[Article] Quarter of NI Catholics back British status

rsynnott

axer wrote:

True, but it was enevitable when one side attacks another that the other side would fight back.

They should possibly consider stopping now, though?

I think it would be absolutely bizarre for it to become part of the Republic without a clear majority vote, and at the moment it just doesn't look like people would do that.

axer

rsynnott wrote:

They should possibly consider stopping now, though?

definitely.

Fear is the cause of all the problems in the North since the attempt of passing the home rule act in 1893.

Macmorris

MT wrote:

Indeed, the atmosphere as a whole in Irish politics often strikes me as one that’s labouring under a sort of lack of national fulfilment. That the very nation the parties desire to govern will only ever be some sort of half finished, stop-gap measure until the great day of Irish unity arrives. Or in the words of one Republican I once spoke to, ‘…we are and we’ll remain nothing more than a pathetic bunch until the national goal is achieved and we get the north.’

Even though I think you're right in what you're saying about attitudes to the southern state, and as much as I despise republicans, I would have to say that I consider myself on the republican side in feeling uncomfortable with the idea of a southern Irish identity. Like most people in the republic, I've always considered myself more 'Irish' than 'Republic of Irish', and so a united Ireland for me isn't so much about regaining lost territory as it is about uniting my country. I've just never been able to develop much affection for the southern state. For example, I've never really been able to support the Republic of Ireland soccer team because of it's exclusion of the nothern counties. Although I've no interest in sport, I find it much easier to support the all-Ireland rugby team.

If a clear majority in Northern Ireland’s failed and undemocratic society wishes not to pollute the successful Irish Republic with its warped values

Warped values? Isn't that taking it a bit far? Southern liberals seem to have a tendency to exaggerate northern dysfunctionality in order to contrast it with the enlightened liberal south. A lot of the dysfunctionality of the north is actually caused by partition (e.g. the insecure constitutional status based on demographics) itself, and with the end of partition much of that dysfunctionality will disappear. Sectarianism might still be a problem but as long as it's peacefully channelled I don't see why it can't be contained. If the price of unity is for nationalists to become less sensitive towards displays of protestant supremacy then I think that would be a price most of us would be prepared to pay.

The challenge for Irish nationalism is really about creating the kind of Ireland where Ulster protestants feel as comfortable as possible. I think we can take the nothern catholics for granted. They should be content enough in a united Ireland that they'll blend in with the rest of the catholics on the island and they'll forget about their antipathy to the protestants.

For example, in a united Ireland northern catholics might be much more tolerant of things like orange marches because they would be more conscious of the need to reassure protestants that their culture is being respected. In turn, protestants might begin to feel like a valued minority and might begin to change their attitudes to the catholics. Partition hasn't exactly been good for protestants, with their numbers falling since the 1920s. If they were assured that their culture would be better protected in a united Ireland than it is in the current set-up, they might change their mind about partition.

Like the British tried to 'kill Home Rule with kindness', nationalists could take the same approach to killing unionism. In a United Ireland therefore, it's possible that unity would have a positive affect on at least one side (the nationalist side) in the north, thereby reducing a lot of the tension.

Charles Haughey is a case in point. He was so obsessed with ‘getting the North’ that he once offered to hand over control of the ports to the British in exchange for the ‘hallowed’ territory – a damning example of potentially terrible governance in pursuit of the national goal.

What about De Velara, who was supposedly offered the six counties by Churchill in return for the southern state entering the war on Britain's side? Even though it's unlikely that the offer was fully thought out, it's interesting that a southern Irish politician wasn't more excited about such an offer being made by a British prime minister.

Should Ireland govern for the reality or a distant dream?

Under your proposals, we would have to stop talking about 'Ireland' and instead start talking about the 'Republic of Ireland'. And we'll no longer be able to list our nationality as 'Irish'. Instead we'll have to become 'Republic of Irish'.

As well as that we would have to de-emphasize those aspects of our culture that are 'Irish' ( language, GAA, history, traditional music etc.) in case we encourage any kind of pan-Irishness.

I honestly don't think there will ever be a time when people in the republic will be content in a partitioned Ireland and so what you propose (a proud southern Ireland) is actually much less likely than a united Ireland. Although many people may not feel particularly strongly about a united Ireland, if given the choice between a successful partitioned Ireland, and a successful united Ireland, there is no question but that most people would vote for a united Ireland.

