Referendum for Irish Unity 2022

Iwasfrozen

Crooked Jack wrote: »

I would fully accept the results of an all-Ireland vote and never bring the subject up again.

Great let's have it tomorrow morning.

Crooked Jack

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Great let's have it tomorrow morning.

Well I'd prefer a bit of debate and an opportunity for people in the know to explain how and why it would or wouldn't work.
But I mean that in all sincerity, if there was a one off all-Ireland vote on the issue I would accept the outcome fully and defend it, even if i disagreed with it.

Mr Cumulonimbus

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

So since you agree with my definition of a nation why do you not think the Ulster Scots fit the description? They are religiously (protestantism, check) ethnically (Scottish, check) historically (long standing hatred on both sides, check) politically (DUP vs SF, check) cultural differences (pipe bands, orange order, marching etc.) different from the Irish people and since they are concentrated in the north east of the island then why shouldn't they constitute their own nation?

I'd have difficulties though with you attempting to rigidly apply those definitions in defining an Ulster-Scots nation on its own.

On religion, many Protestants would see themselves as Irish. Ethnically, Irish Nationalists/Republicans have Scottish links too. Are you applying the Scottish ethnic link strictly in terms of Unionism? Politics = Unionism again? Historically, only "hatred"?

Cultural definition? Many Irish people who may be Republicans have flute bands, marches etc as well. Concentration in the northeast of the island, is this meant in terms of geography?

Bertie Woot

John Knox. wrote: »

I think you have fallen for his posts hook line and sinker. It was obviously made by an Irish Republican who is not from the ethnic background of the Ulster Scots.

I'll take that as a compliment. I am from the Unionist community and was very much of that mentality for most of my adult life, and despite IRA violence, thinking like an Irish Republican has come easy. There comes a time in life when you are capable of detaching yourself from the strong emotional attachment you have had to the culture, political affiliation, national allegiance and indeed the religion you were born into. The ability to look at the past in an intellectually honest and impartial manner is not easy when you are from one community of the other in Northern Ireland. Most of the time we've played a zero-sum game and engage in political points scoring to the detriment of the other. There is a stage beyond that; where we can survey the past and acknowledge the origin of the problem, recognise that wrongs have been committed by both sides, and accept that this new stage in the political evolution of Ireland as a nation shall ultimately lead to reunification. Maybe not in my lifetime, but some day.

The Unionist people are a relic of British imperialism in Ireland. We can continue to hang onto mother Britain's coat-tail, a mother who has been attempting to orphan us for four decades, or we can finally get real, salvage our dignity, and embrace our destiny as Irishmen in a reunified 32 county independent Ireland. National self determination does not have to be an exclusive goal or preserve of one group of people. I want the best for Ireland, and ALL of its people.

It was full of hyperbole and lies frankly. There is next to no chance of the Ulster Scots people voting Yes in a border poll. The Republican argument is based around "800 years, oppression" nonsense. They don't have a valid 21st century argument to why the Protestant population in Ulster should vote yes in a border poll to join a state which doesn't want them.

I'd appreciate it if you could pinpoint my alleged "hyperbole" and "lies". Oppression and tyranny under 800 years of British rule in Ireland was a reality for the Irish people, and yes, British colonial plantation settlers from Scotland and England also suffered greatly as a result of a series of Irish uprisings. If you can provide historical text which states that the Irish people had a big happy party under British colonial rule I'd be happy to survey it. The people of the Irish Republic recognise that the current Irish economy isn't strong enough to handle reunification, but that doesn't mean they have abandoned their traditional and long held Nationalist aspiration. The ROI may not want us at present, but then, despite lip service, Britain doesn't want us either. If you think that England appreciates Ulster's loyalty, you are sorely mistaken.

If they put more effort in Ulster by embracing why the province is different from the rest and work to make it better they would be better off. Instead it is constant need for big government ruling over us.

Ulster has always been a different part of Ireland since the Black pig's dyke and Cuchulainn, who fought the "men of Ireland". But Ulster is as much part of Ireland as it is part of the United Kingdom. In fact what Unionists refer to as "Ulster" is not Ulster at all. It is a mere 6 out of 9 of Ulster's counties (aka Northern Ireland); and a province which was partitioned at the same time when Ireland was partitioned.

Wolfe Tone was not a true son of Ulster. He was a Dublin man and his ethnic origins were English. English people haven't been looked upon that favorably by us in history either.

Agreed. The English view Northern Ireland as a delinquent cousin, a waste of English tax-payer's money, and a troublesome liability. The English wish nothing more than to see NI exit from the UK. Why should we sustain loyalty to England? Tone viewed England as the source of all of Ireland's political ills, and he was right.

The Irish rebellion of 1798 didn't involve the majority of Ulster Scots and actually led to the foundation of the Orange Order which helped fight it off. There has never been a time in history when the Irish and the Ulster Scots have got on and united. Never.

