.

mycroft wrote:

Thats a comment that ignores the fact that pre WW1 the unionists were prepared to object to home rule by force if necessary, they imported weapons towards this aim. We can imagine the level of objection to a seperate state.

We had a bloody enough civil war post treaty, can we imagine trying to do this with the north involved. Plus do you really think the british public circa 1920 wouldn't have be a smigen sympathetic to a section of nth ireland fighting to remain part of the british empire? .

No it doesn't faced with the position of no longer being a part of the UK fighting to be a part would make no sense once the UK had rejected them the only other option would be independence which would not have been economically viable considering how small it would have been

mycroft wrote:

It boggles my mind to find someone who seems like a educated individual esposing this line while supporting SF. While SF gives lip service to these ideals, they still allow their leaders to parade allongside men and women in paramilitary garb, eulogising men who blew up and murdered sections of the community. It's hyprocritical.

for the 100 th time I dont support SF Iam a republican sometimes i agree with them others I don't

mycroft

cdebru wrote:

he is not asking you wether it would be economically viable the question is simply if two referendums were held and the 26 counties and the 6 counties both accepted reunification
what would your view be if 2 counties with a large unionist majority refused to accept the outcome of the referendums and threatened to oppose it with force

Through. clenched. teeth.

He's not asking I am this magical unionist land if it wasn't sustainable they're be little point in it's existance, and eventually the population would be forced to recognise this. I'm asking about what level of violence? How large is this state? Whats it's politics? What would force this drastitic situation in being?

You guys love to argue in the abstract because it allows you to debate the issue outside the reality of the situation. This is the politics forum and I see little reason debating something this inane. You may as well ask me to consider the implications of Hawaii attacking us.

Theres the principle and the reality. While in principle many of us recognise that the state of Israeli may have the right of existance, it's the reality of that existance that causes the issues. Gibbering on about some Antrim, Down version of lichenstein isn't discussing politics.

And cdebru again I raised a number of issues with a post of yours a while back in this thread, quit hassling me to answer niceguys nonsense, and address some of the issues I raised.


edit.... finallly

No it doesn't faced with the position of no longer being a part of the UK fighting to be a part would make no sense once the UK had rejected them the only other option would be independence which would not have been economically viable considering how small it would have been

And the only adequate response is "yeah right" No way never going to have happened. There is no chance in hell the british govt and people would have been willing to cut off NI. Never would have happened. The naivety displayed here is impressive. m

sceptre

Macmorris wrote:

What do you think the result of mass immigration into Ireland will be if not an ethnic realignment of the entire country?

Under the current topic of this thread I don't actually care. The next one of you guys to attempt to throw an unrelated thread into a thread about your own fetish topic of immigration by the muslims or whoever will get the lot of you banned on sight. Use your brain and take it to a different thread. On topic or no topic.

MT

cdebru wrote:

it s the logical extension of MTs argument

As I have explained above, it’s not.

cdebru wrote:

boiled down MTs arguement is that only a mono ethnic mono cultural society can be a safe productive one

No it’s not. My view is that the consequences of immigration can vary considerably depending upon the way in which the arrivals settle in the host nation. In this respect, the Ulster plantations had a very different outcome from that resulting from the sort of immigration rich countries experienced during the 20th century. Thus, depending very much on how it’s achieved a multi-ethnic/cultural society can remain as united and be as ‘productive’ – if not more so – as a mono-ethnic one. However, if the undertaking is managed in a very different way with very different aims, it could lead to a situation like that which developed in much of Ulster.

Simply put, the circumstances and subsequent history of the Ulster plantations made a united all-island democracy all but impossible. The current system of immigration should not threaten in any way a united democracy in the Irish Republic.

cdebru wrote:

Society in the 26 counties has moved on from the bitter sectarian divisions because we have freed ourselves from a society where it actually matters wether you are catholic or protestant

And why has this positive development been allowed to happen. I think you’ll find it’s exactly the crux of my post. My contention is that the current rosy scenario would never have been able to materialise had all 32 counties been placed in the one independent state from the outset. Only by quarantining the geographic minority that had long established a parallel identity was liberal democracy given the peace and freedom from incessant war and ethnic strife in the 26 county state to flourish and mature. The welcome state of affairs you highlight above arrived because of partition and not in spite of it IMO.

cdebru wrote:

what exactly unionists would have been fighting for MT never explains to be readmitted to the UK which had already turned its back on them

They would have fought a war for separation – it’s as simple and as devastating as that. They may well have been misguided or wrong headed in your or many other’s view but they would have fought for separation no less. Whether, it was for reunification with Britain, their own independent state, even if it was doomed for failure, the damage resulting from such a conflict – in terms of the economy, societal cohesion or even the viability of a united state – would not have been diminished in its effect. Regardless of the logic, the developments in separate communal identity that had occurred in previous centuries and had heightened with the close of the 19th guaranteed a war. Hence, the gathering of arms, militarisation and the covenant that all unfolded in the north as their fear of all-island home rule grew.

