A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.

[johnnycool]

On SF and united Ireland. Heard Matt Carthy on radio last week or prior to that. They discussing the protocol and it was put to him that the difficulties that will lie ahead convincing loyalists to accept a referendum if the vote is marginal with only a % say in it. If they can't accept the protocol, how will they accept something so much bigger.

I found his response telling and that could lead to issues in any referendum. Firstly he stated that any margin win has to be accepted and is in the GFA as been accepted.

Then he said that a new Ireland has to be projected for the referendum and that it's not merely a case of the 6 joining the 26 as a 32 county republic. He said a new Ireland has to be set out and lots of changes will be required and he referred to a New Ireland again.

Obviously we are a long way off yet but will take lot to identify what this New Ireland is and when it laid out in black & white it may not be as easy a sell in the 26 as some may think.

Ireland is very fractured politically. We've now it appears 3 main powers who may not form a government even as a pair. Smaller parties and independents hold so many seats. The government that has to make the vision of this new Ireland will have plenty of opposition at the time before they even head north to reach some consensus on it up their. We've seen the SF north differs from SF south and I very much doubt if the unionist parties will even engage on any potential structure of when a United ireland will look like.

Unionists (I'm going to call Alliance middle grounders here) are in the minority in NI and that has to be remembered.

For a UI to be successful the middle ground is where the battle is won and lost and IMO whilst identity may be important to a lot in this group, economics, health and education will probably play a bigger part. In fact a lot of people who vote for what are deemed nationalist parties could be in this very same cohort.

It's all to play for.

[sid waddell]

There is a general consensus across the board in the north and in London that a border poll will happen in the relatively near future. Would you say that FFG Governments are being responsible by refusing to even discuss the possibility of such a poll, let alone plan for a potential positive outcome?

There isn't

[Applesisapples]

Angelo mentioned the hypocrisy of the south with respect our celebrating the brutal War of Independence and civil war, while abhorring the role and conduct of the IRA in the Troubles.

I think its a fair point and one I've never personally been able to reconcile.

Maybe its the distance and abstractness thing again. Its easier to revere and honour battles and brutality from the distant past than the violent, bloody mayhem and sorrow you're seeing on the TV and in the papers every day. Or maybe the founding myths and celebrating 1916 and all that is just jingoistic lip service.

Most Northern Nationalists did not condone or support the IRA campaign, many would have been ambivalent with regard to it but only a minority outright supported it. But one thing is clear, in the same way as the war of independence brought the Brits to the table and got concessions, Unionists under pressure from the Brits signed up in part to the GFA. That pressure would not have happened without the bombings in Britain. Unionism has not changed in 100 years. Hume could not have delivered the GFA without Adams and the army council. Just look at Sunningdale.

[armaghniac]

For a UI to be successful the middle ground is where the battle is won and lost and IMO whilst identity may be important to a lot in this group, economics, health and education will probably play a bigger part. In fact a lot of people who vote for what are deemed nationalist parties could be in this very same cohort.
.

And while people slag off the FFG parties, they have delivered a prosperous economy which provides many of these things that this group wants, something SF would never have done. The retort to this is that this only benefits the few, but this is not true, although some bad decisions have caused problems in housing etc.

[Louther]

On SF and united Ireland. Heard Matt Carthy on radio last week or prior to that. They discussing the protocol and it was put to him that the difficulties that will lie ahead convincing loyalists to accept a referendum if the vote is marginal with only a % say in it. If they can't accept the protocol, how will they accept something so much bigger.

I found his response telling and that could lead to issues in any referendum. Firstly he stated that any margin win has to be accepted and is in the GFA as been accepted.

Then he said that a new Ireland has to be projected for the referendum and that it's not merely a case of the 6 joining the 26 as a 32 county republic. He said a new Ireland has to be set out and lots of changes will be required and he referred to a New Ireland again.

Obviously we are a long way off yet but will take lot to identify what this New Ireland is and when it laid out in black & white it may not be as easy a sell in the 26 as some may think.

