Is the end of the Union in sight? (It may well be but then again…)

[Evil Genius]

Incidentally, what's up with the sic  thing up there when you talk about reunification? Are you saying it was never unified?

No.
It was merely a reference, albeit oblique, to the fact that a (Re)United Ireland on your terms would be anything but united* for people like me.


* - In the sense of agreement, harmony and mutual respect etc

We'll leave aside the Ard Ri and Brian Boru and the comparison with England which wasn't united until under Henry VII in 1485 for a minute, but youse boys are fond of telling us that Ireland was only united under the British. Well if the British saw fit to have the place run as a single entity with its own devolved parliament for so long (and the Orange Order were leading campaigners against the abolition of what they called "our Irish Parliament") then that kinda holes your little 'sic' below the waterline, wouldn't you say? 

Oh dear.
It seems your understanding of history is about as reliable as that of the term "unity". Brian Boru indeed...

In fact to this day it's not uncommon to hear planters like yourself say that you'd be okay with the Free State rejoining the UK, and with Ireland being united under those circumstances.

Hang on a minute. What's this talk of "Planters"?
I thought that in the utopian all-Ireland Republic of your dreams we'd be neither Planter nor Gael, Protestant nor Catholic, Unionist nor Nationalist, but simply "Irish" (including even those with Planter names like Adams or Hume etc)?

That tells me that deep down you don't really believe your own propaganda about the sick county state being a nation in its own right. If you did, why would you want to reunite with these "foreigners" south of the border?

We are a forgiving people and doesn't the Bible say something about welcoming back the Prodigal Son who has strayed?
Go on, just admit your mistake and there'll be a fatted calf for everyone who returns to the "New & Improved Super United Kingdom (Now with Added Taigs)" 

[mayogodhelpus@gmail.com]

Incidentally, what's up with the sic  thing up there when you talk about reunification? Are you saying it was never unified?

No.
It was merely a reference, albeit oblique, to the fact that a (Re)United Ireland on your terms would be anything but united* for people like me.


* - In the sense of agreement, harmony and mutual respect etc

We'll leave aside the Ard Ri and Brian Boru and the comparison with England which wasn't united until under Henry VII in 1485 for a minute, but youse boys are fond of telling us that Ireland was only united under the British. Well if the British saw fit to have the place run as a single entity with its own devolved parliament for so long (and the Orange Order were leading campaigners against the abolition of what they called "our Irish Parliament") then that kinda holes your little 'sic' below the waterline, wouldn't you say? 

In fact to this day it's not uncommon to hear planters like yourself say that you'd be okay with the Free State rejoining the UK, and with Ireland being united under those circumstances. That tells me that deep down you don't really believe your own propaganda about the sick county state being a nation in its own right. If you did, why would you want to reunite with these "foreigners" south of the border?

Oh dear.
It seems your understanding of history is about as reliable as that of the term "unity". Brian Boru indeed...

In fact to this day it's not uncommon to hear planters like yourself say that you'd be okay with the Free State rejoining the UK, and with Ireland being united under those circumstances.

Hang on a minute. What's this talk of "Planters"?
I thought that in the utopian all-Ireland Republic of your dreams we'd be neither Planter nor Gael, Protestant nor Catholic, Unionist nor Nationalist, but simply "Irish" (including even those with Planter names like Adams or Hume etc)?

That tells me that deep down you don't really believe your own propaganda about the sick county state being a nation in its own right. If you did, why would you want to reunite with these "foreigners" south of the border?

We are a forgiving people and doesn't the Bible say something about welcoming back the Prodigal Son who has strayed?
Go on, just admit your mistake and there'll be a fatted calf for everyone who returns to the "New & Improved Super United Kingdom (Now with Added Taigs)" 

Sure we are waiting for you lot to return to the fold and stop hanging around with the troublemakers down the road.

[Eamonnca1]

Answer the question, EG. If you're okay with the concept of all of Ireland being governed as a single entity (as you were during British rule before and would be under a hypothetical return of the ROI to the UK) then what does that say about your claim that the six county state is a nation in its own right with its own separate identity trading under the brand name of "Ulster"?

