NI Dec 22 Assembly Election

@downcow I want to start my post by thanking you for providing some insight into the positions held by the Unionist side of things. I'm from a staunchly catholic family and genuinely my opportunities to interact and discuss these issues with the Unionist side of the state has been non existent. So for the insights you provide and simply continuing to post here on these topics I want to thank you. Genuinely.

Now, all that said, and this is a bit longwinded but historically accurate context is very important.

I'm not sure you understand the weight and inaccuracy of how you are classing the effects of what happened 100 years ago vs now. The world was a different place then. Europe was a land of monarchs and empires. Democratic representation was few and far between, and the rule of the monarch was varying levels of autocratic. The treaty signed and applied in the early 20's was before one war (Irish civil war) , during one war (WW1), and after one insurrection/uprising (Easter Rising). The years of control from the act of Union of 1801 to 1921 were allowed by the Irish parliament in the 1700's where representation was limited to land owning protestants. That parliament was put in place following centuries of waxing and waning levels of British influence in Ireland since the year 1167. The first monarch that reasonably (by extent of control) claimed the title of King of Ireland was Henry VIII. This was after the British had abolished the native Irish clan and monarch system centuries earlier. So, after hundreds of years of gradual erosion of rights and representation of the native Irish population, the demographics of the voters for the act of union of 1801 in Ireland were largely resettled british nobility or their descendants. All of which were land owners.

Getting to 1921, the treaty which was signed was the only option to prevent further British aggression in Ireland. The Irish and the Germans were close to being on the same side in WW1 (we got lots of arms and support from Germany) and this would likely have been used as an excuse for a British offense in Ireland. There was no other choice but to accept the terms as offered. The terms were dictated by the British and no negotiation was offered. The 1921 partition split the erstwhile Irish state -which was part of the United Kingdom of GB and Ireland since 1801 - into two parts. The North and the South. Both parliaments had the option to accept or opt out and remain part of the aforementioned UK. The southern "Free State" after a bloody civil war voted to accept the treaty by a small margin. The northern statelet (at that time) voted out in December 1921 via a famous letter from the protestant only parliament to the King. So, yet again, you have a situation where decisions were made for the island of Ireland without the direct consent of the native Irish. It could actually be argued that the creating of an NI state was the first act of Gerrymandering on this island, to artificially create a part of the country where Protestant Unionists were in the majority - whilst this demographic was not in a majority on the whole island, which, if independence was allowed 50 years later or 100 years later, would not have taken place in such a way.

Now. Fast forward 100 years (skipping years of gerrymandering, civil rights abuses and lack of minority representation) and we have what may seem an ostensibly similar situation in reverse. However in this instance, the (1921 British created) state of NI has voted in a representative election where all citizens have a fair vote, and voted against Brexit in its entirety. Yet again however this vote was ignored and the statelet was taken* out of the eu against the direct consent of its residents at the behest of the British. The DUP particularly have emerged as consistently anti treaty and are now speaking of revisiting the GFA - another agreement which received majority votes in NI and ROI - unless the withdrawal agreement which the British asked for is now unilaterally revoked. The DUP are not even the majority party in the North and certainly do not hold a majority of the votes (they may have held a plurality or may again do so, but not the outright majority). So they can in no way claim to speak for the majority of residents in NI.

Apologies for the long post but I think historical accuracy is key to this point.

You cannot be native British by virtue of being born on the island of Ireland, NI or otherwise. Britain is the landmass encompassing England Wales and Scotland. This is why the name of the current UK is United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The equivalence between British and Unionist only exists on the landmass of Britain.

If you are born on the island of Ireland, you are by birth either Irish with nationalist/republican views , Irish and unionist, or Irish and agnostic (eg children of first generation immigrants from Eastern Europe for example like you mentioned, may not have strong leanings either way). It never ceases to amaze me however, the amount of people on the unionist side that aspire to a union that they do not know the correct nomenclature for.

Nationalists like myself may not like the fact that unionists are indeed by this point native, like you said, they are here 400 years after the plantations at this point. It is true that if someone lives in the island of Ireland for 400 years of family history they are natives by birth. Sure, half of my lineage isnt even here that long, my mother's side are Lutherans from Germany & Prussia. I'd never claim to be German though. Merely an Irishman proud of my German heritage.

The same GFA that a lot of unionists seem to want to get rid of?

We recognise people's right to identify as. This doesnt make it correct. Same as people in America identifying as Irish when their family moved there 300 years ago. It's incorrect.