Ireland is very fractured politically. We've now it appears 3 main powers who may not form a government even as a pair. Smaller parties and independents hold so many seats. The government that has to make the vision of this new Ireland will have plenty of opposition at the time before they even head north to reach some consensus on it up their. We've seen the SF north differs from SF south and I very much doubt if the unionist parties will even engage on any potential structure of when a United ireland will look like.

Unionists (I'm going to call Alliance middle grounders here) are in the minority in NI and that has to be remembered.

For a UI to be successful the middle ground is where the battle is won and lost and IMO whilst identity may be important to a lot in this group, economics, health and education will probably play a bigger part. In fact a lot of people who vote for what are deemed nationalist parties could be in this very same cohort.

It's all to play for.

That's it exactly. So much to even arrive at before a referendum on the table.

And we seen with Brexit how complex these negotiations and discussions can be. How will any agreement be arrived at through a coalition Government, of whatever making that will be at the time, that will be constantly attacked by opposition and even within from the gov own TDs and backbenchers.

It won't be pretty as the main issues will be how people are impacted and nowadays we see it's not hard to upset people who don't see past their own front door.

[Louther]

For a UI to be successful the middle ground is where the battle is won and lost and IMO whilst identity may be important to a lot in this group, economics, health and education will probably play a bigger part. In fact a lot of people who vote for what are deemed nationalist parties could be in this very same cohort.
.

And while people slag off the FFG parties, they have delivered a prosperous economy which provides many of these things that this group wants, something SF would never have done. The retort to this is that this only benefits the few, but this is not true, although some bad decisions have caused problems in housing etc.

This may be true to a certain extent but nowadays people don't see it. They want everything and blame those high up if they don't have it. They don't want to pay taxes but want all the services. And they don't want to want to wait. They want it now.

There is plenty of issues but the sense of entitlement is heightened.

[Snapchap]

Firstly he stated that any margin win has to be accepted and is in the GFA as been accepted.

And he is correct. Despite what Micheal Martin & co suggest, the provision in the GFA is for a simple majority. Micheal in particular seems to relish in repeating that he favours the Seamus Mallon approach. Mallon felt there should not be a border poll until the majority of unionists would vote for unity. Never, in other words. Because anyone who votes for a united Ireland, by definition, is not a unionist. The same Micheal Martin was yesterday trying to piggyback on John Hume's legacy and implied that Hume was of a similar view on a border poll. In reality, this is what Hume had to say about the Seamus Mallon model:
"[Political Unionist] pride is expressed in archaic supremacism...The veto on British policy which they always had, and which goes to the heart of our problem here, has gone and is not coming back...The loss [of veto] is uncomfortable for their leaders, for while they held that privileged position they never had to be politicians or exercise the art of politics, which is the art of representing one's own view while treating others with fairness. For traditional Unionism in Northern Ireland, other points of view have never actually existed." - John Hume

Then he said that a new Ireland has to be projected for the referendum and that it's not merely a case of the 6 joining the 26 as a 32 county republic. He said a new Ireland has to be set out and lots of changes will be required and he referred to a New Ireland again.

Again, he is correct.

[bennydorano]

Just for clarification, Sid and I posted on a different forum for years back.

We agreed on a lot of things back then so I do know his views now are completely at odds. I know what he is saying now is both vindictive and emotional at his personal opinion with the current actions of SF. He's entitled to criticise the party but when he engages in revisionism of The Troubles is another things.

Here are some of his former viewpoints. The Troubles ended in 1998 yet Sidney was a supporter of the Provisional IRA campaign until about 3 or 4 years ago.

















So when people engage in his crazy revisionism of The Troubles and the context around they should be fully knowledgeable that they come from an emotional and embittered place, that he in fact doesn't even believe those views himself. It's political point scoring over a conflict he had no personal experience of.

Contested??

[armaghniac]

For a UI to be successful the middle ground is where the battle is won and lost and IMO whilst identity may be important to a lot in this group, economics, health and education will probably play a bigger part. In fact a lot of people who vote for what are deemed nationalist parties could be in this very same cohort.
.

And while people slag off the FFG parties, they have delivered a prosperous economy which provides many of these things that this group wants, something SF would never have done. The retort to this is that this only benefits the few, but this is not true, although some bad decisions have caused problems in housing etc.

