Do you care about uniting Ireland?

Dostoevsky

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

Jesus wept! Post reads like something a certain Austrian painter would have have said about the Sudetenland in 1936!
I worry about sharing this state with anyone of that mentality!
Forced repatriation FFS! They have as much right to be there as anyone else!:mad:

I see you're still struggling with the English language (as well as historical reality). Good man. Are you denying this is what happened in French-ruled Algeria? The comparison with the Sudetenland land is plainly retarded and betrays a distinct lack of understanding of that particular conflict.

Dostoevsky

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

Wrong the people of this state voted in 1922 to accept the Anglo-Irish Treaty

Wrong, again. The Northern statelet was created in December 1920 by overthrowing the wishes of the people of Ireland in the election immediately preceding it. The results of a 1922 ballot have no bearing on the historical fact that your British state was imposed upon hundreds of thousands of Irish people by British people who overthrew democracy when they passed the Government of Ireland Act in December 1920.

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

You just cant argue with the ballot box, no matter how big your armalite is!

More nonsense, given the British state which you're defending overthrew the wishes of the vast majority of the electorate in Ireland in 1918 when they invented "Northern Ireland" in 1920. But, hey, keep trotting out this ignorant specious rubbish.

Dostoevsky

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

I knew I had won the arguement once you had to resort,once again, to petty name calling and personal abuse.

Yes, starting off your "arguement" with calling a poster "silly and emotional" and proceeding to compare them to Hitler was always sure to give you the moral platform to lecture other posters on "personal abuse". Well done on such intelligent posting once again.

dublinbhoy88

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

Jesus wept! Post reads like something a certain Austrian painter would have have said about the Sudetenland in 1936!
I worry about sharing this state with anyone of that mentality!
Forced repatriation FFS! They have as much right to be there as anyone else!:mad:

if people want to live under British rule so much , why not go and live in Britain?

shruikan2553

dublinbhoy88 wrote: »

if people want to live under British rule so much , why not go and live in Britain?

Becuase they can live as part of Britain where they are now?

dublinbhoy88

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Becuase they can live as part of Britain where they are now?

but they are not in Britain

timthumbni

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

Jesus wept! Post reads like something a certain Austrian painter would have have said about the Sudetenland in 1936!
I worry about sharing this state with anyone of that mentality!
Forced repatriation FFS! They have as much right to be there as anyone else!:mad:

The republicans mask slips every so often to reveal the real monster beneath.

Talk of a united ireland for them really means one where everyone toes their line OR ELSE.

timthumbni

dublinbhoy88 wrote: »

if people want to live under British rule so much , why not go and live in Britain?

I'm a unionist from Northern Ireland. I won't be moving anywhere old chap. I doubt that you or the other armchair republicans on this thread will ever do much more than spout nonsense from your bedroom. (Probably whilst wearing tricolour underpants and posters of bob sands on the wall)

annascott

shops in the north are much better even if it is the same shop. Much better choice of products.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

dublinbhoy88 wrote: »

if people want to live under British rule so much , why not go and live in Britain?

You dont have to live in Britain to live under British rule.

dublinbhoy88

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

You dont have to live in Britain to live under British rule.

So which enemy of Britain will loyalists import arms from commiting treason against British law this time,a la German guns from the UVF 1912.?

markomuscle

some would like a united ireland, some wouldn't, hardly a shock revelation, surely it isn't worth 37 pages of bickering? it's not like anyone is going to change anyone else's minds

timthumbni

The only heartening thing about this thread is that it seems a lot of other board members seem to realise the sort of "united ireland" the republicans really want.

I love how these armchair Provos even resort to questioning the real "irishness" of those people who don't subscribe to their ideals. It's very clear from their ramblings that there is no place for unionists in their imaginary new ireland. In fact it seems that the unionists may not be the only victims of republican jackboots.

What they don't realise is that there can only ever be a true "united Ireland" if a sizable majority of unionists could be persuaded to embrace the idea.

I don't think the forced repatriation idea is a goer. Like it or not Northern Ireland has its own identity now and in the long run I maybe see more involvement of the irish government but that's about it.

