Is a peaceful 32 united ireland possible

IRLConor

luckyfrank wrote: »

Sand why do you not want your country to united ?

I don't know what Sand's answer is to that question but mine is:

What real, tangible benefit would it have? Warm fuzzy feelings about nationality are the only ones I can think of. Economically it would be a disaster for us. I just don't feel strongly enough about mere lines on a map to justify spending billions of taxpayers money on a load of people who don't like us very much.

Weighing the advantages against the disadvantages, it's just not worth it.

djpbarry

luckyfrank wrote: »

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

:rolleyes: Yes, open-mindedness and the ability to think critically as an individual without having one's judgement clouded by nationalism is a terrible affliction.

Oh, and Northern Ireland is not my country.

Richard

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 because the original inhabitans were not irish

If that had happened, and northern England was currently part of a country called Ireland, then of course the people there would be Irish.

dante18

djpbarry, all those Tyrone supporters who were in Croke park for the All-Ireland a few weeks ago, they were all foreigners in your opinion?

djpbarry wrote:

Oh, and Northern Ireland is not my country.

France is not my country. Neither is Belgium or Denmark. That's why I'm opposed to any move in the direction of greater European unity.

Ulster is as much a province of Ireland as any of the other three. I consider people from Donegal or Derry to be as Irish as people from Cork or Kerry.

nouveau_4.0

We need a compromise that will please everyone somewhat.

Now I know its not perfect, but how about a United Ireland, 32 counties, under British rule?

McArmalite

Sand wrote: »

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".

Your no more a from Kildare and a nationalist as I'm a unionist. I wouldn't think your views on Ireland and partition etc would be not very common or appreciated in Kildare or anywhere this side of the border, but would be very typical of the views expressed by many of the citizens of good 'loyal' places like Ballymena, Portadown etc ??

So your not a unionist ?? Even from this short little post

" the very, very real possibility of immense bloodshed " The big unionist threat, we'll huff and we'll puff and we'll blow your house down. Here we go, the hard men of 'Ulster' will create a bloodbath from Donegal to Cork etc, you'll all be shot in your beds etc :rolleyes:

" the real benefits of annexing Northern Ireland " Annexing Northern Ireland. Need I say anymore :rolleyes:

luckyfrank wrote: »

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

Because most of them are unionists from the north Frank, unionists who cloak their unionism as a concern about the possible bloodbath etc that would come about if we reunited the country. Camelot has been the only one I've seen yet giving the unionist view and admitting to been a unionist.

Sure their's the odd partionist who in typical Gombeen fashion, their national spirit only goes as far as seeing that nothing is changed. Is it any wonder the south's economy remained so underdeveloped for decades because of the Gombeenism that ran the state that couldn't envisage any change in case it might disturb their backward little world in any possible way.

The Gombeens have almost always opposed every baby step breaking with britain - " I'm a nationalist but.......my pocket.......the country isn't ready for it......." sort of thing :rolleyes:. I remember my grandfather telling me of the knee jerk objections from the usual mob ( Irish Times, Independent, 'opinion makers' i.e. reactionary economists and historians from Trinity etc ) when they decided to issue Irish stamps, get rid of the crown's Governor-General, breaking with sterling etc

But as for the rest of them, in particuliar on this thread Sand, it'll be the case of looks like a duck, waddles like a duck, quacks like a duck - but I'm not a unionist, I mean a duck !!!!!!

JWAD

McArmalite wrote: »

Your no more a from Kildare and a nationalist as I'm a unionist. I wouldn't think your views on Ireland and partition etc would be not very common or appreciated in Kildare or anywhere this side of the border, but would be very typical of the views expressed by many of the citizens of good 'loyal' places like Ballymena, Portadown etc ??

Zzzzzzzzzzzz...............

I'm from Kildare and I don't agree with a word you post. This doesn't make me a unionist, does it? :rolleyes:

McArmalite

JWAD wrote: »

Zzzzzzzzzzzz...............

I'm from Kildare and I don't agree with a word you post. This doesn't make me a unionist, does it? :rolleyes:

Ok your a Gombeen. Does that make you happy ??

LordSutch

Acacia wrote: »

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

Why do you (Acacia) single out England?

ardmacha

The British colonisation of Ireland is an evil project. It has taken a great reservoir of prejudice and fear to keep this project going. But there is nothing supporting it in the 21st century. The British aren't bothered, there is no clear economic rationale behind it other than transition problems, the racist beliefs behind it are much reduced and there is much more likelihood of perception of common identify as there are more immigrants arrive who really are from different cultures. Likewise with religion. The whole thing may stagger on for a while longer, perhaps longer than we would like or even think possible, but its days are numbered.

