Who, on this forum, is in favour of a 32 county Republic?

dlofnep

lugha wrote: »

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 about ). 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.

Unionists would have more say in an Irish parliament than they currently have in Westminister. You can be sure, we would not gerrymander the vote in a united Ireland.

There is nothing unique about how politics are conducted in stormont. Besides, nobody said that a united Ireland needed to operate from one single house. I think 2 houses of parliament would be better, at least for the short-term - to allow for policies to be still legislated at a local level for local issues - while national issues would be legislated at a higher level - with representation from all sides (tax, foreign policy and so forth).

lugha wrote: »

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:

Yes, it would be different - because from the very beginning - politics in the north got off to a bad start, which set a poor foundation for the future to come. I think you're being slightly naive to compare how Britain's political framework unfolded, which was seeded deeply on unequal footing - and how it would unfold in a 32 county Irish republic. Do you think that we would gerrymander the vote, and create mass civil inequality?

lugha

dlofnep wrote: »

Unionists would have more say in an Irish parliament than they currently have in Westminister.

Which is potentially the problem. If they have real clout, it is highly likely IMO that they will use it to cripple the workings of parliament. I wonder how soon after a UI will we here the first ironic wail from Unionism that this new UI is a failed political entity?

If they don't have power, if for example FF and FG merge to become tweedle dum-dee and permanently sideline the Unionists, it will be old Stormont, albeit by a different mode.

dlofnep wrote: »

You can be sure, we would not gerrymander the vote in a united Ireland.

We wouldn't be so honest! We will continue to pretend that we really do want them to play a role in this new Ireland. Anyway with their hand on the pulse of Irish Nationalism in any of its guises will know that at best Unionists might be tolerated and are widely disliked or even despised. It is kept under the surface much of the time but it is definitely there. If a UI does come we won't have to play footsie/kissy faces with the any more and truth will out. The Unionists wanted no truck with Nationalists either in the past, but they were just more honest about it.

LordSutch

lugha wrote: »

Anyway with their hand on the pulse of Irish Nationalism in any of its guises will know that at best Unionists might be tolerated and are widely disliked or even despised. It is kept under the surface much of the time but it is definitely there.

Well said & very true in my experience too!

By the way, to all you who 'Want' (even demand) a united ireland, would you be prepared to fully embrace the Commonwealth as a form of 'trade off' to help ease Unionists into a 32 county Republic?

getz

Camelot wrote: »

Well said & very true in my experience too!

By the way, to all you who 'Want' (even demand) a united ireland, would you be prepared to fully embrace the Commonwealth as a form of 'trade off' to help ease Unionists into a 32 county Republic?

you are flogging a dead horse,no nationalist or republican would except anything connected with the british,[except their money] they are always ready to except that,

Exile 1798

lugha wrote: »

We wouldn't be so honest! We will continue to pretend that we really do want them to play a role in this new Ireland. Anyway with their hand on the pulse of Irish Nationalism in any of its guises will know that at best Unionists might be tolerated and are widely disliked or even despised. It is kept under the surface much of the time but it is definitely there. If a UI does come we won't have to play footsie/kissy faces with the any more and truth will out. The Unionists wanted no truck with Nationalists either in the past, but they were just more honest about it.

Most Republicans work from the assumption that Unionists are pretty normal people, therefore if a United Ireland came about they'd get on with their lives like normal people.

People like yourself who are for partition fear monger about Unionists causing strife and murder in a United Ireland. You make the assumption that they're violent neanderthals and equate the worst of the worst of dead end Loyalism with the general Unionist community.

The latter view is the one that holds Unionists in contempt and distain.

tabbbyboy

someday there will be a united ireland,,,,and deep down everyone knows it,weather they like it or not

getz

tabbbyboy wrote: »

someday there will be a united ireland,,,,and deep down everyone knows it,weather they like it or not

which will come first,a united ireland under one irish goverment,or a united europe under one european goverment ? i vote the latter

Soldie

Exile 1798 wrote: »

Most Republicans work from the assumption that Unionists are pretty normal people, therefore if a United Ireland came about they'd get on with their lives like normal people.

