A few quick questions to alleviate my ignorance on Norn Ire

Dannyboy83

1. Has the island of Ireland ever in its history been united under one Irish king? (Brian Boru maybe) or 1 government (other than a British one) as 1 nation?

2. If the North and South somehow did unite, where would the Dail sit? In Dublin? In Belfast? In Meath? (decentralisation for ya;))

3. Why would the Northerners ever want to join to Southerners?
i.e. What can the South possibly offer them of economic benefit?
(Its not like the HSE is an extravaganza of our organisational competence)

4. From my understanding a large chunk of the jobs in the North are British administrative jobs, which would evaporate along with the UK, correct?

5. From my understanding, the English give colossal grants to the North, much like the devolved Scottish and Welsh assemblies. Hong Kong was a money machine whereas Northern Ireland is a money pit, subsidised by the overburdened English taxpayer.
The North is Anna Nicole Smith and England is her sugar daddy. Correct?

6. From my understanding, as of 1955, the British government have offered independence to the North, as long as the majority support it. But what if the majority of England get fed up paying for them, or go bankrupt?
Is it a decision of the Queen, the PM, the Party or the electorate?

7. In the event that England liberated her bank account and jettisoned Northern Ireland, would the Northern Irish be entitled to resettlement within Scotland and England, as was offered to other members of the Empire and would they retain dual citizenship for a period as happened in the Republic?

8. Would the Republic suffer a drop in affluence and living standards through unification, as was seen in the re-unification of Germany?

9. Would Cork still be the real capital?

diverdriver

1. No
2. Dublin
3. Freedom from oppression :rolleyes: ha ha!
4. No, plenty of room in the public service here.
5. They would continue to pay out for years.
6. They're fed up paying for Scotland and Wales already.
7. Why not, effectively we in the Republic more or less stayed the same.
8. Yes, for a while but eventually once the Northerners take over the running of the country. We'll all be better off.:D
9. Cork is merely a small city isolated somewhere down south. Speak no more of them.

dresden8

diverdriver wrote: »

6. They're fed up paying for Scotland and Wales already.

Or to be more precise Scotland is running out of oil and gas previously used to make south-easten England rich.

That's why they want to ditch them.

1huge1

diverdriver wrote: »

1. No
2. Dublin
3. Freedom from oppression :rolleyes: ha ha!
4. No, plenty of room in the public service here.
5. They would continue to pay out for years.
6. They're fed up paying for Scotland and Wales already.
7. Why not, effectively we in the Republic more or less stayed the same.
8. Yes, for a while but eventually once the Northerners take over the running of the country. We'll all be better off.:D
9. Cork is merely a small city isolated somewhere down south. Speak no more of them.

Plenty of room in the public service here??? what are you basing that on.

sceptre

1huge1 wrote: »

Plenty of room in the public service here??? what are you basing that on.

No no, I know it's early in the morning for some of you but stick to the point or don't bother posting. In other words, give your views on the questions and things that are actually pertinent to the questions or not at all. There are more than enough threads already in existence to laud or whine about the public service. But then again, you already know that.

A Dub in Glasgo

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

Snip

England is not Britain

turgon

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

1. Has the island of Ireland ever in its history been united under one Irish king? (Brian Boru maybe) or 1 government (other than a British one) as 1 nation?

Simple answer: no. In-depth answer: definitely not.

One has to realize that this sense of "nation" and "nationalism" isnt even around for more than 2-300 years. Before that it didnt make a whole lot of difference what king you were under. There was no sense of nation whatsoever: with no communication or transport people in the Donegal and Cork simply didnt connect.

Of course you get thins Sinn Fein slogan of "800 years of oppression". This slogan is designed after deliberately reading history backwards. In the early years of the "occupation", as in around the 1300, it a case of either a feudal English king or a feudal Irish king.

