Partition works - lets keep it that way.

rsynnott

hill16 wrote:

Any person in Ireland who believes Britain has a right to be here can not call himself a true Irshman.

Hmm, how's that one work? And what's a true Irishman, in any case? And is it something I necessarily want to be called?

murphaph

hill16 wrote:

Any person in Ireland who believes Britain has a right to be here can not call himself a true Irshman.

Britain isn't here though. The british government only maintains direct rule of NI from Westminster through the NIO because the twats up north can't agree to run devolved government among themselves. That's the funniest thing-people here seem to think NI is ready and able to join a united ireland when the sh!tty little dump can't even run itself because it's people can't stop bickering.

sceptre

hill16 wrote:

Any person in Ireland who believes Britain has a right to be here can not call himself a true Irshman.

I'm sorry but if you want me to take you seriously enough to bother either adressing or perhaps even supporting your arguments at any point in this dimension of existence you'll have to come up with something rather dramatically better than waving a big flag or whatever you're currently doing.

Ditto whoever came up with the rather unconvincing argument that can be summed up as "I don't give a flying fig about X, Y, Z as long as I get what I reckon is my rightful pissing ground". There may have been more than one there. Decidedly poor.

Flex

I wonder how far that logic should be taken? Hand back the United States and Canada to various Indian tribes, return New Zeland to the Maorie and so on...

Sad thing is, even if the land was given back to those people, it wouldnt do them any good. Unlike here, in places like North America, Australia and New Zealand and so on, the 'native' populations are all outnumbered by those settlers that came and took their homelands. Hence, it wouldnt do them much good, unless there is some sort of genocide carried out. In Ireland however, we outnumber the 'settlers' by about 5:1. Thats the difference

And once again people are mentionig the huge number of Catholics against a UI, which makes me wonder why theAlliance Party only won 3%(of which I would presume their was some protestant votes too) of the vote in the last Assembly elections.

During the Irish politics module i did on my course we were shown surveys of peoples opinions about the north and the troubles and so on, one of which stated that over 80% of the people of Ireland are in favor of a UI and believe the long term solution or objective is for the north to reunite with the rest of ireland.

Flex

murphaph wrote:

First of all, Germany believed that the Sudetenland had been stolen from it, so they annexed Czechoslovakia, was that acceptable to you?

Germany lost the Sudetenland as punishment for invading and occupying its neighbours. We lost the north east for being invaded and occupied by our neighbour.

Hydroquinone

When is there ever going to be one of these referenda?
Does anyone know?

rsynnott

Hydroquinone wrote:

When is there ever going to be one of these referenda?
Does anyone know?

What referenda? A referendum in NI to join the Republic? Not much point, really, is there?

sceptre

Flex wrote:

Germany lost the Sudetenland as punishment for invading and occupying its neighbours.

No it didn't. It's been part of Great Moravia (for five years or so 1200 years ago), ruled by the Czechs (in the guide of the Přemyslids), by the Jagiellons as part of the kingdom of Bohemia, by the Austrians, again by the Czechs after WW1 and that's as far as anyone can go back to when people were wearing skins and arguing with the remnants of the Romans. And the German government took control of it in 1938. Go check (which, to be fair, you should have done before offering the contrast).

Mucco

If (when?) there is a referendum, I will be voting not to allow the north join the south. While I am a great europhile, and believe in reducing borders, the recent election in the north has convinced me I want nothing to do with that sort of society.
If anyone can give me any reasoned argument why I should change my opinion, I'd love to hear it.

M

rsynnott

Mucco wrote:

If anyone can give me any reasoned argument why I should change my opinion, I'd love to hear it.

Reasoned argument? While discussing NI? Are you mad?!

Hydroquinone

rsynnott wrote:

What referenda? A referendum in NI to join the Republic? Not much point, really, is there?

The point would be that then we'd actually know what everyone wants, and get on and do it, rather than all this mindless "surveys have shown" nonsense that we get on here all the time.

A referendum in the North and a referendum in the Republic, why don't they just do it? What's stopping them?
Do you want NI and RoI to be untited under Dublin rule?
An NI yes and RoI yes vote would mean the end of partition.
All other results would mean the status quo was maintained.

rsynnott

Hydroquinone wrote:

A referendum in the North and a referendum in the Republic, why don't they just do it? What's stopping them?
Do youwant Ni and RoI to be untited under Dublin rule?
An NI yes and RoI yes vote would mean the end of partition.
All other results would mean the status quo was maintained.

Referenda cost money, and the outcome, at least in the North, is predetermined. Also, I can't imagine the (Irish) government would be keen.

