United Ireland Poll

rb_ie

rb_ie wrote: »

And to those saying Unite the people up North first, I fully agree, however, I don't think it'll ever happen. People may say a generation will die and things will improve, but said generation is bringing up a new generation of hate filled racists, and in turn they'll bring up their own.
.

Apparantly in some parts of England it took nearly two hundred years for the wounds of the civil war to completely heal, neighbouring villagers refused to talk to each other...
Unfortunately the generation most affected by the troubles are in their forties now and their children in their twenties, in certain parts of northern Ireland these people never have any contact with "the other tribe". It's really down to those people not to pass on their hatrid to the next generation.

beautiation

Cockney Rebel wrote: »

How can it be democratic that 80 odd years ago a border was drawn round
a part of Ireland purely on religious grounds? A sectarian designed state.
How can something that was plainly undemocratic now be democratic?

Borders are drawn as wars and politics demand over time. There are no absolute territories that never change, its only the wishes of the people and/or ruling classes of each era that dictates where the borders end up being for that time. So you really have to get it out of your head that the north south boundary is any different. It was drawn up because the people there wanted to continue belonging to the UK. Ireland is an island, depending on the diversity of the people inhabiting it it could be 1 territory, or it could be 2, or 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,8 whatever! It's entirely flexible to whatever amount of division is needed to accomodate the people, just like any land on the planet. At the moment there is a large part that wants to be the Irish Republic, and a smaller part where the majority want to be in the UK. And they have that right. The south have no more right to start saying what the north should be than the north have the right to tell us down here to get back in the UK. It's all about the people.

It would be lovely if we could flick a switch and undo all the unfair invasions and surpressions of culture of history right back to the first time Ugg took over Mugg's cave and rubbed out all his paintings, but it's just not gonna happen. The British invasion was unfair, but so were a lot of invasions in history, we can't undo them all so why is this situation different? Its illogical to stick to old ideals of boundarys through changes of demographics. What makes a place Irish is not the land, but the people! And if the people don't define themselves anymore as Irish it's not for us to tell them they are!
Indulge me...
If everyone in, say, France were to die tomorrow, would the country remain there, lifeless and untouched by others just because the grass is quintessentially French somehow? No. France would be populated again by people of other nationalities, who would incorporate their new settlements into other countries, boundaries would change, and the world would proceed. If, years later, one french survivor showed up and started demanding he should be given ownership of the whole place and get to kick everyone out, he'd be laughed out of the place. And rightly so. Demographics create ideals like ownership of land by a people, but shifts of demographics ensure that such claims are always (eventually) transient things.
We should just look to the future and work towards a situation where the people of each land can be whatever they want, free of other peoples sticking their oar in and trying to revert things to a setup that is no longer relevant. The concept of a united Ireland was great back in the 1200's. It's not now as we are no longer a homogenous people. That's why the partition was a great idea back in the 20's and why its counter-productive to the general rules of civilisation now for us down south to try and rush a situation of Ireland being 1 territory again before the demographics (the demographics of the north, not the republic) suggest it should be the case. We're priveleged to live in a civilised era where people (in this part of the world at least) finally matter a damn. We should be proud to uphold humanity's progress, forget the past for the good of the people of the present, and leave northern Ireland free to do what it wants. I'd be as glad as you if they joined the republic peacefully and democratically someday, but it should be nothing whatsoever to do with the wishes of people south of the border or the people of the other UK territories. Our only relevence would be in deciding whether we wanted them or not. And David Healy might have retired by then...

Sorry if any of this is too angry or anything, it's a bad habit of mine to go a bit OTT about things. Bad habit debating drills into ya.

Gorilla

I signed in just to vote yes to this poll. Oh and its weird to see a debate on politics in the After Hours section! Most polls here I see are on wheater After Hours is more gay or straight...

O'Coonassa

beautiation wrote: »

If, years later, one french survivor showed up and started demanding he should be given ownership of the whole place and get to kick everyone out, he'd be laughed out of the place. And rightly so.

