Northern Ireland.. Whats the big deal?

flangdiddy · 21-03-2009 02:28PM #1

I know theres a lot of history there, but what are they fighting for?
No offense to NI, but i visited the other day, and its certainly not worth 100 years of sweat!

I mean Dublin's much larger than Belfast, Cork's not even far behind,

I don't even think the Irish government would have the money to be in control of all those extra schools and hospitals etc

..Not that i agree with it being part of Britain either, I guess it should be a state in its own right or they should have a vote on what country it should be part of? (that would be true democracy). And then all the people who didn't get the result they wanted would just have to: a. get over it or b. move.

We all know it used to be part of Ireland, but many countries used to be part of one another (many of them a lot more recently than EIRE and NI, and they've gotten over it!)

Im not going to get into the divide between catholics and protestants because that is just wrong, they differ on such small matters.. certainly not worth a war anyways. Also, it seems a bit weird that Christians treat Muslims better than Christians treat each other because of these denominations of one faith

Whats wrong with us lads? Were making fools of ourselves
or should I say theyre making fools of us..

RIP all those who have died over something so silly as a flag or a border

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 21-03-2009 02:33PM

Said it before, say it again: it's like two bald men fighting over a comb.

Peyton Manning · 21-03-2009 02:33PM

The majority of people Ive spoken to up here see the futility of it all. In 20-30 years time, nobody will give a toss anymore. Heck, most sensible people dont give a toss now.

markok84 · 21-03-2009 02:37PM

flangdiddy wrote: »

..Not that i agree with it being part of Britain either,

It's not part of britain, it's part of the UK.

Mr.Lizard · 21-03-2009 02:39PM

Just as as there doesn't come a day where we're fighting the Brit's again for ownership of the North.

"You keep it!"
"No, you keep it!"

Snowie · 21-03-2009 02:45PM

could Ireland afford to support Northern Ireland.... If we did have the run off it...?

philologos · 21-03-2009 02:45PM

flangdiddy wrote: »

..Not that i agree with it being part of Britain either, I guess it should be a state in its own right or they should have a vote on what country it should be part of? (that would be true democracy). And then all the people who didn't get the result they wanted would just have to: a. get over it or b. move.

Why don't you agree with it being a part of the UK if the majority of people want it to be a part of the UK? I think it's their choice and their choice alone.

flangdiddy wrote: »

We all know it used to be part of Ireland, but many countries used to be part of one another (many of them a lot more recently than EIRE and NI, and they've gotten over it!)

Indeed, it would be like the Germans trying to get back Alsace Lorraine, or the French wanting the Saarland or Austria demanding South Tirol from Italy. There are cases such as Kosovo where things can get rather bitter though, it's not always an easy transition for people to make.

flangdiddy wrote: »

Im not going to get into the divide between catholics and protestants because that is just wrong, they differ on such small matters.. certainly not worth a war anyways. Also, it seems a bit weird that Christians treat Muslims better than Christians treat each other because of these denominations of one faith

I've always seen Northern Ireland as being a political issue to which faith was attached. Just look at what has happened in the last 100 years to Protestants living in the Republic of Ireland. Most of them have settled and settled rather well with the idea of living in the Irish Republic, whereas 100 years ago many if not a majority would have supported the union with Britain.

As for Christians and Muslims, I don't think that's entirely true in reality here. Also, Muslims have their own denominational beef between Sunni and Shi'a Islam in particular. Just look at Iraq and the amount of infighting between them. They are in a situation just like in Northern Ireland, probably much worse actually.

flangdiddy wrote: »

Whats wrong with us lads? Were making fools of ourselves
or should I say theyre making fools of us..

Well if they are in a different country surely they aren't making fools of people in the Republic?

flangdiddy wrote: »

RIP all those who have died over something so silly as a flag or a border

Amen to that.

CSC · 21-03-2009 03:02PM

Archimedes wrote: »

The majority of people Ive spoken to up here see the futility of it all. In 20-30 years time, nobody will give a toss anymore. Heck, most sensible people dont give a toss now.

I doubt there will be a time when nobody gives a toss. You will always have a section (small I admit) of society wanting the north back.

Ardscoil Ris · 21-03-2009 03:07PM

Pfff they can keep it.

arybvtcw0eolkf · 21-03-2009 03:10PM

flangdiddy wrote: »

We all know it used to be part of Ireland, but many countries used to be part of one another (many of them a lot more recently than EIRE and NI, and they've gotten over it!)

Its STILL part of Ireland.

We're a devided island nation surrounded by water, we've never been physically part of the UK.

Is it worth killing for, no its not - at least not in my opinion.

Is it worth dying for, absolutely it is.

Thankfully we've entered into a peaceful and democratic process now, and please god the armed struggle will be consigned to history.

Zillah · 21-03-2009 03:12PM

I think Northern Ireland should join the Republic for purely aesthetic reasons. Looks weird on the map.

Also, re paying for schools etc, if they joined the republic then they'd also be paying taxes to the Irish goverment.

Ardscoil Ris · 21-03-2009 03:19PM

Zillah wrote: »

I think Northern Ireland should join the Republic for purely aesthetic reasons. Looks weird on the map.