Remember, wars have been fought over much less. And there are few greater incentives than a threat to nationality. No matter how wrongheaded we might have viewed their instincts, they saw themselves as a nation apart – or more specifically not wishing to join the new and emerging independent nation to the south. Just look at how a similar sentiment has seen wars rage on for years in the Balkans, Sri Lanka, Lebanon, Indonesia, Democratic Republic of Congo and countless other parts of Africa. Just because the minority in each instance may appear to be fighting a futile campaign in the eyes of others, it doesn’t make the conflict any less devastating in its effects on the nation in turmoil, or indeed on the majority in the opposing camp.

cdebru wrote:

why sectarian divisions remained in the six counties was because it mattered in respect of privilege but also in respect of the future of the statelets very existence
unionists have been looking over their shoulder at nationalists since the foundation of northern Ireland fully aware that force of numbers might someday bring about an end to the existence of their protestant state
there was no benefit to them to make catholics/nationalists feel welcome or equal they did not want them to stay around

I haven’t posted anything in disagreement to this. The first line of my post acknowledged the failure of the North.

But your explanation of the North’s failure again only adds weight to my contention that partition was necessary for the rest of Ireland. Nationalist Ireland had no considerable minority to look over its shoulder at – a minority that, as in the north, considered itself separate and would have never relinquished its desire for a very different constitutional outcome. This minority – Ulster Protestants – would have been as threatening to the majority, if not in all likely hood more so, than the minority in the North’s gerrymandered statelet. Though they lacked numbers, they had wealth – with Ulster Prods thrown in the religious minority would have accounted for the lion’s share of the new nation’s wealth. Combine this with a near monopoly on established industry and you would have had a recipe for suspicion and most likely downright hostility. The Catholic minority in the North was too poor in the opening decades to challenge the status quo, the minority in an all island state would have had every advantage with regard to financial resources.

As in the North, a cohesive civil society, stability or liberal democracy would never have withstood this mutual fear and loathing. There would have been a considerably more powerful minority. One, I believe, that would have been impossible to have kept in the state without all out civil war. The outcome of which would have been a nation torn asunder – partition in a much bloodier way – or the collapse of democracy. Indeed, even in the event of a partition following civil war society in the South may well have been so traumatised that democracy could have failed anyway – the worst of both worlds. Had the South won such a protracted and painful conflict there’s little doubt how the north would have been dealt with. Put it this way, civil rights and equality would not have been on the agenda. The resulting sectarianism between bloodied and hate-filled protagonists would have insured an eternity of sectarian mistrust and discrimination. A discrimination all the more pertinent to ensure Northern Prods would lose their threatening financial advantage and never again amass the funds that might allow another separatist war.

It was only by excluding this wealthy, industrialised alien group – crucially identifying with its own region to the exclusion of a common national bond – that peace and democracy could survive and flourish in the Irish Republic.

cdebru wrote:

Only with the end of the 6 county state can the sectarian divisions be put behind us when privilege or the existance of the state no longer count on how many catholics or protestants there are will it be as unimportant as it is in the 26 counties

I couldn’t disagree more. The hatred and fear will continue in the North but this time there’ll be no bulwark to halt the spread of such poisonous sentiments spreading south. Once violence breaks out and bombs explode in Dublin liberal democracy will be replaced with the balkanised voting patterns found throughout NI. You can forget about socio-economic issues when the threatened majority in constant fear of a northern breakaway – not to mention the northern Protestant minority – feels it can only hold the state together by voting in one staid, unchanging ethnic block at election after, after election, after election… It’d be a rerun of the dire history of NI all over again – except this time the entire island would be dragged into the sectarian miasma.

Mr.Nice Guy

mycroft wrote:

New around here are we? pre world war one tens of thousands of men on both sides of the border, were willing to take up arms to remain in the union or for home rule. Massive private arms existed. The level of popular support was unmatched. The situation was radically different in that Partition was a key issue in Irish politics then and now, I don't think the general public still feel that to the same degree that they did then. What with the not having citizen miltias n all.

Thanks for the history lesson but it was unnecessary. I'm well aware of the situation back then but the reason these militias came into being was at the prospect of Home Rule being on the cards with a Liberal Government in power. It is very likely that if it becomes apparent a majority in the North would favour reunification that similar militias on the loyalist side would come to the fore. Surely you accept this?

mycroft wrote:

I don't have the decency?
:rolleyes:

Look It's a stupid bloody question. Period.

No it's a very relevant question and one in which you refuse to answer. Why are you so hostile? What's wrong with giving your views on a very likely situation involving unionists who refuse to accept Irish unity under democratic circumstances?

mycroft wrote:

I cited two hypothetical parameters which might affect the existance of this state, to point out how ludicrous your suggestion was. Don't try and twist this to make me seem like a hyprocrit, I'm merely pointing out the diverse set of variables that would make this seem highly unlikely. This ludricously vague notion of yours.

You are behaving like a hypocrite. You refuse to answer my hypothetical situation which might affect the existence of the state yet you see no problem in offering your own "hypothetical parameter" which might affect the existence of the state. Why won't you give me an answer man? It's a perfectly reasonable hypothetical situation!

mycroft wrote:

You may as well ask me, how the rise of atlantis will effect fishery borders in the EU. Or the return of Avalon will effect the privatisation structure of british rail.

Now you're just acting childish. My situation doesn't involve far away magical lands or kingdoms, it involves the island of Ireland and involves groups who have taken up arms before against democracy.

mycroft wrote:

You haven't explained the population of this mythical state? Does your proposed population take into consideration falling rural population density. Is it independentally financially sustainable? Or economically? Or will it have enough natural resources? Will it need to import food? Will it remain part of the union? Or a seperate state? Will it have an agressive foreign policy towards to the rest of NI? Will it be mild mannered orange men, or rabid combat 18/UVF style thugs? WIll it be able to meet it's own electrical power needs? How large will it be?

