Is there a place for new Unionist political party in the Republic?

haulagebasher

I was just thinking that there is very little variety in politics here in the Republic. All the mainstream parties are Republicans of one streak or another be they FG or FF and SF. Labour are essentially Republican also as they were all the one with the "Official" IRA except with a more left wing outlook.

Off topic: I mean how many IRAs can there be. Official IRA, Old IRA, CIRA, PIRA and RIRA. Even today I say a referce to the RCIRA -Real Continuity. FFS like."

Even at FG there is a lack of any sort of conservative party but thats another story.

Now I know we have the Reform Group and that but there realy isn't any sort of proper unionist orientated party here in the south and given the fact that there is a growing dissatisfaction with and rejection of Nationalist/Republican based ideas coupled with the breaking of the chokehold of the Catholic church and the fact we've have a not insignificant number of protestants in the Republic, is there a possible opening for a Unionist party here again? It would be the first since the demise of the Irish Parlimentary Party.

Sulla Felix

Not for another fifty or a hundred years I woukdnt think.
The issue is absolutely incendiary, you couldnt have a rational discussion n an unmoderated environment.

Sound of Silence

haulagebasher wrote: »

is there a possible opening for a Unionist party here again?

And what exactly makes you so sure that the UK would actually want to bring Ireland back into the fold?

You do realise that the creation of a Unionist Party is very presumptuous.

Celly Smunt

Ireland pretty much is the U.K apart from currency and flag,just don't tell the republicans.

Nodin

Funny, I thought the Republican vote was growing.

haulagebasher

I dunno. Obviously reunion would be years away if achievable at all but there would be noting wrong with promoting it and closer business and cultural ties with the UK overall.
Getting active in promoting the rejoining of the Commonwealth would be a good start point I think.
I know that the Reform Group are kinda active in promoting the joining to the Commonwealth but they are a bit of a one trick pony. They do little else.

Sound of Silence

pmcmahon wrote: »

Ireland pretty much is the U.K apart from currency and flag,just don't tell the republicans.

Those very same Republicans would be quick to point out your fallacy.

The fact that they call themselves Republicans rather than Monarchists would indicate how they differentiate our two Nations.

I'm assuming you're a Constitutional Monarchist?

smcgiff

Re fg and labour you are 70 years behind the times, and probably 20 years for ff.

Sound of Silence

haulagebasher wrote: »

I dunno. Obviously reunion would be years away if achievable at all but there would be noting wrong with promoting it and closer business and cultural ties with the UK overall.
Getting active in promoting the rejoining of the Commonwealth would be a good start point I think.
I know that the Reform Group are kinda active in promoting the joining to the Commonwealth but they are a bit of a one trick pony. They do little else.

How do you imagine reunification would actually benefit us?

I hope it's not solely to sponge off the UK taxpayer so that we can alleviate our debts. Beyond that, I'm not sure how we could benefit from losing even more sovereignty.

Fenian Army

This "reunion" with britain is a fallacy - we were never unified in a true sense - after the act of union there were numerous constitutional agitations, agrarian wars and multiple insurrections - Britain did not have these.

Why would Irish people want it anyway, give that we have only ever suffered in such an arrangement?

The republican vote is growing, there is no appetite for union with Britain beyond that of a few rich west brits and other petty sould who come up with this proposition in order to piss people off.

Theres a place for every other type of crackpot group, fascist groups for example, because we are (supposedly) a free society, but they'll never be popular, or wanted

charlemont

Sound of Silence wrote: »

How do you imagine reunification would actually benefit us?

I hope it's not solely to sponge off the UK taxpayer so that we can alleviate our debts. Beyond that, I'm not sure how we could benefit from losing even more sovereignty.

That's the money shot alright.

Toshchiy Imperatritsy Vselennoy

The British would not want us and we are always going to have problems when the interests of the two countries diverge.

Why would the Unionists want to campaign in the ROI anway?

It is mind boggling.

Who do they think they are catering for?

As of the moment it seems the only way to alleviate our debt is too go for Euro Debt pooling via deeper integration. Which is against British interests.

The countires are about to go on two very different paths in the next few years with us moving deeper into Europe and them going out. And those paths are what are best for each country.

It would destroy the economies of both nations and not be in the best interests of anyone.

Why do it ?

The Pro Euro votes and the Rep votes are growing here.

And to be honest just look at the British Govt....Cameron is a disaster.....the Tory govt is less competant than ours...and THATS SAYING SOMETHING!

I don't think the British people or the Irish people would want it. Infact i know the Irish would not want it.

Not that we don't like Britain. But we are not British and culturally different. We get on much better as separate sovreign nations...why mess that up?

Plus if that happened then Ireland would be united i imagine and Unionists find themselves in a tiny frightening minority again.....and we know that does not work.

No we are Irish. :-) We like our British neighbours and lets not muck it up:-)

Toshchiy Imperatritsy Vselennoy

haulagebasher wrote: »

I dunno. Obviously reunion would be years away if achievable at all but there would be noting wrong with promoting it and closer business and cultural ties with the UK overall.
Getting active in promoting the rejoining of the Commonwealth would be a good start point I think.
I know that the Reform Group are kinda active in promoting the joining to the Commonwealth but they are a bit of a one trick pony. They do little else.

Do you mean UKIP? Why ???

