What would become of Sinn Fein in a United Ireland?

Bottle_of_Smoke

Hypothetically, if the two countries were united under one government, would Sinn Fein be a part of it?

Within the 6 counties they'd obviously retain some support, but a lot of nationalist voters may prefer Fianna Fail/Fine Gael/Labour. On the other hand if they were the ones who brought about a united Ireland they might woo some SDLP voters.

I'd imagine Unionists would object to an all Ireland government and the current unionist parties would seek to form an independent state in some form. The unionist voters sure as hell wouldn't be voting Sinn Fein anyhow.

Sinn Fein have minimal support in the ROI, only a few seats and doesn't look like their popularity is increasing. If taxes went up(as they likely would unless its discovered the giants causeway is made of solid gold) voters in the ROI would resent them even more. If the economy got worse(at any point) the North would be the first to be blamed.

So withstanding the seats they'd get in the Ulster counties, its likely the government would be formed without them and they'd always be part of the opposition. As a United Ireland has always been their main focus, would they lose party members/funding if their main objection was completed?

Joey the lips

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Hypothetically, if the two countries were united under one government, would Sinn Fein be a part of it?

Within the 6 counties they'd obviously retain some support, but a lot of nationalist voters may prefer Fianna Fail/Fine Gael/Labour. On the other hand if they were the ones who brought about a united Ireland they might woo some SDLP voters.

I'd imagine Unionists would object to an all Ireland government and the current unionist parties would seek to form an independent state in some form. The unionist voters sure as hell wouldn't be voting Sinn Fein anyhow.

Sinn Fein have minimal support in the ROI, only a few seats and doesn't look like their popularity is increasing. If taxes went up(as they likely would unless its discovered the giants causeway is made of solid gold) voters in the ROI would resent them even more. If the economy got worse(at any point) the North would be the first to be blamed.

So withstanding the seats they'd get in the Ulster counties, its likely the government would be formed without them and they'd always be part of the opposition. As a United Ireland has always been their main focus, would they lose party members/funding if their main objection was completed?

Good morning BOS, Has your kids got you up as well on a sunday morning? Or you just not a sleeper?

Anyway my own opinion on your question is this. I think if a united ireland came about in the morning 2 things would happen.
1. The spin arounfd it would be so intense by the london and US goverment that Fianna Fail would get all the credit in the 26 counties.
2. I think the 6 northern counties have 2 types of nationalist voter a. those who vote sinn fein and b. those who will never vote sinn fein. I always thought sheamus mallon came across as very bitter towards sinn fein and I think his voters are the same. I dont think this voting will ever change. So my second thought is the nationalist vote will always remain this way

On the unionist question, They will never be happy. In fact I would predict a rise in support for the UVF and the UDA when a united ireland comes. They have already asked for the constitution clause to be changed from "Ireland shall be united when the majority of people vote for it in northern ireland" to Ireland shall be united when the majority of Unionist people vote for it in Northern Ireland" Which of course means never...

On the sinn fein support question. Sinn fein have always maintained their support comes from the working class areas's. They rate themselves as a republician socialist party ( The type labour want but their voters dont) But this is their dead leg so to speak. Working class area's have the lowest turn out in any poll and historically this has not changed. If fact people in working class area's in the last general election wrote dustin across their ballot paper in larger numbers the voted for the workers party. I alwasys thought this a good attritubute of those partys will to put in hard work in these area's

Sinn fein like all the partys do have sound economic policies. They also hire economists to write theirs. I think where sinn fein get let down is they are climbing out of a whole the media put them in where as all the others are out of this whole and on the ladder.

I honestly do not see sinn fein in goverment in my life time but I do see them in goverment as the one thing they cannot be knocked for is any support they have gained lately is solid as the old image has well and truly deminished. Generally there sold vote turns out, rain hail or shine!

The biggest question for Sinn Fein now I think and one that will rock the party is. Do they or dont they form a colalation with Fianna Fail?

Interesting times ahead!!!!!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Joey the lips

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Crowed irish left

Crowed irish right yes!

Not many in the left worth talking about SF and SWP


Left wing Middle Right wing
SF FF FG
WP LAB GP
SWP

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Joey the lips

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The only left on that list is

Sinn Fein
Soc Party
Wo Party

Communist is extreme left - Not counted like libertas is extreme right not counted!

Labour / FF. are not left and in the case of Labour. Its is run by former stickys from the workers party who did not agree with the left wing policys of the workers party

futurehope

Let's face it lads, the chance of a United Ireland is pretty much zero. The average family in The Republic would have to come up with £4000 per year in additional taxation, even if Unionists agreed to a United Ireland (which they obviously won't). Even if The UK agreed to dump Northern Ireland (which it never will), Unionists would just set up a smaller state with a large majority and take it from there. They'd have little problem surviving these days, as The EU would hand them large amounts of cash, as they did with The ROI. Any attempt by The Republic to enforce a United Ireland would be savagely resisted. So to answer the original question, SF's position in a United Ireland will never be tested.

Bottle_of_Smoke

futurehope wrote: »

Let's face it lads, the chance of a United Ireland is pretty much zero. The average family in The Republic would have to come up with £4000 per year in additional taxation, even if Unionists agreed to a United Ireland (which they obviously won't). Even if The UK agreed to dump Northern Ireland (which it never will), Unionists would just set up a smaller state with a large majority and take it from there. They'd have little problem surviving these days, as The EU would hand them large amounts of cash, as they did with The ROI. Any attempt by The Republic to enforce a United Ireland would be savagely resisted. So to answer the original question, SF's position in a United Ireland will never be tested.

As I said... Hypothetically!

dlofnep

Sinn Féin would grow larger as a party.. Their overall support as a 32 county party, under one government would certainly give them a much bigger voice on national issues. SF's support from the 6 counties would not go anywhere - It is on the increase every year. And despite tha latest Red C poll - I think in the past few years, SF's support in the 26 has also increased and will continue to do so. The media might be against SF, but the average person door to door has supported SF, at least here locally in Waterford.