Anachronism. The Orange Institution (known today as the Orange Order) was founded in 1796 near the village of Loughgall in County Armagh, and two years before the 1798 rebellion; so it was not a product of the rebellion as its existence preceded it.

The Ulster-Scots are referred to as "Scotch-Irish" by the Americans, and the term is accurate, as the Scots are descended from the Irish, as it was the Irish who first settled Scotland. The indigenous Irish Ulster tribes of the Ulaidh and Cruthin/Cruithne fled Gaelic colonisation of Ireland and resettled in Scotland among the Pictish peoples, who were a sister tribe of the Cruthin. They returned to Ulster in 1609 and the beginning of the Ulster plantation.

Bertie Woot

John Knox. wrote: »

Why do Republicans say this? Out from the cold is paradise to us. We don't want to be involved in a Republican state. We simply want to be left alone. Why don't some Republicans get this and understand we are culturally, ethnically, religiously and politically different in every way and we wish to maintain that.

What's wrong with being "culturally, ethnically, religiously and politically different" in a united Ireland? Is it because we fear a united Ireland more than anything? Where does that fear come from?

Bertie Woot

John Knox. wrote: »

Exactly.

Don't let facts get in the way of a good story, even if it is a story based on delusion. The politicians in the UK are in a majority when it comes to keeping the Union together. They are looking to strengthen the Union, not weaken it.

Some people have this saying that if English people could vote they would want Northern Ireland to leave the Union. This argument is a fallacy in the grand scheme of things because they would do the exact same for Scotland judging by opinion polls.

The English don't get a vote in the 2014 Scottish referendum. Neither would they in a border poll here in Ulster. So why on earth would Ulster Protestants care about what way English people would vote in a border poll when they would never get the chance to vote anyway. Its an irrelevant point to make.

You can bet your bottom dollar/pound/euro that if the English were given the opportunity to vote in a referendum to have NI removed from the UK they'd jump at the offer. Unlike Scotland, NI has been a perpetual thorn in their side. They resent NI for benefiting more than other constituent UK countries under the current Barnett Formula, they view us as a nuisance state, and they generally perceive us all as "Irish", and regardless of whether you are British Unionist Protestant or Irish Nationalist Catholic.

Of course we don't give a rat's ass what the English think, as they are mostly irrelevant to us, but that is what they think, and they would disown NI tomorrow if they could.

T runner

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

On the other hand I would like to ask you, both of you. What you would define as a nation and tell me why the Ulster Scots people do not count for that? For me a a nation is based on a group of "people" who exhibit real (or perceived) ethnical, religious, historical, political, or cultural differences from any other set or group of people within a demarcated territory. Since the Ulster Scots fit all these criteria I think it's fair to say they are a people deserving of their own nation.

The Ulster Scots only accounted for 65% of Protestants in the six counties. They did not have a majority in any one county (Antrim perhaps). So even if they ever claimed themselves to be a different nation (they didn't). They are not numerous enough, nor dense enough in numbers. If "Ulster Scots" form a nation then surely "Irish" within NI is another qualified nation and are due self determination as they must be as different to Ulster Scots as Ulster Scots are to them?

No, the self determination is not a valid reason. The reason was a refusal to be a minority in a majority Catholic state and a back down by the British government from their position of Home Rule for Ireland.

Iwasfrozen

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Well I'd prefer a bit of debate and an opportunity for people in the know to explain how and why it would or wouldn't work.
But I mean that in all sincerity, if there was a one off all-Ireland vote on the issue I would accept the outcome fully and defend it, even if i disagreed with it.

Sure have all the discussion time needed I'd be pretty confident of a pro union vote, same way I'm pretty confident of a pro union vote in Scotland too. Having said that I would vote for a UI if I got the chance. And I know you would, I believe you.

junder

Bertie Woot wrote: »

Good question. There are many advantages to sustaining the union with GB, some of which you've mentioned. Being part of one of the world's major political and economic players also provides a sense of status and has real social and economic benefits. However, being part of the EU is not one of them. Ireland may need immigrants (correct me if I'm wrong), but the people of Britain have seen a transmogrification of their cultural landscape due to unfettered mass immigration and multiculturalisation which ahas been reported as "unwanted". The nature and presence of Islam throughout England has caused the rise of the far-right in the form of the EDL, BNP and other groupings. Although Dublin has becoming increasingly multicultural, Ireland can live without the down side to multiculturalism, and it's important to remember that the addition of one million fiercely loyal British Unionist Protestants to a traditionally Nationalist Catholic Irish Republic shall cause considerable social, political and cultural strain, thus exacerbating the potential for conflict.