I liked the ginger stepson comparison earlier. Very apt. Who in their right mind would want almost a million unwilling new citizens to join their country. It would be a recipe for disaster for all concerned.

dublinbhoy88

timthumbni wrote: »

The only heartening thing about this thread is that it seems a lot of other board members seem to realise the sort of "united ireland" the republicans really want.

I love how these armchair Provos even resort to questioning the real "irishness" of those people who don't subscribe to their ideals. It's very clear from their ramblings that there is no place for unionists in their imaginary new ireland. In fact it seems that the unionists may not be the only victims of republican jackboots.

What they don't realise is that there can only ever be a true "united Ireland" if a sizable majority of unionists could be persuaded to embrace the idea.

I don't think the forced repatriation idea is a goer. Like it or not Northern Ireland has its own identity now and in the long run I maybe see more involvement of the irish government but that's about it.

I liked the ginger stepson comparison earlier. Very apt. Who in their right mind would want almost a million unwilling new citizens to join their country. It would be a recipe for disaster for all concerned.

We are talking maybe 40 or 50 years down the line when there is a nationaist majority in the north and maybe in that time people won't have this medieval loyalty to a crown that happens to be a certain religion,not talking about present conditions

timthumbni

dublinbhoy88 wrote: »

We are talking maybe 40 or 50 years down the line when there is a nationaist majority in the north and maybe in that time people won't have this medieval loyalty to a crown that happens to be a certain religion,not talking about present conditions

When I was young I imagined that one day I would end up with a page 3 girl drinking cocktails by the pool in my luxury villa in Spain.

Then one day I grew up and embraced reality. The page 3 girl and I ended up living in a terraced street in east Belfast drinking Dutch gold.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

dublinbhoy88 wrote: »

So which enemy of Britain will loyalists import arms from commiting treason against British law this time,a la German guns from the UVF 1912.?

Dostoevsky wrote: »

In fairness, I don't think this needs to be explained to Irish people, or Indians, or Palestinians or about 25% of the entire planet which had the pleasure of Britain's definitely-not-extremist-or-fanatical foreign policy...

I look forward to British people embracing the idea of a foreign country gerrymandering an area of Britain to create a separate state for their own citizens. I propose that area around Liverpool, which until 1928 consistently elected Irish nationalists MPs. Seeing as it's all to do with democracy and nothing to do with military force, I'm sure the British will be delighted to have foreign rule in a part of their country?

Lads, all I did was point out that someone living in Northern Ireland didn't have to move to Britain in order to live unde British rule, in the context of Dublinbhoy's post. Talking about now. In 2013. Events that happened in 1912 and 1928 don't really relate to the point that I'm making.

Dostoevsky

timthumbni wrote: »

What they don't realise is that there can only ever be a true "united Ireland" if a sizable majority of unionists could be persuaded to embrace the idea.

Hang on, when I read the GFA I was certain that it said reunification (go on, try me) would come about when a majority of the population in the Six Counties voted for it. How did you manage to convert this into a majority of the unionist population in the Six Counties?

timthumbni wrote: »

Like it or not Northern Ireland has its own identity now

As did the French-Algerian Pied Noirs. It, too, was built on racism, a siege mentality and hatred of the natives and their culture. Just because people have an "identity" does not mean it should be respected. There are many, many other examples of identities which have been consigned to history because they were built on racism, supremacism or hatred of a group. Without the Irish to define themselves against, unionism or any other British presence in Ireland would not exist. That's why Orangeism is so central to British settlement in Ireland: it embodies the siege mentality. The Irish, in contrast, have existed independently long before that British presence arrived here.

sparky42

Dostoevsky wrote: »

Hang on, when I read the GFA I was certain that it said reunification (go on, try me) would come about when a majority of the population in the Six Counties voted for it. How did you manage to convert this into a majority of the unionist population in the Six Counties?

Start whining and flag waving when the NI Nationalists can get all of their population to support unification, at the moment its about half and once it's pointed out how much their lives will and won't change I'd expect that number to drop.

Fundamental fact, the Republic will never be in position to fund NI to it's current spending and all the flag waving in the world won't beat harsh economic realities.

dublinbhoy88

sparky42 wrote: »

Start whining and flag waving when the NI Nationalists can get all of their population to support unification, at the moment its about half and once it's pointed out how much their lives will and won't change I'd expect that number to drop.

