Now Martin McGuinness wants a referendum on Northern Ireland leaving the UK . . .

LordSutch

Martin McGuinness wants Northern Ireland to break away from the rest of the UK :eek:
(see TV3 interview clip) http://www.tv3.ie/3player/show/184/44864/1/Ireland-AM and he says this in the context of the Scottish referendum on the same issue! also being interviewed is resident SinnFein 'intellectual' Mary Lou McDonald. The clip makes interesting viewing for many reasons, the main reason being that they hardly mention the fact that Unionists may not want the North to leave the UK. All the obvious facts are pointed out to messers McGuinness & McDonalds like the fact that we are bust and that we have also lost our sovereignty. And who says that we want them anyway? and who says that they want us? Why would they give up the far superior NHS? to give one example. Personally I think the whole issue of NI breaking away from the Union is like a 'seven year itch' or a red herring, and its a hollow idea. Why would they leave the UK & join the Republic? specially in the current economic climate??? > It seems like a crazy idea to me.

All thoughts very welcome on this topic )

JustinDee

Shinners losing the "ne'er-for-the-turning" support, throw out a populist proposal that will not see the light of day in an effort to win back the 50/50s.
Hot attention-seeking air is all it is.

Sierra Oscar

McGuinness only knows too well that such a referendum would not be passed as early as 2016. I wouldn't pay much notice to this, it's SF trying to play to the hard nationalist vote that they have out of fear of losing it.

Dannyboy83

Under the GFA, NI cannot be independent.
Either it stays part of the UK or it becomes part of a new country with the Republic.

Being realistic here, we know why the romantics/republicans would want to leave - but why would anyone else want to leave the UK?

All the UK public sector jobs would disappear.
They'd be losing a massive subvention and gaining responsibility for the Republic's debt.

They lose the NHS and get the HSE
People's kids would be forced to learn Irish in school
.
.
etc.

Turkeys don't vote for Xmas.

Dai John

They want to be wanted, the truth is no one wants them. Make it a separate country or state and let them sort out their own problems. Churchill offered De Valera the 6 counties for use of the ports and even he refused.

Crooked Jack

These attitudes are typical of the unimaginative vision of partitionists.
Republicanism is not about uniting north and south, that's nationalism. Republicanism is about completely overhauling the political system here and making it something that works for the people.
Nobody is talking about sticking six counties onto 26 and hoping for the best. it would be an opportunity to create an entirely new country, one genuinely based on the principles laid out in the proclamation.
This "lose the NHS gain the HSE" stuff is a load of rubbish. The problem the free state faltered from the start is because it never really changed. Sure the flag was changed but after the civil war government after government in the south just adopted the policies and practices of the brits.
A new republic would be an opportunity to really rebuild Ireland, from the ground up. Would it be difficult? Yes. Would it be worth it in the long run? Absolutely. We could build a new nation, one committed to building prosperity for its people but without the greed that festered here for so long.
No sane person could look at Ireland over the last 90 years and say partition has worked, so dont you think it's time to try something new?
Dai John's comments in particular are preposterous. "They want to be wanted, but nobody wants them." What are you talking about? Regardless of whatever imaginary line a foreign government may have drawn across the map, this is Ireland. Ignoring the six counties because there has been trouble there is like saying "there's been a lot of stabbings in Limerick lately, lets get rid of it."
Oh, and DeValera didnt accept the deal with the ports because it would have dragged the south, already in a fragile state, into a global conflict. It also would have given britain a foothold back in Ireland at a time when Churchill was seriously considering reinvading.

baddebt

why would anyone want to vote to join this sh1thole of a country ,

northerners .........stay where you are , you'll be better off

Dannyboy83

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Republicanism is not about uniting north and south, that's nationalism. Republicanism is about completely overhauling the political system here and making it something that works for the people.
Nobody is talking about sticking six counties onto 26 and hoping for the best. it would be an opportunity to create an entirely new country, one genuinely based on the principles laid out in the proclamation.

Your putting the cart before the horse.
Your entire vision depends on the premise that we'll achieve great things after reunification.

If there is something attractive to offer the people in the North, then it's understandable why they'd want to join us.
But you have to have something to offer them. An incentive.

That's just dealing with the North.
What about the people in the south?
Right now, Sinn Fein cannot even beat Fianna Fail after they've done the economic version of Nagasaki/Hiroshima, so while I agree that it's a very nice fantasy, it is - just - a fantasy.

