IRISH NORTHERNERS AND SOUTHERNERS

[haranguerer]

OK Nationalists will be persuaded with cash, but unionists?

Offer them cash to to live in Britain?
More seriously, the issue is the establishment of a workable economic model, when that this is within sight then real discussion on other matters can begin. Unfortunately, there is not the least indication that SF, the largest nationalist party in the 6 counties, has any notion that this is case never mind a model for advancing things.

Could you expand on this?

[Applesisapples]

The difference in the six counties now as opposed to 1921 is that Unionists are a minority at 49% and "Nationalists" can see 50%. However that majority as we can see from polls will not be in any hurry to vote for a UI. There in lies the job of work facing those wanting reunification. You need to unify nationalism first and then get unionists on board at least a generation away. I don't believe all things being equal people in the south would object to unification. I also believe the UK government would give financial support for a guaranteed period to the new state to off-set any potential costs to the people of the south in their view a price worth paying for a long term solution. So two questions for the Republican voice on here: 1. How do you sell this to your fellow nationalists? 2. How do you win over Unionists?

1. Show me the money

2. f**k knows

In anything but the short term, (1) is guaranteed. Nationalists won't need persuading when it comes down to it.

A UI would be a new Ireland. Those designated as unionist would be about 15% (guesstimate) of the population as opposed to about 1.5% now. They'd be in a much better position. Ringfence investment for unionist areas, guarantee representation, have closer ties to the UK as a whole (rejoin commonwealth?). Essentially make the whole country closer to the UK, and ensure that unionists see they have nothing to fear, or indeed to lose, and a lot to gain.

The crux for everyone is as aqmp says 'show me the money'. Economically both north and south would be a lot better off - London doesn't care about the devolveds - those arguments that NI costs the UK and the south would have to absorb that are rubbish - there are nations spending billions trying to increase their territories, and we're being told that a peaceful western european assimilation would actually cost Ireland?!

OK Nationalists will be persuaded with cash, but unionists?

I take it you didn't actually read that?

And to note, the economic benefits aren't for northern nationalists - they're for everyone, north and south

Yes I did, but I don't think cash will persuade unionists, Britishness runs too deep.

[haveaharp]

The difference in the six counties now as opposed to 1921 is that Unionists are a minority at 49% and "Nationalists" can see 50%. However that majority as we can see from polls will not be in any hurry to vote for a UI. There in lies the job of work facing those wanting reunification. You need to unify nationalism first and then get unionists on board at least a generation away. I don't believe all things being equal people in the south would object to unification. I also believe the UK government would give financial support for a guaranteed period to the new state to off-set any potential costs to the people of the south in their view a price worth paying for a long term solution. So two questions for the Republican voice on here: 1. How do you sell this to your fellow nationalists? 2. How do you win over Unionists?

1. Show me the money

2. f**k knows

In anything but the short term, (1) is guaranteed. Nationalists won't need persuading when it comes down to it.

A UI would be a new Ireland. Those designated as unionist would be about 15% (guesstimate) of the population as opposed to about 1.5% now. They'd be in a much better position. Ringfence investment for unionist areas, guarantee representation, have closer ties to the UK as a whole (rejoin commonwealth?). Essentially make the whole country closer to the UK, and ensure that unionists see they have nothing to fear, or indeed to lose, and a lot to gain.

The crux for everyone is as aqmp says 'show me the money'. Economically both north and south would be a lot better off - London doesn't care about the devolveds - those arguments that NI costs the UK and the south would have to absorb that are rubbish - there are nations spending billions trying to increase their territories, and we're being told that a peaceful western european assimilation would actually cost Ireland?!

OK Nationalists will be persuaded with cash, but unionists?

If nationalists need persuading are they nationalists ?

[muppet]

Muppet

What's this dogma ? I was pointing what happened in 1921 and I asked you to expand on the blaming ?

The dogma is that I am to blame for something that happened 20 years before my father and mother were born. That I should be apologising for this, or better still, lay down my life for this original sin.

The absurd thing is that the GFA did the same thing. It kicked the 32 county Ireland can down the road.

