Quote from Garret Fitzgerald....The people of the 26 Counties are state orientated not Ireland orientated, and have been since the 1920s....a rare statement of truth from a free state politicians, and an end to the patronising bullshit and lying anti-partitionist rhetoric that southern parties have getting away for years. Northern Nationalist take note, the biggest obstacle to a united Ireland lies south of the border. Better to cement the bonds with Unionist friends and neighbours, with whom we have more in common. An item on the R.T.E. News tonight called for the cleaning up of Glasnevin Cemetery in time for the centenary of the rising. What rank hypocrisy. Having interred the Republic declared by the the executed leaders, they now propose to stand at their gravesides and salute them, while of course declaring to be their adherents. Full marks for honesty Garret, you are a Man among Minions
If you didn't know by now that all us free staters would take another tax cut ahead of a united ireland then your finger must be off the pulse :P :P
I have always known that, but have never heard a free state politician willing to admit it. thats why i thought Garrets statement worth comment.
Yet if they weren't going to honour the 1916 leaders you'd be complaining about that too.
What do you want from the people from the south? Should we be following a different path to that we are on regarding the north? If so, what is it?
Quote from: Pangurban on May 29, 2007, 09:20:12 PM
the biggest obstacle to a united Ireland lies south of the border.
Im finding that hard to swallow. Is this based on certain parties reluctance to form a coalition with Sinn Fein or what!! I dont know why anyone down here would be set against a United Ireland. Maybe I live in my own bubble on this issue.
Quote from: thejuice on May 30, 2007, 02:07:10 AM
Quote from: Pangurban on May 29, 2007, 09:20:12 PM
the biggest obstacle to a united Ireland lies south of the border.
Im finding that hard to swallow. Is this based on certain parties reluctance to form a coalition with Sinn Fein or what!! I dont know why anyone down here would be set against a United Ireland. Maybe I live in my own bubble on this issue.
Jeez Juice
Economy would be the biggest worrying factor that would stop a UI - not a political one.
Like the re-building of Germany/Japan and the re-unification of Germany etc - the USA etc ploughed multi millions into this to build and support the new economy.
A UI needs no less than this.
Money to Ireland from UK, USA and EU. Why from USA & EU - well precedents have been set and Ireland is part of the EU and I would presume qualify for such a hand out to take over a 'weak state'.
Quote from: J70 on May 29, 2007, 11:46:54 PM
What do you want from the people from the south?
Sack cloth and ashes apparently for having the temerity to be born in the 26 counties.
And yes, the views of an aging octogenarian long retired politician are totally representative of the beliefs of all sud politician, in fact the whole population...sweet divine.
QuoteQuote from Garret Fitzgerald....
who cares what the old crank says. when fianna fail politicians start talking like that then i'll start believing it. j70s post is spot on... saw some other fine gaeler saying they won the election because they gained 20 odd seats while the gov lost 9... beam me fcukin up ;D
QuoteNorthern Nationalist take note, the biggest obstacle to a united Ireland lies south of the border.
We should have a poll on this. Is it because:
a) Ian Paisley has moved here?
b) Our banks are harder than yours?
c) Voters didn't think Gerry could even spell economy, stupid?
Remind me that Ian Paisley (younger and actually an elected representative) is speaking for all people of the 6 counties the next time I hear him drone on.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on May 30, 2007, 10:37:20 AM
Economy would be the biggest worrying factor that would stop a UI - not a political one.
Like the re-building of Germany/Japan and the re-unification of Germany etc - the USA etc ploughed multi millions into this to build and support the new economy.
A UI needs no less than this.
Money to Ireland from UK, USA and EU. Why from USA & EU - well precedents have been set and Ireland is part of the EU and I would presume qualify for such a hand out to take over a 'weak state'.
Whilst the Yanks are capable of anything (witness how many gazillions of Dollars they're pissing up an Iraqi wall at the moment), there is no parallel to be drawn between the Marshall Plan in post-WWII Europe and Ireland a good 60 years later. In the former case, the Americans poured money into Europe and Japan since they were terrified, with good reason, that these might fall into Communist hands.
There is no comparable threat to Ireland (unless you count the proto-Marxists in Sinn Fein and even they only got 6.9% of the vote in the recent Irish Election!)
As for the EU pouring money into Ireland - you're living in "cloud cuckoo land" if you think this will (or should) happen. The simple fact is that the Republic has already been in receipt of enormous subsidies throughout its entire membership of the EU and that particular "gravy train" is now pulling into the station, probably for good:
http://www.finfacts.com/irelandbusinessnews/publish/article_10003360.shtml
Taking one brief excerpt from the above, in 2004:
"The EU issued a detailed report on its 2004 Budget today and it shows that Ireland's net receipts from the EU Budget rose by €34 million to €1.594 billion.
The Irish at €396 per capita in net receipts from the EU, were the highest in the EU15 while the Dutch headed the net payers at €125 per head. Greeks benefited by €377 per capita, Portugal by €298 and Spain by €200. Germany paid $87 per capita into the EU Budget"I've not bothered searching for the equivalent figures for the 1980's and 90's, but the divergence between net payers and net recipients was almost certainly higher, since the then smaller EU had a higher proportion of Members who were large and/or wealthy net payers (Germany, UK, Italy, Netherlands etc) and a smaller proportion of Members who were small and/or poorer net recipients (Irish Republic, Portugal etc).
With the accession of new countries such as Romania and Bulgaria, even the poorest parts of NI are considerably wealthier than all of the new countries.
Or, to put it another way, we are constantly being told that the Irish Republic is one of the world's wealthist countries. Therefore, why should it merit "aid" to oil the wheels of any political arrangement into which it has freely entered, when 90%+ of the world's population is considerably poorer than any Irish person? Half the world starving, and people here are expecting further handouts? Outrageous :o
Mind you, for any form of Irish unity to come about, there are the
political ramifications which need to be addressed, long before we start arguing over who's going to pay for it. On which point, your charmingly phrased final phrase ("taking over" NI) unwittingly demonstrates more than ever the perceptiveness of Garrett Fitzgerald's comment.
It is one of the great ironies of Irish history that the very people who most desire Irish unity (i.e. militant Irish Republicans) are often the self-same people whose words and actions do most to prevent it ever coming about. I would have hoped that 30 years of the Troubles would have demonstrated to all but the bigot or the fool that just as 800,000 reluctant Nationalists were never going to be cowed into meekly accepting their place in a United Kingdom, then a million more Unionists are never going to accept being "taken over" by a United [
sic] Ireland. ::)
Quote"The EU issued a detailed report on its 2004 Budget today and it shows that Ireland's net receipts from the EU Budget rose by €34 million to €1.594 billion.
that wouldnt cover half the fishing rights the eu got from irish waters. ever wonder why we an island nation surrounded by some of the best fishing grounds in the world dont have a fishing industry eg? well we sold it....
Quote from: Pangurban on May 29, 2007, 09:20:12 PM
an end to the patronising bullshit and lying anti-partitionist rhetoric that southern parties have getting away for years.... Northern Nationalist take note, the biggest obstacle to a united Ireland lies south of the border.... Better to cement the bonds with Unionist friends and neighbours, with whom we have more in common.
Also heard Sir Garret Fitzthathcher saying to Mary Lou McDonald that one of the reasons SF did so bad in the free state elctions was that they had a british mp (Adams) as their main spokesman. B@STARD. But that's all you could expect from a west brit blueshirt anayway. We all remember John unionist Bruton and the 'tribal timebomb' regarding Mary McAleese. I'm from the 26 myself, but it's peculiar in that there are certain individuals down here who seem to be smug and dare I say, proud that british occupation and partition has been perserved. It shows the perversity of the state. BTW, I didn't vote SF. Not an RSFer though I do read their paper from time to time. At least they kept their princibles.
Anyway, here's my 2 cents worth, " an end to the patronising bullshit and lying anti-partitionist rhetoric ". 1000% correct, FF in particuliar. Nevertheless, I don't thing you could beat the king stoop, John Hume. How many times did we have to listen to " It's not the island that's divided, it's the people " sort of meaningless b*llshit. But the thing is, the stoops ALWAYS were full of patronising bullshit and lying anti-partitionist rhetoric. They were the first ones to accept the northern state/unionist veto when around 1973 they voted at their conference (even the FG/Pd's refer to it as an Ard Fheis). That's at least 20 years before the free state parties. So, what why the hell were people in the six counties voting for them crowd for when they categorically stated they accepted partition around 1973 or so ???
" Northern Nationalist take note, the biggest obstacle to a united Ireland lies south of the border ". Again, and though I agree in part, the stoops as a political movement were as just in favour of maintaining their political little fiefdoms and partition with it. It's like what James Connolly predicted when he wrote bout the "carnival of reaction" that would evolve if partition came about, that it would evolve on both sides of this border corrupt politicans whose only interest was self interest.
