Is a peaceful 32 united ireland possible

LordSutch

In answer to Acacia's last post - And yet, you want a Political Union with the One Million British people up North (on this island) where they "Give up" their Ethnicity, Culture, Nationality, & Birthright

Acacia

Camelot wrote: »

And yet, you want a Political Union with the One Million British people up North (on this island) where they "Give up" their Ethnicity, Culture, Nationality, & Birthright

For the sake of uniting with the rest of the population who were forced to ''give up'' their ethnicity, culture, nationality and birthright due to the force of a foreign occupying power? Yes. I do.

LordSutch

And theres me wasting my time, talking about compromise . . .

Good Night.

Acacia

Camelot wrote: »

And theres me wasting my time, talking about compromise . . .

Good Night.

I wouldn't say you were wasting your time. If a situation were to arise where a United Ireland was possible, who knows, I may change mind. But I'm talking of a hypothetical situation, where ideally there wouldn't be a link with Britain.

Kama

So...you're saying that imposing a political union by occupation against the wishes of people living there is ok?

I guess its ok as long as its a union 'we' agree with, rather than one of those nasty dirty ones other folks do...

If the North has taught us anything, its that we compromise, or we kill each other. Take your pick...

Acacia

Kama wrote: »

So...you're saying that imposing a political union by occupation against the wishes of people living there is ok?

I guess its ok as long as its a union 'we' agree with, rather than one of those nasty dirty ones other folks do...

If the North has taught us anything, its that we compromise, or we kill each other. Take your pick...

But it's returning the country to what it was originally. You can't really compare that to the Act of Union.

The North is a part of Ireland. That's it.

I'd pick compromising over bloodshed any day. It's just ideally I wouldn't like to be in the Commonwealth or a have the 12th as a national holiday.

Erin Go Brath

Zambia232 wrote: »

There can never be a peacefull 32 county solution ..try and live in the North in a unionist enclave and its plain to see. They link to the Union is all they have in some areas.

Unionist murals are still touched up , with new hooded gunmen being painted on walls. Slogans of not surrendering and never never never still appear.

Oh really! A few knuckle dragging backwoodsmen aren't going to stop the inevitable momentum gathering towards a United Ireland. When Ireland becomes fully independent, militiant unionist types will quickly realise they cant hide behind the Brit army and RUC/PSNI anymore. They will be subject to the full rigours of the law, and they will think twice about insurrection against the Irish state. The days of carrying out atrocities with almost impunity will be well gone. If they love Britain so much theres plenty of ferries and planes going there, i would suggest they catch a one-way ticket if the thoughts of being part of a 'fenian' state is too much to bear!

What unionists need to get their head around is that the north is not British in perpetuity, it only remains under British jurisdiction as an interim measure until a nationalist majority emerges. This is enshrined in law!

zuroph

theres no need for one.

Erin Go Brath

zuroph wrote: »

theres no need for one.

Of course there is. Ireland needs to gain her full sovereignty and her dignity and become a proper nation.

zuroph

nope. its a country. its fairly well recognised. it doesnt matter if another 6 counties are added to its landmass. wont make much of a difference. its over, let it go.

Erin Go Brath

zuroph wrote: »

nope. its a country. its fairly well recognised. it doesnt matter if another 6 counties are added to its landmass. wont make much of a difference. its over, let it go.

Whats over There are more nationalists today than ever before including the patriotic era of 1916. The only difference is that political solutions have replaced insurrection in the Ireland of the 21st century. There is a unity by stealth happening at the moment as the seperate jurisdictions of our nation become closer and closer with cross border bodies, and other links. Political unity is but a couple of decades away, and the vast majority of the Irish nation will embrace it as a great day for our nation when it does finally come.

Fratton Fred

Acacia wrote: »

But it's returning the country to what it was originally. You can't really compare that to the Act of Union.

The North is a part of Ireland. That's it.

I'd pick compromising over bloodshed any day. It's just ideally I wouldn't like to be in the Commonwealth or a have the 12th as a national holiday.

firstly, let me point out that joining the commonwealth gives Ireland a lot less of a political tie to Britain than it currently has under the EU. Britain does not have any form of control over commonwealth members, other than those that still choose to have the Queen as their head of state and even then, the control is symbolic. As I said earlier, take India as an example, India is a fully democratic, independant republic that is a major member of the Commonwealth.

Don't think that Ireland is alone in this, you want to restore Ireland to the way it was originally, or the way it was under British rule? they are two different things. You also have to remember that there are score of countries who are not in the same geographic or political shape they were 200 years ago, let alone 800. You only have to look at Italy, Germany and france to see that.

