Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Who, on this forum, is in favour of a 32 county Republic?
Options
Comments
-
:pac:Eliot Rosewater wrote: »I see you confusing me with donegalfella
Sorry about that, I was debating with him in another thread and had the quotation as my paste function. Forgot to change the paste to your name.
But surely this doesn't matter; people should have the right of self-determination. While it may be annoying to change taxes, currency and so on, I would have thought you would respect people's rights to determine this for themselves.Eliot Rosewater wrote: »Its not hard to see why, is it? Changing the currency, signage, tax systems, justice systems etc etc in two counties? There must be a tradoff somewhere.
Anyway, it shouldnt matter what country you're in once your Government doesnt discriminate against you.0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
kickoutthejams wrote: »As such, surely people have the right to determine which they feel they should belong to, especially when they were placed there by force decades ago.
I totally agree with you on that, I just think theres a practical aspect to it too. Obviously in extreme circumstances practicality goes out the window. But in general I think the cost of these things should be a factor. Which is why I would be against just Fermanagh and Tyrone joining the republic. It would be so costy and unfeasible (and dlofnep agrees with me
)
If someones gripe with a country is based more on modern day reality (such as poor social welfare) then I would suggest they just move.0 -
-
-
-
Eliot Rosewater wrote: »Which is why I would be against just Fermanagh and Tyrone joining the republic. It would be so costy and unfeasible (and dlofnep agrees with me)
Well for a number of reasons.
Firstly - It wouldn't stop dissidents. The 26 and 6, would just become the 28 and 4. Moreover, the strength of nationalists in the 6.. 4 counties would be greatly weakened, leading to severe oppression of nationalist identity, culture and voice. You can be sure that if nationalists had weakened representation in the north - there would be no devolution, nobody working on their behalf for the irish language, minimal work would be achieved on equality issues and so on.
Fermanagh and Tyrone joining the 26 is the worst possible idea. It's either all or nothing, because a compromise of 2 counties would only make things worse for everybody - in both the north and south. When something arises, it will have to be a 32 county Republic - and nothing less.
Believe me - I think about it everyday. The consequences, the benefits, what changes will be instilled for the lives of the ordinary man. And I think you are right to question the impact Irish unification would have on the ordinary man. If we all just sat here, and nodded and smiled at each other - we wouldn't be having productive discussion - and would be rather just dreaming, so I'm glad you pose the questions that you pose.0 -
-
Indeed Maggy. Thanks for clarifying that the option of independence was never on the ballot paper in 1997. And thanks also to your widely despised namesake for helping deliver a Yes/Yes votemaggy_thatcher wrote: »You're probably thinking of the devolution referendum which created the parliament in Scotland. It didn't provide for an independent Scotland, just allowed the Scottish people to manage internal matters (external matters would still be controlled through Westminster). The only part of the UK left without a locally controlled government is now England. 0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
It doesn't strike me as terribly odd. On what basis do you assert that the island of Ireland is a homogeneous entity? We all came here from somewhere. Our Unionist pals have perhaps something of the "Johnny come lately" about them, being that they are only here 400 yearsbobbysands81 wrote: »What???
Are you and your three "thankers" for real???
That is one of the oddest posts I've ever read.
! But they certainly don't align themselves culturally, or any other way, with the rest of us.
Isn't the case for a single Irish state simply based on our island geography?0 -
-
No, it's not.
Our geography is only one of many cases, that outline problems with having such a small Island divided into two states. One could look at the impact it has on border businesses and so forth. But that isn't the sole reason for the case for a single Irish state, and I'm pretty sure you're intelligent enough to know better.
Technically, we could consider the Isle of Man to be worthy as part of an Irish nation if it was purely just based on geographical location.
Well we could solve the "small" problem by throwing out lot back in with Britain.
If big is what you want, that would be one fine lump of an economy.