Crooked Jack

You're at this "joining us" rubbish again. i would envision the south changing just as much as the north.
As for the election, I'm as appalled as you are that anybody voted for Fianna Fail in the last election, but that's an issue for them, not Sinn Fein, I'd say if you spoke to any of the Sinners they'd be quite happy with how it went.
I agree that what i'm saying does put reunification first but wouldnt say that's putting the horse before the cart.
The border is one of many obstacles to creating a new country. It's a hinderance blocking our progress. Two governments, health systems, emergency services, civil services etc... on an island this size is ridiculous.
Your last comment also raises an interesting issue.
Why is any mention of reuniting Ireland and building a new country simply brushed off as fantasy? Is that not how any reality starts? As a thought or an idea. Maybe if more people dreamt a little instead of just accepting the current reality as an unalterable fact we'd get somewhere. To me, one functioning country seems a better idea than two dysfunctional ones. if that makes me a fantasist then so be it.

Dubhlinner

I wonder does McGuinness know the 2010 census results. Have heard a lot of people speculate catholic background will be the majority demographic within a generation.

Only when that happens will a yes vote becomes anyway possible . 2016? not a hope.

hallelujajordan

Crooked Jack wrote: »

These attitudes are typical of the unimaginative vision of partitionists.
Republicanism is not about uniting north and south, that's nationalism. Republicanism is about completely overhauling the political system here and making it something that works for the people.
Nobody is talking about sticking six counties onto 26 and hoping for the best. it would be an opportunity to create an entirely new country, one genuinely based on the principles laid out in the proclamation.
This "lose the NHS gain the HSE" stuff is a load of rubbish. The problem the free state faltered from the start is because it never really changed. Sure the flag was changed but after the civil war government after government in the south just adopted the policies and practices of the brits.
A new republic would be an opportunity to really rebuild Ireland, from the ground up. Would it be difficult? Yes. Would it be worth it in the long run? Absolutely. We could build a new nation, one committed to building prosperity for its people but without the greed that festered here for so long.
No sane person could look at Ireland over the last 90 years and say partition has worked, so dont you think it's time to try something new?
Dai John's comments in particular are preposterous. "They want to be wanted, but nobody wants them." What are you talking about? Regardless of whatever imaginary line a foreign government may have drawn across the map, this is Ireland. Ignoring the six counties because there has been trouble there is like saying "there's been a lot of stabbings in Limerick lately, lets get rid of it."
Oh, and DeValera didnt accept the deal with the ports because it would have dragged the south, already in a fragile state, into a global conflict. It also would have given britain a foothold back in Ireland at a time when Churchill was seriously considering reinvading.

We could have done that at any point over the last 90 years and we didn't . . In fact there is nothing stopping us doing it today . . reunification with the North certainly isn't a prerequisite . . and I fail to see how it could even be a catalyst ?

LordSutch

Dubhlinner wrote: »

I wonder does McGuinness know the 2010 census results. Have heard a lot of people speculate catholic background will be the majority demographic within a generation.

I think its more to do with the seven year itch I mention on post#1, apparently there is a clause in the GFA to ask for a border poll every seven years (its referenced in the TV3 clip). As regards a religious breakdown, I not so sure that Roman Catholics would be so keen to leave the Union either! even if they were in the majority in Northern Ireland (which they're not). I don't beleive we could support the North anyway.

Crooked Jack

Then why didnt we? Simply because you cant build a new nation but exclude a third of the population.
I think a reunified Ireland would reinvigorate people. I think there'd be a new energy and you would see people really working for the good of the nation, not just themselves.
One of the main problems with partition is that it pits north against south. lets say a big company is coming to Ireland and bringing 500 new jobs. Do they go to Newry or Dundalk. Then you have two institutions battling it out against each other. One can only succeed to the detriment of the other.
As one nation we could all work for the common good.
Another reason i think we havent built the Ireland we all think we deserve is because very few people actually see the constitutional issue as settled. I mean does anybody realistically think that this is the final result. That this is settlement that will last? people are talking about reunification 50/100 years down the line. If that's the end result then why wait. Why not begin working for it now, lay down the groundwork and make the transition as smooth as possible.

Manach

Perhaps Roman Catholics would like to be part of a political system that pays a lipservice respect to their faith, hence a perference for the UK as opposed to the people's republic of Gilmour and Quinn.

Dubhlinner

LordSutch wrote: »

I think its more to do with the seven year itch I mention on post#1, apparently there is a clause in the GFA to ask for a border poll every seven years (its referenced in the TV3 clip). As regards a religious breakdown, I not so sure that Roman Catholics would be so keen to leave the Union either! even if they were in the majority in Northern Ireland (which they're not). I don't beleive we could support the North anyway.

I suspect that when the historical backgrounds are a 50/50 split there will be a much greater momentum for a yes vote.

Right now the demographics are weighted heavily in favour of remaining in the UK. So moderate nationalists don't even bother with the notion. When that changes there will likely be a new dynamic.

Whilst most RC backgrounders claim they wish to remain in the UK they don't describe themselves as unionists or British. They'd rather the union jack wasn't flying from government buildings.

