Giving some of N.I. back to the Republic

ectoraige · 11-02-2014 11:32am

Reekwind wrote: »

For the same reason that the North comprised the six counties to begin with: the rump would be even less economically viable as a state. The initial proposals for the North had envisaged divorcing only the three Unionist-minority provinces from the rest of the island, something arbitrarily changed by London to provide Belfast with more territory

If a referendum were held today then I'd be confident that three, maybe four, of the counties of Ulster would rejoin Ireland. But that would leave the remainder simply too small to exist independently (even with British subsidies). So it's not in the interests of London or Belfast (or Dublin) to let that happen. Again, we have to live with old failures of British statecraft

Just curious, I hear this argument a lot, that it would be economically unviable, but have there been any research to back up this argument? There are examples the world over of small territories existing in various forms, especially post-colonial outposts such as Gibraltar and the Falklands. It seems to me that it's one of these things that is true only because say it is true.

The Corinthian · 11-02-2014 11:55am

tdv123 wrote: »

Have a little longer memory than that mate.

If Scotland votes for independence the country wont be partitioned & thugs like the auxiliaries won't be sent to Scotland to try & thwart the democratic wishes of the Scottish people. When people voted for independence here in 1918 their wishes were ignored.

My point is we have no say if the country is partitioned or not whether we'd vote for unity or against it. It's left in the hands of a small minority to decide the future of partition

You're going to have to explain that again, because it makes no sense. If NI is to vote for independence, then it's really up to NI to do so. If you suddenly decide that another sovereign state, the Republic, should also have a say in the independence of NI, then essentially you have to extend the same right to Scottish independence to Britain - or for that matter a say in even NI's independence for Britain.

If you disagree with this, then you're going to have to come up with a better argument than some historical sob story that is no longer relevant anyway given our democratic acceptance of the principles of the Good Friday and Anglo-Irish agreements. You can't have it both ways, I'm afraid.

tdv123 · 11-02-2014 1:22pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

You're going to have to explain that again, because it makes no sense. If NI is to vote for independence, then it's really up to NI to do so. If you suddenly decide that another sovereign state, the Republic, should also have a say in the independence of NI, then essentially you have to extend the same right to Scottish independence to Britain - or for that matter a say in even NI's independence for Britain.

If you disagree with this, then you're going to have to come up with a better argument than some historical sob story that is no longer relevant anyway given our democratic acceptance of the principles of the Good Friday and Anglo-Irish agreements. You can't have it both ways, I'm afraid.

It's not a sob story it's a fact it happened, if you want to skip over facts that's up to you. The British government is ultimately responsible for all the violent conflicts in Ireland that happened in the 20th century.

I would have rather the whole island stayed under British rule instead of splitting the country up & creating multiple divisions between Irish people.
Like I said in a other thread we didn't have a revolution just to change the color of the flag, abandon our fellow countrymen in the North who split their blood for us in Dublin & to be ruled by a extreme conservative Rome rule government.

The Corinthian · 11-02-2014 1:51pm

tdv123 wrote: »

It's not a sob story it's a fact it happened, if you want to skip over facts that's up to you.

Like how you seem to be forgetting where the Good Friday agreement enshrined NI's right to self-determination?

tdv123 · 11-02-2014 2:21pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

Like how you seem to be forgetting where the Good Friday agreement enshrined NI's right to self-determination?

I know but your missing the point I'm making. All the Irish people should be allowed to decide their future together. The Irish nation just doesn't stop at the border. Someone from Tyrone is just as Irish as someone from Cork or Kerry. The GFA was just a sop to the UVF, they were killing Catholics to keep NI in the Union they got what they wanted & then some by forcing the Free State to relinquish it's claim over the North.

The Corinthian · 11-02-2014 3:03pm

R P McMurphy wrote: »

What section of the GFA covers these two referendums?

Who said the GFA covers either? I suggested was how it "would be likely to work".

tdv123 wrote: »

I know but your missing the point I'm making. All the Irish people should be allowed to decide their future together.

Totally agree; I did point out that both sides of the border should be involved were it comes to unification. I'm just pointing out that there are two parts to the process, independence and unification. The first part realistically should be posed to the people of Northern Ireland alone, as it is their independence.