"Better to cement the bonds with Unionist friends and neighbours, with whom we have more in common". (Sound like a unionist troll ?) Cement bonds with british unionist bigots because the hypocritical politians both side of the border want to keep the brits occupying the north !!! If you cann't see the contradiction in that, I wouldn't start to explain ::) Not going to happen pal, don't bother trying. Despite all I have said, the majority of people on both sides of the border want to see a United Ireland. Economic integration will have to come first, and this is already happening. As corrupt as they are, the FF are the best to handle it, which says how pathetic the rest are. Coupled with the growing Nationalist population ( in electoral terms, it's closing by almost 1 and 1/4 % every 4 years, around 57% to 43% at the moment ), we will be well on the way to a United Ireland.
" then a million more Unionists are never going to accept being "taken over" by a United Ireland. " When they no longer get the wink and nod from the britih govt. due to the greater Nationalist population in say, 20 years, they'll do exactly what their brethern did in the 26 co's when partition came about - nothing.
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 31, 2007, 09:01:09 AM
It is one of the great ironies of Irish history that the very people who most desire Irish unity (i.e. militant Irish Republicans) are often the self-same people whose words and actions do most to prevent it ever coming about. I would have hoped that 30 years of the Troubles would have demonstrated to all but the bigot or the fool that just as 800,000 reluctant Nationalists were never going to be cowed into meekly accepting their place in a United Kingdom, then a million more Unionists are never going to accept being "taken over" by a United [sic] Ireland. ::)
Isn't it an awful shame that it took 30 years of warring to get Paisley to sit in an administration with, not just Taigs, but Republicans, where he couldn't even share a greeting with them before! Of course, being the
genius??? that you so evidently are, this logic is total anathema to you, being as it is so soundly grounded in fact -- it is not rare that things have to get (sometimes much) worse, before they can ever improve. And the "800,000 reluctant Nationalists" may never have risen in resistance in the first place had they been treated with anything like the normal respect due to human peers. Moreover, more Unionists than you are obviously aware of are silently resigned to the eventuality of a reunited Ireland at some point, maybe not tomorrow, but in the not too distant future; and there's no equation between their situation and that of the six-county Nationalists, but I'll leave that for you to work out as an exercise in dialectics.
Sorry to puncture your neat, though vacuous, smug and trite little hypothesis.
Quote from: SuperMac on May 31, 2007, 04:26:10 PM
Quote from: Pangurban on May 29, 2007, 09:20:12 PM
an end to the patronising bullshit and lying anti-partitionist rhetoric that southern parties have getting away for years.... Northern Nationalist take note, the biggest obstacle to a united Ireland lies south of the border.... Better to cement the bonds with Unionist friends and neighbours, with whom we have more in common.
Also heard Sir Garret Fitzthathcher saying to Mary Lou McDonald that one of the reasons SF did so bad in the free state elctions was that they had a british mp (Adams) as their main spokesman. B@STARD. But that's all you could expect from a west brit blueshirt anayway. We all remember John unionist Bruton and the 'tribal timebomb' regarding Mary McAleese. I'm from the 26 myself, but it's peculiar in that there are certain individuals down here who seem to be smug and dare I say, proud that british occupation and partition has been perserved. It shows the perversity of the state. BTW, I didn't vote SF. Not an RSFer though I do read their paper from time to time. At least they kept their princibles.
Anyway, here's my 2 cents worth, " an end to the patronising bullshit and lying anti-partitionist rhetoric ". 1000% correct, FF in particuliar. Nevertheless, I don't thing you could beat the king stoop, John Hume. How many times did we have to listen to " It's not the island that's divided, it's the people " sort of meaningless b*llshit. But the thing is, the stoops ALWAYS were full of patronising bullshit and lying anti-partitionist rhetoric. They were the first ones to accept the northern state/unionist veto when around 1973 they voted at their conference (even the FG/Pd's refer to it as an Ard Fheis). That's at least 20 years before the free state parties. So, what why the hell were people in the six counties voting for them crowd for when they categorically stated they accepted partition around 1973 or so ???
" Northern Nationalist take note, the biggest obstacle to a united Ireland lies south of the border ". Again, and though I agree in part, the stoops as a political movement were as just in favour of maintaining their political little fiefdoms and partition with it. It's like what James Connolly predicted when he wrote bout the "carnival of reaction" that would evolve if partition came about, that it would evolve on both sides of this border corrupt politicans whose only interest was self interest.
"Better to cement the bonds with Unionist friends and neighbours, with whom we have more in common". (Sound like a unionist troll ?) Cement bonds with british unionist bigots because the hypocritical politians both side of the border want to keep the brits occupying the north !!! If you cann't see the contradiction in that, I wouldn't start to explain ::) Not going to happen pal, don't bother trying. Despite all I have said, the majority of people on both sides of the border want to see a United Ireland. Economic integration will have to come first, and this is already happening. As corrupt as they are, the FF are the best to handle it, which says how pathetic the rest are. Coupled with the growing Nationalist population ( in electoral terms, it's closing by almost 1 and 1/4 % every 4 years, around 57% to 43% at the moment ), we will be well on the way to a United Ireland.
" then a million more Unionists are never going to accept being "taken over" by a United Ireland. " When they no longer get the wink and nod from the britih govt. due to the greater Nationalist population in say, 20 years, they'll do exactly what their brethern did in the 26 co's when partition came about - nothing.
Now let me see, have I missed anyone from your list of "Traitors to the Republican Cause"?
Garrett Fitgerald, John Bruton, FG's Blueshirts (obviously);
"Certain individuals down here"
"FF in particular" (1000% correct, it seems)
The SDLP (and John Hume, in particular)
"People in the six counties who voted for [the Stoops]"
Those South of the Border providing "obstacles" (in part, at least)
"Corrupt, self-interested politicians" - North of the Border
"Corrupt, self-interested politicians" - South of the Border
"British Unionist Bigots" (naturally)
Seemingly everybody else, except:
Sinn Fein (though not enough to be worth a Vote?)
and
Republican Sinn Fein*
Still, what do the rest of us all know, anyhow? After all, it's not as if e.g. 95%+ of the population of Ireland ever voted in a Referendum to recognise the continued existence of partition, so long as a majority of people in Northern Ireland so wished, is it? ::)
* - Was it their sparkling Newspaper articles, their Principles, or the Heroic Blow for Liberation struck in Omagh which swung it for you? :o
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on May 31, 2007, 04:44:50 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 31, 2007, 09:01:09 AM
It is one of the great ironies of Irish history that the very people who most desire Irish unity (i.e. militant Irish Republicans) are often the self-same people whose words and actions do most to prevent it ever coming about. I would have hoped that 30 years of the Troubles would have demonstrated to all but the bigot or the fool that just as 800,000 reluctant Nationalists were never going to be cowed into meekly accepting their place in a United Kingdom, then a million more Unionists are never going to accept being "taken over" by a United [sic] Ireland. ::)
Isn't it an awful shame that it took 30 years of warring to get Paisley to sit in an administration with, not just Taigs, but Republicans, where he couldn't even share a greeting with them before! Of course, being the genius??? that you so evidently are, this logic is total anathema to you, being as it is so soundly grounded in fact -- it is not rare that things have to get (sometimes much) worse, before they can ever improve. And the "800,000 reluctant Nationalists" may never have risen in resistance in the first place had they been treated with anything like the normal respect due to human peers. Moreover, more Unionists than you are obviously aware of are silently resigned to the eventuality of a reunited Ireland at some point, maybe not tomorrow, but in the not too distant future; and there's no equation between their situation and that of the six-county Nationalists, but I'll leave that for you to work out as an exercise in dialectics.
Sorry to puncture your neat, though vacuous, smug and trite little hypothesis.
The paragraph of mine which you quoted addressed the position of Republicans, directed specifically as it was at Lynchboy.
But you should not use that to try to guess my views on the position of
Loyalism during the Troubles.
For the record, I have always believed that the bigoted and destructive antics of the likes of Paisley over 30 years or more was utterly deplorable, both for its offence towards, and effect on, his Catholic/Nationalist fellow Irishmen
and for the self-defeating harm it did to the cause he purported to serve.
As for the position of Nationalists within NI, I don't blame them for having become alienated at the treatment so many of them received for so long at the hands of successive Unionist Governments at Stormont. That said, I cannot accept that this mistreatment ever justified the violent, terrorist reaction of a (small) section from within their ranks.
Still, may I thank you for putting me right on what Unionists really think; and no, it's not at all "vacuous", "smug" or "trite" of you to point these things out to me. ::)
" Now let me see, have I missed anyone from your list of "Traitors to the Republican Cause"? "
Yourself, ofcourse, I would have thought that one pretty obvious. :D All those mentioned did nothing but utter empty empty platitudes regarding uniting the country. If you cann't see that, not going to bother trying to explain. They were just british puppets, it's called Neocolonialism.