I believe that's the reason why Peter Robinson spoke so radically about appealing to RCs at the last DUP annual conference

hallelujajordan

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Then why didnt we? Simply because you cant build a new nation but exclude a third of the population.
I think a reunified Ireland would reinvigorate people. I think there'd be a new energy and you would see people really working for the good of the nation, not just themselves.
One of the main problems with partition is that it pits north against south. lets say a big company is coming to Ireland and bringing 500 new jobs. Do they go to Newry or Dundalk. Then you have two institutions battling it out against each other. One can only succeed to the detriment of the other.
As one nation we could all work for the common good.
Another reason i think we havent built the Ireland we all think we deserve is because very few people actually see the constitutional issue as settled. I mean does anybody realistically think that this is the final result.

Yes you can .. there is no reason why we couldnt build a new nation, one committed to building prosperity for its people but without the greed that festered here for so long. within the context of a 26 county republic. There is no reason why the people within our current 26 county one nation cannot all work for the common good.

That this is settlement that will last? people are talking about reunification 50/100 years down the line. If that's the end result then why wait. Why not begin working for it now, lay down the groundwork and make the transition as smooth as possible.

Because the majority of people who live in Northern Ireland probably do not agree about the eventuality of reunification and are certainly unlikely to begin working for it now (beyond the North-South structures that are already in place)

maccored

Who is 'they', who is 'no-one' and what qualifies you to make such a statement in the firstplace?

Dai John wrote: »

They want to be wanted, the truth is no one wants them. Make it a separate country or state and let them sort out their own problems. Churchill offered De Valera the 6 counties for use of the ports and even he refused.

Crooked Jack

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Yes you can .. there is no reason why we couldnt build a new nation, one committed to building prosperity for its people but without the greed that festered here for so long. within the context of a 26 county republic. There is no reason why the people within our current 26 county one nation cannot all work for the common good.

then why hasnt it happened?

maccored

Crooked Jack wrote: »

You're at this "joining us" rubbish again. i would envision the south changing just as much as the north.

I totally agree. I find it amazing how short sighted people are when it comes to a 32 county all ireland by thinking its a matter of one state absorbing another rather than two states being completely reconfigured as one whole - over a lengthy time period as well.

Sierra Oscar wrote:

McGuinness only knows too well that such a referendum would not be passed as early as 2016.

He never mentioned passing a referendum as early as 2016. The next term is between 2016 and 2020. Way to go in misrepresentation.

Border-Rat

Sinn Fein are probably keeping an eye on Scottish developments. If Scotland leaves in 2014 then a lot can change between now and 2016, it may very well be worth a shot on goal. Or Sinn Fein may wait untill they take over the Dail too, that could happen by 2021.

And, in no way is Sinn Fein losing the 'hard Nationalist' vote in the 06 Counties. They've gained my support in the past 24 months and I know others who have changed opinion too.

Sierra Oscar

Dubhlinner wrote: »

I wonder does McGuinness know the 2010 census results. Have heard a lot of people speculate catholic background will be the majority demographic within a generation.

Only when that happens will a yes vote becomes anyway possible . 2016? not a hope.

If you are Catholic, that does not necessarily make you a nationalist. Peter Robinson stated at the last DUP national conference that the DUP would turn to the Catholic voter for support in the future - religion may not be as important in determining Northern Irish affairs as it once was within the next generation or so.

I also suspect that the majority in Northern Ireland would prefer an independent Northern Ireland before wishing for a united Ireland.

irishh_bob

Dai John wrote: »

They want to be wanted, the truth is no one wants them. Make it a separate country or state and let them sort out their own problems. Churchill offered De Valera the 6 counties for use of the ports and even he refused.

this idea of independant northern ireland state is the stupidest ive ever heard , if i ( a nationalist ) lived in northern ireland , id perfer the present set up than that stinker

Border-Rat

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

If you are Catholic, that does not necessarily make you a nationalist. Peter Robinson stated at the last DUP national conference that the DUP would turn to the Catholic voter for support in the future - religion may not be as important in determining Northern Irish affairs as it once was within the next generation or so.

I also suspect that the majority in Northern Ireland would prefer an independent Northern Ireland before wishing for a united Ireland.

As a citizen of the 06 Counties, I can inform you that you are shockingly out of touch with the realities of the demographics on the ground here. If you think that Nationalists and/or Catholics will opt against a United Ireland you're living in a fantasy world. I know many abstentionists here who, like me, will vote for the first time in such a referendum and it'll be for a United Ireland.

This isn't just out of National desire or because of still vivid recollection of brutality inflicted within the past 15 years.

4 out of the 06 Counties are Nationalist. 4 of those suffer the border, i.e. being isolated from their economic hinterland, permanently bottlenecking prosperity. Why would such people opt to continue this especially given recent animosity? And in the past decade it has gotten worse. Most border towns have been devastated by cross-border shopping. Businessnes have been wiped out.