In order to compare the GFA and what happened in 1921, the republican negotiators would have to have said.  "Feck this, we'll never win over North Antrim, North Down and East Belfast, we'll just leave them to be ruled by the Brits."  (And then do feck all about it for the next century).  Then hand wring and moralise when the nationalists in those areas decided they were going to do something about it themselves.  Comparisons are bullshit, the GFA had equal consequences for all those to whom it applied.

Finally, on page 11 post from Franko that does something other than play the man.

However, I have no idea at all what you are on about.

In 1921 everyone, including the Brits, thought it was a temporary solution. Even the border hadn't been decided at the time. Churchill himself later claimed he supported a United Ireland. Almost no one, probably even including unionists, thought the situation wouldn't change for a century.

It was similar with the GFA. Articles 2 & 3 were dropped on one hand but on the other there is a commitment to allow a majority decision to decide on a United Ireland.

Both agreements maintained partition as the status quo. Neither achieved a 32 County Ireland. Not identical obviously, but plenty of similarities.

'The GFA had equal consequences for all those to whom it applied'.

Really?

Spin it all you like, but for the 18 years since the GFA, the 6 counties are still stuck in the UK. Just like in 1921. The headline of the GFA for Nationailsts was the vote, but where is it 18 years later? Do you think it will happen in the next ten years? Or the ten after that?

Finally, on page 11 post from Franko that does something other than play the man.

See my previous post regarding your own penchant for same.  Hypocrite.

However, I have no idea at all what you are on about.

It would seem so.



In 1921 everyone, including the Brits, thought it was a temporary solution. Even the border hadn't been decided at the time. Churchill himself later claimed he supported a United Ireland. Almost no one, probably even including unionists, thought the situation wouldn't change for a century.

Right, so post 1921 we have a fluid situation, with many particulars still open for debate and (one of) the British leader(s) open to the possibility of reuniting the country.  Why, in such a case, did the border end up copper fastened as it is and with the 6 county nationalists left to fend for themselves for the next century (so far)?  Would it be anything to do with the hopeless efforts of the new Free State government to negotiate anything better due to total apathy towards the fate of those they had agreed to leave with the Brits?

It was similar with the GFA. Articles 2 & 3 were dropped on one hand but on the other there is a commitment to allow a majority decision to decide on a United Ireland.

Both agreements maintained partition as the status quo. Neither achieved a 32 County Ireland. Not identical obviously, but plenty of similarities.

'The GFA had equal consequences for all those to whom it applied'.

Really?

Spin it all you like, but for the 18 years since the GFA, the 6 counties are still stuck in the UK. Just like in 1921. The headline of the GFA for Nationailsts was the vote, but where is it 18 years later? Do you think it will happen in the next ten years? Or the ten after that?

Erm, yes.  And 95 years after the treaty was signed, the 6 counties is still stuck in the UK.  How about we evaluate how the GFA has performed for 6 county nationalists after 95 years?  Was a constitutional route to a reunited country enshrined in law post 1921?  I must have missed that bit.

But perhaps the main issue in this respect, regards the treatment of the people post each of these agreements.  I don't think there can be any debate as to which has left Catholic/Nationalist people in the 6 counties better off.  But of course, when comparing the merits of the relative agreements, you didn't even so much as consider that as something worth mentioning.  Because like your forefathers, it's obviously not of much concern to you.  So you can spin it all you like, but the GFA and the treaty of 1921, from the perspective of someone from the 6 counties are not even in the same ballpark.

Franko, you are a true visionary with hindsight, but you need to look a bit more at the history.

"Was a constitutional route to a reunited country enshrined in law post 1921? I must have missed that bit."

The 1921 Treaty amended the House of Commons, Council of Ireland Act 1920 which included the following:

With a view to the eventual establishment of a Parliament for the whole of Ireland, and to bringing about harmonious action between the parliaments and governments of Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland, and to the promotion of mutual intercourse and uniformity in relation to matters affecting the whole of Ireland, and to providing for the administration of services which the two parliaments mutually agree should be administered uniformly throughout the whole of Ireland, or which by virtue of this Act are to be so administered, there shall be constituted, as soon as may be after the appointed day, a Council to be called the Council of Ireland.

