Is a peaceful 32 united ireland possible

thehighground

McArmalite wrote: »

"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.

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.

I was only a child at the time, but I remember well the horror of the time and seeing the huge refugee camps down in Kilworth on the TV at the time. This is never mentioned nowadays. Do you know how many ended up in those camps by any chance? And what happened to those who fleed - did they go back to Derry?

guinnessdrinker

thehighground wrote: »

I was only a child at the time, but I remember well the horror of the time and seeing the huge refugee camps down in Kilworth on the TV at the time. This is never mentioned nowadays. Do you know how many ended up in those camps by any chance? And what happened to those who fleed - did they go back to Derry?

Didn't know there was a refugee camp in Kilworth but there definitely were refugee camps in Gormanstown, Co. Meath and Finner Camp in Co. Donegal.

luckyfrank

If im honest i dont like the way some nationalist/republicans are so unwilling to show they can comprimise. What i am sure about is that we will never see a peaceful united ireland with a dublin goverment with uniosits coming down to dublin waving the tri-color

Comprimise is essential and i believe the people with a moderate out-look far out-weigh people who are extreme in out-look its just that those who have an extreme view are louder than the moderate many

Zambia

Erin the North has always been swayed by a few knuckle dragging eejits , wether the knuckles are green or blue.

I would love to see a united Ireland but at present with the mindset of the Unionist population it will not happen. They are a pretty simple lot they see things black and blue they want no part of compromise because comprise is the end of everything that they stand for . There is no such thing as a little surrender it could not be sold , the face of unionism the south sees is far removed from the pandering to the lowest common denominator that the DUP & co displays to its core support.

I once believed there was a compromise to be had with loyalism ,I now admit I was wrong oh so wrong. You would have more luck explaining quantum theory to a baboon.

The only way to a United Ireland is by the prolonged peace process till our great grand kids realise they can live together. Or someone else invades the two nations and we are forced to fight a common enemy.

Acacia

djpbarry wrote: »

What it originally was? A nation under British rule?

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

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.

Gibraltar is British, is it not?

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?

1. No, what it originally was- four provinces or 32 counties, where you didn't drive an hour up the road and end up in a ''different country''.

2. Yes, but it is on the island of Ireland- on Irish land- containing Irish people- who want to be part of Ireland. What's not to understand here?

3. Yes, the ''Irish'' people in Canada, Australia. etc, are emigrants to those the lands. The people who consider themselves Irish in the North, are actually Irish (Irish parents, grand-parents, great-grandparents, etc) who have lived their generations. Added to the fact that Canada, Australia, etc were never actually part of Ireland in the first place, why should they be re-united?

4. Gibraltar- why should it be British? Because somebody in Westminster decided it? So any piece of land on the globe no matter how far flung can be called British? What of the mainland of Spain, which was my original question? Why shouldn't that be called British? Because going by your logic any place is up-for-grabs.

5. Yeah, well for several hundred years before the British robbed N.I. it was a part of Ireland. Just because you steal something it doesn't make it yours.

I find it funny that all your arguments about how Ireland shouldn't be united with NI would actually make far more sense if applied to how NI shouldn't be united with Britain.

luckyfrank

This is the SDLP'S vision of a united ireland and pretty much sums up how i feel on the issue

http://www.sdlp.ie/policy_details.php?id=78

Sand

You know, Ive just been watching Schindlers List. And of course, it provoked the "How the **** can this have happened? How the **** could people have thought this was a good idea?" kinda thoughts that I find are inevitable when you consider the scale of the thing. Why is the question that comes to mind. It made no rational sense. It makes no rational sense. Yet people went along with it .... just because.

It didnt have to be justified. It couldnt be justified. But they did it anyway. I mean if you could sit down some 1940s Nazi and say something like "Why does it make sense to attempt to wipe out the Jewish people? What possible benefit will it bring you? Whats the rational logic behind it?" youd probably only get some terribly poor answer that revolves around "Well, just because!" Even former Nazis interviewed today...they cant justify why they did what they did. It makes no sense. Never made any sense.

"Yeah, great, but whats this got to do with a United Ireland Sand" you ask?