And, in fairness, even though we're set to have other problems in the south in the next few decades, political instability caused by our attitude to the north isn't likely to be one of them in the future.

MT

Macmorris wrote:

Like most people in the republic, I've always considered myself more 'Irish' than 'Republic of Irish', and so a united Ireland for me isn't so much about regaining lost territory as it is about uniting my country.

But why must Irishness be tied to the entire island? Why must the Irish identity and the state that contains it be fixed to a precise territory?

IMO while a sense of nationhood and its accompanying identity is vital in establishing the bond amongst a group of people that ensures a functional society, we should never forget that it is a human invention. By inventing the state – or nation if you like – an entity was created that has allowed for the greatest advances in fair societal organisation, economic and scientific advancement and so on. However, vital though it is to these ‘breakthroughs’, the state is only an invention of the mind. Children don’t know they’ve been born Irish but are taught and conditioned to be so as they grow into adults.

Ireland and Irishness are our own creations and so too is the notion that these identities are tied to an exact geographic area. The geographic area in question, this island, has been here for thousands of years populated by people that had little concept of nationhood or common identity until such things were created in the last two millennia. Unlike them or the island they inhabited, there is nothing natural or organic about their common identity or nation state. Of course, the latter two are very good inventions in my view – nationhood and national identity supporting the societal evolution we benefit from today. But they are still abstract concepts and there is no reason why they must be tied to any physical form – whether it’s this island, that island or somewhere else.

What I’ve attempted to argue on this and other threads is that, to the contrary, there is a very good argument why the abstract and extremely beneficial invention of the Irish nation should not be tied to the entirety of this island. Firstly, because the society in the part of the island currently beyond the Irish state is catastrophically dysfunctional – its incorporation would harm the successful ‘southern’ society. And, secondly, even if the North was normal and posed no threat, the very desire for constitutional expansion is in itself harmful to the functioning of the Irish nation.

I’m never going to win any prizes for literature and so the above probably reads like gobbledegook. But, in short, I believe Irishness was invented, a good invention at that but an invention none the less. The problem is that this identity is tied to an island that contains an area where a majority do not share it. Crucially, an area that's beyond the reach of the Irish state and will likely remain so indefinetly. This disharmony between the notion of Irish nationhood and the actual state as it exists damages the potential of the nation to function as well as it can. I’ve outlined some of the consequences, there are many more. But in particular, when people desire to the point of belief that their state is something it is not, the reaction to what it really is can only be negative.

In this regard, a considerable portion of Irish society would seem almost schizophrenic if it were a person. The reality of their state seems to be so contemptible and inadequate that the idealised all-island republic is desired to the point of blinding obsession. Just listen to ‘southern’ Republicans pour withering scorn on the ‘partitionist Free State’ while romanticising the ideal of the 32 county Republic. A state whose existence is so often promised to be just imminent that it for many it seems to have taken on a reality all of its own. For that matter, I recently read in near amazement through an earnest discussion between some Republicans about the foreign policy of a United Ireland. Had you arrived from Mars the content of the comments would have left you in little doubt that this idealised nation had long since come to pass. The fantasy seemed to have become reality.

Is it any wonder, that for some, the real Irish Republic arouses such disillusioned animosity?

axer

MT wrote:

But why must Irishness be tied to the entire island? Why must the Irish identity and the state that contains it be fixed to a precise territory?

IMO while a sense of nationhood and its accompanying identity is vital in establishing the bond amongst a group of people that ensures a functional society, we should never forget that it is a human invention. By inventing the state – or nation if you like – an entity was created that has allowed for the greatest advances in fair societal organisation, economic and scientific advancement and so on. However, vital though it is to these ‘breakthroughs’, the state is only an invention of the mind. Children don’t know they’ve been born Irish but are taught and conditioned to be so as they grow into adults.

Ireland and Irishness are our own creations and so too is the notion that these identities are tied to an exact geographic area. The geographic area in question, this island, has been here for thousands of years populated by people that had little concept of nationhood or common identity until such things were created in the last two millennia. Unlike them or the island they inhabited, there is nothing natural or organic about their common identity or nation state. Of course, the latter two are very good inventions in my view – nationhood and national identity supporting the societal evolution we benefit from today. But they are still abstract concepts and there is no reason why they must be tied to any physical form – whether it’s this island, that island or somewhere else.