That's why we need to get it right first time. There shall be no trial runs. The persuaders for Irish reunification need to set out their stall in a manner which shall be overwhelmingly appealing to the British Ulster Unionist, and I'll be honest with you here; Sinn Fein are the very worst persuaders/salesmen for Irish reunification. The Provisional IRA's campaign caused a lot of hurt and has instilled within the British people of Ulster a resentment and distrust of Irish Republicanism which shall take generations to ameliorate, if ever. The Ulster Unionist knows that SF have no alternative to persuasion as the IRA lost their war (yes they did). Gerry Adams has proved himself a pathological liar by repeatability denying his IRA past, and Martin McGuinness has openly admitted his past IRA membership. So Adams is viewed with contempt among the Unionist community for attempting to conceal his PIRA beginnings, and McGuinness is viewed with equal contempt for admitting his PIRA membership. There is no love or sympathy for the IRA among the Unionist people, with them being viewed as a fascist organisation who sustained a 30 year violent campaign against the wishes of even most Irish nationalists north and south of the border. The IRA were not Irish freedom fighters to the Unionist people, they were brutal and barbaric terrorists guilty of multiple atrocities and shall always be viewed that way, and that is why Sinn Fein are the very worst salesmen for Irish reunification.



The Unionist establishment at Stormont 1921 to 1968 was guilty of institutionalised discrimination against the Irish Nationalist Catholic people in Northern Ireland, and even David Ervine, leader of the Progressive Unionist Party and former UVF terrorist (now deceased) condemned the Unionist establishment for its wrongdoing; something which the UUP and DUP have failed to do. Working class Unionists (Loyalists) are prepared to and have faced up to the wrongs of the past, the mainstream Unionist parties don't feel they are under any obligation to acknowledge Unionism's misdemeanours. Equally, Sinn Fein -IRA have yet to issue a full and unconditional apology for all of the totally unnecessary murders which they perpetrated in the name of Irish liberation, and until that apology is forthcoming, the goal of Irish reunification lies in the realm of fantasy world.



I'm still here, and whilst I have no love of Sinn Fein or the IRA, I do think that the aspiration to peaceful Irish reunification is a perfectly valid and illegitimate one, and although convincing the Unionist community (from which I come) that Irish reunification is in their best interests is going to be an unbelievably arduous task for any body of Irish Nationalism, I firmly believe that through rigorous education of the history of Ireland from prehistoric times to the present day, and teaching Unionists and Nationalists to EMPATHISE with the other side (and there are sides), we can build within both communities a tolerance and understanding which shall hopefully ameliorate the hatred and bitterness which has characterised life in Northern Ireland since its conception, and ultimately pave the way for Unionists to finally grasp the nettle, swallow the bitter pill, embrace their Irishness, recognise tht Britain doesn't give a sh*t about them, and walk into the new Ireland as free men and of their own volition, and without fear of persecution.

I drove across the border and entered the Temple Bar in Dublin and paid a ridiculous 6 euro for a bottle of stout. That was my first painful step toward Irish reunification, and if I can do that, all Ulstermen can, as although the price of alcoholic beverage in the Republic is outlandish and needs to be addressed as urgent, Protestant Ulstermen enjoy a good session, but they are not going to be tempted into venturing across the geographic border, and more importantly, the border which has been etched in their mind, with alcohol prices like that.

A fair post,

Iwasfrozen

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

I'd have difficulties though with you attempting to rigidly apply those definitions in defining an Ulster-Scots nation on its own.

On religion, many Protestants would see themselves as Irish. Ethnically, Irish Nationalists/Republicans have Scottish links too. Are you applying the Scottish ethnic link strictly in terms of Unionism? Politics = Unionism again? Historically, only "hatred"?

Cultural definition? Many Irish people who may be Republicans have flute bands, marches etc as well. Concentration in the northeast of the island, is this meant in terms of geography?

Sure many do but in the North most don't, the numbers don't matter when you're talking about religious identity. Ireland is still a catholic country, we may have a growing atheist group, particularly amongst the young but our culture and international identity is still very much shaped by our religion. If you're an atheist in Northern Ireland you may find yourself asked "yes, but are you a catholic atheist or a protestant atheist?"

They do, but again that's not important, the Ulster Scots have a shared origin that is ethnically distinct from the native Irish breeding between the two groups did of course happen but due to the historical hatred they've felt for each other this would have been kept to a much lower amount that usual. I would eat my hat if a research into the ethnic make up of the two groups didn't show Ulster Scots with more lowland Scottish blood the Irish nationalists.

For politics the ethnic Ulster Scots have traditionally favoured the maintenance of the Union with great Britain (Unionism) again as distinct from the native Irish in the area who have tended to favour nationalism. The political difference is really the most important one, once you have determined the Ulster Scots as a separate people to the Irish then you look to their politics to determine the result of their right to self determination. A right neither the native Irish or British have a right to take away from them.

Sure there are native Irish republicans who march in pipe bands that's to be expected no cultural pursuit is 100% employed by the group it is associated with. What I am saying, and I used the pipe bands to demonstrate this, is that there exists an Ulster Scot culture and identity separate from that of native Irish nationalists who feel this culture is foreign or alien to them. I really shouldn't put those words in brackets because the culture (like orangefest) really is foreign to the nationalist. He totally doesn't understand it (as if you're ever one boards on the 12th of July you'll know all about).

And yep, the Ulster Scots were cordend off in the north east of the historic country of Ireland (I say historic because our own constitution changed the meaning of the name Ireland to only mean 26 counties) and that is why that area was separated politically from us. And should remain so for the foreseeable future.

Iwasfrozen

T runner wrote: »

The Ulster Scots only accounted for 65% of Protestants in the six counties. They did not have a majority in any one county (Antrim perhaps). So even if they ever claimed themselves to be a different nation (they didn't). They are not numerous enough, nor dense enough in numbers. If "Ulster Scots" form a nation then surely "Irish" within NI is another qualified nation and are due self determination as they must be as different to Ulster Scots as Ulster Scots are to them?

No, the self determination is not a valid reason. The reason was a refusal to be a minority in a majority Catholic state and a back down by the British government from their position of Home Rule for Ireland.

My maths makes it as 53% of the entire population. Tell me what do you define a nation as? And why do the Ulster Scots not qualify as a nation? I promise for any reason you can give me as to why the Irish are distinct from the English and deserving of self determination I can give you the same reason the Ulster Scots are distinct from us and also deserving of self determination.

junder

Bertie Woot wrote: »

I'll take that as a compliment. I am from the Unionist community and was very much of that mentality for most of my adult life, and despite IRA violence, thinking like an Irish Republican has come easy. There comes a time in life when you are capable of detaching yourself from the strong emotional attachment you have had to the culture, political affiliation, national allegiance and indeed the religion you were born into. The ability to look at the past in an intellectually honest and impartial manner is not easy when you are from one community of the other in Northern Ireland. Most of the time we've played a zero-sum game and engage in political points scoring to the detriment of the other. There is a stage beyond that; where we can survey the past and acknowledge the origin of the problem, recognise that wrongs have been committed by both sides, and accept that this new stage in the political evolution of Ireland as a nation shall ultimately lead to reunification. Maybe not in my lifetime, but some day.

The Unionist people are a relic of British imperialism in Ireland. We can continue to hang onto mother Britain's coat-tail, a mother who has been attempting to orphan us for four decades, or we can finally get real, salvage our dignity, and embrace our destiny as Irishmen in a reunified 32 county independent Ireland. National self determination does not have to be an exclusive goal or preserve of one group of people. I want the best for Ireland, and ALL of its people.



I'd appreciate it if you could pinpoint my alleged "hyperbole" and "lies". Oppression and tyranny under 800 years of British rule in Ireland was a reality for the Irish people, and yes, British colonial plantation settlers from Scotland and England also suffered greatly as a result of a series of Irish uprisings. If you can provide historical text which states that the Irish people had a big happy party under British colonial rule I'd be happy to survey it. The people of the Irish Republic recognise that the current Irish economy isn't strong enough to handle reunification, but that doesn't mean they have abandoned their traditional and long held Nationalist aspiration. The ROI may not want us at present, but then, despite lip service, Britain doesn't want us either. If you think that England appreciates Ulster's loyalty, you are sorely mistaken.



Ulster has always been a different part of Ireland since the Black pig's dyke and Cuchulainn, who fought the "men of Ireland". But Ulster is as much part of Ireland as it is part of the United Kingdom. In fact what Unionists refer to as "Ulster" is not Ulster at all. It is a mere 6 out of 9 of Ulster's counties (aka Northern Ireland); and a province which was partitioned at the same time when Ireland was partitioned.



Agreed. The English view Northern Ireland as a delinquent cousin, a waste of English tax-payer's money, and a troublesome liability. The English wish nothing more than to see NI exit from the UK. Why should we sustain loyalty to England? Tone viewed England as the source of all of Ireland's political ills, and he was right.



Anachronism. The Orange Institution (known today as the Orange Order) was founded in 1796 near the village of Loughgall in County Armagh, and two years before the 1798 rebellion; so it was not a product of the rebellion as its existence preceded it.

The Ulster-Scots are referred to as "Scotch-Irish" by the Americans, and the term is accurate, as the Scots are descended from the Irish, as it was the Irish who first settled Scotland. The indigenous Irish Ulster tribes of the Ulaidh and Cruthin/Cruithne fled Gaelic colonisation of Ireland and resettled in Scotland among the Pictish peoples, who were a sister tribe of the Cruthin. They returned to Ulster in 1609 and the beginning of the Ulster plantation.