I don't get what there is in it benifit wise from a British perspective or an Irish one either.

Denerick

Fenian Army wrote: »

Why would Irish people want it anyway, give that we have only ever suffered in such an arrangement?

We suffered much more and for longer after independence than we ever did under the British after the Famine. I think the OPs question on the viability of a unionist party in the republic is just barmy by the way, but I think a few facts mightn't hurt the discussion.

Dubhlinner

I'd be up for leaving the euro and joining sterling. Bank of England rates are pretty much always more suitable to our needs than Germany's. The island's too small for two currencies imho.

Still favour political independence. no interest in joining a monarchy

ballsymchugh

Toshchiy Imperatritsy Vselennoy wrote: »

Do you mean UKIP? Why ???

I don't get what there is in it benifit wise from a British perspective or an Irish one either.

the reform group are a bunch of anglicised irish who spend their time meeting up and writing articles looking down on the average irish person, like kevin myers, ruth dudly-edwards, emer o'kelly etc.

An Coilean

haulagebasher wrote: »

Now I know we have the Reform Group and that but there realy isn't any sort of proper unionist orientated party here in the south and given the fact that there is a growing dissatisfaction with and rejection of Nationalist/Republican based ideas coupled with the breaking of the chokehold of the Catholic church and the fact we've have a not insignificant number of protestants in the Republic, is there a possible opening for a Unionist party here again? It would be the first since the demise of the Irish Parlimentary Party.

What dose the number of Protestants have to do with anything?
You're not blinkered enough to think that Protestant = unionist down here are you?

Also, the IPP were not a Unionist Party, they were a Moderate Nationalist Party, times and defenitions were very different then, in todays Ireland moderate nationalism dose not support any form of Union with the UK, it would be an anacronism.

An Coilean

Denerick wrote: »

We suffered much more and for longer after independence than we ever did under the British after the Famine. I think the OPs question on the viability of a unionist party in the republic is just barmy by the way, but I think a few facts mightn't hurt the discussion.

In what ways did we suffer more after independance than we did in the period between the Famine and Independance?

Toshchiy Imperatritsy Vselennoy

An Coilean wrote: »

In what ways did we suffer more after independance than we did in the period between the Famine and Independance?

Let's be honest neither was a picnic.

British Rule did not help us economically as a people...the EU did...that is our future to be pro EU is to be pro Irish. To be pro Irish is not to be anti-British it is just that our interests diverge on many issues.

Let's not base this on anything other than pragnatism...cosidering what we have achieved with the EU and the way Britain is going with the EU it would be unwise.

Supranationalism always worked in our favour over intergovenmentalism....thats just the way it is.

Denerick

An Coilean wrote: »

In what ways did we suffer more after independance than we did in the period between the Famine and Independance?

Our infrastructure steadily deteriorated to the point where we began to resemble a third world country, emigration was rampant (In 1966 we had 2.8 million people, in 1911 we had 3.1 - 300,000 less people after 55 years) the economy was just dreadful until the late 70s where it began to catch up with the rest of europe, only to collapse in the 80s again. The cultural and political ethos of Ireland right up until the 90s was a grim, overwhelming and suffocating Gaelic catholicism that has only in recent years been seen for what it actually was.

So in short, life under the British Empire wasn't all lonely Gaelic maidens crying for their freedom in ditches out west 'neath lonely mountains and ragged faced farmers...

Just trying to add perspective and hopefully nip the whole 800 years of woe bull**** in the bud before its allowed to consume yet another discussion on Anglo Irish relations.

An Coilean

Denerick wrote: »

Our infrastructure steadily deteriorated to the point where we began to resemble a third world country, emigration was rampant (In 1966 we had 2.8 million people, in 1911 we had 3.1 - 300,000 less people after 55 years) the economy was just dreadful until the late 70s where it began to catch up with the rest of europe, only to collapse in the 80s again. The cultural and political ethos of Ireland right up until the 90s was a grim, overwhelming and suffocating Gaelic catholicism that has only in recent years been seen for what it actually was.

In the 55 year period from 1911 to 1966, 300,000 people emigrated, compare that to the 1,970,000 people that emigrated in the 60 year period of 1851 - 1911
I think we can safely say that as far as the rate of emigration goes, Independant Ireland did quite a bit better than British rule between the Famine and Independance.

The Economy was absolutley awful after the famine, why do you think just shy of 2 million had to leave, the Economy was not good after Independance, but are you really claiming it was worse than it was under British Rule in the 60 years before?

Personally I dont see why overwhelming and suffocating British Imperialism is preferable to overwhelming and suffocating Gaelic Catholicism.

Just trying to add perspective and hopefully nip the whole 800 years of woe bull**** in the bud before its allowed to consume yet another discussion on Anglo Irish relations.

No one is denying that the 60 or so years after Independance were rough, but they were not a patch on the 60 or so before.

ardmacha

Our infrastructure steadily deteriorated to the point where we began to resemble a third world country, emigration was rampant

Emigration is covered in the previous post. It is possible to make some criticisms of infrastructure, but when you add in rural electrification, Shannon airport, massive slum clearance, etc , independent Ireland did just fine.

As for Catholicism this would have been just as influential under colonial rule, except the additional problem of a government without moral authority.