It's Israels 60th birthday in a couple of days time. They're lucky they weren't French according to what you say

Neamhshuntasach

A lot of Irish people make me sick with their comments in here.

The north is Ireland and should be united.

ibuprofen

The vote to divide up Ireland in the first place was a farce.
The History , which I have plagurised from history world.net is

''the logical implication of this is that nationalist Catholics living in large border regions of Tyrone and Fermanagh, and in areas of Derry, Down and Armagh, should have been included in the Irish Free State.''

It was divided up illegally from the start and it should be up to the inhabitants now... Seems fair!! Each county should be allowed vote where they want to live . It's democracy.....

I would wager a guess that seeing the economic benefits that if a referendum on the matter was held now a yes vote would win through...:)

jill_valentine

Neamhshuntasach wrote: »

A lot of Irish people make me sick with their comments in here.

The north is Ireland and should be united.

A lot of people made nearly exactly this post. I find it nauseating, because it's so blatant you've given it no thought at all and just parroted off the usual sh*te. It's really juvenile; trying to bully or shame people into believing that what you believe is right because you say it is.

Why should it be united? And don't give me that crap about blah blah blah how unfair Britain's conquest of Ireland was. Right here, and now, what are the material, tangible benefits to the people of North and South?

I don't give a crap what flags are flying over the Government offices, so long as the people on the streets get the best deal they can. I have yet to be convinced uniting with the Republic can offer them that; the complications arising from doing so would be just too great to solve. As a country, we should be grown up enough to put our egos away when we look at the issue; as far as I can see, at this point it's largely a playground matter of tit-for-tat.

Dudess

rb_ie wrote: »

Ah sure being called a West Brit is nothing.

"West Brit" is such a dumb phrase/label - exceptionally lazy, along the same lines as "PC gone mad".

I'm curious to know what he'd have pm'd me if he'd known I'm a COI Protestant (not practising however)

Ah well then you're definitely not Irish

toiletduck

No, I see no benefits whatsoever. Also can you imagine the Dail with a 20% representation from the DUP, unionists etc.

Cockney Rebel

toiletduck wrote: »

No, I see no benefits whatsoever. Also can you imagine the Dail with a 20% representation from the DUP, unionists etc.

éire nua is the way forward.

http://rsf.ie/eirenua.htm

Blut

A significant majority in the 6 counties dont want to be part of a united Ireland. At best, a plurality in the South want to be part of a united Ireland. And I'm sure if this plurality had the actual economic costs explained to them (would you really vote for a united Ireland if it made absolutely no difference to your day to day life, given there are already no barriers to entry or living/working between the two states, but it cost you 5,000e a year extra in taxes?) it would shrink even further.

With the growing role of the EU the importance of national sovereignty is fading anyway, give it 50 years and both North and South will simply be regional territories in a larger body. Why bother trying to force a costly unification on two populations that either dont want it or are largely indifferent to it?

SimpleSam06

I voted yes. Economically it makes sense, along the lines of wherever the British landed, they made a shite of things, and its only when the locals took up the reins that things turned around. Secondly the British don't want the north, culturally or economically. Thirdly the Republic has shown itself willing and able to absorb large populations of immigrants with no connection to Ireland at all, and without any real adverse effects. Absorbing the developed infrastructure in the North would be laughably easy by comparison.

Eoin

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

I voted yes. Economically it makes sense, along the lines of wherever the British landed, they made a shite of things, and its only when the locals took up the reins that things turned around. Secondly the British don't want the north, culturally or economically. Thirdly the Republic has shown itself willing and able to absorb large populations of immigrants with no connection to Ireland at all, and without any real adverse effects. Absorbing the developed infrastructure in the North would be laughably easy by comparison.

How does it make sense economically - that seems far from a given?

Personally I think it's way too early to tell how Ireland has been able to deal with mass immigration.

SimpleSam06

eoin_s wrote: »

How does it make sense economically - that seems far from a given?