I'm not advocating a two county NI, that's why I didn't go into such detail. The point of my hypothetical situation was to see what your views were on the unionists once again opposing democracy through violence. Any chance I could get an answer?

mycroft wrote:

I'm not going to answer inane question posed to me, unrelated to the topic of this thread, and then have someone say "have the decency to answer" when the question is purile nonsense. Approach this with a more mature attitude, and don't start whinging when people don't want to play the game using your simplisitic rules.

If anyone here is whinging, it is you. I just want to know why you won't answer a perfectly reasonable hypothetical situation on a potential future event which takes into account issues that existed 80 years ago

cdebru

mycroft wrote:

Through. clenched. teeth.

He's not asking I am this magical unionist land if it wasn't sustainable they're be little point in it's existance, and eventually the population would be forced to recognise this. I'm asking about what level of violence? How large is this state? Whats it's politics? What would force this drastitic situation in being?

You guys love to argue in the abstract because it allows you to debate the issue outside the reality of the situation. This is the politics forum and I see little reason debating something this inane. You may as well ask me to consider the implications of Hawaii attacking us.

Theres the principle and the reality. While in principle many of us recognise that the state of Israeli may have the right of existance, it's the reality of that existance that causes the issues. Gibbering on about some Antrim, Down version of lichenstein isn't discussing politics.

And cdebru again I raised a number of issues with a post of yours a while back in this thread, quit hassling me to answer niceguys nonsense, and address some of the issues I raised.


edit.... finallly

is it too hard to answer because the implications of your answer are blindingly obvious
if you accept it it flies it the face of democracy and the GFA and what you allegedly believe in
if you reject it then why not have rejected it 80 years ago


but given that you want to know how much violence how big the state might be etc i take it you would be quite prepared to let unionists use the threat of force to avoid the rule of law and democracy

mycroft wrote:

And the only adequate response is "yeah right" No way never going to have happened. There is no chance in hell the british govt and people would have been willing to cut off NI. Never would have happened. The naivety displayed here is impressive. m

despite the fact that opinion polls show the majority of people in the uk would be quite happy to rid themselves of the 6 counties
and that a former prime minister looked into those options in the 70s





your continued attempts to provoke a response by your condescending atitude and insults says more about yourself and your inability to argue your position rationally

mycroft

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

Thanks for the history lesson but it was unnecessary. I'm well aware of the situation back then but the reason these militias came into being was at the prospect of Home Rule being on the cards with a Liberal Government in power. It is very likely that if it becomes apparent a majority in the North would favour reunification that similar militias on the loyalist side would come to the fore. Surely you accept this?

:rolleyes:

You were the one saying the situation hadn't changed.

Now how is it very likely that the loyalists would reform militias? Wheres your evidence? How do you think it will just as likely in 80 years? Just saying they'll form militia's because they did 80 years ago, doesn't mean they will in the future. What evidence do you have to back this assertion?

No it's a very relevant question and one in which you refuse to answer. Why are you so hostile? What's wrong with giving your views on a very likely situation involving unionists who refuse to accept Irish unity under democratic circumstances?

As pointed the hypothetical is just too vague. How is it very likely? Wheres your proof?

You are behaving like a hypocrite. You refuse to answer my hypothetical situation which might affect the existence of the state yet you see no problem in offering your own "hypothetical parameter" which might affect the existence of the state. Why won't you give me an answer man? It's a perfectly reasonable hypothetical situation!

No it's an idiotic and inane one. I've presented some of the most fundamental and basic issues a state such as the one you propose, would face. You said it is a potential very likely occurance If it's so likely such issues would have already been discussed and options considered. If it's such a plausible outcome, then these issues should be considered, which you're not because your proposal is childlike in it's simplicity.

Why won't you give me answer man? :rolleyes:

You want to talk about the final hurdles toward renunification come with a well thought out and reasoned discussion point. Don't present some futuristic NI "The man in the high castle" concept.

Now you're just acting childish. My situation doesn't involve far away magical lands or kingdoms, it involves the island of Ireland and involves groups who have taken up arms before against democracy.

Childish I'm not someone who had a hissy fit when I declined to debate this issue at your level. I was drawing an analogy, your supposed spurious state is about as plausible as the two ideas I mentioned above.

I'm not advocating a two county NI, that's why I didn't go into such detail. The point of my hypothetical situation was to see what your views were on the unionists once again opposing democracy through violence. Any chance I could get an answer?

Gibber. Must adhere to the charter. Unionists and Republicans are already and currently objecting to democracy through violence, you've created this magical analogy of a surprious state and asked me my opinion on it, and I've gone "it's a idiotic analogy because of the following factors" and you got in a huff.

If anyone here is whinging, it is you. I just want to know why you won't answer a perfectly reasonable hypothetical situation on a potential future event which takes into account issues that existed 80 years ago

Because it's not a perfectly reasonable hypothetical which takes into account issues that existsted 80 years ago but doesn't take into account future issues doesn't consider the ramifications of the peace process or the increased roll the EU is playing in it's member countries, and doesn't even begin to consider some very plausible and real hurdles that stand between this hypothetical and y'know reality.

cdebru wrote:

for the 100 th time I dont support SF I am a republican sometimes i agree with them others I don't

Translation I get to wear my alleigance to SF like a flag of convenience ensuring I can avoid some of the more difficult questions and morality issues that come with supporting them, by claiming you don't support them on this.