Denerick

An Coilean wrote: »

In the 55 year period from 1911 to 1966, 300,000 people emigrated, compare that to the 1,970,000 people that emigrated in the 60 year period of 1851 - 1911
I think we can safely say that as far as the rate of emigration goes, Independant Ireland did quite a bit better than British rule between the Famine and Independance.

The reason I brought up emigration wasn't to show one side of the debate having a bigger dick than the other, it was to point out that this new independent country failed fundamentally in providing jobs for hundreds of thousands of new people. Anyway, the emigration after independence was from a lower base, so that needs to be taken in account of as well.

The Economy was absolutley awful after the famine, why do you think just shy of 2 million had to leave, the Economy was not good after Independance, but are you really claiming it was worse than it was under British Rule in the 60 years before?

Ireland as a region of the British Empire was easily one of the ten richest parts of the world in the early years of the 20th century. This was almost entirely down to direct British state investment in an island with virtually no useful economic resources.

Personally I dont see why overwhelming and suffocating British Imperialism is preferable to overwhelming and suffocating Gaelic Catholicism.

Because for most people 'British Imperialism' was an abstract irrelevance that barely impacted on their lives. Gaelic catholicism and the culture it created directly changed the country for the worse, in the eyes of many Irish writers of the time. It permeated everything, it was more than an abstract idea, it was the nation. Whereas 'British Imperialism' was completely abstract and almost entirely irrelevant to most people. Nobody is saying that the British Empire didn't do some awful things, but the lack of perspective at times is quite worrying and plays into the whole mythological playbook developed by Republicans over the past century. By any standard, the British Empire in the early 20th century was the most politically liberal Empire in history. It had a remarkable tolerance for dissent and seperatist ideas, I'd encourage you to read some Fenian papers of the late 19th and early 20th century. Looking back, it seems remarkable that they could even be published under what was, according to some, a thoroughly satanic and odious regime incapable of tolerating dissent and interested only in bloody murder and mayhem. Etc. Perspective, thats all I ask.

No one is denying that the 60 or so years after Independance were rough, but they were not a patch on the 60 or so before.

Its a largely irrelevant dichotomy to be honest, but I think you've been severely affected by Republican myth making and reality distortion. No self respecting historian would share that view.

Sound of Silence

Denerick wrote: »

We suffered much more and for longer after independence than we ever did under the British after the Famine. I think the OPs question on the viability of a unionist party in the republic is just barmy by the way, but I think a few facts mightn't hurt the discussion.

Because everything was gravy before and after that point. I'm sure it was a dream for British Administrators in 1852 with half the population either dead, dying, or emigrating.

I don't imagine you would be quite so forgiving if such a terrible atrocity was allowed to grow to such ghastly proportions under Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, or Labour Government.

Personally, I wouldn't celebrate any minute Economic growth which was achieved after 1852, as it was only achieved through dreadful consequence. Had Ireland not suffered a grievous famine, it would be unlikely that Land Reforms would have been so forthcoming. Even then, it was only in the Early Twentieth Century that Irish Tenants were finally allowed to purchase their holdings.

I honestly shiver at the thought of uniting Ireland with a Nation whoes principle Architect, Lord Cornwallis, had described our Nation and People as those "whom we ought to have destroyed".

Happyman42

Lets give republicanism a go first. A proper go, not the sham that has been perpertrated up until now.
Unionism isn't a political philosophy, it's a failed political party, being that it has managed to enshrine it's own obliteration in an internationally binding agreement. Don't confuse your self.

Manach

Whilst in would be interesting to have a unionist party with an aim for a closer linkage with Ireland's nearest neighbour, they might choice to ditch any reflective anti-Catholicism which seem the defacto setting for the current politic parties and the historical challenged chattering classes.

An Coilean

Denerick wrote: »

The reason I brought up emigration wasn't to show one side of the debate having a bigger dick than the other, it was to point out that this new independent country failed fundamentally in providing jobs for hundreds of thousands of new people. Anyway, the emigration after independence was from a lower base, so that needs to be taken in account of as well.

It clearly was, you made the comparision between Ireland Under British Rule before the Famine and Ireland after Independance.

Lets be clear about this, You said:

We suffered much more and for longer after independence than we ever did under the British after the Famine.

Ireland under the British after the Famine lost 38.5% of its population.
Ireland after independance (1911-1966) lost about 9% of its population.

How exactly this can be said to show Ireland Suffering much more after Independance than it did under Brith Rule after the Famine is beyond me.

Ireland as a region of the British Empire was easily one of the ten richest parts of the world in the early years of the 20th century. This was almost entirely down to direct British state investment in an island with virtually no useful economic resources.

Are you really trying to suggest that direct rule from London did anything for this country? Also, I would be interested to see a comparrision between the amount spent by the British in ireland by comparrision to the tax take from Ireland.

Because for most people 'British Imperialism' was an abstract irrelevance that barely impacted on their lives. Gaelic catholicism and the culture it created directly changed the country for the worse, in the eyes of many Irish writers of the time. It permeated everything, it was more than an abstract idea, it was the nation. Whereas 'British Imperialism' was completely abstract and almost entirely irrelevant to most people. Nobody is saying that the British Empire didn't do some awful things, but the lack of perspective at times is quite worrying and plays into the whole mythological playbook developed by Republicans over the past century. By any standard, the British Empire in the early 20th century was the most politically liberal Empire in history. It had a remarkable tolerance for dissent and seperatist ideas, I'd encourage you to read some Fenian papers of the late 19th and early 20th century. Looking back, it seems remarkable that they could even be published under what was, according to some, a thoroughly satanic and odious regime incapable of tolerating dissent and interested only in bloody murder and mayhem. Etc. Perspective, thats all I ask.