Hydroquinone

How is it predetermined in NI? How do you know? How can anyone know until they actually do it?

rsynnott

Hydroquinone wrote:

How is it predetermined in NI? How do you know? How can anyone know until they actually do it?

Well, at least the Irish government would be very unwilling to do it. No doubt the UK government would quite like to get rid of NI, but really, do you think people in the North would vote yes?

Hydroquinone

I don't know. Neither do you and nor does anyone else, which is the whole point.

Mucco

rsynnott wrote:

do you think people in the North would vote yes?

Give it a few years, demographics will take its course.....

rsynnott

Mucco wrote:

Give it a few years, demographics will take its course.....

You're assuming, then, that the trend of catholics opposing it will end?

mycroft

Flex wrote:

Sad thing is, even if the land was given back to those people, it wouldnt do them any good. Unlike here, in places like North America, Australia and New Zealand and so on, the 'native' populations are all outnumbered by those settlers that came and took their homelands. Hence, it wouldnt do them much good, unless there is some sort of genocide carried out. In Ireland however, we outnumber the 'settlers' by about 5:1. Thats the difference

And once again people are mentionig the huge number of Catholics against a UI, which makes me wonder why theAlliance Party only won 3%(of which I would presume their was some protestant votes too) of the vote in the last Assembly elections.

During the Irish politics module i did on my course we were shown surveys of peoples opinions about the north and the troubles and so on, one of which stated that over 80% of the people of Ireland are in favor of a UI and believe the long term solution or objective is for the north to reunite with the rest of ireland.

This would be the same people of Ireland that voted overwhelming, in favour of removing our constitutional claim to NI? Because that'd be flaw in your argument.

Your survey probably didn't go into the specifics of exactly what we'd endure to see a united Ireland, the several billion a year it will cost us, the potential for violence, and the oppression, of the unionist (slim) majority.

While the majority of ireland would be in favour of a united ireland at some point, I suspect the only people who think it's going to be a good idea for some time are the ones who sing "a nation once again" over and over again to drown out all rational thought.

Dave!

mike65 wrote:

I wonder how far that logic should be taken? Hand back the United States and Canada to various Indian tribes, return New Zeland to the Maorie and so on...

Well I don't think that's as reasonable considering they're only 1% at most of the population. But I do agree with the sentiment, take land out of the hands of the people who stole it and give it back to those who own it(or whose ancestors own it, since people like to get into the whole "they weren't alive then" thing). Mass murder and rape for the sake of it is something I'm not too keen on forgetting. And then those left alive, they treat them like sh*t. I think that the English should be ashamed of their history, really, because they've ruined anything good and replaced it with materialistic crap.

oscarBravo wrote:

It wasn't stolen from me, and I somehow doubt it was stolen from any of your alleged majority either.

No, but it was stolen from our ancestors, from the collective Irish people.

And I don't think I said that there was a majority in the Republic; from what I've heard, there's not, people don't want the burden; but in a couple of generations there probably will be.

murphaph wrote:

First of all, Germany believed that the Sudetenland had been stolen from it, so they annexed Czechoslovakia, was that acceptable to you?

I don't know any of the history, so I can't really comment there.

murphaph wrote:

Secondly I, like OscarBravo do not believe anything has been stolen from me, so speak for yourself and not an entire nation.

I am speaking for myself. I believe that Irish land was stolen from the Irish people, by the British.

murphaph wrote:

Thirdly, simplistic religious divides mean zip-plenty of NI catholics would not vote to sever the union and to the same end, a small minority of protestants would vote to end the union. Most people up north know what side their bread's buttered on however and would vote NO.

I already said that it's inaccurate and that I was merely giving an approximation, as there have been no decent opinion polls done recently. I myself am agnostic/atheist and a Republican, so I'm well aware that Catholic does not equal Republican and vice versa.

murphaph wrote:

Fourthly, have you any concept of democracy? It's got nowt to do with 'giving it back' and all to do with a decision of the majority of the people of NI, not GB or the RoI to decide!!! They live there ffs.

Well, here's hoping that the trends continue they way they're going, and the Republicans will become the majority in a few generations. It should coincide nicely with the trend in the South. We're not far away now.

murphaph wrote:

An opinion poll is virtually worthless. Unless it's a secret ballot whereby the result means something (ie a real referendum) and the people are made fully aware of the expected increase in taxation and decrease in social services they could be likely to expect following irish unity before they cast their secret votes.

Could an external, unbiased pollster not organise it and keep it secret? I guess it would be pretty difficult. Why do the results have to mean something for people to express their (secret) opinion?

And people are fully aware of the burden of taking on the extra land and people. From what I hear from several people, that's the main reason why some are reluctant to reunite.

murphaph wrote:

You said it.