As for chances of a UI being zero, I absolutely disagree. The nationalist demographic in the North is increasing every year, and according to the current setup via the GFA - a majority will secure the deal which is inevitable according to demographical trends in the past 30 years. Besides, Britain doesn't want the North. Only 26% of Brits expressed support for the north remaining in the UK, while 41% supported the idea of Irish Unity.

dlofnep

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

LOL @ Fianna Fáil being a leftist party.

Shane-1

Haha, ya, Fianna Fail as a left party, priceless I would be hard pressed to put Labour over on the left at this stage either. Fianna Fail = Fine Gael = Labour with the only exception being perhaps that Fianna Fail may hold a more Republican outlook, but I dont see them doing anything about this though Probably why Sinn Fein are seeing an increase in support, albeit a slow increase.

irish_bob

fianna fail are left wing at the moment , ultimatley they are a populist party and its popular for them to be left wing at the moment , thier policys of not touching our extremly generous wellfare state combined with thier aversion to public sector reform and obediance towards unions clearly marks them out as a left wing party

this does not in anyway make them a party of 77 joe higgins,s , as i said they are a populist party , they may become right wing in a few years again like they were when mcsharry was minister for finance and mcreevy was in his day

fine gael are dead centre at the moment , labour are taking left wing populism right now to levels bertie aherne would have been proud of athough in thier defense , they are a bone fide left wing party unlike FF

Shane-1

Erah I dont know if you could call F Fail a left party just yet, we will wait till Tuesday, I've heard rumbling about cuts to social welfare, pensions etc while the richest in the country will escape once again. Recently they have been hitting those in the country that are comfortable, not rich and not poor. Perfect example is the case with doctors at the minute, HSE cut backs have hit junior doctors but consultants are unaffected, thats the common trend with Fianna Fail at the mo. Not particularily leftish. But I do agree with you absolutely that Fianna Fail would support practically any cause that might get them a vote or two! They do it well though, feckers

futurehope

dlofnep wrote: »

As for chances of a UI being zero, I absolutely disagree. The nationalist demographic in the North is increasing every year, and according to the current setup via the GFA - a majority will secure the deal which is inevitable according to demographical trends in the past 30 years. Besides, Britain doesn't want the North. Only 26% of Brits expressed support for the north remaining in the UK, while 41% supported the idea of Irish Unity.

I think some people misunderstand the dynamics behind The Belfast Agreement and who it's prime drivers were. The Belfast Agreement was authored by The UK Government with one aim and one aim only, namely the pacification and normalisation of Northern Ireland as a region of The UK, including the disarming of militant Republicans. They achieved all their strategic goals in this regard. Even power sharing was a UK state goal and had been since the early seventies, the thinking being that it would lock Northern Catholics into a UK framework. Nothing that has happened since The Agreement was signed leads me to think that this has not happened. To put it bluntly, a prosperous Catholic is a loyal Catholic.

It is naive in the extreme to think that Catholics who are employed directly or indirectly by The UK state will vote to detach Northern Ireland from those who pay their wages. This obviously applies to those Catholics employed by organisations such as The PSNI.

As regards demographic change, it is true that Catholics are growing as a percentage of Northern Ireland's population, but that growth has slowed radically in recent years. We have yet to see what stable figures will result. In any case, it is up to The UK State to decide on whether a border poll will be called, not The ROI or Northern Nationalists. It's unlikely that some 50% + 1 estimate will suffice for this purpose.

As regards The UK wanting shot of Northern Ireland, I think that is wishful thinking. After all, they could have left at any time in the last 87 years if they had wanted to. As for opinion polls regarding the attitude of The UK population to Northern Ireland, I think it's safe to assume most mainlanders do not give Northern Ireland a single thought during the day, so any scratch poll is unlikely to influence UK State thinking, which will be to maintain the integrity of The State and it's borders.

Pandcoa

Joey the lips wrote: »

On the unionist question, They will never be happy. In fact I would predict a rise in support for the UVF and the UDA when a united ireland comes. They have already asked for the constitution clause to be changed from "Ireland shall be united when the majority of people vote for it in northern ireland" to Ireland shall be united when the majority of Unionist people vote for it in Northern Ireland" Which of course means never...

I've always thought Adams view of a centrally controlled united Ireland to be completely unrealistic and in no way protecting the rights of a scared unionist majority turned minority (same as nationalists were), if negotiations did occur in how to unite the country then I think it is reasonable to turn the country Federal, either the 6 counties or all of Ulster, I also this is a reasonable consession from republicans which i think we would accept in the end. By becoming an autonamous region we would retain our own Police force, assembly and basically be the same as we are now. SF's old Eire Nua policy document was similar to this but Adams dumped it. I think it is the first step to preserving unionists rights and by being inclusive in government then I think a loyalist reaction would be minimal, containable and unsustainable.

futurehope wrote: »

It is naive in the extreme to think that Catholics who are employed directly or indirectly by The UK state will vote to detach Northern Ireland from those who pay their wages. This obviously applies to those Catholics employed by organisations such as The PSNI.

My towns population (Omagh) has/or had the highest public sector employment in the North yet it has an overwhelming republican/nationalist majority not only on the town council (about 7:2) and in neighbouring councils but in MLA representation of the whole county, its just employment to a lot of people - my mother was a nurse, one sister is a civil servant and other is a barrister but in all the years I have known them they have never shown or said they had loyality to the NI state.

It's unlikely that some 50% + 1 estimate will suffice for this purpose.

(ii) recognise that it is for the people of the island of Ireland alone, by
agreement between the two parts respectively and without external
impediment, to exercise their right of self-determination on the basis of
consent, freely and concurrently given, North and South, to bring about a
united Ireland, if that is their wish, accepting that this right must be
achieved and exercised with and subject to the agreement and consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland;

The lack of detail on this note implies that it is a simple standard 50% +1 needed to unite Ireland. Governments whether British or Irish cannot determine what constitutes a majority as outlined above, it is only the will of the people that matters.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

K-9

Probably become a party of Govt. and basically become FG or FF lite with a slight left wing agenda, as seen by their slow abdication of their economic policies in the last election.

