Messages

Amen - a lot of eejits on here need to remember the AI final isn't played until September

In all seriousness does anyone on this Board,even teenage members if there are any,seriously  believe a United Ireland will come about in their lifetime? Forget Seafoid's scenarios,the fact is no significant proportion of people want it,North or South for various reasons, there is no vision among any political party North or South,never mind a plan,so what is the point of wasting time even discussing it?

Yeah to be honest, I do.

We are likely to witness a nationalist voting majority in the next decade. Amongst that demographic there is strong discontent with the current constitutional status. There is an historic hostility to partition and a recent hostility to the Brexit vote.

In addition to this there are now solid economic arguments in favour of a united Ireland. (Well as solid as economic arguments can ever be). There will be those who disagree but an economic argument in favour of a united Ireland is at least as valid as one against it.

Thirdly there is a rising independence movement across Europe. Scotland and Catalonia being the fashionable examples.Success for any of these places will inevitably raise old passions here as well.

Whilst none of the above makes a United Ireland inevitable, it makes it a realistic possibility if enough people are willing to agitate or work for it.

Going to admit straight out here that I'm approaching this with republican tinted glasses, but hopefully I can be objective enough to show logic in what I'm saying.

At a recent poll only 32% of people were shown to be in favour of a united ireland. This is attributed to the traditional "Protestant" unionist base and a newly emergent "Catholic" unionist base.If McGuiness were to manage to become president (pretty unlikely in my opinion especially if David Norris re-enters), or at least respond strongly then it would be a magnificent shot in the arm to the cause of re-unification.

If he were to reach out to Unionists from such postion of power, it could possibly persuade some more traditional "Protestant" moderate Unoinists that there is no danger for them in a United Ireland. If a former IRA commander during the Northern Troubles can reach out to them and attempt to accomodate them from such a symbolic postion of power, then it is unlikely that there interests/culture/faith will be disciminated by anyone who laters occupys such a position in the Irish State. It may then open them up to persuasion about the case for a United Ireland. (Admittedly the numbers this may persuade are liekly to be low) 

It may more likely convince Catholic unoinists that the northern case could be best argued within an Irish independent republic if they see a Northern Catholic in the position of 1st citizen. It may remove some of the partionist mindset amongst this contituency.

I'm not niave enough to dismiss the economic arguments against a United Ireland but if he were to be successfull I think he could go a long way to removing some of the old historical and irrational arguments against it.

As I say all of this is unlikey, just some wishful thinking on my part....

Great post. I won't be voting for McGuinness (I'll be voting for "none of the above" at this stage) but great post.

Good post and welcome to the board.

Couple of points, surely if the south wants to 'reach out' to unionists and make it clear that southern vested interests wont discriminate against them in the future, surely the last face to front that would the IRA?

Secondly, it must be obvious to even the most bitter loyalist at this stage that most southerners couldn't give a fiddlers what they do with their culture (as long as they don't shove it up peoples noses).

Finally, leaving McGuinness out of this for a second, the Office of President has been tarnished by the nature of the campaign to date. We saw what happened to Norris and we had the ludicrous spectacle of Gaybo attacking certain sections of the media for intrusion. In some ways the Presidential election has always been tarnished by the participants who seemed to see it as a comfortable retirement package (the last two occupants excepted).

Actually I think his past would make him the best candidate to reach out to the unionist people. I don't necessarily I think he would have to do anything much more than what Mary McAleese did. But the symbolism of Martin McGuiness as a staunch republican and former IRA commander inviting, or greeting, for example, Jackie MacDonald, Queen Elizabeth II/King Charles III, or the Orange Order would be so much more potent.  It would allow a space for a more mature, less dogmatic approach to the constitutional issue to develop.

I understand what your saying about loyalists already appreciating that they are not under threat from the Irish State, but the fact remains that if we are to achieve a United Ireland, at approx 100, 000 people from a traditionally unionist perspective need to be persuaded of its merits. If they can be further reassured that their core underlying heritage/culture/beliefs etc are not under threat, even when the most outspoken republicans are in the position of President, then again a platform may be created where they may be open to debating the constitutional issue without the old dogmatic arguments and trappings that usually come into such discussions.  McGuinness' election, as an event would not achieve this, but could be the beginning of a process which delivers this.

As for the office being a cushy retirement I generally agree with you, the current candidates, McGuniess aside, are not really what you could consider "big hitters" in their respective parties and could not be considered in the same league as Mary Robinson and Mary McAleese. Say what you like about McGuinness but he is certainly a patriot. His patriotism may arguably have been miguided (although personally I don't think the siutation was as black and white as people on this board would have to you believe, physical force republicanism did not spring up out of the ether in 1969) but it must be said he had always been motivated by ideas of what he saw as "the greater good" of the people. Similar cudos could go to David Norris, who despite my many disagreements with his ideas, does seem to be motivated from a good and genuine place.

Going to admit straight out here that I'm approaching this with republican tinted glasses, but hopefully I can be objective enough to show logic in what I'm saying.

At a recent poll only 32% of people were shown to be in favour of a united ireland. This is attributed to the traditional "Protestant" unionist base and a newly emergent "Catholic" unionist base.If McGuiness were to manage to become president (pretty unlikely in my opinion especially if David Norris re-enters), or at least respond strongly then it would be a magnificent shot in the arm to the cause of re-unification.

If he were to reach out to Unionists from such postion of power, it could possibly persuade some more traditional "Protestant" moderate Unoinists that there is no danger for them in a United Ireland. If a former IRA commander during the Northern Troubles can reach out to them and attempt to accomodate them from such a symbolic postion of power, then it is unlikely that there interests/culture/faith will be disciminated by anyone who laters occupys such a position in the Irish State. It may then open them up to persuasion about the case for a United Ireland. (Admittedly the numbers this may persuade are liekly to be low) 

It may more likely convince Catholic unoinists that the northern case could be best argued within an Irish independent republic if they see a Northern Catholic in the position of 1st citizen. It may remove some of the partionist mindset amongst this contituency.

I'm not niave enough to dismiss the economic arguments against a United Ireland but if he were to be successfull I think he could go a long way to removing some of the old historical and irrational arguments against it.

As I say all of this is unlikey, just some wishful thinking on my part....