Perspective Indeed.

British Imperialism was directly responsible for the fact that during the period 1851-1911, one in three people were forced to leave the country. An abstract irrelevance? Are you insane? It had an absoutly astounding impact on the nation and on the individual.
Culturally it demanded nothing less than that Irish people become English people, and it gained much success, forcibly changing the national language from Irish to English and continued to implement the policies of doing so after the Famine. It insisted that anything Irish was inferior, backward and immoral. Irish Language, Games, Customs etc were bog language, bog games etc.
At any claim of a tolerant Empire, I would encourage you to examin the policies adopted and implemented when its hold over Ireland was questioned. The intolorent and downright brutal nature of British Imperialism in Ireland is all too apparent.
It was fundemantaly, unrepentently and violently opposed to any notion of Irish freedom.

As for tolerating disent, again are we saying that The Brits really were not that bad, or are you continuing your assertation that they were much better than Independant Ireland?

Its a largely irrelevant dichotomy to be honest, but I think you've been severely affected by Republican myth making and reality distortion. No self respecting historian would share that view.

I could just as easily come on here and lable you as a West Brit, but I don't.

You have made several suspect claims and been called on them, inferring that my perception of reality is distorted is hardly an appropriat responce, its childish at best.

donegal_man

I don't get why the OP believes that the presence of a substantial number of protestants automatically equates to the need for a unionist party in the Republic. My family is protestant and I can't think of a single one of my relatives who would feel any particular affinity with Britain. We don't hate Britain, we just aren't British we're Irish, our loyalty is to Ireland not Britain.
What I do think however would be a good idea is better co-operation between the two countries on matters of mutual interest in Europe, perhaps under the aegis of the British-Irish Council.

SaoriseBiker

pmcmahon wrote: »

Ireland pretty much is the U.K apart from currency and flag,just don't tell the republicans.

Yeah, they turned out in their tens of thousands to cheer on their head of state the Queen when she was in Dublin Maybe somebody should have told that to the 82,000 who stood for Amhrán na bhFiann before the throm in last Sunday !!!!!!

Empty O'Connell St apart from Guards greet Queen !!! http://www.ctvnews.ca/tight-security-surrounds-queen-during-historic-irish-visit-1.645406

SaoriseBiker

Sound of Silence wrote: »

How do you imagine reunification would actually benefit us?

I hope it's not solely to sponge off the UK taxpayer so that we can alleviate our debts. Beyond that, I'm not sure how we could benefit from losing even more sovereignty.

Ah, we are bailing out the UK bond holders banking debts as well as the Germans, French, thanks to Lenihan, Cowen, Kenny, Gilmore etc And let's not mention the extortion of the land annuites, paying ground rent to UK landlords down the decades etc

Dubhlinner wrote: »

I'd be up for leaving the euro and joining sterling. Bank of England rates are pretty much always more suitable to our needs than Germany's. The island's too small for two currencies imho.

Still favour political independence. no interest in joining a monarchy

We're in the banking mess because we copied Britain's Thatcherite model of " light touch regualtion " around 2002 :rolleyes: But your right, the country is too small for two currencies, and for that matter 2 states, partition should never have happened. The NI statelet has had to be bankrolled since the day it was founded FFS :rolleyes:

Shea O'Meara

pmcmahon wrote: »

Ireland pretty much is the U.K apart from currency and flag,just don't tell the republicans.

...the geography, the history, the culture...apart from that what have the Romans ever done for us..blah blah blah :rolleyes:

Shea O'Meara

haulagebasher wrote: »

I dunno. Obviously reunion would be years away if achievable at all but there would be noting wrong with promoting it and closer business and cultural ties with the UK overall.
Getting active in promoting the rejoining of the Commonwealth would be a good start point I think.
I know that the Reform Group are kinda active in promoting the joining to the Commonwealth but they are a bit of a one trick pony. They do little else.

I can't see any Irish person rushing to sign up with a foreign country. Partnership in trade yes, bowing to a joke of a monarchy? I can't see it. Apart from trade, which is ongoing anyway, there is no logical reason to 're-join' any British institution...and saying 're-join' ignores the fact that we never 'joined' in the first place, more press ganged, with menace.

Actually, let's sign up with China! Well apart from the crimes against humanity and war mongering, great for our economy and comepletely nothing like the U.K....no, wait...

SaoriseBiker

Shea O'Meara wrote: »

...the geography, the history, the culture...apart from that what have the Romans ever done for us..blah blah blah :rolleyes:

Which is like asking what has a thief who broke into your house and robbed ever done for you :rolleyes:

Denerick

An Coilean wrote: »

How exactly this can be said to show Ireland Suffering much more after Independance than it did under Brith Rule after the Famine is beyond me.

