NI's future in the United Kingdom could depend on Catholics - Robinson

[deiseach]

Also while no party is currently advocating a re-partition, is that because Unionist parties are maintaining that a UI is not on the cards?  Surely if that was to change then it could become an issue?

Exactly. The status quo is that a UI is not on the cards. Any suggestion to the contrary is met with "look, it just isn't, okay?!"

[HiMucker]

If the Geordies armed themselves to the teeth demanding their independence, would you send your children to kill and be killed to prevent it?

I would send Gazza with a fishing rod!

[armaghniac]

Well, if you can't oppress a Mope, who can you oppress?

Perhaps you'd like to article why anyone should be oppressed, even Mopes?

[Evil Genius]

It's always interesting seeing your mindset, EG. You are absolutely not a bigot or any of the other ludicrous variants routinely thrown at you by people on here.

Thank You.

However, you have an almost touching faith in the status quo

"Touching" impies naivety. I would hope that my faith in the status quo (effectively the GFA) is actually entirely reasoned and realistic. That is, it is the product of 10 years of observation and practice, whereby that status quo seems more secure than it has ever been.

... a [status quo] which was invariably arrived at by overwhelming violence followed by the threat of violence which then calcified into 'peace' and any threat to that 'peace' then gets labelled as "unconstitutional methods".

This is where I disagree with your analysis. For imo the Troubles etc did not somehow "calcify into" (produce) the GFA etc, nor was it (GFA) somehow the "invariable" (I assume you meant "inevitable") consequence of same.

Rather as I see it, 30-odd years of violence produced absolutely nothing (except bitterness and grief), so that eventually, after all the participants finally accepted that it wouldn't, they sat down and tried a different tack.
The subsequent negotiations became known as the "Peace Process", though I always thought that a misnomer, since it implied that that the process was a child of the "War Process", when it was, ab initio  a "Political  Process".

Which is why I consider any threat by force of arms to the product of that free and democratic process to be unconstitutional/illegal/illegitimate etc (take your pick)

Even your definition of a community follows what suits the status quo.

We may disagree on how we define and accommodate them, but surely you aren't trying to deny that there are two  communities* in Ireland? 

* - I prefer the term "political traditions" myself, btw.

So there is no racist white community in South Africa, just whites.

I never said that, nor anything like it.
There is a white community in SA. Some (many?) of these may be racist. Some of those racists may want a separate, whites-only "homeland". However, the clear majority of all whites accept that SA should be a single, multi-racial nation state, therefore the white racists have no constitutional case (or a moral one, for that matter).

And no Turkish Cypriot community who want an independent republic rather than be part of a unitary Cyprus, just their leader who crave international recognition above all things.

Really?
"In April 2004, a referendum of the Annan Plan to reunite the island was strongly approved by Turkish Cypriots (64.9% voting 'yes') whilst it was strongly rejected by the Greek Cypriots (75.8% voting 'no')."
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2004/annan-cyprus-problem_maps_26feb03.pdf

It must be marvellous to always be on the right side of such a Westphalian outlook.

I don't claim always to be "right", but I'd like to think I am consistent.

You ask me to provide evidence that Unionism will display bad faith regarding the consitutional situation post the GFA. I have none

You might have stopped there...

... except the overwhelming weight of history which demonstrates Unionism's repeated bad faith which I outlined in my earlier post on the subject.

The overwhelming weight of history suggests that when faced by attempts to coerce them into a settlement with which they didn't agree and felt they ought not to accept, Unionism responded by whatever means they thought necessary.

But the whole point about the present dispensation is that there is no coercion involved, only constitutional politics, freely entered into and universally recognised. Which is why I believe that Unionists would accept, without significant violence, if they were ever voted out of the UK.

It's rather like when the Nationalist asked the Unionist years ago: "When are you going to drop your Siege Mentality?", and the latter replied: "Just as soon as you raise the Siege!" 

Perhaps we are living in a new paradigm. But I no more believe that than I believe the Shinners will ever become a party concerned primarily with bread & butter questions. The IRA have gone away - but that doesn't preclude the possibility of them ever starting up again

I believe that Unionists in general accept the new paradigm.
I cannot predict whether SF/IRA will continue to do so (though I suspect they will); in any case, that is for them and their supporters to determine.

[Evil Genius]

Well, if you can't oppress a Mope, who can you oppress?

Perhaps you'd like to article why anyone should be oppressed, even Mopes?

No, I wouldn't - at least not until you reinstate the "smilie" which you consciously omitted.

P.S. In the meantime, I intend to carry on oppressing Mopes and  Po-faced Tw ats...

[armaghniac]

P.S. In the meantime, I intend to carry on oppressing Mopes and  Po-faced Tw ats...

Well, at least you are frank. Not all wrongdoers own up to their crimes.

[Evil Genius]

P.S. In the meantime, I intend to carry on oppressing Mopes and  Po-faced Tw ats...

Well, at least you are frank. Not all wrongdoers own up to their crimes.

Well that's me told, and no mistake!