Touché

murphaph wrote:

And here we have it folks. The real sentiment of rabid republicanism on this island. To hell with everything we've achieved in 80 odd years for the sake of some land and a people who's majority do not wish a united Ireland. Do you pay tax dave, do you have a mortgage? Will you mind when the economy goes really tits up and your house is repossessed and you're living under a bridge somewhere so long as we 'have' the six counties? Pathetic really.

Well, I for one would prefer to live in a world where there's more to life than counting your pennies; a magical place where history, justice, and cultural identity are of some importance. Dem were de days...

murphaph wrote:

Britain isn't here though. The british government only maintains direct rule of NI from Westminster through the NIO because the twats up north can't agree to run devolved government among themselves. That's the funniest thing-people here seem to think NI is ready and able to join a united ireland when the sh!tty little dump can't even run itself because it's people can't stop bickering.

The British army are still here, though; and do elected representatives not have to swear allegiance to the queen(genuine question, I'm not sure)? I know that the place is in bits, and I've acknowledged before (I don't think on this board, mind) that the British government can't just say "here ya go" and give it back, or there would be all-out war once again. The way it is now, it's relatively quiet, and there's something of a stalemate, so that just means any steps forward have to be tiny ones.

A Dub in Glasgo

Hydroquinone wrote:

How is it predetermined in NI? How do you know? How can anyone know until they actually do it?

NI was created with an inherent inbuilt majority for Unionism. That is the reason why NI did not contain the remaining 3 counties of Ulster (which are in the RoI).

A Dub in Glasgo

murphaph wrote:

. Fourthly, have you any concept of democracy? It's got nowt to do with 'giving it back' and all to do with a decision of the majority of the people of NI, not GB or the RoI to decide!!! They live there ffs.

Democracy and NI? Funniest thing ever

Why do you think that the people who are handing over their hard earned cash to prop up NI should not be given a voice?

mycroft

DaveMcG wrote:

Well I don't think that's as reasonable considering they're only 1% at most of the population. But I do agree with the sentiment, take land out of the hands of the people who stole it and give it back to those who own it(or whose ancestors own it, since people like to get into the whole "they weren't alive then" thing). Mass murder and rape for the sake of it is something I'm not too keen on forgetting. And then those left alive, they treat them like sh*t. I think that the English should be ashamed of their history, really, because they've ruined anything good and replaced it with materialistic crap.

So basically we deserve it back because the english and americans did a better job of oppressing and murdering those sets of natives?

No, but it was stolen from our ancestors, from the collective Irish people.

In your opinion. And since we're talking ancestoral rights why don't we just geneti tense anyone with scandavian blood living in ireland and then demand repatritations. After all their ancestors stole from the collective irish people. See if you start asking and demanding something over what happened a couple of dozen generations ago you're wandering into crazy land.

And I don't think I said that there was a majority in the Republic; from what I've heard, there's not, people don't want the burden; but in a couple of generations there probably will be.

they "probably" will? In a couple of generations, you're hypothesising about a societies potential feeling in 20-40 years time.

Well, here's hoping that the trends continue they way they're going, and the Republicans will become the majority in a few generations. It should coincide nicely with the trend in the South. We're not far away now.

Coincide with which trend down south? And again you're ingoring the political intrasgency and economic cost of such a union.

Could an external, unbiased pollster not organise it and keep it secret? I guess it would be pretty difficult. Why do the results have to mean something for people to express their (secret) opinion?

I'm really not sure what the point of this random piece of X-Files esque logic is about

And people are fully aware of the burden of taking on the extra land and people. From what I hear from several people, that's the main reason why some are reluctant to reunite.

Yes the several people you've chatted informally about the matter, a tad downscaling of your argument that 80% of the entire population agreeing with you.

Well, I for one would prefer to live in a world where there's more to life than counting your pennies; a magical place where history, justice, and cultural identity are of some importance. Dem were de days...

And I'd like to live in a world were people don't feel the urge to blow people up to either "protect" their cultural idenity, or to change which meaningless symbol they swear an oath to.

Generally people who start talking about "history" and "cultural identity, are the ones who start ranting about "blood sacrifices" and "noble struggle" and "matyrs" are the ones to watch.

The British army are still here, though; and do elected representatives not have to swear allegiance to the queen(genuine question, I'm not sure)? I know that the place is in bits, and I've acknowledged before (I don't think on this board, mind) that the British government can't just say "here ya go" and give it back, or there would be all-out war once again. The way it is now, it's relatively quiet, and there's something of a stalemate, so that just means any steps forward have to be tiny ones.