Evil Genius again - " Seemingly everybody else, except:
Sinn Fein (though not enough to be worth a Vote?)
and
Republican Sinn Fein*
Still, what do the rest of us all know, anyhow? After all, it's not as if e.g. 95%+ of the population of Ireland ever voted in a Referendum to recognise the continued existence of partition, so long as a majority of people in Northern Ireland so wished, is it? ::)
* - Was it their sparkling Newspaper articles, their Principles, or the Heroic Blow for Liberation struck in Omagh which swung it for you? :o
Wrong - 56% of voters voted in the referendum in the 26 co's, (of that 6% voted against it), 81% in the six counties ( of that 29% againist ). Not the " 95%+ of the population of Ireland ever voted in a Referendum to recognise the continued existence of partition " as you stated. ;)
RSF had nothing to do with Omagh. It was the Real IRA linked to the 32 Co. Sovernity Movement. Try and get your facts right. Indeed the RUC and Ronnie Flanagan might know a lot more about Omagh than the RSF. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omagh_bomb#Police_Ombudsman_Report
To quote Fear ón Srath Bán " Sorry to puncture your neat, though vacuous, smug and trite little hypothesis ".
Looking back at the disasterous, wasteful, unjustified years of the troubles, the question arises who was to blame. Part of my thesis would contend that a large part of the blame rests with the two main southern parties FF and FG. Since the creation of the free state in 1922, both parties continued to pay lip service to the idea of a united Ireland. They included this aim in their respective constitutions, it was even included in the 1937 Constitution. Nationalists in the North continued too look south for support and comfort. But the reality was that this pretence amounted to nothing more than empty rhetoric, trundled out to keep the camp followers happy. Never once was any attempt made to devise a strategy towards realising there declared aim. Not one campaign was organised through their embassies to protest or highlight what they termed the injustice of partition. For all of those years the injustices perpretated against Northern Nationalists were totally ignored. Not one question was raised in the Dail or any International forum regarding same. While left wing British MPS were concerned enough to raise questions occasionally in Westminister, not one peep emanated from the National Parliament of the Oriechtas. As a new educated generation of Nationalists emerged in the North, so did the realisation that looking south for assistance or aid was futile. The emergence of the civil rights movement ,and the resultant turmoil, called for a response from Southern politicians when Nationalists came under siege in the Bogside and Derry. Jack Lynch proclaimed we can not stand idly bye, and then proceeded to stand idly bye, leaving a vaccum which was filled by the provisional I.R.A., and the resultant years of horror.. Throughout those years free state politicians indulged in public handwashing,deeming the problem to be a British one and for them to sort out. Britian fulfilled its proper role of defending the Unionand Unionists, the free state politicos turned their back on Nationalists and denied that they sought unification. A modicum of integrity throughout the years 1922 ---1960 could have prevented what happened. In all that time the only politician in the south who displayed any honour or integrity was Sean Lemass who at least attempted to engage in dialogue with Unionists and Nationalists. The other hypocrites were like the little boy dreaming of becoming a professional footballer but never actually playing football or participating in any activity which would help achieve his aim.
By and large I agree, "empty rhetoric, .....pay lip service" etc to a United Ireland since partition, and not just FF and FG, them all, Labour, Greens, the various disguises the stickies had. Sean McBride and Clann na Poblachta were about the only honest exception. In 1948 tried to raise international awareness and were to the forefront of the Anti Partition League. Don't know much about the Anti Partition League, just my parents mentioned it the odd time. Incidentally Robert McCartney's unionist co runner Conor 'booze'(Cruise) O'Brien was a memebr of it !!!!
But what gets me is that you TOTALLY ignore your fellow northerners whom many were just as complicit as any of the free state parties in accepting british occupation. What did they do, empty rhetoric and lip service. As I pointed out in my previous post, the stoops were the very first ones to accept british occupation and the unionist veto, back as early as 1973 I think ? What's your opinion on that ? I'm sure it'll be all the free staters fault no doubt.
Even when partition was first preposed, Joe Devlin the Belfast MP for the Redmondites, had no objections about it. http://www.marxists.org/archive/connolly/1914/03/laborpar.htm
And when it comes to empty rhetoric, who could beat Uncle Tom John Hume. No doubt about it......" It's not the island that's divided, it's the people, an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind " etc I rememeber reading in the Big Issues magazine where he stated that he"didn't like to be referred to as a Nationalist politican " and explained it away as that he represents all the people of NI and understands the fears and traditions of the unionist community etc,etc,etc etc. And this bag of air was the leading 'Nationalist' politican of the "Nationalist" SDLP !!!!
So, why all the blame been thrown at us free state bastards when there was regretfully more than a few 'Nationalists' north of the border more than happy to accept partition. But it wasn't just Irish citizens that the great leaders down in the 'Republic' that they failed to protect, they even failed to protect the citizens in their own juristicion. How ? Something around 50 people were murdered in the 26 co's during the troubles - and not ONE arrest. The largest murder in the history of the state, the Dublin bombings in 1974, was wound down after just one month, despite the Guards and the Army making it very clear to the govt their strong suspisions. If they weren't prepared to protect people in their own juristicion want chance would the quislings do for people in the North.
Still I can understand anyone's frustrations with the electorate down here. I don't care whatevr anyone wants to say, but when you see them electing a swindler like Beverly Cooper Flynn and not a decent politican like Joe Higgins, what can you do with them :(
Quotebut when you see them electing a swindler like Beverly Cooper Flynn
Mods I hope you have a good lawyer.
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on May 31, 2007, 04:44:50 PM
Isn't it an awful shame that it took 30 years of warring to get Paisley to sit in an administration with, not just Taigs, but Republicans, where he couldn't even share a greeting with them before! Of course, being the genius??? that you so evidently are, this logic is total anathema to you, being as it is so soundly grounded in fact -- it is not rare that things have to get (sometimes much) worse, before they can ever improve. And the "800,000 reluctant Nationalists" may never have risen in resistance in the first place had they been treated with anything like the normal respect due to human peers. Moreover, more Unionists than you are obviously aware of are silently resigned to the eventuality of a reunited Ireland at some point, maybe not tomorrow, but in the not too distant future; and there's no equation between their situation and that of the six-county Nationalists, but I'll leave that for you to work out as an exercise in dialectics.
Sorry to puncture your neat, though vacuous, smug and trite little hypothesis.
The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world that he didn't exist. And the greatest trick of politics in these islands was Unionism (aka the most virulent form of British nationalism) convincing the world that they could never be violent, even though there isn't a single strand of Unionist thought which does not reserve the right to use violence to prevent Northern Ireland becoming part of a united Ireland.
Quote from: deiseach on June 01, 2007, 08:34:18 PM
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on May 31, 2007, 04:44:50 PM
Isn't it an awful shame that it took 30 years of warring to get Paisley to sit in an administration with, not just Taigs, but Republicans, where he couldn't even share a greeting with them before! Of course, being the genius??? that you so evidently are, this logic is total anathema to you, being as it is so soundly grounded in fact -- it is not rare that things have to get (sometimes much) worse, before they can ever improve. And the "800,000 reluctant Nationalists" may never have risen in resistance in the first place had they been treated with anything like the normal respect due to human peers. Moreover, more Unionists than you are obviously aware of are silently resigned to the eventuality of a reunited Ireland at some point, maybe not tomorrow, but in the not too distant future; and there's no equation between their situation and that of the six-county Nationalists, but I'll leave that for you to work out as an exercise in dialectics.
Sorry to puncture your neat, though vacuous, smug and trite little hypothesis.
The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world that he didn't exist. And the greatest trick of politics in these islands was Unionism (aka the most virulent form of British nationalism) convincing the world that they could never be violent, even though there isn't a single strand of Unionist thought which does not reserve the right to use violence to prevent Northern Ireland becoming part of a united Ireland.
Although I can only speak for myself, here is one Irish Unionist who would consider it entirely wrong for his fellow Unionists to use violence in the event of a majority of the population of Northern Ireland voting for NI to become part of a united Ireland. I am pretty certain I am not alone, since the consent principle is the very basis of the Good Friday Agreement which a large majority of Unionists voted for.
Therefore, I feel you should withdraw your claim, based as it is on the bigoted premise that "they're all the same, themmuns" >:(
P.S. Your claim that Unionism, as espoused by millions of your fellow Irish people down the centuries, is the most "virulent form of British Nationalism" is pretty rich, even by your standards.
Considering British Nationalism was responsible for conquering and ruling a quarter world's population at one stage, in just about every corner of the Globe, with numerous associated atrocities and injustices, I hardly think events in Ireland deserve that particular epithet. Still, if you wish to continue to wallow in mopery... ::)
Quote from: Evil Genius on June 02, 2007, 02:36:54 PM
Although I can only speak for myself, here is one Irish Unionist who would consider it entirely wrong for his fellow Unionists to use violence in the event of a majority of the population of Northern Ireland voting for NI to become part of a united Ireland. I am pretty certain I am not alone, since the consent principle is the very basis of the Good Friday Agreement which a large majority of Unionists voted for.
Therefore, I feel you should withdraw your claim, based as it is on the bigoted premise that "they're all the same, themmuns" >:(
Perhaps the Alliance Party can be classed as Unionist. But I can think of no other Unionist party which has not at some point resorted to the rhetoric of not an inch, espoused its willingness to fight to the last man, to defend Ulster against its enemies etc etc. I note you do not dispute this. So, apart from the aforementioned Alliance, I think it is fair to say that no party shys away from the nuclear option of taking up arms to prevent united Ireland.