Well, it strikes me that when you sit down a present day Provo and ask them for the rational logic of uniting Ireland, for taking on the immense costs and internal security strife of policing Northern Ireland, the immense cultural clash of having July 12th as a national holiday and God Save The Queen as the second anthemn and so on and ask them...well, whats the payoff? Whats the rational reasoning behind this? What can we get that we cant achieve currently? And the response you get is "Well, just because!" It just makes no rational sense whatsoever. And never will. I mean christ, can you imagine Dail Eireann taken over with Sinn Fein and the DUP arguing over ministers changing "Northern Ireland" to "the north of Ireland" or "the 6 counties" in political documents. Jesus christ, the childishness of it.

And the Provos will never, ever, ever be able to achieve a united Ireland. It would require compromise. And Provos, if anything else, have demonstrated even on this thread that compromise for them only goes as far as letting the Prods reach the boats to Britain alive.

I have found the majority of catholics up here have the attitude "They never gave a f*ck about us down there"

Thats not an attitude, its a recognition of fact.

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!

WAS. Was a gaelic country. About 500 years ago.

More Irish people were worried this summer about where Cristiano Ronaldo would be playing his football this year than can speak Gaelic. There are more Chinese speakers in Ireland than there are people who can speak Gaelic.

Irish culture has moved on. It wasnt frozen in 1588. Gaelic was once the dominant strand of Irish culture, now its at best a heritage, amongst many others....including Ulster Scots, the Anglo Irish and newer influences on Irish culture.

Zambia

luckyfrank wrote: »

This is the SDLP'S vision of a united ireland and pretty much sums up how i feel on the issue

http://www.sdlp.ie/policy_details.php?id=78

As much as I support the SDLP , its aim stated here is a united Ireland the complete polar opposite of what Unionists want. If the union is broken then unionists lose , they don't want to lose (nobody does). Its not they wont feel part of a United Ireland they abhor the very idea of not being in the union.

tallus

Sand wrote: »

You know, Ive just been watching Schindlers List. And of course, it provoked the "How the **** can this have happened? How the **** could people have thought this was a good idea?" kinda thoughts that I find are inevitable when you consider the scale of the thing. Why is the question that comes to mind. It made no rational sense. It makes no rational sense. Yet people went along with it .... just because.

It didnt have to be justified. It couldnt be justified. But they did it anyway. I mean if you could sit down some 1940s Nazi and say something like "Why does it make sense to attempt to wipe out the Jewish people? What possible benefit will it bring you? Whats the rational logic behind it?" youd probably only get some terribly poor answer that revolves around "Well, just because!" Even former Nazis interviewed today...they cant justify why they did what they did. It makes no sense. Never made any sense.

"Yeah, great, but whats this got to do with a United Ireland Sand" you ask?

Well, it strikes me that when you sit down a present day Provo and ask them for the rational logic of uniting Ireland, for taking on the immense costs and internal security strife of policing Northern Ireland, the immense cultural clash of having July 12th as a national holiday and God Save The Queen as the second anthemn and so on and ask them...well, whats the payoff? Whats the rational reasoning behind this? What can we get that we cant achieve currently? And the response you get is "Well, just because!" It just makes no rational sense whatsoever. And never will. I mean christ, can you imagine Dail Eireann taken over with Sinn Fein and the DUP arguing over ministers changing "Northern Ireland" to "the north of Ireland" or "the 6 counties" in political documents. Jesus christ, the childishness of it.

And the Provos will never, ever, ever be able to achieve a united Ireland. It would require compromise. And Provos, if anything else, have demonstrated even on this thread that compromise for them only goes as far as letting the Prods reach the boats to Britain alive.



Thats not an attitude, its a recognition of fact.



WAS. Was a gaelic country. About 500 years ago.

More Irish people were worried this summer about where Cristiano Ronaldo would be playing his football this year than can speak Gaelic. There are more Chinese speakers in Ireland than there are people who can speak Gaelic.

Irish culture has moved on. It wasnt frozen in 1588. Gaelic was once the dominant strand of Irish culture, now its at best a heritage, amongst many others....including Ulster Scots, the Anglo Irish and newer influences on Irish culture.

haha what planet are you on mate.
Your're trying to equate the provos with the murder of 6,000,000 jews ?
I know you'd probably like to attribute the murders to them but lets be honest, it's a bit of a stretch to say the least.
I'd hate to live on planet sand
fortunately most of us live in the real world, where people actually try to move on and not
dwell on the past.
You can keep that chip on your shoulder.

luckyfrank

Zambia232 wrote: »

As much as I support the SDLP , its aim stated here is a united Ireland the complete polar opposite of what Unionists want. If the union is broken then unionists lose , they don't want to lose (nobody does). Its not they wont feel part of a United Ireland they abhor the very idea of not being in the union.