Just out of curiousity, what sort of republican are you, if not SF, IRSP? 26 county continuity council? Fianna Fail?

is it too hard to answer because the implications of your answer are blindingly obvious
if you accept it it flies it the face of democracy and the GFA and what you allegedly believe in
if you reject it then why not have rejected it 80 years ago

Really trying to put words into my mouth cdebru.
:rolleyes:

I'm not answering because the question is too vague, the way the republican side on the board like it because it leads to moral ambiguity. Now you want to go ahead and call me a liar, or retract the above.

but given that you want to know how much violence how big the state might be etc i take it you would be quite prepared to let unionists use the threat of force to avoid the rule of law and democracy

No I'm trying to get to grips to what ever vague nefarious concept niceguy is presenting to us. He's brought in the "threat of violence" I just wanted him to clarify what he was rambling on about.

despite the fact that opinion polls show the majority of people in the uk would be quite happy to rid themselves of the 6 counties

Care to link to those polls? For starts we're talking about when the treaty was signed, no way no how, would the british public have deserted NI.

Also FYI the british prime minister was Howard Wilson, and the decision was the last ditch get the hell out of NI during the UWC strike. This was during some of the worst crisis to hit britain in peace time, and the plan was considered as a last resort. It was rejected because it would be unpopular, and was only considered during the unionist led UWC strike and when Suez was heating up.

MT

cdebru wrote:

see what it ignores is that the root cause of the problem in the North is british imperialism

The original cause, yes. The North is a failed and divided society today regardless of any outside influence. The ethnic hatred and the desire on the part of Northern Protestants to maintain an identity and existence apart from the rest of the island and its people does not depend – though it may once have – on Britain’s involvement in Northern Ireland. That sentiment will not die with the arrival of a united Ireland and therein lies the threat to democracy in the Irish Republic.

cdebru wrote:

why the fighting has continued for over 80 years is the nature of the british propped sectarian state that offered privilege to one section and denied basic human rights to another there is no reason why protestants and catholics cannot live together in harmony as they do in the south and all over the world

That is far too simple a reductive explanation for the problems that exist in the North. Firstly, remove the sectarian state and you still have a large group of Protestants in the North that desire a separate homeland. You’d still have both tribes sectarian hatred for each other – an animus that has lasted centuries and is unlikely to diminish while both sides are forced to compete in a single jurisdiction, whatever its name. The potential for ‘fighting’ will not disappear.

As for the violence emanating from the IRA, it was never concerned primarily with ‘basic human rights’. Their’s was a campaign for constitutional change. In the broader scheme of things, the tension and ensuing violence was part of a vicious cycle that had resulted in fear, which resulted in ethnic one-upmanship, resulting in grievance, resulting in tit for tat violence. Such ethnic sparring has persisted in the North for centuries – long before NI came into existence. Then, throw in national identity and constitutional uncertainty and you have a recipe for internecine feuding bordering on civil war.

As for the inability of protestants and catholics to live together in harmony, this will always persist while both sides differ over their ethnic and national identity. Crucially, while these identities are tied to a shared region then both will forever be forced to compete for a constitutional settlement to the advantage of one side at the expense of the other.

cdebru wrote:

once the reason for the conflict has been removed ie british imperialism

I couldn’t disagree more. What you propose would result in Northern Protestants having to accept a united Ireland and the loss of their separate identity. They do not want to be a part of the Irish nation. This is just as unfair as the prevailing situation. It could only work if they underwent a road to Damascus conversion in terms of self-identity. Given that Northern Nationalists have continued to hold on to their separate identity, not to mention Southerners before them, this would seem extremely unlikely. Indeed, you could propound a similar argument from the opposite view point. If the people of the Irish Republic relinquished any desire to extend sovereignty over the North while its Catholic population adopted a new British identity the problem would also be solved. But is that likely? Equally, it’s just as intolerable as the current situation where Northern Nationalists live at best in a sort of identity limbo and at worst are forced to accept the reality of life as nationals of a state they want no part of. Why force this upon the other side?

I’m afraid your comments above sound eerily like the much disparaged Marxist false-conciousness theories put foward by Republican academics in the 1970s. According to these, the nationalist identity was seeminly genuine whereas the unionist identity was apparently a mere figment of their imagination cleverly placed there by British propaganda/influence/imperialism, etc. No doubt they'd have offered Unionists tinfoil hats had the opportunity arisen - keep out the electromagnetic brainwaves of the imperial manipulator and all that.

The only long term solution in my view – and I won’t go into this in detail as it’s OT – is repartition and voluntary resettlement. Northern Nationalists get the identity and state they desire and likewise for Northern Protestants/Unionists. This way, neither side is forced to deny their preferred ethnicity or live in a state they do not identify with.

A Dub in Glasgo

mycroft wrote:

Care to link to those polls? For starts we're talking about when the treaty was signed, no way no how, would the british public have deserted NI.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Northern_Ireland/Story/0,2763,540092,00.html

You would be surprised at how the British people view the big black hole that is NI and how their taxes are being sunk in that black hole to prop up an artifical state.

Mr.Nice Guy

mycroft wrote:

:rolleyes:

You were the one saying the situation hadn't changed.

Now how is it very likely that the loyalists would reform militias? Wheres your evidence? How do you think it will just as likely in 80 years? Just saying they'll form militia's because they did 80 years ago, doesn't mean they will in the future. What evidence do you have to back this assertion?