Quote from: Evil Genius on June 02, 2007, 02:36:54 PMP.S. Your claim that Unionism, as espoused by millions of your fellow Irish people down the centuries, is the most "virulent form of British Nationalism" is pretty rich, even by your standards.
Considering British Nationalism was responsible for conquering and ruling a quarter world's population at one stage, in just about every corner of the Globe, with numerous associated atrocities and injustices, I hardly think events in Ireland deserve that particular epithet. Still, if you wish to continue to wallow in mopery... ::)
I'd be interested to know what you think my standards are. But I don't see what's controversial about saying Ulster Unionism is British nationalism in its most extreme form. The current leader of Unionism, Dr Paisley, would have no problem with that description. As for the quarter of the globe blarney, I fail to see what relevance the actions of Robert Clive et al have to 21st century political thought. It'd be like the Shinners claiming they're not at the extreme of Irish Nationalist thought because Liam Lynch was further out there.
Quote from: Evil Genius on June 02, 2007, 02:36:54 PM
PConsidering British Nationalism was responsible for conquering and ruling a quarter world's population at one stage, in just about every corner of the Globe, with numerous associated atrocities and injustices.... [/quote]
atrocities and injustices thy got right after 500 years practising on us
Quote from: deiseach on June 02, 2007, 03:53:24 PMPerhaps the Alliance Party can be classed as Unionist. But I can think of no other Unionist party which has not at some point resorted to the rhetoric of not an inch, espoused its willingness to fight to the last man, to defend Ulster against its enemies etc etc. I note you do not dispute this. So, apart from the aforementioned Alliance, I think it is fair to say that no party shys away from the nuclear option of taking up arms to prevent united Ireland.
Not your usual style deiseach. ::)
I don't think any of the mainstream Unionist parties (even the 'old style' DUPes before Papa Doc has the labotomy) would 'take up arms' to prevent a United Ireland if the majority voted for one and I've never heard any of them say that they would.
Quote from: SammyG on June 03, 2007, 03:59:45 PM
I don't think any of the mainstream Unionist parties (even the 'old style' DUPes before Papa Doc has the labotomy) would 'take up arms' to prevent a United Ireland if the majority voted for one and I've never heard any of them say that they would.
Even discounting the likelihood that Unionism would demand repartition, much as it did when faced with the majority of Irishmen supporting Home Rule (it's easy to have a majority when you determine whose opinion is to be canvassed) there was nothing stopping the government at Westminster voting NI out of the Union - Parliament, after all, is sovereign in the UK. Knowing this, Unionism has always reserved the right to take up arms to prevent such a corrupt parliamentary bargain. They would, in my opinion, be justified in taking such an action. But let's not pretend that such a nucelar option does not exist at the heart of Unionism.
Quote from: deiseach on June 03, 2007, 06:32:38 PM
Quote from: SammyG on June 03, 2007, 03:59:45 PM
I don't think any of the mainstream Unionist parties (even the 'old style' DUPes before Papa Doc has the labotomy) would 'take up arms' to prevent a United Ireland if the majority voted for one and I've never heard any of them say that they would.
Even discounting the likelihood that Unionism would demand repartition, much as it did when faced with the majority of Irishmen supporting Home Rule (it's easy to have a majority when you determine whose opinion is to be canvassed) there was nothing stopping the government at Westminster voting NI out of the Union - Parliament, after all, is sovereign in the UK. Knowing this, Unionism has always reserved the right to take up arms to prevent such a corrupt parliamentary bargain. They would, in my opinion, be justified in taking such an action. But let's not pretend that such a nucelar option does not exist at the heart of Unionism.
Alarmist nonsense - at least to anyone who has ever discussed the issue with Unionists.
The facts are quite simple.
Forty years ago, Paisley was able to whip up angry mobs to protest against a simple meeting between Terence O'Neill (NI P.M.) and Sean Lemass.
Thirty years ago, the UDA alone was able to mobilise almost 100,000 members on the streets of NI to protest about Sunningdale.
Twenty Years ago, Loyalist Paramilitarists were uniting under a combined "command", whilst Paisley was mobilising his infamous "Third Force", to oppose the Anglo-Irish Agreement.
As recently as ten years ago, Unionism was split between those who accepted the GFA and those who opposed it (though the former were a clear majority).
Throughout those years, various "Loyalist" terrorists of all types mounted daily attacks on innocent Catholics/Nationalist etc.
Yet look at the situation today. The paramilities are a spent force - drug-dealing and extortion aside - with neglible political support. Paisley is happily shaking hands with Bertie, whilst sitting down to work SF, or having tea with the Catholic Primate of Armagh. Every single Unionist party has signed up to the St. Andrews' Agreement. Meanwhile, the British Army has been withdrawn, the UDR disbanded, the police reformed and re-named, Republican prisoners have been freed etc - all with little or no effective or concerted protest from Unionists of any strand.
By no reasonable interpretation could those immense changes be said to denote a demand on the part of present-day Unionism to be able to resist by force any democratically-agreed change to the constitution of NI.
Oh and by the way, it has
always been within the gift of Westminster to end the Union of NI with GB by simple Act of Parliament. What has changed, however, is that such an eventuality has never been less likely at any time* in the 86 years existence of NI than it is today; after all, that was what the GFA was all about.
* - In 1940, Churchill seriously proposed to De Valera that NI be handed to the Free State, in return for GB access to the Treaty Ports, and overflying rights etc. The irony is, that although De Valera declined, Sir James Craig (NI P.M. at the time) acknowledged that if that was the price to be paid for resisting Hitler, then he would acquiesce. Bloody Unionists, eh? All the Bloody same...
Quote from: Evil Genius on June 04, 2007, 04:26:00 PM
* - In 1940, Churchill seriously proposed to De Valera that NI be handed to the Free State, in return for GB access to the Treaty Ports, and overflying rights etc. The irony is, that although De Valera declined, Sir James Craig (NI P.M. at the time) acknowledged that if that was the price to be paid for resisting Hitler, then he would acquiesce. Bloody Unionists, eh? All the Bloody same...
Are you joking or what ? " seriously proposed to De Valera ". Christ you've got to be a unionist to beleive that. Yeah, he promised Cyprus the same, Cyprus joined in WW1 AND WW2 and guess what - the brits went back on it as soon as the war was over. Also promised Gandhi he would give India full indepence if he supported WW2, Gandhi wisely refused. Home Rule was also promised before WW1 and look what happened there. Don't expect us to fall for that one ::), I mean we are dealing with the british sense of fairplay >:(
deiseach " Unionism has always reserved the right to take up arms to prevent such a corrupt parliamentary bargain. They would, in my opinion, be justified in taking such an action " - Are you serious ?
Quote from: SuperMac on June 04, 2007, 04:55:48 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on June 04, 2007, 04:26:00 PM
* - In 1940, Churchill seriously proposed to De Valera that NI be handed to the Free State, in return for GB access to the Treaty Ports, and overflying rights etc. The irony is, that although De Valera declined, Sir James Craig (NI P.M. at the time) acknowledged that if that was the price to be paid for resisting Hitler, then he would acquiesce. Bloody Unionists, eh? All the Bloody same...
Are you joking or what ? " seriously proposed to De Valera ". Christ you've got to be a unionist to beleive that. Yeah, he promised Cyprus the same, Cyprus joined in WW1 AND WW2 and guess what - the brits went back on it as soon as the war was over. Also promised Gandhi he would give India full indepence if he supported WW2, Gandhi wisely refused. Home Rule was also promised before WW1 and look what happened there. Don't expect us to fall for that one ::), I mean we are dealing with the british sense of fairplay >:(
Serious historians, both in Britain and Ireland, today accept that Churchill's offer was a sincere one. De Valera refused partly because he wasn't sure about the bona fides, partly because he wasn't sure he could sell it in the country and partly because he feared that if Britain did fall to the Nazis, the Free State would be screwed for having collaborated with the Brits.
The analogy with e.g Cyprus or India was an entirely false one since in both cases they were already part of the Empire, with British troops stationed in them i.e. the offer of independence was an encouragement to the natives to enlist, since Conscription would never have worked, or to prevent a rebellion and switch to the enemy.
By contrast, the Free State had Dominion status (i.e. semi-independence), as well as something to offer (the vital ports) in return for Churchill's offer of NI.
As for the promise of Irish Home Rule, that was made (not by Churchill, btw) to Redmond, in return for the support of the Irish Volunteers in WW1. Which was fair enough, except that the Easter Rebels rose in 1916 at the very time when Britian was in most peril in the war with Germany. This preceived act of treachery (whether you consider it such or not), combined with the massive vote for Sinn Fein in 1918 (consequent to the execution of the Rebels), entirely changed the basis of relations between Britain and Ireland from that which had existed in 1914 and before.
Consider also the character of Churchill, himself. Though an out and out Imperialist, he never had the great attachment to Irish Unionism of his father Randolph (who coined the phrase "Ulster Will Fight and Ulster Will Be Right", I think). Indeed, on one occasion Winston had to abandon a public address in Belfast during the Home Rule Crisis, since the RIC couldn't guarantee his safety - from a
Unionist crowd.
Not only that, but Churchill had an almost pathological hatred of Nazism, combined with a fierce pragmatism which would cause him to do whatever it took to prevail.