Anyway, the question I was asking has to do with why Nationalists arbitrarily decide that an Irish state should exactly coincide with the geographical boundary of this island? Why not push for a state that takes a chunk out of the south of Scotland and a strip of the east coast of Wales? It's a silly question of course. But if you were to answer it, you would say we have no political or cultural common ground with those places. But yet, they push to include NI in this new state despite there being a sizable community there who are clearly hostile to such a project.0 -
-
-
Slightly understated I would say!And I accept that unionists are not warm to the idea of Irish unity. If you want to try to empathize with how the unionist might feel about being a UI,I suggest you imagine how you would feel about all of Ireland being brought back under British rule. The only difference in the situations is that anybody who seriously tried to persuade you of this would be ridiculed for being, well ridiculous. And yet, republicans continue with the nonsense that the Unionists might be persuaded. They may eventually be outnumbered, and hence defeated but they will never willingly throw their lot in with a UI.
There isn't a difference. That's just the thing. And that the political arrangement pre-GFA only addressed the aspirations of one community was a complete failure doesn't seem to deter Nationalists from trying the exact same thing again. The behavior of the Unionist controlled administrations did not help of course, but even if the had behaved better, it was never going to succeed.Much in the same respect, that there is a sizable community that is hostile to British rule in the north. I'm quite unsure as to what the difference is.
It should be blindingly obvious that when there is a divided community, simply catering for which ever happened to be the largest, just won't work. Power sharing is the only sensible way to go.As far as I'm concerned, the issue is set to rest with the Good Friday Agreement. When nationalists become +1 - Unionists will have to accept unification,
You are shaping up to give rise to the definitive Irish joke. The Irish problem? A sizable number in the community of NI had to allegiance to the political structure of their country. The solution? Big up the problem by creating a new state where an even larger minority will not give allegiance! :rolleyes:
Can we not just them get on with the power sharing arrangement? For all its faults, surely they are of lesser magnitude than the problems than will inevitably arise if one side or the other insists that they must win in this clash of cultures?0 -
Slightly understated I would say! If you want to try to empathize with how the unionist might feel about being a UI,I suggest you imagine how you would feel about all of Ireland being brought back under British rule. The only difference in the situations is that anybody who seriously tried to persuade you of this would be ridiculed for being, well ridiculous. And yet, republicans continue with the nonsense that the Unionists might be persuaded. They may eventually be outnumbered, and hence defeated but they will never willingly throw their lot in with a UI.
No difference with the current situation for the nationalists then, is it? Why should unionists be given special treatment?It should be blindingly obvious that when there is a divided community, simply catering for which ever happened to be the largest, just won't work. Power sharing is the only sensible way to go.
I'm more than happy to power-share with unionists in a united Ireland. What you are really suggesting is power-sharing under a British flag is the only solution. I disagree with this. While they share power at a domestic level for a number of issues - they are still ultimately under British control.0 -
Advertisement
-
The unique way in which politics in conducted in the assembly which assures both communities get equal representation will not be duplicated in a united Ireland. If the Unionists have the power to do so, they will use it to perpetually frustrate the workings of whatever Irish parliament emerges (perhaps republicans will continue with the "we can persuade them" myth, but reality will dawn hard and fast if and when a UI comes aboutNo difference with the current situation for the nationalists then, is it? Why should unionists be given special treatment?). If they don't have the power, you will just have replicated 1969, with the roles reversed. No doubt, many republicans might be happy with this "victory", but it will be a decidedly Pyrrhic one! And may come with a terrible price tag.
What I would like to see them do is take more and more power from Westminister and administer their own affairs. Of course the will have to find a way to cut the massive budget deficit before they cut loose from Mumsy's apron strings.I'm more than happy to power-share with unionists in a united Ireland. What you are really suggesting is power-sharing under a British flag is the only solution. I disagree with this. While they share power at a domestic level for a number of issues - they are still ultimately under British control.
Compelling a sizable sub group of a population into a political arrangement that they do not want is absolute folly. The folly is compounded by the fact than in the recent history of NI we have a ready made example of exactly such a system which failed absolutely. Isn't that a definition of madness? To try the same thing again, and expect the outcome to be different? :rolleyes:0
Advertisement