Yes subsequent events rendered it all moot, sadly. But that is with the benefit of hindsight. Did those involved in 1921 believe, in good faith, that a United Ireland was still on the way? I think so. Hindsight may condemn the GFA as well, hopefully not, but who knows? But did those Nationalists/Republicans who signed it believe, in good faith, that it brought a United Ireland closer, I think so too.

The GFA enshrines the right to a referendum, but 18 years later there is no sign of it.

Republican bloggers bashing Southerners for something that happened in 1921, without even pretending there was any context, makes such a vote less likely to even happen in my opinion and even less likely to be carried. It really doesn't help and certainly doesn't get new votes for SF. So what is the objective?

[Rossfan]

Let those who feel so inclined keep "Britishness" in the new All Ireland.
Doesn't the GFA say that people in the 6 Cos can continue to be British or Irish after re unification.
Obviously there will continue to be a local Assembly of some sort with some Autonomy.
However in any re unification referendum Unionists will no doubt be voting NO
You need to convince apolitical Protestants and lukewarm nationalists to come on board.
But first you need something for them to come on board, then you need more votes for nationalist parties to trigger a referendum.

And certain people need to stop blaming Muppet for the 1921 Treaty, stop hectoring 26 Co people and stop looking for us to wear sackcloth and ashes over the past.
Just remember we will be voting on re unification too..... So be nice to us as well.

[AQMP]

OK Nationalists will be persuaded with cash, but unionists?

Offer them cash to to live in Britain?
More seriously, the issue is the establishment of a workable economic model, when that this is within sight then real discussion on other matters can begin. Unfortunately, there is not the least indication that SF, the largest nationalist party in the 6 counties, has any notion that this is case never mind a model for advancing things.

You're right ref SF but that might be a blessing in disguise as a Sinn Fein led UI campaign in a referendum situation would turn about 70% of the  electorate off in one fell swoop! Unionists wouldn't have to do anything!

[AQMP]

The difference in the six counties now as opposed to 1921 is that Unionists are a minority at 49% and "Nationalists" can see 50%. However that majority as we can see from polls will not be in any hurry to vote for a UI. There in lies the job of work facing those wanting reunification. You need to unify nationalism first and then get unionists on board at least a generation away. I don't believe all things being equal people in the south would object to unification. I also believe the UK government would give financial support for a guaranteed period to the new state to off-set any potential costs to the people of the south in their view a price worth paying for a long term solution. So two questions for the Republican voice on here: 1. How do you sell this to your fellow nationalists? 2. How do you win over Unionists?

1. Show me the money

2. f**k knows

In anything but the short term, (1) is guaranteed. Nationalists won't need persuading when it comes down to it.

A UI would be a new Ireland. Those designated as unionist would be about 15% (guesstimate) of the population as opposed to about 1.5% now. They'd be in a much better position. Ringfence investment for unionist areas, guarantee representation, have closer ties to the UK as a whole (rejoin commonwealth?). Essentially make the whole country closer to the UK, and ensure that unionists see they have nothing to fear, or indeed to lose, and a lot to gain.

The crux for everyone is as aqmp says 'show me the money'. Economically both north and south would be a lot better off - London doesn't care about the devolveds - those arguments that NI costs the UK and the south would have to absorb that are rubbish - there are nations spending billions trying to increase their territories, and we're being told that a peaceful western european assimilation would actually cost Ireland?!

OK Nationalists will be persuaded with cash, but unionists?

If nationalists need persuading are they nationalists ?

You would think not...I'm using Nationalist here in terms of the "Nationalist Gene Pool" or "People from a Nationalist Background", just to save me fingers when typing!  There are a lot of people in the North who would never consider themselves British and would have no allegiance to the fleg or Queen but would need persuading that there is benefit to changing the status quo.  This is the constituency that needs to be convinced first.  Then the Northern Irish (most of whom are of the "Nationalist Gene Pool" or "People from a Nationalist Background").  Then the Brits!  East peasy...see you in about 125 years!

[armaghniac]

Could you expand on this?