Also, re paying for schools etc, if they joined the republic then they'd also be paying taxes to the Irish goverment.

It's estimated that NI costs the UK 50 million a day. They place is a drain. They would give it back to us with a massive smile on their face if they could, but we would collapse if it came under our control.

What industry is up there?

What natural resources is up there?

Zillah · 21-03-2009 03:23PM

I have a modest proposal on how we can turn a profit from the people of Northern Ireland.

Ardscoil Ris · 21-03-2009 03:30PM

Zillah wrote: »

I have a modest proposal on how we can turn a profit from the people of Northern Ireland.

Please share it with us so. :cool:

Jim236 · 21-03-2009 03:35PM

I think its quite arrogant to say only those who don't give a sh*t about the Irish in the North of Ireland(yes believe it or not the Irish nation doesn't stop at the border) are the 'sensible' ones. You may not give a toss, but there are plenty of people on this island who do and will always give a toss, and have done so for hundreds of years, that won't change in the next 20-30 years. As Mairt says Ireland is a divided nation, which was partitioned by a foreign state. Does anyone honestly think that if the Irish government thought there was no chance of the North becoming part of the republic they'd be pumping €2bln into the North as part of the NDP, or even Fianna Fáil organising in the North for elections there in a few years?

Also the people who argue we couldn't afford the North, thats not necessarily true. It doesn't make sense for 1.5m to join a country and not pay taxes...so taxes they would've been paying to London would be going to Dublin which would help pay for the public services in the North, and by then the idea is they would've sorted their finances out to have become more efficient than they are now which is London's fault and an example of how direct rule from London doesn't work. Also the whole point of investing in the North now is to avoid an East Germany situation when any referendum does come about, whereby if a majority do vote Yes to joining the ROI in say 20 years time that their infrastructure will have been built up enough that we won't be starting from scratch.

Also to the same people who argue it will make us broke, Irish unity will actually benefit our economy not damage it, why do you think so many businesses are trying to promote the all-island economy? Partition does nothing for the island's economy and has simply limited the potential growth of the island as a whole and will continue to do so until its removed.

Right now you can't have any debate on what way the North should go because any debate would turn into a green and orange arguement. Hopefully in 15-20 years time when a real democracy exists in the North and parties can discuss the pros and cons of joining the republic and look at the facts of how it would benefit both sides of the border without bringing religion into it, that Unionists will see the merits of a United Ireland and opt to support it.

If it ever does happen though, it will be a different Ireland to today. Most likely it'll be a federal republic like Germany and the US with each province having it's own level of autonomy, otherwise known as Éire Nua - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89ire_Nua.

pablomakaveli · 21-03-2009 03:48PM

I'm against a united Ireland. I don't really see any benefit to it anymore. A lot of people i talk to about the subject are against reunification or don't care either way.

I can see Northern Ireland becoming an independent state on it's own in the future. I reckon the barriers between the Unionist and Nationalist communities will break down over the next generation or two which will probably see them adopt a mentality of being "Northern Irish" rather than being "Irish" or "British". If that is the case a united Ireland won't be necessary anymore.

fingerbob · 21-03-2009 03:53PM

Jakkass wrote: »

Indeed, it would be like the Germans trying to get back Alsace Lorraine, or the French wanting the Saarland or Austria demanding South Tirol from Italy. There are cases such as Kosovo where things can get rather bitter though, it's not always an easy transition for people to make.

You can't compare the north to those areas which have changed hands between nations many times. On top of that there are also numerous other factors involved in it such as the manner of the creation of the NI state and the treatment of the nationalist community after it.

philologos · 21-03-2009 03:58PM

Jim236 wrote: »

I think its quite arrogant to say only those who don't give a sh*t about the Irish in the North of Ireland(yes believe it or not the Irish nation doesn't stop at the border) are the 'sensible' ones. You may not give a toss, but there are plenty of people on this island who do and will always give a toss, and have done so for hundreds of years, that won't change in the next 20-30 years. As Mairt says Ireland is a divided nation, which was partitioned by a foreign state. Does anyone honestly think that if the Irish government thought there was no chance of the North becoming part of the republic they'd be pumping €2bln into the North as part of the NDP, or even Fianna Fáil organising in the North for elections there in a few years?

Politically we have to deal with the reality that Northern Ireland is in a separate jurisdiction and is a full part of the United Kingdom. That's how they want it, and that's how it's going to be for the foreseeable future no doubt. I personally don't think it will be ultimately up to the people in the Republic to decide, but rather the people in the North. That's why actions such as the recent shootings in Northern Ireland are pretty much abhorrent, a very small minority using violence to impose their own political view on a majority.

Jim236 wrote: »

Also the people who argue we couldn't afford the North, thats not necessarily true. It doesn't make sense for 1.5m to join a country and not pay taxes...

Surely it's more of a question as to whether or not it is worth affording the North or to continue as we are?