For someone who's know of the situation is so admittely patchy maybe you should read up a bit before weighing in with your "opinion". Not being rude, but annoucning that in "your opinion" and then admitting you opinion is based on patchy information, you're not doing yourself or your arguments a favour.

mycroft

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

NI was created with an inherent inbuilt majority for Unionism. That is the reason why NI did not contain the remaining 3 counties of Ulster (which are in the RoI).

Sorry if I have this clear, NI was set up to include counties that had a unionist majority, and you're bitching that it didn't include counties with a majority of people who didn't want to be a part of it. Which if they did you'd now be bitching about the fact they created the "9 counties" even though three of them "had nationalist majorities"

Can't f*cking win with you can they dub?

Flex

mycroft wrote:

This would be the same people of Ireland that voted overwhelming, in favour of removing our constitutional claim to NI? Because that'd be flaw in your argument.

You think everyone voting for the constitutional amendment were voting to give up NI? I dare say most people were voting to supprt the GFA, wouldnt you? And those surveys were takin shortly after the referendum whihc i think would supprt that opinion. Also, it had the support of Fianna Fail, Fine Gael, Sinn Fein and the SDLP (AFAIK), and as far as I know theyre in favor of a UI. Also the new article 3 states that "It is the firm will of the Irish nation...to unite all the people" of Ireland. Surely if we voting overwhelmingly to give up NI, there would be no need for such an article to appear in the nations constitution. Its still a claim, but its now a 'friendlier' claim.

Your survey probably didn't go into the specifics of exactly what we'd endure to see a united Ireland, the several billion a year it will cost us, the potential for violence, and the oppression, of the unionist (slim) majority.

Id say most people realise what a united Ireland could potentially bring.

murphaph

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Democracy and NI? Funniest thing ever

Indeed, the land where due process for suspected competitors (I mean, drug dealers) is replaced with swift knee-cappings and such like!

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Why do you think that the people who are handing over their hard earned cash to prop up NI should not be given a voice?

Well, the same logic could be applied to any underperforming region of the UK. Should southerners be allowed a vote on whether or not they want the north of England and Scotland to leave the UK? Plenty of employment blackspots in these regions, fewer in the prosperous south who therefore subsidise (prop-up) these regions. There is hardly a precedent in the world for one part of a nation being given the vote to remove another part of that nation from that nation. It's the wish of the Liga Nord but it's not a realistic proposition, even in Italy.

Just to humour you though. Say we give GB the vote and they vote to sever the union, NI still has to do likewise of course to make it so (forgetting about a UI for a moment, as NI leaving the union is all GB would be allowed vote upon), but what if GB voted not to sever the union, would you accept that the union must remain, given their will was shown by way of a referendum which you suggest giving them? If not then the referendum is pointless because you will only accept your 'right' answer, which is not democracy and hence referenda are pointless.

Flex

sceptre wrote:

No it didn't. It's been part of Great Moravia (for five years or so 1200 years ago), ruled by the Czechs (in the guide of the Přemyslids), by the Jagiellons as part of the kingdom of Bohemia, by the Austrians, again by the Czechs after WW1 and that's as far as anyone can go back to when people were wearing skins and arguing with the remnants of the Romans. And the German government took control of it in 1938. Go check (which, to be fair, you should have done before offering the contrast).

Sorry, sceptre. Youre right. Iv always thought the term Sudetenland meant areas with ethnic German inhabitants, i never actually realised it related to a specific area.

Thanks

Dave!

mycroft wrote:

So basically we deserve it back because the english and americans did a better job of oppressing and murdering those sets of natives?

They deserve it too, but I think it's a bit too late for that. They've been almost completely destroyed at this stage. The least the American government could do is be a bit more generous with reservations, etc.

mycroft wrote:

In your opinion. And since we're talking ancestoral rights why don't we just geneti tense anyone with scandavian blood living in ireland and then demand repatritations. After all their ancestors stole from the collective irish people. See if you start asking and demanding something over what happened a couple of dozen generations ago you're wandering into crazy land.

Do I have to say "in my opinion" every time I make a point? You can take it for granted that it's my opinion and not yours, ok?

mycroft wrote:

they "probably" will? In a couple of generations, you're hypothesising about a societies potential feeling in 20-40 years time.

Yes, my generation seems to be increasingly Republican, so if they pass those sentiments on to their kids (as often happens), and they pass them on, etc., then there'll "probably" be a Republican majority soon enough.

mycroft wrote:

Coincide with which trend down south? And again you're ingoring the political intrasgency and economic cost of such a union.