[Evil Genius]

Answer the question, EG. If you're okay with the concept of all of Ireland being governed as a single entity (as you were during British rule before and would be under a hypothetical return of the ROI to the UK) then what does that say about your claim that the six county state is a nation in its own right with its own separate identity trading under the brand name of "Ulster"?

It's quite simple, really.

I believe that people should be allowed the democratic right to live within whatever Constitutional arrangement they (or a majority of them, at least) prefer.

Therefore in the (entirely hypothetical*) instance of the people (or majority) of the ROI deciding they wished to be part of the UK once more, then that wish should be respected. Accordingly, if that were to be on the basis that the present-day ROI became the 5th of the nations making up the UK, then that would be fine by me.

Alternatively, should they opt to reunite with present-day NI as a member of the UK, that would be equally fine. Of course, such a "reunited" Ireland would assume a different character from that of NI.

But I could live with that, just as, for instance, the people of Scotland presently accommodate regional differences (eg Lowland vs Highland, East of Scotland vs West of Scotland, Nationalist vs Unionist, Protestant vs Catholic etc, Glasgow vs Edinburgh) within their constituent nation of the UK. For as I have always acknowledged, whilst the people of NI and ROI may have many differences, there are also many other similarities**, deriving from the fact that we have been sharing the island for hundreds of years.

So for better or worse, there is my direct answer to your question.

Is there any chance you could now give me a direct answer to the question I posed to you earlier? Namely, all adherents of the Good Friday Agreement publicly affirm that they respect equally all political traditions in Ireland, including Unionism, these traditions all being completely legitimate and entitled to be adhered to by any or all of the people of Ireland.

Yet you have frequently said that you do not respect Unionism and do not accept its legitimacy. Fair enough, that is your right. But that being the case, how can you say you support the GFA, whilst at the same time denying the fundamental basis upon which it is constructed?

"Answer the question, E1" 




* - Btw, when Unionists talk of reuniting Ireland under the Crown etc, it is invariably a tongue-in-cheek riposte to Nationalist talk of reuniting Ireland free of the Crown. No Unionist I know thinks there is any serious chance whatever of it happening.

** - Such as our common affection for the British Royal Family...

[Evil Genius]

Throughout this thread, I have argued that the Union is safe for the foreseeable future, since under the GFA, the only way NI may leave the UK is following a 50%+1 vote in a Referendum, and I see no sign of any such majority emerging.

Of course, many Nationalists argue that the Prod/RC demographics of NI mean that such a majority is inevitable, sooner or later within the foreseeable future. Now it is true that ever since the foundation of NI, the demographics have been moving in the RC favour, with a corresponding increase in support for Nationalist parties. However, whilst that demographic trend continues to this day, the political trend clearly stalled somewhere around the end of the 1990's at the 40-43% mark, where it has stubbornly remained since.

Therefore I concluded that this can only mean that RC's are no longer automatically voting for Nationalist Parties in the way they formerly did. I personally would ascribe this new divergence between the demographic and political to the increasing peace, security and equality etc brought about in NI by the GFA, plus a narrowing of the economic gap between NI and ROI following the death of the Celtic Tiger.

Of course, the voting habits in elections cannot be a perfect guide to how people would vote in any Referendum i.e. it is possible that RC's who no longer automatically turn out to vote for a Nationalist Party might still vote for a UI in a Referendum*. However someone referred in another thread to a Survey which casts a very interesting light on this particular aspect of the question. I must confess that this had slipped by me until now - I don't know Unionists don't publicise it much more widely (though I can see why Nationalists would be desperate to keep it under wraps!).

According to a 2009 Survey of Political Attitudes - http://www.ark.ac.uk/nilt/2009/Political_Attitudes/NIRELND2.html - not only do 69% of all the people of NI believe that NI should remain within the UK "in the long term", but this figures encompasses a whopping 47% of RC's who favour this. Indeed, when you allow for the 13% of RC's who opted for Independence/Other/Don't Know, this leaves just 40% of RC's in NI who favour a UI.

Moreover, this Survey was conducted some time in 2009 i.e. before the depth of the ROI's economic problems became apparent, never mind began to bite.

As a consequence, whilst before I would have put the "Yes" vote in a UI Referendum somewhere between 40-45% but no higher, in the light of the Survey, I wouldn't now expect the Yes vote even to reach 40%.

