When & How could there be a united Ireland?

oscarBravo · 16-07-2010 9:48am

Mayo Exile wrote: »

So you don't want answer the question I put to you then?

I did, even if it wasn't the nice, neat black & white answer you were looking for. You could argue that any decision made by any parliament in an era where only monied people could vote in an election had no moral authority.

The Acts of Union happened, whether through parliamentary corruption or not. Semantic quibbling over the meaning of "British" aside, the UK was a single country post 1800, and the UK is a single country now.

With respect, no I have not. I was referring to the whole of Ireland being a colony pre 1801 and then not being one after that date, in response to your earlier post. Whether Scots think Scotland is a colony or not wasn't or isn't my main concern in replying to you. It's whether unrepresentative parliaments can be considered to legitimately represent their countries/kingdoms etc. Also my post is unrelated to whether or not NI is considered a colony.

The highlighted phrase is the interesting one for me. I'm not asking the Scots what they think; I'm asking the people who claim Northern Ireland is a colony whether or not Scotland is a colony, because it became a part of the United Kingdom through a not dissimilar process to Ireland's.

Mayo Exile · 16-07-2010 10:33am

oscarBravo wrote: »

I did, even if it wasn't the nice, neat black & white answer you were looking for.

Hmmm. I think I'll disagree with you on whether you did or not. I've no problem agreeing with you that the Act of Union did occur. It is a historical fact. How it was arrived at though and the legitimacy of it is what I am getting at. As Ardmacha says above it was not a genuine union in the accepted sense of the word. The majority of the Irish population were simply not consulted on the issue.

You could argue that any decision made by any parliament in an era where only monied people could vote in an election had no moral authority

Which I was trying to do. In Irelands case it was not merely monied people who were actually in the Irish parliament pre 1801 making decisions. Members of that parliament were unrepresentative of the vast majority of the Irish population in ethical, cultural and religious criteria too.

getz · 16-07-2010 11:25am

Mayo Exile wrote: »

Hmmm. I think I'll disagree with you on whether you did or not. I've no problem agreeing with you that the Act of Union did occur. It is a historical fact. How it was arrived at though and the legitimacy of it is what I am getting at. As Ardmacha says above it was not a genuine union in the accepted sense of the word. The majority of the Irish population were simply not consulted on the issue.

Which I was trying to do. In Irelands case it was not merely monied people who were actually in the Irish parliament pre 1801 making decisions. Members of that parliament were unrepresentative of the vast majority of the Irish population in ethical, cultural and religious criteria too.

you will never understand the way life was in the 19th century if you are trying to look at it from 21st century eyes,everywhere in the world only people with property or money had rights,common people were owned/slaved ect, woman up to the late 19th century had to give their money/ property to her husband, most members of parliament came from the rich and powerful, they were there only to look after their own,

LordSutch · 16-07-2010 11:49am

ardmacha wrote: »

You can split hairs on the legal definitions of these things. But NI is a place that was invaded by force, colonised and which remains under the control of the invading country because of the presence of people who identify themselves as colonists. That's the essence of a colony whatever the the legalities.

In relation to Northern Ireland the term 'Colony' is misleading. Can you really say that any part of these islands has (or has not been) colonised by another part? Is/was Britain a Norman Colony? Was/is Britain an ex Roman Colony? Is the western half of Scotland an Irish Colony? Was Ireland a Norman colony? Is Northern Ireland a Scottish Colony? and so on . . . .

I think the term 'Colony' in relation to and (within the british isles) has become very devalued & misused in recent times, for the sake of political argument! (The term 'colony' in relation to Ireland has only become fashionable since the mid to late 90's).

ardmacha wrote: »

As a colony NI can never be normal society, which is why the normality of democratic Ireland must come.

Can Northern Ireland really be described as a colony if Scotland is only 22 miles away :cool:

Was Ireland a Colony? > http://www.oppapers.com/essays/Was-Ireland-Colony-British-Empire/153092

ardmacha · 16-07-2010 12:16pm

the UK was a single country post 1800,

The UK was single State, few Scots would agree that the Union caused them to cease to be country, instread it formed a State in union with another country.