R P McMurphy · 11-02-2014 3:04pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

Like how you seem to be forgetting where the Good Friday agreement enshrined NI's right to self-determination?

In so far as a future within the UK or Ireland, not an independent entity

tdv123 · 11-02-2014 3:28pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

Who said the GFA covers either? I suggested was how it "would be likely to work".

Totally agree; I did point out that both sides of the border should be involved were it comes to unification. I'm just pointing out that there are two parts to the process, independence and unification. The first part realistically should be posed to the people of Northern Ireland alone, as it is their independence.

I agree they should be allowed to decided their own future but it's hard for them make a unbiased decision with the UVF calling the shots & the OO's scare mongering.

Imagine how many lives would have been saved if the country was never partitioned?

The Corinthian · 11-02-2014 3:39pm

tdv123 wrote: »

I agree they should be allowed to decided their own future but it's hard for them make a unbiased decision with the UVF calling the shots & the OO's scare mongering.

Ultimately, it's their decision to make, even they will be under pressure from the UVF, or equally from dissident republican groups. Or economic arguments (personally, I suspect it'll come down to this on both sides of the border). Or whatever. Otherwise it sounds more like you're worried they won't make the 'right' decision, rather than an unbiased one.

Unfortunately, it's comments like that that make me pretty certain that no matter which way such a vote goes, it's still going to turn out badly because some fanatical idiot on either side will be convinced that the Will of the People wasn't properly served.

The Corinthian · 11-02-2014 3:47pm

tdv123 wrote: »

Imagine how many lives would have been saved if the country was never partitioned?

Sure and how many lives would have been saved if the archduke Franz Ferdinand had asked "look honey, is that guy up ahead carrying a pistol?"

tdv123 · 11-02-2014 10:58pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

Ultimately, it's their decision to make, even they will be under pressure from the UVF, or equally from dissident republican groups. Or economic arguments (personally, I suspect it'll come down to this on both sides of the border). Or whatever. Otherwise it sounds more like you're worried they won't make the 'right' decision, rather than an unbiased one.

Unfortunately, it's comments like that that make me pretty certain that no matter which way such a vote goes, it's still going to turn out badly because some fanatical idiot on either side will be convinced that the Will of the People wasn't properly served.

But it's not really all the Irish people together making the decision to reunify or not than is it? I thought most people in the South were against a United Ireland anyway so why can't we make the decision acting as a single unit to decide the future of the Island just like the people in Scotland are acting as a single unit to decide their future. I should be able to have a say in the North's affairs just as much as someone from Down or Armagh should be able to have a say in the Free Sates affairs.

I would rather unify the island under British rule if I thought the people of the island could genuinely prosper rather the keep the county divided & for all the divisions that separate us to remain. So it's nothing to do with being anti-British which is what I think your hinting at. I don't care about nationalism my flag is red.

tdv123 · 11-02-2014 11:05pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

Sure and how many lives would have been saved if the archduke Franz Ferdinand had asked "look honey, is that guy up ahead carrying a pistol?"

Well you might think it's funny that nearly 10,000 Irish people died & 10's of 1000's more were injured as a result of partition but I don't.

The Corinthian · 11-02-2014 11:17pm

tdv123 wrote: »

But it's not really all the Irish people together making the decision to reunify or not than is it? I thought most people in the South were against a United Ireland anyway so why can't we make the decision acting as a single unit to decide the future of the Island just like the people in Scotland are acting as a single unit to decide their future. I should be able to have a say in the North's affairs just as much as someone from Down or Armagh should be able to have a say in the Free Sates affairs.

What on Earth are you on about? Are you suggesting that southern Ireland should have a say in whether NI is independent of the UK (separate from the question of whether we're unified)? That we in the south should have a say in whether the UK governs them (not us), rather than allowing them, the people of NI to decide for themselves? Unification is a separate matter, where naturally the south should have a say.

You'll have to explain what you mean, because either what you're saying comes across as very confused, or as mad as a bicycle.

tdv123 wrote: »

Well you might think it's funny that nearly 10,000 Irish people died & 10's of 1000's more were injured as a result of partition but I don't.