Happy Days! 


* - I actually feel that when you factor in the personal risk to Jobs, Health, Education and Pensions etc, RC's might be more  rather than less likely to reject a UI in a Referendum, than is reflected in the performance of Nationalist parties in elections. The above Survey would appear to back up this contention.

[lynchbhoy]

Answer the question, EG. If you're okay with the concept of all of Ireland being governed as a single entity (as you were during British rule before and would be under a hypothetical return of the ROI to the UK) then what does that say about your claim that the six county state is a nation in its own right with its own separate identity trading under the brand name of "Ulster"?

It's quite simple, really.
I believe that people should be allowed the democratic right to live within whatever Constitutional arrangement they (or a majority of them, at least) prefer.

interesting that you put all your eggs in this basket.
unionist/loyalist indoctrination down the years to their kids has built this up I suppose - they like to gloss over the reality that the MAJORITY of Ireland pre-partition wanted to remain a unified country - maybe it didnt have its own government, but they were peacefully lobbying for this. When it looked likely that this was going to happen, surprisingly enough the violence started and the 'home rule leaders' were always arrested and the movement villified or proclaimed illegal !

so the break up of the state was 'illegal' under your own terms !

as for the reunification - you are again refusing to focus on the other larger factors in the equation - that the northern state wont have much of a choice eventually- as the British gov pulls jobs and benefits etc as much as possible from the six counties until people are either forced to move to England or will vote for a better economic existence- the one in conjunction with a reunified Ireland. We all know that the unionists/loyalists throw away their principles for the lure of money - as seen in the last rush south for jobs/money in the Celtic Tiger !

this is inevitable - so best get used to it and swallow the bitterness for the impending reunification undong he illegal breakup of the state that so many Irishmen Dev, collins etc fought over !!!

[Fear ón Srath Bán]

Answer the question, EG. If you're okay with the concept of all of Ireland being governed as a single entity (as you were during British rule before and would be under a hypothetical return of the ROI to the UK) then what does that say about your claim that the six county state is a nation in its own right with its own separate identity trading under the brand name of "Ulster"?

It's quite simple, really.

I believe that people should be allowed the democratic right to live within whatever Constitutional arrangement they (or a majority of them, at least) prefer.

Just like the wishes of the majority of folk in Fermanagh and Tyrone (who did not wish to be part of the new northern statelet) were honoured at partition. Yeah, right.


Yeah but, no but, yeah but, no but, yeah...

[Evil Genius]

Answer the question, EG. If you're okay with the concept of all of Ireland being governed as a single entity (as you were during British rule before and would be under a hypothetical return of the ROI to the UK) then what does that say about your claim that the six county state is a nation in its own right with its own separate identity trading under the brand name of "Ulster"?

It's quite simple, really.
I believe that people should be allowed the democratic right to live within whatever Constitutional arrangement they (or a majority of them, at least) prefer.

interesting that you put all your eggs in this basket.

Yes, I am content to leave it entirely to the will of the majority - it's called democracy.

Or are there additional non-democratic methods you feel I might espouse in order to protect my position?

unionist/loyalist indoctrination down the years to their kids has built this up I suppose - they like to gloss over the reality that the MAJORITY of Ireland pre-partition wanted to remain a unified country - maybe it didnt have its own government, but they were peacefully lobbying for this. When it looked likely that this was going to happen, surprisingly enough the violence started and the 'home rule leaders' were always arrested and the movement villified or proclaimed illegal !

so the break up of the state was 'illegal' under your own terms !

If you want my take on the events of the early 20th Century, here it is.

By around 1920, we had got to the situation whereby the clear majority in one part of Ireland were determined upon Independence from the Crown, whilst the clear majority in the other part of Ireland were equally determined to oppose it.
Each was prepared to fight its corner, so Partition was devised as the best (least worst?) solution, both pragmatically and in principle.

Of course, I regret that the majority in the South desired to breakaway, but I regret even more that they were forced to fight to realise that desire.

Equally, I am glad that the majority in the North were not ultimately forced to fight to remain in the UK, since had we been denied this right, I have no doubt that Unionism would have mounted armed resistance, such that if not accepted back into the UK, we would have opted for an independent NI and (imo) would surely have succeeded (albeit at enormous cost in lost lives and destruction etc).