For example, at the same time as he was making his offer to Dev, he also flew several times to France at enormous personal risk, to bolster the (pre-Vichy) French Government. In particular, he was desperately concerned that the French would give in and the huge French Naval Fleet* in the Med would fall into German hands. Had that occurred, the War might well have been lost, since Britain needed to keep the French fleet out of German hands as much as it wanted the Irish deep-water ports for the Royal Navy (to keep Britain fed and supplied from N.America).
In the end, Churchill was so desperate that his final offer was to form an Anglo-French Union, with French citizens all having full British Citizenship (and vice-versa), with a single Government, if necessary. However, the French military caved in and Reynaud (the French PM) couldn't swing it. Make no mistake, this proposal would have meant the end of the UK as a single, independent sovereign nation and Churchill knew it better than anyone.
Therefore, anyone who knows anything about the man knows that his offer to Dev will have been an entirely serious one. Which is why there is no doubt that Dev blew the best (only?) chance of a United Ireland during the whole of the 20th Century. Shame. ;)
Still, if you want to go on believing the tired old myths of Irish Nationalism, in the face of clear historical evidence to the contrary, carry on. I hope it gives you a nice warm feeling...
* - When the France finally fell to the Nazis and Churchill didn't trust the French Naval commanders either to sail to British ports, or scuttle before the German/Vichy Government took over, Churchill personally ordered to Royal Navy to sink them, their hitherto allies, with massive loss of life:
http://www.digitalsurvivors.com/archives/churchillsinkingfrenchfleet.php
Won't ever be a UI I fear. Too many Castle Catholics up the north who imo would baulk at voting in favour of UI.
I fear that the often mentioned inevitability of Unity will prove just as incorrect as the predicated inevitable electoral rise of SF in the south. Under the GFA we for the first time acknowledged and accepted the unionist veto, I hope I'm wrong but that's how I see it.
Quote from: scalder on June 05, 2007, 11:23:09 AM
I fear that the often mentioned inevitability of Unity will prove just as incorrect as the predicated inevitable electoral rise of SF in the south. Under the GFA we for the first time acknowledged and accepted the unionist veto, I hope I'm wrong but that's how I see it.
There's the rub: what you term "the Unionist veto", we prefer to see as the Principle of Consent (i.e. not to be ruled by Dublin).
How would you feel if I said that the 1916 Rebels were merely exercising "the Nationalist veto" (i.e. not to be ruled by London)?
All of which leads to a powerful underlying theme to this thread, namely that there is an obligation, or duty, upon all Irish people to require to break the Union and establish a United Ireland. That is, that the desire of other Irish people to maintain the Union is simply not legitimate.
Of course, those of us from a Unionist background are used to being subjected to this (frankly) rather insulting mindset - we're only blow-ins, after all. But the worst vituperation appears to be reserved for those from a (seeming) Nationalist background who recognise that their neighbours derive from another tradition and wish to live peaceably side by side with them. The epithets are all here - Castle Catholics, stoops, traitors etc. And highest on the list of turncoats appears to be "Uncle Tom John Hume" (as another poster so charmingly dubbed him).
Just why are people like him not allowed to think for themselves? Is it because deep down, with his Planter surname, he's not really "Irish"? Perhaps someone of impeccable Gaelic lineage could enlighten me? Gerry
Adams perhaps? ::)
Yes I understand that you see it differently but I believe that Irish unity should be decided by the people of Ireland as a whole that a blocking vote should not be given to a minority. Maybe we should have a repartition reflecting the nationalist majority in 4 of the 6 northern counties. I agree terms of abuse are not helpful but from my perspective I can't understand how you can expect to be seen as anything other than 'blowins' when your allegiance is to a foreign country and not primarily to Ireland. Why are they now allowed think for themselves? Quisling should have said that he was not a traitor or an collaborator and that he was 'just thinking for himself.'
Quote from: scalder on June 05, 2007, 01:58:04 PM
Yes I understand that you see it differently but I believe that Irish unity should be decided by the people of Ireland as a whole
Why? If the Spanish government wanted to merge with Portugal, it wouldn't go ahead just because the Spanish voted for it, it would need a majority of Portuguese people as well. Why should NI and the RoI be any different?
Because portugal wasn't seperated from Spain in an attempt to gerrymander a majority of people in favour of it's existence.
Quote from: scalder on June 05, 2007, 11:23:09 AM
Under the GFA we for the first time acknowledged and accepted the unionist veto,
If that were so then the votes of Nationalists in the 6 North Eastern counties wont count in the event of a referendum on Re Uniting Ireland politically ??
Somehow I recall the GFA referring to a majority of the people of Northern(sic) Ireland ??
And led to the creation of the Northern State?
Quote from: Evil Genius on June 04, 2007, 06:37:09 PM
Serious historians, both in Britain and Ireland, today accept that Churchill's offer was a sincere one. De Valera refused partly because he wasn't sure about the bona fides, partly because he wasn't sure he could sell it in the country and partly because he feared that if Britain did fall to the Nazis, the Free State would be screwed for having collaborated with the Brits.
The analogy with e.g Cyprus or India was an entirely false one since in both cases they were already part of the Empire, with British troops stationed in them i.e. the offer of independence was an encouragement to the natives to enlist, since Conscription would never have worked, or to prevent a rebellion and switch to the enemy.
By contrast, the Free State had Dominion status (i.e. semi-independence), as well as something to offer (the vital ports) in return for Churchill's offer of NI.
As for the promise of Irish Home Rule, that was made (not by Churchill, btw) to Redmond, in return for the support of the Irish Volunteers in WW1. Which was fair enough, except that the Easter Rebels rose in 1916 at the very time when Britian was in most peril in the war with Germany. This preceived act of treachery (whether you consider it such or not), combined with the massive vote for Sinn Fein in 1918 (consequent to the execution of the Rebels), entirely changed the basis of relations between Britain and Ireland from that which had existed in 1914 and before.
Consider also the character of Churchill, himself. Though an out and out Imperialist, he never had the great attachment to Irish Unionism of his father Randolph (who coined the phrase "Ulster Will Fight and Ulster Will Be Right", I think). Indeed, on one occasion Winston had to abandon a public address in Belfast during the Home Rule Crisis, since the RIC couldn't guarantee his safety - from a Unionist crowd.
Not only that, but Churchill had an almost pathological hatred of Nazism, combined with a fierce pragmatism which would cause him to do whatever it took to prevail.
For example, at the same time as he was making his offer to Dev, he also flew several times to France at enormous personal risk, to bolster the (pre-Vichy) French Government. In particular, he was desperately concerned that the French would give in and the huge French Naval Fleet* in the Med would fall into German hands. Had that occurred, the War might well have been lost, since Britain needed to keep the French fleet out of German hands as much as it wanted the Irish deep-water ports for the Royal Navy (to keep Britain fed and supplied from N.America).
In the end, Churchill was so desperate that his final offer was to form an Anglo-French Union, with French citizens all having full British Citizenship (and vice-versa), with a single Government, if necessary. However, the French military caved in and Reynaud (the French PM) couldn't swing it. Make no mistake, this proposal would have meant the end of the UK as a single, independent sovereign nation and Churchill knew it better than anyone.
Therefore, anyone who knows anything about the man knows that his offer to Dev will have been an entirely serious one. Which is why there is no doubt that Dev blew the best (only?) chance of a United Ireland during the whole of the 20th Century. Shame. ;)
Still, if you want to go on believing the tired old myths of Irish Nationalism, in the face of clear historical evidence to the contrary, carry on. I hope it gives you a nice warm feeling...
* - When the France finally fell to the Nazis and Churchill didn't trust the French Naval commanders either to sail to British ports, or scuttle before the German/Vichy Government took over, Churchill personally ordered to Royal Navy to sink them, their hitherto allies, with massive loss of life:
http://www.digitalsurvivors.com/archives/churchillsinkingfrenchfleet.php
You shouldn't have bothered typing all that rubbish out pal ::). Go on, continue to live in fantasy land, glad you enjoyed my Uncle Tom John Hume remark though.
QuoteTherefore, why should it merit "aid" to oil the wheels of any political arrangement into which it has freely entered, when 90%+ of the world's population is considerably poorer than any Irish person? Half the world starving, and people here are expecting further handouts?
I think because this kind of decolonisation is not setting a precedent, as nowhere quite like the 6 counties exists elsewhere in Europe. However if NI is properly governed and peaceful, it should be fairly prosperous and while some transitional arrangements would be needed, it is not quite like unifying Korea. Such transitional arrangements would be a small enough part of the EU budget and the Romanians might even agree in case they want to re-unite with Moldova.
QuoteOf course, those of us from a Unionist background are used to being subjected to this (frankly) rather insulting mindset - we're only blow-ins, after all.
Time
you stopped regarding yourself as blowins and try and tried integrate a bit, diverse Poles and Nigerians have managed it, so it can't be that hard.
QuoteAnd highest on the list of turncoats appears to be "Uncle Tom John Hume"
A prophet is never well regarded in his own land.