Clearly my point wooshed over your head. Hint; it happened 100 years ago, it involved more than 10,000 people and going over it now ain't going to make much of a difference today.

tdv123 · 12-02-2014 12:49am

The Corinthian wrote: »

What on Earth are you on about? Are you suggesting that southern Ireland should have a say in whether NI is independent of the UK (separate from the question of whether we're unified)? That we in the south should have a say in whether the UK governs them (not us), rather than allowing them, the people of NI to decide for themselves? Unification is a separate matter, where naturally the south should have a say.

You'll have to explain what you mean, because either what you're saying comes across as very confused, or as mad as a bicycle.

Clearly my point wooshed over your head. Hint; it happened 100 years ago, it involved more than 10,000 people and going over it now ain't going to make much of a difference today.

Did you actually bother reading my post at all? You said you agreed all the people of the Ireland should be able to decide their own future acting as a single unit.

Karl Stein · 12-02-2014 2:01am

It'd be interesting to know how our resident British Empire Apologists, and by extension, acquiescers to the threat of Unionist terrorism, would view a partition of Scotland analogous to that which befell Ireland.

Consider if there were a minority in Scotland concentrated around, say, Glasgow and surrounding environs, who armed themselves and threatened to conduct mass terrorism if Scotland was voted out of the 'Union'.

What would the usual suspects think of the threats of terrorism from Scots Unionists in the face of the democratic aspirations of the people of Scotland?

ancapailldorcha · 12-02-2014 10:41am

tdv123 wrote: »

Did you actually bother reading my post at all? You said you agreed all the people of the Ireland should be able to decide their own future acting as a single unit.

I think The Corinthian is trying to say that the Republic should have no say on whether or not NI remains in the Union. That's a decision for the Northern Irish and them alone. Whether or not an independent NI is welcomed to join the Republic is a decision for the electorate of the 26 counties.

The Corinthian · 12-02-2014 12:12pm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I think The Corinthian is trying to say that the Republic should have no say on whether or not NI remains in the Union. That's a decision for the Northern Irish and them alone. Whether or not an independent NI is welcomed to join the Republic is a decision for the electorate of the 26 counties.

Close, I believe that unification should be a decision for the electorate of the 32 counties (in two separate votes); that's normally how such referenda work elsewhere.

Why separate the issues of independence from the UK and unification with the Republic? Well, it's a bit of unfair if they're only given a choice of being part of one country or of another and however unlikely it may be that they would choose independence from both, it's only fair to give that option as it could also be used in the event that they just don't like the deal offered by Dublin for unification.

TBH, I'm not sure why tdv123 is so up in arms about this or what he's proposing himself, because if he is proposing that the 32 counties should vote on NI independence, then there's no rational reason why England, Wales and (if it's still in the UK) Scotland should not also be allowed to vote, using the same logic. It would also make a mockery of self-determination by NI, because they would no longer be determining their own fate - the south would as we could outvote them with ease - imagine the six counties voted overwhelmingly for independence and the twenty-six overwhelmingly against, what then? Makes no sense.

Except for some argument about past wrongs somehow making such a collective vote valid (not to sure what the logic was; something like because of all the deaths in the Troubles as a result of partition, that part of the island that didn't suffer much gets a say in the future of that part that did). Truth of the matter, is shìt happens throughout history and sometimes you have to let it go or it just will pin you down and stop you from moving forward.

So unless I've misunderstood, tdv123's position appears a bit, well, odd, to be polite about it.

R P McMurphy · 12-02-2014 1:11pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

Close, I believe that unification should be a decision for the electorate of the 32 counties (in two separate votes); that's normally how such referenda work elsewhere.

Why separate the issues of independence from the UK and unification with the Republic? Well, it's a bit of unfair if they're only given a choice of being part of one country or of another and however unlikely it may be that they would choose independence from both, it's only fair to give that option as it could also be used in the event that they just don't like the deal offered by Dublin for unification.

TBH, I'm not sure why tdv123 is so up in arms about this or what he's proposing himself, because if he is proposing that the 32 counties should vote on NI independence, then there's no rational reason why England, Wales and (if it's still in the UK) Scotland should not also be allowed to vote, using the same logic. It would also make a mockery of self-determination by NI, because they would no longer be determining their own fate - the south would as we could outvote them with ease - imagine the six counties voted overwhelmingly for independence and the twenty-six overwhelmingly against, what then? Makes no sense.