Jim236 wrote: »

so taxes they would've been paying to London would be going to Dublin which would help pay for the public services in the North, and by then the idea is they would've sorted their finances out to have become more efficient than they are now which is London's fault and an example of how direct rule from London doesn't work. Also the whole point of investing in the North now is to avoid an East Germany situation when any referendum does come about, whereby if a majority do vote Yes to joining the ROI in say 20 years time that their infrastructure will have been built up enough that we won't be starting from scratch.

Why is it London's fault I don't get this exactly? You'd need to prove that the vast majority of NI funds don't stay in Northern Ireland, which I think is false for a start, I'm pretty sure the UK are putting in other tax funds raised in Britain to sustain the North as well. So it isn't that the UK are depriving Northern Ireland of funds by any means, but rather that the UK is putting more funds in.

As for your point on the referendum, I think that is very much conditional. It's a big if, there is no certainty that this will ever happen. 20 years time is a bit too optimistic I think, and if there was a reunification it really should be in phases rather than the whole lot at once.

Jim236 wrote: »

Also to the same people who argue it will make us broke, Irish unity will actually benefit our economy not damage it, why do you think so many businesses are trying to promote the all-island economy? Partition does nothing for the island's economy and has simply limited the potential growth of the island as a whole and will continue to do so until its removed.

How do you prove that this is the case that it is certain that if Ireland was politically one that the economy would be great.

Jim236 wrote: »

Right now you can't have any debate on what way the North should go because any debate would turn into a green and orange arguement.

Really? Sure there are avid folks on both sides, but I think most people are happy enough with the current arrangement. If there is evidence to the contrary surely that is when we should start talking about a united Ireland.

Jim236 wrote: »

Hopefully in 15-20 years time when a real democracy exists in the North and parties can discuss the pros and cons of joining the republic and look at the facts of how it would benefit both sides of the border without bringing religion into it, that Unionists will see the merits of a United Ireland and opt to support it.

Who are you to say that the Assembly and Westminster aren't a real democracy? For the Unionists it's more than merit that is being counted, it's their cultural identity moreso. As for your point on religion, I think you are right. Most of the Republic's 5% Protestant population are quite happy with the arrangement we have down here.

Jim236 wrote: »

If it ever does happen though, it will be a different Ireland to today. Most likely it'll be a federal republic like Germany and the US with each province having it's own level of autonomy, otherwise known as Éire Nua - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89ire_Nua.

Federalism is probably the best model for anywhere really with political division, like on the scale we have currently in Ireland as an island.

Zillah · 21-03-2009 03:58PM

Ardscoil Ris wrote: »

Please share it with us so. :cool:

Some clever person will get it eventually.

philologos · 21-03-2009 04:02PM

fingerbob wrote: »

You can't compare the north to those areas which have changed hands between nations many times. On top of that there are also numerous other factors involved in it such as the manner of the creation of the NI state and the treatment of the nationalist community after it.

Fair enough but there are a lot of ethnic Germans in both South Tirol and in Alsace Lorraine and yet they are still happy to continue residing in the countries they currently live in for the most part?

fingerbob · 21-03-2009 04:14PM

Jakkass wrote: »

Fair enough but there are a lot of ethnic Germans in both South Tirol and in Alsace Lorraine and yet they are still happy to continue residing in the countries they currently live in for the most part?

I'm not sure how the situation is there, but with the treatment that the catholic/nationalist community received from a "protestant government for a protestant people", you could say it would give them the ground to not want to be a part of that state. Although you could also say alot has changed nowadays but I'm guessing (maybe I'm wrong) that these ethnic Germans don't have to put up with streets plastered in german flags, painted curbs and sectarian murals. I know both sides do this, but the huge majority of it is from the unionist side. You can't travel in this country without having britishness rubbed in your face, which you could say prevented nationalists from "getting over it" and moving on.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar · 21-03-2009 04:19PM

well if you didn't like having britishness thrust in your face why did you live in the UK?

fingerbob · 21-03-2009 04:20PM

I was born in Ireland.

Jim236 · 21-03-2009 04:22PM

Jakkass wrote: »

Politically we have to deal with the reality that Northern Ireland is in a separate jurisdiction and is a full part of the United Kingdom. That's how they want it, and that's how it's going to be for the foreseeable future no doubt. I personally don't think it will be ultimately up to the people in the Republic to decide, but rather the people in the North. That's why actions such as the recent shootings in Northern Ireland are pretty much abhorrent, a very small minority using violence to impose their own political view on a majority.

Of course its up to the people in the North, but we also have a say in it and an influence on what type, if any type of United Ireland it will be. But ultimately as you say its up to the people in the North if they want to join the republic in the first place.

Why is it London's fault I don't get this exactly? You'd need to prove that the vast majority of NI funds don't stay in Northern Ireland, which I think is false for a start, I'm pretty sure the UK are putting in other tax funds raised in Britain to sustain the North as well. So it isn't that the UK are depriving Northern Ireland of funds by any means, but rather that the UK is putting more funds in.

Its London's fault because they were the ones who up until devolution have been governing the North since 1972. Also all public money in the UK goes into the one exchequer fund, whether it comes from NI, Wales, Scotland etc. Why do you think McGuinness and Robinson have to go to Downing Street every 6 months begging for an extra few bob from the exchequer in return for voting with Labour for new anti-terrorism(anti-civil freedom) acts? All parts of the UK get their money from the same place, and its one of the reasons why the SNP want Scotland to be independent.