Is/was Britain a Norman Colony? Was/is Britain an ex Roman Colony? Is the western half of Scotland an Irish Colony? Was Ireland a Norman colony?

These historical conditions are not the point. Whether part of Scotland was an Irish colony is not the point as the people in Scotland today work with their fellow Scots and don't advocate rule from Ireland.

There seems to be attempt to conceal the origins of the problem, largely in a effort to undermine those who advocate extreme solutions. The region now forming NI was invaded, parts of its were ethnically cleansed and others were colonised with the aid of public discrimination in favour of the colonists, a count was then held which indicated that the colonisation had been sufficiently successful in some areas to make the colonists a majority. When Germany cleared out parts of Poland and Slovenia to facilitate German speakers this was seen as unspeakable, so you can't defend it here either or morally advocate its continuation.

LordSutch · 16-07-2010 12:25pm

I'm just raising the point really, can the various peoples within this little group of islands contend that one part of one island colonised another part? and I ask this in relation to our racial-cultural similarities, are the Scots/English/Welsh so dissimilar to the Irish as to be Colonists? personally I think the term is useless (within the british isles).

I'll leave it there.

Noreen1 · 16-07-2010 12:25pm

lugha wrote: »

Well if they are unionists you would have to put the number willing to dissolve the union at about, oh 0% :pac:.

Seriously, why do we persist with this notion that the unionist can be persuaded? Nobody thinks you could persuade any nationalists to be part of a United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Why do you suppose unionists have less attachment to their preferred political arrangement?

No. Out-breeding them is the only show in town :cool:.

With all due respect - I have to disagree.

Consider the good Friday agreement. You could make a case that it served neither Unionist nor Nationalist aims in their entirety. Yet 71% of the people in Northern Ireland voted in favour of it. To put it another way - the majority of people voted for a compromise, in order to gain peace.

If you factor in the fact that extreme Nationalists and Unionists voted NO - and a percentage voted No for reasons other than extreme political affiliation - then the fact remains that the majority of people in Northern Ireland, whether Protestant or Catholic (or no/other religions) have a lot more in common than extremists on either side would like us to believe.

Who said anything about persuading anyone, anyway?
The Good Friday agreement left the Irish Unification process dependant on a free vote, by the people most affected.

The lesson that should have been learned when Northern Ireland was ceded to British rule - without a free vote - seems to have gone largely unlearned. That failure has caused too many deaths, and destroyed too many lives already. We have to find a better way.

The irony is that, failure to recognise the right to free and unfettered democracy is endemic in the extremists on both sides of the Political divide, when they seek to pressurise their own communities to attain political (or monetary) ends.

Noreen

getz · 16-07-2010 12:42pm

ardmacha wrote: »

The UK was single State, few Scots would agree that the Union caused them to cease to be country, instread it formed a State in union with another country.

These historical conditions are not the point. Whether part of Scotland was an Irish colony is not the point as the people in Scotland today work with their fellow Scots and don't advocate rule from Ireland.

There seems to be attempt to conceal the origins of the problem, largely in a effort to undermine those who advocate extreme solutions. The region now forming NI was invaded, parts of its were ethnically cleansed and others were colonised with the aid of public discrimination in favour of the colonists, a count was then held which indicated that the colonisation had been sufficiently successful in some areas to make the colonists a majority. When Germany cleared out parts of P,they say jump ,and we jumpoland and Slovenia to facilitate German speakers this was seen as unspeakable, so you can't defend it here either or morally advocate its continuation.

i feel it very sad that you are still harping on about a area of ireland and the people who colonized it 400 years ago, move on and lets face it, the irish republic and the UK are now under the law makers of the EU,we can say we are the colonies of our UE masters,they say jump and we jump

ardmacha · 16-07-2010 12:48pm

Who said anything about persuading anyone, anyway?