Because not all unionists support the GFA which allows for Irish unity if the north and south votes for it. Rejectionist Unionism like that espoused by Paisley has seen the formation of Ulster Resistance and it is very likely that Unionists would form similar groups to oppose the reunification of Ireland.

mycroft wrote:

As pointed the hypothetical is just too vague. How is it very likely? Wheres your proof?

It was a hypothetical question to gauge your views on the prospect of some Unionists opposing Irish unity by threat of force!

mycroft wrote:

No it's an idiotic and inane one. I've presented some of the most fundamental and basic issues a state such as the one you propose, would face. You said it is a potential very likely occurance If it's so likely such issues would have already been discussed and options considered. If it's such a plausible outcome, then these issues should be considered, which you're not because your proposal is childlike in it's simplicity.

Why won't you give me answer man? :rolleyes:

I really don't understand why you find it so difficult to grasp that I'm presenting you with a hypothetical situation and that the point of it is not to discuss the likelihood of a two county NI, but the likelihood of opposition through force. Can you not offer me an answer? It's beyond ridiculous at this point.

mycroft wrote:

You want to talk about the final hurdles toward renunification come with a well thought out and reasoned discussion point. Don't present some futuristic NI "The man in the high castle" concept.

The point of my hypothetical situation was not about the final hurdles towards reunification but rather to assess whether you would find it acceptable for a minority in the North to dictate to the majority.

mycroft wrote:

Childish I'm not someone who had a hissy fit when I declined to debate this issue at your level. I was drawing an analogy, your supposed spurious state is about as plausible as the two ideas I mentioned above.

Please show me how I had a "hissy fit". I think I've remained pretty calm considering you constantly duck my questions and give me sarcastic smilies to deal with.

mycroft wrote:

Gibber. Must adhere to the charter. Unionists and Republicans are already and currently objecting to democracy through violence, you've created this magical analogy of a surprious state and asked me my opinion on it, and I've gone "it's a idiotic analogy because of the following factors" and you got in a huff.

SOME Unionists and Republicans are objecting to democracy through violence but it is not on a scale of the threat posed 80 years ago. If I've gotten into a "huff" it's because you've ignored the point of my analogy and have decided to do your best to discredit it as a way of avoiding giving me an answer. Sadly for you, I don't think my analogy can be discredited.

mycroft wrote:

Because it's not a perfectly reasonable hypothetical which takes into account issues that existsted 80 years ago but doesn't take into account future issues doesn't consider the ramifications of the peace process or the increased roll the EU is playing in it's member countries, and doesn't even begin to consider some very plausible and real hurdles that stand between this hypothetical and y'know reality.

You'll appreciate the above paragraph is hard to answer as I'm not sure what you're tryng to say here. My hypothetical is set in the future and is very relevant to the ramifications of the peace process. What does the EU have to do with anything? You neglect to elaborate on this. The fact is the only "plausible and real hurdle" is the fact that a vote for unity in the North seems unlikely for the forseeable future but if it did happen, my hypothetical remains very relevant.

I am going to retire for the evening now but I hope that I will eventually get an answer from you regarding your thoughts on two Unionist counties, such as Down and Antrim, opposing reunification despite the north and south voting for it. Please have the courtesy to answer so I can assess whether you would feel it acceptable to respect the wishes of the two counties or to ignore them in favour of the majority north and south. Thank you.

mycroft

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

mycroft wrote:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Northern_Ireland/Story/0,2763,540092,00.html

You would be surprised at how the British people view the big black hole that is NI and how their taxes are being sunk in that black hole to prop up an artifical state.

cdebru wrote:

despite the fact that opinion polls show the majority of people in the uk would be quite happy to rid themselves of the 6 counties

Dub when did;

26% say it should continue as part of the Uk

41% say it should be part of a united ireland.

I'd say that that poll is more an inditment of my opinion that most of us in UK and Ireland would just like to saw it off and ditch it somewhere near greenland :rolleyes:

cdebru

mycroft wrote:

:rolleyes:

.



Translation I get to wear my alleigance to SF like a flag of convenience ensuring I can avoid some of the more difficult questions and morality issues that come with supporting them, by claiming you don't support them on this.

Just out of curiousity, what sort of republican are you, if not SF, IRSP? 26 county continuity council? Fianna Fail?.

an independent minded republican with no allegiance to any political party

i dont trust sinn fein no more than i dont trust FF

mycroft wrote:

Really trying to put words into my mouth cdebru.
:rolleyes:

I'm not answering because the question is too vague, the way the republican side on the board like it because it leads to moral ambiguity. Now you want to go ahead and call me a liar, or retract the above.



No I'm trying to get to grips to what ever vague nefarious concept niceguy is presenting to us. He's brought in the "threat of violence" I just wanted him to clarify what he was rambling on about.



Care to link to those polls? For starts we're talking about when the treaty was signed, no way no how, would the british public have deserted NI.

.

your not answering because you cant

and DIG has linked a poll for you blows the **** out of your arguement about the brits could not abandon the north

A Dub in Glasgo

mycroft wrote:

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Dub when did;

26% say it should continue as part of the Uk

41% say it should be part of a united ireland.

I'd say that that poll is more an inditment of my opinion that most of us in UK and Ireland would just like to saw it off and ditch it somewhere near greenland :rolleyes:

Well if you do what all pollsters do with respect ot the undecided votes, the United Ireland option is the majority.