Not everybody abhor's the idea...... yes its a given there is alot of unionists who abhor even the thought of it but im certain there is a large middle-ground of unionism that although obviously pro-union would be willing if the conditions were right to consider some sort of a united ireland

Sand

haha what planet are you on mate.
Your're trying to equate the provos with the murder of 6,000,000 jews ?
I know you'd probably like to attribute the murders to them but lets be honest, it's a bit of a stretch to say the least.

You know, when I made my post I wondered if it would cause confusion. But then I said, nah. People who post here usually can grasp the English language. Even Provos. But it seems Provos ultra-nationalism extends to wilful ignorance of the English language.

Guess I was wrong. First time for everything.

Kama

Your're trying to equate the provos with the murder of 6,000,000 jews

Well done on jumping for the Nazi part and ignoring the main thrust of Sand's argument, which was the utter unfeasibility of attempting to annex the North against the wishes of the Unionist component of the population, politically or economically...Besides the idea of an island as a 'natural' territory, we could talk as much of IrishBritish land- containing Irish British people- who want to be part of Ireland Britain. What's not to understand here?

There's no real alternative to compromise tbh.

djpbarry

Acacia wrote: »

No, what it originally was- four provinces or 32 counties...

...under British rule, wasn't it?

Acacia wrote: »

Yes, but it is on the island of Ireland...

The fact that Ireland is an island is totally irrelevant.

Acacia wrote: »

...on Irish land...

Not all of it is.

Acacia wrote: »

...containing Irish people...

And British people too.

Acacia wrote: »

The people who consider themselves Irish in the North, are actually Irish (Irish parents, grand-parents, great-grandparents, etc) who have lived their generations.

Many people in Northern Ireland, who consider themselves British, are actually British (British parents, grand-parents, great-grandparents, etc) who’s families have lived there for generations.

Acacia wrote: »

Gibraltar- why should it be British? Because somebody in Westminster decided it?

Because the people of Gibraltar want to be British.

Acacia wrote: »

So any piece of land on the globe no matter how far flung can be called British?

In theory, yes.

Acacia wrote: »

What of the mainland of Spain, which was my original question? Why shouldn't that be called British?

Because the people of Spain do not wish it.

Acacia wrote: »

Yeah, well for several hundred years before the British robbed N.I. it was a part of Ireland.

So the history of the world over the last several hundred years should be undone and all international borders should be redrawn to what they were in, what, the 1500's? Earlier? Later?

Acacia wrote: »

Just because you steal something it doesn't make it yours.

I think you'll find that anyone who was guilty of "stealing" any part of Ireland is long gone.

Acacia wrote: »

I find it funny that all your arguments about how Ireland shouldn't be united...

Sorry, when did I say that?

Acacia

Kama wrote: »

Besides the idea of an island as a 'natural' territory, we could talk as much of IrishBritish land- containing Irish British people- who want to be part of Ireland Britain. What's not to understand here?

There's no real alternative to compromise tbh.

It was Ireland first. If they want to live in Britain, they can live in England if it bothers them that much.

Acacia

djpbarry wrote: »

...under British rule, wasn't it?

The fact that Ireland is an island is totally irrelevant.

Not all of it is.

And British people too.

Many people in Northern Ireland, who consider themselves British, are actually British (British parents, grand-parents, great-grandparents, etc) who’s families have lived there for generations.

Because the people of Gibraltar want to be British.

In theory, yes.

Because the people of Spain do not wish it.

So the history of the world over the last several hundred years should be undone and all international borders should be redrawn to what they were in, what, the 1500's? Earlier? Later?

I think you'll find that anyone who was guilty of "stealing" any part of Ireland is long gone.

Sorry, when did I say that?

1. Yes, under a foreign occupying force that wasn't wanted by the native people.

2. Don't see how it's irrelevant tbh. It was all one land at one stage. The British decided to call one part of it British.