Except for some argument about past wrongs somehow making such a collective vote valid (not to sure what the logic was; something like because of all the deaths in the Troubles as a result of partition, that part of the island that didn't suffer much gets a say in the future of that part that did). Truth of the matter, is shìt happens throughout history and sometimes you have to let it go or it just will pin you down and stop you from moving forward.

So unless I've misunderstood, tdv123's position appears a bit, well, odd, to be polite about it.

That ship has sailed in 1998 though. The agreement is a border poll which essentially boils down to remaining in the UK or becoming part of an all Ireland government. There is no legal basis for an independence poll. That is what was decided and agreed upon to end the conflict. to undo the GFA would be unthinkable at this stage and practically unworkable

When one border poll is called, it is likely that there will be one every seven years

ancapailldorcha · 12-02-2014 1:21pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

Close, I believe that unification should be a decision for the electorate of the 32 counties (in two separate votes); that's normally how such referenda work elsewhere.

Knew I forgot something.

Anyway, I can't imagine an independent Northern Ireland would be viable as a country so I think joining the Republic would be one of the first things they'd do or at least seriously consider in that scenario.

The Corinthian · 12-02-2014 1:52pm

R P McMurphy wrote: »

That ship has sailed in 1998 though. The agreement is a border poll which essentially boils down to remaining in the UK or becoming part of an all Ireland government. There is no legal basis for an independence poll. That is what was decided and agreed upon to end the conflict. to undo the GFA would be unthinkable at this stage and practically unworkable

So you're in essence saying that, according to the GFA, NI would have a Hobs son's choice of either saying with London or joining Dublin? Hurrah for freedom!

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Anyway, I can't imagine an independent Northern Ireland would be viable as a country so I think joining the Republic would be one of the first things they'd do or at least seriously consider in that scenario.

I agree, but I was speaking more on the principle of democratic choice rather than the financial reality of it.

NI could in theory be viable, as an independent nation, but to do so would require sacrifices from the population that it would highly unlikely to bare. Even were NI to unify with the Republic, the level of UK funding there simply could not be maintained by the Republic and it's uncertain whether the population of NI could bare the necessary cutbacks.

Nor would such funding levels be tolerated by the citizens of the Republic, for that matter; more taxes in the south so the north can keep it's free/cheap dental care and public sector jobs that we don't have? Not f**king likely, a chara.

Personally, I think that any referenda will ultimately be decided on economic grounds. As much as people may claim to stand for their principles, time and time again, you'll find that they'll vote with their wallets - hence Nice 2 and even the failed reunification of Cyprus. Those who vote on principle alone, and damn the cost, are, always have been and always shall remain a minority.

And given the social and economic state of both NI and the Republic, I suspect that the socio-economic conditions necessary could take a while.

sopretty · 12-02-2014 2:00pm

They have as much in common with Irish people ('southerners') as have the Chinese. Most of them only wish to be seen as their own entity, neither with allegiance to Ireland nor England. That would be the best outcome really as they have a particular identity and history. Why would they or we decide to be one again? Too much pain and hatred and bloodshed and bombs and death over it all.

maccored · 12-02-2014 2:14pm

sopretty wrote: »

They have as much in common with Irish people ('southerners') as have the Chinese. Most of them only wish to be seen as their own entity, neither with allegiance to Ireland nor England. That would be the best outcome really as they have a particular identity and history. Why would they or we decide to be one again? Too much pain and hatred and bloodshed and bombs and death over it all.

so as a northerner living in the south I have as much in common with irish people as a chinese person. what bollocks.

R P McMurphy · 12-02-2014 2:16pm

sopretty wrote: »

They have as much in common with Irish people ('southerners') as have the Chinese. Most of them only wish to be seen as their own entity, neither with allegiance to Ireland nor England. That would be the best outcome really as they have a particular identity and history. Why would they or we decide to be one again? Too much pain and hatred and bloodshed and bombs and death over it all.

So someone from Fermanagh has nothing in common with someone 500m away in Cavan?