PS. Irish history keeps repeating itself. It always does this. This current SF generation are following Irish history, they are no better or different than previous revolutionaries or rebels. FG, FF, WP and DL did it.

This bunch are no different and will be acceptable in 10/20 years time. Will they be SF as we know them? No!

dlofnep

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

They are a centrist/populist party. Although, I can see why you'd think they are left, given that you're probably the most right-winged, capitalist poster on this forum. Just because something is a shade left of where you stand, doesn't mean it's left.

Bottle_of_Smoke

dlofnep wrote: »

Sinn Féin would grow larger as a party.. Their overall support as a 32 county party, under one government would certainly give them a much bigger voice on national issues. SF's support from the 6 counties would not go anywhere - It is on the increase every year. And despite tha latest Red C poll - I think in the past few years, SF's support in the 26 has also increased and will continue to do so. The media might be against SF, but the average person door to door has supported SF, at least here locally in Waterford.

I can't see how their support has increased in the ROI, in the 28th Dail they had one member, sure enough that went up after the GFA was signed to 5 in the 29th Dail in 2002, but then went back to 4 in 2007. Losing 1 seat isn't enough to say their support has dwindled any substantial amount but it is enough to say it hasn't grown. One would have expected their support to grow in those quite significant years given the stability of NI.

As for the 6 counties with more options for nationalists to vote for I could only see them losing votes. If SDLP were to merge with one of the ROI parties they'd be a fairly formidable opponent for SF in Ulster.

randylonghorn

Without any real raison d'etre, SF would either slowly disappear or re-invent themselves entirely. It worked for FF back in the day, after all, though I think SF would find it more difficult ... times and attitudes have changed, information is more widely available and people are more informed, the majority in the 26 counties at least would view them with suspicion ...

Probably the only thing which would stand to them is the lack of any party with a coherent, logical and inspiring agenda in the south at the moment.

donegalfella wrote: »

And what exactly do you call a party that is borrowing umpteen billions to keep the welfare recipients and the social partners happy?

Pragmatic? Vote-chasing? Devoid of any core values, and prepared to sway whatever way the wind blows? Just like they've been for the last 20 years.

FF might seem leftist from, say, an American perspective (it always amazes me how the Democrats can be considered a party of the left), but from a European perspective FF are definitely centrist, nodding and winking to both right and left as it suits them.

Personally, I suspect that shorn of the periodic necessity to face the polls, FF would tend to drift naturally to the right ... at senior levels, anyway, probably not true for all grassroots members.

irish_bob wrote: »

fianna fail are left wing at the moment

That says it all, tbh.

futurehope wrote: »

As regards The UK wanting shot of Northern Ireland, I think that is wishful thinking. After all, they could have left at any time in the last 87 years if they had wanted to.

I think they would often have been very glad to be shot of NI during the worst of the troubles ... it bled their exchequer, it bled their soldiers, it bled political reputations, it was a blotch on their escutcheon internationally. They just couldn't see a way out without all hell breaking loose, and things getting decidedly worse.

I suspect it may not be such an issue in recent years. I still doubt though that the whole of the mainland UK would rise with a united voice to protest the separation of NI from the UK if a deal could be brokered which seemed to promise a complete and final solution to the problems up there (not that I can see any such thing happening in my lifetime).

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

If SDLP were to merge with one of the ROI parties they'd be a fairly formidable opponent for SF in Ulster.

I agree. Where would you see them coming to roost? I would have thought FF?

futurehope

Pandcoa said:

I've always thought Adams view of a centrally controlled united Ireland to be completely unrealistic and in no way protecting the rights of a scared unionist majority turned minority (same as nationalists were), if negotiations did occur in how to unite the country then I think it is reasonable to turn the country Federal, either the 6 counties or all of Ulster, I also this is a reasonable consession from republicans which i think we would accept in the end. By becoming an autonamous region we would retain our own Police force, assembly and basically be the same as we are now. SF's old Eire Nua policy document was similar to this but Adams dumped it. I think it is the first step to preserving unionists rights and by being inclusive in government then I think a loyalist reaction would be minimal, containable and unsustainable.

Unionists have zero interest in a unitary state, centralised, federal or confederal - this is absolutely deluded thinking. Unionists wish to remain part of The UK and failing that they will set up a new state along the lines of the current 6 counties or a lesser territtory. They will do this under the international law of self determination as was completed recently in Kosova in the face of much stronger opposition from Serbia than The Republic will offer. Any attempt to coerce Unionists into any sort of United Ireland will be disastrous for The Island of Ireland.

My towns population (Omagh) has/or had the highest public sector employment in the North yet it has an overwhelming republican/nationalist majority not only on the town council (about 7:2) and in neighbouring councils but in MLA representation of the whole county, its just employment to a lot of people - my mother was a nurse, one sister is a civil servant and other is a barrister but in all the years I have known them they have never shown or said they had loyality to the NI state.

The fact that your relatives, friends and neighbours view themselves as Nationalists without a flag waiving loyalty to Ulster or indeed to The UK is of minor importance concerning the way they would vote when faced with the prospect of losing their jobs and facing mortgage foreclosure. It is irrelevant what promises The Irish state might make as regards any alternative opportunities in a proposed United Ireland, as a bird in the hand tends to trump two birds in the bush. In any case, many of the jobs Catholics currently enjoy, are at the expense of The UK tax payer, a contribution that any United Ireland would quite simply not be able to match.

If you think that this is idle speculation, I suggest you examine the following site exploring the attitudes of Catholics in Northern Ireland:

http://www.ark.ac.uk/nilt/2007/Political_Attitudes/NIRELND2.html

It clearly shows that only 23% of Northern Ireland's population favour a United Ireland and that only 47% of Catholics favour a United Ireland. And this is based upon aspirational feelings, not upon the hard choices that will become current at the point of a border poll.

The lack of detail on this note implies that it is a simple standard 50% +1 needed to unite Ireland. Governments whether British or Irish cannot determine what constitutes a majority as outlined above, it is only the will of the people that matters.