Come on, I'm really doing my best here to remove inherent bias on my part and contribute to an open discussion. As I mentioned to Downcow earlier I really feel like I and we all can learn best from this type of discussion but bringing inaccuracy in doesnt help.

I have said on here many times that the dup made a complete mess of this. If I haven’t said already then let me be clear that the Uk have made a mess of it as well. They were both outmanoeuvred by the eu egged on by the Irish government.

I have little love for either the dup or the Uk government.

but that’s all history. I didn’t vote for brexit either but that’s also history. Unionists are directing their anger towards the eu and the Irish gov because they are the ones standing in the way of sensible solutions. Leo has influence in this. He has now said the eu made mistakes, checks are too strict. He has said that the extension of grace periods have caused no proble. But up until this week he sounded like some people on here ie there can be no change. Why? Because the eu and Irish government are bloody-minded. Thankfully that is shifting, slowly

Here we go again. So I am not British!

my passport says I am British, the gfa says I am British. If I get in trouble abroad the only consulate that will help me is the British one.

catch yourself on.

no I don’t want to open this debate again but I think you will find everyone born in ni is British but they can then self select to also be Irish if they wish.

what was it you said a few posts ago about context and accuracy

Are you not the one getting rid of the gfa by saying that I am not British?

one thing you are choosing to ignore. The dup welcomed the protocol and were on their way to implementing it, until the grassroots unionist people put the brakes on them. You ask when would the dup give up - probably tomorrow only the unionist people are holding them to task. They know now that they are finished if they implant the protocol. So you may stop blaming the dup for stormont talking shop. It’s the people

Don’t agree at all.

firstly I am unaware of any impact on the lives of northern Irish people by there being no assembly. Maybe you can tell me a few?

the gfa promised that key decisions would require cross community support. The decision to put elements of our economy and rights under a foreign power is a fairly key decision. So hand this decision to the assembly and I am quite sure it will be reestablished in the morning and the outcome will be abided by by all unionist politicians and community. Simple. Don’t do that and the gfa is damaged irreparably in the eyes of unionists so will never be re established. It’s reasonable request.

polls say you are wrong about the election. They suggest those parties who are blocking the gfa will increase and uup will decrease. This keeps coming up here. Do you not realise that the dup were going soft on the protocol and the people insisted they strengthen their opposition. You fight here is not with the dup, it is with my community.

refusing to work the gfa is not lashing out at Uk gov only. Indeed I am not sure they care whether it is direct rule or devolved. The people of this island are the main beneficiaries of the gfa. In reality we are the people made promises to each other on how we would govern, respect each other’s identity, etc,etc. so if we are lashing out, then it is at the people who share this island with us who are not showing integrity to the peace process, including holding pictures of murder up in front of eu politicians to influence them to ignore unionist concerns.

Now you are being rediculous

the protocol is an agreement. Therefore responsibility lies with every group in that agreement. I have been clear about the responsibility of Uk and dup in this, so stop saying I am denying it. My entire community is disgusted with how the dup handled this mess, hence they cannot move as they will not be given another chance of they go soft on this.

the Irish played a smart game, if you take a short term view, with their claims that checks anywhere other than inside Uk would restart the violent conflict. But that has only encouraged loyalists to us same tactic.

as for you nonsense that it is only unionists who are into identity politics. This whole problem exists because of the identity politics played by the Irish re how checks at the international frontier would damage their sense of identity.

I absolutely do not want a land checks and there is no need for them. There is though a land border which when you cross it you currency changes, tax regimes, language on road signs, road markings, speed limits, etc, etc, etc,etc.

uk have been clear it would cost them nothing as they would not be establishing physical checks on their frontier

Jack even Leo is starting to see a simple solution. He has just said that the grace periods have presented no real issues. So who’s agenda is it to try and establish these unessessary checks on the Irish Sea?

….and I say again, unionists are not lashing out at our own government. If we are lashing out it is at those who are determined to create difficulties for ni/gb trade

The EU will negotiate if the UK will negotiate, the problem for the minority in NI that don’t like the idea of the protocol is that they have to convince the UK government to go and negotiate, which means offer concessions and make more promises, which the current UK government have no motivation to do.

So if there is unrest within the minority of NI that want the NI protocol changed or removed, and they decide to start a campaign of vandalism, (or are you suggesting they would resort to bombing things?) then it will be the responsibility of the UK government to deal with it. What do you expect the EU to do about it?