As I said on the other thread, this needs time and it needs compromise. Over time the differences between the two state will slowly become less obvious, the UK will adopt the euro and road signs will change to Km. it is no coincidence that Sinn Fein are actively campaigning for an Irish version of the NHS, "Free" health care is a big obstacle to unity.

Once this is all in place, what will the diffeence be? I can see a day when ireland becomes united but the change makes so little difference no one notices. That is how i believe this will work without violence

djpbarry

Acacia wrote: »

Yes, but the nation has been divided in two from what it originally was.

What it originally was? A nation under British rule?

Acacia wrote: »

No, it would be an artificial divide. There is no natural boundary between the North and South.

There's no natural boundary between a lot of neighbouring countries, but that doesn't mean they should be united.

Acacia wrote: »

Yes, but they're not necessarily of Irish ancestry, unlike the people in the North.

Argentina, Canada, Australia, Britain and USA all have significant populations of people with Irish ancestry; that doesn't mean any of them should be politically united with Ireland.

Acacia wrote: »

Nope, but judging by your logic, Westminster would have as much right to govern Spain as Northern Ireland. Sure there's only a body of water dividing Spain from England after all?

Gibraltar is British, is it not?

Acacia wrote: »

When will Unionists realize- Northern Ireland is British only on paper.

How long does Northern Ireland have to be under British rule before it becomes British in reality? I would have thought several hundred years would be sufficient. Look at it this way; Northern Ireland has been British longer than the US has been an independent country. So if Northern Ireland is "really" Irish, then surely the US is "really" British?

stovelid

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

Oh really! A few knuckle dragging backwoodsmen aren't going to stop the inevitable momentum gathering towards a United Ireland. When Ireland becomes fully independent, militiant unionist types will quickly realise they cant hide behind the Brit army and RUC/PSNI anymore. They will be subject to the full rigours of the law, and they will think twice about insurrection against the Irish state. The days of carrying out atrocities with almost impunity will be well gone. If they love Britain so much theres plenty of ferries and planes going there, i would suggest they catch a one-way ticket if the thoughts of being part of a 'fenian' state is too much to bear!

What unionists need to get their head around is that the north is not British in perpetuity, it only remains under British jurisdiction as an interim measure until a nationalist majority emerges. This is enshrined in law!

Why did you only bother to address the parts of Zambia's analysis that referred to loyalists?.

LordSutch

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

When Ireland becomes fully independent, militiant unionist types will quickly realise they cant hide behind the Brit army and RUC/PSNI anymore. They will be subject to the full rigours of the law, and they will think twice about insurrection against the Irish state. If they love Britain so much theres plenty of ferries and planes going there, i would suggest they catch a one-way ticket if the thoughts of being part of a 'fenian' state is too much to bear!

Charming indeed :rolleyes: but not very likely to create a Stable and Peaceful United Ireland is it, specially if its not really 'United' seeing as all of us Unionists with British passports will have taken a one way ticket to Britain.

JWAD

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

There are more nationalists today than ever before including the patriotic era of 1916. The only difference is that political solutions have replaced insurrection in the Ireland of the 21st century

How would you know that exactly? Referenda returned an opinion of compromise. Not 'nationalism'

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

There is a unity by stealth happening at the moment as the seperate jurisdictions of our nation become closer and closer with cross border bodies, and other links

Again, this is called compromise.

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

Political unity is but a couple of decades away, and the vast majority of the Irish nation will embrace it as a great day for our nation when it does finally come.

All well and good if it ever happened (I don't think it will, myself) but what happens when those not in this "vast majority" you mention take the island full circle again and take to violence?

Isn't it 'Erin go Bragh', by the way and not 'Brath'? I think its shameful the way plastic-republicans badger the Irish language.
:rolleyes:

Isn't it 'Erin go Bragh', by the way and not 'Brath'? I think its shameful the way plastic-republicans badger the Irish language.
:rolleyes:[/QUOTE]


both versions are equally as right, or as wrong,

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

Speakers of the Irish language assume that the phrase is a corruption of the Irish "Éire go brách", or "Éireann go Brách", which would be pronounced /ˈeːrʲə gə brɑːx/. The term "brách" is equivalent to "eternity" or "end of time", meaning the phrase may be translated literally as: "Ireland until eternity" or "Ireland until the end (of time)". The form "Éirinn go bráth" or "Éire go bráth" which also means "Ireland forever" or literally "Ireland until the Day of Judgment", is also used in Irish.