The Irish Government will have no role in deciding on whether a border poll will be called or not, neither will anyone in Northern Ireland. The Belfast Agreement clearly assigns that power to The UK Secretary of State and him alone. As for what grounds he will base any decision on, that also remains at his discretion. It's inconceivable that he will act on some hunch that 50%+1 of the population favour a United Ireland.

futurehope

randylonghorn wrote: »

I think they would often have been very glad to be shot of NI during the worst of the troubles ... it bled their exchequer, it bled their soldiers, it bled political reputations, it was a blotch on their escutcheon internationally. They just couldn't see a way out without all hell breaking loose, and things getting decidedly worse.

I suspect it may not be such an issue in recent years. I still doubt though that the whole of the mainland UK would rise with a united voice to protest the separation of NI from the UK if a deal could be brokered which seemed to promise a complete and final solution to the problems up there (not that I can see any such thing happening in my lifetime).I agree. Where would you see them coming to roost? I would have thought FF?

Your analysis regarding the attitude of some UK governments to Northern Ireland during the height of 'the troubles' is probably correct, but those days have gone. It is unlikely that the likes of Harold Wilson and the post imperial despair that existed in the seventies will ever return.

You are also correct in your opinion that Britain as a whole won't rise up to defend Ulster, but then again Britain is a large country and The UK state would be very concerned indeed, if even 1% of the population became radicalised.

As regards SF's position in a United Ireland, I could see them doing very well indeed following the euphoria of Irish Unity (there are historical precedents for this phenomena). They could even end up running the country (at least initially).

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

K-9

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I can't see how people can deny FF has had left leaning policies in the last 5/6 years. It may have been a correction because of the more right wing policies of the McCreevy era, but huge expenditure on SW by international standards on things like high Unemployment Payments, State Pension, FIS, Minimum wage etc. show that.

On the other side no tax or PRSI on minimum wage shows it's a low tax, high spend economy. Not great economics, but that's what it is!

Our Health system may not be as universal as the UK, but it isn't America YET!

Anyway, FF are centrist in a whatever your having yourself way, which usually involves picking the populist policies. SF will have to soften their economic policies if they want break the big 3 on a lasting basis.

ilkhanid

"LOL @ Fianna Fáil being a leftist party"

But....did'nt Bertie tell us he was a socialist?:D

FF are the cushion party. They take the shape of whichever other party sat with them last.They want to be left and right at the same time, but you can't have your cake and eat it. You can't cut back on taxes and have generous social provisions..and the chickens have come home to roost.
I could imagine a lot of SF being absorbed back into FF in time. As we know FF is a very "flexible" party as regards idealogies and ideas and Gerry's SF has shown itself to be just as flexible,when you see the way they duck and weave on economic matters.

Pandcoa

futurehope wrote: »

Unionists have zero interest in a unitary state, centralised, federal or confederal - this is absolutely deluded thinking. Unionists wish to remain part of The UK and failing that they will set up a new state along the lines of the current 6 counties or a lesser territtory. They will do this under the international law of self determination as was completed recently in Kosova in the face of much stronger opposition from Serbia than The Republic will offer. Any attempt to coerce Unionists into any sort of United Ireland will be disastrous for The Island of Ireland.

Well first of all I am talking about after the fufillment of requirements set out by the GFA - when a united Ireland is inevitable, then it is necessay to show unionists that minority and individual rights are protected, when the NI state was set up they were not inclusive of the nationalist community in decision making and this paved the way for decades of instability. I believe if unionists can be convinced that they are not "under siege", that in a united Ireland they will not have their rights eroded the same as ours were and they are an intrical part of decision making then a radical reaction will be minimal. This of course means a lot of concessions to preserve their culture and needs, I think a federal state will over time convince them that it is the best offer they will get in an inevititable situation.

What I find really peculiar about your arguements though is that while you say nationalists will ultimatly betray their views of a united Ireland, you are completely adamant that unionists will never ever accept a united Ireland no matter what is done to appease them, funny huh.

The fact that your relatives, friends and neighbours view themselves as Nationalists without a flag waiving loyalty to Ulster or indeed to The UK is of minor importance concerning the way they would vote when faced with the prospect of losing their jobs and facing mortgage foreclosure. It is irrelevant what promises The Irish state might make as regards any alternative opportunities in a proposed United Ireland, as a bird in the hand tends to trump two birds in the bush. In any case, many of the jobs Catholics currently enjoy, are at the expense of The UK tax payer, a contribution that any United Ireland would quite simply not be able to match.

If you think that this is idle speculation, I suggest you examine the following site exploring the attitudes of Catholics in Northern Ireland:

http://www.ark.ac.uk/nilt/2007/Political_Attitudes/NIRELND2.html

It clearly shows that only 23% of Northern Ireland's population favour a United Ireland and that only 47% of Catholics favour a United Ireland. And this is based upon aspirational feelings, not upon the hard choices that will become current at the point of a border poll.

I'm not sure where you get your impression of northern nationalists from but if you think they are as fickle as you say then what do you make of the reunification of Germany after the fall of the USSR? By your reasoning the overwhelming majority of people living in the affluent west would have refused point blank to let the east rejoin knowing that their economy would suffer greatly. National self determination is more important than you would like to believe to most people.

Also ever mind your source being a survey two years old and normally interviewing no more than 2000 people in their surveys, is this the same NILT that said SF support around the time of the assembly elections was 11%? Excuse if I don't take them too seriously, anyway surveys are just that, surveys - not the word of god.

The only statistics we can verify year on year are the political support figures. Every year they are completely at odds with the realities of elections. That calls into question the validity of their sampling.

The Irish Government will have no role in deciding on whether a border poll will be called or not, neither will anyone in Northern Ireland. The Belfast Agreement clearly assigns that power to The UK Secretary of State and him alone. As for what grounds he will base any decision on, that also remains at his discretion. It's inconceivable that he will act on some hunch that 50%+1 of the population favour a United Ireland.