What I’ve attempted to argue on this and other threads is that, to the contrary, there is a very good argument why the abstract and extremely beneficial invention of the Irish nation should not be tied to the entirety of this island. Firstly, because the society in the part of the island currently beyond the Irish state is catastrophically dysfunctional – its incorporation would harm the successful ‘southern’ society. And, secondly, even if the North was normal and posed no threat, the very desire for constitutional expansion is in itself harmful to the functioning of the Irish nation.

I’m never going to win any prizes for literature and so the above probably reads like gobbledegook. But, in short, I believe Irishness was invented, a good invention at that but an invention none the less. The problem is that this identity is tied to an island that contains an area where it is not shared and over which the Irish state has no control. In all likelyhood it may never encompass that area. This disharmony between the notion of Irish nationhood and the actual state as it exists damages the potential of the nation to function as well as it can. I’ve outlined some of the consequences, there are many more. But in particular, when people desire to the point of belief that their state is something it is not, the reaction to what it really is can only be negative.

In this regard, a considerable portion of Irish society would seem almost schizophrenic if it were a person. The reality of their state seems to be so contemptible and inadequate that the idealised all-island republic is desired to the point of blinding obsession. Just listen to ‘southern’ Republicans pour withering scorn on the ‘partitionist Free State’ while romanticising the ideal of the 32 county Republic. A state whose existence is so often promised to be just imminent that it for many it seems to have taken on a reality all of its own. For that matter, I recently read in near amazement through an earnest discussion between some Republicans about the foreign policy of a United Ireland. Had you arrived from Mars the content of the comments would have left you in little doubt that this idealised nation had long since come to pass. The fantasy seemed to have become reality.

Is it any wonder, that for some, the real Irish Republic arouses such disillusioned animosity?

I think you are looking too deep into it.
How about - Ireland should be Ireland and not the Republic of Ireland & Northern Ireland. It is ridiculous that this small island is split into 2 countries. To think that the island was a country, england invades and takes it, plants a few of their own, decide its not worth the hassle holding onto and are just about to give it back when a few protestants up north act up as they fear that the catholics might threat the protestants the way the catholics were threated by the protestants then because the army in the curragh were protestant - the army wouldnt sort them out. To me that all sounds stupid.
I want Ireland to be a united Ireland simply because it is wrong that there is a division in the first place. It is wrong and impractical.

DublinWriter

murphaph wrote:

It's handy having Newry for the UK prices too. Sainsbury's is well cheap and B&Q is as well.

Oh, the hand fumbling in the greasy till! The heros of '16 are rolling in their graves, etc, etc, etc!

BTW, where's the best place for shopping in Newry now?

Seriously, I'm surprised only a 25% back the current status quo. I bet there's a wee bit of a gulf between what Catholics would be prepared to admit publically and what they think privately.

If they knew the true nature of ROI (Rip off Ireland), I'd say the figure would be closer to about 75%.

bonkey

axer wrote:

I think you are looking too deep into it.

Or perhaps you're not looking deep enough?

How about - Ireland should be Ireland and not the Republic of Ireland & Northern Ireland.

Why?

It is ridiculous that this small island is split into 2 countries.

Why?

To me that all sounds stupid.

And to me it sounds like a painfully oversimplified and deliberately one-way-slanted version of several hundredyears of history.

because it is wrong that there is a division in the first place. It is wrong and impractical.

Why and why?

You keep making these declarations that things are wrong/ridiculous, and that they should be different.....but these declarations rest on nothing more than that you say it should be so.

Like I said...rather than someone else looking too deeply into things, it would strike me as though you have started with a conclusion and are seeking to present non-arguments as some sort of reasoning to justify (but not explain how you reached) the conclusion.

You're fully entitled to those views, but thats a seperate matter.

jc

BuffyBot

It is wrong and impractical.

How is it impractical?

axer

bonkey wrote:

Or perhaps you're not looking deep enough?

How can Irishness be segregated?

bonkey wrote:

Why?

It is a small island and it helps no-one that the Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland were seperated. It doesn't help the North as they are being governed by a distant government. Northern Ireland's economy is not as strong as the Republic of Ireland's but could have been if it had not being seperated. It in itself would not have slowed the Republics economy growth.

bonkey wrote:

Why?

Considering both are part of Ireland as a whole - there was no reason for the divide other than the protestants fear of catholic avengence. Now it is just stubborness and pride.

bonkey wrote:

And to me it sounds like a painfully oversimplified and deliberately one-way-slanted version of several hundredyears of history.