Ireland was poorer after independence, it was more insular and the economic war of the 30s wrecked our economy. The economic emphasis on self reliance was an almost complete catastrophe, there really isn't much debate about that. I'll take your point on emigration but Ireland was not unique for having such large emigration figures at this time. Millions of Germans, Jews and Scandanavians moved to America and helped populate the great eastern cities and the interior. Now the Jews were basically forced out because of pogroms in the Russian Empire but the Germans and Scandanavians moved for economic reasons, just like the Irish did.

Are you really trying to suggest that direct rule from London did anything for this country?

I'm suggesting that life was not an abject misery in the post famine era like you seem to think. Or that everyone in Ireland was agitating for an independent republic, it was much more complex than that. By and large daily life went on and it was an irrelevance as to whether the government had Irish or British accents.

Perspective Indeed.

British Imperialism was directly responsible for the fact that during the period 1851-1911, one in three people were forced to leave the country. An abstract irrelevance? Are you insane? It had an absoutly astounding impact on the nation and on the individual.

How was British 'Imperialism' directly responsible for this? Large numbers of English and Scottish emigrated during this period as well. Not in the same numbers as the Irish obviously but this was a period of huge emigration from Europe to the New World. I don't think its anywhere near as simplistic as you think.

For example, you need to look at the economic climate in Ireland which was largely fostered by the Irish themselves as a result of land reform and the subsequent consolidation. In an effort to maintain viable land plots, Irish farmers ensured that the land always went to the eldest son (In most cases) Now this eldest son inherited everything. The huge surplus of siblings that the Irish famously produced would emigrate if they couldn't get jobs in the local trades or industry. Again, nothing surprising there as this island essentially has no worthwhile economic resources, particularly in an era where much of the industrial base was concentrated in heavy industries that required direct access to raw materials that simply was not produced in Ireland. That wasn't a consequence of economic 'Imperialism', it was an economic reality and many Irish people understood that the lack of opportunity in Ireland often meant they would need to emigrate to find better lives for themselves. I also think it interesting that the expat Irish American community was often much more radical and Republican than the Irish in Ireland itself, which would lead me to think that a certain resentment over been forced out of the country for economic reasons coloured their perspective.

Culturally it demanded nothing less than that Irish people become English people, and it gained much success, forcibly changing the national language from Irish to English and continued to implement the policies of doing so after the Famine. It insisted that anything Irish was inferior, backward and immoral. Irish Language, Games, Customs etc were bog language, bog games etc.

The gaelic games and language were revived by Irish nationalists and republicans and were hardly suppressed by this evil Empire. Gaelic language schools were tolerated, and a vibrant Gaelic revival movement sprouted up, largely tolerated the Empire. In any case, the gaelic games were an invention, like most historical traditions, loosely connected to games played by ancient forefathers.

The language was naturally changing anyway - that famous Imperialist hater of the Irish Daniel O'Connell was famously opposed to the Irish language arguing that it was un-necessary and anachronistic in the modern world (modern as in early to mid 19th century) The anglicisation of Ireland was a largely natural process as Gaelic simply ceased to serve any useful function anymore. Whether this would have happened were Ireland an independent country is debateable, but frankly to most people its an irrelevance.

At any claim of a tolerant Empire, I would encourage you to examin the policies adopted and implemented when its hold over Ireland was questioned. The intolorent and downright brutal nature of British Imperialism in Ireland is all too apparent.
It was fundemantaly, unrepentently and violently opposed to any notion of Irish freedom.

Yet any number of publications from the 19th century would appear to ridicule this assertion. In times of rebellious strife and/or civil discord the Brits would suppress certain publications, but by and large there was a great deal of tolerance for national ideas. By the standards of the time, the British political system was remarkably progressive.

Of course it was fundamentally, unrepentantly and violently opposed to any notion of Irish freedom - any Empire would be the same. But any attempt to paint the British Empire as some obscurantist and repressive entity within Ireland is a little silly when looked at in its context. All that said, I'm not saying that the British Empire didn't do some thoroughly dreadful things, particularly in India and the like.

As for tolerating disent, again are we saying that The Brits really were not that bad, or are you continuing your assertation that they were much better than Independant Ireland?

All I'm saying is to have some perspective, and not be in hock to the standard Republican dogma of 800 years of unrelenting misery and poverty. I will take back some of my earlier comments, which in hindsight appear a little heavy handed and overly certain. There is a lot to be skeptical about, in both sides of the debate. The people of East London could very well look on in envy at the middling Irish peasant of the early 20th century.

Fromthetrees

Denerick wrote: »

Ireland was poorer after independence, it was more insular and the economic war of the 30s wrecked our economy. The economic emphasis on self reliance was an almost complete catastrophe, there really isn't much debate about that. I'll take your point on emigration but Ireland was not unique for having such large emigration figures at this time. Millions of Germans, Jews and Scandanavians moved to America and helped populate the great eastern cities and the interior. Now the Jews were basically forced out because of pogroms in the Russian Empire but the Germans and Scandanavians moved for economic reasons, just like the Irish did.



I'm suggesting that life was not an abject misery in the post famine era like you seem to think. Or that everyone in Ireland was agitating for an independent republic, it was much more complex than that. By and large daily life went on and it was an irrelevance as to whether the government had Irish or British accents.



How was British 'Imperialism' directly responsible for this? Large numbers of English and Scottish emigrated during this period as well. Not in the same numbers as the Irish obviously but this was a period of huge emigration from Europe to the New World. I don't think its anywhere near as simplistic as you think.