I was quite engaged by your posts up to the point where you called me a relic of British imperialism, I'm no spring chicken but I am certainly not a relic, Niether I'm I defined by 'Britain' or more specifically the English, I am well aware what many English think of us, but then the English are not the union and its not for them to decide who can or cannot be a member of it. I am not a anachronism, i am a modern human being living in a modern world and I fail to see how only Irish nationalists can be modern

Happyman42

junder wrote: »

I was quite engaged by your posts up to the point where you called me a relic of British imperialism, I'm no spring chicken but I am certainly not a relic, Niether I'm I defined by 'Britain' or more specifically the English, I am well aware what many English think of us, but then the English are not the union and its not for them to decide who can or cannot be a member of it. I am not a anachronism, i am a modern human being living in a modern world and I fail to see how only Irish nationalists can be modern

Who in 'political' Unionism is facing up to the fact that Britain will leave eventually if the circumstances exist? Who is telling the people that Britain has repudiated your claim to be British, that you must now redefine yourselves?
Republicans, from the IRA to SF, have redefined themselves in the new Ireland, who is doing it in Unionism?

junder

Happyman42 wrote: »

Who in 'political' Unionism is facing up to the fact that Britain will leave eventually if the circumstances exist? Who is telling the people that Britain has repudiated your claim to be British, that you must now redefine yourselves?
Republicans, from the IRA to SF, have redefined themselves in the new Ireland, who is doing it in Unionism?

Who is telling the people of the Republic of Ireland that a united ireland is unaffordable? Who is telling the people of the Republic of Ireland that your government doesn't want anything to do with a 'united Ireland' we ulster unionists accept that the British or more accurately the English government does not want us, while republicans on the other hand still labour under the illusion that your government wants unification. Northern Ireland exists, Northern Ireland is still part of the UK and thanks to the gfa that can't change with out the consent of the people of Northern Ireland regradless of how much he English government wants shot of us. I will not see a united ireland in my life time, I am extremely confident that my son won't either so I really don't feel the new to 'redefine' myself on your say so.
Although your attuitude does cut to the chase of the general Irish republican attuitude ' sure unionists are welcome, as long as they redefine themselves, as long as they say what we want to hear, as long as they do as they are told'. You talk about 'my sort of unionism' well news flash sucker, if you want your united ireland I am exactly the sort of unionist you need to convince of the merits of your united Ireland and so far you are doing a piss poor job.

Happyman42

junder wrote: »

Who is telling the people of the Republic of Ireland that a united ireland is unaffordable? Who is telling the people of the Republic of Ireland that your government doesn't want anything to do with a 'united Ireland' we ulster unionists accept that the British or more accurately the English government does not want us, while republicans on the other hand still labour under the illusion that your government wants unification. Northern Ireland exists, Northern Ireland is still part of the UK and thanks to the gfa that can't change with out the consent of the people of Northern Ireland regradless of how much he English government wants shot of us. I will not see a united ireland in my life time, I am extremely confident that my son won't either so I really don't feel the new to 'redefine' myself on your say so.
Although your attuitude does cut to the chase of the general Irish republican attuitude ' sure unionists are welcome, as long as they redefine themselves, as long as they say what we want to hear, as long as they do as they are told'. You talk about 'my sort of unionism' well news flash sucker, if you want your united ireland I am exactly the sort of unionist you need to convince of the merits of your united Ireland and so far you are doing a piss poor job.

Republicans are well aware of what it will take to convince people that a United Ireland is and always was in their interests. In that sense they are modern.
The reason Unionism is seen as a relic or anachronistic is perfectly demonstrated in your post.

'news flash sucker'

??? Is that the new 'never, never never'?
A brand of Unionism never seems to see the writing on the wall, they were dragged kicking and screaming into every progressive development of the last 30 years, they threaten and threaten and then capitulate while all the time insisting on wearing their bowlers to ape English gentlemen, they hide behind and trumpet a deliberately misleading BBC poll of a thousand people while ignoring what an actual electorate (their electorate) are actually saying.
There may or may not be a UI in mine or your lifetime but that doesn't negate the urgency of the need for redefinition of who you actually are, if you cannot see that political Unionism is fracturing from its grassroots and support then you are doomed. Bertie Woot is telling you how it is from the inside and you won't listen, maybe you are better looking for the view from outside...it's clearer.

T runner

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

My maths makes it as 53% of the entire population. Tell me what do you define a nation as? And why do the Ulster Scots not qualify as a nation? I promise for any reason you can give me as to why the Irish are distinct from the English and deserving of self determination I can give you the same reason the Ulster Scots are distinct from us and also deserving of self determination.

Ireland has always been regarded as a nation by the Irish, British and other Nations. The evidence of Irish antionhood is overwhelming and undisputed by any serious historian. How about the Ulster Scots? Have they ever even called themselves a nation?
Self determination for Ulster Scots was never even a reason given for Partition.
They simply refused to be governed by a Catholic majority. The slogan was "Home rule is Rome rule"...Not "Home rule is foreign rule"
Can you provide even one historian who has viewed Ulster Scots as a seperate nation? Even one? No? Then let it rest.

T runner

junder wrote: »

Who is telling the people of the Republic of Ireland that a united ireland is unaffordable? Who is telling the people of the Republic of Ireland that your government doesn't want anything to do with a 'united Ireland' we ulster unionists accept that the British or more accurately the English government does not want us, while republicans on the other hand still labour under the illusion that your government wants unification

.

Im surprised when you say the Irish Government doesnt want a United Ireland. I believe both coalition partners have it as a long term aim? Where have you got your information?

Can the ROI absorb a loss making dependency? No.

And as a member of the UK NI receives a de facto bail out every year from London. It cant seriously compete in the British market and as a result a massive proportion of products and services in NI are British. Compare this to the productivity of the rest of Ireland and you'll see why NI is a dependency.

The Leinster economy dwarfs the NI economy now. This was not the case in 1921. The assumption is that the 6 counties will become more competitive and productive within Ireland. The British market is open to them but they will have some protections against it, as we do, and full unrestricted access to one of the most open economies and markets in the world. Irish Protestants do very well in these conditions, it stands to reason that Ulster Protestants should be no different. Can ROI absorb NI if it becomes productive after re-unification? Yes indeed!

Northern Ireland exists, Northern Ireland is still part of the UK and thanks to the gfa that can't change with out the consent of the people of Northern Ireland regradless of how much he English government wants shot of us. I will not see a united ireland in my life time, I am extremely confident that my son won't either so I really don't feel the new to 'redefine' myself on your say so.

If Loyalism doesn't rid itself of its inherent sectarianism, then you'll see a UI sooner than you think.

junder

T runner wrote: »

.

Im surprised when you say the Irish Government doesnt want a United Ireland. I believe both coalition partners have it as a long term aim? Where have you got your information?

Can the ROI absorb a loss making dependency? No.

And as a member of the UK NI receives a de facto bail out every year from London. It cant seriously compete in the British market and as a result a massive proportion of products and services in NI are British. Compare this to the productivity of the rest of Ireland and you'll see why NI is a dependency.

The Leinster economy dwarfs the NI economy now. This was not the case in 1921. The assumption is that the 6 counties will become more competitive and productive within Ireland. The British market is open to them but they will have some protections against it, as we do, and full unrestricted access to one of the most open economies and markets in the world. Irish Protestants do very well in these conditions, it stands to reason that Ulster Protestants should be no different. Can ROI absorb NI if it becomes productive after re-unification? Yes indeed!




If Loyalism doesn't rid itself of its inherent sectarianism, then you'll see a UI sooner than you think.

Ironically the greatest barrier to a united ireland are the Irish republicans themselves, or more specifically thier attuitude to the unionist community. As long as you continue to insult us, run us down and generally denigrate us the more remote your united ireland becomes. I for one will have no truck with an idology that refuse to respect my political out look or my culture.

Happyman42

junder wrote: »

As long as you continue to insult us, run us down and generally denigrate us

Everytime you dig further in and refuse to normalise and fix a failed state, you do a perfectly adequate job of that all on your own I'm afraid. It's called 'shooting yourself in the foot'.

junder

Happyman42 wrote: »

Everytime you dig further in and refuse to normalise and fix a failed state, you do a perfectly adequate job of that all on your own I'm afraid. It's called 'shooting yourself in the foot'.

I know, poor misguided me, must give you a warm fuzzy feeling to know how supier you are to me

T runner

junder wrote: »

Ironically the greatest barrier to a united ireland are the Irish republicans themselves, or more specifically thier attuitude to the unionist community. As long as you continue to insult us, run us down and generally denigrate us the more remote your united ireland becomes. I for one will have no truck with an ideology that refuse to respect my political out look or my culture.

But Loyalism has abused, denigrated and attacked Irish culture for centuries. Just being Catholic is and has been a valid reason to be attacked or worse in many Loyalist eyes. Sectarianism is clearly (or should be more accurately) a major issue for Unionism to eradicate.

Why for example did we see loyalist Union Jack flag protesters marches stopping at Catholic areas to sing provocative sectarian songs recently? Why cant loyalism remove sectarianism from their political ideology?

If you view an attack on sectarianism as an attack on your culture well then evidently some aspects of your culture need changing.

Happyman42

junder wrote: »

I know, poor misguided me, must give you a warm fuzzy feeling to know how supier you are to me

The only proper respect I can give you, is the truth, as I see it. It is only one of a myriad of opinions.

KeithAFCGhost.