It is widely believed that NI is in receipt of a very large degree of subsidy, owing to limited tax receipts and excessive public expenditure (the highest in these islands). That subsidy is modest per taxpayer in the UK, and largely unknown to them, but would be unrealistic for the rest of Ireland to subsidise. A United Ireland needs to be a one of (approximate) equals where everyone pays their way. Now the exact extent of this gap would have to be calculated, but it needs more economic activity (more tax) and less excessive public expenditure in NI.  That requires NI nationalism to go from a perspective of extracting as much from the British as possible, to an intention to become more like the rest of the country, SF have shown little indication of having fully taken this on board, indeed they seem to want to turn the rest of the country into the 6 counties.

The GFA enshrines the right to a referendum, but 18 years later there is no sign of it.

Marty has called for one if there is Brexit, which is a reasonable trigger, as NI will vote against it. Brexit would be a game changer as there would have to be some clarification of what staying the UK would mean, never mind a UI.

Let those who feel so inclined keep "Britishness" in the new All Ireland.

Individuals can do whatever they wish, but there is place for colonialism continuing. Britishness can only get the same type of recognition as Frenchness, Polishness or Nigerianness.

You're right ref SF but that might be a blessing in disguise as a Sinn Fein led UI campaign in a referendum situation would turn about 70% of the  electorate off in one fell swoop! Unionists would have to do anything!

Exactly, SF are an obstacle to a UI if anything. Some sort of Alex Salmond type figure has to emerge and probably one will, eventually.

[Rossfan]

Disappointed at your absolutism Armaghniac. Expected better.
The 6 Co " Protestant background" people will have to have a right to dual citizenship of the new Ireland plus Gt Britain if it still exists.
Must read the GFA again as I'm nearly sure that's included in it.

[muppet]

The GFA enshrines the right to a referendum, but 18 years later there is no sign of it.

Marty has called for one if there is Brexit, which is a reasonable trigger, as NI will vote against it. Brexit would be a game changer as there would have to be some clarification of what staying the UK would mean, never mind a UI.

A Brexit could really throw the cat among the pigeons. AQMP referred to the Law of Unintended Consequences earlier. Who knows what would happen in NI?

I am still betting against it though. 

[Applesisapples]

Northern Nationalism or its gene pool is crying out for leadership, sadly lacking in SF and non-existent in the SDLP.

[armaghniac]

Disappointed at your absolutism Armaghniac. Expected better.
The 6 Co " Protestant background" people will have to have a right to dual citizenship of the new Ireland plus Gt Britain if it still exists.
Must read the GFA again as I'm nearly sure that's included in it.

No doubt people will retain GB citizenship for a generation, but nowhere in the British Empire (including ROI) did people remain British indefinitely. Why should they?  Why should "British" people in Tyrone retain British citizenship when those in Rathmines or Hong Kong do not?

A Brexit could really throw the cat among the pigeons. AQMP referred to the Law of Unintended Consequences earlier. Who knows what would happen in NI?

I am still betting against it though. 

A narrow "Remain" achieved by votes in the Celtic Fringe with a small "Leave" majority in England would be interesting however.

Northern Nationalism or its gene pool is crying out for leadership, sadly lacking in SF and non-existent in the SDLP.

+1000.

[Rossfan]

Why should "British" people in Tyrone retain British citizenship when those in Rathmines or Hong Kong do not?

Because we want peace, because it would prevent 7 or 800,000 people being alienated and maybe recreating 1968 to 1998 in reverse, because it wwould be no skin off our noses, because it would be a magnanimous gesture by the majority, because we're Irish......
I suspect Rathmines people did till 1949.
As for Hong Kong please direct you enquiry to the British Government.

[BennyCake]

I'd imagine a lot of those in the North that are "meh" about a United Ireland, feel that way because they'd be worse off financially, healthcare-wise etc. Nothing wrong with that. People can't be faulted for looking after their own interests.

[muppet]

I'd imagine a lot of those in the North that are "meh" about a United Ireland, feel that way because they'd be worse off financially, healthcare-wise etc. Nothing wrong with that. People can't be faulted for looking after their own interests.

Healthcare, maybe but without the UK subsidy?

As for financially, you are having laugh. Outside of London, the UK is miles behind.