For example, you need to look at the economic climate in Ireland which was largely fostered by the Irish themselves as a result of land reform and the subsequent consolidation. In an effort to maintain viable land plots, Irish farmers ensured that the land always went to the eldest son (In most cases) Now this eldest son inherited everything. The huge surplus of siblings that the Irish famously produced would emigrate if they couldn't get jobs in the local trades or industry. Again, nothing surprising there as this island essentially has no worthwhile economic resources, particularly in an era where much of the industrial base was concentrated in heavy industries that required direct access to raw materials that simply was not produced in Ireland. That wasn't a consequence of economic 'Imperialism', it was an economic reality and many Irish people understood that the lack of opportunity in Ireland often meant they would need to emigrate to find better lives for themselves. I also think it interesting that the expat Irish American community was often much more radical and Republican than the Irish in Ireland itself, which would lead me to think that a certain resentment over been forced out of the country for economic reasons coloured their perspective.



The gaelic games and language were revived by Irish nationalists and republicans and were hardly suppressed by this evil Empire. Gaelic language schools were tolerated, and a vibrant Gaelic revival movement sprouted up, largely tolerated the Empire. In any case, the gaelic games were an invention, like most historical traditions, loosely connected to games played by ancient forefathers.

The language was naturally changing anyway - that famous Imperialist hater of the Irish Daniel O'Connell was famously opposed to the Irish language arguing that it was un-necessary and anachronistic in the modern world (modern as in early to mid 19th century) The anglicisation of Ireland was a largely natural process as Gaelic simply ceased to serve any useful function anymore. Whether this would have happened were Ireland an independent country is debateable, but frankly to most people its an irrelevance.



Yet any number of publications from the 19th century would appear to ridicule this assertion. In times of rebellious strife and/or civil discord the Brits would suppress certain publications, but by and large there was a great deal of tolerance for national ideas. By the standards of the time, the British political system was remarkably progressive.

Of course it was fundamentally, unrepentantly and violently opposed to any notion of Irish freedom - any Empire would be the same. But any attempt to paint the British Empire as some obscurantist and repressive entity within Ireland is a little silly when looked at in its context. All that said, I'm not saying that the British Empire didn't do some thoroughly dreadful things, particularly in India and the like.



All I'm saying is to have some perspective, and not be in hock to the standard Republican dogma of 800 years of unrelenting misery and poverty. I will take back some of my earlier comments, which in hindsight appear a little heavy handed and overly certain. There is a lot to be skeptical about, in both sides of the debate. The people of East London could very well look on in envy at the middling Irish peasant of the early 20th century.

Are you trying to say the British weren't as bad to Ireland as some Republicans like to make out? That's your point is it?

Yes, they did what they could as an empire to benefit themselves just like every other empire did and would do but if you look at the past 200 years the damage the British did to Ireland is incalculable and permanent.

Ireland was poorer after independence, it was more insular and the economic war of the 30s were a direct consequence of British rule.

It's easy for most Irish people to put British rule in context, it's had no effect on any of us, and from any perspective we would have been better off as being independent, Ireland didn't benefit from the union in the same way as the Scottish did.

donegal_man

I have no interest in the idea of a "New Unionist Party" in the Republic but it does seem to me that the discussion has wandered seriously off topic. It's gotten bogged down in questions of what the union WAS rather than discussions of what such a party would be campaigning for the new union TO BE.

celtictiger32

haulagebasher wrote: »

I was just thinking that there is very little variety in politics here in the Republic. All the mainstream parties are Republicans of one streak or another be they FG or FF and SF. Labour are essentially Republican also as they were all the one with the "Official" IRA except with a more left wing outlook.

Off topic: I mean how many IRAs can there be. Official IRA, Old IRA, CIRA, PIRA and RIRA. Even today I say a referce to the RCIRA -Real Continuity. FFS like."

Even at FG there is a lack of any sort of conservative party but thats another story.

Now I know we have the Reform Group and that but there realy isn't any sort of proper unionist orientated party here in the south and given the fact that there is a growing dissatisfaction with and rejection of Nationalist/Republican based ideas coupled with the breaking of the chokehold of the Catholic church and the fact we've have a not insignificant number of protestants in the Republic, is there a possible opening for a Unionist party here again? It would be the first since the demise of the Irish Parlimentary Party.

sure why dont the chinese communist party start campaigning here while we're at it sure isnt there a significant number of chinese here aswell:rolleyes:

iDave

We're already part of a Union, called the EU. No need for a unionist party if theres no public demand to leave it. Doubt anyone would want to be the 51st state either. Cant think of any other strong, united, economic powerhouse of a Union worth joining.

Crooked Jack

Hey OP. I believe someone has already done this for you.

http://www.dup.ie/

Toshchiy Imperatritsy Vselennoy

To the OP and anyone else it concerns....why ?

If the Irish asked to rejoin we would be told to bog off :-) Thats why.

London would say no surrender.

murphaph

I don't think political union with the UK would serve anyone particularly well, least of all the English, assuming Ireland would have to adopt UK corporation tax rates and with them watch the flight of large numbers of employers and with it would be dependent on subsidies.

What I would like to see is more people with a "protestant" ethic in politics, if you know what I mean. The oul prods up the north might be annoying to some on here but I admire their convictions wrt certain things.