On the same note, why can't Republicans just accept how things are and "get on with their lives like normal people"?

Mayo Exile

Yes, I'd like to see a 32 county republic.

Camelot wrote: »

By the way, to all you who 'Want' (even demand) a united ireland, would you be prepared to fully embrace the Commonwealth as a form of 'trade off' to help ease Unionists into a 32 county Republic?

Many in the south as practising Catholics might want to see the Act of Settlement of 1701 removed first which bans catholics from becoming monarch in the UK. Sectarianism is often seen as underlying alot of the problems in NI, so the British state would do well to remove this particular example of it from the very top of its constitutional structure.

Exile 1798

Camelot wrote: »

Well said & very true in my experience too!

By the way, to all you who 'Want' (even demand) a united ireland, would you be prepared to fully embrace the Commonwealth as a form of 'trade off' to help ease Unionists into a 32 county Republic?

The Good Friday Agreement states that anyone in Northern Ireland has the right to British citizenship, Irish citizenship or both. The agreement further states that this will not be affected by any future change in the status of Northern Ireland. (There are estimated to be 300 000 Irish citizens in Northern Ireland.)

So your insincere bleating about joining the Commonwealth seems like an obsolete point in light of these facts.

lugha

Exile 1798 wrote: »

People like yourself who are for partition fear monger about Unionists causing strife and murder in a United Ireland. You make the assumption that they're violent neanderthals and equate the worst of the worst of dead end Loyalism with the general Unionist community.

I expect the majority of unionists will condemn and reject any loyalist activities, as they have done before, just as the majority of nationalists rejected the PIRA and their ilk. And yet, 3000+ people went to an early grave.
This is the big problem with the united Ireland project, the total lack of realism by its supporters. The mantra is that partition is the cause of all problems, remove that and everything will be rosey.

Exile 1798

lugha wrote: »

I expect the majority of unionists will condemn and reject any loyalist activities, as they have done before, just as the majority of nationalists rejected the PIRA and their ilk. And yet, 3000+ people went to an early grave.
This is the big problem with the united Ireland project, the total lack of realism by its supporters. The mantra is that partition is the cause of all problems, remove that and everything will be rosey.

The IRA received support through the existence of a massive Nationalist under class. Places like West Belfast and the Bogside where the poorest ghetto's in the UK. The tapering off of the IRA's war coincided with the rising the Catholic middle class.

No such massive underclass of Unionists exists.

The second main driver was legitimacy. Northern Ireland had no democratic legitimacy, stemming as it did from a historic denial of democracy and threat of force. What followed was 50 years of suffocating one party rule, gerrymandering and the disenfranchisement of Nationalists. The lack of legitimacy for the very existence of the state and its subsequent oppressive nature made armed opposition to the state an acceptable position to a significant section of Nationalists north and south.

No such issue of legitimacy will exist in a United Ireland given that it will only come about through a vote the terms of which have already been agreed to by the Irish government, The British government, the Unionist and Nationalist Party's.

Your fear mongering future supposes middle class Unionists - teachers, lawyers, police officers - throwing their support behind a violennt campaign against a legitimate, democratic Ireland. Again you could only think this if you equate the very worst sociopathic loyalists with wider civic Unionism. Quite an insulting, contemptuous view.

Hagar

Yes, I'd like to see a 32 county republic.

lugha

Exile 1798 wrote: »

Your fear mongering future supposes middle class Unionists - teachers, lawyers, police officers - throwing their support behind a violennt campaign against a legitimate, democratic Ireland. Again you could only think this if you equate the very worst sociopathic loyalists with wider civic Unionism. Quite an insulting, contemptuous view.

I have already said that I don't expect the most unionists to support a loyalists campaign of violence but you chose to ignore it. Though I am amused at your inclusion of police officers in your list of upstanding unionists. I think some of your fellow republicans might be of the view that some police officers might just have been willing to aid and abet loyalists.
Anyway, your argument that the well healed nature of the unionists people couldn't give rise to "sociopathic loyalists" has an unfortunate flaw, it did in the past. Or were the loyalists death squads a republican myth?