Where does it say that the UK sec. of state has the right to interpret referendum results? Do you honestly believe that the SDLP nevermind SF would accept such an agreement knowing that the UK government could at any time refuse to accept the decisions of the majority of the people living in the north? Give them a bit of credit now

irish_bob

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

agree with everything you said there donegal except the last line

fianna fail are committed to nothing , they were committed to old age pension reform by way of the medical card fiasco last autumn for all of one week

futurehope

Pandcoa said:

Well first of all I am talking about after the fufillment of requirements set out by the GFA - when a united Ireland is inevitable, then it is necessay to show unionists that minority and individual rights are protected, when the NI state was set up they were not inclusive of the nationalist community in decision making and this paved the way for decades of instability. I believe if unionists can be convinced that they are not "under siege", that in a united Ireland they will not have their rights eroded the same as ours were and they are an intrical part of decision making then a radical reaction will be minimal. This of course means a lot of concessions to preserve their culture and needs, I think a federal state will over time convince them that it is the best offer they will get in an inevititable situation.

Well, if the circumstances you describe actually came about, I would suspect that the price of Unionist surrender (for that is what it would be), would only start at federalism. I can think of countless other concessions which would need to be made within a very short time period, but I won't go into that here. Your use of the word inevitable has a Marxist ring to it which I suspect would not apply in the situation you describe.

What I find really peculiar about your arguements though is that while you say nationalists will ultimatly betray their views of a united Ireland, you are completely adamant that unionists will never ever accept a united Ireland no matter what is done to appease them, funny huh.

Not at all. You see, I didn't say Nationalists will cease to be Nationalists, merely that a proportion of the specifically Catholic population will not gamble careers, mortgages and their lifestyles on the alter of a United Ireland. Also, Nationalists are already in their 'hell' and have become used to it, whereas you would be asking Unionists to go into 'hell', two very different propositions.

I'm not sure where you get your impression of northern nationalists from but if you think they are as fickle as you say then what do you make of the reunification of Germany after the fall of the USSR? By your reasoning the overwhelming majority of people living in the affluent west would have refused point blank to let the east rejoin knowing that their economy would suffer greatly. National self determination is more important than you would like to believe to most people.

The comparison you make is ludicrous. If Ireland North and South were full of Irish Nationalists then the comparison would stand, but they're not are they? Nor are they likely to become so.

Also ever mind your source being a survey two years old and normally interviewing no more than 2000 people in their surveys, is this the same NILT that said SF support around the time of the assembly elections was 11%? Excuse if I don't take them too seriously, anyway surveys are just that, surveys - not the word of god.

Of course, you are correct there, but they are the only evidence to go on short of an actual border poll. Politicians and others take real action based on surveys all the time.

The only statistics we can verify year on year are the political support figures. Every year they are completely at odds with the realities of elections. That calls into question the validity of their sampling.

I'm afraid you are misunderstanding the difference between Catholics and Nationalists. Whilst it is true that most Catholics who actually vote, do so for SF and The SDLP, this does not mean that all these people would say yes to a United Ireland, a very different proposition involving huge personal risks, as opposed to putting a local Catholic into Stormount to represent their interests in a sectarian arena. In addition, 40% of Catholics did not even vote in the last assembly elections and whilst some of these will be militant Republicans, most wont be. These people will take great persuasion to turn their lives upside down in order to achieve Irish Unity - a cause for which many of them have little interest.

Where does it say that the UK sec. of state has the right to interpret referendum results?

It doesn't. What it does say is that it is at the discretion of The UK Secretary of State whether or not a border poll is even called. There is no requirement on said politician to call any border poll unless he thinks it will definitely pass. It's at his sole discretion.

Do you honestly believe that the SDLP nevermind SF would accept such an agreement knowing that the UK government could at any time refuse to accept the decisions of the majority of the people living in the north? Give them a bit of credit now

The SDLP would have accepted any arrangement that produced power sharing. They were well aware that a United Ireland was beyond their grasp. As for SF, I will leave it to you to decide why those who had murdered women and children for thirty years decided to call an end to their campaign - I, of course have my own thoughts on that issue.

junder

SF denies claims on hunger strike deaths
SINN FÉIN has rejected the latest claims that the IRA leadership prevented a deal that possibly could have saved the lives of six of the 10 republicans who died in the 1981 H-Block hunger strikes.

These claims follow on repeated allegations that the IRA and Sinn Féin leaderships in 1981 refused to countenance ending the strike in July in order to facilitate the election of hunger strike candidate Owen Carron in August 1981. The election of Mr Carron as MP for Fermanagh South Tyrone, which followed the election of Bobby Sands who died in May of that year, marked the rise of Sinn Féin as a political force.

The Sunday Times reported yesterday that it had seen documents that showed the then British prime minister Margaret Thatcher, despite publicly being opposed to the prisoners’ demands, privately was prepared to make critical concessions.

These reported concessions, including a key demand that prisoners be allowed wear their own clothes, were made in July at a time when Bobby Sands and three other prisoners had died. By the time the hunger strike began to peter out in late August, six more prisoners had died. The last of the hunger strikers to die was INLA member Michael Devine, who passed away on August 20th, the day Mr Carron was elected MP.

The allegation that the republican leadership, driven by Gerry Adams, was prepared to prolong the strike in order to see Mr Carron elected, has been raging for a number of years now.

Four years ago former IRA prisoner Richard O’Rawe, in his book Blanketmen , said the IRA army council blocked a deal that possibly could have saved the lives of six of the hunger strikers. The Sunday Times report quoting documents it received under freedom of information legislation effectively supports Mr O’Rawe’s account of events.

Mr O’Rawe said that in July 1981, when four prisoners had died, the prisoners’ leadership accepted a deal to end the strike but that this was over-ruled by the IRA army council. Mr O’Rawe wrote that a British intermediary effectively conceded most of the prisoners’ five demands. In his book, Mr O’Rawe said that he and Brendan McFarlane, the IRA commanding officer in the Maze Prison at the time, agreed the offer should be accepted.

Both Mr McFarlane and Mr Morrison have repeatedly insisted the claims by Mr O’Rawe and others are wrong.

A Sinn Féin spokesman also said yesterday that the allegations were untrue. He said they emanated from British military intelligence “and ignore completely the actual timeline of events”.