You get this in other countries too. Consider Italy. In reality it only appeared after the unification of 1871. All this Mussolini nationalism the was put forth went on about the roman empire and the great Italian lake (the Med). Reading history backwards again, one cannot see the history of the Italian peninsula in terms of any Italian nation.

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

3. Why would the Northerners ever want to join to Southerners?

Nationalism is not based in any way at all on any tangible benefit. It is fueled by some mystic idealistic notion of what a nation should be, such as that the Irish nation should encompass the whole of the island. The only reason they want to join is because of their ideal.

Its the same down here. People want unification despite the fact that taking northern Ireland on could potentially cripple us in debt.

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

5. From my understanding, the English give colossal grants to the North, much like the devolved Scottish and Welsh assemblies.

...8. Would the Republic suffer a drop in affluence and living standards through unification, as was seen in the re-unification of Germany?

As I just said, Irish nationalism makes great efforts to ignore the negative effects the ideal of the nation would create. Al these "colossal grants" would eventually have to be taken up by the Southern tax payer.

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

But what if the majority of England get fed up paying for them, or go bankrupt? Is it a decision of the Queen, the PM, the Party or the electorate?

It could obviously be pushed through if the willpower amongst the Houses of Parliament was strong enough. However if you only briefly analyze the history of the North for the past 40 years, one can only imagine the kind of civil war such forced unification would result in.

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

7. In the event that England liberated her bank account and jettisoned Northern Ireland, would the Northern Irish be entitled to resettlement within Scotland and England, as was offered to other members of the Empire and would they retain dual citizenship for a period as happened in the Republic?

I would imagine the Republic would set up a scheme whereby financial assistance would be given to those wishing to move to great Britain. In any case all residents would be given the option of being citizens of the UK, Ireland, or both.

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

9. Would Cork still be the real capital?

Apparently Northerners find the Cork accent extremely hard to understand. So I don't know like.

Dannyboy83

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

1. Has the island of Ireland ever in its history been united under one Irish king? (Brian Boru maybe) or 1 government (other than a British one) as 1 nation?
no

2. If the North and South somehow did unite, where would the Dail sit? In Dublin? In Belfast? In Meath? (decentralisation for ya;))
Dublin I guess, but I would assume should any reunification occur that the north would keep its own parliament

3. Why would the Northerners ever want to join to Southerners?
i.e. What can the South possibly offer them of economic benefit?
(Its not like the HSE is an extravaganza of our organisational competence)
No reason other than out-dated nationalism


4. From my understanding a large chunk of the jobs in the North are British administrative jobs, which would evaporate along with the UK, correct?
Well like I said, they would probably keep their own parliament at least in the short term. But they would bankrupt us if we ever took them on. There would be so many unemployed that we would have to severely cut welfare rates

5. From my understanding, the English give colossal grants to the North, much like the devolved Scottish and Welsh assemblies. Hong Kong was a money machine whereas Northern Ireland is a money pit, subsidised by the overburdened English taxpayer.
The North is Anna Nicole Smith and England is her sugar daddy. Correct?
Yep.

6. From my understanding, as of 1955, the British government have offered independence to the North, as long as the majority support it. But what if the majority of England get fed up paying for them, or go bankrupt?
Is it a decision of the Queen, the PM, the Party or the electorate?
If there was enough support, I'm assuming a vote would be held.

7. In the event that England liberated her bank account and jettisoned Northern Ireland, would the Northern Irish be entitled to resettlement within Scotland and England, as was offered to other members of the Empire and would they retain dual citizenship for a period as happened in the Republic?
Well we're all in the EU, they can go where they like.

8. Would the Republic suffer a drop in affluence and living standards through unification, as was seen in the re-unification of Germany?
Definitely. I would also expect to see loyalist terrorist attacks pick up and wouldn't be surprised to see bombs going off in Dublin. The added cost of a massive anti-terrorist operation is yet another cost we would have to endure.

