IRISH NORTHERNERS AND SOUTHERNERS

[muppet]

The GFA was a treaty to try to settle the conflict in the North.  It was not about reunification or re-partition.  It had nothing to do with Pearse's republic, 1921, partition, Free State, Dominion status or the price of a pint.

The big point for Nationalists in the North was not a putative sometime in the future border poll, rather it was an end to conflict, a power sharing administration, North-South bodies (though they turned into talking shops) and a recognition by the British and Unionists that if you called yourself Irish and aspired to a United Ireland, it didn't automatically mean you were a danger to the state.

Comparing 1921 and 1998 is a bit odd considering the 77 years of events in between.

Oh, and on a nerdy technical point since we get all shirty about Free State, Republic, names and descriptions of the State etc, Articles 2 & 3 of the Constitution were not dropped, they were amended

Regarding the last point, you are right. I should have said that the claim in articles 2 & 3 were dropped.

As for comparing 1921 & 1998. The Treaty was an agreement to try to settle the conflict in Ireland. Using hindsight to condemn the 1921 Treaty is hardly fair. The point is that at the time of both agreements they were both seen as temporary solutions and were entered into, rightly or wrongly, in good faith as the best deal available at both times.

The former is constantly used as a stick to beat modern day Southerners by a certain admittedly small constituency, and I certainly don't include you in that. And yet that same constituency entered into another Treaty that adopted the same border as the status quo 18 years ago.

[AQMP]

The GFA was a treaty to try to settle the conflict in the North.  It was not about reunification or re-partition.  It had nothing to do with Pearse's republic, 1921, partition, Free State, Dominion status or the price of a pint.

The big point for Nationalists in the North was not a putative sometime in the future border poll, rather it was an end to conflict, a power sharing administration, North-South bodies (though they turned into talking shops) and a recognition by the British and Unionists that if you called yourself Irish and aspired to a United Ireland, it didn't automatically mean you were a danger to the state.

Comparing 1921 and 1998 is a bit odd considering the 77 years of events in between.

Oh, and on a nerdy technical point since we get all shirty about Free State, Republic, names and descriptions of the State etc, Articles 2 & 3 of the Constitution were not dropped, they were amended

Regarding the last point, you are right. I should have said that the claim in articles 2 & 3 were dropped.

As for comparing 1921 & 1998. The Treaty was an agreement to try to settle the conflict in Ireland. Using hindsight to condemn the 1921 Treaty is hardly fair. The point is that at the time of both agreements they were both seen as temporary solutions and were entered into, rightly or wrongly, in good faith as the best deal available at both times.

The former is constantly used as a stick to beat modern day Southerners by a certain admittedly small constituency, and I certainly don't include you in that. And yet that same constituency entered into another Treaty that adopted the same border as the status quo 18 years ago.

Yep, the border hasn't changed a foot in 95 years and is unlikely to change any time soon, however I would make the point that the regime that Nationalists had to endure post 1921 and that post 1998 were different (we think!)  While I don't subscribe to the "abandonment by the South" narrative myself, as I know from personal experience that many, many ordinary people in the South had deep concerns about events in the north, I do think that partition was copper fastened in part by a lack of desire from successive Southern and British administrations to get involved in the North for fear of re-igniting conflict.  The irony being that this resulted as part maybe of the Law of Unintended Consequences, in northern Nationalists deciding that they would have to "take matters into their own hands" to use a euphemism, to bring about change. 

As me aul Da used to say "Don't blame Dev for ignoring the North, he was far too busy f**king up the South!"

[haranguerer]

From a northern nationalist point of view, any endgame you say the treaty had certainly must have been dropped shortly after, presumably because the 26 became satisfied with their lot? The freedom to achieve freedom indeed...You have the benefit of hindsight Muppet- would you support the treaty now?

The GFA provides for a route to a united Ireland, the treaty provided for the split.

[muppet]

The GFA was a treaty to try to settle the conflict in the North.  It was not about reunification or re-partition.  It had nothing to do with Pearse's republic, 1921, partition, Free State, Dominion status or the price of a pint.

The big point for Nationalists in the North was not a putative sometime in the future border poll, rather it was an end to conflict, a power sharing administration, North-South bodies (though they turned into talking shops) and a recognition by the British and Unionists that if you called yourself Irish and aspired to a United Ireland, it didn't automatically mean you were a danger to the state.

Comparing 1921 and 1998 is a bit odd considering the 77 years of events in between.

Oh, and on a nerdy technical point since we get all shirty about Free State, Republic, names and descriptions of the State etc, Articles 2 & 3 of the Constitution were not dropped, they were amended

Regarding the last point, you are right. I should have said that the claim in articles 2 & 3 were dropped.

As for comparing 1921 & 1998. The Treaty was an agreement to try to settle the conflict in Ireland. Using hindsight to condemn the 1921 Treaty is hardly fair. The point is that at the time of both agreements they were both seen as temporary solutions and were entered into, rightly or wrongly, in good faith as the best deal available at both times.

The former is constantly used as a stick to beat modern day Southerners by a certain admittedly small constituency, and I certainly don't include you in that. And yet that same constituency entered into another Treaty that adopted the same border as the status quo 18 years ago.

