NI's future in the United Kingdom could depend on Catholics - Robinson

[Evil Genius]

Last nights spotlight basically stated that the ROI owns the North!! Sammy wants a seat on the board of an Irish Government body...NAMA...British my arse!!

And who owns the ROI, mein Herr? 

[Evil Genius]

Surely every "Fenian" [sic] is as pure and uncompromising as ever in resisting the Crown and  the Half Crown... 

That old chestnut again? Fenians should refuse to accept the money they have earned because it happens to have a picture of the Queen on it? If they were truly patriotic they'd somehow do all of their business in Euros?

*snore*

It was nothing to do with a technicality like whose picture is on the currency.

Rather I was alluding to the fact that Donagh Ulick was accepting that Irish Nationalists in NI cannot all be taken for granted as voting for a UI etc, if that would hurt them economically.

Which coming from those two posters  , is quite an admission.

[Evil Genius]

Something I remember clearly from stupid arguments I was involved in on OWC many moons ago, was that when we reached a time when a UI seemed a genuine possibility (and would be voted for) a lot of the contingent on OWC thought it very fair that at that point the boundaries of NI should be redrawn again to rather than (once again) accepting the will of the majority.

As a discussion site for NI football fans, OWC is no more representative of Unionist thinking than, say, a  discussion site for GAA fans is of Nationalist thinking.

Or did you not happen to notice eg the majority support Marty McGuinness got on here for his presidential bid, as against the 13% of the vote that he actually got? 

Just relaying some anecdotal evidence of unionist 'thinking'.  I mentioned it as it has always stuck in my mind that some people will preach 'till they are blue in the face that they are democrats but  then, when it doesn't suit them, they'll think nothing of moving the goalposts and might quite possibly arm themselves (again) to subvert the democratic will of the majority (again).  All hypothetical off course but still representative of a section of unionist thinking - and to be honest I'd say a right percentage of DUP, TUV, PUP and a sneaky percentage of UUP would think it's quite legitimate and why wouldn't they? It worked the first time or have you forgotten about Donegal, Cavan and Monaghan?

If your initial "evidence" [sic] is garbage, then your consequential conclusion will also be garbage.

Or do you consider that eg a majority of Irish Nationalists wanted Martin McGuinness to be their President last month, just because he topped the poll on this forum? 

[Applesisapples]

Last nights spotlight basically stated that the ROI owns the North!! Sammy wants a seat on the board of an Irish Government body...NAMA...British my arse!!

And who owns the ROI, mein Herr? 

And by extension the North!

[Applesisapples]

He never gives up. And him that got on to the first boat back to the mainland.

"First boat back"?

I was born in the UK, brought up in the UK, live in the UK and expect to die in the UK.

Just like eg Gerry Adams Sr., Joe Cahill, Brian Keenan, Martin Meehan and the rest...

Occupied six counties I think you'll find.

[Evil Genius]

You know, you really should stop listening to the voices in your head, and start studying the reality of what is happening all around you.

EG, I gave you a pass the last time you played the man and not the ball with respect to me. Twice is careless.

I've explained the 'reality' of history and the present day, i.e. that Unionism reserves the right at all times to resist being forced into a united Ireland. All the talk of majorities/greater numbers/consent are a smoke screen for that reality.  You're free to disagree, although that means you believe that once 50% +1 of the population of Northern Ireland support an end to the Union the now-minority community will meekly accept the democratic will. Forgive me for being so . . . sceptical

The difference between History and the present is that formerly, NI's place within the UK was under threat by armed, unconstitutional methods, with the insurgents having a degree of sympathy from outside NI (ROI, GB, USA etc).
This was (primarily) why some Unionists resorted to armed, sometimes unconstitutional methods of their own.

Whereas since the GFA, the only threat to NI's position is an electoral one. Consequently, there is no longer any armed recourse by Unionists.

That being the case, you seem to fear that Unionism's response to the "electoral threat"is/wll be one of re-partition. Yet you produce no evidence for this whatever, such as eg political party policy, opinion polls, position papers, lobby groups or even individuals advocating it.

Now if "push came to shove" in a border poll etc, I'm not saying that no Unionist would ever advocate re-partition. But it is my firm belief that so long as any end to Partition came about exclusively by democratic means, then it would be accepted by the vast majority of Unionists, especially since our future rights to Britishness etc are guaranteed post-unity by the GFA.

If you believe differently, then you should put put up your evidence, otherwise I will continue to conclude that your views on what Unionists are really thinking come chiefly from your own imagination, possibly in order to suit your own prejudices.

As it happens, I think Ulster Unionist had a point back in the day. If the United Kingdom could be broken up, why not Ireland? The answer is that it can be, and it was. However, perhaps you would care to explain why Cyprus and South Africa must be kept whole. Or Northern Ireland, for that matter

I am tempted to ask why you think the Cypriot or SA situations are relevant to NI's  , but for the sake of argument, I will indulge you.

Basically, the vast majority of South Africans, including a majority within every community, beleive that the State should not be broken up. I am not so cognisant with Cyprus, but from what I understand, a majority from within both the Greek and  Turkish communities agree that Cyprus should be a single unitary state i.e. what they disagree on is what form that state should take. Therefore if my understanding is correct, then Cyprus should not be partitioned.

Similarly, if a majority in NI were to vote for it to join with the ROI (also a majority within ROI itself), then I would accept that, with the only queestion being what form the new entity should take. And with the ROI being a modern, democratic and secular state within the greater EU, along with post-Unity guarantees from GB, I feel sure that the large majority of my fellow NI Unionists would accept* this.