JWAD

Deleted User wrote: »

both versions are equally as right, or as wrong,

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

Speakers of the Irish language assume that the phrase is a corruption of the Irish "Éire go brách", or "Éireann go Brách", which would be pronounced /ˈeːrʲə gə brɑːx/. The term "brách" is equivalent to "eternity" or "end of time", meaning the phrase may be translated literally as: "Ireland until eternity" or "Ireland until the end (of time)". The form "Éirinn go bráth" or "Éire go bráth" which also means "Ireland forever" or literally "Ireland until the Day of Judgment", is also used in Irish.

Yep butchered by people's spelling inabilities. As I thought. Ironic that 'Erin go "brath" ' is actually using a name in what could be best described as 'Ulster-Scots'! :eek:

JWAD

JWAD wrote: »

Yep butchered by people's spelling inabilities. As I thought. Ironic that 'Erin go "brath" ' is actually using a name in what could be best described as 'Ulster-Scots'! :eek:

No, read the article, it certainly is not Ulster Scots, and equally as valid, as "Erin go Bragh", neither use fadas for instance, and would be best regarded as phonetic versions of the Irish.
However, as both phrases in English originated before Irish was standardised, who is to say they are wrong, even if the don't agree with the modern spelling or grammer.

Somewhat off the thead, but as an Irish speaker, I hate to see the language being used as a tool to belittle someone.

JWAD

Deleted User wrote: »

No, read the article, it certainly is not Ulster Scots, and equally as valid, as "Erin go Bragh", neither use fadas for instance, and would be best regarded as phonetic versions of the Irish.
However, as both phrases in English originated before Irish was standardised, who is to say they are wrong, even if the don't agree with the modern spelling or grammer.

Somewhat off the thead, but as an Irish speaker, I hate to see the language being used as a tool to belittle someone.

I read the article (well, a wiki which, by the way, any old buffer can edit). Thanks and I'll consider myself now informed on the subject.

thehighground

Camelot wrote: »

Charming indeed :rolleyes: but not very likely to create a Stable and Peaceful United Ireland is it, specially if its not really 'United' seeing as all of us Unionists with British passports will have taken a one way ticket to Britain.

Have you any better ideas about how to create a Stable and Peaceful island (note - I've left out the 'United' part) because as far as I can see NI is an undemocratic mess completely dependent on the south of England taxpayer to paper over the cracks. Do you have a Plan B for when they decide they have enough (and as we well know, England always looks after itself first and have been known to back away from their promises).

Are you attracted at all by the possibility that, bearing in mind that Irish Governments have been coalitions for the last 20 odd years, that there is a real possibility that if former unionist parties got themselves together, they could actually be running the whole country as a junior party in Goverment. Even having a say who is Prime Minister/Taoiseach would be a giant step up for unionists.

Or, is it all down to anthems, flags, parades and the commonwealth?

thehighground

djpbarry wrote: »

How long does Northern Ireland have to be under British rule before it becomes British in reality? I would have thought several hundred years would be sufficient. Look at it this way; Northern Ireland has been British longer than the US has been an independent country. So if Northern Ireland is "really" Irish, then surely the US is "really" British?

When a substantial majority (90%) of the population consider themselves to be British perhaps?

LordSutch

thehighground wrote: »

Have you any better ideas about how to create a Stable and Peaceful island (note - I've left out the 'United' part) because as far as I can see NI is an undemocratic mess completely dependent on the south of England taxpayer to paper over the cracks. Do you have a Plan B for when they decide they have enough (and as we well know, England always looks after itself first and have been known to back away from their promises).

The island is now pretty stable, since the IRA called off their recent 35 year campaign, and I honestly believe that the 'Status Quo' currently works fine with the border as it currently stands, & as regards the South of England propping-up NI, it is a fact that all parts of the UK (N.Ireland inc) are dependent on the South of England (& London in particular) . . .

thehighground wrote: »

Are you attracted at all by the possibility that, bearing in mind that Irish Governments have been coalitions for the last 20 odd years, that there is a real possibility that if former unionist parties got themselves together, they could actually be running the whole country as a junior party in Goverment. Even having a say who is Prime Minister/Taoiseach would be a giant step up for unionists.

The prospect of a Part-Unionist government running the whole island seems somewhat fancyful to me, (although I do see where you are coming from), but in reality it just wont happen . . . by the way, those from the DUP/UUP/SDLP/ALLIANCE/etc who do vote in Westminster also have a say in who is in Downing Street, and David Cameron is currently in talks with Lord Trimble about a possible Conservative/UUP "hook-up" in Northern Ireland, so there would be no 'Giant step up for unionists' as you put it, seeing as they already have serious sway about who is Prime Minister.

thehighground wrote: »

Or, is it all down to anthems, flags, parades and the commonwealth?