This may be true to a certain extent but nowadays people don't see it. They want everything and blame those high up if they don't have it. They don't want to pay taxes but want all the services. And they don't want to want to wait. They want it now.

There is plenty of issues but the sense of entitlement is heightened.

A lot of people in the middle of the road in the North are people who pay their own way and who realise that things have to be paid for.
Those who are aware that you cannot eat a flag.

[Angelo]

Christ Almighty. The vast majority of nationalist envy the South for having freedom and independence. there are however a few tools spoiling for a fight. it is true that some in the Republic view the North as a foreign country, possibly a sizeable few but I'd say that given the right circumstances and that is a two way street, unity would be no issue. Bating our Southern brothers and constance reference to the Freestate does not help.

And what does the esablishment figureheads of the 26 consistently playing political games with victims of the troubles achieve?

Northern nationalists have been treated with contempt from the southern counterparts for decades, we shouldn't be afraid to call it out for what it is.

By some but not all, and don't judge all politicians by Micheál Martin or Leo.

Where have the dissenting voices in FFG been on their leader's words?

That's the issue, it's party policy for FFG to politicise The Troubles and cynically dismiss the plight northern nationalists faced. So I think we can judge all FFG politicians on the way they have failed to fight this narrative and policy within their own parties.

FFG leaders will stand up in the Dail and demand SF go into government with the DUP but both parties will refuse to talk to SF when it comes to forming a government.

[Applesisapples]

Sid. We were shit on. From a great hight. The first time I got spat on I was 8 years old. I was called a fenian **** every single day walking home from primary school and had to run home to avoid a kicking getting off the bus from high school more times than I care to remember. Coming home from football training on a Friday night was a minefield when our friendly neighbours were parading. I don't care about Germany or Poland. I care that a union flag was placed on my grandmothers house because my uncle happened to share the name of a sf Councillor. I care that my brother was beat to a pulp by loyalists one night walking home half cut. I care that my friends cousin and brothers mate was beaten to death at 16 years old and his body hidden in a f**king sheough. Google James Morgan county down. So yes I f**king supported the PIRA.

I appreciate that Catholics were shat on from a height

But there was an alternative to 28 years of the PIRA, it was disciplined political struggle, international agitation, mass civil disobedience, education and self-empowerment through community organisations

Catholics had righteousness and justice on their side

A 28 year campaign of violence did not make things better for any part of society, it never could, it made people outside the North tune out and want nothing to do with the concept of justice for Catholics, and it did not produce a united Ireland

It produced ethnic cleansing, siloing, entrenchment and incalculable heartache

As someone who didn't support the IRA and who is old enough to have been brought up in the knowledge that I was living in someone else's "country" let me respectively say you  do not know what you are talking about. I went to a respectable grammar school but that didn't stop the Army placing 14 yo me up against the wall and frisking me, feeling my balls. Today that would be called out for what it was abuse. As a life long GAA member in a respectable job it didn't stop the UDR/RIR holding me at checkpoints. I did not condone the IRA's killing of anyone. But context is everything and where some in the South let themselves down is this failure to understand based on ignorance. thankfully my children have a slightly better experience. But their ethnicity is denied in the state which through unionism demands their allegiance.

[dublin7]

The Irish Government's prime Constitutional imperative and what they are elected for is to run the State.
The Good Friday Agreement sets out the criteria for holding a "Border poll" which unfortunately is in the gift of the Brit Secretary of state.
That however is what a large majority of the Irish people voted for in 1998.

People in the south are constantly being told we don't know what it's like living up in the North. You now want people in the south to call for a border poll on how the people in the north should live. It's up to the UK government/NI assembly to call for a vote on remaining as part of the UK. With SF/DUP as divided as they've ever been I don't see a border poll being called anytime soon and there's certainly no pressure being put on the Irish government by anyone in the south to look for one

There is a general consensus across the board in the north and in London that a border poll will happen in the relatively near future. Would you say that FFG Governments are being responsible by refusing to even discuss the possibility of such a poll, let alone plan for a potential positive outcome?

