Is there a place for new Unionist political party in the Republic?

Funny, I thought the Republican vote was growing.

Sound of Silence wrote: »

How do you imagine reunification would actually benefit us?

I hope it's not solely to sponge off the UK taxpayer so that we can alleviate our debts. Beyond that, I'm not sure how we could benefit from losing even more sovereignty.

That's the money shot alright.

haulagebasher wrote: »

Now I know we have the Reform Group and that but there realy isn't any sort of proper unionist orientated party here in the south and given the fact that there is a growing dissatisfaction with and rejection of Nationalist/Republican based ideas coupled with the breaking of the chokehold of the Catholic church and the fact we've have a not insignificant number of protestants in the Republic, is there a possible opening for a Unionist party here again? It would be the first since the demise of the Irish Parlimentary Party.

What dose the number of Protestants have to do with anything?
You're not blinkered enough to think that Protestant = unionist down here are you?

Also, the IPP were not a Unionist Party, they were a Moderate Nationalist Party, times and defenitions were very different then, in todays Ireland moderate nationalism dose not support any form of Union with the UK, it would be an anacronism.

Denerick wrote: »

Our infrastructure steadily deteriorated to the point where we began to resemble a third world country, emigration was rampant (In 1966 we had 2.8 million people, in 1911 we had 3.1 - 300,000 less people after 55 years) the economy was just dreadful until the late 70s where it began to catch up with the rest of europe, only to collapse in the 80s again. The cultural and political ethos of Ireland right up until the 90s was a grim, overwhelming and suffocating Gaelic catholicism that has only in recent years been seen for what it actually was.

In the 55 year period from 1911 to 1966, 300,000 people emigrated, compare that to the 1,970,000 people that emigrated in the 60 year period of 1851 - 1911
I think we can safely say that as far as the rate of emigration goes, Independant Ireland did quite a bit better than British rule between the Famine and Independance.

The Economy was absolutley awful after the famine, why do you think just shy of 2 million had to leave, the Economy was not good after Independance, but are you really claiming it was worse than it was under British Rule in the 60 years before?

Personally I dont see why overwhelming and suffocating British Imperialism is preferable to overwhelming and suffocating Gaelic Catholicism.

Just trying to add perspective and hopefully nip the whole 800 years of woe bull**** in the bud before its allowed to consume yet another discussion on Anglo Irish relations.

No one is denying that the 60 or so years after Independance were rough, but they were not a patch on the 60 or so before.

Lets give republicanism a go first. A proper go, not the sham that has been perpertrated up until now.
Unionism isn't a political philosophy, it's a failed political party, being that it has managed to enshrine it's own obliteration in an internationally binding agreement. Don't confuse your self.

Denerick wrote: »

The reason I brought up emigration wasn't to show one side of the debate having a bigger dick than the other, it was to point out that this new independent country failed fundamentally in providing jobs for hundreds of thousands of new people. Anyway, the emigration after independence was from a lower base, so that needs to be taken in account of as well.

It clearly was, you made the comparision between Ireland Under British Rule before the Famine and Ireland after Independance.

Lets be clear about this, You said:

We suffered much more and for longer after independence than we ever did under the British after the Famine.

Ireland under the British after the Famine lost 38.5% of its population.
Ireland after independance (1911-1966) lost about 9% of its population.

How exactly this can be said to show Ireland Suffering much more after Independance than it did under Brith Rule after the Famine is beyond me.

Ireland as a region of the British Empire was easily one of the ten richest parts of the world in the early years of the 20th century. This was almost entirely down to direct British state investment in an island with virtually no useful economic resources.

Are you really trying to suggest that direct rule from London did anything for this country? Also, I would be interested to see a comparrision between the amount spent by the British in ireland by comparrision to the tax take from Ireland.

Because for most people 'British Imperialism' was an abstract irrelevance that barely impacted on their lives. Gaelic catholicism and the culture it created directly changed the country for the worse, in the eyes of many Irish writers of the time. It permeated everything, it was more than an abstract idea, it was the nation. Whereas 'British Imperialism' was completely abstract and almost entirely irrelevant to most people. Nobody is saying that the British Empire didn't do some awful things, but the lack of perspective at times is quite worrying and plays into the whole mythological playbook developed by Republicans over the past century. By any standard, the British Empire in the early 20th century was the most politically liberal Empire in history. It had a remarkable tolerance for dissent and seperatist ideas, I'd encourage you to read some Fenian papers of the late 19th and early 20th century. Looking back, it seems remarkable that they could even be published under what was, according to some, a thoroughly satanic and odious regime incapable of tolerating dissent and interested only in bloody murder and mayhem. Etc. Perspective, thats all I ask.

Perspective Indeed.

British Imperialism was directly responsible for the fact that during the period 1851-1911, one in three people were forced to leave the country. An abstract irrelevance? Are you insane? It had an absoutly astounding impact on the nation and on the individual.
Culturally it demanded nothing less than that Irish people become English people, and it gained much success, forcibly changing the national language from Irish to English and continued to implement the policies of doing so after the Famine. It insisted that anything Irish was inferior, backward and immoral. Irish Language, Games, Customs etc were bog language, bog games etc.
At any claim of a tolerant Empire, I would encourage you to examin the policies adopted and implemented when its hold over Ireland was questioned. The intolorent and downright brutal nature of British Imperialism in Ireland is all too apparent.
It was fundemantaly, unrepentently and violently opposed to any notion of Irish freedom.

As for tolerating disent, again are we saying that The Brits really were not that bad, or are you continuing your assertation that they were much better than Independant Ireland?

Its a largely irrelevant dichotomy to be honest, but I think you've been severely affected by Republican myth making and reality distortion. No self respecting historian would share that view.

I could just as easily come on here and lable you as a West Brit, but I don't.

You have made several suspect claims and been called on them, inferring that my perception of reality is distorted is hardly an appropriat responce, its childish at best.

pmcmahon wrote: »

Ireland pretty much is the U.K apart from currency and flag,just don't tell the republicans.

...the geography, the history, the culture...apart from that what have the Romans ever done for us..blah blah blah :rolleyes: