Northern Protestants.

SoulandForm

gallag wrote: »

Have you anything real? That is a tourist blog and he thinks the longest peace wall is over 5km long lol.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-17198481

"Peace walls have increased from 22 when the agreement was signed, to a current total of 48 walls, according to the NI Peace Monitoring Report."

Here you go.

twistyj

Personally I think if the UK opt out of Europe then "economically" it would be in NI's interest to join up with us as a lot of business owners in NI are considering it as a viable option to stay strong.

twistyj

I always hated this!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=pCRF_XP7c6c#t=120s

COYW

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Don't make the mistake of thinking that the opinions you encounter on boards.ie are proportionately representative to the general population. In my exp there's far more support for a UI and acceptance of the Republican narrative on the troubles than the impression you'd form from reading these threads.

I disagree. Pretty much every poll taken on boards shows a level of support for SF, the only real pro-UI party, which is far beyond the percentage of votes they receive in reality. As other have said, if a referendum on a UI ever came about, I would be very confident that it would be rejected with a sizable majority here and in NI.

twistyj wrote: »

Personally I think if the UK opt out of Europe then "economically" it would be in NI's interest to join up with us as a lot of business owners in NI are considering it as a viable option to stay strong.

No it wouldn't. NI will never get the amount of funding from the EU that they receive from the UK. We would simply replace the ATM that is London for them.

SoulandForm

COYW wrote: »

I disagree. Pretty much every poll taken on boards shows a level of support for SF, the only real pro-UI party, which is far beyond the percentage of votes they receive in reality. As other have said, if a referendum on a UI ever came about, I would be very confident that it would be rejected with a sizable majority here and in NI.
.

Isnt Sinn Fein the biggest party in the country over all? I heard that somewhere.

You are forgetting that in especially Northern Ireland there are people who are very much for national unity but would never vote for Sinn Fein for various reasons. Similarly in the south this also true.

COYW

SoulandForm wrote: »

Isnt Sinn Fein the biggest party in the country over all? I heard that somewhere.

No that is FF at the moment. I'm not sure of the figures in N.I. SF and the DUP were pretty much neck and neck when I last checked.

SoulandForm wrote: »

You are forgetting that in especially Northern Ireland there are people who are very much for national unity but would never vote for Sinn Fein for various reasons. Similarly in the south this also true.

That contradicts the poll take on a UI in NI the other week which showed the complete opposite to this.

ardmacha

As other have said, if a referendum on a UI ever came about, I would be very confident that it would be rejected with a sizable majority here and in NI.

The calling of a poll requires the production of a plan, which is one of the reasons that SF are calling for one. The production of a plan immediately reduces uncertainty and increases the vote. And the first referendum may not produce a majority in NI, but the subsequent one will.

Happyman42

ardmacha wrote: »

The calling of a poll requires the production of a plan, which is one of the reasons that SF are calling for one. The production of a plan immediately reduces uncertainty and increases the vote. And the first referendum may not produce a majority in NI, but the subsequent one will.

SF entering a coalition in the South will be the game changer.
Shariing power in both NI and the South, producing a credible plan with their coalition partner (none of whom (FF, FG etc) are against the notion of a UI) and with the backing and blessing of the British, who will take their chance to withdraw. They have learned all the lessons on how to do this from the end of the empire, play the soft game of persuading others that they will be better off in a new arrangement. Then you will see a Unionist party make the jump when they know the writing is on the wall for political survival. It has happened before, absolute rejection and No No No, turned quickly into acceptance. What once seemed impossible proved to be quite possible. (The Chuckle Brothers anyone?)

woodoo

Let the poll go ahead i think. Even if its a massive no people will know where they stand.

ardmacha

Let the poll go ahead i think.

The poll cannot go ahead until there is a detailed plan, that requires a lot of work.

delthedriver

ardmacha wrote: »

The poll cannot go ahead until there is a detailed plan, that requires a lot of work.

U.I. is nothing more than a Republican romantic pipedream. The ony people who have any appetite for it are the Shinners, because the don't have a constructive policy for anything North or South.

Thomas_I

SoulandForm wrote: »

No need to be sorry. If I didnt know you werent Irish I wouldnt have made the tea egg reference. I presumed that you were from the Republic of Ireland.

I´ve sent you a PM today and I like to ask you to keep it private because the message there goes beyond the topic of this thread. If you´d like to respond to that, do it please via a PM to me. I´d appreciate that.

Thomas_I

COYW wrote: »

I disagree. Pretty much every poll taken on boards shows a level of support for SF, the only real pro-UI party, which is far beyond the percentage of votes they receive in reality. As other have said, if a referendum on a UI ever came about, I would be very confident that it would be rejected with a sizable majority here and in NI.

You forget to put into account that the circumstances can change and in such respect the opposite is possible which means a majority in favour of the unification. A referendum isn´t the same as a poll because people are called to vote and maybe some of them think twice before casting their vote. Some of them are doing so just at the last minute.

COYW wrote: »

No it wouldn't. NI will never get the amount of funding from the EU that they receive from the UK. We would simply replace the ATM that is London for them.

Was the EU telling you that? How could you be that certain? Another aspect is the question whether it is totally unrealistic that a UI wouldn´t get some funds to tackle the costs of unification or some other help from the EU.

Happyman42

awec wrote: »

County Derry. There is much of this island that is the middle of nowhere, a large part of County Derry is relative nothingness, wee villages here and there.

No idea where you get this patriot stuff from.

Don't know where you got the idea I was from Derry or the middle of nowwhere, but you seem intent on ignoring the substantive issues of my posts in favour of cheap jibes, so it probably makes no odds.

COYW wrote: »

I disagree. Pretty much every poll taken on boards shows a level of support for SF, the only real pro-UI party, which is far beyond the percentage of votes they receive in reality. As other have said, if a referendum on a UI ever came about, I would be very confident that it would be rejected with a sizable majority here and in NI.



No it wouldn't. NI will never get the amount of funding from the EU that they receive from the UK. We would simply replace the ATM that is London for them.

As well as ignoring the elephant in the room as to what the 'real' problem is on this island, which is and always will be, the stumbling block to lasting and permanant peace, you also live in a world where you think politics doesn't change.
Have you ever considered what would happen if a coalition partner was promoting a UI, as the price for going into coalition? FF would not have to shift much to say that 'the time was now right' ( I can easily see Michael Martin saying it) for a UI. That changes the game massively, add to that the British working behind the scenes (nah, they'd never be at that would they Ted?) and suddenly you have the environment. Things change and sometimes polls are redundant very quickly.

drumslate

I am a northern protestant and at the minute I just want all this stupid flag protesting to stop, as I think most of the people protesting didn't even knew that City Hall had a Union Flag!

Thomas_I

Happyman42 wrote: »

... with the backing and blessing of the British, who will take their chance to withdraw. They have learned all the lessons on how to do this from the end of the empire, play the soft game of persuading others that they will be better off in a new arrangement. Then you will see a Unionist party make the jump when they know the writing is on the wall for political survival. It has happened before, absolute rejection and No No No, turned quickly into acceptance. What once seemed impossible proved to be quite possible. (The Chuckle Brothers anyone?)

Agreed, seems quite possible. Good to see that you´ve the objective view on the British in this. That´s what I´ve learned from British history also.

Thomas_I

Happyman42 wrote: »

... FF would not have to shift much to say that 'the time was now right' ( I can easily see Michael Martin saying it) for a UI. That changes the game massively, add to that the British working behind the scenes (nah, they'd never be at that would they Ted?) and suddenly you have the environment. Things change and sometimes polls are redundant very quickly.

Yeah, give them an "big enough and stuffed brown envelope" or frankly the cheque with the right amount and "surprise: We´re all in favour of a UI". Problem solved in FF manner. Such an approach had to be made secretly of course, they won´t have such publicity.:D

Dev would be rotating in his grave by this (own founded party bribered to be in favour to unite Ireland).

Happyman42

Thomas_I wrote: »

Yeah, give them an "big enough and stuffed brown envelope" or frankly the cheque with the right amount and "surprise: We´re all in favour of a UI". Problem solved in FF manner. Such an approach had to be made secretly of course, they won´t have such publicity.:D

Dev would be rotating in his grave by this (own founded party bribered to be in favour to unite Ireland).

No brown envelopes neccessary, all it requires is the need to be expedient, the need to come to power. If they bring themselves to enter discussions with SF to achieve that, anything is possible. Especially if that coalition achieves moderate success.
FF have not divorced themselves from their history, they are the moderate republican party, no biggy to see them actively campaigning for a yes in a referendum.

Thomas_I

Happyman42 wrote: »

No brown envelopes neccessary, all it requires is the need to be expedient, the need to come to power. If they bring themselves to enter discussions with SF to achieve that, anything is possible. Especially if that coalition achieves moderate success.
FF have not divorced themselves from their history, they are the moderate republican party, no biggy to see them actively campaigning for a yes in a referendum.

Given that SF holds the majority in that coalition with FF, possible, but not the other way round. Anyway SF would rather prefer to get the majority without any need to enter any coalition.

Happyman42

Thomas_I wrote: »

Given that SF holds the majority in that coalition with FF, possible, but not the other way round. Anyway SF would rather prefer to get the majority without any need to enter any coalition.

If SF enter a coalition, there will be a price. If FF want power in the next 20 years then they will have to enter coalition of some sorts and Labour are lining themselves up to be decimated.
Also, can you really see FG actively camapigning 'against' the referendum? Would be a sticky situation for any Irish party. FF would love the oppurtunity to make them uncomfortable.

Thomas_I

Happyman42 wrote: »

If SF enter a coalition, there will be a price. If FF want power in the next 20 years then they will have to enter coalition of some sorts and Labour are lining themselves up to be decimated.
Also, can you really see FG actively camapigning 'against' the referendum? Would be a sticky situation for any Irish party. FF would love the oppurtunity to make them uncomfortable.

One essential point in all this is that except the Green Party, almost all parties are in some ways "Republican". That applies also for the Labour Party, founded by Connolly. Therefore you´ve more "old republican tradition bound" parties in Ireland than others which would have a weightful say in regards of unification. I admit I don´t know which stance the Green Party of Ireland has in this, but I know that that is a "cross-border" party including NI.

Of course to FF being in (shared) power in the next 20 years sound very attractive to them and even "a box of big fat envelopes" can´t top that. I´m just thinking about those weavers within FF with their "can´t afford that ..." attitude. They probably would follow public opinion (very quick I suppose).

Seriously, no Irish party could afford to have a public stance against unification when the circumstances are right to achieve it. That would be perceived as blunt betrayal. Some of them only acted in way as if this doesn´t matter during the last presidential election campaign because it wasn´t on the present agenda. The only one who even mentioned that topic of Mr McGuinness. You might remember all that very well yourself. The reaction of the people in the RoI was better than any poll and the public debate on the matter of Ireland unification was very controversial.

I´d agree to say that the candidature of Mr McGuinness was the main issue in this. I recall some reactions from the public, reported in the media, very well. Summed up it sounded like "He´s from the North, he´s not one of us" and "he´s from a different country, remember his past in the IRA" and so on.

There you go. A picture from a real perception of people who even couldn´t bear to have an Irishman from NI to become their President because of that and his (former) membership in the IRA and his (present) membership in SF. Do you think that within these past two years since that election campaign many things have changed or even at least altered in the public opinion?

In my perception from that election campaign, Mr McGuinness was really the only one who wholeheartedly spoke frankly in favour of unification. The others were either struggling with an clear and convincing stance (like Michell, Gallagher and the two femal candidates), or like the elected President M. D. Higgins stating that it´s simply not on the agenda.

I´m still thinking that the Irish electorate has given some chance in the future passing by. Other question: Which competitive and popular politicians has SF besides Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness?

Iwasfrozen

Happyman42 wrote: »

Also, can you really see FG actively camapigning 'against' the referendum? Would be a sticky situation for any Irish party. FF would love the oppurtunity to make them uncomfortable.

