Question for southerners

[Mike Sheehy]

feck off irishboy

[deiseach]

On which point, now that the Celtic Tiger has been poached and its bones ground down for Chinese medicine (or whatever), there is no longer even an economic case for Unity [sic]  to which Nationalists might point, in order to counter our inherent emotional antipathy which, following 30 years of  murderous assault by the new TD for Louth and his fellow gangsters etc, is now well-nigh implacable.

You have to laugh at this. Ye were amenable to the idea of a rapprochement with Irish Nationalism until the Provos came along? Quite simply, you are erasing Unionism's commitment to using violence at every turn to achieve its political goals from the history books

[cicfada]

Indeed he also forgets that it was Carson and craig that founded an illegal army, ie the UVF to fight a democratic decision made by the westminster parliament in 1912 that led to the  formation of the National volunteers from which the IRA came! Then he says that the Unionists have the deciding vote!! How about the Nationalists...don't they get to vote at all??

[deiseach]

Indeed he also forgets that it was Carson and craig that founded an illegal army, ie the UVF to fight a democratic decision made by the westminster parliament in 1912 that led to the  formation of the National volunteers from which the IRA came! Then he says that the Unionists have the deciding vote!! How about the Nationalists...don't they get to vote at all??

Indeed. As long as there is one Unionist, Northern Ireland will remain part of the UK. One man one vote, eh?

[Poc me]

It's always a good laugh to read why the Unionists wanted to opt out of a Home Rule Ireland anyway. The best point is about fears of religious discrimination against them as they would be in the minority...so what do they do? make themselves a majority and act out the religious discrimination themselves against the other side. Unionist desires to opt out of a Home Rule Ireland (I say home rule as an Irish Republic wasn't in the mainstream at the time (19th C.)) were based merely on fears. They feared that it would affect their economic status and the economic benefit from their position in the Empire yet they weren't actually going to leave the Empire with HR so this wouldn't have been affected.

[Evil Genius]

On which point, now that the Celtic Tiger has been poached and its bones ground down for Chinese medicine (or whatever), there is no longer even an economic case for Unity [sic]  to which Nationalists might point, in order to counter our inherent emotional antipathy which, following 30 years of  murderous assault by the new TD for Louth and his fellow gangsters etc, is now well-nigh implacable.

You have to laugh at this. Ye were amenable to the idea of a rapprochement with Irish Nationalism until the Provos came along? Quite simply, you are erasing Unionism's commitment to using violence at every turn to achieve its political goals from the history books

No erasure at all on my part.

Whilst it is true that in 1912, there was widespread, militant resistance amongst Unionists towards Home Rule etc, that was a century ago.

And History has taught us that the attitudes of the various religious/political groups in Ireland has varied throughout the ages eg Presbyterian support for the United Irishmen, or the participation of so many Nationalists in Redmond's Irish Volunteers in the Great War.

Therefore my point was simply that the effect of 30 years of "armed struggle" by the Provos (1970-2000 approx) was only to harden Unionist antipathy towards a United Ireland to implacable levels.

Or do you disagree?

[deiseach]

Therefore my point was simply that the effect of 30 years of "armed struggle" by the Provos (1970-2000 approx) was only to harden Unionist antipathy towards a United Ireland to implacable levels.

Or do you disagree?

I disagree. You can't get more implacable than 100% implacable

[armaghniac]

What about people from the six counties who are not from Belfast, do not follow soccer what-so-ever (outside of reading scores in the paper), despises all (not just British) reality TV, despises all (especially British) soap operas, who lives for GAA, who never has and never will have a British Passport,

These people will be concentrated in urban areas and force to live in "developed" society.

but undeniable fact that with the Nationalist vote in NI having clearly plateaued since the turn of the century,

Better to plateau, if this is even true, then continue declining like the bigot vote!

Therefore my point was simply that the effect of 30 years of "armed struggle" by the Provos (1970-2000 approx) was only to harden Unionist antipathy towards a United Ireland to implacable levels.

Or do you disagree?

harden yes. Implacable, no, just a blip in history. The tide of history is towards removing the evil effect of the the Plantation of Ulster, the direction remains the same.

[Evil Genius]

Indeed he also forgets that it was Carson and craig that founded an illegal army, ie the UVF to fight a democratic decision made by the westminster parliament in 1912 that led to the  formation of the National volunteers from which the IRA came! Then he says that the Unionists have the deciding vote!! How about the Nationalists...don't they get to vote at all??

Of course Nationalists get to vote.

Under the GFA, a United Ireland may only come about following a majority vote in referenda in both NI and the Republic.

There is some doubt whether a majority in the Republic would vote for it - I don't really know, myself.

However, I have no doubt whatever that any Referendum in NI would produce a small, but decisive vote against a UI.

Moreover, I personally do not see that changing any time in the foreseeable future. On the contrary, with "peace" gradually taking stronger hold in NI, Catholic/Nationalist grievances having been all but eradicated, and the Republic's economy having gone South (pun intended), if anything, the thrust for Unity both North and South, and amongst Unionists and Nationalists, is likely to go into reverse (imo).

That said, I recognise that you may disagree, what with the events of 1912 being still so raw in your memory...

[deiseach]

That said, I recognise that you may disagree, what with the events of 1912 being still so raw in your memory...