Even if you do not 'adjust' the figures and decide to take the undecided as 'ditching it off Greenland', it is obvious that the majority in that poll 'would be quite happy to rid themselves of the 6 counties' which is exactly what cdebru said and you even agree with it!!

MT

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

You would be surprised at how the British people view the big black hole that is NI and how their taxes are being sunk in that black hole to prop up an artifical state.

You might be surprised at how surveys by the ESRI show a steady decline in support in the Republic for unity. Indeed, I believe only a slight majority of 54% were in favour at the last count. It seems likely that if these trends continue no one will want the North very soon.

Out of curiousity could you define what constitutes an 'artificial state'?

mycroft

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

Because not all unionists support the GFA which allows for Irish unity if the north and south votes for it. Rejectionist Unionism like that espoused by Paisley has seen the formation of Ulster Resistance and it is very likely that Unionists would form similar groups to oppose the reunification of Ireland.

Not all republicans voted for the GFA agreement. You've got two and two and come up with masses of unionists building barricades and singing la resistance. Thats a massive leap in logic.

Wheres your proof that Antrim and Down would become two violent centers of massed armed resistance in a few decades?

It was a hypothetical question to gauge your views on the prospect of some Unionists opposing Irish unity by threat of force!

yeah they've been doing that for a while now........

I really don't understand why you find it so difficult to grasp that I'm presenting you with a hypothetical situation and that the point of it is not to discuss the likelihood of a two county NI, but the likelihood of opposition through force. Can you not offer me an answer? It's beyond ridiculous at this point.

It's beyond ridicilous that you're trying to get me to answer a hypothetical that lacks even a shred of credibility. You may as well ask me to explore the ramifications of the INLA attacking Paisley with a haddock.

The point of my hypothetical situation was not about the final hurdles towards reunification but rather to assess whether you would find it acceptable for a minority in the North to dictate to the majority.

And when did my opinion about violence from a minority tie into this thread. I entered this thread to talk to McMorris about his logic leap.

Please show me how I had a "hissy fit". I think I've remained pretty calm considering you constantly duck my questions and give me sarcastic smilies to deal with.

I've not ducked your questions I've merely pointed out the flaws in your hypothetical and the impressive way you've tried to avoid admiting those flaws and increasingly shrill tones demanded I answer what you admit is increasingly and increasingly displaying itself as a abstract concept. Like I said abstract concepts, go to humanties. Political realities are discussed here.

SOME Unionists and Republicans are objecting to democracy through violence but it is not on a scale of the threat posed 80 years ago. If I've gotten into a "huff" it's because you've ignored the point of my analogy and have decided to do your best to discredit it as a way of avoiding giving me an answer. Sadly for you, I don't think my analogy can be discredited.

And I don't think your hypothetical could be discredited more if it was found in a compromising position in a car drunk with Mc Daid, while they're both in gold sequence dresses.

Now you're suggesting that some unionists will on an increased scale riot and violently organise aganist what is a politcal uncertainity, without presenting any evidence that this is a likely occurance and asked my opinion on this, and got outraged when i said "thats just daft"

You'll appreciate the above paragraph is hard to answer as I'm not sure what you're tryng to say here. My hypothetical is set in the future and is very relevant to the ramifications of the peace process. What does the EU have to do with anything? You neglect to elaborate on this. The fact is the only "plausible and real hurdle" is the fact that a vote for unity in the North seems unlikely for the forseeable future but if it did happen, my hypothetical remains very relevant.

Guh! I think the "increased roll the EU is playing in member states" is the relevancy. You've stated it's set in the future but have only extrapoliated unionist behaviour based on their reaction 80 years ago. By that rational we should keep a constant eye on the german people incase their fashion sense gets a tad militaristic. The hurdles include the ones mentioned by me before, which you've ignored, you've decided what is relevant in your hypothetical and what I can consider relevant. Basicaly you're trying to take your ball away because I won't play your way, oh and thats the hissy fit of yours I mentioned.

mycroft

cdebru wrote:

and DIG has linked a poll for you blows the **** out of your arguement about the brits could not abandon the north

for starts your OP was about NI being abandoned during the treaty negoitations. Which is what I objected to.

Furthermore, you said every[/] opinion poll. I'm moderately certain the daily mail has produced any number of polls to support britain in NI.

your not answering because you cant

Ah you are calling me a liar. Wheres that report post button.

cdebru

MT wrote:

The original cause, yes. The North is a failed and divided society today regardless of any outside influence. The ethnic hatred and the desire on the part of Northern Protestants to maintain an identity and existence apart from the rest of the island and its people does not depend – though it may once have – on Britain’s involvement in Northern Ireland. That sentiment will not die with the arrival of a united Ireland and therein lies the threat to democracy in the Irish Republic..

except the evidence does not support that Southern Unionist felt much the same way as their northern counterparts however once the realisation that an independent Ireland was not a threat to them they have accepted the 26 counties

it may not die immediately it may take a couple of generations but it will die

MT wrote:

That is far too simple a reductive explanation for the problems that exist in the North. Firstly, remove the sectarian state and you still have a large group of Protestants in the North that desire a separate homeland. You’d still have both tribes sectarian hatred for each other – an animus that has lasted centuries and is unlikely to diminish while both sides are forced to compete in a single jurisdiction, whatever its name. The potential for ‘fighting’ will not disappear. .

once the possibility of a propped up statelet is removed then the reason for fighting will be by and large gone as long as we dont replace protestant domination with catholic domination

there is also the fact that that is what the people of Ireland north and south have agreed

MT wrote:

As for the violence emanating from the IRA, it was never concerned primarily with ‘basic human rights’. Their’s was a campaign for constitutional change. In the broader scheme of things, the tension and ensuing violence was part of a vicious cycle that had resulted in fear, which resulted in ethnic one-upmanship, resulting in grievance, resulting in tit for tat violence. Such ethnic sparring has persisted in the North for centuries – long before NI came into existence. Then, throw in national identity and constitutional uncertainty and you have a recipe for internecine feuding bordering on civil war.