As for your argument that a majority on the island favoured Independence, I can easily counter that by pointing out that a clear majority in the UK were equally opposed to Irish Independence. Where do you draw the line? Well the "salt-water" argument has a certain attraction, I suppose, except that when it comes to such matters, I firmly believe that People should take priority over Geography. Or are you eg going to tell the Scottish or Welsh Nationalists that they may not ever have Independence, on the basis that they are all part of the same island as England? 

Anyhow, that is my take on the historical situation; whether you, with your (non-indoctrinated  ) mindset, agree or not is up to you.

And in any case, much more important than the Past is the Present, on which point the overwhelming majority of people in Ireland, both North and South, recognised the ligitmacy of Partition in the 1998 GFA, with the further proviso that Partition cannot be overturned unless or until the democratic majority in NI so decide.

And that is quite good enough for me.

as for the reunification - you are again refusing to focus on the other larger factors in the equation - that the northern state wont have much of a choice eventually- as the British gov pulls jobs and benefits etc as much as possible from the six counties until people are either forced to move to England or will vote for a better economic existence- the one in conjunction with a reunified Ireland. We all know that the unionists/loyalists throw away their principles for the lure of money - as seen in the last rush south for jobs/money in the Celtic Tiger !

this is inevitable - so best get used to it and swallow the bitterness for the impending reunification undong he illegal breakup of the state that so many Irishmen Dev, collins etc fought over !!!

I like to think that I am a rational individual, such that if presented with a compelling case for Irish Political Unity, I could be persuaded.

But you should know that whatever arguments others might put forward, I think your efforts to be pure garbage.

P.S. When I say "garbage", I actually mean  s h i t e, pure  s h i t e...

[Evil Genius]

Answer the question, EG. If you're okay with the concept of all of Ireland being governed as a single entity (as you were during British rule before and would be under a hypothetical return of the ROI to the UK) then what does that say about your claim that the six county state is a nation in its own right with its own separate identity trading under the brand name of "Ulster"?

It's quite simple, really.

I believe that people should be allowed the democratic right to live within whatever Constitutional arrangement they (or a majority of them, at least) prefer.

Just like the wishes of the majority of folk in Fermanagh and Tyrone (who did not wish to be part of the new northern statelet) were honoured at partition. Yeah, right.


Yeah but, no but, yeah but, no but, yeah...

In my reply to Lynchbhoy (preceeding), I outlined my opinion on, and rationalisation for, Partition.

Note that I did not claim that Partition was a perfect solution, leaving as it did, problems such as you allude to. That said, I am given to understand that by 1921, such was the overriding need to come up with a solution, however imperfect, some aspects of the Treaty remained to be finalised. One such was the exact placing of the border. However, by the time the Boundary Commission got round to it a few years later, such were the difficulties raised by further adjustments, that the three Governments in London, Belfast and Dublin* agreed that it was better to leave things as they were.



* - Something else for "Nordies" to mope about to "Free Staters, Blue Shirts, West Brits" and the rest ... 

[lynchbhoy]

Answer the question, EG. If you're okay with the concept of all of Ireland being governed as a single entity (as you were during British rule before and would be under a hypothetical return of the ROI to the UK) then what does that say about your claim that the six county state is a nation in its own right with its own separate identity trading under the brand name of "Ulster"?

It's quite simple, really.
I believe that people should be allowed the democratic right to live within whatever Constitutional arrangement they (or a majority of them, at least) prefer.

interesting that you put all your eggs in this basket.

Yes, I am content to leave it entirely to the will of the majority - it's called democracy.

Or are there additional non-democratic methods you feel I might espouse in order to protect my position?

unionist/loyalist indoctrination down the years to their kids has built this up I suppose - they like to gloss over the reality that the MAJORITY of Ireland pre-partition wanted to remain a unified country - maybe it didnt have its own government, but they were peacefully lobbying for this. When it looked likely that this was going to happen, surprisingly enough the violence started and the 'home rule leaders' were always arrested and the movement villified or proclaimed illegal !

so the break up of the state was 'illegal' under your own terms !