How do you prove that this is the case that it is certain that if Ireland was politically one that the economy would be great.

How do you prove that the economy would be ruined?

Really? Sure there are avid folks on both sides, but I think most people are happy enough with the current arrangement. If there is evidence to the contrary surely that is when we should start talking about a united Ireland.

There is evidence to the contrary, but for Unionists it means leaving the UK and having their 'Britishness' further diminished, so of course they're not willing to talk about it.

Who are you to say that the Assembly and Westminster aren't a real democracy? For the Unionists it's more than merit that is being counted, it's their cultural identity moreso. As for your point on religion, I think you are right. Most of the Republic's 5% Protestant population are quite happy with the arrangement we have down here.

Its not a real democracy, any country that has to force all parties to be in government with each other and has to have the support of every party on certain issues to avoid a war is not a true democracy, and thats what exists in the North. The SDLP and UUP are trying to change this and remove the compulsory arrangement that exists, personally though I don't think the Norths ready for a 'normal' democracy because it could very easily see another troubles if Unionists got complete control over Stormont.

pablomakaveli wrote: »

I'm against a united Ireland. I don't really see any benefit to it anymore. A lot of people i talk to about the subject are against reunification or don't care either way.

I can see Northern Ireland becoming an independent state on it's own in the future. I reckon the barriers between the Unionist and Nationalist communities will break down over the next generation or two which will probably see them adopt a mentality of being "Northern Irish" rather than being "Irish" or "British". If that is the case a united Ireland won't be necessary anymore.

The problem with that is that its only an alternative for Unionists. Unionists have their own 'Irish' culture as well as British culture you'd get in England, Scotland or Wales, but the Irish in the North are as Irish as any other part of Ireland and don't claim or desire to have a separate culture, so I couldn't see the Irish in the North supporting an independent NI, they'd just want to be part of the republic if it was ever put on the table, and then all you'd get is repartition which won't benefit anyone.

magick · 21-03-2009 04:23PM

The problem with NI like the internet is that their are too many tolls in it.

philologos · 21-03-2009 04:28PM

fingerbob wrote: »

I'm not sure how the situation is there, but with the treatment that the catholic/nationalist community received from a "protestant government for a protestant people", you could say it would give them the ground to not want to be a part of that state.

This isn't really a justification to impose Irish nationalism on a Unionist majority however. And yes, I would disagree with the pushing of a "Protestant state for a Protestant people" by Craig and Carson in the past, and indeed it isn't justified. I would think that that is far from the modern reality though in Northern Ireland given the police force and other wings of State are now equally occupied by Catholics.

fingerbob wrote: »

Although you could also say alot has changed nowadays but I'm guessing (maybe I'm wrong) that these ethnic Germans don't have to put up with streets plastered in german flags, painted curbs and sectarian murals. I know both sides do this, but the huge majority of it is from the unionist side. You can't travel in this country without having britishness rubbed in your face, which you could say prevented nationalists from "getting over it" and moving on.

fingerbob: On flags, painted curbs, and murals, you know as well as I know that the Nationalists are as good at this as Unionists are. And claiming that the majority of it is from Unionists, well the demographics would indicate that much.

Also as for having "britishness rubbed in your face". What do people expect if they are living in the UK? Northern Ireland is currently a province of the UK, therefore people will have that identity. This isn't meaning that Irish people cannot have their own identity too.

Jim236 · 21-03-2009 04:38PM

Jakkass wrote: »

Also as for having "britishness rubbed in your face". What do people expect if they are living in the UK? Northern Ireland is currently a province of the UK, therefore people will have that identity. This isn't meaning that Irish people cannot have their own identity too.

In 1 post you've just completely alienated and marginalised 800,000 odd people in the North. I could accept your arguement if it was anywhere in Britain, but comparing the North to Britain is not comparing like with like. You say Northern Ireland is part of the UK, therefore people are British and thats the identity people will have. Thats one arguement, that favours Unionism. The other arguement is that Northern Ireland was a state created by a foreign government, with partition forced on the Irish people who got no vote on it, and who were left behind when the Irish Free State was established, and who were treated no better than Jews in Nazi Germany by the Protestant/Unionist-controlled government, who are only in the majority because of the British invading Ireland and planting settlers from Scotland in Ulster and forcing their culture and language on the natives.

fingerbob · 21-03-2009 04:40PM

Jakkass wrote: »

QUOTE]This isn't really a justification to impose Irish nationalism on a Unionist majority however. And yes, I would disagree with the pushing of a "Protestant state for a Protestant people" by Craig and Carson in the past, and indeed it isn't justified. I would think that that is far from the modern reality though in Northern Ireland given the police force and other wings of State are now equally occupied by Catholics.

That's what I'm saying but obviously there is still alot of that mentality left.

fingerbob: On flags, painted curbs, and murals, you know as well as I know that the Nationalists are as good at this as Unionists are. And claiming that the majority of it is from Unionists, well the demographics would indicate that much.

