Author Topic: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.  (Read 245036 times)

general_lee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2235
    • View Profile
Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
« Reply #3420 on: June 15, 2021, 10:59:11 PM »
Do our NI posters think SF/DUP will come to an agreement in the next week or will the Assembly collapse again?

God knows.

They absolutely should appoint and move on.

SF should not block appointments. The precedent would be extremely dangerous and do nobody any good.

If ILA is the point of principle then do the work on an ILA and bring it forward. There is no point of principle grandstanding that SF might want to do that they couldn’t do down the line.

DUP should do the proper committee work on whatever draft comes forward.

I’d say DUP would be bucked in any near term election. The longer term outlook would only be moderately better.

Any election will be about the protocol. The biggest issue will be sabre rattling on the protocol and how that shakes down the unionist votes. Not sure there would be much change in the nationalist vote other than if a few can see that Alliance have a chance of winning seats that wouldn’t in the past then there might be a few first time Alliance voters from the nationalist ranks
I would 100% vote for AP in Upper Bann if it meant ousting Carla Lockhart

smelmoth

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1728
    • View Profile
Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
« Reply #3421 on: June 16, 2021, 11:36:32 AM »
Do our NI posters think SF/DUP will come to an agreement in the next week or will the Assembly collapse again?

God knows.

They absolutely should appoint and move on.

SF should not block appointments. The precedent would be extremely dangerous and do nobody any good.

If ILA is the point of principle then do the work on an ILA and bring it forward. There is no point of principle grandstanding that SF might want to do that they couldn’t do down the line.

DUP should do the proper committee work on whatever draft comes forward.

I’d say DUP would be bucked in any near term election. The longer term outlook would only be moderately better.

Any election will be about the protocol. The biggest issue will be sabre rattling on the protocol and how that shakes down the unionist votes. Not sure there would be much change in the nationalist vote other than if a few can see that Alliance have a chance of winning seats that wouldn’t in the past then there might be a few first time Alliance voters from the nationalist ranks
I would 100% vote for AP in Upper Bann if it meant ousting Carla Lockhart
Definitely think that will feature.

But also don’t rule out the fact that in a lot of constituencies AP might be the party of first choice for some individuals but they didn’t think AP could get elected. That is beginning to change

Rossfan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18093
  • Ballaghaderreen CO ROSCOMMON
    • View Profile
    • Roscommon County Board official website
Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
« Reply #3422 on: June 16, 2021, 12:50:37 PM »
And right on cue the day after Leo talks about a new United Ireland  Beattie says now is not the right time to be talking about it.
Remember we're a noble race from a land where Kings once trod.

93-DY-SAM

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 358
    • View Profile
Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
« Reply #3423 on: June 16, 2021, 02:45:14 PM »
And right on cue the day after Leo talks about a new United Ireland  Beattie says now is not the right time to be talking about it.

There will never be a right time for Unionists to talk about it. Similar to a child sticking their fingers in their ears not wanting to listen to what is going on around them only for everyone else to have moved on. Then they'll cry they were not involved.

 

smelmoth

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1728
    • View Profile
Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
« Reply #3424 on: June 16, 2021, 03:05:15 PM »
Beattie et al will run from the debate for as long as they can. Nothing surprising there.

There will come a time when they will change their mind or there will come a time when they are irrelevant.

The point when they change their mind is when wider elections show a majority of seats won by nationalists. That is when the SoS starts to come under pressure and is the last point that political unionism could come to the table. I don’t see political unionism coming to the table until it has to. That is a failing of political unionism.

The point where political unionism becomes irrelevant (on this issue) is when a significant proportion of soft unionists or potential unionists vote for parties that do engage in the discussion - principally Alliance.

yellowcard

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3921
    • View Profile
Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
« Reply #3425 on: June 16, 2021, 03:18:55 PM »
Varadkar didn't really say anything new but we all know how Unionists are frantically searching for an Irish/EU bogeyman so that they can redirect any anger away from their own politicians and the British government. It's an age old tactic of theirs. They will shortly be printing off effigies of Varadkar, Coveney and Van der Leyen as we speak in preparation for their annual hate fest Bonfire day out. And I'm only half joking!

Could we even see a future merger between the Alliance Party and FG? It would seem to me like the most natural fit. Due to the nature of society in the north and it's dysfunctional economy which is entirely dependant on subvention grants, I have no idea where the Alliance Party stand on the left-right divide though.   

Armagh18

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 879
    • View Profile
Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
« Reply #3426 on: June 16, 2021, 04:58:33 PM »
Varadkar didn't really say anything new but we all know how Unionists are frantically searching for an Irish/EU bogeyman so that they can redirect any anger away from their own politicians and the British government. It's an age old tactic of theirs. They will shortly be printing off effigies of Varadkar, Coveney and Van der Leyen as we speak in preparation for their annual hate fest Bonfire day out. And I'm only half joking!