If you want my take on the events of the early 20th Century, here it is.

By around 1920, we had got to the situation whereby the clear majority in one part of Ireland were determined upon Independence from the Crown, whilst the clear majority in the other part of Ireland were equally determined to oppose it.
Each was prepared to fight its corner, so Partition was devised as the best (least worst?) solution, both pragmatically and in principle.

Of course, I regret that the majority in the South desired to breakaway, but I regret even more that they were forced to fight to realise that desire.

Equally, I am glad that the majority in the North were not ultimately forced to fight to remain in the UK, since had we been denied this right, I have no doubt that Unionism would have mounted armed resistance, such that if not accepted back into the UK, we would have opted for an independent NI and (imo) would surely have succeeded (albeit at enormous cost in lost lives and destruction etc).

As for your argument that a majority on the island favoured Independence, I can easily counter that by pointing out that a clear majority in the UK were equally opposed to Irish Independence. Where do you draw the line? Well the "salt-water" argument has a certain attraction, I suppose, except that when it comes to such matters, I firmly believe that People should take priority over Geography. Or are you eg going to tell the Scottish or Welsh Nationalists that they may not ever have Independence, on the basis that they are all part of the same island as England? 

Anyhow, that is my take on the historical situation; whether you, with your (non-indoctrinated  ) mindset, agree or not is up to you.

And in any case, much more important than the Past is the Present, on which point the overwhelming majority of people in Ireland, both North and South, recognised the ligitmacy of Partition in the 1998 GFA, with the further proviso that Partition cannot be overturned unless or until the democratic majority in NI so decide.

And that is quite good enough for me.

as for the reunification - you are again refusing to focus on the other larger factors in the equation - that the northern state wont have much of a choice eventually- as the British gov pulls jobs and benefits etc as much as possible from the six counties until people are either forced to move to England or will vote for a better economic existence- the one in conjunction with a reunified Ireland. We all know that the unionists/loyalists throw away their principles for the lure of money - as seen in the last rush south for jobs/money in the Celtic Tiger !

this is inevitable - so best get used to it and swallow the bitterness for the impending reunification undong he illegal breakup of the state that so many Irishmen Dev, collins etc fought over !!!

I like to think that I am a rational individual, such that if presented with a compelling case for Irish Political Unity, I could be persuaded.

But you should know that whatever arguments others might put forward, I think your efforts to be pure garbage.

P.S. When I say "garbage", I actually mean  s h i t e, pure  s h i t e...

Interestingly enough your last line sums up your whole response. Yet another lengthy load of  long winded meaningless pointless nothingness !
Yer posts are all mouth and no trousers!
You don't have a response for the FACT that the island of IRELAND wanted to remain a single entity – what does the wishes of a foreign country not attached to Ireland have to do with it ?
You are being hypocritical when evoking democracy and coming up with that load of rubbish !
As for the second part – you just don't want to embrace reality !
Your problem not mine. I think this shows your rank bitterness at whats impending ! you have admitted much yourself in posts previous that it 'most likely WILL happen' !!

Name calling and stooping to that level speaks volumes for yourself and the lack of an argument in your repertoire!

[Fear ón Srath Bán]

Note that I did not claim that Partition was a perfect solution, leaving as it did, problems such as you allude to. That said, I am given to understand that by 1921, such was the overriding need to come up with a solution, however imperfect, some aspects of the Treaty remained to be finalised. One such was the exact placing of the border. However, by the time the Boundary Commission got round to it a few years later, such were the difficulties raised by further adjustments, that the three Governments in London, Belfast and Dublin* agreed that it was better to leave things as they were.



* - Something else for "Nordies" to mope about to "Free Staters, Blue Shirts, West Brits" and the rest ... 

To summarise: plainly undemocratic political arrangements shall be tolerated only where such an arrangement favours ourselves [unionists]; and where there might arise questions of democratic integrity those are invariably attributable to someone or other else, never, ever ourselves.

[Evil Genius]

Note that I did not claim that Partition was a perfect solution, leaving as it did, problems such as you allude to. That said, I am given to understand that by 1921, such was the overriding need to come up with a solution, however imperfect, some aspects of the Treaty remained to be finalised. One such was the exact placing of the border. However, by the time the Boundary Commission got round to it a few years later, such were the difficulties raised by further adjustments, that the three Governments in London, Belfast and Dublin* agreed that it was better to leave things as they were.