Also as for having "britishness rubbed in your face". What do people expect if they are living in the UK? Northern Ireland is currently a province of the UK, therefore people will have that identity. This isn't meaning that Irish people cannot have their own identity too.

I wouldn't agree there. I live in a 90% catholic town and the only time I see tricolours is on Easter sunday and St Patrick's day to an extent, which is warranted as it is the town he is buried in! Whereas even in the one protestant area in the town it is plastered with flags and the last time I walked through there with a mate he got hit with a hammer for bein a 'taig'. This is evident in every other unionist town where you can't avoid a union jack and not just in marching season. It is alot rarer you see this from the nationalist side unless you are in West Belfast. Then there's the orange order thinking its they're right to walk through nationalist dominated areas. What's the point but to rub it in they're face? You can argue that it's part of the UK but we all know there is alot more to it than that, and you don't see stuff like this to anywhere near the same scale on mainland Britain. I'd also like to add I'm not a republican and I come from a mixed family.

philologos · 21-03-2009 04:41PM

Jim236 wrote: »

Of course its up to the people in the North, but we also have a say in it and an influence on what type, if any type of United Ireland it will be. But ultimately as you say its up to the people in the North if they want to join the republic in the first place.

It is up to the people of the North, and then if and only if a referendum provides a majority could there be any moving forward on the issue.

Jim236 wrote: »

Its London's fault because they were the ones who up until devolution have been governing the North since 1972. Also all public money in the UK goes into the one exchequer fund.

What do you think they do in the Assembly?

Jim236 wrote: »

whether it comes from NI, Wales, Scotland etc. Why do you think McGuinness and Robinson have to go to Downing Street every 6 months begging for an extra few bob from the exchequer?

Of course but then you would have to prove that the amount paid into the exchequer by NI is anywhere near the amount that they receive in actuality if you are to put forward the case that the UK has left them deprived.

Jim236 wrote: »

All parts of the UK get their money from the same place, and its one of the reasons why the SNP want Scotland to be independent.

That's another kettle of fish there

Jim236 wrote: »

How do you prove that the economy would be ruined?

The German example of reunification is a pretty good example of how such a transfer would cost us through the teeth for a long time.

Jim236 wrote: »

There is evidence to the contrary, but for Unionists it means leaving the UK and having their 'Britishness' further diminished, so of course they're not willing to talk about it.

Most people want to remain in the UK currently, so as such that would imply most people are happy with the current arrangement. Of course the Unionists don't want to leave the UK, and it's their choice!

Jim236 wrote: »

Its not a real democracy, any country that has to force all parties to be in government with each other and has to have the support of every party on certain issues to avoid a war is not a true democracy, and thats what exists in the North. The SDLP and UUP are trying to change this and remove the compulsory arrangement that exists, personally though I don't think the Norths ready for a 'normal' democracy because it could very easily see another troubles if Unionists got complete control over Stormont.

Conciliatory politics was chosen as the model as the former power sharing arrangement failed. It suits Northern Ireland by far the best given the situation that it is currently in. We have no reason to suggest that conciliatory legislatures are any less of a democracy than others.

Jim236 wrote: »

The problem with that is that its only an alternative for Unionists. Unionists have their own 'Irish' culture as well as British culture you'd get in England, Scotland or Wales, but the Irish in the North are as Irish as any other part of Ireland and don't claim or desire to have a separate culture, so I couldn't see the Irish in the North supporting an independent NI, they'd just want to be part of the republic if it was ever put on the table, and then all you'd get is repartition which won't benefit anyone.

I don't think repartition is on the cards, it's either all of nothing.

Sofiztikated · 21-03-2009 04:56PM

I always said that to solve this, it would take a few brawny lads, some shovels, and a few stout wooden poles. Get the brawny lads to use the shovels to dig a really deep trench around the border. Then use the poles as levers, thus making Norn Iron its own island, and let them do their own thing.
I don't understand the argument that "We're one landmass, so we should be one country."
The continent of Europe is one land mass (mostly) but is many countries, why should a smaller one be any different?

Jim236 · 21-03-2009 04:59PM

Jakkass wrote: »

What do you think they do in the Assembly?

Get a history book, there has only been failed attempt after failed attempt to establish a cross-party assembly since the Unionist-controlled government was brought down in 1972. Only since 1999 has any progress been made, and even then the assembly has still been suspended several times. Only since 2007 has there been any sign that devolution might work.

Of course but then you would have to prove that the amount paid into the exchequer by NI is anywhere near the amount that they receive in actuality if you are to put forward the case that the UK has left them deprived.

I'm not an accountant so I'm not even gonna try scrutinise any figures, but I think if the North moved towards being more independent on private investment than public then the public finances would be in a much better shape. They might be in a better position now with the recession, but when things start to turn around Stormont really should push to increase FDI and lose it's reliance on public sector jobs to keep the population in employment. When that happens there won't be such a big hole in the public finances to fill.

The German example of reunification is a pretty good example of how such a transfer would cost us through the teeth for a long time.

I never used the West/East Germany unification as an example to follow, read my post more carefully.

Most people want to remain in the UK currently, so as such that would imply most people are happy with the current arrangement. Of course the Unionists don't want to leave the UK, and it's their choice!