I'll take that as a compliment. I am from the Unionist community and was very much of that mentality for most of my adult life, and despite IRA violence, thinking like an Irish Republican has come easy. There comes a time in life when you are capable of detaching yourself from the strong emotional attachment you have had to the culture, political affiliation, national allegiance and indeed the religion you were born into. The ability to look at the past in an intellectually honest and impartial manner is not easy when you are from one community of the other in Northern Ireland. Most of the time we've played a zero-sum game and engage in political points scoring to the detriment of the other. There is a stage beyond that; where we can survey the past and acknowledge the origin of the problem, recognise that wrongs have been committed by both sides, and accept that this new stage in the political evolution of Ireland as a nation shall ultimately lead to reunification. Maybe not in my lifetime, but some day.

The fallacy of the argument you present falls apart when you say the origin of the problem. Its just a nonsense to make a argument for a United Ireland because of a plantation which happened over 400 years ago. There comes a point when you will need to get over that. It has happened in many other countries like the United States. To try and make a argument based on that point makes it a weak argument.

The Unionist people are a relic of British imperialism in Ireland. We can continue to hang onto mother Britain's coat-tail, a mother who has been attempting to orphan us for four decades, or we can finally get real, salvage our dignity, and embrace our destiny as Irishmen in a reunified 32 county independent Ireland. National self determination does not have to be an exclusive goal or preserve of one group of people. I want the best for Ireland, and ALL of its people.

This point that you can only be Irish if you advocate a United Ireland is again wrong. You will see many Ulster Loyalist flags like the YCV banner which has shamrocks on it. They don't need to be in a United Ireland to express any sort of Irish identity they wish to express.

Why can't they express Irishness in the United Kingdom like a Welshman or Scotsman?

I'd appreciate it if you could pinpoint my alleged "hyperbole" and "lies". Oppression and tyranny under 800 years of British rule in Ireland was a reality for the Irish people, and yes, British colonial plantation settlers from Scotland and England also suffered greatly as a result of a series of Irish uprisings. If you can provide historical text which states that the Irish people had a big happy party under British colonial rule I'd be happy to survey it. The people of the Irish Republic recognise that the current Irish economy isn't strong enough to handle reunification, but that doesn't mean they have abandoned their traditional and long held Nationalist aspiration. The ROI may not want us at present, but then, despite lip service, Britain doesn't want us either. If you think that England appreciates Ulster's loyalty, you are sorely mistaken.

You completely ignore the role the normal Irish person played in the British Empire. The saying is the British Empire was won by the Irish. You try to exagerrate the role of the Empire on the Island almost like that of Poland in the 1930s and 1940s. That just wasn't the case. If anything, Dublin was known as a cradle in the Empire.

During the 1916 rising, instead of the men coming out of the GPO to cheers, they got spat on and hounded and actually the complete opposite to what some Republicans would like you to believe. It was actually bad errors by the British Army which turned the tide and gathered support for the 1916 rebels.

What's wrong with being "culturally, ethnically, religiously and politically different" in a united Ireland? Is it because we fear a united Ireland more than anything? Where does that fear come from?

They disagree with it ideologically and culturally. They are perfectly happy enough within the Union. They have good reason to fear many aspects of a United Ireland. Protecting the culture and heritage they have and the well being of their own people is the top priority.

No, the self determination is not a valid reason. The reason was a refusal to be a minority in a majority Catholic state and a back down by the British government from their position of Home Rule for Ireland.

Problem with this is?

You can bet your bottom dollar/pound/euro that if the English were given the opportunity to vote in a referendum to have NI removed from the UK they'd jump at the offer. Unlike Scotland, NI has been a perpetual thorn in their side. They resent NI for benefiting more than other constituent UK countries under the current Barnett Formula, they view us as a nuisance state, and they generally perceive us all as "Irish", and regardless of whether you are British Unionist Protestant or Irish Nationalist Catholic.

Of course we don't give a rat's ass what the English think, as they are mostly irrelevant to us, but that is what they think, and they would disown NI tomorrow if they could.

Irrelevant because the English would have no say in a border poll. England used to be a great nation. It now has many major problems like immigration, erosion of English culture and many other problems. They should not throw stones in glass houses.

Chuck Stone

junder wrote: »

I will not see a united ireland in my life time, I am extremely confident that my son won't either

If your son is a child now then that's a wildly optimistic estimation from your perspective. I grew up with the echoes of Paisley shouting 'NEVER NEVER NEVER' and 'never' has come and gone.

the general Irish republican attuitude ' sure unionists are welcome, as long as they redefine themselves, as long as they say what we want to hear, as long as they do as they are told'.

Even you seem to accept the inevitability of a UI. What happens to political Unionism when a UI begins to approach being a reality? Has anyone ever even written about it from the Unionist perspective or is it 'NEVER NEVER NEVER ...em.. okay so' again? Don't you think it would be in the best interests of Unionists to have some sort of contingency plan if only for their own interests?