Yes i'm afraid 'people being people' - Anthems, Flags, Parades are important to all of us (would you sing & stand for GSTQ) at a Rugby match? or would you wave a Union Flag when the Queen visits? my point being that Unionists are British & fervently nationalistic, just as the crowds in Croke Park are with their Tricolours.

As regards the Commonwealth, I think its a serious possability that the Republic will creep back-in (just as we crept out in 49), with even Eamonn Develera's grandson 'Eamon O'Cuiv' suggesting that its time to get back in to the fold (as it were), and if the Republic was back in . . . . then anything is possible!

As a Unionist myself you will see from my previous post#6 that I am quite accommodating (from a moderate point of view) while on the other hand, try having this debate with some hard line Loyalists

Erin Go Brath

Camelot wrote: »

Charming indeed :rolleyes: but not very likely to create a Stable and Peaceful United Ireland is it, specially if its not really 'United' seeing as all of us Unionists with British passports will have taken a one way ticket to Britain.

It would probably be no bad thing to be honest. Lets look at unionist culture. They are primarily the descendents of the planters from 300-400 years ago. Yet they still haven't assimiliated into the country after all this time, and many see themselves as superior :rolleyes: to the natives. I've been at GAA games and have seen teams completely comprised of foreign national kids, who have only arrived on our shores in the last few years, unionists dont want any part of gaelic culture. Newsflash Ireland is a Gaelic country!:eek:
If they live in enclaves that have allegiance to another country well fine, but lets remember they are very much a minority and don't get to call the shots.
There are plenty of ulster unionists who are decent skins i'm sure, but certainly a large amount are sheer bigots huddled away in one corner of the country, calling the rest of the country a foreign country, and looking down on anything gaelic or Irish. If Ireland becomes unified the ulster unionist will either have to work with it it or move on. A simple choice.

LordSutch

Not sure that your attitude would be too helpful in laying the foundations for a 'Peaceful' united ireland ....

Erin Go Brath

Deleted User wrote: »

Isn't it 'Erin go Bragh', by the way and not 'Brath'? I think its shameful the way plastic-republicans badger the Irish language.
:rolleyes:

both versions are equally as right, or as wrong,

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

Speakers of the Irish language assume that the phrase is a corruption of the Irish "Éire go brách", or "Éireann go Brách", which would be pronounced /ˈeːrʲə gə brɑːx/. The term "brách" is equivalent to "eternity" or "end of time", meaning the phrase may be translated literally as: "Ireland until eternity" or "Ireland until the end (of time)". The form "Éirinn go bráth" or "Éire go bráth" which also means "Ireland forever" or literally "Ireland until the Day of Judgment", is also used in Irish.[/QUOTE]

I appreciate the lesson, thanks. The Erin Go Bragh moniker was already in use when i joined boards, so i chose something similar for ease of use. Typing fadas everytime i logged in would be a pain i mo thóin. Au dtuigeann tú?

Erin Go Brath

Camelot wrote: »

Not sure that your attitude would be too helpful in laying the foundations for a 'Peaceful' united ireland ....

I disagree. I'm all in favour of reaching out the hand of friendship to our unionist buddies in the north. When we unify we'll most likely have to have a new flag, anthem etc which i've no problem with. We should try to repatriate any unionists who are too bigoted to live in unified Irish state if that is their wish. Its the only sane option!

Fratton Fred

Camelot wrote: »

The prospect of a Part-Unionist government running the whole island seems somewhat fancyful to me,

Maybe it is, but personally, I would "Break my ****e" laughing if it did happen.:D

McArmalite

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Speaking as a southerner living in Northern Ireland, and considering myself to be very neutral to both sides, I would say there is not a chance in our lifetimes.

I would also say that people down south just cannot understand everything that happened up here. I, myself was ignorant to alot of things until I actually moved here.

There is in fact a deep distrust of the south up here by both Protestants and Catholics. I have had catholics say to me: "you signed us over to the british", "you left us to die up here". You southerners did nothing.

I have found the majority of catholics up here have the attitude "They never gave a f*ck about us down there" and dont paricularly want to join with the south.
Protestants up here, all that I have met anyway would NEVER consider the idea of joining with the south. They feel that it would go against all who have died at the hands of the I.R.A. There is still ALOT of hatred up here and it is only now taking baby steps to an improvement.
Maybe four or five generations from now it will simmer down to a point where people might consider it, but you're having a laugh if you think it will be any time soon.