Your partitionist fantasy is removed from reality.

hallelujajordan

Crooked Jack wrote: »

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Yes you can .. there is no reason why we couldnt build a new nation, one committed to building prosperity for its people but without the greed that festered here for so long. within the context of a 26 county republic. There is no reason why the people within our current 26 county one nation cannot all work for the common good.

then why hasnt it happened?

because the will of the people doesn't exist . . and reunification will do nothing to change that.

bwatson

Border-Rat wrote: »

As a citizen of the 06 Counties, I can inform you that you are shockingly out of touch with the realities of the demographics on the ground here. If you think that Nationalists and/or Catholics will opt against a United Ireland you're living in a fantasy world. I know many abstentionists here who, like me, will vote for the first time in such a referendum and it'll be for a United Ireland.

This isn't just out of National desire or because of still vivid recollection of brutality inflicted within the past 15 years.

4 out of the 06 Counties are Nationalist. 4 of those suffer the border, i.e. being isolated from their economic hinterland, permanently bottlenecking prosperity. Why would such people opt to continue this especially given recent animosity? And in the past decade it has gotten worse. Most border towns have been devastated by cross-border shopping. Businessnes have been wiped out.

Your partitionist fantasy is removed from reality.

Why do you call Northern Ireland the "06" but refer to the four Northern Irish counties of the United Kingdom with catholic majorities as just the "4"?

Are you trying to make Northern Ireland sound like a lads holiday to Ibiza?

Crooked Jack

The will to build a better country doesnt exist? So what then, people are happy with the way things are? I just dont accept that.
Reunification would kick start momentous change right across the country.
Look at scotland, even talk of independence has created a palpable sense of optimism and energy there. Im not saying its the same situation, I'm just saying independence here could create something similar.

Border-Rat

Crooked Jack wrote: »

The will to build a better country doesnt exist? So what then, people are happy with the way things are? I just dont accept that.
Reunification would kick start momentous change right across the country.
Look at scotland, even talk of independence has created a palpable sense of optimism and energy there. Im not saying its the same situation, I'm just saying independence here could create something similar.

The partitionists are just gonna have to get used to it: Demographics in the 06 Counties are leaning in one direction. The majority of people under the age of 30 are Nationalists. The majority of students are Nationalist. They cling to the argument that, for some bizarre reason, these people will just turn into Unionists. Thats fantasy, pure and simple. Firstly because people here have memories. Secondly, they considered themselves Irish in the first place before severe antagonisation. Third, the Union is finished. Fourth, border Counties suffer perpetual economic stagnation because of partition.

And this include Southern border Counties.

Dubhlinner

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

If you are Catholic, that does not necessarily make you a nationalist. Peter Robinson stated at the last DUP national conference that the DUP would turn to the Catholic voter for support in the future - religion may not be as important in determining Northern Irish affairs as it once was within the next generation or so.

I also suspect that the majority in Northern Ireland would prefer an independent Northern Ireland before wishing for a united Ireland.

Indeed not. Generally speaking though they will identify as Irish and not British. Protestants tend to identify as northern Irish or British or both.
Slightly less common but some Catholics describe themselves as northern Irish and some Protestants as Irish. I'm yet to come across a Catholic describing themself as British.
This won't change anytime soon.

Look at the surveys. Despite a big majority of Catholics indicating they'd vote to stay in the UK they still don't describe themselves as unionists or british. Weird one that really. The lines blur a fair bit. Its a strange place.

Like you say religion does not confirm political status. Very strong correlations though.

maccored

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

I also suspect that the majority in Northern Ireland would prefer an independent Northern Ireland before wishing for a united Ireland.

You suspect that the majority of people in the north would wish for 'independent Northern Ireland' - even though the same people are acutely aware that the place is too small to ever survive independently ....?

Thats mad talk.

Benny_Cake

Crooked Jack wrote: »

You're at this "joining us" rubbish again. i would envision the south changing just as much as the north.
As for the election, I'm as appalled as you are that anybody voted for Fianna Fail in the last election, but that's an issue for them, not Sinn Fein, I'd say if you spoke to any of the Sinners they'd be quite happy with how it went.
I agree that what i'm saying does put reunification first but wouldnt say that's putting the horse before the cart.
The border is one of many obstacles to creating a new country. It's a hinderance blocking our progress. Two governments, health systems, emergency services, civil services etc... on an island this size is ridiculous.
Your last comment also raises an interesting issue.
Why is any mention of reuniting Ireland and building a new country simply brushed off as fantasy? Is that not how any reality starts? As a thought or an idea. Maybe if more people dreamt a little instead of just accepting the current reality as an unalterable fact we'd get somewhere. To me, one functioning country seems a better idea than two dysfunctional ones. if that makes me a fantasist then so be it.