9. Would Cork still be the real capital?
If the Republic ends up stuck with NI, my new capital would be London I guess. I refuse to live in a country associated with that horrible place.

A Dub in Glasgo

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

1. Has the island of Ireland ever in its history been united under one Irish king? (Brian Boru maybe) or 1 government (other than a British one) as 1 nation?

Yes, The First Dail

turgon

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Yes, The First Dail

Em, not exactly. The first Dail was running parallel to the British governance at the time, to state that it constituted a full united nation is being delusional to the point of idiocy some thing really delusional. Additionally it was boycotted by the unionists.

Dannyboy83

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Yes, The First Dail

Yes, thats the exception, but Sir Craig effectively rebelled and opted out.
I guess in name it was for a flash.

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

For almost two days from midnight on 6 December 1922 Northern Ireland stopped being part of the United Kingdom and became part of the newly created Irish Free State.[3] This remarkable constitutional episode arose because of the Anglo-Irish Treaty and the legislation introduced to give that Treaty legal effect.[4]
The Treaty was given legal effect in the United Kingdom through the Irish Free State Constitution Act 1922. That Act established, on 6 December 1922, the new Dominion for the whole island of Ireland. Legally therefore, on 6 December 1922, Northern Ireland stopped being part of the United Kingdom and became an autonomous region of the newly created Irish Free State. However, the Treaty and the laws which implemented it also allowed Northern Ireland to opt out of the Irish Free State.[5] Under Article 12 of the Treaty, Northern Ireland could exercise its opt out by presenting an address to the King requesting not to be part of the Irish Free State. Once the Treaty was ratified, the Houses of Parliament of Northern Ireland had one month (dubbed the Ulster month) to exercise this opt out during which month the Irish Free State Government could not legislate for Northern Ireland, holding the Free State’s effective jurisdiction in abeyance for a month.
Realistically, it was always certain that Northern Ireland would opt out and rejoin the United Kingdom. The Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, Sir James Craig, speaking in the Parliament in October 1922 said that “when the 6th of December is passed the month begins in which we will have to make the choice either to vote out or remain within the Free State.”. He said it was important that that choice was made as soon as possible after 6 December 1922 “in order that it may not go forth to the world that we had the slightest hesitation”.[6] On 7 December 1922 (the day after the establishment of the Irish Free State) the Parliament demonstrated its lack of hesitation

Dannyboy83

dresden8 wrote: »

Or to be more precise Scotland is running out of oil and gas previously used to make south-easten England rich.

That's why they want to ditch them.

LOL, I asked a similar question on a British forum and all the Scottish said the same, the English would keep Aberdeen if the UK broke down.

Dannyboy83

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

England is not Britain

Oh yes, I'm full aware don't worry.

I just think its more important to distinguish between England and Britain now more than ever, given the hostility within Britain to the United Kingdom, the devolution of the partners and the fact that England is by far the biggest and wealthiest.

Just on a side note, what actually prompted these questions the other day was the most bizzare scene at work.
An English guy and a Welsh girl (both very nice people) were at each other throats, because the English guy said that Wales was merely a provence of England and devolution was nonsense.
The Welsh girl disagreed, loudly and vehemently and said Wales ought to be independant with EU membership, they spent the rest of the day at each others throats.
I've never witnessed anything like that before.

Then watching the British Questions and Answers last week, I saw the Dame saying something very similar and I was very surprised. She (love listening to her btw) has a sarcy comment about, "you can't tell the Welsh how to spend OUR money, they're devolved and you'll be shot".:D

When I asked on a British Forum, the Welsh were totally opposed to England, and all of the English lads were saying they're sick of paying for wales and they should break up.

I can't see it happening because it doesn't make economic sense, but was just very surprised to see all the Scottish and the Welsh saying they want to break from the UK and stay within the EU.

Dannyboy83

Turgon,

I think the Scottish were the first people to actually develop the concept of Nationality, is that correct?