* - The key is that should not be being coerced, as militant Republicanism etc has sought to do ever since NI was founded. 

[Jim_Murphy_74]

* - The key is that should not be being [/i]coerced[/i], as militant Republicanism etc has sought to do ever since NI was founded.

Fair enough but if one is to take a point from history, was the initial resistance of Ulster to an All-Ireland state manifested itself as opposition to Home Rule consitutionalism? (Even if the actual demarcation line were drawn post 1916/War of Independence)

Also while no party is currently advocating a re-partition, is that because Unionist parties are maintaining that a UI is not on the cards?  Surely if that was to change then it could become an issue? 

/Jim.

[Evil Genius]

If a majority of the people in the north east of England decided they wanted to establish their own Geordie homeland (and in population terms, their 'country' would be larger than NI), do you think they would be permitted to do so?

In principle, yes.

Do you think they should be allowed to do so?

Ditto.

What about the South West of England, which would be about the same size as NI and which boasts its own language and has always felt 'different' from the rest of England?

Ditto.

Serious questions.

Serious answers (I hope).

Now here is a serious question for you. Why did you choose such unlikely examples as Geordieland or Cornwall? Why didn't you pose the far more pertinent examples of Scotland or Wales?

Might it be that their desire for self-determination rather tears the arse out of the ("saltwater") argument of their Celtic cousins in Ireland for a single, undivided nation in their own island?   

[Evil Genius]

Talk of the United Kingdom breaking up and comparing it with Ireland is not comparing like with like. Ireland was colonised and coerced into the UK, this coercion has to end, comparisons with other places are neither here not there.

What, and Scotland and Wales weren't?

In an earlier post, Myles posed the possibility of eg the North east of England wanting to break away from the UK. Who do you think was responsible for that region being part first of England, subsequently of the UK?

Answer: The Normans - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrying_of_the_North

You know, basically the same people as colonised parts of ireland a hundred years later. Of course in doing so, they suppressed the existing (Celtic) population, just as they had done the native (Viking?) Northumbrian population in NE England.

Then again, those original Irish Celts and Geordie Vikings had themselves supplanted the people in their newly conquered lands before them...

It's fun, this game of "Historical Cluedo", isn't it?

Fun, but utterly pointless - unless you're a bitter revisionist, who refuses to face up to the reality of 2011, because it doesn't suit...

[Sandino]

Evil Genius, good of you acknowledge the key point, 'a single, undivided nation in their own island' Your mixing too much with us GAA boys, your starting to come round to our way of thinking!

[Evil Genius]

* - The key is that should not be being [/i]coerced[/i], as militant Republicanism etc has sought to do ever since NI was founded.

Fair enough but if one is to take a point from history, was the initial resistance of Ulster to an All-Ireland state manifested itself as opposition to Home Rule consitutionalism? (Even if the actual demarcation line were drawn post 1916/War of Independence)

Post 1916, I would certainly contend that Unionist opposition to Home Rule was  constitutional.

Of course, it is arguable that it may not always have been so previously, but we (and Constitutional Democracy) have all come a long way since the 18th and 19th Centuries etc.

Also while no party is currently advocating a re-partition, is that because Unionist parties are maintaining that a UI is not on the cards?  Surely if that was to change then it could become an issue? 

Possible, I suppose, but I genuinely don't think so.

For if the last decade has taught us anything, it is that Unionists in NI are at least as committed to the GFA, both in letter and in spirit, as Nationalists:

[armaghniac]

What the Normans or the Vikings did 1000 years ago is neither here nor there. It literally is history, they are no longer trying to do this. Things the British have done in more recent times is relevant, because they are still trying to do it.

[Evil Genius]

Evil Genius, good of you acknowledge the key point, 'a single, undivided nation in their own island'. Your mixing too much with us GAA boys, your starting to come round to our way of thinking!

Sorry to disappoint you, but your "loophole" is itself full of holes.

P.S. If that's too oblique for you, I would point out that there are currently two  nations in Ireland. That's how it's been since before we both were born and (I suspect) how it's going to be after we are both dead. One of us still needs to get used to it. 

[Evil Genius]

What the Normans or the Vikings did 1000 years ago is neither here nor there. It literally is history, they are no longer trying to do this. Things the British have done in more recent times is relevant, because they are still trying to do it.

Well, if you can't oppress a Mope, who can you oppress? 

[deiseach]

It's always interesting seeing your mindset, EG. You are absolutely not a bigot or any of the other ludicrous variants routinely thrown at you by people on here. However, you have an almost touching faith in the status quo, a situation which was invariably arrived at by overwhelming violence followed by the threat of violence which then calcified into 'peace' and any threat to that 'peace' then gets labelled as "unconstitutional methods". Even your definition of a community follows what suits the status quo. So there is no racist white community in South Africa, just whites.  And no Turkish Cypriot community who want an independent republic rather than be part of a unitary Cyprus, just their leader who crave international recognition above all things. It must be marvellous to always be on the right side of such a Westphalian outlook.

You ask me to provide evidence that Unionism will display bad faith regarding the consitutional situation post the GFA. I have none, except the overwhelming weight of history which demonstrates Unionism's repeated bad faith which I outlined in my earlier post on the subject. Perhaps we are living in a new paradigm. But I no more believe that than I believe the Shinners will ever become a party concerned primarily with bread & butter questions. The IRA have gone away - but that doesn't preclude the possibility of them ever starting up again