IRLConor

McArmalite wrote: »

Ok your a Gombeen. Does that make you happy ??

There's another option: someone who doesn't really give a sh*t either way who owns the north and hence isn't going to make any effort to get it.

For me, a united Ireland is a "nice-to-have" but I think the money it would cost would be much better spent elsewhere. The last estimate I saw was that the north costs the UK approximately €9 billion a year. If they're dumb enough to subsidise the place, let them at it. If the eejits in government here got their mitts on it, it would probably cost twice that.

McArmalite: I'll do you a deal, you pay for my share of the cost of Northern Ireland and I'll support any peaceful, equitable solution you come up with. Back of the envelope says that €9B would cost about €4k per head of the workforce per year. You in?

madden1

I would propose that when the 51% comes into effect in Ulster , that the British who planted the problem in Ulster in the first place, should pay to have those who want to leave Ireland resettled back in the England,

JWAD

McArmalite wrote: »

Ok your a Gombeen. Does that make you happy ??

Are you speaking on behalf of the entire county and country again?
Name-calling aside, your grammar is as narrow in scope as your view, by the way ("You're". Not "Your").

GuanYin

Stop the sniping. Keep on topic.

LordSutch

I think a lot of the problem with a view to the very idea of a 'United Ireland' is peoples perceptions of such;- take the Republican vision of a United Ireland (for example) which revolves around a Nation made up of Gaelic speaking, Roman Catholic, Nationalist, Tricolour waving, hunger strike commerating, Black Flag loving, Shinners, singing the Soldiers Song (Amhrán na bhFiann) and winging about the 'mythical' 800 years . . . :rolleyes: or on the other hand, you might take my perception of what a United Ireland (might look like) in an ideal world, where the whole island is back in the Commonwealth, where Irish is not compulsary in School, with a New 'All island-all Ireland Flag', with a new National Anthem which accommodates Unionists, a Multi Cultural- Multi Faith Country, a Country back on normal terms with Britain ......

As a Unionist I could agree to that (at a push), so what say you chaps on the other side of the fence ?

Zambia

This piont gets re-hashed and re-hashed however here's the thing

The south gave up its claim top the territory of the north by removing articles 2&3. Hence the souths population as a whole does not want the North

The Republic Political parties do not run for election in the north event those like FF who are by name a republican party and whose founder spilled Irish blood to prevent the split. Hence they have no interest in the nationalist North voters.

The North even at peace costs a fortune in war/troubles it would cost even more in lives and budget. Hence it is unaffordable.

Most claims to land have a last resort of military action. The irish military as well trained and modern an image it now has would not stand a hope in hells chance of defeating the British armed forces in a invasion of the north. Hence ireland cannot re-claim the north by force.

So in conclusion
The People & Politicans down south don't want the north, they have no means to take it and even if they could they cant afford to keep it.

This leads me to conclude that at present it is not possible. However the future is an unturned page.

Liam Byrne

I wouldn't think your views on Ireland and partition etc would be not very common or appreciated in Kildare or anywhere this side of the border,

Lads - ye missed the double-negative in that sentence!!!! If someone wouldn't think the views are not very common then it means that they think the views are very common indeed.

And - given that I'm a third person that's insulted by the "if you don't agree with me then you're a unionist", the poster in question [if you acknowledge the double-negative] is spot on......the views ARE very common - i.e. most reasonable people who don't have chips on their shoulder and an OTT "republican" mindset.

The North is not a part of "our country". FACT. In one way, it never really was, since the Republic was formed without it, but even since then the people of Ireland voted to relinquish the claim over it.

Loads of people - somewhat understandably - have varying levels of "OK-ness" with that, but it is a fact.

And relating to the original topic, until people first have an acceptance of facts and general public opinions, and agree to respect the democratic public will, then we'll always run into problems.

But if the neanderthals - on both sides - ever do manage to stop their siege mentality and get with the real world, then who knows ?

It's a long time away, though.