Further, from my reading, it seems that one of the main reasons the Scottish joined up to the United Kingdom was because they were nearly bankrupted by a failed colony in the United States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dari%C3%A9n_scheme

And their was the political will and recognition that they would never hold much influence by themselves.
I suppose the advent of the European Union has removed the necessity for membership of the UK.
And given the anti-sentiment toward the EU from England, if Scotland want to participate more fully (and secure EU funding;)), they would be better as an independant nation.

FTA69

1. Has the island of Ireland ever in its history been united under one Irish king? (Brian Boru maybe) or 1 government (other than a British one) as 1 nation?

Ireland was never a cohesive nation state (not many states or proto-states existed in those days) but it was a national entity. Despite the subdivisions into tuaths and provinces people were conscious of the fact that they were affiliated to a broader Irish people. The Irish for province is "cuige" i.e a "fifth". The Irish had a symbolic Ard Ri based in Meath. They shared a common culture, language, economy and social structure. This notion that Ireland was never a national entity until the Normans came is simply revisionism of the highest degree.

2. If the North and South somehow did unite, where would the Dail sit? In Dublin? In Belfast? In Meath? (decentralisation for ya)

Dublin I'd imagine.

3. Why would the Northerners ever want to join to Southerners?
i.e. What can the South possibly offer them of economic benefit?
(Its not like the HSE is an extravaganza of our organisational competence)

Irish Republicans would contend that unification is simply one step on a path of creating a new, equitable Ireland. It isn't about simply merging north and south and sin é, everything will be grand. My aspiration for unification is not based on vague nationalism, rather a belief that a new start and a break from the politics of the past is needed.

6. From my understanding, as of 1955, the British government have offered independence to the North, as long as the majority support it. But what if the majority of England get fed up paying for them, or go bankrupt?
Is it a decision of the Queen, the PM, the Party or the electorate?

That's nonsense. The Brits fought a 25 year war in this country, murdered its own citizens, facilitated arms and intelligenced to Loyalist death squads and they continue to pay an annual subvention of about £6bn a year to the northern statelet. They are building their brand new MI5 headquarters in Co Down and around 15% of their military intelligence budget is concerned with Ireland.

To then turn around and suggest they're mad to get out of the place is a bit fallacious to be honest.

9. Would Cork still be the real capital?

By far the most important and pertinent question you have asked on the topic, and the answer is yes. Most Definitely.

Dannyboy83

FTA69 wrote: »

Ireland was never a cohesive nation state (not many states or proto-states existed in those days) but it was a national entity. Despite the subdivisions into tuaths and provinces people were conscious of the fact that they were affiliated to a broader Irish people. The Irish for province is "cuige" i.e a "fifth". The Irish had a symbolic Ard Ri based in Meath. They shared a common culture, language, economy and social structure. This notion that Ireland was never a national entity until the Normans came is simply revisionism of the highest degree.

I was under the impression that it was all divided kingdoms, and Brian Boru was the spark that started the fire that blew up the powder keg, which resulted in Diarmuid McMurrough inviting Strongbow for protection.
Then the English King with no heir, was afriad that Strongbow would form his own nation and unify Ireland, so he got stuck in.

Irish Republicans would contend that unification is simply one step on a path of creating a new, equitable Ireland. It isn't about simply merging north and south and sin é, everything will be grand. My aspiration for unification is not based on vague nationalism, rather a belief that a new start and a break from the politics of the past is needed.

Nice point but thats impossible, surely?
Unless everyone develops amnesia.

That's nonsense. The Brits fought a 25 year war in this country, murdered its own citizens, facilitated arms and intelligenced to Loyalist death squads and they continue to pay an annual subvention of about £6bn a year to the northern statelet. They are building their brand new MI5 headquarters in Co Down and around 15% of their military intelligence budget is concerned with Ireland.

I understand what you're saying.
I'm saying I just don't see it reflected in public opinion.
The English people seem to be dying to jettison the place.