Various other posters in the thread have made the point better than I can make it. The most important issue is that you would be exchanging an administration with an interest only in maintaining the status quo with one dedicated to making the most of the resources available.

eoin_s wrote: »

Personally I think it's way too early to tell how Ireland has been able to deal with mass immigration.

In any other country where the population has increased by 10% in the last few years, all of those immigrants, there would be blood in the streets long before now. That the country has remained relatively stable is extremely encouraging.

escobar

Northern Ireland would be far better off joining the republic. I think now with the Boyne center being opened up that the relationship between all of NI and the republic has never been better.
Ian Paisley was dare I say magnaminous and friendly to Brian Cowen in his speech. My girlfriend and her family are CoI and they would like to see he two joined .
Not some thing new . Oscar wilde lovingly referred to his mother as a devout republican . She was a nationalist poet. I think we've come a long way and religious lines do not define this question.
Economically NI would benefit greatly and Brian Cowen has always said that aa all Ireland economy benefits both jurisdictions..

escobar

Northern Ireland would be far better off joining the republic. I think now with the Boyne center being opened up that the relationship between all of NI and the republic has never been better.
Ian Paisley was dare I say magnaminous and friendly to Brian Cowen in his speech. My girlfriend and her family are CoI and they would like to see he two joined .
Not some thing new . Oscar wilde lovingly referred to his mother as a devout republican . She was a nationalist poet. I think we've come a long way and religious lines do not define this question.
Economically NI would benefit greatly and Brian Cowen has always said that aa all Ireland economy benefits both jurisdictions..

Yes

Kold

Not unless we get all those retards out of there first. I don't fancy another few thousand murderous, begrudging knackers roaming this country.

thelordofcheese

Voted no, a united ireland is a terrible idea.

Actually, we should look into lumbering the english with more useless parts of ireland, i wonder if they'd be interested in taking cork off our hands for a few decades.

jjbrien

I voted no for several reasons:

While it would be a nice idea to have an united Ireland the practilities are not good;

the british goverment has to pump millions of pounds into nothern ireland to keep it going. there is no way the republic can afford this

the unionist population will never accept dublin rule and would start a civil war for which we can not be sure of the outcome

the republic is doing much better that the north lets not ruin what we have

aslo i would not be able to drive up north and get cheap boose and shopping anymore

the north may be better going independant from the uk and going it alone the eu would help it

Rb

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Various other posters in the thread have made the point better than I can make it. The most important issue is that you would be exchanging an administration with an interest only in maintaining the status quo with one dedicated to making the most of the resources available.


In any other country where the population has increased by 10% in the last few years, all of those immigrants, there would be blood in the streets long before now. That the country has remained relatively stable is extremely encouraging.

Lol, do you even realise what you're talking about? Anyone with a clue realises that it makes absolutely no sense economically to Unite Ireland. There are no benefits to it whatsoever.

guinnessdrinker

An all island economy does actually make sense. A larger economy should generate greater productivity which will create greater revenue for the country.

Very simplistic but theoritically true nevertheless.

Rb

kreuzberger wrote: »

Id imagine most of them , if not all would vote no.

Well we'll soon see I suppose.

kreuzberger wrote:

I also find your use of the term "Oireland for the Oirish" quite offensive . Why on earth do you need to adopt some stage music hall accent parody to describe your fellow citizens who believe another country helping itself to part of theirs is fundamnetally undemocratic and wrong ?

Well, I think "OIreland for the OIrish" sums up the type of people that are pro-unity. Anytime I've heard someone talk about a United Ireland, they've either been from the country or some rough area of Dublin and have never been the smartest people you'd come across. They're the type who'd be opposed to the foreign nationals here, the "Came an tuk our jawbs" type of people and who curse the British and their "occupation" here so I'll mock them all I like tbh. Huge generalisation but the overwhelming majority of pro-unity people I've encountered fit the description quite well.

kreuzberger wrote:

would you like people to mock you with old chap , old bean etc for your pro British outlook ?