Quote from: armaghniac on June 05, 2007, 05:29:48 PMI think because this kind of decolonisation is not setting a precedent, as nowhere quite like the 6 counties exists elsewhere in Europe. However if NI is properly governed and peaceful, it should be fairly prosperous and while some transitional arrangements would be needed, it is not quite like unifying Korea. Such transitional arrangements would be a small enough part of the EU budget and the Romanians might even agree in case they want to re-unite with Moldova.
What the fcuk are you on about? Are you trying to suggest that NI (or even the island of Ireland) is a colony of some sort?
Quote from: armaghniac on June 05, 2007, 05:29:48 PM
Time you stopped regarding yourself as blowins and try and tried integrate a bit, diverse Poles and Nigerians have managed it, so it can't be that hard.
Don't know anybody, Unionist or otherwise, that thinks of themselves as a blow-in. My family have been here for a long long time, long enough to be considered a native. I think you'll find it was the people who wanted to bomb us into the sea (and our now ministers in our government ;)) who saw us as blow-ins.
Quote from: scalder on June 05, 2007, 01:58:04 PM
Yes I understand that you see it differently but I believe that Irish unity should be decided by the people of Ireland as a whole that a blocking vote should not be given to a minority.
Maybe we should have a repartition reflecting the nationalist majority in 4 of the 6 northern counties.
I agree terms of abuse are not helpful but from my perspective I can't understand how you can expect to be seen as anything other than 'blowins' when your allegiance is to a foreign country and not primarily to Ireland.
Why are they now allowed think for themselves? Quisling should have said that he was not a traitor or an collaborator and that he was 'just thinking for himself.'
Re your first point, that's fine - then again, you would say that, wouldn't you? But what would happen in the event of, say, 51% of people in NI voting for a United Ireland and 51% of people in the ROI* voting to maintain partition i.e. an overall majority in favour of maintaining the status quo? Quite simply, in 1921 a clear majority in one part of the island voted to break with the Union and a clear majority in the other part voted to retain it. In such circumstances, so long as their rights are freely and democratically respected, it is incumbent upon minorities "trapped" on both sides of the border to accept it.
As for re-partition, what do you do about e.g. Nationalists in West Belfast, or Unionists in Derry? Do you really want to Balkanise the conflict no sooner than we've just reached a settlement? I know I don't.
And as for your blithe acceptance of the term "blow-in", so long as a million Irish people, many of whose ancestors have lived in Ireland for centuries, are treated like that, you'll never have an Agreed Ireland, nor will you have a United [
sic] Ireland imposed by force or chicanery or any other means. Or, to put it another way, how dare you tell me what political views are acceptable to hold and what aren't? I can see no distinction between that sort of bigoted prejudice and the bigoted prejudice of Unionists during the Stormont regime who decided that Nationalists in NI didn't "count" because they professed allegiance to a "foreign" country.
As for your analogy with Quisling... Are you Mary McAleese operating under a pseudonym by any chance? ::)
* - Not so fanciful as some might think, the way things are going ;)
Quote from: SuperMac on June 04, 2007, 04:55:48 PM
deiseach " Unionism has always reserved the right to take up arms to prevent such a corrupt parliamentary bargain. They would, in my opinion, be justified in taking such an action " - Are you serious ?
Yes. If Irish Nationalists are entitled to take up arms to further their political aims, then surely Ulster Unionists are entitled to the same, shall we say, courtesy?
Quote from: Rossfan on June 05, 2007, 04:24:32 PM
Quote from: scalder on June 05, 2007, 11:23:09 AM
Under the GFA we for the first time acknowledged and accepted the unionist veto,
If that were so then the votes of Nationalists in the 6 North Eastern counties wont count in the event of a referendum on Re Uniting Ireland politically ??
Somehow I recall the GFA referring to a majority of the people of Northern(sic) Ireland ??
The majority of voters, from all communities and on both sides of the border, ageed in the GFA that the status of NI as part of the UK will only change when/if a majority of voters in NI so decide. The Agreement has been ratified or recognised by just about every foreign government which has any interest, plus all the relevant multi-national organisations such as the EU and the UN.
Consequently, NI can clearly assert that after 86 years, much of it under challenge and assault of all kinds, it has now emerged into the 21st. Century with its right to exist more strongly established than ever.
Live with it.
QuoteWhat the fcuk are you on about? Are you trying to suggest that NI is a colony of some sort?
When did it cease to be a colony?
QuoteAnd as for your blithe acceptance of the term "blow-in", so long as a million Irish people, many of whose ancestors have lived in Ireland for centuries, are treated like that,
However when any of us suggest that this group of people are not blow-ins but just plain ordinary Irish people like the rest of us, entitled to the same rights and subject to the same obligations are everyone else, we get landed upon. You can't have it both ways.
Quote from: SuperMac on June 05, 2007, 05:05:42 PM
You shouldn't have bothered typing all that rubbish out pal ::). Go on, continue to live in fantasy land, glad you enjoyed my Uncle Tom John Hume remark though.
Is that really the best you can do? Two lines and a puerile gibe. And the laughable thing is, it wasn't even your first effort - you had to use the Edit function before you were satisfied!
As someone once said: "It is better to say nothing and be thought a fool than open your mouth, and confirm it" ::)
Quote from: deiseach on June 05, 2007, 06:04:34 PM
Quote from: SuperMac on June 04, 2007, 04:55:48 PM
deiseach " Unionism has always reserved the right to take up arms to prevent such a corrupt parliamentary bargain. They would, in my opinion, be justified in taking such an action " - Are you serious ?
Yes. If Irish Nationalists are entitled to take up arms to further their political aims, then surely Ulster Unionists are entitled to the same, shall we say, courtesy?
It should be open to
any group to take up arms to resist any threat to their right of democratic self-determination.
But in the present dispensation, imperfect though it may be, I don't consider Unionists would have the right to take up arms in the event of a majority of People in NI voting freely to end partition. Nor do I consider that Nationalists would have the right to take up arms in the event of the majority of the people of NI freely
declining to end partition.
It's called democracy.
Quote from: Evil Genius on June 05, 2007, 06:23:20 PM
It should be open to any group to take up arms to resist any threat to their right of democratic self-determination.
There's the rub. Who do you canvass? The people of Fermanagh and Tyrone, for example, were not asked their opinion in 1921, have not been offered a chance to express their opinion since and (in your dispensation) can never be asked without having their opinion placed alongside those with whom they do not agree. That's not democracy - that's majoritarianism.
Quote from: armaghniac on June 05, 2007, 06:12:34 PM
QuoteAnd as for your blithe acceptance of the term "blow-in", so long as a million Irish people, many of whose ancestors have lived in Ireland for centuries, are treated like that,
However when any of us suggest that this group of people are not blow-ins but just plain ordinary Irish people like the rest of us, entitled to the same rights and subject to the same obligations are everyone else, we get landed upon. You can't have it both ways.
I don't want it both ways. I am an Irishman. As such, I have as much right to pledge my allegiance to a United Kingdom as you, another Irishman, have to pledge allegiance to a United Ireland.
The only question remaining is how you accommodate our two contradictory aspirations.
From your posts, you continually refer to historical precendents/events, of your own interpretation, to justify your case.
For myself, I see absolutely no point in claiming credit, justification or authority on the basis of "good" deeds committed by ancestors who are long dead (nor should anyone feel ashamed on account of any misdeeds which may have been committed by them).
Instead, I believe that we must all account for our own words and actions.
Consequently, it is the people who live in Ireland today who must decide how we are to organise our lives.
Fortunately they have. It's called the GFA. Live with it.
Quote from: deiseach on June 05, 2007, 06:37:20 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on June 05, 2007, 06:23:20 PM
It should be open to any group to take up arms to resist any threat to their right of democratic self-determination.
There's the rub. Who do you canvass? The people of Fermanagh and Tyrone, for example, were not asked their opinion in 1921, have not been offered a chance to express their opinion since and (in your dispensation) can never be asked without having their opinion placed alongside those with whom they do not agree. That's not democracy - that's majoritarianism.
The people of East Donegal, for example, were not asked, either. There were many communities there which would have produced a majority for maintaining the Union if they had.
But as I said above, you simply cannot continue to bind yourself according to the constraints imposed by people long since dead. We are where we are and need to live with that.
Fortunately after decades of strife, a clear majority, from within all communities, in all parts of Ireland, have now recognised this.
And
that's democracy for you.
Quote from: Evil Genius on June 05, 2007, 06:53:00 PM
But as I said above, you simply cannot continue to bind yourself according to the constraints imposed by people long since dead. We are where we are and need to live with that.
Fortunately after decades of strife, a clear majority, from within all communities, in all parts of Ireland, have now recognised this.
And that's democracy for you.
It's only democracy if you continue to allow ourselves to be bound by the constraints imposed by people long dead. Looking at the opinions of the people of Donegal North East (http://electionsireland.org/result.cfm?election=2007&cons=72) all of twelve days ago, there doesn't seem to be a hell of a lot of demand for the Union. Compare this with West Tyrone (http://electionsireland.org/result.cfm?election=2005UK&cons=710) in 2005, where those running on a Nationalist platform outvoted those running on a Unionist ticket by a factor of almost three to one. And yet, those people must see their wishes ignored because of the aformentioned constraints imposed by the long dead. Shame.