Yes, but they would need to run under a "not now" campaign rather then no.

Happyman42

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Yes, but they would need to run under a "not now" campaign rather then no.

On the otherhand, if there is a proper plan, polls show support..........


I can't see them campaigning against it, which they would need to do if the above happened, 'Not Now simply wouldn't cut it.

SoulandForm

Thomas_I wrote: »

One essential point in all this is that except the Green Party, almost all parties are in some ways "Republican". That applies also for the Labour Party, founded by Connolly. Therefore you´ve more "old republican tradition bound" parties in Ireland than others which would have a weightful say in regards of unification. I admit I don´t know which stance the Green Party of Ireland has in this, but I know that that is a "cross-border" party including NI.

Just a quick comment on this now- I will get around to replying to your private message later on today hopefully.

The Green Party during the Troubles was a lot more Republican than the Labour Party, with Trevor Sargent actually visting PIRA prisoners, them raising issues to do with Northern Ireland that other parties preferred not to mention, etc. However its Republican wing largely left the Green Party when it went into coalition Fianna Fail (and so cut its own political throat) with Patricia Mc Kenna. On the other hand Mary Robinson and others left the Labour Party because of its support for the Anglo-Irish Agreement which they believed was unfair to Unionists- a rather extreme position to take and the fact that they were comfortable in the party beforehand shows how partitionist that party really was. A lot of votes that should have gone to Labour have gone to Fianna Fail historically because Labour was seen as being not "national" enough.

Thomas_I

SoulandForm wrote: »

Just a quick comment on this now- I will get around to replying to your private message later on today hopefully.

The Green Party during the Troubles was a lot more Republican than the Labour Party, with Trevor Sargent actually visting PIRA prisoners, them raising issues to do with Northern Ireland that other parties preferred not to mention, etc. However its Republican wing largely left the Green Party when it went into coalition Fianna Fail (and so cut its own political throat) with Patricia Mc Kenna. On the other hand Mary Robinson and others left the Labour Party because of its support for the Anglo-Irish Agreement which they believed was unfair to Unionists- a rather extreme position to take and the fact that they were comfortable in the party beforehand shows how partitionist that party really was. A lot of votes that should have gone to Labour have gone to Fianna Fail historically because Labour was seen as being not "national" enough.

Thanks for that.

ardmacha

Also, can you really see FG actively camapigning 'against' the referendum?

You have to remember that the proportion of FG votes in favour of a UI in a recent Red C poll was higher than that the proportion of 26 county Sinn Féin voters. So the answer to the above is no.

guinnessdrinker

Thomas_I wrote: »

I´d agree to say that the candidature of Mr McGuinness was the main issue in this. I recall some reactions from the public, reported in the media, very well. Summed up it sounded like "He´s from the North, he´s not one of us" and "he´s from a different country, remember his past in the IRA" and so on.

There you go. A picture from a real perception of people who even couldn´t bear to have an Irishman from NI to become their President because of that and his (former) membership in the IRA and his (present) membership in SF. Do you think that within these past two years since that election campaign many things have changed or even at least altered in the public opinion?

But it's ok for the electorate to have an Irishwoman from NI to become president?

junder

Bertie Woot wrote: »

Ah, the old economic argument. It may cost us more that just money, it shall no doubt be a huge pain in the arse to have a million or more Brits in the country who don't want to be part of the country, but sure if they don't like it they can always return to Scotland And England where their ancestors came from.

You claim to be from the PUL community who converted to the republican political ideology, which would mean regardless of whose ideology you may now follow your ancestors are the same as thiers ( if your telling the truth about being from the PUL community that is) which does of course beg the question of do you feel you have more right to live on this island simply because of your political conversion?

ardmacha

which does of course beg the question of do you feel you have more right to live on this island simply because of your political conversion?

Anyone is welcome to come (within law) to this island and throw their lot in with its people. It is those who come to make it a colony that are not welcome.

junder

ardmacha wrote: »

Anyone is welcome to come (within law) to this island and throw their lot in with its people. It is those who come to make it a colony that are not welcome.

And these people would be who exactly?