I applaud your idealism, but I see one problem - as far as I'm aware both governments have indicated that in the context of a United Ireland the Good Friday institutions would remain in place and Dublin would simply have the power that London has now. I just don't see how that would be affordable for the Republic, similarly, without that you would have zero chance of winning Unionist support and many Nationalists / Republicans would think twice. I'm not hostile to the idea of a United Ireland - consent would be the main thing for me, but I can't see how this particular circle can be squared.

swimming in a sea

Crooked Jack wrote: »

These attitudes are typical of the unimaginative vision of partitionists.
Republicanism is not about uniting north and south, that's nationalism. Republicanism is about completely overhauling the political system here and making it something that works for the people.
Nobody is talking about sticking six counties onto 26 and hoping for the best. it would be an opportunity to create an entirely new country, one genuinely based on the principles laid out in the proclamation.
This "lose the NHS gain the HSE" stuff is a load of rubbish. The problem the free state faltered from the start is because it never really changed. Sure the flag was changed but after the civil war government after government in the south just adopted the policies and practices of the brits.
A new republic would be an opportunity to really rebuild Ireland, from the ground up. Would it be difficult? Yes. Would it be worth it in the long run? Absolutely. We could build a new nation, one committed to building prosperity for its people but without the greed that festered here for so long.
No sane person could look at Ireland over the last 90 years and say partition has worked, so dont you think it's time to try something new?
Dai John's comments in particular are preposterous. "They want to be wanted, but nobody wants them." What are you talking about? Regardless of whatever imaginary line a foreign government may have drawn across the map, this is Ireland. Ignoring the six counties because there has been trouble there is like saying "there's been a lot of stabbings in Limerick lately, lets get rid of it."
Oh, and DeValera didnt accept the deal with the ports because it would have dragged the south, already in a fragile state, into a global conflict. It also would have given britain a foothold back in Ireland at a time when Churchill was seriously considering reinvading.

Your Ireland i'd say:D http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Em9XEs9H2JI

Sierra Oscar

Border-Rat wrote: »

Your partitionist fantasy is removed from reality.

First off, do you recognise that as of 2007 opinion polling in Northern Ireland showed that 36% of the population of Northern Ireland defined themselves as unionist, 24% as Nationalist and 40% as "Other"? Do you also know that as of 2009, only 21% of the people of Northern Ireland wished to see the bringing about of a United Ireland?

I am a nationalist myself, but a realist all the same. There is not a hope that a referendum on Irish unity would be passed in Northern Ireland in the time frame McGuinness has outlined - whether it be held in 2016, 2020 or any time in-between. Since I am a constitutionalist nationalist (who respects the will of people in Northern Ireland) I think it would really hurt the nationalist cause if a referendum was held within the next few years. Fact is, based on the figures listed above, it would not come close to being passed and would instead be shot down in flames - and a subsequent referendum would be off the cards for a generation at least.

BigCon

Op throw up a poll.

Crooked Jack

swimming in a sea full of trout wrote: »

Your Ireland i'd say:D http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Em9XEs9H2JI

if it were said of us that we're almost romantics, that we are incorrigible idealists, that we think the impossible: then a thousand and one times we have to answer 'yes we are'.

swimming in a sea

Crooked Jack wrote: »

if it were said of us that we're almost romantics, that we are incorrigible idealists, that we think the impossible: then a thousand and one times we have to answer 'yes we are'.

maybe you are..... maybe the rest of us are to pessimistic for our own good.

as for 32 county Ireland, well I've heard that all before, but what got me interested was about do you really think there could be a new start a country built on justice, equality etc there is no basis I see in history for this, every few years we see some new freedom fighters take over a country in Africa and within months they are the new oppressor...

how things gonna change

hallelujajordan

Crooked Jack wrote: »

The will to build a better country doesnt exist? So what then, people are happy with the way things are? I just dont accept that.
Reunification would kick start momentous change right across the country.
Look at scotland, even talk of independence has created a palpable sense of optimism and energy there. Im not saying its the same situation, I'm just saying independence here could create something similar.

The will (or lack of) of the people to improve Ireland in the way you outline and the desire (or lack of) to unify North and South under a new republic are two mutually exclusive things. . . We can improve our Republic without any unification if the people within the republic really want it to happen. Equally, we could bolt on NI without changing anything and improve nothing. . I just don't get why/how you link the two ?

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

First off, do you recognise that as of 2007 opinion polling in Northern Ireland showed that 36% of the population of Northern Ireland defined themselves as unionist, 24% as Nationalist and 40% as "Other"? Do you also know that as of 2009, only 21% of the people of Northern Ireland wished to see the bringing about of a United Ireland?