When unionist politicians are caught "misbehaving" they are gone, booted out generally, even if they did "great work in the constituency". In the south, we re-elect the scoundrels who probably can't believe their luck.

I wish we hadn't lost so many protestants (though we lost mostly CoI, who are probably more like the catholics than the Presbyterians!). I'm sure it had a lasting (negative) effect on our political life. We need more diversity than we have in the Dail, that's for sure. Centrist lame parties that have no real agenda and a couple of small crackpot ones for good measure.

I can't but help feel that some of the "stauncher" unionist politicians up north couldn't help cut through the BS down south.

Dannyboy83

pmcmahon wrote: »

Ireland pretty much is the U.K apart from currency and flag,just don't tell the republicans.

I used to think so, and visually the UK is very like Ireland except with infrastructure.
But socially... the more experience of the UK I get, the more I find subtle and some not so subtle differences.

The most apparent difference is caste/class.
It's totally in your face, in England especially.
If we have a similar setup in Ireland, then I don't really see it.

Eggy Baby!

Such people would be massive reactionaries and you wouldn't be able to find their support with an electron microscope.

Sir Pompous Righteousness

haulagebasher wrote: »

I was just thinking that there is very little variety in politics here in the Republic.

Just because we don't have a Unionist party doesn't mean that there isn't "variety in politics". Modern politics shouldn't be based on what is essentially turf warfare/politics, rather how to govern a state, etc... Just basically all political parties in Ireland are republican (i.e., they agree with the concept of a republic as you would expect in most modern stable republics) doesn't mean lack of variety either.

SaoriseBiker

murphaph wrote: »

I don't think political union with the UK would serve anyone particularly well, least of all the English, assuming Ireland would have to adopt UK corporation tax rates and with them watch the flight of large numbers of employers and with it would be dependent on subsidies.

What I would like to see is more people with a "protestant" ethic in politics, if you know what I mean. The oul prods up the north might be annoying to some on here but I admire their convictions wrt certain things.

When unionist politicians are caught "misbehaving" they are gone, booted out generally, even if they did "great work in the constituency". In the south, we re-elect the scoundrels who probably can't believe their luck.

Really !!!!! Lets just look at the First Minister for example " Robinson bought 'key land' for £5 - Northern Ireland First Minister Peter Robinson, and his wife Iris, bought a valuable bit of land from a developer for just £5, BBC Newsline has learned.The land deal enabled the Robinsons to sell part of their back garden for nearly £460,000. They could now be liable for thousand of pounds in taxes. " http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/othelem/organ/bbc/bbc300310.htm

I wish we hadn't lost so many protestants (though we lost mostly CoI, who are probably more like the catholics than the Presbyterians!). I'm sure it had a lasting (negative) effect on our political life. We need more diversity than we have in the Dail, that's for sure. Centrist lame parties that have no real agenda and a couple of small crackpot ones for good measure.

I can't but help feel that some of the "stauncher" unionist politicians up north couldn't help cut through the BS down south.

The stauncher unionists as you put it ran campaigns like Save Ulster from Sodomy against the opening of a sex shop in Belfast and some of them believe that the Protestants in the six counties are descended from one of the lost tribes of Israel *, and claim to speak a ' language ' called Ulster Scots . Indeed the unionists ran the statelet so badly for 50 years despite been bankrolled by the British, that the Brits had to come in in 1969. abolish Stormont and run it from London for the next 25 years. Power couldn't be returned to Stormont until the Good Friday Agreement which ensures power sharing with nationalists and Sinn Fein have kept them in line.

* http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/may/26/northern-ireland-ulster-museum-creationism

murphaph

SaoriseBiker wrote: »

Really !!!!! Lets just look at the First Minister for example " Robinson bought 'key land' for £5 - Northern Ireland First Minister Peter Robinson, and his wife Iris, bought a valuable bit of land from a developer for just £5, BBC Newsline has learned.The land deal enabled the Robinsons to sell part of their back garden for nearly £460,000. They could now be liable for thousand of pounds in taxes. " http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/othelem/organ/bbc/bbc300310.htm

Peter Robinson stepped down during the investigation into that matter which cleared him. His wife resigned from all politics including Westminster. She sufferes from mental illness anyway, so perhaps she even had a bit of an excuse.

SaoriseBiker wrote: »

The stauncher unionists as you put it ran campaigns like Save Ulster from Sodomy against the opening of a sex shop in Belfast and some of them believe that the Protestants in the six counties are descended from one of the lost tribes of Israel *, and claim to speak a ' language ' called Ulster Scots . Indeed the unionists ran the statelet so badly for 50 years despite been bankrolled by the British, that the Brits had to come in in 1969. abolish Stormont and run it from London for the next 25 years. Power couldn't be returned to Stormont until the Good Friday Agreement which ensures power sharing with nationalists and Sinn Fein have kept them in line.

SF have kept them in line? Give me a break. If you choose to believe the SF spin then go ahead, but spare me.

As for the more conservative (nutters) amongst the unionist ranks up there, don't forget that just a few short years ago women down south couldn't get any for of contraceptives without a prescription while those backward prods up north made them available OTC.

Do you think sex shops are a traditional thing in the south? :rolleyes:

Do you think homosexuals in the RoI have a grand time? (Hint: try any small town in Ireland and see if the gays are in or out of the closet!)