As for the inability of protestants and catholics to live together in harmony, this will always persist while both sides differ over their ethnic and national identity. Crucially, while these identities are tied to a shared region then both will forever be forced to compete for a constitutional settlement to the advantage of one side at the expense of the other..

there will not be any constitutional uncertainty one reunification happens

whilst the IRA campaign was centred on the constitutional issue it was because from a republican perspective the only way to end the sectarian divisions and oneupmanship you refer to is to end the cause
ie british imperialism


sectarian divisions happen in other places for example glasgow without violence on any kind of significant scale that would destabalise democracy

MT wrote:

I couldn’t disagree more. What you propose would result in Northern Protestants having to accept a united Ireland and the loss of their separate identity. They do not want to be a part of the Irish nation. This is just as unfair as the prevailing situation. It could only work if they underwent a road to Damascus conversion in terms of self-identity. Given that Northern Nationalists have continued to hold on to their separate identity, not to mention Southerners before them, this would seem extremely unlikely. Indeed, you could propound a similar argument from the opposite view point. If the people of the Irish Republic relinquished any desire to extend sovereignty over the North while its Catholic population adopted a new British identity the problem would also be solved. But is that likely? Equally, it’s just as intolerable as the current situation where Northern Nationalists live at best in a sort of identity limbo and at worst are forced to accept the reality of life as nationals of a state they want no part of. Why force this upon the other side?.

the simple fact of the matter is that the Uk does not want them

and the expresed wish of the population of the 26 counties is for a unitary state
Iam afraid that is life however we do live in a democracy if people wish to maintain their culture and identity that would be their right i would not expect them to change over night but i think with time and a system that protects everyones rights and the knowledge that a return to a northern statelet propped up by british taxpayers would be impossible atitudes would change just as they have amongst the descendants of former southern unionists

MT wrote:

I’m afraid your comments above sound eerily like the much disparaged Marxist false-conciousness theories put foward by Republican academics in the 1970s. According to these, the nationalist identity was seeminly genuine whereas the unionist identity was apparently a mere figment of their imagination cleverly placed there by British propaganda/influence/imperialism, etc. No doubt they'd have offered Unionists tinfoil hats had the opportunity arisen - keep out the electromagnetic brainwaves of the imperial manipulator and all that..

now you are just being silly

MT wrote:

The only long term solution in my view – and I won’t go into this in detail as it’s OT – is repartition and voluntary resettlement. Northern Nationalists get the identity and state they desire and likewise for Northern Protestants/Unionists. This way, neither side is forced to deny their preferred ethnicity or live in a state they do not identify with.

yes you have stated that here before of course not wanting to get completely dragged OT
but that is more of an unworkable solution that either the status quo or a unitary state

cdebru

mycroft wrote:

for starts your OP was about NI being abandoned during the treaty negoitations. Which is what I objected to.

Furthermore, you said every[/] opinion poll. I'm moderately certain the daily mail has produced any number of polls to support britain in NI. .

no it wasn't

my point was once britain has broken the link wether now or 80 years ago fighting to get back in would be pretty pointless


and i did not say every opinion poll

despite the fact that opinion polls show the majority of people in the uk would be quite happy to rid themselves of the 6 counties
and that a former prime minister looked into those options in the 70s

mycroft wrote:

Ah you are calling me a liar. Wheres that report post button.

i never used the word liar i would never be so undiplomatic

people can make up their ownminds as to why you refuse too answer a simple question
my own opinion is that you have answered it given your statements about how large would the statelet be who would be in it would it be economically viable etc
which of course seems to call into question your value of democracy

mycroft

cdebru wrote:

no it wasn't

my point was once britain has broken the link wether now or 80 years ago fighting to get back in would be pretty pointless

and i did not say every opinion poll

No you said opinion polls, the implication being all opinion polls.

i never used the word liar i would never be so undiplomatic

The implication is there. However if theres one thing i've learnt you're rarly honest and forthwright with your opinion or beliefs.

people can make up their ownminds as to why you refuse too answer a simple question

My point is the question is not simplisitc, pretending that the situation is simple or easy and ignoring the political implications and complexity of the situation is an all too common on the pro republican side.

my own opinion is that you have answered it given your statements about how large would the statelet be who would be in it would it be economically viable etc
which of course seems to call into question your value of democracy

Someone who enjoys occasionally defending an illegimate terrorist organisation is questioning "my" value of democracy? :rolleyes:

I've asked the OP to define what this state is, what this group is, their aims, their tactics, before I condemn or support it. For example if it was a small unionist sect determinded to use peaceful resistance in their quest for a sovereign state, would that change the issue, and why.