How does the spectre of being a minority in a SF dominated statelet sit with Unionists? Wouldn't it be better to 'water down' SF within a 32 county republic? Do these things even get discussed in your community?

You talk about 'my sort of unionism' well news flash sucker, if you want your united ireland I am exactly the sort of unionist you need to convince of the merits of your united Ireland and so far you are doing a piss poor job.

It's the people who don't identify with Unionism who will decide when a UI will happen. The days of the gerrymandered state are gone and as you've said yourself the British/English will be only too happy to be rid of the thorn in its side.

oscarBravo

GRMA wrote: »

Oscar its a historical fact that the act of Union was only passed by way of threats and bribes, against the will of the Irish people. And was in fact illegal under British law, even aside from this.

An Act of Parliament was illegal under British law? Citation needed.

This is typical of your ilk - you hide behind a thin veneer of respectability to cloak underhanded and illegal going ons in order to justify your world view.

I have an ilk?

I haven't defended the Act of Union as being a noble or honourable piece of work. I've pointed out that, to someone who's demanding that I pinpoint an exact moment in time when Ireland went from being a colony to not being one, then the Act of Union is as good a moment as any.

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

Why do you think that Ulster, or any part of the island of Ireland for that matter since there weren't two jurisdictions on the island prior to 1921, suddenly ceased to become a colony with the Act of Union? It's an event that happened, but all events that occurred may not be legitimate.

The fact that you don't think a law should have been passed doesn't mean it wasn't passed. The fact that a law was passed by means of bribery and corruption doesn't make it not a law. The Act of Union changed the political status of Ireland, and made it an integral part of the United Kingdom.

Happyman42

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Even you seem to accept the inevitability of a UI. What happens to political Unionism when a UI begins to approach being a reality? Has anyone ever even written about it from the Unionist perspective or is it 'NEVER NEVER NEVER ...em.. okay so' again? Don't you think it would be in the best interests of Unionists to have some sort of contingency plan if only for their own interests?

How does the spectre of being a minority in a SF dominated statelet sit with Unionists? Wouldn't it be better to 'water down' SF within a 32 county republic? Do these things even get discussed in your community?



It's the people who don't identify with Unionism who will decide when a UI will happen. The days of the gerrymandered state are gone and as you've said yourself the British/English will be only to happy to be rid of the thorn in its side.

That is precisely what it would mean to be 'modern' or 'relevant', to have a discussion about what the future holds and their place in it, David Ervine was listened to, because he lived in the real world, he spoke of the real situation Unionists found themselves in, not from some last bastion of an imaginary empire where the king or queen would come valiantly to the rescue some fine day. You are right, you never hear those discussions, because you can't hear somebody, when they have their head in the sand.

junder

Happyman42 wrote: »

That is precisely what it would mean to be 'modern' or 'relevant', to have a discussion about what the future holds and their place in it, David Ervine was listened to, because he lived in the real world, he spoke of the real situation Unionists found themselves in, not from some last bastion of an imaginary empire where the king or queen would come valiantly to the rescue some fine day. You are right, you never hear those discussions, because you can't hear somebody, when they have their head in the sand.

It's not us that have thier head in the sand of thier fingers in thier ears, even berty has said that republicans need listen to unionist ( and that's all shades on unionists not just the ones that say the things you want to hear) instead of sticking your fingers in your ears whiskey shouting the equivalent of LA LA LA LA. the uncomfortable truth for you is I do not consider myself Irish and I want nothing to do with your united ireland, convince me otherwise

Happyman42

junder wrote: »

It's not us that have thier head in the sand of thier fingers in thier ears, even berty has said that republicans need listen to unionist ( and that's all shades on unionists not just the ones that say the things you want to hear) instead of sticking your fingers in your ears whiskey shouting the equivalent of LA LA LA LA. the uncomfortable truth for you is I do not consider myself Irish and I want nothing to do with your united ireland, convince me otherwise

And you refuse to enter a discussion about all of our futures together. You are being outstripped by those who are facing it head on. And as somebody has said the choice will not always be yours, so sooner or later you will have to speak up. Stark coice but that's the truth of it....and I'm not partial to whiskey, prefer the whisky myself.

junder

Happyman42 wrote: »

And you refuse to enter a discussion about all of our futures together. You are being outstripped by those who are facing it head on. And as somebody has said the choice will not always be yours, so sooner or later you will have to speak up. Stark coice but that's the truth of it....and I'm not partial to whiskey, prefer the whisky myself.

Nope, still not seeing the merits of your united ireland, your not really selling it to me

Happyman42

junder wrote: »

Nope, still not seeing the merits of your united ireland, your not really selling it to me

Every time Unionism digs a trench they are over run and end up haing to give in and get used to it, if they don't get real soon and start offering something other than the past - an identity for 21st century in a new Ireland, a UI might be your only option.