"Speaking as a southerner living in Northern Ireland, and considering myself to be very neutral to both sides," Partionist fairy tale tripe. You were probably up in the six counties shopping for a day and you take the rest from reading the likes of Eoghan Harris, Ruth Dudley Edwards etc '. Naturally people in the north feel let down by the govt. In August 1969 people in Derry and Belfast etc stayed up all night looking to see the headlights of the Irish army vehicles coming such was the panic and fear as they faced a total onslaught from the RUC and the unionist mobs. But ofcourse, Lynch and the great Fianna Fail stood idly by, despite years of rethoric since partition about getting the six counties back, the hand on the shoulder, I'm with you all the way men etc

luckyfrank wrote: »

im up the north every week as a truck driver and i meet alot of people from both sides and all of those who i met a very moderate in out-look i would say the people you have met would be of the extremist out-look i think a form of a united ireland is possible in 30 or so years

Agree with you there Frank. I'm from the border, the odd time ( with 100% justification )when you talk about the troubles, someone mentions the old Free State letting them down, " standing idly by " etc but you don't get the sort of screaming into your face thing the above has posted.

thehighground

Camelot wrote: »

The island is now pretty stable, since the IRA called off their recent 35 year campaign, and I honestly believe that the 'Status Quo' currently works fine with the border as it currently stands, & as regards the South of England propping-up NI, it is a fact that all parts of the UK (N.Ireland inc) are dependent on the South of England (& London in particular) . . .

NI is paralysed - Stormont is not working - how long can that last? Has anyone told the unionist politicians in Stormont that the IRA have called off their campaign or are they too busy trying to ignore that so that they can continue their divided politics? I find it amusing that you find the only necesssary action needed for everything to be ok was the IRA ceasefire. What about the loyalist paramilitaries (who by the way were responsibible for the biggest civilian atrocities that happened during the troubles). Parliaments in Wales & Scotland are working and neither places receive anything close to what NI has.

The prospect of a Part-Unionist government running the whole island seems somewhat fancyful to me, (although I do see where you are coming from), but in reality it just wont happen . . . by the way, those from the DUP/UUP/SDLP/ALLIANCE/etc who do vote in Westminster also have a say in who is in Downing Street, and David Cameron is currently in talks with Lord Trimble about a possible Conservative/UUP "hook-up" in Northern Ireland, so there would be no 'Giant step up for unionists' as you put it, seeing as they already have serious sway about who is Prime Minister.

Five years ago, I would have said that Ian Paisley would never change like the way he has. You would never have enough MPs in Westminister to get a seat in Government, but its a distinct possibility in Dublin. I actually think the DUPers would get on very well with the FFers. They are both cut from the same cloth! And it is highly unlikely that the number of seats you have will ever have much influence in Westminister.

Yes i'm afraid 'people being people' - Anthems, Flags, Parades are important to all of us (would you sing & stand for GSTQ) at a Rugby match? or would you wave a Union Flag when the Queen visits? my point being that Unionists are British & fervently nationalistic, just as the crowds in Croke Park are with their Tricolours.

I have no problem standing and respecting someone else's anthem, including GSTQ. I would not sing it though, because it is not my anthem. I wouldn't wave the Union Flag for the Queen (although I would welcome her here for a visit), but I don't see why you shouldn't if you wanted to. And tbh, I don't think you see a huge number of tricolours in Croke Park for rugby - more to do with not being big flag wavers in the first place, but could be changing. I always remember being wowed at the number of flags in Lansdowne Road when Ulster played in the Heineken Cup final 1999. I'd never seen anything like it before!

As regards the Commonwealth, I think its a serious possability that the Republic will creep back-in (just as we crept out in 49), with even Eamonn Develera's grandson 'Eamon O'Cuiv' suggesting that its time to get back in to the fold (as it were), and if the Republic was back in . . . . then anything is possible!

I wouldn't be totally against the Commonwealth if it meant so much to be part of the Commonwealth. I'd only be afraid that our politicians might pick up even worse tricks from the Mugabes, etc. of the Commonwealth. Only problem I would have with it is the unelected nature of the Head of State, but other than that, it seems to be a fairly benign institution.

As a Unionist myself you will see from my previous post#6 that I am quite accommodating (from a moderate point of view) while on the other hand, try having this debate with some hard line Loyalists

I always laugh when I hear of 'unionist' & 'accommodating' in the same sentence.:D