There are ultra conservatives on all sides up north. I am referring to a specific character trait that I think is lacking down south that we could do with (more integrity). You are obviously coloured by your political beliefs but that doesn't change the facts.

Toshchiy Imperatritsy Vselennoy

What have the last two posts got to do with the OP.

This north/ south who is better or worse thing is silly...


And pretty much most right wingers everywhere have their obligitary bigot contingent. That is an interntional phenomenon.

The OP was Union with the UK ..It seems the main objections are from the British ..followed by objections from the Irish..other than that...it's still not a great idea

Toshchiy Imperatritsy Vselennoy

murphaph wrote: »

Peter Robinson stepped down during the investigation into that matter which cleared him. His wife resigned from all politics including Westminster. She sufferes from mental illness anyway, so perhaps she even had a bit of an excuse.


SF have kept them in line? Give me a break. If you choose to believe the SF spin then go ahead, but spare me.

As for the more conservative (nutters) amongst the unionist ranks up there, don't forget that just a few short years ago women down south couldn't get any for of contraceptives without a prescription while those backward prods up north made them available OTC.

Do you think sex shops are a traditional thing in the south? :rolleyes:

Do you think homosexuals in the RoI have a grand time? (Hint: try any small town in Ireland and see if the gays are in or out of the closet!)

There are ultra conservatives on all sides up north. I am referring to a specific character trait that I think is lacking down south that we could do with (more integrity). You are obviously coloured by your political beliefs but that doesn't change the facts.

Sex shops are at the heart of Gaeltacht culture man..it's who we are.


We belong to the plethera of cultures in which modern sex shops are ancient tradition.

Telly bingo is and has been watched avidly by little old ladies all around Ireland in the afternoon.

My Pussy and Shirley Temple Bar are rural Icons.

And you hve obviously never driven all over Ireland with a drag queen.

Obviously... admit it you haven't have you!

SaoriseBiker

murphaph wrote: »

Peter Robinson stepped down during the investigation into that matter which cleared him. His wife resigned from all politics including Westminster. She sufferes from mental illness anyway, so perhaps she even had a bit of an excuse.

Yeah Robo got cleared just like FF's Sean Doherty, Haughey and so many others down the years :rolleyes: ( Not proven as they would refer to it in a Scottish court). As for Mrs Robinson, well the sex scandal with the young fella finished her off And this was the same woman who said that gays were worse than paedophiles FFS.

SF have kept them in line? Give me a break. If you choose to believe the SF spin then go ahead, but spare me.

As for the more conservative (nutters) amongst the unionist ranks up there, don't forget that just a few short years ago women down south couldn't get any for of contraceptives without a prescription while those backward prods up north made them available OTC.

Do you think sex shops are a traditional thing in the south? :rolleyes:

Do you think homosexuals in the RoI have a grand time? (Hint: try any small town in Ireland and see if the gays are in or out of the closet!)

There are ultra conservatives on all sides up north. I am referring to a specific character trait that I think is lacking down south that we could do with (more integrity). You are obviously coloured by your political beliefs but that doesn't change the facts.

Quite clearly your political beliefs are formed by blinkers and damn narrow ones at that !!! " specific character trait..... integrity " :eek:, the same people who ran the most nasty, vicious, discriminatory state 1922 -1969 outside of Alabama in the deep south of America ?? The same " integrity " that said over their dead bodies would they power share with SF and then did so ?

murphaph

SaoriseBiker wrote: »

Yeah Robo got cleared just like FF's Sean Doherty, Haughey and so many others down the years :rolleyes: ( Not proven as they would refer to it in a Scottish court). As for Mrs Robinson, well the sex scandal with the young fella finished her off And this was the same woman who said that gays were worse than paedophiles FFS.

I'm sure when SF politicians are cleared of any wrong doing you also say it's "not proven", right? As for oul Iris, like I said she suffers from a mental illness, so I'll not rush to judge her nor take what she utters too seriously. Do you think all SF members are supporters of homosexuality? :rolleyes:

SaoriseBiker wrote: »

Quite clearly your political beliefs are formed by blinkers and damn narrow ones at that !!! " specific character trait..... integrity " :eek:, the same people who ran the most nasty, vicious, discriminatory state 1922 -1969 outside of Alabama in the deep south of America ?? The same " integrity " that said over their dead bodies would they power share with SF and then did so ?

1969? I wasn't even born then. That's almost 44 years ago now

I basically think Ireland would have been a more pluralistic society had we not split the island in two, whether under the crown or as an independent country. I think we lost something, maybe you can't understand what I'm talking about and that's fair enough.

SaoriseBiker

murphaph wrote: »

I'm sure when SF politicians are cleared of any wrong doing you also say it's "not proven", right? As for oul Iris, like I said she suffers from a mental illness, so I'll not rush to judge her nor take what she utters too seriously. Do you think all SF members are supporters of homosexuality? :rolleyes:


1969? I wasn't even born then. That's almost 44 years ago now

I basically think Ireland would have been a more pluralistic society had we not split the island in two, whether under the crown or as an independent country. I think we lost something, maybe you can't understand what I'm talking about and that's fair enough.

Yes, but just pointing out how much " integrity " unionism had for nearly 50 years when it had the run of the place 1922 - 69. It had about as much " integrity " as the KKK in the deep south.

Simples.