This article appears in the print edition of the Irish Times

RedPlanet

Why would anyone believe HMG after the shenangans they played with the first hunger strike, particularly in lieui of the demand to wear civilian clothes.

K-9

Or maybe the Army Council just thought they could get a better deal?

junder

Its not just the govvernment making these accusations its ex-republican prisoners like anthony McIntyre, no dounbt many of you will slag him of, but as an outsider looking in on the republican movement and hearing accustaions made by a republican ex-prisoner well what would you think

RedPlanet

junder wrote: »

Its not just the govvernment making these accusations its ex-republican prisoners like anthony McIntyre, no dounbt many of you will slag him of, but as an outsider looking in on the republican movement and hearing accustaions made by a republican ex-prisoner well what would you think

That he sounds like a disguntled old man?
Maybe he's playing to his audience of whom... dissident republicans?

K-9

RedPlanet wrote: »

That he sounds like a disguntled old man?
Maybe he's playing to his audience of whom... dissident republicans?

Could well be.

If I remember correctly the first Hunger Strike was called off against the prisoners wishes and they seem to be saying here, that the second was prolonged against their wishes.

RedPlanet

K-9 wrote: »

Could well be.

If I remember correctly the first Hunger Strike was called off against the prisoners wishes and they seem to be saying here, that the second was prolonged against their wishes.

No, they didn't organize the strike very well.
One of them was on the brink of death when HMG conceded the demands so they all stopped the strike.
Only, HMG played a childish game, and insteading of letting the prisoner's wear their own clothes, they supplied them with "civilian clothes", that looked patently ridiculous.

Shane-1

Can we add The Irish Times to the list of bastions of Unionist culture now? Bastions including the Beatles, Liverpool FC etc etc

junder

Shane-1 wrote: »

Can we add The Irish Times to the list of bastions of Unionist culture now? Bastions including the Beatles, Liverpool FC etc etc

Did you know liverpool FC was founded by orange men?

Shane-1

junder wrote: »

Did you know liverpool FC was founded by orange men?

Yup, and Everton by catholics, but you wouldnt call LFC part of orange culture though would you?

And of course all the loyalists support the wrong team in Scotland, in actuality Hearts are a more protestant loyalist team than Rangers. And of course also the nationalists also support the wrong team, with Hibs being far more Irish than Celtic.

Pandcoa

futurehope wrote: »

Well, if the circumstances you describe actually came about, I would suspect that the price of Unionist surrender (for that is what it would be), would only start at federalism. I can think of countless other concessions which would need to be made within a very short time period, but I won't go into that here. Your use of the word inevitable has a Marxist ring to it which I suspect would not apply in the situation you describe.

Well I can’t nor can anyone else estimate how much or in what time period concessions and negotiations have to be made, it will probably be a very drawn out process in my mind, it also depends on the mindset of the unionist people – most are a lot less hostile to the republic compared to just a few decades ago when a lot refused to even set foot across the border. I said inevitable because of the hypothetical situation I had just described, but I guess you just couldn’t resist having a go

Not at all. You see, I didn't say Nationalists will cease to be Nationalists, merely that a proportion of the specifically Catholic population will not gamble careers, mortgages and their lifestyles on the alter of a United Ireland. Also, Nationalists are already in their 'hell' and have become used to it, whereas you would be asking Unionists to go into 'hell', two very different propositions.

Okay, but I never considered religion to be an ultimate deciding factor of what you believed in, nor did I ever say all Catholics would vote nationalist nor all Protestants would vote unionist. I also think the whole “Ireland burning down in financial crisis” scenario is grossly overblown by pro unionists, sure there would be problems adjusting but there is hardly going to be an Armageddon that is enough to discourage nationalists in droves from rejoining

I'm afraid you are misunderstanding the difference between Catholics and Nationalists. Whilst it is true that most Catholics who actually vote, do so for SF and The SDLP, this does not mean that all these people would say yes to a United Ireland, a very different proposition involving huge personal risks, as opposed to putting a local Catholic into Stormount to represent their interests in a sectarian arena. In addition, 40% of Catholics did not even vote in the last assembly elections and whilst some of these will be militant Republicans, most wont be. These people will take great persuasion to turn their lives upside down in order to achieve Irish Unity - a cause for which many of them have little interest.

I never talked once about the catholic population since religion is not a deciding factor (for both sides), you did, I was talking about nationalists and you started saying that a lot of Nationalists would reconsider their views when faced with economic factors. Also you speculation is going a little far, where did you get this view? NILT I bet

The comparison you make is ludicrous. If Ireland North and South were full of Irish Nationalists then the comparison would stand, but they're not are they? Nor are they likely to become so.

Are you saying the majority of southerners do not wish for a united Ireland? How exactly is it different to Germany? What makes their mindset different to the people here? The people there had just as much if not more to lose by letting the poor east rejoin

It doesn't. What it does say is that it is at the discretion of The UK Secretary of State whether or not a border poll is even called. There is no requirement on said politician to call any border poll unless he thinks it will definitely pass. It's at his sole discretion.

So? You said it was unlikely that a simple majority would not be enough to propagate a return to a united Ireland? If a 50+1 result came about there is absolutely nothing no government can do to say no as the provisions of the GFA outline. And also believe me, if there was a big enough cry to the government (either Stormont or the people) then the sec of state doesn’t really have a rational choice to disobey that unless they wish to risk all hell to break loose.

The SDLP would have accepted any arrangement that produced power sharing. They were well aware that a United Ireland was beyond their grasp.