Yep, the border hasn't changed a foot in 95 years and is unlikely to change any time soon, however I would make the point that the regime that Nationalists had to endure post 1921 and that post 1998 were different (we think!)  While I don't subscribe to the "abandonment by the South" narrative myself, as I know from personal experience that many, many ordinary people in the South had deep concerns about events in the north, I do think that partition was copper fastened in part by a lack of desire from successive Southern and British administrations to get involved in the North for fear of re-igniting conflict.  The irony being that this resulted as part maybe of the Law of Unintended Consequences, in northern Nationalists deciding that they would have to "take matters into their own hands" to use a euphemism, to bring about change. 

As me aul Da used to say "Don't blame Dev for ignoring the North, he was far too busy f**king up the South!"

I have no problem with any of that.

Post 1921 was very different to post 1998 but then we have only 18 years so far to compare with 77. Those 77 years contained a lot of different contexts and subplots, not least WW2 for example.

However looking at it another way, the GFA has already been around longer than the Free State was for example. It secured peace, which is fantastic.

Thankfully it has been a success in keeping Loyalists quiet, despite the dissidents attempts to kickstart the whole thing again.

But it would be naive to think it couldn't all kick off again in the next decade or two. I am sure there are those equivalent to the dissident Republicans on the other side who would happily provoke things.

As for the 1921 Treaty, it wasn't seen as permanent. It was seen firstly as an end to the fighting by both sides, just like the GFA. The Pro-Treaty side thought the Boundary Commission would improve things in the short term and that the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Ireland would achieve a United Ireland in the long term. In hindsight both were naive, but the modern Republican narrative of southern bashing 'because they left the North' behind, as if they just said 'ah f*ck them',  is deliberately misleading. And it certainly doesn't win friends in the South.

Even De Valera was willing to accept partition as a temporary solution in 1921 as his post-Treaty proposal shows:

"That whilst refusing to admit the right of any part of Ireland to be excluded from the supreme authority of the Parliament of Ireland, or that the relations between the Parliament of Ireland and any subordinate legislature in Ireland can be a matter for treaty with a Government outside Ireland, nevertheless, in sincere regard for internal peace, and in order to make manifest our desire not to bring force or coercion to bear upon any substantial part of the province of Ulster, whose inhabitants may now be unwilling to accept the national authority, we are prepared to grant to that portion of Ulster which is defined as Northern Ireland in the British Government of Ireland Act of 1920, privileges and safeguards not less substantial than those provided for in the 'Articles of Agreement for a Treaty' between Great Britain and Ireland signed in London on 6 December 1921."

Source: http://www.difp.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=218

[muppet]

From a northern nationalist point of view, any endgame you say the treaty had certainly must have been dropped shortly after, presumably because the 26 became satisfied with their lot? The freedom to achieve freedom indeed...You have the benefit of hindsight Muppet- would you support the treaty now?

The GFA provides for a route to a united Ireland, the treaty provided for the split.

No I wouldn't support the Treaty with hindsight.

As for the conclusion that 'the 26 became satisfied with their lot', that really doesn't help. For example, The Civil War was a catastrophe and the 1930s and 1940s would have been atrocious for the South, as it was for most of the world. 'happy with their lot' me arse.

[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?

[muppet]

From a northern nationalist point of view, any endgame you say the treaty had certainly must have been dropped shortly after, presumably because the 26 became satisfied with their lot? The freedom to achieve freedom indeed...You have the benefit of hindsight Muppet- would you support the treaty now?

The GFA provides for a route to a united Ireland, the treaty provided for the split.

No I wouldn't support the Treaty with hindsight.

As for the conclusion that 'the 26 became satisfied with their lot', that really doesn't help. For example, The Civil War was a catastrophe and the 1930s and 1940s would have been atrocious for the South, as it was for most of the world. 'happy with their lot' me arse.

I should qualify that by saying I wouldn't accepted it if I was negotiating, I would have voted against it in the Dáil if I was there, but would had to accept any proper vote if it passed. The last thing I would have wanted was Civil War with Irishmen killing Irishmen.

[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

[BennyCake]

Re: De Valera and temporary partition - was he really that naive to think the Brits would then hand over the North after a year or two? Same with yer man (name escapes me) rallying Irishmen to fight in WW1, so the thinking was the Brits, in return, will hand over Ireland because thousands of Irish fought for them? How naive were they? The Brits already had turned down Home Rule despite overwhelming majority being in favour. Why the hell would anyone trust a word they said?

It's still happening too. They promised the Scots the moon and stars if they stayed in the UK. And they still have yet to give them what they said. People are so easily fooled by these bastards, again and again. Even those who are deemed intelligent.

[muppet]

Re: De Valera and temporary partition - was he really that naive to think the Brits would then hand over the North after a year or two? Same with yer man (name escapes me) rallying Irishmen to fight in WW1, so the thinking was the Brits, in return, will hand over Ireland because thousands of Irish fought for them? How naive were they? The Brits already had turned down Home Rule despite overwhelming majority being in favour. Why the hell would anyone trust a word they said?

It's still happening too. They promised the Scots the moon and stars if they stayed in the UK. And they still have yet to give them what they said. People are so easily fooled by these b**tards, again and again. Even those who are deemed intelligent.

John Redmond.

And does the position in your post apply to the GFA?

[haranguerer]

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?!

[Franko]

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.

[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?

[armaghniac]

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.

[haranguerer]

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