The 'unionist minority'

[ardmhachaabu]

Why would Europe want that?

I used the same argument for the ROI to show that republicans or nationalists wouldn't think it relevant and would instantly say no to it.  That is not Ostrich Politics it is the obvious natural response yet you think Unionists shouldn't have an opinion just because their's disagrees with others.

The funny thing about the unionist position in all of this is that they would be in a very strong position in terms of the politics of the entire island, so much so that they could become part of ANY coalition government because of the PR style of voting.  Still I suppose it's better to be obstinately thick about the bigger picture 

Unionists are loyal to the UK not the Republic of Ireland or any new Ireland state. Your arrogance in this is stunning.  Why on earth would unionists want a strong position in terms of Politics in a state they have no interest in and fundamentally opposed to? 

Roger the only one with arrogant attitudes to this issue (and other issues) is yourself.  Unionism had better hope that it doesn't have to depend on the likes of you to negotiate when the time comes. 

[Roger]

I think I'll just leave this discussion at this point before it descends into poor chat. Thanks for those who took part in good faith.

[Lar Naparka]

Lar Naparka, I am well aware of the Belfast Agreement, ceasefires etc that you condescendingly repeat for me. It is not something I don't believe you about and I fully accept your view. However, I still find it strange that even when there might be a majority of people in NI who wish to end the Union (as per terms of the agreement) that republicans and nationalists on here now seem to want to have a bigger majority and the time needs to be right economically for them and they need to secure funding from external people.  This is not a ceasefire requirement and whilst the GFA says it should lead to negotiations and subsequent consent from the Republic, the way nationalists and republicans have gone on about the GFA this is definitely not the message being played out.  The Chief of the Republic has even stated 50% plus one vote is the trigger for an all-Ireland state yet people on here are now saying 'lets not be too hasty, we need to make sure we aren't out of pocket'.  Fair enough, no nationalist party in any party of Ireland has a plan to implement their Political goal and the last one that did, SF who lead NI nationalism, has certainly changed their plan to an astonishing degree if it has moved from shoot and bomb a million Brits out NI to democratically trying to achieve their goals but now to 'if the money and timing is right'. I personally don't believe that SF have this as a goal but in the event they would drag their heals and get the begging bowl well filled up.  They certainly couldn't be seen to be delaying the process until the UK, ROI, and USA economies were buoyant as some advocate.  In the meantime few nationalists and republicans on here seem to be able to even utter the correct name of either state and definitely not Northern Ireland whilst the Republic's Tri-colour, the Republic's national anthem and the policies of that state are considered to be the National government for all Ireland now and anyone who is a Unionist is an osterich.  Why?  Because "it's inevitable"!

I have enjoyed the discussion on here, found it very interesting and enlightening to hear others' perspective on the subject matter, and have accepted everyone's views without resorting to personalising the discussion.  However,  I still find the viewpoints strange and not consistent with the public rhetoric of nationalism/republicanism. I would suggest that Unionists on the whole regard nationalism and republicanism with a deep sense of suspicion and whether that is right or wrong it would still need to be acknowledged and allayed before conciliatory relationships could take place either before or after the predicted Utopian all-Ireland state is formed.

Roger, I would very much regret it if I appear to be condescendingly repeating anything for you. I have referred you back to the GFA again and again as it seems impossible for you to accept that the republic is not hell bent on your imminent destruction.
Indeed I have gone so far as to say the good citizens of this state don't particularly give a damn one way or the other. That is not intended to insult you or your fellow-unionists in any way but I think it's fair to say people here are more concerned at dealing with the realities of daily life and will not be prepared to go to the lengths you appear to need to establish their good faith and intent for you.
I had thought that since no argument I may put forward will indicate the republican's lack of hostility towards your community, you could look to the terms of the agreement for reassurance. After all, every syllable contained in that treaty has been dissected and scrutinised in minute detail by every shade of unionism represented at the talks.