No, I wouldn't care. I'd consider myself to see things quite realistically i.e the fact that Uniting Ireland would be a disaster for the Republic and in general makes absolutely no sense. I'm not holding a grudge over something that happened a few hundred years ago like a lot of "pro-unity" people are (IRA/Sinn Fein Supporters included) and I realise the fact that Ireland wouldn't be where it is today had it not been for the British.

kreuzberger wrote:

Your religious background is irrelevant to me and id presume to many others .

Many with an education perhaps. I worked with catholics from rougher areas in Dublin previously and they were very anti-protestant and I've experienced that attitude towards protestants many other times over the years.

kreuzberger wrote:

what your advocating is sectarian cleansing , and indeed many thousands of Irish people have been forced to leave their homes over the decades due to political ideas like this . Many thousands of southerners did indeed let people sleep in their homes due to the actions of the British governemnt . Others had to make do in refugee camps . An actual democracy would simply not give rise to such mass expulsions of a civilian population as we witnessed in the last century.

Erm, so? Again, if they don't like it so much up there, why don't they just move out down South?

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

True that they will raise their own but I'd say that their numbers will still dwindle. As time goes on more and more people will realise how petty and stupid it is to despise someone because of their religion or where they were born. Their parents may still think like that but how my opinions on things can vary wildly from my parents opinions on things and that would be the same for a lot of people. Like everything else it will take time but these people are a dieing breed.

Yeah true, I think particularly as people become more educated, such attitudes start to die anyway. I agree though, it will take time and I'd guess it'll be quite a long time yet.

Deleted User wrote: »

Apparantly in some parts of England it took nearly two hundred years for the wounds of the civil war to completely heal, neighbouring villagers refused to talk to each other...
Unfortunately the generation most affected by the troubles are in their forties now and their children in their twenties, in certain parts of northern Ireland these people never have any contact with "the other tribe". It's really down to those people not to pass on their hatrid to the next generation.

Indeed. Unfortunately, I think a lot of people try to force their beliefs or opinions on their children, so lets hope they don't stick.

Dudess wrote: »

"West Brit" is such a dumb phrase/label - exceptionally lazy, along the same lines as "PC gone mad".

Ah well then you're definitely not Irish

Indeed, it is a dumb phrase and thankfully says more about the person using it than the person it is aimed at.

O'Coonassa

rb_ie wrote: »

Anytime I've heard someone talk about a United Ireland, they've either been from the country or some rough area of Dublin and have never been the smartest people you'd come across.

Because I'm a simple culchie I will let this bigotry slide but wonder who you are to think you can condemn the entire countryside and inner city populations as intrinsically retarded. Life in the suberbs must be so advanced and enlightened

rb_ie wrote: »

Ireland wouldn't be where it is today had it not been for the British.

In Europe and European in nature? I'd like to know how you think it would be different. Had we not been invaded then neither Papistry or Anglicanism would ever have darkened our land and that could have only been of benefit. I'd like to know what you mean by your statement if you wouldn't mind explaining. You seem to be implying that there has been some great advantage conferred upon us.

guinnessdrinker

rb_ie wrote: »

Well, I think "OIreland for the OIrish" sums up the type of people that are pro-unity. Anytime I've heard someone talk about a United Ireland, they've either been from the country or some rough area of Dublin and have never been the smartest people you'd come across. They're the type who'd be opposed to the foreign nationals here, the "Came an tuk our jawbs" type of people and who curse the British and their "occupation" here so I'll mock them all I like tbh. Huge generalisation but the overwhelming majority of pro-unity people I've encountered fit the description quite well.

Massive generalisation there alright rb.

Afaik, most Irish political parties are pro united Ireland apart from the Unionist parties. Bertie Ahern as recently as last week repeated in an interview with Charlie Bird that he would still like to see a united Ireland.

