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

Denerick wrote: »

Ireland was poorer after independence, it was more insular and the economic war of the 30s wrecked our economy. The economic emphasis on self reliance was an almost complete catastrophe, there really isn't much debate about that. I'll take your point on emigration but Ireland was not unique for having such large emigration figures at this time. Millions of Germans, Jews and Scandanavians moved to America and helped populate the great eastern cities and the interior. Now the Jews were basically forced out because of pogroms in the Russian Empire but the Germans and Scandanavians moved for economic reasons, just like the Irish did.



I'm suggesting that life was not an abject misery in the post famine era like you seem to think. Or that everyone in Ireland was agitating for an independent republic, it was much more complex than that. By and large daily life went on and it was an irrelevance as to whether the government had Irish or British accents.



How was British 'Imperialism' directly responsible for this? Large numbers of English and Scottish emigrated during this period as well. Not in the same numbers as the Irish obviously but this was a period of huge emigration from Europe to the New World. I don't think its anywhere near as simplistic as you think.

For example, you need to look at the economic climate in Ireland which was largely fostered by the Irish themselves as a result of land reform and the subsequent consolidation. In an effort to maintain viable land plots, Irish farmers ensured that the land always went to the eldest son (In most cases) Now this eldest son inherited everything. The huge surplus of siblings that the Irish famously produced would emigrate if they couldn't get jobs in the local trades or industry. Again, nothing surprising there as this island essentially has no worthwhile economic resources, particularly in an era where much of the industrial base was concentrated in heavy industries that required direct access to raw materials that simply was not produced in Ireland. That wasn't a consequence of economic 'Imperialism', it was an economic reality and many Irish people understood that the lack of opportunity in Ireland often meant they would need to emigrate to find better lives for themselves. I also think it interesting that the expat Irish American community was often much more radical and Republican than the Irish in Ireland itself, which would lead me to think that a certain resentment over been forced out of the country for economic reasons coloured their perspective.



The gaelic games and language were revived by Irish nationalists and republicans and were hardly suppressed by this evil Empire. Gaelic language schools were tolerated, and a vibrant Gaelic revival movement sprouted up, largely tolerated the Empire. In any case, the gaelic games were an invention, like most historical traditions, loosely connected to games played by ancient forefathers.

The language was naturally changing anyway - that famous Imperialist hater of the Irish Daniel O'Connell was famously opposed to the Irish language arguing that it was un-necessary and anachronistic in the modern world (modern as in early to mid 19th century) The anglicisation of Ireland was a largely natural process as Gaelic simply ceased to serve any useful function anymore. Whether this would have happened were Ireland an independent country is debateable, but frankly to most people its an irrelevance.



Yet any number of publications from the 19th century would appear to ridicule this assertion. In times of rebellious strife and/or civil discord the Brits would suppress certain publications, but by and large there was a great deal of tolerance for national ideas. By the standards of the time, the British political system was remarkably progressive.

Of course it was fundamentally, unrepentantly and violently opposed to any notion of Irish freedom - any Empire would be the same. But any attempt to paint the British Empire as some obscurantist and repressive entity within Ireland is a little silly when looked at in its context. All that said, I'm not saying that the British Empire didn't do some thoroughly dreadful things, particularly in India and the like.



All I'm saying is to have some perspective, and not be in hock to the standard Republican dogma of 800 years of unrelenting misery and poverty. I will take back some of my earlier comments, which in hindsight appear a little heavy handed and overly certain. There is a lot to be skeptical about, in both sides of the debate. The people of East London could very well look on in envy at the middling Irish peasant of the early 20th century.

COYW wrote: »

I think we all know why O' Connell street was emptied like that. It had nothing to do with the average "joe soap" and everything to do with vicious elements within republicanism. If that threat didn't exist, plenty of people would have ventured out to see the Queen. Cork wasn't exactly deserted when it was deemed safe enough to allow public access to her. The fact that the city needed to be locked down in that manner, is nothing to be proud of!

Whilst we most definitely need a change in the political landscape in this country, the idea of a unionist party being set up down here is about as likely as any of the mainstream parties entering government with SF with its current front bench, i.e. zero. The unionist politicians I have seen have been very impressive and they do have the potential to capture the middle and upper classes down here, in my opinion, something that SF is failing to do but they will not move down here.

Personally, I believe a place within a strong union of European countries is the more realistic path for us but I do believe we should build stronger economical ties with England. I think a union with N.I. has very little to offer us, in any positive sense for a least another 20 years.