3. I believe it's Irish land.

4. If they want to be British, why are they staying in Ireland?

5. Living there for generations after they were planted on the natives' land. Why can't they integrate? If it's such a big deal to be British, why stay in Ireland?

6. Good for them, not everyone in NI wants to be British.

7. So it's okay for any country to stake a claim to any piece of land they want?

8. And not everybody in NI wishes to be British.

9. It's hard to say. But having 32 counties rightfully in Ireland would be a good start. I don't know about the rest of the world.

10. Yes, they are, so why can't their descendants, the ones claiming British ancestry, let go of this and assimilate? Talk about having your cake and eating it. It's rightfully Irish land. If they want to be Irish they're more than welcome, if not, then sorry, they can leave.

11. You're entire argument has been against the unifying of Ireland.

Kama

It's exactly this assimilationist approach that unfortortunately means there can't be a united Ireland (from the nationalist side, rather than the Unionist).

Points 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10 can all be flipped from Irish/British, and hence 11 as well...The majority of your stated argument works equally to justify the harder side of the Unionist position.

luckyfrank

The problem for me at least is unionism's dislike, distrust, and utter distain for sinn fein and i can understand why after all its was there military wing who for decades bombed, shot and killed there community i believe that the DUP would be willing to work with the SDLP in storment even better if it was the UUP and the SDLP in power after the GFA both sides polorised to the detriment of progress in the north

What is the feeling within unionism at the moment towards the UUP ?

Is there a chance of a resurgence in the next general/assembley elections for them ?

My gut feeling is that there will be big swing from sinn fein to the SDLP in the next elections i think the people up north are starting to realise that sinn fein are unable to deliever on social/economic promises and even more important cannont deliever a united ireland ' UNIONISM WILL NOT WORK WITH SINN FEIN'

Acacia

Kama wrote: »

It's exactly this assimilationist approach that unfortortunately means there can't be a united Ireland (from the nationalist side, rather than the Unionist).

Points 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10 can all be flipped from Irish/British, and hence 11 as well...The majority of your stated argument works equally to justify the harder side of the Unionist position.

But you're forgetting the very important first point. It was originally Ireland.


Simplified---->

Irish land taken off the natives. Redistributed to foreign planters. Planters' descendants still want to maintain a link to their homeland. Descendants of the natives want to be part of Ireland.

I can see your point, I just don't think it's fair to the Irish side to not get own land back, just because the Unionists want to keep a link with a foreign country.

The assimilation thing- if recent immigrants can assimilate into Irish society, why can't the Unionists? If you want to be British, why stay in six counties of Ireland?
It has never made sense to me. I agree that eventually the only way for a United Ireland would be some sort of compromise. But I wouldn't be too happy about having the 12th as a national holiday or being in the Commonwealth.

Zambia

luckyfrank wrote: »

Not everybody abhor's the idea...... yes its a given there is alot of unionists who abhor even the thought of it but im certain there is a large middle-ground of unionism that although obviously pro-union would be willing if the conditions were right to consider some sort of a united ireland

I dont see it mate,really dont. However if your right there would still be enough unionist die hards to cause major issues. Look at it this way , imagine if the idea was proposed that ireland be re-united and as a whole join the united kingdom. with a large amount of self determination like Scotland.

djpbarry

Acacia wrote: »

Yes, under a foreign occupying force that wasn't wanted by the native people.

The point is, Ireland was only ever united under British rule.

Acacia wrote: »

Don't see how it's irrelevant tbh. It was all one land at one stage.

So every island in the world should only consist of one single nation? That's just plain daft.

Acacia wrote: »

I believe it's Irish land.

You can believe whatever you want, but it doesn't change the fact that Northern Ireland is British and has been for hundreds of years. As I said earlier, Northern Ireland has been British loner than the US has been American.

Acacia wrote: »

If they want to be British, why are they staying in Ireland? Living there for generations after they were planted on the natives' land. Why can't they integrate? If it's such a big deal to be British, why stay in Ireland?

Why do you assume that everyone in Northern Ireland that wants to remain part of the UK is directly descended from the original planters? And even if they are, why should it matter? As I’ve already said on this thread, there is evidence that less than a quarter of the population of Northern Ireland wants to unite with the Republic.