Could we even see a future merger between the Alliance Party and FG? It would seem to me like the most natural fit. Due to the nature of society in the north and it's dysfunctional economy which is entirely dependant on subvention grants, I have no idea where the Alliance Party stand on the left-right divide though.   
Alliance aren’t great but Jaysus they’re a step above those FG twats surely?

yellowcard

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3921
    • View Profile
Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
« Reply #3427 on: June 16, 2021, 05:32:28 PM »
Varadkar didn't really say anything new but we all know how Unionists are frantically searching for an Irish/EU bogeyman so that they can redirect any anger away from their own politicians and the British government. It's an age old tactic of theirs. They will shortly be printing off effigies of Varadkar, Coveney and Van der Leyen as we speak in preparation for their annual hate fest Bonfire day out. And I'm only half joking!

Could we even see a future merger between the Alliance Party and FG? It would seem to me like the most natural fit. Due to the nature of society in the north and it's dysfunctional economy which is entirely dependant on subvention grants, I have no idea where the Alliance Party stand on the left-right divide though.   
Alliance aren’t great but Jaysus they’re a step above those FG twats surely?

What does 'not great' even mean in a northern political context where most things are seen through an us and them lense and where the economy functions on cuckoo economics in the form of a UK subvention grant. None of the political parties have to set budgets in terms of raising taxes and allocating spending as would occur in any normally functioning society. So we don't know where Alliance stand on the economy. They are attracting younger more progressive voters from both sides of the divide and I think that it is possible that FG would be looking at how they could attract a portion of the 1.8 million people should unity occur. They could be potentially looking towards targeting those middle ground voters. 

Lets be honest, FG of all the political parties in the south, have never shown much interest in the north. They can see the winds of change and are showing more interest in it simply because it is politically expedient to do so, not out of any great long held aspiration for Irish unity. FF, the once labelled Republican Party in the south, now look doomed longer term as they get swallowed up by both FG and SF.   

weareros

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1070
    • View Profile
Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
« Reply #3428 on: June 16, 2021, 09:04:28 PM »

Lets be honest, FG of all the political parties in the south, have never shown much interest in the north. They can see the winds of change and are showing more interest in it simply because it is politically expedient to do so, not out of any great long held aspiration for Irish unity. FF, the once labelled Republican Party in the south, now look doomed longer term as they get swallowed up by both FG and SF.   

Questionable if that is true for Varadkar and Coveney. They are not John Bruton’s FG. The Protocol is close to creating an economic UI and has essentially realigned the North’s economy in the direction of Dublin and Brussels. It also saved the North from the worst excesses of Brexit. FG for all their other ills were probably the only party that could have pulled this off due to being politically aligned with all the main players in Europe - as Tusk, Barnier and Ursula all belong to EPP. And all held and continue to hold the line, despite all the abuse from Tory press. Surprised the lack of credit here and sometimes feels like opinion in south is formed by right wing English press as there’s a line of thought now that the duo messed up big time with the Protocol. But there’s also a strand of Nationalism and Middle Ground in North that appreciated an Irish gov not caving into London.

Rossfan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18093
  • Ballaghaderreen CO ROSCOMMON
    • View Profile
    • Roscommon County Board official website
Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
« Reply #3429 on: June 16, 2021, 09:29:17 PM »
Peter Barry was fairly pro nationalist too.
Remember we're a noble race from a land where Kings once trod.

6th sam

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 890
    • View Profile
Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
« Reply #3430 on: June 16, 2021, 09:50:21 PM »
Peter Barry was fairly pro nationalist too.

Would agree RF.
I’m no fan of FG, but Coveney and Barry would be the stand out FG politicians for having a rapport with the Irish in the the six counties . Both very impressive performers
« Last Edit: June 17, 2021, 09:30:41 PM by 6th sam »

Snapchap

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 848
    • View Profile
Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
« Reply #3431 on: June 17, 2021, 01:42:14 PM »
And right on cue the day after Leo talks about a new United Ireland  Beattie says now is not the right time to be talking about it.

As was Alan Kelly, a man who is regularly at pains to insist his party is the heir to the legacy of James Connolly yet who has been critical of Varadkar uttering his support for an end to partition.

dec

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2029
    • View Profile
Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
« Reply #3432 on: June 17, 2021, 03:48:11 PM »
Peter Barry was fairly pro nationalist too.


He demonstrated his affection for the north by running in 4 different Westminster constituencies in one election.

armaghniac

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15235
    • View Profile
Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
« Reply #3433 on: June 30, 2021, 11:53:07 PM »
the end is nigh, Susan McKay in the New York Times

Northern Ireland Is Coming to an End

By Susan McKay

Ms. McKay is an Irish journalist who writes extensively about the politics and culture of Northern Ireland.