Whatever people say about Bertie (and I'm not a huge fan of his), I certainly wounldn't say he is a keep "OIreland for the OIrish" type of guy and he certainly isn't opposed to foreign nationals here, and I don't remember him ever curising the British publicly. So Bertie and many others like him that desire a united Ireland come nowhere near your discription of "pro unity" supporters.

kreuzberger

jjbrien wrote: »

I voted no for several reasons:

While it would be a nice idea to have an united Ireland the practilities are not good;

the british goverment has to pump millions of pounds into nothern ireland to keep it going. there is no way the republic can afford this

the british governemnt has to keep an artificially seperate entity from the rest of island going , one in which almost half its population ofetn cant even bring itself to say the words" northern Ireland" much less support its " national" football team . Such an artificial entity that has never managed to get even the most basic allegiance from almost half its population will of course be a basket case economically . Perhaps you can explain why the south can afford to give hundreds of billions in natural resources away tax free and royal free but cannot afford to take responsibility for the countrys territory ? Plus theres gold being mined there too .

the unionist population will never accept dublin rule and would start a civil war for which we can not be sure of the outcome

how will they start a civil war ? who will give them guns ? who will give them artillery ? Who would fund and supply it ? Are you seriously suggesting a tiny minority on the island would even win such a war ? One minute your claiming the south could not afford to run its own national territory because of all the money Britian has to pump into the place to prop it up - next thing your claiming a bunch of loyalists , a small minority within the country would be some sort of military superpower if they had to go it alone ?
The best i can describe this as is superstition . Old fashioned poor mouth stuff . This is what happens when you start listening to eejits like Eoghan Harris .

Throughout the worst of conflict in the 1970s, when British withdrawls looked like a real possibility extreme loyalism signalled on a number of occasions it would accept a united Ireland under certain conditions had they no other choice providing certain gurantees were given . Talk of civil war is an absolute fantasy , a bogeyman to scare children with . And the notion of them winning it is laughable in the extreme .

kreuzberger

rb_ie wrote: »

Lol, do you even realise what you're talking about? Anyone with a clue realises that it makes absolutely no sense economically to Unite Ireland. There are no benefits to it whatsoever.

yeah , like a chronically undrpopulated country doesnt need over a million new citizens . A small country doesnt need more territory and territorial waters. And like sorting out the artifical carve up of a country whose economy was wrecked by partition couldnt make any economic sense .
To sensible people its a no brainer . People and territory arent actual resources to anyones economy , as all educated people know .


And of course diseases like foot and mouth and all the rest respect borders . They know when theyre in co tyrone and armagh not to be hopping over the ditch and causing mayhem with souths agriculture . Not like foot and mouth would cause much problems like to anyones agriculturally based economy . Less educated people , rough types as you poit out , might regard an actual ocean between the frighteningly disease ridden British market and Irelands as a good idea . But of course theyre probably " Oirish" , so wouldnt really know what they were on about .

saoranach

Interesting thread seeing as tomorrow is the anniversary of Francis Hughes death on hungerstrike in 1981.

People are entitled to their opinions but whenever i hear comments like leave the north to itself etc it sickens me

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Border-Rat wrote: »

I didn't ask you what you'd expect, I asked you how you'd feel about it. Can you answer the question or not?

COMPLETELY INDIFFERENT. Happy?

O'Connassa wrote:

"The people of Ireland are ready to become a portion of The Empire provided they be made so in reality and not in name alone; they are ready to become a kind of West Briton if made so in benefits and justice; but if not, we are Irishmen again." - Daniel O'Connell

Any clearer?

Not really, no. I still don't see how I'm classed as being part of "The Empire", or how being a "West Briton" benefits me. If anything, Britain is even more conservative then Ireland is and I hate conservatism.

O'Coonassa

kreuzberger wrote: »

Less educated people , rough types as you poit out , might regard an actual ocean between the frighteningly disease ridden British market and Irelands as a good idea . But of course theyre probably " Oirish" , so wouldnt really know what they were on about .

The Unionists were begging to be allowed to be Irish in previous outbreaks.