Liam Byrne

Camelot wrote: »

I think a lot of the problem with a view to the very idea of a 'United Ireland' is peoples perceptions of such;- take the Republican vision of a United Ireland (for example) which revolves around a Nation made up of Gaelic speaking, Roman Catholic, Nationalist, Tricolour waving, hunger strike commerating, Black Flag loving, Shinners, singing the Soldiers Song (Amhrán na bhFiann) and winging about the 'mythical' 800 years . . . :rolleyes: or on the other hand, you might take my perception of what a United Ireland (might look like) in an ideal world, where the whole island is back in the Commonwealth, where Irish is not compulsary in School, with a New 'All island-all Ireland Flag', with a new National Anthem which accommodates Unionists, a Multi Cultural- Multi Faith Country, a Country back on normal terms with Britain ......

As a Unionist I could agree to that (at a push), so what say you chaps on the other side of the fence ?

Leave out the Commonwealth bit and you might be on to something. The Commonwealth has been rendered obsolete by the EU, so there's no reason for Ireland to join it.

Everything else that you've posted has at least some merit.

Mind you, bear in mind that loads of us ARE on normal terms with Britain.....the only time I get defensive is when some idiot guest on TV or radio doesn't seem to realise that Ireland is a separate country, or when companies like Subway tell you to visit a .co.uk website.....

Not sure what geography is taught in the UK, but either it's dodgy or there's still a lot of fairly thick and ignorant people around.....

GuanYin

I'm going to view picking apart people's posts for spelling and grammar as trolling and pedantry and really I don't take a good view of it.

Liam Byrne, if you are trying to spin someone's post, you're going to end up sanctioned.

On topic and lets be mature this is my second warning in ten posts, noone is getting the luxury of another warning.

Acacia

Camelot wrote: »

I think a lot of the problem with a view to the very idea of a 'United Ireland' is peoples perceptions of such;- take the Republican vision of a United Ireland (for example) which revolves around a Nation made up of Gaelic speaking, Roman Catholic, Nationalist, Tricolour waving, hunger strike commerating, Black Flag loving, Shinners, singing the Soldiers Song (Amhrán na bhFiann) and winging about the 'mythical' 800 years . . . :rolleyes: or on the other hand, you might take my perception of what a United Ireland (might look like) in an ideal world, where the whole island is back in the Commonwealth, where Irish is not compulsary in School, with a New 'All island-all Ireland Flag', with a new National Anthem which accommodates Unionists, a Multi Cultural- Multi Faith Country, a Country back on normal terms with Britain ......

As a Unionist I could agree to that (at a push), so what say you chaps on the other side of the fence ?

Wow, what a totally balanced and unbiased view you have of Republicans. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

1. Amhrán na bhFiann is our national anthem- why shouldn't we sing it? Gaelige is our national language- why shouldn't we speak it? Not all Nationalists are Catholic. And where does myth come into those 800 years the Republicans 'whinge' about?

2. I've already expressed my views about the Commonwealth, so I'll say no more on that. Why shouldn't Irish be compulsory in schools? Does this vision of a United ireland seek to erase any trace of 'Irishness' in the country? In case you haven't noticed, Ireland is already a multi-faith and multi-cultural society.

As for back on 'normal' terms with Britain, what would those terms be exactly?

LordSutch

Acacia, I was just trying to proffer ideas about how in 'Reality' you might Unite & accommodate with your Unionist friends, and on that point I was trying to find some way of making Unionists feel comfortable within a 'Hypothetical' & mythical united ireland, I just cant see the Anthem, Flag, or compulsary Irish being on the menu, so if you want some kind of Union with the North then its back to that old word 'Compromise' . . . .
Thats presuming the notion of some kind of a United ireland should ever occur in the distant furture ?

To you Liam I say, mutterances of re-joining the Commonwealth abound in recent years & the notion of re-joining is not being shot down in flames either by most members of the Dail - I happen to agree strongly with the Republic being back in (shouldnt have left in the first place), because for sure it would harmonise North-South relations tenfold & maybe even more? either way, Unionists would be very Happy, & I think a lot of Nationalists wouldnt be too upset either - the Republic leaving the Commonwealth in 1949 was one of the last Big Nails in the coffin of a Unified Ireland, the (positive) symbolism of Ireland re-joining would be massive.

Acacia

Camelot wrote: »

Acacia, I was just trying to proffer ideas about how in 'Reality' you might Unite & accommodate with your Unionist friends, and on that point I was trying to find some way of making Unionists feel comfortable within a 'Hypothetical' & mythical united ireland, I just cant see the Anthem, Flag, or compulsary Irish being on the menu, so if you want some kind of Union with the North then its back to that old word 'Compromise' . . . .
Thats presuming the notion of some kind of a United ireland should ever occur in the distant furture ?