It was either 3 lines or a book. In what way was it slanted?

bonkey wrote:

Why and why?

Wrong as it was taken and does not help anybody being seperated. Impractical as it help/helps crime, caused terrorism, created deeper divisions between the catholics and protestants, seperate policing states, difficulties due to different currencies (tourism & trade)...and so on.

bonkey wrote:

You're fully entitled to those views, but thats a seperate matter.

thanks.

Flex

Id like to pose a question to all the pro partitionists on this thread. Basically it goes like ;If Ireland can be partitioned because people from Britain are living here who desire a link with Britain, why cant the same be done for the Irish living in Britain? The situations are pretty identical ; Irish have been in Britain for centuries, still feel a strong sense of Irishness and attachment to the Irish State(for example Liverpool consistantly elected Irish nationalist MP's) and so on. Only difference between the Irish in Britain and British in Ireland is the Irish didnt arrive in Britain with soldiers to drive the natives out of the place.As some also love pointing out how Ireland was, in their opinion not a single entity which validates partitioning Ireland ,well, Ireland was just as much a single political entity and had as much structural union as Britain.Thus, if Ireland could be partitioned to allow people from the island of Britain to maintain a "link" with that island, then people from the other island of the UK(as it was) could be afforded a similar right. If you agree with this arguement your consenting partition in Ireland is wrong and shouldnt exist unless a corresponding arrangement is made for the Irish in Britain; if you disagree your being hypocritical.

ISAW

MT wrote:

But why must Irishness be tied to the entire island? Why must the Irish identity and the state that contains it be fixed to a precise territory?

Because of exactly that. In modern terms unlike European "States" Ireland can define itself on geographical features to a much greatewr degree. I admit rivers mountains etc. do work to some degree but being surrounded by water is a much clearer demarcation.

IMO while a sense of nationhood and its accompanying identity is vital in establishing the bond amongst a group of people that ensures a functional society, we should never forget that it is a human invention. By inventing the state – or nation if you like – an entity was created that has allowed for the greatest advances in fair societal organisation, economic and scientific advancement and so on.

A couple of comments related to geopolitical entities. Go back 1000 to 1500 years. Ireland was esentially forest. Travelling to the midlands took maybe a week. Crossing the country was mainly done by sea. so the connections were mainly sea routes. Hence links with Wales Scotland France Spain North Africa. Cultures like the Dal Cassians(is it splet right?) inhabated West Scotland and East Irelans. Such a set up fell in with the geographical reality and the technological set up (e.g. no internal infrastructure). Quite possible the Dal Gais had a sort of "Pale" 1000 years before the Anglo Normans had and other "savage" tribes lived inland of Tara etc.

Furthermore it could be said that the concept of "nation" developed about 150 to 200 years ago and was paralled by the wider availability of newspapers (and prior to that pamphlettes) and the wide availability of pictorial maps (particularly in areas where literacy was low). also there was the technoligical availability and development of railways.

However, vital though it is to these ‘breakthroughs’, the state is only an invention of the mind. Children don’t know they’ve been born Irish but are taught and conditioned to be so as they grow into adults.

But to develop my theme one could argue sociocultural identity is tied to geopolitical and economic reality coupled with technological availability.

Ireland and Irishness are our own creations and so too is the notion that these identities are tied to an exact geographic area.

You are basically saying that "Irish" people did not exist until they called themselves that. But the people were here whatever they called themselves. They did have common sociocultural values customs etc.

The geographic area in question, this island, has been here for thousands of years populated by people that had little concept of nationhood or common identity until such things were created in the last two millennia.

You have no way of supporting that! It is reasonable to suggest the Fir Bolg or Miletians had a common identity. and if you go back 10,000 to 50,000 years or to a point where there were say 10,000 people in the entire world then the idea of a nation makes no sense does it? It would however after say a future nuclear or plague war where there might be only 10,000 people left.

Unlike them or the island they inhabited, there is nothing natural or organic about their common identity or nation state. Of course, the latter two are very good inventions in my view – nationhood and national identity supporting the societal evolution we benefit from today. But they are still abstract concepts and there is no reason why they must be tied to any physical form – whether it’s this island, that island or somewhere else.