I'm objecting to it because it's far too simplistic, and the OP knows it' and is now wandering into abstract concepts.

cdebru

mycroft wrote:

No you said opinion polls, the implication being all opinion polls. .

if i meant all i would have said all if i meant every i would have said every i said neither
as usual when caught out by the facts you allege implication

mycroft wrote:

The implication is there. However if theres one thing i've learnt you're rarly honest and forthwright with your opinion or beliefs..

more implication

if you believe that report it and let a mod decide
i have always been honest and forthright and never refused to anewer a question because it was too hard

mycroft wrote:

My point is the question is not simplisitc, pretending that the situation is simple or easy and ignoring the political implications and complexity of the situation is an all too common on the pro republican side.



Someone who enjoys occasionally defending an illegimate terrorist organisation is questioning "my" value of democracy? :rolleyes:

I've asked the OP to define what this state is, what this group is, their aims, their tactics, before I condemn or support it. For example if it was a small unionist sect determinded to use peaceful resistance in their quest for a sovereign state, would that change the issue, and why.

I'm objecting to it because it's far too simplistic, and the OP knows it' and is now wandering into abstract concepts.

it is not simplistic it is far too simplistic which is it

you have answered the question
if faced with a threat of force you would be prepared to ignore the democratic wishes of the people of Ireland
thats all you had to say


the question is simple if a majority of the population of the six counties voted for reunification and unionists based in 2 counties were they are in a majority refused to accept the outcome and threatened violence would you accept that and repartition to suit them or insist on the democratic will of the people being implemented it is really a yes or no

mycroft

cdebru wrote:

if i meant all i would have said all if i meant every i would have said every i said neither
as usual when caught out by the facts you allege implication

Okkkkkaayyyyyyy

So you're saying some opinion polls. Which we'll agree aren't an accurate assessment of the issue. Which means they count didly squat. Which means your original pout re opinion polls prove that the UK doesnt want NI is, y'know moot.

more implication

if you believe that report it and let a mod decide
i have always been honest and forthright and never refused to anewer a question because it was too hard

too hard? That'd be another implication. And I have reported this to a mod. And I never said the question was too hard. Just too stupid.

And cdebru, ducking the implications of supporting terrorists by saying "I'm a republician, but" while condenmning some of the more distasteful terrorists acts by republicans, meaning you can have your beliefs and then ignore some of the less pleasant impilications of your beliefs and deftly sidestep some of the harder arguments you should be forced to face. Thats refusing to answer questions that are too hard.

it is not simplistic it is far too simplistic which is it

you have answered the question
if faced with a threat of force you would be prepared to ignore the democratic wishes of the people of Ireland
thats all you had to say

THATS. NOT. WHAT. I. AM. SAYING.

Incidently what would a terrorist campaign that doesn't have a democratic mandate be?

the question is simple if a majority of the population of the six counties voted for reunification and unionists based in 2 counties were they are in a majority refused to accept the outcome and threatened violence would you accept that and repartition to suit them or insist on the democratic will of the people being implemented it is really a yes or no

And again you're going OT. And over simplistic. How large is this group? What level of violence, what are their demands, specifically? Can a negotiated settlement be reached? Because thats what we're doing now at the moment settling with several terrorist organisations to achieve a peaceful negotiated settlement, and to follow the logic of that argument of yours for the last 30 years the democratic will of the majority of the people of NI has been to remain part of the union, and therefore the british government were right to suppress the IRA, and negotiations would be irrelevant. Are you saying thats the correct course of action?

cdebru

mycroft wrote:

Okkkkkaayyyyyyy

So you're saying some opinion polls. Which we'll agree aren't an accurate assessment of the issue. Which means they count didly squat. Which means your original pout re opinion polls prove that the UK doesnt want NI is, y'know moot. ?

if you can link to opinion polls that contradict the one you have been given then it may be moot

mycroft wrote:

too hard? That'd be another implication. And I have reported this to a mod. And I never said the question was too hard. Just too stupid. ?

i await with baited breath

mycroft wrote:

And cdebru, ducking the implications of supporting terrorists by saying "I'm a republician, but" while condenmning some of the more distasteful terrorists acts by republicans, meaning you can have your beliefs and then ignore some of the less pleasant impilications of your beliefs and deftly sidestep some of the harder arguments you should be forced to face. Thats refusing to answer questions that are too hard. ?

i have not ducked any implication
merely stated what iam if that does not suit you that you cant put me in a particular box thats tough for you

mycroft wrote:

THATS. NOT. WHAT. I. AM. SAYING.

Incidently what would a terrorist campaign that doesn't have a democratic mandate be?





And again you're going OT. And over simplistic. How large is this group? What level of violence, what are their demands, specifically? Can a negotiated settlement be reached? Because thats what we're doing now at the moment settling with several terrorist organisations to achieve a peaceful negotiated settlement, and to follow the logic of that argument of yours for the last 30 years the democratic will of the majority of the people of NI has been to remain part of the union, and therefore the british government were right to suppress the IRA, and negotiations would be irrelevant. Are you saying thats the correct course of action?

your just beating around the bush rather than answering a straight forward question

Ok mycroft and cdebru.
Seeing as you both want it.
Take a 72 hour break from the forum effective immediately .
I suggest a few treatments down at the wells spa or inchydoney island for both of ye.

pm me when the time is up.

oscarBravo

MT wrote:

Out of curiousity could you define what constitutes an 'artificial state'?

Beat me to it. More to the point, I'd like to know what constitutes a natural state? Surely states are ipso facto artificial, given that the word means "man-made".