It should be the business of nationalist political parties to persuade others of the merit of their proposals, such is the nature of democracy.

Mayo Exile · 16-07-2010 12:56pm

getz wrote: »

you will never understand the way life was in the 19th century if you are trying to look at it from 21st century eyes,everywhere in the world only people with property or money had rights,common people were owned/slaved ect, woman up to the late 19th century had to give their money/ property to her husband, most members of parliament came from the rich and powerful, they were there only to look after their own,

Was just offering a constitutional viewpoint. No doubt the life of the average 19th century citizen was pretty miserable as you have illustrated!

lugha · 16-07-2010 1:15pm

Noreen1 wrote: »

Consider the good Friday agreement. You could make a case that it served neither Unionist nor Nationalist aims in their entirety. Yet 71% of the people in Northern Ireland voted in favour of it. To put it another way - the majority of people voted for a compromise, in order to gain peace.

Well the tribal split of the GFA vote went virtually 50:50 in the unionists community and was overwhelmingly supported in the nationalist community. So it’s a little misleading to quote the overall support for it. More importantly, and something which seems to have now slipped from popular memory, is that Blair and co used their undoubted talents to convince people that GFA could lead to two incompatible outcomes. Nationalist believed, rightly I think, that it would lead to a united Ireland. David Trimble insisted that it secured Northern Ireland’s place with the UK. I would suggest many people voted for GFA because they believed it would deliver, or retain, the political solution they wanted.

Noreen1 wrote: »

Who said anything about persuading anyone, anyway?
The Good Friday agreement left the Irish Unification process dependant on a free vote, by the people most affected.

Yes, and there may eventually be a majority in NI who will vote for a united Ireland, but it won’t be because unionists finally realise what a great idea it is. It will happen because the will be outnumbered. So best advise to UI aspirants is to forget about persuasion and get breeding! :P

getz · 16-07-2010 1:49pm

Mayo Exile wrote: »

Was just offering a constitutional viewpoint. No doubt the life of the average 19th century citizen was pretty miserable as you have illustrated!

life in 1820 victorian england was far harder than ireland,in england 75% of the population had no schooling,the irishman patrick bronte,records that in haworth [relatively a better off place to live] that only one in three children lived to the age of five,the average age of life expectancy was 27.5 years,remember even his better off son and 5 daughters died young, victorian england was no place to live,it took people like dickens in his reforming novels, that portrayed the social evils of the early victorians to bring the problems to the masters,i know all that but that is the passed and i live in the now

Noreen1 · 16-07-2010 2:56pm

ardmacha wrote: »

It should be the business of nationalist political parties to persuade others of the merit of their proposals, such is the nature of democracy.

I would suggest that it should be the business of all political parties to represent the people who voted for them.

Just because a particular party is given a mandate by the people, does not mean that said party should "persuade" said people to accept their proposals.

Rather, it should be the responsibility of said party to develop proposals that are in keeping with the wishes of the majority of people who entrusted them with their vote.

Noreen

ardmacha · 16-07-2010 3:12pm

I would suggest that it should be the business of all political parties to represent the people who voted for them.

Just because a particular party is given a mandate by the people, does not mean that said party should "persuade" said people to accept their proposals.

Rather, it should be the responsibility of said party to develop proposals that are in keeping with the wishes of the majority of people who entrusted them with their vote.

Increasing the nationalist vote is in keeping with the wishes of the people who vote for nationalist parties. There should be a clear message that a United Ireland is simple normality, of interest and benefit to everyone wherever their ancestors came.

Noreen1 · 16-07-2010 3:19pm

lugha wrote: »

Well the tribal split of the GFA vote went virtually 50:50 in the unionists community and was overwhelmingly supported in the nationalist community. So it’s a little misleading to quote the overall support for it. More importantly, and something which seems to have now slipped from popular memory, is that Blair and co used their undoubted talents to convince people that GFA could lead to two incompatible outcomes. Nationalist believed, rightly I think, that it would lead to a united Ireland. David Trimble insisted that it secured Northern Ireland’s place with the UK. I would suggest many people voted for GFA because they believed it would deliver, or retain, the political solution they wanted.