I am a nationalist myself, but a realist all the same. There is not a hope that a referendum on Irish unity would be passed in Northern Ireland in the time frame McGuinness has outlined - whether it be held in 2016, 2020 or any time in-between. Since I am a constitutionalist nationalist (who respects the will of people in Northern Ireland) I think it would really hurt the nationalist cause if a referendum was held within the next few years. Fact is, based on the figures listed above, it would not come close to being passed and would instead be shot down in flames - and a subsequent referendum would be off the cards for a generation at least.

I think this is an important point. . A referendum right now would be defeated. in fact, when push comes to shove and individuals on the ground begin to consider the personal impact of a reunification I believe a lot of Nationalists / Republicans may even move across to the No/Don't know camp. . .

A defeat would almost certainly kill the question for a very long time . . There is absolutely no value in asking the question until you have at least a reasonable chance of getting the answer you want. .

KeithAFC

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

If you are Catholic, that does not necessarily make you a nationalist. Peter Robinson stated at the last DUP national conference that the DUP would turn to the Catholic voter for support in the future - religion may not be as important in determining Northern Irish affairs as it once was within the next generation or so.

I also suspect that the majority in Northern Ireland would prefer an independent Northern Ireland before wishing for a united Ireland.

That would be the view from Ulster Nationalists/patriots. Most Unionists are Ulster nationalists. Its just the 2nd card to play. But things are going good for Unionism at the moment. Hopefully the DUP can keep playing the be more moderate card and win more votes.

Crooked Jack

swimming in a sea full of trout wrote: »

maybe you are..... maybe the rest of us are to pessimistic for our own good.

as for 32 county Ireland, well I've heard that all before, but what got me interested was about do you really think there could be a new start a country built on justice, equality etc there is no basis I see in history for this, every few years we see some new freedom fighters take over a country in Africa and within months they are the new oppressor...

how things gonna change

Well I'm not advocating a militant over throw and just because something hasnt been done before doesnt mean it cant be done. hell, if we had that attitude we'd still be living in caves and frightened of the sky.
Maybe what i was saying sounded a little to idealistic to be taken seriously but why shouldnt we aim high. This country has two problems that limit us far more than any economic concerns or foreign aggression.
1 - There is a genuine self-defeating inferiority complex in this country, particularly when it comes to England.
2 - There is a tendency to sneer at or belittle optimism, new ideas or efforts at change

Crooked Jack

hallelujajordan wrote: »

The will (or lack of) of the people to improve Ireland in the way you outline and the desire (or lack of) to unify North and South under a new republic are two mutually exclusive things. . . We can improve our Republic without any unification if the people within the republic really want it to happen. Equally, we could bolt on NI without changing anything and improve nothing. . I just don't get why/how you link the two ? .

Well, I dont get how you dont link the two. You cant improve a part of a country or a bit of a country, it's all or nothing. Clearly you're of the opinion that the north and south are two utterly separate entities, but as someone who lives on the border with strong ties each side of it, and who has lived all over the country at one stage or another, I find that notion preposterous.
You continue to talk about "bolting on" the north when I've made clear that republicanism is about creating a whole new country north and south.
Partition creates two competing entities on a small island. if Ireland is fighting itself then of course it's never going to better itself.
If the south can improve and prosper on its own then why doesnt it? The same for the north. I said this earlier but i think it bears repeating. i have yet to meet anyone who can honestly say that partition was a good idea and that it works. Why then do people continue to defend it?

hallelujajordan

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Well, I dont get how you dont link the two. You cant improve a part of a country or a bit of a country, it's all or nothing. Clearly you're of the opinion that the north and south are two utterly separate entities, but as someone who lives on the border with strong ties each side of it, and who has lived all over the country at one stage or another, I find that notion preposterous.
You continue to talk about "bolting on" the north when I've made clear that republicanism is about creating a whole new country north and south.
Partition creates two competing entities on a small island. if Ireland is fighting itself then of course it's never going to better itself.
If the south can improve and prosper on its own then why doesnt it? The same for the north. I said this earlier but i think it bears repeating. i have yet to meet anyone who can honestly say that partition was a good idea and that it works. Why then do people continue to defend it?

I don't defend partition and I would consider myself a nationalist. I would love to see the creation of a United Ireland in the way you describe. . I just don't get why unification is a pre-requisite for the creation of a better Ireland ? That doesn't make sense to me.

Bannasidhe

Do people living in the 26 counties get to vote as to whether we want a united Ireland? Surely that is such a big decision that would impact on all the inhabitants of this island that it should be determined if it is the will of the majority of all the inhabitants not just those of the 6 counties?

KeithAFC

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Well, I dont get how you dont link the two. You cant improve a part of a country or a bit of a country, it's all or nothing. Clearly you're of the opinion that the north and south are two utterly separate entities, but as someone who lives on the border with strong ties each side of it, and who has lived all over the country at one stage or another, I find that notion preposterous.
You continue to talk about "bolting on" the north when I've made clear that republicanism is about creating a whole new country north and south.
Partition creates two competing entities on a small island. if Ireland is fighting itself then of course it's never going to better itself.
If the south can improve and prosper on its own then why doesnt it? The same for the north. I said this earlier but i think it bears repeating. i have yet to meet anyone who can honestly say that partition was a good idea and that it works. Why then do people continue to defend it?