Why go back to 1912? All the rhetoric of Unionist politicians since has been to promise a fight down to the last drop of blood to preserve partition. And given their beloved reputation for straight-talking, it's only fair to take their word for it

[Evil Genius]

Indeed he also forgets that it was Carson and craig that founded an illegal army, ie the UVF to fight a democratic decision made by the westminster parliament in 1912 that led to the  formation of the National volunteers from which the IRA came! Then he says that the Unionists have the deciding vote!! How about the Nationalists...don't they get to vote at all??

Indeed. As long as there is one Unionist, Northern Ireland will remain part of the UK. One man one vote, eh?

Have you been living in a cave this last 15 years or something? 

Under the GFA, which received the overwhelming support of all the people of Ireland in a democratic vote, NI's status within the UK may be terminated by a simple 50%+1 majority in referenda held in NI and ROI.

Whatever the prospect for any such vote in ROI, I am convinced that there is no such chance of such a majority in NI, in support of which I can cite the results of every election in NI since the GFA.

Moreover, I have argued why I see no sign of that changing in the foreseeable future (quite the contrary, in fact).

Meanwhile, you chunder on about events of a century ago, as if they somehow inform the present political dispensation. 

May I suggest you try to get into the 21st Century?

Or failing that, you retreat to your cave for another 99 years of hibernation...

[deiseach]

Under the GFA, which received the overwhelming support of all the people of Ireland in a democratic vote, NI's status within the UK may be terminated by a simple 50%+1 majority in referenda held in NI and ROI.

Whatever the prospect for any such vote in ROI, I am convinced that there is no such chance of such a majority in NI, in support of which I can cite the results of every election in NI since the GFA.

Moreover, I have argued why I see no sign of that changing in the foreseeable future (quite the contrary, in fact).

Meanwhile, you chunder on about events of a century ago, as if they somehow inform the present political dispensation. 

I don't believe for one second that if 50% +1 of the electorate voted for an end to partition that Unionism would just go "okay, that's good enough for us!" Again, I don't need to go back to 1912 to find instances of Unionist politicians invoking the threat of extreme violence for political ends.

May I suggest you try to get into the 21st Century?

Or failing that, you retreat to your cave for another 99 years of hibernation...

Ad hominem attacks. Not like you generally.

[Evil Genius]

That said, I recognise that you may disagree, what with the events of 1912 being still so raw in your memory...

Why go back to 1912? All the rhetoric of Unionist politicians since has been to promise a fight down to the last drop of blood to preserve partition. And given their beloved reputation for straight-talking, it's only fair to take their word for it

Dear oh dear.

You really don't get it, do you?

The point is, since the GFA (and the end of the Provos' "armed struggle") Unionists no longer have any reason or inclination to resort to arms etc, in order to defend the Union.

All we now need is to ensure that we remain in the majority in any democratic referendum in NI.

I personally do not see any difficulty in securing such a majority, but even if I'm wrong on that score, I do not feel that there would be any great appetite amongst Unionists generally to resort to arms if referenda in NI and ROI were both lost.

This latter is, of course, only my opinion, but I would hope that I am rather more closely in tune with Unionist thinking* on such matters than you are...


* - At least when it comes to 2012; I may not be so sure about what it was like in 1912 as you, though. 

[Evil Genius]

Under the GFA, which received the overwhelming support of all the people of Ireland in a democratic vote, NI's status within the UK may be terminated by a simple 50%+1 majority in referenda held in NI and ROI.

Whatever the prospect for any such vote in ROI, I am convinced that there is no such chance of such a majority in NI, in support of which I can cite the results of every election in NI since the GFA.

Moreover, I have argued why I see no sign of that changing in the foreseeable future (quite the contrary, in fact).

Meanwhile, you chunder on about events of a century ago, as if they somehow inform the present political dispensation. 

I don't believe for one second that if 50% +1 of the electorate voted for an end to partition that Unionism would just go "okay, that's good enough for us!" Again, I don't need to go back to 1912 to find instances of Unionist politicians invoking the threat of extreme violence for political ends.

It is my firm conviction that since the GFA we are all in an entirely new political dispensation in Ireland. And this applies equally to Unionists, as well as Nationalists.

And one aspect of this dispensation is that neither side has any appetite for reverting to the use of arms to impose its will upon the other (a few Republican "dissidents" excepted).

As proof of this, I would contrast the former absolute hostility of the DUP towards anything which even smacked of Republicanism etc, with the willingness of the present DUP to sit in Government alongside SF.

Meanwhile, the Unionist equivalent of the Dissidents (TUV) is only a bit player, with no "armed wing", whillst personal dissatisfaction with Peter Robinson in East Belfast (the very heartland of Loyalism) manifested itself not in a hardening of the vote towards Loyalism, but in a swing towards the Alliance Party!

May I suggest you try to get into the 21st Century?

Or failing that, you retreat to your cave for another 99 years of hibernation...

Ad hominem attacks. Not like you generally.

Fair point, please accept my apologies. 

[Hardy]

... one aspect of this dispensation is that neither side has any appetite for reverting to the use of arms to impose its will upon the other (a few Republican "dissidents" excepted).

As proof of this, I would contrast the former absolute hostility of the DUP towards anything which even smacked of Republicanism etc, with the willingness of the present DUP to sit in Government alongside SF.

There is a school of thought that The DUP's motivation in sharing power with SF has less to do with conversion to an enlightened outlook than with the attractions of political office.