Don't the Irish in the North get any say no? Judging from your posts you don't seem to acknowledge that any Irish live in the North, and that the Irish nation to you stops at the border, and that if you are born in the North, you're born British.

Conciliatory politics was chosen as the model as the former power sharing arrangement failed. It suits Northern Ireland by far the best given the situation that it is currently in. We have no reason to suggest that conciliatory legislatures are any less of a democracy than others.

Former power-sharing? By power-sharing you mean a government controlled by Unionists, who as a result of gerrymandering won elections in Nationalist-dominated areas? Who had a rule of 1 vote per household knowing that Protestants owned more houses than Nationalists, and who only allowed Protestants to be employed by businesses? They're just a few reasons why that government failed and why the troubles came about, but it was anything but power-sharing.

philologos · 21-03-2009 05:06PM

Jim236 wrote: »

Get a history book, there has only been failed attempt after failed attempt to establish a cross-party assembly since the Unionist-controlled government was brought down in 1972. Only since 1999 has any progress been made, and even then the assembly has still been suspended several times. Only since 2007 has there been any sign that devolution might work.

I'm quite aware that it's failed. However in the current Assembly they do make decisions on financial matters, or at least I assume they do otherwise it wouldn't be much of a parliament.

Jim236 wrote: »

I'm not an accountant so I'm not even gonna try scrutinise any figures, but I think if the North moved towards being more independent on private investment than public then the public finances would be in a much better shape. They might be in a better position now with the recession, but when things start to turn around Stormont really should push to increase FDI and lose it's reliance on public sector jobs to keep the population in employment. When that happens there won't be such a big hole in the public finances to fill.

Fair enough, but you'd have to guarantee this investment first. That's not as easy as it sounds.

Jim236 wrote: »

I never used the West/East Germany unification as an example to follow, read my post more carefully.

I never said that you did, but it is an example where uniting a country hit home financially pretty hard.

Jim236 wrote: »

Don't the Irish in the North get any say no? Judging from your posts you don't seem to acknowledge that any Irish live in the North, and that the Irish nation to you stops at the border, and that if you are born in the North, you're born British.

Of course they do. They have elected officials to do that for them. I don't see how that is any justification for removing flags.

Jim236 wrote: »

Former power-sharing? By power-sharing you mean a government controlled by Unionists, who as a result of gerrymandering won elections in Nationalist-dominated areas? Who had a rule of 1 vote per household knowing that Protestants owned more houses than Nationalists, and who only allowed Protestants to be employed? They're just a few reasons why that government failed and why the troubles came about, but it was anything but power-sharing.

From studying political institutions this semester at university, Northern Ireland isn't the only model that uses it. Austria also uses conciliatory politics in it's legislature to an extent, but the most similar to Northern Ireland in terms of conflict would be that the same model was used in Lebanon between Christians and Muslims.

fingerbob · 21-03-2009 05:09PM

Of course they do. They have elected officials to do that for them. I don't see how that is any justification for removing flags.

I didn't say anything about removing them, I'm just talking about the signifigance of them as they just continue to divide the community and back to your original point, will prevent from the people here moving on.

Jim236 · 21-03-2009 05:16PM

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm quite aware that it's failed. However in the current Assembly they do make decisions on financial matters, or at least I assume they do otherwise it wouldn't be much of a parliament.

Yeah they do make financial decisions, Peter Robinson himself holds the ministry of finance, but these decisions were made by direct rule legislators in London when no assembly existed or was suspended which was effectively the case between 1972 and 2007, and that was the point I was trying to make.

I never said that you did, but it is an example where uniting a country hit home financially pretty hard.

Yeah fair enough, but you have to accept that if years down the line Irish unity ever did come about the North won't ever be as bad as East Germany was, and to some extent still is. Like I said in my previous post, thats why the Irish government is pumping billions in the North as part of the NDP, so that if a United Ireland ever does come about that the infrastructure will already be there.

Of course they do. They have elected officials to do that for them. I don't see how that is any justification for removing flags.

Whos removing flags? It was the Unionists who banned Irish tricolours and oppressed the Irish population, and suppressed their culture.

From studying political institutions this semester at university, Northern Ireland isn't the only model that uses it. Austria also uses conciliatory politics in it's legislature to an extent, but the most similar to Northern Ireland in terms of conflict would be that the same model was used in Lebanon between Christians and Muslims.

All I'm saying is the ideal situation in the North is that there can be free elections, and that from those elections parties are free to organise a majority government without any particular party having to be part of that government. And that in any future debate on a United Ireland leading up to a referendum, that the public are given the facts of how reunification will and won't benefit the North without bringing religion or green and orange politics into it. That could be 20 years down the line, or 50 years down the line, or never, but IMO its the ideal situation to bring about a United Ireland. The way things stand it won't happen anytime soon.

philologos · 21-03-2009 05:20PM

fingerbob wrote: »

I didn't say anything about removing them, I'm just talking about the signifigance of them as they just continue to divide the community and back to your original point, will prevent from the people here moving on.

If the flags are the cause of the division that is? I don't see how possibly they do.