Acacia wrote: »

Good for them, not everyone in NI wants to be British.

The majority do.

Acacia wrote: »

So it's okay for any country to stake a claim to any piece of land they want?

If, hypothetically speaking, the majority of people in Spain want to be part of Britain and the majority of people in Britain want Spain to be part of Britain, then why shouldn't Spain become part of Britain?

Acacia wrote: »

It's hard to say. But having 32 counties rightfully in Ireland would be a good start.

That's a cop-out. Either we revert to the state of affairs as they were several hundred years ago or we don't.

Acacia wrote: »

You're entire argument has been against the unifying of Ireland.

No, I have merely been pointing out the flaws in your arguments for a united Ireland.

Acacia

djpbarry wrote: »

The point is, Ireland was only ever united under British rule.

So every island in the world should only consist of one single nation? That's just plain daft.

You can believe whatever you want, but it doesn't change the fact that Northern Ireland is British and has been for hundreds of years. As I said earlier, Northern Ireland has been British loner than the US has been American.

Why do you assume that everyone in Northern Ireland that wants to remain part of the UK is directly descended from the original planters? And even if they are, why should it matter? As I’ve already said on this thread, there is evidence that less than a quarter of the population of Northern Ireland wants to unite with the Republic.

The majority do.

If, hypothetically speaking, the majority of people in Spain want to be part of Britain and the majority of people in Britain want Spain to be part of Britain, then why shouldn't Spain become part of Britain?

That's a cop-out. Either we revert to the state of affairs as they were several hundred years ago or we don't.

No, I have merely been pointing out the flaws in your arguments for a united Ireland.

1. Yes, foreign rule that we had to fight for hundreds of years to over-throw. Are you suggesting that the only possible way for ireland to be united is under british rule?

2. If the populations so wish it, it's not daft at all.

3. Ireland has 32 counties, six of which are the makey-uppy 'country' of NI, but are actually in Ireland. That's it.

4. I believe they wanted to be linked with Britain because of ancestral heritage, national identity, etc,etc. It matters because if it is so important to them to be British, they can live in England. If they don't have a problem with being Irish, then why can't there be a United Ireland?

5. And there's a sizeable amount that don't. Not forgetting the people in the Republic who want to join with the North in an independent 32-county republic.

6. Then they could if they wished become part of Britain. But there's no cultural or ethnic links between Spain and Britain, it would be rather unfeasible. But my original point was, geographically - speaking, Britain has as much right to Spain, as it does Northern Ireland. And if it's not okay to take over Spain because the population don't want it, why was it okay to demand ownership of NI? And if you agree that this is wrong, then why is it okay hold on to the past and keep this injust state of affairs going, which wasn't right in the past and isnt right now?

7. Not a cop-out. If we have to 'revert to several hundred years ago' then so be it. The question is if the majority of people on the island of Ireland want a 32-county republic here and now, then why not?

8. Yes I'm aware of that. You're the one who felt the need to ask what you were doing-

djpbarry wrote: »

Sorry, when did I say that?

I feel like I'm going around in circles here. Northern Ireland is Irish. Just because the British decided to kick out the natives a few hundred years ago and ''make it British'' it doesn't make it so. Sorry if this isn't what you want to hear.

JWAD

Acacia wrote: »

2. If the populations so wish it, it's not daft at all

That isn't the point of the question. The question is would it be possible by peaceful means. Nothing in history would indicate that the answer would be 'yes'. What people fear is a full circle of what has gone on since the 60s.

Acacia wrote: »

3. Ireland has 32 counties, six of which are the makey-uppy 'country' of NI, but are actually in Ireland. That's it

No, its not it. 6 of them are part of the UK.

Acacia wrote: »

5. And there's a sizeable amount that don't. Not forgetting the people in the Republic who want to join with the North in an independent 32-county republic

You don't know how many people do. Nobody does.

Acacia wrote: »

Not a cop-out. If we have to 'revert to several hundred years ago' then so be it. The question is if the majority of people on the island of Ireland want a 32-county republic here and now, then why not?

Majority or not, a change in the status quo (ie. a compromise) would kick off the violence again. It only takes a few taking it upon themselves to kill just like those animals who blew up Omagh town centre.