* - Something else for "Nordies" to mope about to "Free Staters, Blue Shirts, West Brits" and the rest ... 

To summarise: plainly undemocratic political arrangements shall be tolerated only where such an arrangement favours ourselves [unionists]; and where there might arise questions of democratic integrity those are invariably attributable to someone or other else, never, ever ourselves.

That is not a "summary", it is your heavily-loaded attempt to "paint me into a corner".

I made my opinion pretty clear - it is for you to agree or disagree with it, as you wish.

I don't see what you think you're gaining by distorting my argument, since whatever you hope to gain in "points scored" must surely be outweighed by the exposure of the pettiness of your debating tactics.

[lynchbhoy]

Note that I did not claim that Partition was a perfect solution, leaving as it did, problems such as you allude to. That said, I am given to understand that by 1921, such was the overriding need to come up with a solution, however imperfect, some aspects of the Treaty remained to be finalised. One such was the exact placing of the border. However, by the time the Boundary Commission got round to it a few years later, such were the difficulties raised by further adjustments, that the three Governments in London, Belfast and Dublin* agreed that it was better to leave things as they were.



* - Something else for "Nordies" to mope about to "Free Staters, Blue Shirts, West Brits" and the rest ... 

To summarise: plainly undemocratic political arrangements shall be tolerated only where such an arrangement favours ourselves [unionists]; and where there might arise questions of democratic integrity those are invariably attributable to someone or other else, never, ever ourselves.

looks like what you say above is 100% correct.

the noise of those violins are getting louder though ....

[Evil Genius]

Interestingly enough your last line sums up your whole response. Yet another lengthy load of  long winded meaningless pointless nothingness !
Yer posts are all mouth and no trousers!
You don't have a response for the FACT that the island of IRELAND wanted to remain a single entity – what does the wishes of a foreign country not attached to Ireland have to do with it ?
You are being hypocritical when evoking democracy and coming up with that load of rubbish !
As for the second part – you just don't want to embrace reality !
Your problem not mine. I think this shows your rank bitterness at whats impending ! you have admitted much yourself in posts previous that it 'most likely WILL happen' !!

Name calling and stooping to that level speaks volumes for yourself and the lack of an argument in your repertoire!

I am used to "ploughing a lone furrow" on this Board. When I debate some point with another member, I am used to others joining in and taking up his/her case.

Have you never wondered why "the Cavalry" never seems to come to your  aid?

(My money's on simple embarrassment on their part, btw  )

P.S. "... you [EG] have admitted much yourself in posts previous that it  [Irish Unity] 'most likely WILL happen' !!"  Which posts were those? 

[Oraisteach]

Actually, I find Fear's synopsis of the situation beautifully succinct and accurate, pointing to the "doublethink" mentality of some unionists today, i.e. the espousal of two equal and opposite views while believing both of them.

I laud the GFA, of course, but am amused at unionism's new-found faith in and defence of democracy.  EG, your nimble-footed dance explaining the rationale for ignoring democracy at the time of Partition (worse, willing to die rather than yield to it) followed by your elegant support of it as embodied in the GFA is, it seems to me, a bare-footed dance on hot coals. 
Your mentioning what the rest of the UK thought at the time is a red herring.  In fact, having spent years in England, I have found that most English people don't give a rat's ass about the Irish question, nor indeed know a damn thing about it.

So, to return to Fear's pithy analysis.  In the GFA, the people of Ireland, that is the south and the north (not Lancashire or Lanarkshire), agreed democratically to uphold certain agreed upon principles.  Back in the day, though, when democracy didn't suit them, unionists said to hell with democracy, let discrimination be unconfined, and established an enclave whose daily existence for years flouted all things democratic. 

So, again, though I celebrate unionism's new-found discovery of democracy, I just wish it had happened many many years ago. 

And though it won't happen, I'd like a mea culpa, loosely translated as a "we screwed you big time." So, yes, the man from Strabane in his straightforward summary is simply calling a spade a spade, and not an agricultural implement.