To go into science fiction. do you then believe that should the galaxy be colonised that those from other systems should all regard themselves as culturally "the same". this seems silly to me. People who live on the ocean all their lives or in mountains or in snow develop different ways of looking at the world. So in Herberts "Dune" you have cultures based on water and once centered areond lack of water and availability of "spice". It is the same formula geography plus economics plus technology equals culture. Or at least proportionates it.

What I’ve attempted to argue on this and other threads is that, to the contrary, there is a very good argument why the abstract and extremely beneficial invention of the Irish nation should not be tied to the entirety of this island.

Ah! Okay. But while one can have a nation without a state can one have a nation state without a nation? Look at Israel.


snip

I’m never going to win any prizes for literature and so the above probably reads like gobbledegook. But, in short, I believe Irishness was invented, a good invention at that but an invention none the less.

I wont entertain self put downs! It is actually quite tought provoking and a reasonable arguement IMHO. Cant continue. Sadly I have to go somewhere this week and probably cant continue this.

Bobby Storey

Aghhhh, another MT moronism



Quote:
If a clear majority in Northern Ireland’s failed and undemocratic society wishes not to pollute the successful Irish Republic with its warped values


You mean of course the banana republic presided over by Bertie, don't you now? I mean brown envelopes stuffed with cash, corruption and the Donegal/Dublin rent a cop scheme, are perfect examples of successful government are they not? I mean how come the Celtic Tiger never got out of Dublin or the Southeast?

murphaph

Bobby Storey wrote:

Aghhhh, another MT moronism



Quote:
If a clear majority in Northern Ireland’s failed and undemocratic society wishes not to pollute the successful Irish Republic with its warped values


You mean of course the banana republic presided over by Bertie, don't you now? I mean brown envelopes stuffed with cash, corruption and the Donegal/Dublin rent a cop scheme, are perfect examples of successful government are they not? I mean how come the Celtic Tiger never got out of Dublin or the Southeast?

Two things, you'd better stop attaking the poster and attack the post or a mod will ban you and please use the quote tags properly when quoting others-it makes it much easier to read. Thanks.

gurramok

Bobby Storey wrote:

I mean how come the Celtic Tiger never got out of Dublin or the Southeast?

Err, most places have boomed outside the areas you mentioned.
Galway/Limerick for the west and beloved kerry for the soutwest as well as towns in the midlands and the north east.

Bobby Storey

Bobby Storey wrote:

Aghhhh, another MT moronism

Banned for 2 weeks for blatant abuse.

79cortinaz

doesnt that mean that 75% of catholics dont want to remain with britain?

murphaph

79cortinaz wrote:

doesnt that mean that 75% of catholics dont want to remain with britain?

Yep, but there's a bunch of 'others' up there who do and seeing as it's a democracy-the staus quo shall remain. There's also no reason to assume that that 25% won't increase over time! (I personally think it will as long as the situation remains somewhat 'normal' in NI).

rsynnott

79cortinaz wrote:

doesnt that mean that 75% of catholics dont want to remain with britain?

Yes, but it also means that the majority of the population DO. Unless you want to further partition Northern Ireland, that's not an option.

It occurs to me that if anyone up there is really so unhappy with oppressive British rule, they can always move south...

murphaph

rsynnott wrote:

It occurs to me that if anyone up there is really so unhappy with oppressive British rule, they can always move south...

Yep, record levels in employment and you wouldn't even need a wok permit to move south to escape the oppression. I might move north myself and get me a cheap house when they've all escaped

79cortinaz

rsynnott wrote:

Yes, but it also means that the majority of the population DO. Unless you want to further partition Northern Ireland, that's not an option.

It occurs to me that if anyone up there is really so unhappy with oppressive British rule, they can always move south...

Apathy rules eh?

rsynnott

79cortinaz wrote:

Apathy rules eh?

Sorry, what? You seem to be missing the point. The majority of the people in that country wish to remain part of the UK. It would be unreasonable to make them part of a country that they don't want, and realistically, a country that doesn't want and can't afford them.

79cortinaz

the only way to find out what the majority of people want is by a referendum.

Apathy btw, since no one seems to have bothered asking how representative the people in their homes where. like, where exactly where the homes? was the survey representing equally all classes who live in the north?

I have no idea, so I find it apathetic when people take such things as definitive and true without looking behind the scenes.

All it represents to be is that a majority of catholics dont want to be associated with britain.

MrPudding

79cortinaz wrote:

All it represents to be is that a majority of catholics dont want to be associated with britain.