Lets be realistic about this. United Ireland by peaceful means in our lifetime? Impossible, in my opinion. I know none of us will be around to find out. The situation about now sure beats the stuffing out of what went on before.

djpbarry

Acacia wrote: »

Are you suggesting that the only possible way for ireland to be united is under british rule?

No, I'm suggesting Ireland was not united prior to British rule.

Acacia wrote: »

Ireland has 32 counties, six of which are the makey-uppy 'country' of NI, but are actually in Ireland.

The geographic region of Ireland has 32 counties; 26 constitute the Republic, 6 are part of the UK. That's it.

Acacia wrote: »

I believe they wanted to be linked with Britain because of ancestral heritage, national identity, etc,etc.

You don’t think there may be political and/or economic reasons?

Acacia wrote: »

And there's a sizeable amount that don't.

Not sizeable enough; only about 23% according to the survey I linked.

Acacia wrote: »

...why was it okay to demand ownership of NI?

It wasn't, but there's a whole list of things that happened throughout the history of the world that were not "ok", for want of a better expression. Trying to undo all of those things is simply impossible. A far more practical solution is to try and resolve differences and move forward.

Acacia wrote: »

Not a cop-out. If we have to 'revert to several hundred years ago' then so be it.

It is a cop-out if you think reversing history should only apply to this island. Of course, I'm sure you realise the impracticality of attempting to reverse several centuries of world history.

Acacia wrote: »

The question is if the majority of people on the island of Ireland want a 32-county republic here and now, then why not?

Methinks you need to consult the text of the Good Friday Agreement.

Acacia wrote: »

Northern Ireland is Irish.

Northern Ireland is British, or if you like, Northern Irish.

luckyfrank

Acacia and djpbarry are both right obviously the 6 counties constitutionly under british control and for quite sometime but no irishman will ever give up claims to the 6 counties we believe that these counties are apart of ireland and should be goverend by an irish goverment i understand completly the counter arguement however look at it this way

Say ireland invaded northern england and held territory there for hundreds of years and even thousends upon thousends of irishmen and women moved there and settled you would still consider the land english because the original inhabitans were not irish and no matter how much time has passed 100 500 or even 1000 years the land will forever remain english the same applies to the north of ireland the only way northern ireland would be considered british is with the destruction of the irish people. It will always be considered irish by the irish people always

Sand

no irishman will ever give up claims to the 6 counties we believe that these counties are apart of ireland and should be goverend by an irish goverment

This Irishman will.

the land will forever remain english

Land doesnt have a nationality. Hills dont have passports.

getz

1- northern ireland has a irish goverment--2-spain sold gibraltar to the british -in return they got one mediterranean island plus florida the spanish sold off florida to the indians-most gibraltar people first came from malta-plus nearly all kids born between 1940 1945 from gibraltar parents have been born in ireland----history lesson--want to know more -ask getz

luckyfrank

Sand why do you not want your country to be united ?

djpbarry

luckyfrank wrote: »

...no irishman will ever give up claims to the 6 counties...

I think you'll find that, as a nation, we have; in 1999 we voted to remove this from the constitution:
"The national territory consists of the whole island of Ireland, its islands and the territorial seas."

luckyfrank wrote: »

Say ireland invaded northern england and held territory there for hundreds of years and even thousends upon thousends of irishmen and women moved there and settled you would still consider the land english...

As Sand has already said, "land" does not have a nationality; the inhabitants of the land confer a nationality upon themselves.

luckyfrank

I know articles 2 and 3 were removed from the constitution but lets not be silly here what is land without people the irish goverment just re-worded it

Lads i respect both of your opinion's but id be a little embarressed to call you my fellow country men i dont know why and cant fathom why anybody who is irish wouldn not want to see his country unite peacefully

Sand

Sand why do you not want your country to be united ?

There is no benefit, and economic, political and social costs of open ended scope with the very, very real possibility of immense bloodshed and suffering due to the inevitable violence.

Anyway, Northern Ireland is not my country. I think I visited the place once for a short while when I was very young. I dont think I am deprived.

Now, please explain to me - in detail - the real benefits of annexing Northern Ireland and how the net effect will be a massive gain for Ireland worth all the costs and bloodshed? Explain to me what compromises are you going to make to appease the Northern Unionists?

But you wont be able to. Itll just come down to "Shure, just because, like".