BELFAST, Northern Ireland — It was meant to be a year of celebration.

But Northern Ireland, created in 1921 when Britain carved six counties out of Ireland’s northeast, is not enjoying its centenary. Its most ardent upholders, the unionists who believe that the place they call “our wee country” is and must forever remain an intrinsic part of the United Kingdom, are in utter disarray. Their largest party has ousted two leaders within a matter of weeks, while an angry minority has taken to the streets waving flags and threatening violence. And the British government, in resolving Brexit, placed a new border in the Irish Sea.

It’s harsh reward for what Northern Ireland’s first prime minister, James Craig, called “the most loyal part of Great Britain.” But the Protestant statelet is not what it was. Well on its way to having a Catholic majority, the country’s once dominant political force — unionism — now finds itself out of step with the community that traditionally gave it uncritical support. And for all his talk of the territorial integrity of the United Kingdom, Prime Minister Boris Johnson has made clear his government would cheerfully ditch this last little fragment of Britain’s empire if it continues to complicate Brexit.

The writing is on the wall. While the process by which Ireland could become unified is complicated and fraught, one thing seems certain: There isn’t going to be a second centenary for Northern Ireland. It might not even last another decade.

A hundred years ago, the mood among unionists was jubilant. When the king and queen of England came to Belfast to mark the opening of the new Northern Ireland Parliament, the streets were decked out with red, white and blue bunting. “The people could not contain themselves,” according to Cecil Craig, the wife of the new prime minister. “All Irishmen,” King George V said, should “join in making for the land which they love a new era of peace, contentment and good will.”


The Catholic minority, known as nationalists because they aspired to be reunited with the rest of Ireland, had no such expectations. For 50 years, unionism dominated the state, instituting a comprehensive system of discrimination in housing, education, employment and voting. Sectarianism was state policy — Protestants were instructed by their leaders to distrust and exclude Catholics, who were outnumbered two to one — and the police force was armed. Britain turned a blind eye, as did the Republic of Ireland.

But discontent among nationalists inevitably built, finding form in the late 1960s in a civil rights campaign that aimed to secure basic rights for the Catholic minority. Outraged, the unionist state reacted by attempting to beat peaceful protesters off the streets. The British Army, whose intervention quickly showed itself to be on the side of unionism, was confronted by the Irish Republican Army, which responded with its own brutal and sectarian campaign. In 1972 the British government suspended the regime in Belfast and placed Northern Ireland under its direct rule.

For almost three decades, the conflict raged. Around 4,000 people, out of a population of fewer than 2 million, were killed; communities were torn apart. In 1998, the Good Friday Agreement brought an end to the violence and inaugurated a power-sharing executive, in which parties representing the two main communities operate in mandatory coalition. It was ratified by 70 percent of people in a referendum. The war was over.

The arrangement stumbled along for close to two decades, never fully working yet crucially keeping the peace. But Britain’s vote in 2016 to leave the European Union threatened the state’s always fragile constitutional relationships. And when the Conservative government settled Brexit with a protocol that established a border for goods between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom, it effectively acknowledged the province as a place apart.
Nor can unionists count on the votes of Protestants. As a society, Northern Ireland has become more secular, more tolerant of diversity, less insular. People who reject conservative social policies have other voting options, and many young people do not vote at all. Some put their energy into global movements like climate justice and feminism — and plenty neither know nor care about the religious background of their friends. The constitutional issue of whether Northern Ireland is Irish or British does not preoccupy them. They are open to persuasion.

Unable to adapt, unionism is on the wane. According to a recent poll, support for the Democratic Unionist Party has slumped to 16 percent, with Sinn Fein, the party that emerged from the I.R.A. and whose fundamental aim is to achieve a united Ireland, well ahead at 25 percent. The next elections, due in less than a year, could see Sinn Fein take the post of first minister for the first time, in what would be a symbolically momentous development.

What’s more, Sinn Fein is surging ahead in polls in the Irish Republic and may enter government after the next elections in 2025. While around 50 percent of Northern Irish voters back remaining in the United Kingdom, support for Irish unity is growing. Though by no means imminent, that goal has never seemed closer.

Against this backdrop, some unionists have sunk into resentment. Men in balaclavas, Union Jacks in their fists, have taken to the streets to express their grievances. But it’s clear that most Protestants, like the rest of Northern Ireland’s populace, deplore talk of a return to violence. They want normal politics instead.

And if unionism cannot deliver it, a growing number of them are tentatively contemplating what for previous generations was unthinkable: that a unified Ireland might not actually be the end of the world.
If at first you don't succeed, then goto Plan B

Silver hill

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 255
    • View Profile
Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
« Reply #3434 on: July 03, 2021, 09:39:15 AM »
That just about sums it all up.