I see your point, but there's a difference between accommodation and compromise, and taking away the Irish identity altogether. I thought the flag we have now already represented both the Republican and Unionist sides (green and orange). New anthem...unsure. Taking away compulsory Irish? I fear that would result in the death of the language altogether. English is primarily spoken here anyway, I don't see the problem with learning it in school. Perhaps there could be an emphasis some aspect of British/Unionist culture in schools as well, to balance things out? Just my 2 cents.

LordSutch

Nobody wants to take away the Irish identity, but modifying it to include Unionist identity also would help (most Unionists are not Orange either) and being 'Irish' can mean many things from Orange to Green plus being Irish in a british context! hence my idea about a new all Irish all accommodating Flag, and as regards Non compulsary Irish (it hasnt done the Welsh language any harm) in fact I would say that Welsh is doing rather well (in comparrison to compulsary Irish).

I also agree with your comment about "Perhaps there could be an emphasis some aspect of British/Unionist culture in schools as well" now you're talking . . . .

Good Night.

Acacia

Camelot wrote: »

Nobody wants to take away the Irish identity, but modifying it to include Unionist identity also would help (most Unionists are not Orange either) and being 'Irish' can mean many things from Orange to Green plus being Irish in a british context! hence my idea about a new all Irish all accommodating Flag, and as regards Non compulsary Irish (it hasnt done the Welsh language any harm) in fact I would say that Welsh is doing rather well (in comparrison to compulsary Irish).

I also agree with your comment about "Perhaps there could be an emphasis some aspect of British/Unionist culture in schools as well" now you're talking . . . .

Good Night.

What would ideas for such a flag be? The emphasis on British and Unionist culture could be a way of demonstrating being Irish in a British context i.e. living in United Ireland with a British background. Is this what you were thinking of? So long as steps are taken to ensure the Irish culture and identity (including the language) is not lost, perhaps a compromise could be worked out.

Liam Byrne

Camelot wrote: »

To you Liam I say, mutterances of re-joining the Commonwealth abound in recent years & the notion of re-joining is not being shot down in flames either by most members of the Dail

The same Dail that wanted us to pass the Lisbon Treaty ? The result of that vote showed how out-of-touch they are with public opinion.

I'm not saying there aren't pros and cons to either the Commonwealth or Lisbon - just that what the Dail decides to mutter about (or God forbid, actually DO) isn't an indication of the wishes of the people of Ireland.

Personally, the Commonwealth isn't something I'd be in favour of. But - hypothetically, and since we're talking compromises - maybe there's a chance that - IF this were to happen - it might be renamed to reflect it's new larger-than-British status, dropping the "British" from its name ?

And before I'm accused of being anti-British with that question, I'm not. Similar to the way the Irish rugby team isn't the "Republic of Ireland" rugby team, names of things should reflect their memberships.

Fratton Fred

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Mind you, bear in mind that loads of us ARE on normal terms with Britain.....the only time I get defensive is when some idiot guest on TV or radio doesn't seem to realise that Ireland is a separate country, or when companies like Subway tell you to visit a .co.uk website.....

Not sure what geography is taught in the UK, but either it's dodgy or there's still a lot of fairly thick and ignorant people around.....

There is a lot of confusion, but a lot of it is around not generally knowing how to refer to Irish people. There are equal numbers (I would guess) of Irish folk in Britain from north and south of the border some are "ours" and some aren't. When i started dealing witha company in London/Derry I was given a PC course in how to address people. Basically we were told not to mention the name of the city until the person we were talking to mentioned it, if they called it Derry, then we were told to call it Derry etc.

I can understand the .co.uk issue, but that has nothing to do with politics, that's the economic reality of living next to and speaking the same language as a large economic neighbour. Unification won't change anything there.

Acacia wrote: »

In case you haven't noticed, Ireland is already a multi-faith and multi-cultural society.

Indeed it is. Not only do we have non white catholics, we also have schools run by several different branches of catholicism as well.

Seriously, that is something that needs work, although the Catholic curch has a lot less power these days, this country still has a very catholic mentality.

Camelot wrote: »

Nobody wants to take away the Irish identity, but modifying it to include Unionist identity also would help (most Unionists are not Orange either) and being 'Irish' can mean many things from Orange to Green plus being Irish in a british context! hence my idea about a new all Irish all accommodating Flag, and as regards Non compulsary Irish (it hasnt done the Welsh language any harm) in fact I would say that Welsh is doing rather well (in comparrison to compulsary Irish).