As far the democracy argument, there is a fine tradition in Northern Ireland, perfected by the IRA and still practiced by republican dissidents of showing total disregard to what the people think.

Exile 1798

lugha wrote: »

I have already said that I don't expect the most unionists to support a loyalists campaign of violence but you chose to ignore it. Though I am amused at your inclusion of police officers in your list of upstanding unionists. I think some of your fellow republicans might be of the view that some police officers might just have been willing to aid and abet loyalists.
Anyway, your argument that the well healed nature of the unionists people couldn't give rise to "sociopathic loyalists" has an unfortunate flaw, it did in the past. Or were the loyalists death squads a republican myth?

As far the democracy argument, there is a fine tradition in Northern Ireland, perfected by the IRA and still practiced by republican dissidents of showing total disregard to what the people think.

I said middle class, not upstanding. Some middle class people are upstanding, some aren't - but middle class communities don't engage in insurgencies.

Loyalist terrorists where thoroughly supported by British intelligence. Even then at their height they weren't competent enough to rise above the level of criminal murder gangs.

Justice isn't something that can be easily reversed. White paramilitaries still exist in South Africa, but no one pays them any heed. They were rampant in the lead up to South African democracy, but once it happened Afrikaners understood that the game was up and it was time to reconcile themselves to the new dispensation. The same with Irish unification, its coming and it's not reversible.

There are decades when nothing happens and there are weeks when decades happen. Partition will be a fact of history.

lugha

Exile 1798 wrote: »

Partition will be a fact of history.

Yes, I agree that will probably happen. However, I sincerely doubt that it is going to be the glorious utopia that some republicans seem to think it will be. I guess time will tell.

Exile 1798

lugha wrote: »

Yes, I agree that will probably happen. However, I sincerely doubt that it is going to be the glorious utopia that some republicans seem to think it will be. I guess time will tell.

Can you find one example of a republican theorising that after partition the country will be some sort of glorious utopia? Doubtful, but you're welcome to try.

On the other hand, would I be able to find an example of an anti-unity person predicting a united Ireland would be some sort of hell? Probably quite easily if I went through this thread, or simply your posting history.;)

Do you accept this point?

lugha

Exile 1798 wrote: »

Can you find one example of a republican theorising that after partition the country will be some sort of glorious utopia? Doubtful, but you're welcome to try.

There is a republican view that the Irish troubles ALL stem from partition. Some republicans have focused a tad excessively on the "all" and simply assume removing the border will magically eliminate all the problems.

Some of the dividends that I have at various times heard republicans say expect in the aftermath of a united Ireland include:

* The end of sectarian politics (Src: Somewhere on boards)

* Loyalists will accept their fate and will decline to, or be too dump / incompetent to launch a campaign. (Src:You!)

* The unionists will accept the democratic will of the people and their fate and engage positively in the new state rather than undermine it (after all, haven’t the unionists a glorious record with respect to their take on democracy? (Src:Repeatedly with the mantra that unionists have a role to play in a united Ireland)

* The British will cheerfully continue to pay billions in to the NI economy even after they leave. (Src:Again on boards)

* There will be an end to FF type gombeen politics (I find the naivety of this one rather endearing!)

* Sunshine, lollipops and rainbows

Of course I don’t know anymore than anyone else how it will play out and yes, I am presenting the worse case scenario. It may not be as bad as I suggest but why take the risk? I repeatedly ask republicans to outline one problem that will be solved that absolutely could not be solved without a united Ireland? I have asked them to identify one person or group who would fare better in a united Ireland than they do not? I am severely underwhelmed by any answers I get, if I get answers at all.

The difficulty with tribalism / nationalism anywhere is that it is not based on reason. In the Irish context, republicans don’t look at the problems and decide that a united Ireland will solve them, they decide they want a united Ireland and then work backwards to try and find a way of arguing that a UI will solve the various problems.