??? From wiki:

In the North, when normal combined voting strengths among both  nationalist and unionist communities are superimposed on the Referendum  result, it is clear that pre-polling [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polls"]opinion polls[/URL] and [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exit_polls"]exit polls[/URL] on the day were correct in showing  that[B] a majority of the unionist voters voted 'Yes'.[/B] The DUP claim to  have been at that point 'a majority of the majority' was clearly  difficult to substantiate although in later events they succeeded in so  becoming.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belfast_Agreement

I did actually go looking for results by constituency, but they don't seem to be available. The most I can confirm in a quick search is that North Antrim was the only constituency to vote "No". Interesting that there is no reference to Nationalist voting patterns, for whatever reason.

Noreen

getz · 16-07-2010 4:02pm

ardmacha wrote: »

Increasing the nationalist vote is in keeping with the wishes of the people who vote for nationalist parties. There should be a clear message that a United Ireland is simple normality, of interest and benefit to everyone wherever their ancestors came.

i fully agree, the problem a this moment is the SF members of parliament who do not wish to sit in westminister,and reprepresent all the voters of their constituency whether or not the citizens voted for them, its a FU i am only looking after my own,thats not a mature and unifying way to act if one is looking for any future irish reconciliation.sends out the wrong signal

Notorious97 · 16-07-2010 4:31pm

getz wrote: »

i fully agree, the problem a this moment is the SF members of parliament who do not wish to sit in westminister,and reprepresent all the voters of their constituency whether or not the citizens voted for them, its a FU i am only looking after my own,thats not a mature and unifying way to act if one is looking for any future irish reconciliation.sends out the wrong signal

I dont see the reason for them to sit in Westminister, A) the people that vote for them vote for them on the basis they will not take up their seats;

their focus should be solely on the 6 counties assembly and within the republic also. Thats just my opninion though

T runner · 16-07-2010 5:16pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

You could make a case that Ireland was colonised, but it wasn't a colony in any useful sense of the word after the Act of Union.

Not by your definition of useful. The relationship ofcourse was de facto a colonial relationship long after the Act of Union.

Wait, what? Who identifies themselves as colonists in Northern Ireland?

Well the self professed descendants of planters and colonists (the same as clonised Virginia) still claim "Britishness".

oscarBravo wrote: »

Pretty much, yes. Ireland became an integral part of the United Kingdom.

In the strict political sense only. Integral only by its technical integrity as a kingdom in the UK.

Is Scotland a colony?

You would hope not! Only 3% of the population regard themselves as British. The Scottish identity certainly seems to be stronger than any British one there. Maybe Scots feel that Anglo-centric control of the UK is a remnant of English colonialism in Britain.

Second, you've tacitly agreed that any definition by which NI is a colony necessarily means Scotland is one too. I don't think you'll find too many Scots who buy into that narrative

Technically the plantations in Ireland might strenghten the argument of colonialism there. You had attempts to plant "British" subjects more loyal and submissive to English authority in Ireland.

The People who claim to descend from these colonists still claim their identity as "British" so there are colonial remnants particularly in peoples perceptions of who they are.

oscarBravo wrote: »

You could argue that any decision made by any parliament in an era where only monied people could vote in an election had no moral authority

It is well known that bribery and coercion was used to influence the vote which voted the Irish parliament out of existance. There was no moral authority here.

The monied minority in the Irish case were slightly different in that their religion was the same as their colonial masters in London and different to the vast majority of their countrymen in Ireland.

Their loyalties were supranational and completely at odds with that of the Irish population.

The Irish MPs werent just confined to monied people: they were confined to monied people who were co-religionist to the established religion of the supra-national colonial power.

The Acts of Union happened, whether through parliamentary corruption or not. Semantic quibbling over the meaning of "British" aside, the UK was a single country post 1800, and the UK is a single country now.