Jim236 · 21-03-2009 05:22PM

The flags are not the cause of division, they just symbolise it.

fingerbob · 21-03-2009 05:23PM

Jakkass wrote: »

If the flags are the cause of the division that is? I don't see how possibly they do.

Sorry, one of the causes of it. A big one is schools, the vast majority of catholic and protestants attend different schools and also there needs to be more mixed housing estate projects or successful ones even!

Jim236 · 21-03-2009 05:26PM

fingerbob wrote: »

also there needs to be more mixed housing estate projects or successful ones even!

You could have that overnight by removing those 'peace walls'. While Bertie was around the world saying how much Ireland is now at peace, there were still more of these walls being built around the North. Theres now more peace walls than there was just 5 years ago.

fingerbob · 21-03-2009 05:32PM

Jim236 wrote: »

You could have that overnight by removing those 'peace walls'. While Bertie was around the world saying how much Ireland is now at peace, there were still more of these walls being built around the North. Theres now more peace walls than there was just 5 years ago.

Indeed, but there will implications that are involved in removing them. I don't understand why there's more now though. Thing's will change though, you see it outside of the urban working class areas. I have plenty of protestant friends and my girlfriend is too, not that it even matters to any of us. Eventually this mentality will trickle through to all sections of society (maybe except for these CIRA and RIRA idiots). There needs to be more cross community projects in youth and when the generations that didn't experience the troubles grow up hopefully the situation will have sorted itself out. Alot of "traditions" need to stop or become more accomodating though. I just hope theres no more of these shootings or retaliations as it's only gonna take us 10 years back.

21-03-2009 05:46PM

Sofiztikated wrote: »

I always said that to solve this, it would take a few brawny lads, some shovels, and a few stout wooden poles. Get the brawny lads to use the shovels to dig a really deep trench around the border. Then use the poles as levers, thus making Norn Iron its own island, and let them do their own thing.
I don't understand the argument that "We're one landmass, so we should be one country."
The continent of Europe is one land mass (mostly) but is many countries, why should a smaller one be any different?

And build a bridge in its place to allow a Donegal road connection to Dublin as we travel through the North to get there

Donegal, particularly Letterkenny, has a lot of economic and social links to the North so cross border cooperation is important - not "let them do their own thing"

PK2008 · 21-03-2009 08:51PM

In fairness is there any real differencce between Ireland and the UK anyway?

I know they have a monarch but isnt she more of a figurehead, like the internal institutions, political structures (ie democracy and all that jazz), civil law is prety much the same- I mean its not like we have 2 completely different countries, if it wasnt for the accent and sea we'd be identical

In a way i can understand why the northern brits didnt want to part of the whole "catholic Ireland" which was pretty backward in its day, but today I dont think theres much difference

As the OP says its mostly just a flag- waste of time money, effot and worst of all life

Karlusss · 21-03-2009 09:11PM

This whole thing about voting to see which country you want to join is silly, I think.

You could cut a lump out of the border between the US and Canada with more Canadians and democratically the lump would go to Canada.

Northern Ireland was cut from Ireland in a way that reflected Protestant majorities in those counties. So having a plebiscite, while it makes democratic sense, is a weird thing to do because of how it was set up. If all of Ulster was included in the partitioned North, there'd be a nationalist majority by now. It's an artificial majority.

As neutral as everyone here may be to Northern Ireland, the fact remains that thousands of people DO want the right to live in the country that their nationality reflects without having to leave their homes. This applies to both sides. And it's not going to go away because Boards doesn't care.

newmills · 21-03-2009 09:14PM

[quote=flangdiddy
No offense to NI, but i visited the other day, and its certainly not worth 100 years of sweat!

I mean Dublin's much larger than Belfast

[/quote]

Sorry what do you mean by that? Where did you visit the other day that gives you the full impression of the north, it's people, it's sights etc?

So what that dublin is much larger than belfast. Hitler killed more people than osama bin laden - does that make him better!!:rolleyes:

PK2008 · 21-03-2009 09:19PM

Karlusss wrote: »

This whole thing about voting to see which country you want to join is silly, I think.

You could cut a lump out of the border between the US and Canada with more Canadians and democratically the lump would go to Canada.

Northern Ireland was cut from Ireland in a way that reflected Protestant majorities in those counties. So having a plebiscite, while it makes democratic sense, is a weird thing to do because of how it was set up. If all of Ulster was included in the partitioned North, there'd be a nationalist majority by now. It's an artificial majority.

As neutral as everyone here may be to Northern Ireland, the fact remains that thousands of people DO want the right to live in the country that their nationality reflects without having to leave their homes. This applies to both sides. And it's not going to go away because Boards doesn't care.

Say it did become part of Ireland, what would really change for those people?

I mean the ROI isnt really that different from the UK, they'd take down the Union Jack from a few buildings, put up the Tricoulour and we'd have a few more knobs in Dail Eireann- what a victory!!!

Adamcp898 · 21-03-2009 09:22PM

Karlusss wrote: »

Northern Ireland was cut from Ireland in a way that reflected Protestant majorities in those counties. So having a plebiscite, while it makes democratic sense, is a weird thing to do because of how it was set up. If all of Ulster was included in the partitioned North, there'd be a nationalist majority by now. It's an artificial majority.