Dempo1

I've been intrigued about this burning question and i get an impression less and less people from the republic actually care about the north and a united Ireland. I just think its a tired old story and a majority of people from the republic have more pressing concerns. The recent spectacle of the northern parties trying to agree on policing only brought to the fore the farce of northern Irish politics. Aside from any other consideration, how in heavens name could the south afford to subsidize the north at an estimated €4 Billion a year it costs the British government? i also believe an enormous amount of northern citizens are state employee's ( that would be an interesting challenge given the current commotion over our own public sector employee numbers.

Me thinks, its just fine the way its is and the shopping i believe is a Bargain crossing the boarder (I to far away to avail of the bargains)

monkey9

I've only read the first couple of pages so apologies if i'm just repeating stuff that may have already been said.

It's such a loaded question. From my own, romantic point of view, yeah a united Ireland is something i would love to see happen. It won't in my lifetime, if ever, i'm sure of that.

I find it bizarre to travel up north on this small island of ours and get to a certain point where i need to change currency.,

I find it bizarre that Liam Adams gets arrested on paedo charges in Dublin and is extradited to Belfast because they are two different jurisdictions!!

I hate the way the invisible border is a permanent reminder of British Imperialism on this island!

But as a Republic, we can hardly look after ourselves. We have a shambolic government who seem absolutely clueless and bereft of ideas, so economically, could we afford to take on everything that comes with the North? Would the North become just a hindrance and a burden to the Republic and hence then to those in the six counties?

Without a doubt, if a decision was made to unite both countries into one, a lot of lives would be lost. The troubles would start up again except flipped around!

I think the question should be, would a United Ireland be an improvement on the quality of people's lives on this island. I'm not so sure. I would love to be proven wrong and have us all as one!

Either way, as i said earlier, it won't happen in our lifetime!

paky

Im in favour of a 32 county republic. I think it is the only way Britain can apologise for the injustices it carried out against the Irish people throughout history.

I also think it will solve the sectarian issue in northern ireland.

I dont really care if it effects the economic situation in the north or south, its the priciple of the matter.

monkey9

paky wrote: »

Im in favour of a 32 county republic. I think it is the only way Britain can apologise for the injustices it carried out against the Irish people throughout history.

I also think it will solve the sectarian issue in northern ireland.

I dont really care if it effects the economic situation in the north or south, its the priciple of the matter.

There is absolutely no way it would solve the sectarian issue. Far from it.

As for British apologies?? I'd say if Britain had the choice to give the North back as an 'apology', they would gladly kill two birds with the one stone, i.e 'here, take the North off our hands, oh and yeah, sorry about all that. Now you deal with it!!'

HalloweenJack

I am all for a United Ireland. I want it as soon as possible but I don't agree with the IRA or their splinter groups who want to destroy Northern society.

I wish they'd just **** off and let politics sort it out.

MavisDavis

No. As other posters have said, reunification would be an expensive step that we cannot afford and we can barely look after ourselves as it is.
I also think that culturally we're very different. I can't see it working and I'm not sure I'd want it to anyway. I know a lot of people who feel the same way. A United Ireland just isn't top of people's agendas anymore. Things are fine as they are.
Also, being one island does not mean that we should be one country. The sense of entitlement some people have (over the will of the people) annoys me. Ireland was not one jurisdiction before the Brits arrived and there's no proof we would have become one if they had never come here.

LordSutch

MavisDavis wrote: »

I also think that culturally we're very different. I can't see it working and I'm not sure I'd want it to anyway. I know a lot of people who feel the same way. A United Ireland just isn't top of people's agendas anymore. Things are fine as they are.

Agreed 100%, I was up North recently (Belfast & Enniskillen), and there really is a different 'vibe', a very different palpable feel, probably the same cultural difference as going between London & Glasgow, which leads me onto . . .

MavisDavis wrote: »

Also, being one island does not mean that we should be one country. The sense of entitlement some people have (over the will of the people) annoys me. Ireland was not one jurisdiction before the Brits arrived and there's no proof we would have become one if they had never come here.