Wow, I dare you to say that to any SDLP member, they may be push overs compared to SF in negotiations but their ultimate goal is the same as republican, we are the one community. I heard one republican in the audience at a local cross party talk say that to a counciller one year and he completely lost it on him, they take serious personal offence to such talk. If they believe a united Ireland is beyond their grasp then I wonder why its on their website frontpage

As for SF, *insert generic sensationalist jibe*

:rolleyes: Never a boards.ie thread without one

futurehope

Pandcoa said:

Well I can’t nor can anyone else estimate how much or in what time period concessions and negotiations have to be made, it will probably be a very drawn out process in my mind, it also depends on the mindset of the unionist people – most are a lot less hostile to the republic compared to just a few decades ago when a lot refused to even set foot across the border. I said inevitable because of the hypothetical situation I had just described, but I guess you just couldn’t resist having a go

I don't know how far back you go yourself, but I can assure you Unionists visited The Republic long before 'the troubles' and indeed during it. As for hostility to The Republic falling, yes I'd agree with you there and indeed welcome the new relationship that has developed between what are two neighbouring nations at peace. But I think you need to ask yourself why that has happened. The Republic has ditched any territorial claims to Northern Ireland and The Provo campaign has been wound up. Unionists always said that this type of approach would reap strong dividends and it has. It would be very naive to confuse this new relationship with any weakening of Unionist resolve to remain part of The UK.

Okay, but I never considered religion to be an ultimate deciding factor of what you believed in, nor did I ever say all Catholics would vote nationalist nor all Protestants would vote unionist. I also think the whole “Ireland burning down in financial crisis” scenario is grossly overblown by pro unionists, sure there would be problems adjusting but there is hardly going to be an Armageddon that is enough to discourage nationalists in droves from rejoining

OK, let me explain your problem again. Taking the same survey as previously (yes I know it's only a survey, but there have been others presenting similar numbers):

http://www.ark.ac.uk/nilt/2007/Political_Attitudes/NIRELND2.html

Here are the figures for those wanting a United Ireland:

Catholics: 47% of Catholics
Protestants: 3% of Protestants
No Religion: 21% of those not religious (foreigners etc)

As you can see, almost no Protestants wish for a United Ireland, whilst about half of The Catholics want it. Those without religion are not material due to their small numbers (and in any case only 21% of them would welcome a United Ireland).

As a result, if there was a poll today, The United Ireland lobby would be lucky to achieve 25% of the vote. A massive rejection.

But it's worse than that (for Nationalism). As I said previously only 60% of Catholics and 60% of Protestants voted at the last assembly election. This leaves a floating 40%. The Protestants amongst these are more likely to vote in a border poll and it's safe to say they won't all be in favour of Irish Unity. As for The Catholics, well it's these people who will consider what they have to gain from Irish Unity. Many actually work for The UK state (PSNI, civil service, NHS, etc) and will take some persuading to gamble their careers on the alter of Irish Unity. This will apply whether or not The Republic is in recession.

Are you saying the majority of southerners do not wish for a united Ireland? How exactly is it different to Germany? What makes their mindset different to the people here? The people there had just as much if not more to lose by letting the poor east rejoin

No, that's not what I'm saying. What do the words East GERMANy and West GERMANy have in common? The word GERMAN. That's right, they were all German. They had a common ethnicity and naturally wanted to unite Germany, especially with their history. The ROI would be joining with fellow Nationalists from Ulster, but also looking to absorb a large number of people who see themselves as British, not Irish. A very different scenario.

So? You said it was unlikely that a simple majority would not be enough to propagate a return to a united Ireland? If a 50+1 result came about there is absolutely nothing no government can do to say no as the provisions of the GFA outline. And also believe me, if there was a big enough cry to the government (either Stormont or the people) then the sec of state doesn’t really have a rational choice to disobey that unless they wish to risk all hell to break loose.

First of all, how do you suggest The Secretary of State asseses whether or not 50%+1 of the population favours a United Ireland, given the fact 40% don't vote and you detest opinion polls? As for your comment about all hell breaking lose if Nationalists don't get there way - well I think you've rather shot your bolt on that one don't you? A thirty year campaign ending in a white flag.

The other problem you have is if a border poll was called and the turnout was low. You might find Irish Unity would be rejected on those grounds alone. The Belfast Agreement is quite vague on what is meant by majority you know (as on many other things - deliberately so, The UK Government wrote it after all).

Wow, I dare you to say that to any SDLP member, they may be push overs compared to SF in negotiations but their ultimate goal is the same as republican, we are the one community. I heard one republican in the audience at a local cross party talk say that to a counciller one year and he completely lost it on him, they take serious personal offence to such talk. If they believe a united Ireland is beyond their grasp then I wonder why its on their website frontpage

The SDLP are an ageing political party with an ageing electorate. SF is becoming The SDLP MKII. The process is irreversible. As for slogans on a web page, forgive me if I don't give them too much credence or any concern.

By the way, how big do you think The Catholic majority will get (if it appears at all), what with the Catholic birth rate on a southward trajectory (again irreversible)?

O'Coonassa

The Shinners have no advantage in there being a united Ireland because they'd lose their electorate in a flash. Their mandate, like that of the DUP etc is based on stirring sectarian sensibilities. In a united Ireland they'd loose the leverage to do so.

Joey the lips

O'Coonassa wrote: »

The Shinners have no advantage in there being a united Ireland because they'd lose their electorate in a flash. Their mandate, like that of the DUP etc is based on stirring sectarian sensibilities. In a united Ireland they'd loose the leverage to do so.

That is not the most sensable words I have heard. Is your experience on the matter based on research or just pure guess work???

Although not a strong socialist the one thing that I cannot deny is Sinn Fein have learned something which dublin politics has failed to grasp. ie. Without the support of the people on the ground you have nothing.

Where your arguement hits a brick wall is how do you explain Martin McGuinnesses condemnation of the RIRA and CIRA killings of late in the news.

Your comments are typical of the media created spin in ireland. " Well they are all killing each other so leave them to it" Stop reading the Irish times and start reading decent papers like the sunday business post or the Irish Examiner and you wil get a true image of who stirs sectarian violence.

Bottle_of_Smoke

randylonghorn wrote: »

I agree. Where would you see them coming to roost? I would have thought FF?

Yes, that would be a possibility, perhaps labour also though.

http://www.labour.ie/northernireland/

joey the lip wrote:

Where your arguement hits a brick wall is how do you explain Martin McGuinnesses condemnation of the RIRA and CIRA killings of late in the news.

Your comments are typical of the media created spin in ireland. " Well they are all killing each other so leave them to it" Stop reading the Irish times and start reading decent papers like the sunday business post or the Irish Examiner and you wil get a true image of who stirs sectarian violence.