One of the common opinions I hear from the English lads is that if a common man ever got to power, Northern Ireland would be jettisioned tommorow, and allowed to stay on as commonwelath members if they so wish.

They even say that will definitely be jettisoned once the current generation of pensioners have passed, because its simply political will among the elderly and upper government that they be continue to pay for Northern Ireland.

To then turn around and suggest they're mad to get out of the place is a bit fallacious to be honest.

I've not asked about the English lads about the MI5 scheme, but they said that these types of government jobs is just typical of English jobs being exported to NI, in order to subsidise them.
Quoting one lad from Birmingham "They don't produce anything, they don't create wealth, its great that the love us, but they're like sycophantic girlfriend - its nice but it doesn't make sense, bang her and send her on her way, number1 is number 1, The English jobs should stay in England for English people.

By far the most important and pertinent question you have asked on the topic, and the answer is yes. Most Definitely.

LOL, I thought so mate

turgon

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

Further, from my reading, it seems that one of the main reasons the Scottish joined up to the United Kingdom was because they were nearly bankrupted by a failed colony in the United States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dari%C3%A9n_scheme

I read an article 2 years ago (300th anniversary of the 1707 union) that talked about it. The episode you mention was a big selling point: the scottish colonies were a disaster. However from the article one got the impression that there was a LOT of pressure put on Scottish reps at the time to vote for the union.

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

Nice point but thats impossible, surely?
Unless everyone develops amnesia.

Yes, absolutely impossible, there will be no such "clean break". In effect NI will simply just add itself to the republic, there probably wont be a new constitution and the only difference will be that NI will have seats at the Dail instead of Westminster. The three main parties here (FF,FG,Labour) will still between them hold a double majority, and the there will be no need for them to ally with any unionist parties. The SDLP will join with either of the big three. Sinn Fein will probably go downhill because it will no longer have its "single issue" that, in all honesty, is the main sellign point of the party.

As I said, there will be no clean break. The only difference will be the size of the country, nothing more.

Bog Butter

http://www.ihrc.ie/_fileupload/publications/Belfast-Agreement.pdf

(iv) affirm that if, in the future, the people of the island of Ireland exercise their right of self-determination on the basis set out in sections (i) and (ii) above to bring about a united Ireland, it will be a binding obligation on both Governments to introduce and support in their respective Parliaments legislation to give effect to that wish;

2. Subject to paragraph 3, the Secretary of State shall exercise the power
under paragraph 1 if at any time it appears likely to him that a majority of
those voting would express a wish that Northern Ireland should cease to be
part of the United Kingdom and form part of a united Ireland

3. The Secretary of State shall not make an order under paragraph 1 earlier
than seven years after the holding of a previous poll under this Schedule.

(2) But if the wish expressed by a majority in such a poll is that Northern
Ireland should cease to be part of the United Kingdom and form part of a
united Ireland, the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament such
proposals to give effect to that wish as may be agreed between Her Majesty’s
Government in the United Kingdom and the Government of Ireland.

Bog Butter

If you are interested in Irish unity then you should read this new book:

Countdown to Unity
Debating Irish Reunification by Richard Humphreys

Humphreys reckons it is inevitable that Nationalists will out number Unionist in the years to come. He also reckons there is sufficiant support for unity in the republic. Therefore he suggests that we should now begin at looking how unity might happen. He says that the Irish consititution is not compatable with unity and will need to be altered. So might the flag and the anthem. He suggests that that there will be a transitionary period of joint rule for about 30 years before complete Irish sovereignty. He also says that the 6 county sub-national unit will remain.

Soldie

FTA69 wrote: »

My aspiration for unification is not based on vague nationalism, rather a belief that a new start and a break from the politics of the past is needed.

This doesn't make any sense at all. Why is unification a prerequisite for 'a new start' with 'a break from the politics of the past'?