Increasing Republicanism.

mycroft wrote:

I'm really not sure what the point of this random piece of X-Files esque logic is about

Then don't comment on it...

mycroft wrote:

Yes the several people you've chatted informally about the matter, a tad downscaling of your argument that 80% of the entire population agreeing with you.

Oh well, that's just the main argument against a union that I've heard.

I never said that 80% of the population agree with me Didn't I just acknowledge earlier that the majority of the Republic don't want the North? And you quoted it?

mycroft wrote:

And I'd like to live in a world were people don't feel the urge to blow people up to either "protect" their cultural idenity

There would be no reason to blow people up today were it not for the murdering and stealing of yesterday. I don't support any organisations such as the IRA; all they do is hinder the cause.

mycroft wrote:

or to change which meaningless symbol they swear an oath to.

I guess that's where we differ, then.

mycroft wrote:

Generally people who start talking about "history" and "cultural identity, are the ones who start ranting about "blood sacrifices" and "noble struggle" and "matyrs" are the ones to watch.

I don't support or condone any violent forms of revolution in Ireland, today; and I especially don't condone any violence against innocent citizens. That's if you're trying to suggest that I'm about to strap a bomb to my body and hop on the LUAS.

mycroft wrote:

For someone who's know of the situation is so admittely patchy maybe you should read up a bit before weighing in with your "opinion". Not being rude, but annoucning that in "your opinion" and then admitting you opinion is based on patchy information, you're not doing yourself or your arguments a favour.

Wow, smart one. How about you just address my points like an adult and stop taking pathetic jabs at me? Thanks

Sand

Well I don't think that's as reasonable considering they're only 1% at most of the population. But I do agree with the sentiment, take land out of the hands of the people who stole it and give it back to those who own it(or whose ancestors own it, since people like to get into the whole "they weren't alive then" thing). Mass murder and rape for the sake of it is something I'm not too keen on forgetting. And then those left alive, they treat them like sh*t. I think that the English should be ashamed of their history, really, because they've ruined anything good and replaced it with materialistic crap.

But those land grabbing Native Americans stole that land from its previous occupants. We shouldnt reward their war mongering by giving them land they took by force from some other tribe!!!

Same for the Native Irish, they took the land from some poor people before them. Irish myth is full of stories of waves of invasions by land grabbing bastards. We need to track down the original owners of the land, or their descendants and give them back their birthright whilst the rest of us move back to central europe or wherever the feck we originated from.

Now that I think of it, the Unionists have a strong Scot-Prodestant tradition. The Scots are a tribe from Ulster that invaded/colonised Scotland back in the 12th century. They need to be removed from Scotland so as not to reward their landgrabbing and returned to where they came from, Ulster!

OR, we could just accept that throughout history invasions, wars, colonisation and assorted other politically incorrect **** went down. We can draw a line under it and say, lets not do that again. We can then allow that people can live wherever they want, and we can also allow that they have a right to self-determination - i.e. deciding the government that will rule them. You can then *move on*.

Flex

mycroft wrote:

Sorry if I have this clear, NI was set up to include counties that had a unionist majority, and you're bitching that it didn't include counties with a majority of people who didn't want to be a part of it. Which if they did you'd now be bitching about the fact they created the "9 counties" even though three of them "had nationalist majorities"

Can't f*cking win with you can they dub?

Actually, Fermangh and Tyrone had nationalist majoritys, and unionists (prior to knowing that a Home Rule parliament was going to be established in Belfast) had insisted that Donegal, Cavan and Monaghan be included in the new NI. They changed their mind primarily because a 9 county Ulster would have a 50-50 religious divide, whereas a 6 county one would have a 66-34 divide

Flex

Now that I think of it, the Unionists have a strong Scot-Prodestant tradition. The Scots are a tribe from Ulster that invaded/colonised Scotland back in the 12th century. They need to be removed from Scotland so as not to reward their landgrabbing and returned to where they came from, Ulster!

Unionists have a strong Scots tradition? You mean the tribe named the Scots or Scotti(some of whom went to Scotland in the 5th and 6th centuries)? Wow, thats odd. If they did have a strong sense of Scots-ness then i wouldve thought theyd be keen on learning Gaeilge and taking part in Gaelic games and stuff like that, since the Scotti were a Gaelic tribe, and as Gaelic as any other tribe. And they spoke Gaeilge, because their descendants in Scotland around the Highlands I believe (some 80,000) still speak a dialect of Gaeilge that is nearly identical to our own Gaeilge. Strangely enough, the language Ullans bears no resemblance to Gaeilge whatsoever.... Could it be that the Unionists are just trying to use OUR cultural heritage to try validate taking our country(ie. claiming they were the Scotti)?