QuoteFrom your posts, you continually refer to historical precendents/events, of your own interpretation, to justify your case.
hardly an unreasonable debating strategy, especially given some of the posts on this board!
Quote
For myself, I see absolutely no point in claiming credit, justification or authority on the basis of "good" deeds committed by ancestors who are long dead (nor should anyone feel ashamed on account of any misdeeds which may have been committed by them).
I firmly believe that you have to start from where you are, but with an understanding of how and why this situation occurred. NI came into existence and developed in a certain way, it is not a normal place. Things like fair employment laws, 50% quotas for the PSNI etc reflect this. Unionists need to take comfort from the fact that while NIs place in the union is open to change, such change will proceed with agreement, they have been given a voice. The flip side of this coin is to stop screaming when the people of Derry want to name their city officially with the name everyone uses anyway, when Irish language signs are proposed for places whose name is simply a bastardisation of an Irish name, when people oppose parades that they always opposed, but that opposition was ignored, to stop referring to the place as British, the British don't own it, the new arrangements mean that the people of NI control its destiny.
QuoteConsequently, it is the people who live in Ireland today who must decide how we are to organise our lives.
Fortunately they have. It's called the GFA. Live with it.
Gladly.
Quote from: Evil Genius on June 05, 2007, 05:56:27 PM
Quite simply, in 1921 a clear majority in one part of the island voted to break with the Union and a clear majority in the other part voted to retain it. In such circumstances, so long as their rights are freely and democratically respected, it is incumbent upon minorities "trapped" on both sides of the border to accept it.
what are you on about? incorrect... why cant you just say the thing was gerrymandered as you and sammy well know and get on with it. there was no such vote..
Quote from: magickingdom on June 05, 2007, 08:52:19 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on June 05, 2007, 05:56:27 PM
Quite simply, in 1921 a clear majority in one part of the island voted to break with the Union and a clear majority in the other part voted to retain it. In such circumstances, so long as their rights are freely and democratically respected, it is incumbent upon minorities "trapped" on both sides of the border to accept it.
what are you on about? incorrect... why cant you just say the thing was gerrymandered as you and sammy well know and get on with it. there was no such vote..
The first Election to Stormont in 1921 was conducted on a First Past The Post basis from an electorate comprising universal suffrage for over-21's (i.e all Catholics/Nationalists had exactly the same voting rights as everyone else). In that election, Unionist parties gained 66.9% of the vote and Sinn Fein and the Nationalists 32.9% between them.
Of course, if you don't recognise the validity of that vote, then I could refer you to the 1918 General Election - the last time an all-Ireland election was ever held. In that one, Unionists parties gained 29.3% of the vote*.
Interestingly, this did not just give them an overall majority in the six counties which were subsequently to comprise Northern Ireland;
they also gained an overall majority in the nine counties of Ulster .
Therefore, when Irish Nationalists complain about the "gerrymandered" nature of "the occupied six county statelet" etc, those who live in Cavan, Monaghan and Donegal might just have cause to give silent thanks to the Boundary Commission! :D
* - Despite getting 29.3% of the vote, Unionists only secured 24.7% of the seats (26/105). By contrast, Sinn Fein gained 46.9% of the vote, but 69.5% of the seats (73/105). Another example of gerrymandering by "perfidious Albion" perhaps? ;)
Quote from: Evil Genius on June 06, 2007, 02:42:08 PM
Quote from: magickingdom on June 05, 2007, 08:52:19 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on June 05, 2007, 05:56:27 PM
Quite simply, in 1921 a clear majority in one part of the island voted to break with the Union and a clear majority in the other part voted to retain it. In such circumstances, so long as their rights are freely and democratically respected, it is incumbent upon minorities "trapped" on both sides of the border to accept it.
what are you on about? incorrect... why cant you just say the thing was gerrymandered as you and sammy well know and get on with it. there was no such vote..
The first Election to Stormont in 1921 was conducted on a First Past The Post basis from an electorate comprising universal suffrage for over-21's (i.e all Catholics/Nationalists had exactly the same voting rights as everyone else). In that election, Unionist parties gained 66.9% of the vote and Sinn Fein and the Nationalists 32.9% between them.
Of course, if you don't recognise the validity of that vote, then I could refer you to the 1918 General Election - the last time an all-Ireland election was ever held. In that one, Unionists parties gained 29.3% of the vote*.
Interestingly, this did not just give them an overall majority in the six counties which were subsequently to comprise Northern Ireland; they also gained an overall majority in the nine counties of Ulster .
Therefore, when Irish Nationalists complain about the "gerrymandered" nature of "the occupied six county statelet" etc, those who live in Cavan, Monaghan and Donegal might just have cause to give silent thanks to the Boundary Commission! :D
* - Despite getting 29.3% of the vote, Unionists only secured 24.7% of the seats (26/105). By contrast, Sinn Fein gained 46.9% of the vote, but 69.5% of the seats (73/105). Another example of gerrymandering by "perfidious Albion" perhaps? ;)
are you implying Cavan is one of the "occupied three counties" Evil Genius? ;)
Quote from: deiseach on June 05, 2007, 07:38:39 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on June 05, 2007, 06:53:00 PM
But as I said above, you simply cannot continue to bind yourself according to the constraints imposed by people long since dead. We are where we are and need to live with that.
Fortunately after decades of strife, a clear majority, from within all communities, in all parts of Ireland, have now recognised this.
And that's democracy for you.
It's only democracy if you continue to allow ourselves to be bound by the constraints imposed by people long dead. Looking at the opinions of the people of Donegal North East (http://electionsireland.org/result.cfm?election=2007&cons=72) all of twelve days ago, there doesn't seem to be a hell of a lot of demand for the Union. Compare this with West Tyrone (http://electionsireland.org/result.cfm?election=2005UK&cons=710) in 2005, where those running on a Nationalist platform outvoted those running on a Unionist ticket by a factor of almost three to one. And yet, those people must see their wishes ignored because of the aformentioned constraints imposed by the long dead. Shame.
Disingenuous, since you're not comparing like with like. Originally you pointed to the fact of "the people of Fermanagh and Tyrone [were] not asked their opinion in 1921". Now you're referring to elections in those counties in 2007.
As it happens, in the 1918 General Election, the three Tyrone Constituences saw SF/Nationalists gain 50.11% of the vote (30,052) and Unionists 49.88% (29,917). And Fermanagh saw SF/Nats gain 53.59% of the vote (13,041) and Unionists 46.41% (11,292).
Of course, you might argue from that that those two counties should have been included in the Free State three years later (though that would have left Nationalists in the remaining four counties of NI in an even smaller minority and further "cut off")
Alternatively, I could argue that whilst the three southernmost Provinces should have been allowed to breakway from the Union, since a majority of the voters there so willed it,
an unpartitioned Ulster should have remained within the UK, since that reflected the majority vote there.
All of which brings us back to my original point, which was whatever the slights, injustices and grievances we can all point to from the past, we are where we are and the challenge is to deal with that.
Quote from: BallyhaiseMan on June 06, 2007, 02:54:56 PM
are you implying Cavan is one of the "occupied three counties" Evil Genius? ;)
Nah, we just didn't want it... :D
Quote from: Evil Genius on June 06, 2007, 03:16:04 PM
Quote from: BallyhaiseMan on June 06, 2007, 02:54:56 PM
are you implying Cavan is one of the "occupied three counties" Evil Genius? ;)
Nah, we just didn't want it... :D
aha ya c**nt ya :D
Quote from: Evil Genius on June 06, 2007, 03:13:40 PM
Quote from: deiseach on June 05, 2007, 07:38:39 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on June 05, 2007, 06:53:00 PM
But as I said above, you simply cannot continue to bind yourself according to the constraints imposed by people long since dead. We are where we are and need to live with that.
Fortunately after decades of strife, a clear majority, from within all communities, in all parts of Ireland, have now recognised this.
And that's democracy for you.
It's only democracy if you continue to allow ourselves to be bound by the constraints imposed by people long dead. Looking at the opinions of the people of Donegal North East (http://electionsireland.org/result.cfm?election=2007&cons=72) all of twelve days ago, there doesn't seem to be a hell of a lot of demand for the Union. Compare this with West Tyrone (http://electionsireland.org/result.cfm?election=2005UK&cons=710) in 2005, where those running on a Nationalist platform outvoted those running on a Unionist ticket by a factor of almost three to one. And yet, those people must see their wishes ignored because of the aformentioned constraints imposed by the long dead. Shame.
Disingenuous, since you're not comparing like with like. Originally you pointed to the fact of "the people of Fermanagh and Tyrone [were] not asked their opinion in 1921". Now you're referring to elections in those counties in 2007.
As it happens, in the 1918 General Election, the three Tyrone Constituences saw SF/Nationalists gain 50.11% of the vote (30,052) and Unionists 49.88% (29,917). And Fermanagh saw SF/Nats gain 53.59% of the vote (13,041) and Unionists 46.41% (11,292).