Partition does work. What exactly does the Irish Republic offer us at this moment in time? Face it, there will be no United Ireland in this generation and most likely the next. The Republic is seriously struggling as a country and will take a long time to recover.

Republicans are trying to predict in any way they can but how on earth do you know what the country will be like in 40-50 years time? We could be part of a United states of Europe. And besides, there seems to just be no massive support for a United Ireland in the Republic itself.


So this 2016 referendum should happen, get destroyed in the voting count and that will be that for a while at least.

Terrontress

The majority of people in Northern Ireland are just trying to get on with things and talk of a change of government is just one further distraction.

Ireland will always be united as an island and I don't see the issue in having two governments, provided the state subvention from the UK continues.

What does any Northerner have to gain? I can't see any benefit whatsoever. Most of the fun things are already united. There are motorways linking the two with free travel between them.

Part of me wonders do Southerners call for a UI as schadenfreude so those up North will have to endure all the taxes and poor services that they have had to endure.

Cavehill Red

Don't worry, Keith. We'll continue to respect your right to carry a British passport (if the Brits give you one) after unification.
You'll still be entitled to equal access to employment, housing and education opportunities.
We'll be sure not to found any state paramilitary organisations to brutalise on your communities. We won't gerrymander the constituencies to erode your democratic vote.
Do you know why? Because you're us, Keith. Irish too.
I firmly believe 90% of the reason Unionists resist the concept of unification is because they fear the jackboot they once wore would be on the other foot. (The other 10% is residual and nonsensical fear of 'Rome Rule'.)

KeithAFC

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Don't worry, Keith. We'll continue to respect your right to carry a British passport (if the Brits give you one) after unification.
You'll still be entitled to equal access to employment, housing and education opportunities.
We'll be sure not to found any state paramilitary organisations to brutalise on your communities. We won't gerrymander the constituencies to erode your democratic vote.
Do you know why? Because you're us, Keith. Irish too.
I firmly believe 90% of the reason Unionists resist the concept of unification is because they fear the jackboot they once wore would be on the other foot. (The other 10% is residual and nonsensical fear of 'Rome Rule'.)

Perhaps if you came up with a better argument for a United Ireland, more people might listen. That includes a hell of a lot of Irish people in the Republic who just don't want to know. They don't want Irish nationalists from Northern Ireland.

They have enough problems without worrying about a United Ireland.

Cavehill Red

KeithAFC wrote: »

Perhaps if you came up with a better argument for a United Ireland, more people might listen. That includes a hell of a lot of Irish people in the Republic who just don't want to know. They don't want Irish nationalists from Northern Ireland.

They have enough problems without worrying about a United Ireland.

You do cling to this desperation that somehow the South would reject unification, based on little other than an ideological faith that those you perceive as 'your enemies' will save you from themselves when Britain finally walks away. Parsing that logic is beyond surreal, but I'm well-versed in the intellectual distortions Unionism plays on itself - loyalty to the Queen but not her government, claiming to be British yet from another island, no surrender of the union, yet covert Ulster [sic] nationalists, the list of bizarre contradictions goes on and on.
Keith, when the parties draw up a white paper, then we'll all get to see what shape a unified Ireland might look like, and we can all debate it then. I expect it will feature Unionist input and likely a degree of autonomy for the currently occupied counties too.
Until people know the detail of what they're being asked to support, there will be those sensible people who will ask for more information. That's only wise. When that information is developed through public debate, then I can assure you, a vote on unification would sail through in the 26.

KeithAFC

Cavehill Red wrote: »

You do cling to this desperation that somehow the South would reject unification, based on little other than an ideological faith that those you perceive as 'your enemies' will save you from themselves when Britain finally walks away. Parsing that logic is beyond surreal, but I'm well-versed in the intellectual distortions Unionism plays on itself - loyalty to the Queen but not her government, claiming to be British yet from another island, no surrender of the union, yet covert Ulster [sic] nationalists, the list of bizarre contradictions goes on and on.
Keith, when the parties draw up a white paper, then we'll all get to see what shape a unified Ireland might look like, and we can all debate it then. I expect it will feature Unionist input and likely a degree of autonomy for the currently occupied counties too.
Until people know the detail of what they're being asked to support, there will be those sensible people who will ask for more information. That's only wise. When that information is developed through public debate, then I can assure you, a vote on unification would sail through in the 26.

Again, the presumption that the Republic will be just fine and will be able to afford Northern Ireland. It is just the most silly argument I have heard and seen. The Republic can't afford Northern Ireland and for the foreseeable future, will not be able to afford it.