Some people would regard it as a single state made up of countries.
You dont think Scotland is a country? As you say yourself "I don't think you'll find too many Scots who buy into that narrative".

I'm asking the people who claim Northern Ireland is a colony whether or not Scotland is a colony......

Scotland is dissimilar as it was lacking a planted colony like Ireland. Another dissimilarity is that it is on a seperate Island so teh explanation for large migrations of people into Ireland onto land cant be explained other than by means of colonisation.

Camelot wrote: »

In relation to Northern Ireland the term 'Colony' is misleading. Can you really say that any part of these islands has (or has not been) colonised by another part?

Ofcourse you can.

Is/was Britain a Norman Colony?

Yes, until it ceased to be ruled by Normandy.

Was/is Britain an ex Roman Colony?

Britain was a Roman colony yes. It was regarded as a province of Rome by the Romans.

Is the western half of Scotland an Irish Colony?

Is it? No

Can Northern Ireland really be described as a colony if Scotland is only 22 miles away :cool:

Are you suggesting that geographical closeness has something to do with the definition of colonisation?

Colonising far away places is a relatively new phenomenum. People tended to colonise lands adjacent to them, naturally enough. As ive explained here the concerted migrations of people to lands in Ireland cannot be explained by anything other than colonisation.

oscarBravo · 16-07-2010 5:30pm

T runner wrote: »

Not by your definition of useful. The relationship ofcourse was de facto a colonial relationship long after the Act of Union.

OK, so it's a colony by your definition of a "de facto colonial relationship".

In other words, Northern Ireland is whatever it's perceived to be by whomever is perceiving it. There's a spectrum of perceptions, ranging from those who see it as an integral and inseparable part of the United Kingdom, to those who see it as illegally occupied territory of a hypothetical all-island Irish republic.

If you're determined to perceive it as a colony, you're going to perceive it that way, and no amount of logical analysis will change that perception.

Some people would regard it as a single state made up of countries.
You dont think Scotland is a country? As you say yourself "I don't think you'll find too many Scots who buy into that narrative".

So you replace semantic quibbling over the definition of "British" with semantic quibbling over the definitions of "country" and "state".

Once again, those things only mean what people choose to believe they mean. I personally subscribe to the idea that internationally recognised geo-political borders are about the most useful means of describing things, which means that the six counties on the north-eastern corner of this island are part of a different country. I'm aware that that doesn't suit certain narratives, and that people will invent definitions of "country" to suit those narratives. Whatever.

ardmacha · 16-07-2010 5:47pm

I'm aware that that doesn't suit certain narratives, and that people will invent definitions of "country" to suit those narratives.

It is an easy cop out to undermine discussion by characterising your opponents as merely having a point of view with which everyone else's point of view is equal and then adopt definitions of things that suit your own political agenda.

Country has a meaning and describing Scotland as one is not "inventing" new language.

oscarBravo · 16-07-2010 5:51pm

ardmacha wrote: »

It is an easy cop out to undermine discussion by characterising your opponents as merely having a point of view with which everyone else's point of view is equal and then adopt definitions of things that suit your own political agenda.

I didn't say everyone's point of view was equal. I would contend that both ends of the spectrum I described tend to the lunatic fringe, for example, and would have a lot more respect for centrist views.

Country has a meaning and describing Scotland as one is not "inventing" new language.

"Country" has several meanings. Scotland is a country, as is the UK, as is the USA. "State" isn't as neatly unambiguous a word as you'd like to believe either.

ardmacha · 16-07-2010 5:59pm

"Country" has several meanings. Scotland is a country, as is the UK, as is the USA. "State" isn't as neatly unambiguous a word as you'd like to believe either.

One can argue for something having different meanings. However, what is unacceptable is implying that others have invented definitions or are engaging in semantic quibbling when in fact their definitions are in widespread use.

oscarBravo · 16-07-2010 6:01pm

ardmacha wrote: »

However, what is unacceptable is implying that others have invented definitions or are engaging in semantic quibbling when in fact their definitions are in widespread use.