I also agree with your comment about "Perhaps there could be an emphasis some aspect of British/Unionist culture in schools as well" now you're talking . . . .

Good Night.

That's a big point. The scots and the Welsh managed to get their national identity away from "Not English" a long time ago, something the Irish have struggled with, to an extent.

I think a big diffeence is that the Scots and the Welsh don't try to compete with the English, they just like to highlight their difference, be that language, culture or whatever. Ireland (in my opinion) still gives the impression it has something to prove and tries to force "Irishness" down people's throats, which is then, to an extent, rejected. I'm not sure what the answer is, but that's my observations.

Maybe if an Irish identity is created that people can relate to, without having it thrust upon them, then maybe more young people from the unionist community will embrace it and create more harmony going forward, who knows. If that involves changing the flag and national anthem, then so what, neither are that great anyway. I would happily change my national flag if replacing it gave me something to be more proud of.

JWAD

Liam Byrne wrote: »

The same Dail that wanted us to pass the Lisbon Treaty ? The result of that vote showed how out-of-touch they are with public opinion

The govt (a previous cabinet obviously) also instigated a referendum on the issue of the North and the overwhelming result was the population choosing to accept compromise hence the status quo prevalent. NI and ROI are as they are by popular consensus.

Acacia

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Indeed it is. Not only do we have non white catholics, we also have schools run by several different branches of catholicism as well.

Seriously, that is something that needs work, although the Catholic curch has a lot less power these days, this country still has a very catholic mentality.

quote]

Not being a smart-arse, but do you actually live in Ireland? We don't just have non-white Catholics, we have non-whites of every religion, which is a good thing. We have 'Educate Together' schools where children are taught about different faiths, without focusing on any particular religion. Even if a non-Catholic child is in a Catholic school, they can opt out of doing religion class if they want ( as some of my friends did when I was in school.)

What do you mean by a very 'Catholic' mentality? And how does this 'need work'? You're coming across as kind of condescending here, whether this was your intention or not.

Fratton Fred

Acacia wrote: »

Not being a smart-arse, but do you actually live in Ireland? We don't just have non-white Catholics, we have non-whites of every religion, which is a good thing. We have 'Educate Together' schools where children are taught about different faiths, without focusing on any particular religion. Even if a non-Catholic child is in a Catholic school, they can opt out of doing religion class if they want ( as some of my friends did when I was in school.)

What do you mean by a very 'Catholic' mentality? And how does this 'need work'? You're coming across as kind of condescending here, whether this was your intention or not.

sarcasm doesn't work on the internet, doee sit. Anyway, Yes i live in ireland. All I can say is do you? have you ever tried getting kids into a school in this country?

When you ring all your local schools and the first thing Sister so and so asks you is "What religion are you" because of your accent, you do kind of build up a picture, maybe an unfair one, of the country. My Niece's school is supposedly non denominational, but it does have a 15 ft mural of the virgin mary on the front of the school:rolleyes:

There are "Non denominational schools, all inclusive schools (Run by the Catholic Church I believe) but most of these have been set up because the existing schools are refusing to let non Catholics in.

The maybe try visiting one of the Hospitals, St whatever, or maybe Our lady this.

I like Dara O'Briain's quote "i'm not religious, I have no need for religion in my life, but i think like a Catholic".

djpbarry

dante18 wrote: »

djpbarry, all those Tyrone supporters who were in Croke park for the All-Ireland a few weeks ago, they were all foreigners in your opinion?

Some of them may have been, yes. Depends on what passport they were holding, doesn't it?

McArmalite wrote: »

Because most of them are unionists from the north Frank, unionists who cloak their unionism as a concern about the possible bloodbath etc that would come about if we reunited the country.

Yeah, anyone who disagrees with you is a diehard unionist :rolleyes:.

Acacia wrote: »

We have 'Educate Together' schools where children are taught about different faiths, without focusing on any particular religion.

We have a handful of ET schools.

Acacia wrote: »

Even if a non-Catholic child is in a Catholic school, they can opt out of doing religion class if they want...

With the express written permission of both parents. I went to school with a guy who wanted to be exempted from religion class. But, he hadn’t spoken to his dad for years and wasn’t even sure how to get hold of him. Without his father’s permission, he could not obtain an exemption from religion class. This was in a supposed multi-denominational school.