Of course, you might argue from that that those two counties should have been included in the Free State three years later (though that would have left Nationalists in the remaining four counties of NI in an even smaller minority and further "cut off")
Alternatively, I could argue that the three southernmost Provinces should have been allowed to breakway from the Union, since a majority of the voters there so willed it, but Ulster should have remained within the UK, since that reflected the majority vote there.
Which gets back to my original point, which was whatever the slights, injustices and grievances we can all point to from the past, we are where we are and the challenge is to deal with that.
And EG just whose idea was it to exclude Donegal, Monaghan and Cavan???
Whose purpose did it suit more???
Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on June 06, 2007, 03:18:03 PM
And EG just whose idea was it to exclude Donegal, Monaghan and Cavan???
Whose purpose did it suit more???
The short answer is that I don't actually know, since I wasn't around at the time! ;)
The question really is where you draw the line (literally). The "default position" amongst Nationalists is that Ireland is a single entity, so should not be partitioned. Which is fair enough on its own terms.
However, Unionists could argue that in reality, the only time when Ireland was ever truly "united" (i.e. in political terms) was as part of the United Kingdom and that a majority of voters in the UK, including Ireland, will have been opposed to a break from the Union by any part of Ireland, never mind all of it.
I don't hold to that myself. Personally, I simply consider that since a majority of one part of the island was (violently) opposed to the Union they should have been allowed to secede, and since the majority in the other part of the island was (equally violently) determined to maintain the Union, that had to be accommodated as well. Otherwise, the only possible outcome would have been Civil War, on a scale never seen on the island, before or since.
Which brings us back to Cavan, Monaghan and Donegal. Since Ulster has historically always had a degree of "separateness" from the rest of Ireland, and Unionism had an overall majority in the whole Province, there is a reasonable (if not overwhelming) case for saying that all nine counties could/should have remained within the UK.
My guess, however, is that the Boundary Commission made a pragmatic decision to include them in the Free State, since that suited both the population of those three counties (i.e. majority Nationalist)
and it suited the six counties of NI (i.e. maintained a working Unionist majority in NI).
Anyhow, interesting as this speculation is and useful as it may be for illustrative purposes, we can't change anything which happened then, only what's happening now. And as I see it, the most important political development to occur in Ireland
within living memory was the GFA which, as an Irish Unionist, I welcome since it secures the position of NI within the UK more firmly than ever (imo).
Quote
My guess, however, is that the Boundary Commission made a pragmatic decision to include them in the Free State, since that suited both the population of those three counties (i.e. majority Nationalist) and it suited the six counties of NI (i.e. maintained a working Unionist majority in NI).
Your guess is wrong, the Unionists decided that keeping those 3 counties would leave them with a slender majority, so they dumped any unionists that might be living there and went for six as an area they could dominate. All of this was long before the boundary commission.
Of course demography is catching up on the 6 counties too.
QuoteSince Ulster has historically always had a degree of "separateness" from the rest of Ireland,
Why then should all of Ulster not be used as a regional unit then?
QuoteMy guess, however, is that the Boundary Commission made a pragmatic decision to include them in the Free State, since that suited both the population of those three counties (i.e. majority Nationalist) and it suited the six counties of NI (i.e. maintained a working Unionist majority in NI).
more bull. what about county derry then.. it would have suited the majority nationalist pop there to be included in the free state but it didnt upset the unionist working majority enough. the only think that mattered was the unionist working majority which was gerrymandering but believe whatever you want. the price unionists pay for this is to be forever living in limbo, the union may be ok now but what about in 50 years time? one thing is sure people will be typing crap (just like me ;)) about it in another 50 years..
Quote from: armaghniac on June 06, 2007, 05:28:28 PM
Quote
My guess, however, is that the Boundary Commission made a pragmatic decision to include them in the Free State, since that suited both the population of those three counties (i.e. majority Nationalist) and it suited the six counties of NI (i.e. maintained a working Unionist majority in NI).
Your guess is wrong, the Unionists decided that keeping those 3 counties would leave them with a slender majority, so they dumped any unionists that might be living there and went for six as an area they could dominate. All of this was long before the boundary commission.
Of course demography is catching up on the 6 counties too.
QuoteSince Ulster has historically always had a degree of "separateness" from the rest of Ireland,
Why then should all of Ulster not be used as a regional unit then?
Er.... When I posted that hiving off the three Ulster counties into the Free State would "maintain a working Unionist majority in NI", that was exactly the
same point as your (purported) rebuttal (i.e. "keeping those three counties would leave them with a slender majority")
As for "using Ulster as a regional unit then?" - that is
also the same scenario which I considered when I pointed out that the 9 counties of Ulster had a clear Unionist majority in 1921, therefore meaning the whole Province
might have been kept in the UK at the time of partition.
Do try and keep up... ???
Quote from: magickingdom on June 06, 2007, 05:34:21 PM
QuoteMy guess, however, is that the Boundary Commission made a pragmatic decision to include them in the Free State, since that suited both the population of those three counties (i.e. majority Nationalist) and it suited the six counties of NI (i.e. maintained a working Unionist majority in NI).
more bull. what about county derry then.. it would have suited the majority nationalist pop there to be included in the free state but it didnt upset the unionist working majority enough. the only think that mattered was the unionist working majority which was gerrymandering but believe whatever you want. the price unionists pay for this is to be forever living in limbo, the union may be ok now but what about in 50 years time? one thing is sure people will be typing crap (just like me ;)) about it in another 50 years..
Oh FFS. Co.Londonderry had a clear
Unionist majority at the time of Partition. Going by the General Election of 1918, Unionists received 26,492 votes in the 3 Constituencies (1 City and 2 County). This equates to 58.5% of the vote (SF/Nats received 18,812 votes = 41.5%).
And before you go moping on about "gerrymandering", there was universal suffrage for
all over-21's at the time. In the one constituency where Nationalists were in a majority (City), even that was paper thin: SF managed to get their man with a majority of just 315 votes - a little over 2%.
Perhaps you might worry less about posting crap in 50 years time and more about posting it now... ::)
Quote from: Evil Genius on June 06, 2007, 02:42:08 PM
* - Despite getting 29.3% of the vote, Unionists only secured 24.7% of the seats (26/105). By contrast, Sinn Fein gained 46.9% of the vote, but 69.5% of the seats (73/105). Another example of gerrymandering by "perfidious Albion" perhaps? ;)
Sinn Fein recevied 46.9% and got 73 seats. Sinn Fein's overall percentage would have been much greater only for the fact that throughout much of what is now the 26 counties, the Redmondites failed to stand against SF as they knew they were onto a hammering at the polls anyway. Even its leader, John Dillon, failed to be re-elected. Hence a low turnout in many constituency's because SF were going to win anyway. The fact that unionism was prepared to hand over the rest of the unionists in Cavan, Monagahan and Donegal, not to mention Dublin etc with bearly a whimper, just shows the absoulute bankruptcy of it and their so called 'loyalty'.
P.S. Can you provide the link that shows unionists were in the majority in the nine counties of Ulster as I'm very interested to know what percentage of the 29.3% of the unionist vote was cast in the other 3 provinces, as the unionists got 3 seats down 'here' ;). But in anyone's logic, 73 to 22 is a landslide victory, but sadly the british sense of fairplay never respects democracy.
QuoteEr.... When I posted that hiving off the three Ulster counties into the Free State would "maintain a working Unionist majority in NI", that was exactly the same point as your (purported) rebuttal (i.e. "keeping those three counties would leave them with a slender majority")
My "rebuttal" made the point only that all of this happened long before the Boundary Commission, something you didn't appear to know.
QuoteAs for "using Ulster as a regional unit then?" - that is also the same scenario which I considered when I pointed out that the 9 counties of Ulster had a clear Unionist majority in 1921, therefore meaning the whole Province might have been kept in the UK at the time of partition.
Presumably it was just tough luck on the people in Monaghan, Cavan and Donegal.
QuoteAnd before you go moping on about "gerrymandering", there was universal suffrage for all over-21's at the time.
Gerrymandering is a form of redistricting in which electoral district or constituency boundaries are manipulated for an electoral advantage, so the suffrage is not relevant. The reason why Fermanagh is in one state and Donegal is in another has everything to do with the manipulation of boundaries to facilitate sectarianism, these place should be part of the same unit.
QuoteOh FFS. Co.Londonderry had a clear Unionist majority at the time of Partition. Going by the General Election of 1918, Unionists received 26,492 votes in the 3 Constituencies (1 City and 2 County). This equates to 58.5% of the vote (SF/Nats received 18,812 votes = 41.5%).
And before you go moping on about "gerrymandering", there was universal suffrage for all over-21's at the time. In the one constituency where Nationalists were in a majority (City), even that was paper thin: SF managed to get their man with a majority of just 315 votes - a little over 2%.
Perhaps you might worry less about posting crap in 50 years time and more about posting it now...
gee things have taken a turn for the worst for ye lot in derry... try not to be such a patronizing p***k i can google just as well as you when i'm bothered. how about the three tyrone constituencies then for my example, its the same point. as your such a fan of the 1918 election for all 32 counties you will clearly see the nationalist vote in ireland at well over 75%