Fair enough - I'll cop to faulty phrasing in the first instance. Rather than "inventing" definitions, people "carefully select" the definition that suits their narrative. Better?

But "semantic quibbling" is most certainly what's going on when people say things like "the UK isn't a country, it's a state." I repeat: whatever.

Permabear · 16-07-2010 6:33pm

This post has been deleted.

KeithAFC · 16-07-2010 10:01pm

The one man who said the only way for a United Ireland by force and the IRA, Martin Mcguinness, yesterday and today celebrated the UK CITY OF CULTURE for Londonderry/Derry.

Now that tells you an awful lot when it comes to the position for a United Ireland at the moment. MILES away from it.

getz · 17-07-2010 7:10am

Notorious97 wrote: »

I dont see the reason for them to sit in Westminister, A) the people that vote for them vote for them on the basis they will not take up their seats; their focus should be solely on the 6 counties assembly and within the republic also. Thats just my opninion though

wrong they did not vote for them soley on the basis that they dident take up their seats in westminster,they voted for them to look after their interests,if you dont sit in parliment you will not be in the position to ask questions of the ministers,and put forward your constituents fears and views,northern irelands local interests are looked after by your local councillors,not the members of parliament,just think the kind of signal they are sending out to people all over ireland,on unification,its that they do not care about us now so they are not going to care about us in a united ireland. you would expect that kind of thing in the school yard,but when adults do it

BluePlanet · 17-07-2010 8:22am

getz wrote: »

wrong they did not vote for them soley on the basis that they dident take up their seats in westminster,they voted for them to look after their interests,if you dont sit in parliment you will not be in the position to ask questions of the ministers,and put forward your constituents fears and views,northern irelands local interests are looked after by your local councillors,not the members of parliament,just think the kind of signal they are sending out to people all over ireland,on unification,its that they do not care about us now so they are not going to care about us in a united ireland. you would expect that kind of thing in the school yard,but when adults do it

Oh boo hoo.
As if the Unionists members of parliment have been looking after the interests of their Nationalist constituents through the years.

getz · 17-07-2010 10:15am

BluePlanet wrote: »

Oh boo hoo.
As if the Unionists members of parliment have been looking after the interests of their Nationalist constituents through the years.

pre SF who ever was elected by the citizens of the area be it republican/nationalist or unionist sat in westminister and looked after the interests of their constituencies [and you know it] the problem as i see it now is that,northern ireland is heavily subsidized by the UK taxpayers.to get [like all other UK members of parliament try] the goverment money into your area you have to be active in the parliament for the investment,no one is going to do it for you [most republican/nationalist areas are under invested,big buisness will never set up in any area that is seen to be unstable, any 9 year old kid could tell you that,the north is supposed to be moving towards a better future ,even in the republic SF is seen as poblem party,they should get onboard an show the unionist who is the party who want progress

getz · 17-07-2010 10:46am

KeithAFC wrote: »

The one man who said the only way for a United Ireland by force and the IRA, Martin Mcguinness, yesterday and today celebrated the UK CITY OF CULTURE for Londonderry/Derry.

Now that tells you an awful lot when it comes to the position for a United Ireland at the moment. MILES away from it.

its hard not to notice in the UK that derry/londonderry is now the UK city of culture now, already on the UK radio they [derry city ] are pushing it for tourism,the thing is they call it visit londonderry the city of culture ,its aimed at the sixty million plus people in the UK,and the name derry could bring up dissident/unsafe memories in a lot middle age and older people, you and i know its a beautiful city with friendly people,but try telling that to the old dear next door to me.

old_aussie · 17-07-2010 11:42am

Bebs wrote: »

The current arrangement means that the UK pours subsidies into the North which wouldn't be supplied if the North were a part of the Republic. How would losing that make more economic sense for the people in the North?

So the North then share these subsidies with their poorer brothers in the South.

The north get subsidies and the south gets what?

When & How could there be a united Ireland?

Comments