You may also have missed the protests over the flags issue, seems unionists have a great deal of allegience

sopretty · 12-02-2014 2:19pm

While some may wish to see themselves as being connected to Ireland (the republic), in reality, in my experience, we are like chalk and cheese. I lived there. Two very very different histories, leading to two very very different cultures. Just my own opinion of course.

The Corinthian · 12-02-2014 2:51pm

maccored wrote: »

so as a northerner living in the south I have as much in common with irish people as a chinese person. what bollocks.

Chinese may be exaggerating, but be seen much the same as a Welsh, English or Scott, would not be an exaggeration. After all, after almost a century with very different histories, educational systems, legal systems, economies and even demographics, you're bound to see divergence - east and west Germans are quite different culturally, even after twenty years after reunification and half the amount of time divided.

Of course this is not to say that northern and southern should not be united into a single nation, but neither can you deny that the two are not exactly homogeneous.

R P McMurphy wrote: »

So someone from Fermanagh has nothing in common with someone 500m away in Cavan?

Much the same difference as someone in Sittard, Netherlands, has with someone 500m away in Selfkant, Germany. Still, I wouldn't try referring to them as German to their face.

sopretty wrote: »

While some may wish to see themselves as being connected to Ireland (the republic), in reality, in my experience, we are like chalk and cheese. I lived there. Two very very different histories, leading to two very very different cultures. Just my own opinion of course.

Irrelevant. Nationalism, national identity is an invention. A product of the Enlightenment and later Romanticism. A cohesive social force designed to replace the divine right of kings that preceded it. It's not supposed to make sense. Pointing out the blatantly obvious is thus irrelevant.

If it did you could argue against it and that would defeat it's purpose to bind together a community who would otherwise not give a crap about each other.

sopretty · 12-02-2014 3:03pm

whether nationalism was invented and is romantic etc. is completely IRRELEVANT to the peculiar Republic of Ireland/Northern Irish issue.
There is no romanticism/enlightenment/common identity/cohesive social force between the north and the south.
War kills all of the above.

The Corinthian · 12-02-2014 3:08pm

sopretty wrote: »

whether nationalism was invented and is romantic etc. is completely IRRELEVANT to the peculiar Republic of Ireland/Northern Irish issue.
There is no romanticism/enlightenment/common identity/cohesive social force between the north and the south.
War kills all of the above.

I disagree. How else can you get young idiots to die for an idea, if not to sell it as a romantic ideal?

Well, religion, sure. But let's not go there.

sopretty · 12-02-2014 3:15pm

"Romantic Ireland's dead and gone,
It's with O'Leary in the grave."
Yeats.....

Pain, grief, money, power, revenge, hatred, protection, being included, being part of a group, having a purpose - nothing romantic about any of the crap that 'inspired' the 'soldiers' in the 'fight for freedom'. On neither side.

Dr.Tank Adams · 12-02-2014 6:37pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

Chinese may be exaggerating, but be seen much the same as a Welsh, English or Scott, would not be an exaggeration. After all, after almost a century with very different histories, educational systems, legal systems, economies and even demographics, you're bound to see divergence - east and west Germans are quite different culturally, even after twenty years after reunification and half the amount of time divided.

Of course this is not to say that northern and southern should not be united into a single nation, but neither can you deny that the two are not exactly homogeneous.

Much the same difference as someone in Sittard, Netherlands, has with someone 500m away in Selfkant, Germany. Still, I wouldn't try referring to them as German to their face.

Irrelevant. Nationalism, national identity is an invention. A product of the Enlightenment and later Romanticism. A cohesive social force designed to replace the divine right of kings that preceded it. It's not supposed to make sense. Pointing out the blatantly obvious is thus irrelevant.

If it did you could argue against it and that would defeat it's purpose to bind together a community who would otherwise not give a crap about each other.

I would have thought the Union, or better yet the Northern Irish state, would be a better example of "an invention". And that's without even mentioning irrelevance...

maccored · 12-02-2014 7:55pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

Chinese may be exaggerating, but be seen much the same as a Welsh, English or Scott, would not be an exaggeration. After all, after almost a century with very different histories, educational systems, legal systems, economies and even demographics, you're bound to see divergence - east and west Germans are quite different culturally, even after twenty years after reunification and half the amount of time divided.

Im irish - or maybe you disagree?

Giving some of N.I. back to the Republic

Comments