I see SF calling for a poll, but beyond that there's no appetite or demand for one. The Irish government don't see this as a priority as the electorate in the south don't see it as a priority. Only when people start putting pressure on the Irish government will that position change. I don't blame the government for this. Why put your energy into something that will get them little political gain and knowing the campaign itself will be a very bitter one in the north.

[Applesisapples]

Christ Almighty. The vast majority of nationalist envy the South for having freedom and independence. there are however a few tools spoiling for a fight. it is true that some in the Republic view the North as a foreign country, possibly a sizeable few but I'd say that given the right circumstances and that is a two way street, unity would be no issue. Bating our Southern brothers and constance reference to the Freestate does not help.

And what does the esablishment figureheads of the 26 consistently playing political games with victims of the troubles achieve?

Northern nationalists have been treated with contempt from the southern counterparts for decades, we shouldn't be afraid to call it out for what it is.

By some but not all, and don't judge all politicians by Micheál Martin or Leo.

Where have the dissenting voices in FFG been on their leader's words?

That's the issue, it's party policy for FFG to politicise The Troubles and cynically dismiss the plight northern nationalists faced. So I think we can judge all FFG politicians on the way they have failed to fight this narrative and policy within their own parties.

FFG leaders will stand up in the Dail and demand SF go into government with the DUP but both parties will refuse to talk to SF when it comes to forming a government.

Martin is playing too a different gallery, SF do so too.

[Angelo]

Just for clarification, Sid and I posted on a different forum for years back.

We agreed on a lot of things back then so I do know his views now are completely at odds. I know what he is saying now is both vindictive and emotional at his personal opinion with the current actions of SF. He's entitled to criticise the party but when he engages in revisionism of The Troubles is another things.

Here are some of his former viewpoints. The Troubles ended in 1998 yet Sidney was a supporter of the Provisional IRA campaign until about 3 or 4 years ago.

















So when people engage in his crazy revisionism of The Troubles and the context around they should be fully knowledgeable that they come from an emotional and embittered place, that he in fact doesn't even believe those views himself. It's political point scoring over a conflict he had no personal experience of.

Contested??

They are his posts.

He was a big supporter of SF and the armed campaign up until his Eoghan Harris moment a couple of years or so back.

The moralising and pontificating you see here are completely hollow.

[sid waddell]

Sid. We were shit on. From a great hight. The first time I got spat on I was 8 years old. I was called a fenian **** every single day walking home from primary school and had to run home to avoid a kicking getting off the bus from high school more times than I care to remember. Coming home from football training on a Friday night was a minefield when our friendly neighbours were parading. I don't care about Germany or Poland. I care that a union flag was placed on my grandmothers house because my uncle happened to share the name of a sf Councillor. I care that my brother was beat to a pulp by loyalists one night walking home half cut. I care that my friends cousin and brothers mate was beaten to death at 16 years old and his body hidden in a f**king sheough. Google James Morgan county down. So yes I f**king supported the PIRA.

I appreciate that Catholics were shat on from a height

But there was an alternative to 28 years of the PIRA, it was disciplined political struggle, international agitation, mass civil disobedience, education and self-empowerment through community organisations

Catholics had righteousness and justice on their side

A 28 year campaign of violence did not make things better for any part of society, it never could, it made people outside the North tune out and want nothing to do with the concept of justice for Catholics, and it did not produce a united Ireland

It produced ethnic cleansing, siloing, entrenchment and incalculable heartache

As someone who didn't support the IRA and who is old enough to have been brought up in the knowledge that I was living in someone else's "country" let me respectively say you  do not know what you are talking about. I went to a respectable grammar school but that didn't stop the Army placing 14 yo me up against the wall and frisking me, feeling my balls. Today that would be called out for what it was abuse. As a life long GAA member in a respectable job it didn't stop the UDR/RIR holding me at checkpoints. I did not condone the IRA's killing of anyone. But context is everything and where some in the South let themselves down is this failure to understand based on ignorance. thankfully my children have a slightly better experience. But their ethnicity is denied in the state which through unionism demands their allegiance.

But you haven't displayed any evidence that "I do not know what I'm talking about"

You have merely opined through your own biased lens

Which is a worthless contribution