He did actually say sectarian sensibilities not violence and there is a truth there. I know nationalists in NI who've said to me "I'd love to be able to vote on bread and butter issues but on the other hand I don't want nationalists to lose power"

That is pretty much sectarian sensibilities, its just not violent sectarianism

Joey the lips

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Yes, that would be a possibility, perhaps labour also though.

http://www.labour.ie/northernireland/



He did actually say sectarian sensibilities not violence and there is a truth there. I know nationalists in NI who've said to me "I'd love to be able to vote on bread and butter issues but on the other hand I don't want nationalists to lose power"

That is pretty much sectarian sensibilities, its just not violent sectarianism

Thats not what was totally implied and thats not want I only commented on. He implied Sinn Feins existance is pruley bacase of the sectarian senseibilities in Northern Ireland. Which is daft and complete nonsense. If that were the case they would hae disbanded along with the PD's instead their vote had grown.

This would also have led to a rise in the SDLP's vote but if you check any senses any gain the SDLP made has been lost lately due to their inaction on the ground and partially cause they have alligned themselves with the Fianna Fail party which was a mistake in my opinion.

Where as if nationalist really felt Sinn Fein did not support a political agenda they would have went with the SDLP.

By the way if we were still dealing with Ian Paisley and not peter robinson I would agree that being the case also with the DUP. But they have come a long way of late also

Fratton Fred

A united Ireland would mean Sinn Fein has to give up their holiday home in London. What other reason would they have for renting two houses there, they refuse to attend Westminster.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/apr/08/sinn-fein-mps-expenses

pow wow

Their popularity on the new, united island (the hypothetical one that's the subject of the thread ) would potentially grow as they cease to be aligned with the issues of the North. I know a lot of people view them as being relatively extremist (more so to do with their historical allegiances than policy per se) - I'm sure if they got down and dirty with the bread and butter stuff their base would increase.

O'Coonassa

Joey the lips wrote: »

That is not the most sensable words I have heard. Is your experience on the matter based on research or just pure guess work???

Although not a strong socialist the one thing that I cannot deny is Sinn Fein have learned something which dublin politics has failed to grasp. ie. Without the support of the people on the ground you have nothing.

Where your arguement hits a brick wall is how do you explain Martin McGuinnesses condemnation of the RIRA and CIRA killings of late in the news.

Your comments are typical of the media created spin in ireland. " Well they are all killing each other so leave them to it" Stop reading the Irish times and start reading decent papers like the sunday business post or the Irish Examiner and you wil get a true image of who stirs sectarian violence.

I'm not sure you have taken me up correctly, what I am saying is based on observation and logic. The Shinner mandate stems from sectarian and tribal loyalties and concerns. These loyalties and concerns only exist because of the British occupation of the northeast. Once the British leave then those concerns leave with them. If the Shinners were truly a working class party then the support we see for them in the OSC would be repeated across Ireland. Clearly it isn't. Equally clear is the fact that they know this.

O'Coonassa

meanie boots wrote: »

Their popularity on the new, united island (the hypothetical one that's the subject of the thread ) would potentially grow as they cease to be aligned with the issues of the North. I know a lot of people view them as being relatively extremist (more so to do with their historical allegiances than policy per se) - I'm sure if they got down and dirty with the bread and butter stuff their base would increase.

But they've put huge amounts of time and money into trying to expand their base south of the border. If their bread and butter stuff was really that popular then people would have gone for it already I think.

partyguinness

You say that Sein Fein have minimal support..

They have more support that the Greens and the PDs put together and are only marginally behind Labour..and considering that the PDs and the Greens are in Gov (I am aware of the impending dissolution of the PDs) which maked it all very peculiar.

O'Coonassa

Let's face facts, the entire political class of Europe are losers. The turnout at elections in every country is dropping exponentially. There are more people who don't vote Ireland than are represented by Labour, the Shinners, the Greens etc put together.

Joey the lips

O'Coonassa wrote: »

I'm not sure you have taken me up correctly, what I am saying is based on observation and logic. The Shinner mandate stems from sectarian and tribal loyalties and concerns. These loyalties and concerns only exist because of the British occupation of the northeast. Once the British leave then those concerns leave with them. If the Shinners were truly a working class party then the support we see for them in the OSC would be repeated across Ireland. Clearly it isn't. Equally clear is the fact that they know this.

I still disagree. Sinn Fein has 2 main problems in my opinion which rather than be a stick to beat them with I think it should be a reason to elevate them
1.Sinn Fein reason to exist is a united socialist ireland. This is there politics. This is their mandate from the people. When sinn fein agreed to sit in the dail it did so cause its electorate asked it to. So on this front it has done all the electrate has asked it to.

2. The Voter. Sinn fein has 2 types of vote, Those who vote for it and those who dont. Its voters mainly come from working class areas, This is an area where it has a low turnout in voters. It does most of this work n these areas also. Sinn fein pumps all its energy to helping those who deserve it most and is rewarded by a low turn out in the electorate. Those voters in middle class to upper class areas dont vote for 2 reasons. 1.The middle class see's it as being affiliated with the IRA and because of national media associates the IRA with Illegal drug taking and Robberies. Name me one Drug dealer/IRA Man- None Name the IRA men convicted for the Northern Bank Robbery -None. This is widely posted in news papers but never retracted when shown to be wrong. So the intelligent middle class voter who does turn out will not vote sinn fein- This is factual. 2. Sinn Fein has made no bones about its plans to tax the wealthy and of course increase coperation tax in favour of home grown industries so nobody in the upper classes is going to vote for them

This will not change regardless of the 6 county occupation. In fact... What will happen WHEN a united ireland comes about is the middle class will realise that media spun so much around cause guaranteed it will spin it again when a united irelanbd comes that its vote will increase.

Where do I get this information.. From Sinn Fein No. I read the Irish Examiner and the Sunday Business post the last 2 remaining newspapers in this country not controlled. The only 2 newspapers that will agree with you one week but argue your points the next, The way the media should be.