Yes, but a overall majority of people in NI do.

The question of the accuracy of the poll has already been addressed. As far as I know it was carried out using a properly selected group. Polling companies would typically try to represent the makeup of the society they polling as accuratly as possible.

MrP

murphaph

79cortinaz wrote:

the only way to find out what the majority of people want is by a referendum.

Interesting that SF never call for such a referendum then, because we all know it would not pass.

79cortinaz wrote:

All it represents to be is that a majority of catholics dont want to be associated with britain.

But it was only a survey-not a referendum, I imagine when it came to the crunch that a hell of a lot of catholics would actually vote to remain part of the UK (for the obvious social benefits of the UK welfare state) because it seems they have never had a better opportunity to leave the UK and move to an Irish Republic which has the strongest economy in Europe (on paper-I actually think it's the UK with that honour). They don't all move en-masse down south though do they?

79cortinaz

murphaph wrote:

Interesting that SF never call for such a referendum then, because we all know it would not pass.


But it was only a survey-not a referendum, I imagine when it came to the crunch that a hell of a lot of catholics would actually vote to remain part of the UK (for the obvious social benefits of the UK welfare state) because it seems they have never had a better opportunity to leave the UK and move to an Irish Republic which has the strongest economy in Europe (on paper-I actually think it's the UK with that honour). They don't all move en-masse down south though do they?

why would they? the south is over priced and run by crooks. plus its full of people who dont really have a notion whats happening in the north.

A united ireland would be a massive undertaking over many years and the end result wouldnt resemble either the north or the south as they presently stand so your point about people wishing to stay there (for the obvious social benefits of the UK welfare state) doesnt actually make much sense .. or it is shortsighted, one of the two.

what ever made you think every catholic wants to be in a united ireland anyway? I know many middle class catholics who like things just the way they are now, but thats still only 25% of the nationalist population, which is (in nationalist terms) a minority. Again you are assuming you know the ration of nationalist/unionist in the north, which I dont think anyone at this stage knows, considering the lack of nationalist reponse to the census in 1980, 1990 and 2000.

If though, 75% of catholics wished to remain in britain - then you would have something to debate about.

murphaph

Please quote each individual point of mine that you disagree with and then give your counter-argument. It's impossible to see where we disagree when you just paste my whole post into quotes and then start writing again. For example-you state that I state that 'all catholics want to be in a UI', whereas if you read this thread you'll see that's not my opinion at all and I've never even implied it. If we don't quote each other's points which we disagree with it's just wo or more people ranting at each other. Thanks.

79cortinaz

sorry man, but where did i state you thought catholics want to be in a UI? I only said that your statment that people would vote to remain part of the UK (for the obvious social benefits of the UK welfare state) wouldnt be correct considering that the country would be a different animal if it was united and not necessarily like the north or south we presently know.

murphaph

79cortinaz wrote:

sorry man, but where did i state you thought catholics want to be in a UI?

Here;

79cortinaz wrote:

what ever made you think every catholic wants to be in a united ireland anyway?

79cortinaz

ah - what I was trying to say there was why the surprise that 25% or catholics want to stay in britain ..as in why would you think all catholics would want a united ireland. to me its obviously that a percentage of catholics are happy with things but it doesnt get around the fact that 75% of them dont want to be in britain. ergo its no big deal that 25% of catholics want to remain with britain. as I say. if it was 75% of catholics wishing to remain in britain then that would be saying something. as it is, this isnt much of a debate.

murphaph

79cortinaz wrote:

ah - what I was trying to say there was why the surprise that 25% or catholics want to stay in britain ..as in why would you think all catholics would want a united ireland.

aarrghh-I'm not in the least bit surprised that 25% of catholics want NI to remain part of the UK. I actually believe the figures would be higher in the event of an actual referendum, but that's not up for debate right now and I have no facts to back this up.

79cortinaz wrote:

to me its obviously that a percentage of catholics are happy with things but it doesnt get around the fact that 75% of them dont want to be in britain.

Accepted, 100%.

79cortinaz wrote:

ergo its no big deal that 25% of catholics want to remain with britain. as I say. if it was 75% of catholics wishing to remain in britain then that would be saying something. as it is, this isnt much of a debate.

Ergo, it's no big deal that ~25% of the population of NI wish NI to leave the UK and if it were ~75% then that would be saying something. As it is, that isn't much of a debate.