The bold sentence also applies to Britain, which is also a smallish island, but with certain regional distinctions (ie the border with Scotland)! I have also recently discovered that Italy is in constant flux, and permanently on the verge of breaking-up as a single country! so border or no border, there may or may not be cultural differences between the peoples on small islands or peninsulas, and in the case of this island, the North is a different country and probably closer to Scotland than Dublin (culturally & geographically). IMO.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Camelot wrote: »

Agreed 100%, I was up North recently (Belfast & Enniskillen), and there really is a different 'vibe', a very different palpable feel, probably the same cultural difference as going between London & Glasgow, which leads me onto . . .



The bold sentence also applies to Britain, which is also a smallish island, but with certain regional distinctions (ie the border with Scotland)! I have also recently discovered that Italy is in constant flux, and permanently on the verge of breaking-up as a single country! so border or no border, there may or may not be cultural differences between the peoples on small islands or peninsulas, and in the case of this island, the North is a different country and probably closer to Scotland than Dublin (culturally & geographically). IMO.

I live in Coleraine in Derry I wouldn't quite agree with this sentiment. There's a different vibe to Dublin(where I lived most of my life) but its no more different than the vibe you'd get if comparing Dublin to Cork or Galway. The accent is more Scottishy sounding but thats about the extent of it. Definitely more similar to the rest of Ireland in mannerisms and sense of humour than Scotland. And Coleraine/the Northeast is the least nationalist areas in the six counties.

That being said. I don't think the culture/sense of humour differs remarkably much in Ireland, the UK or Isle of Man etc. Like with USA and Canada, outsiders would mostly find it difficult to tell us apart.

BluePlanet

MavisDavis wrote: »

No. As other posters have said, reunification would be an expensive step that we cannot afford and we can barely look after ourselves as it is.
I also think that culturally we're very different.

How "very different" are we?
We speak the same language, watch the same tv shows, listen to the same music, cheer the same sports teams, shop at the same retailers, wear the same tracksuits.

DoireNod

MavisDavis wrote: »

I also think that culturally we're very different.

Can you elaborate please?

Exile 1798

Camelot wrote: »

Agreed 100%, I was up North recently (Belfast & Enniskillen), and there really is a different 'vibe', a very different palpable feel, probably the same cultural difference as going between London & Glasgow, which leads me onto . . .



The bold sentence also applies to Britain, which is also a smallish island, but with certain regional distinctions (ie the border with Scotland)! I have also recently discovered that Italy is in constant flux, and permanently on the verge of breaking-up as a single country! so border or no border, there may or may not be cultural differences between the peoples on small islands or peninsulas, and in the case of this island, the North is a different country and probably closer to Scotland than Dublin (culturally & geographically). IMO.

Camelot, I find it curious that when the historical Irish independence movement is discussed you play up the great cultural similarity, in your view, between Ireland and Britain.

But when the subject turns to partition you focus on the great cultural difference, in your view, between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland.

I can't expect you to agree with my view, but is to much to ask for a little honesty and consistency? Someone more cynical then I might suppose that you were engaged in intentional trolling.

LordSutch

Exile 1798 wrote: »

Camelot, I find it curious that when the historical Irish independence movement is discussed you play up the great cultural similarity, in your view, between Ireland and Britain. But when the subject turns to partition you focus on the great cultural difference, in your view, between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. I can't expect you to agree with my view, but is to much to ask for a little honesty and consistency? Someone more cynical then I might suppose that you were engaged in intentional trolling.

Yes indeed, I do play up (as you put it) the great similarities between the different people living on these islands, and I still maintain that we (English/Irish/Scottish/Welsh) are all very similar to each other in many ways (& not ethnically different)! > but I also recognise the cultural/regional difference between the Unionist people from Northern Ireland, and the Irish Nationalist people from the South! > Unionists wishing to remain visibly connected to the rest of these islands, while Irish Republicans pretend not to have any (cultural) connections with the rest of the british isles.