P.S. I note you omitted my "smilie" again. You do know that  and  are meant to denote humour and light-heartedness, don't you? Or do I have to add Simpletons to my Oppressed List as well? 

[deiseach]

... except the overwhelming weight of history which demonstrates Unionism's repeated bad faith which I outlined in my earlier post on the subject.

The overwhelming weight of history suggests that when faced by attempts to coerce them into a settlement with which they didn't agree and felt they ought not to accept, Unionism responded by whatever means they thought necessary.

But the whole point about the present dispensation is that there is no coercion involved, only constitutional politics, freely entered into and universally recognised. Which is why I believe that Unionists would accept, without significant violence, if they were ever voted out of the UK.

Pur-leeze. So there is no coercion in the maintenance of the Union. The people of (say) Crossmaglen are free to leave whenever they like. It wouldn't involve that much disruption, would it? A few road signs is all. But that's not the case. Until you accept that there are hundreds of thousands of people in Northern Ireland who are being coerced into being part of a country with which they have no affinity then you will always lack a proper understanding of what has happened over the last 40 years

[deiseach]

And no Turkish Cypriot community who want an independent republic rather than be part of a unitary Cyprus, just their leader who crave international recognition above all things.

Really?
"In April 2004, a referendum of the Annan Plan to reunite the island was strongly approved by Turkish Cypriots (64.9% voting 'yes') whilst it was strongly rejected by the Greek Cypriots (75.8% voting 'no')."
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2004/annan-cyprus-problem_maps_26feb03.pdf

And what does that tell us? That any settlement that the Turks like, the Greeks dislike. Yet they keep on trying to reunify the island. Imagine if that was the starting point for the politicial discussion about Ireland, i.e. the only settlement acceptable to the international community is one where the island was reunified. Three words: Security Council veto

[Applesisapples]

Look a majority is only a majority when its a unionist majority, otherwise it is undemocratic.

[Myles Na G.]

If a majority of the people in the north east of England decided they wanted to establish their own Geordie homeland (and in population terms, their 'country' would be larger than NI), do you think they would be permitted to do so?

In principle, yes.

Do you think they should be allowed to do so?

Ditto.

What about the South West of England, which would be about the same size as NI and which boasts its own language and has always felt 'different' from the rest of England?

Ditto.

Serious questions.

Serious answers (I hope).

Now here is a serious question for you. Why did you choose such unlikely examples as Geordieland or Cornwall? Why didn't you pose the far more pertinent examples of Scotland or Wales?

Might it be that their desire for self-determination rather tears the arse out of the ("saltwater") argument of their Celtic cousins in Ireland for a single, undivided nation in their own island?   

I chose those examples because they are, in my view, analogous to the Irish situation: ie they are territories within a block of land which has for many centuries has been identified as a single country, namely England. The territory which became NI was within a block of land which had, since records began basically, been identified as a single country, namely Ireland. Scotland and Wales are countries in their own right which have chosen to throw their lot in with England and form a political alliance called the UK: their choice. And I trust that if it ever stops being their choice, they are allowed to leave the alliance on good terms. Ireland never agreed to be part of this alliance. On the contrary, the people of this island voted first for Home Rule and then for independence. Both votes were ignored.

You mention the 'saltwater' argument - i.e that Ireland has no right to be an independent country simply on the basis that it is an island. I agree. Ireland has a right to be an independent country on the basis that the majority of people who live there want it to be so. End of. Or maybe you think the right of GB to be a country independent of Europe is merely based on 'saltwater-ism' too and that the British should be governed from Brussels?

[bennydorano]

Something I remember clearly from stupid arguments I was involved in on OWC many moons ago, was that when we reached a time when a UI seemed a genuine possibility (and would be voted for) a lot of the contingent on OWC thought it very fair that at that point the boundaries of NI should be redrawn again to rather than (once again) accepting the will of the majority.

As a discussion site for NI football fans, OWC is no more representative of Unionist thinking than, say, a  discussion site for GAA fans is of Nationalist thinking.

Or did you not happen to notice eg the majority support Marty McGuinness got on here for his presidential bid, as against the 13% of the vote that he actually got? 

Just relaying some anecdotal evidence of unionist 'thinking'.  I mentioned it as it has always stuck in my mind that some people will preach 'till they are blue in the face that they are democrats but  then, when it doesn't suit them, they'll think nothing of moving the goalposts and might quite possibly arm themselves (again) to subvert the democratic will of the majority (again).  All hypothetical off course but still representative of a section of unionist thinking - and to be honest I'd say a right percentage of DUP, TUV, PUP and a sneaky percentage of UUP would think it's quite legitimate and why wouldn't they? It worked the first time or have you forgotten about Donegal, Cavan and Monaghan?

If your initial "evidence" [sic] is garbage, then your consequential conclusion will also be garbage.

Or do you consider that eg a majority of Irish Nationalists wanted Martin McGuinness to be their President last month, just because he topped the poll on this forum? 

Try focusing on the real issue, which is the content of the message, not the forum where it was delivered. Sidesteppery :-)  Garbage indeed.