A large amount of people also don't want Northern Ireland. It isn't as clear cut as Irish Republicans want it to be. Hell, some Irish Republicans don't even think the Republic or N.I should have a vote on it because they see both countries as illegitimate.

Irish Republicanism does face a uphill battle in terms of the economy and the actual reality of the aspiration of a United Ireland from the people.

LordSutch

Cavehill Red wrote: »

You do cling to this desperation that somehow the South would reject unification, based on little other than an ideological faith that those you perceive as 'your enemies' will save you from themselves when Britain finally walks away.

Watching the TV3 interview I couldn't help thinking that realistically there is no chance any time soon that we in the South would want the burden of Northern Ireland landing on our finances or our jobs market!!! listening to the interviews again you can see that the only reason this has surfaced now is because MgGuinness was put on the spot by a Journo covering the Scottish story!

Link to TV3 McGuinness interview > http://www.tv3.ie/3player/show/184/44864/1/Ireland-AM

Cavehill Red

KeithAFC wrote: »

Again, the presumption that the Republic will be just fine and will be able to afford Northern Ireland. It is just the most silly argument I have heard and seen. The Republic can't afford Northern Ireland and for the foreseeable future, will not be able to afford it.

A large amount of people also don't want Northern Ireland. It isn't as clear cut as Irish Republicans want it to be. Hell, some Irish Republicans don't even think the Republic or N.I should have a vote on it because they see both countries as illegitimate.

Irish Republicanism does face a uphill battle in terms of the economy and the actual reality of the aspiration of a United Ireland from the people.

Here's my challenge to Unionism - if they're so sure of the results of a referendum, hold a binding one in both states - the UK and Ireland, and let's see what happens next. I've never yet met a Unionist prepared to roll those dice.

Benny_Cake

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Well, I dont get how you dont link the two. You cant improve a part of a country or a bit of a country, it's all or nothing. Clearly you're of the opinion that the north and south are two utterly separate entities, but as someone who lives on the border with strong ties each side of it, and who has lived all over the country at one stage or another, I find that notion preposterous.
You continue to talk about "bolting on" the north when I've made clear that republicanism is about creating a whole new country north and south.
Partition creates two competing entities on a small island. if Ireland is fighting itself then of course it's never going to better itself.
If the south can improve and prosper on its own then why doesnt it? The same for the north. I said this earlier but i think it bears repeating. i have yet to meet anyone who can honestly say that partition was a good idea and that it works. Why then do people continue to defend it?

I'm not sure what you mean by "You cant improve a part of a country or a bit of a country, it's all or nothing". Clearly this isn't the case, West Germany managed to create one of the world's wealthiest economies out of the ashes of a world war, play a key role in the creation of a more united Europe and win 3 World Cups while their fellow countrymen in the GDR were separated from them behind the world's most fortified border. The same could be said for South Korea, and I'll probably take some flak for this, but even with our present difficulties, life in Ireland, north and south is a lot more prosperous and comfortable than it was in 1922.

That isn't to say that partition is a good thing, but that it doesn't necessarily hold this country, or any other country back. I'm not one of those who considers Northern Ireland another foreign country, clearly it isn't. Over time the border may become irrelevant anyway, most visitors to Ireland don't even realise when they've crossed it.

lugha

Crooked Jack wrote: »

it would be an opportunity to create an entirely new country, one genuinely based on
the principles laid out in the proclamation.

The proclamation is little more than an aspiration and is decided scant on detail. It has no more value than the election manifesto of any political party, which invariably promise a wonderful new dawn for the state if said party were given the reigns. Of course the promises of their manifesto and the reality of what they achieve are two quite different things. All that's different about Pearse and co is that got shot so they didn't get found out.

I see no evidence that this promised utopian state could ever have been achieved, and there is certainly no evidence that partition caused it to fail. Can you look at any of the failings of the free state and say they could never have happened only for partition? The grip the RC church held on the state until recently? The willingness of the citizens to be, shall we say, less than demanding of who they select as their public representatives?

Unless you can offer a plausible reason why the various failings of the state has its root in partition then blaming partition is simply an excuse.

Crooked Jack wrote: »

No sane person could look at Ireland over the last 90 years and say partition has worked, so dont you think it's time to try something new?

The question to consider is, would the alternative have been better. One can only speculate, but you can just as well argue that a united Ireland with a sizable discontented minority would have caused even more difficulties.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I firmly believe 90% of the reason Unionists resist the concept of unification is because they fear the jackboot they once wore would be on the other foot. (The other 10% is residual and nonsensical fear of 'Rome Rule'.)

I’m inclined to think the reason they are against it is precisely the same reason Irish nationalists are for it. They are ever bit as prone to daft nationalistic urges as Irish nationalists are.