At the end of it all, I recall Ian Paisley reaching out dramatically to grab the hand of Bertie Ahern and to shake it. Did that not indicate Paisley's acceptance of Ahern's sincerity or did it convey something else?  So far, Roger, I don't believe I have heard a dissenting voice apart from your own.
Paisley appeared on the Late Late Show here in Dublin a short time ago and was given a very friendly reception. The same welcome was accorded to Eileen and to members of his family. Public reaction to their visit was universally positive.
This was in recognition of his efforts to move with the times and to follow the road of compromise and consensus instead of sticking with old tribal chants of "Not an Inch" and "No Surrender."
If you are familiar with the terms of the GFA as well as you say you are, I'm very surprised that you object to the looseness and ambiguity of the language used in places. Such constructive ambiguity was a device to allow the main framework of the proposed agreement to progress while sticking points for unionists, in particular the DUP, could be ironed out. The weapons decommissioning was a case in point.
However, by now every party involved is busy implementing the terms of the agreement so it is fair to say all have accepted the treaty and all it entails. If you don't agree, I'd be interested in knowing why.
I know that Bertie Ahern stated that a vote of 50% + 1 in a constitutional referendum would trigger off unification negotiations and would also signal the end of the Govt. of Ireland Act.
From what you write, it appears that Ahern was saying that this result would trigger off an all-Ireland state. Now if that was the case, I wonder why Paisley and other unionists didn't object if the possibility of a single vote could end the state of Norn Iron as they know it and catapult them into an unwilling alliance with those they have always regarded as their natural enemies.
I'm not sure of what Bertie said but I'd wager he was suggesting that negotiations would commence on the heels of the voting result. He has spoken of three way talks as being the preferred way forward since then. In any event, I cannot see any form of immediate and unconditional amalgamation taking place.
With regard to money from external sources, I wonder what your objection is.
Northern Ireland has been receiving vast sums of money from the British treasury for years on end without any noticeable qualms of conscience.
You can't be seriously suggesting that we should take on the cost of unification and of bolstering your basket case economy from our own resources, are you? As you suggest, Sinn Fein may very well have changed tack to an amazing degree but so what?
It's up to them to adopt any stance they like but it doesn't follow that they will have their way in any consultations that may ensue.
I'm sorry, Roger, but I'm missing the logic of the arguments you are putting forward at present.

[Donagh]

I had the SDLP at my door last night trying to convince me that I should get out to the polling station for this election and give them a preference as they are sure the potential is there for a second nationalist seat (well they would say that). While we know the Protestant population has been in the minority for some time, this has yet to reflected in the unionist voting patterns. Personally I'd have thought we were still three years away from the end of the unionist majority, but the SDLP seem to be conviced an increase of nationalist turnout (unlikely at the moment - esp without Duffy to shake things up) and the participation of the TUV could mean unionism won't get the two quotas. While the Stoops are playing a dangerous game i.e. unionist turnout could increase if this line gets widespread media attention, if true it would mean that unionism will be in the minority in the six counties for the first time since partition.   

5 years late but we got there in the end.

[lynchbhoy]

I had the SDLP at my door last night trying to convince me that I should get out to the polling station for this election and give them a preference as they are sure the potential is there for a second nationalist seat (well they would say that). While we know the Protestant population has been in the minority for some time, this has yet to reflected in the unionist voting patterns. Personally I'd have thought we were still three years away from the end of the unionist majority, but the SDLP seem to be conviced an increase of nationalist turnout (unlikely at the moment - esp without Duffy to shake things up) and the participation of the TUV could mean unionism won't get the two quotas. While the Stoops are playing a dangerous game i.e. unionist turnout could increase if this line gets widespread media attention, if true it would mean that unionism will be in the minority in the six counties for the first time since partition.   

5 years late but we got there in the end.

And with more of the older population of unionist voters dying off. .. the vote in another 5 years will probably see the start of daylight appearing in the swing the other way.
Unionism has still not embraced Ireland and the future and by their intransigence and arrogance are diminishing their hold on what they term their 'culture' ( which is largely pretending to talk a makey up slang and persecuting any non unionists) .

Great win for sf and what debut for Michelle oneill