Each county in ulster was given the vote as to which country they wanted to belong to, the ones with a protestant majority picked Britain, the rest picked Ireland so of course the ones that make up Northern Ireland now have a protestant majority.........

Jim236 · 21-03-2009 09:27PM

PK2008 wrote: »

In fairness is there any real differencce between Ireland and the UK anyway?

I know they have a monarch but isnt she more of a figurehead, like the internal institutions, political structures (ie democracy and all that jazz), civil law is prety much the same- I mean its not like we have 2 completely different countries, if it wasnt for the accent and sea we'd be identical

I disagree, I think theres a lot more than a different accent and head of state that sets us apart from Britain. The Irish language, GAA, Irish music, Irish culture in general just to name a few, and even the political structures we have are more similar to the US than the UK.

In a way i can understand why the northern brits didnt want to part of the whole "catholic Ireland" which was pretty backward in its day, but today I dont think theres much difference

You're takin the mick right? You're trying to say the 'Protestant country for the Protestant people' was ahead of it's time and as modern a country yeh could get? :rolleyes:

Also you can't say the North and the republic are equal, they're not. The North is still a good 10-20 years behind the republic, mainly because of how much religion is intertwined with Northern politics, whereas the republic is now quite a very secular state and has removed any influence the Catholic church previously had in political affairs.

PK2008 · 21-03-2009 09:34PM

Jim236 wrote: »

I disagree, I think theres a lot more than a different accent and head of state that sets us apart from Britain. The Irish language, GAA, Irish music, Irish culture in general just to name a few, and even the political structures we have are more similar to the US than the UK.

You're takin the mick right? You're trying to say the 'Protestant country for the Protestant people' was ahead of it's time and as modern a country yeh could get? :rolleyes:

Also you can't say the North and the republic are equal, they're not. The North is still a good 10-20 years behind the republic, mainly because of how much religion is intertwined with Northern politics, whereas the republic is now quite a very secular state and has removed any influence the Catholic church previously had in political affairs.

What????

Didnt they have divorce and condoms for sale in the North years before we "de-catholised"? Pfff we were years behind UK, wasnt til the 90's that we caught up with the rest of the world. Even i wouldve hated to live in the old catholic Ireland that my parents grew up in- nothing but mass and guilt (and unemployment).

What has GAA, Irish music and language got to do with it- i mean half of us dont even participate in those and we live here- plus dont they have all that up the North aswell???

As far as the structure sthings is concerned- we're free to speak our minds, vote, practice religion etc, and so are they - pretty much the same except for a few details- nothing worth killing anyone over

Svalbard · 21-03-2009 09:44PM

PK2008 wrote: »

What????

Didnt they have divorce and condoms for sale in the North years before we "de-catholised"? Pfff we were years behind UK, wasnt til the 90's that we caught up with the rest of the world. Even i wouldve hated to live in the old catholic Ireland that my parents grew up in- nothing but mass and guilt (and unemployment).

What has GAA, Irish music and language got to do with it- i mean half of us dont even participate in those and we live here- plus dont they have all that up the North aswell???

No, his point is a good one.

Throwing off the yoke of the Catholic Church may be a fairly recent development, but it has happened, it is the reality today and it isn't going to change.
There's no point saying 'sure, it was only the 1980's or 1990's that...etc' - its 2009 now and Ireland is effectively secular in all but name.

Religion plays no role in modern politics south of the border.

In NI religion is still hugely involved in politics, albeit on a more tribal rather than theological level.

PK2008 · 21-03-2009 09:49PM

Svalbard wrote: »

No, his point is a good one.

Throwing off the yoke of the Catholic Church may be a fairly recent development, but it has happened, it is the reality today and it isn't going to change.
There's no point saying 'sure, it was only the 1980's or 1990's that...etc' - its 2009 now and Ireland is effectively secular in all but name.

Religion plays no role in modern politics south of the border.

In NI religion is still hugely involved in politics, albeit on a more tribal rather than theological level.

How so? Are they taking direction from the pope now?

I thought the whole point of protestantism was that your religious leaders had no say in the government- actually sounds like a pretty good idea to me (and Im a catholic...by default anyway), something we didnt really achieve until the 80's

I think ye are straining to find differences- nothing worth shooting a fella for anyway

Svalbard · 21-03-2009 09:53PM

Svalbard wrote: »

In NI religion is still hugely involved in politics, albeit on a more tribal rather than theological level.

I believe my answer is there.

As I said it doesn't matter when it happened, the 1980's, 1990's or last tuesday, Ireland no longer listens to what the CC has to say.

Svalbard · 21-03-2009 09:56PM

PK2008 wrote: »

I think ye are straining to find differences- nothing worth shooting a fella for anyway

Hey, a guy said Ireland is secular and that religion is not as important to politics in the ROI as it is in NI. You claimed he's wrong. I merely pointed out that you are wrong.

I never said anything to suggest I support murder either.

Northern Ireland.. Whats the big deal?

Comments