Fundamental fact, the Republic will never be in position to fund NI to it's current spending and all the flag waving in the world won't beat harsh economic realities.

Wait til the oil starts flowing out of the wells in Ireland,will be a change in attitude then I reckon

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

timthumbni

Dostoevsky wrote: »

Hang on, when I read the GFA I was certain that it said reunification (go on, try me) would come about when a majority of the population in the Six Counties voted for it. How did you manage to convert this into a majority of the unionist population in the Six Counties?

Hence why I put a true united ireland. If 50.1% voted for Northern Ireland to be governed by the Irish government this wouldn't create a "united" Ireland. It would simply shift the problems and issues of Northern Ireland onto the irish government as opposed to the British government.

And I can't imagine that your idea of forced repatriation for unionists will work out but good luck with it anyways.

sparky42

dublinbhoy88 wrote: »

Wait til the oil starts flowing out of the wells in Ireland,will be a change in attitude then I reckon

Yeah after 30+ years of drilling I'm fairly certain that even the few that MAY be commercially viable aren't going to change those calculations in any meaningful way. NI deficit spends to 50% of it's GDP ANNUALLY, if they stood alone in 3 years without the UK funding them their debt to GDP ratio would be worse than the Republic's

Tell you what when SF in the North proposes sweeping changes to the health system, public service numbers, public spending, and tax increases and all the other deficit spending that NI does yearly I might be convinced to take them seriously.

Until they find a credible way to plug a 15 billion hole that doesn't start with the words "Give us money" then they aren't living in reality.

irish_bhoy09

ronan45 wrote: »

I was told by a teacher in Secondary School that if the UK was to hand over the north to the republic it would cripple our country?!? Is that true?
Ie to pay their welfare.. public sector etc...
The reason why the Irish Government dont really want the north is that reason. Is there any truth in that?

of course id love to see a united ireland.who want too see a forign country rule some of were u live.wouldnt happen anywher else in the world

Fratton Fred

Dostoevsky wrote: »

1) So, where is the institutional sectarianism in the Irish state? The British state today still refuses to allow a Catholic to attain its highest position, head of State. That's sectarianism in any language. Show us the Irish equivalent. As long ago as 1938 the first head of State of Ireland was a Protestant, Dúbhghlas de hÍde. Only the most blinkered poster could attempt to defend this institutional sectarianism of the British state in 2013..

You forgot to mention that in the UK, abortions are illegal, the state broadcaster plays the Angelus at 6pm every day, 90% of the schools are owned by one religious organisation, selling alcohol on good Friday is illegal and the church runs all the hospitals.

Oh, sorry, that's Ireland isn't it.

Yamanoto

dublinbhoy88 wrote: »

We are talking maybe 40 or 50 years down the line when there is a nationaist majority in the north and maybe in that time people won't have this medieval loyalty to a crown that happens to be a certain religion,not talking about present conditions

Maybe in that time, society will have normalised and evolved to a considerable extent, blurring the traditional boundaries and allowing both sides to buy into a distinctly Northern Irish identity.

A united Northern Ireland should be the imperative and would seem a more realistic goal than the wistful pursuit of things past.

Iwasfrozen

dublinbhoy88 wrote: »

if people want to live under British rule so much , why not go and live in Britain?

Northern Ireland is part of the British isles.

sparky42

Dostoevsky wrote: »

You haven't addressed that point. Instead you've gone off on a tangent. Britain, in case you haven't noticed, isn't in a position to fund the North, either, yet it managed to even when the IMF was in telling the British government what to do in exchange for loans to prop-up the British state back in the late 1970s.

The impact of transfers to NI from the UK budget is minor at 15 billion, the impact of the same transfer on the Republic is about the same as the Health budget and only eclipsed by public service pay and pensions (which would also be doubled unless the NI service was cut down). Do you grasp the massive economic burden that the North would force on the Republic, it would make the last 5 years look like a minor event.

The Republic can't fund the North unless the North's spending is cut down and no nationalist party has suggested the cuts and increases that it would require, and when you are talking about affect at least 1 in 3 of their jobs in reducing the public service I can see why.

dublinbhoy88

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Northern Ireland is part of the British isles.

that's a defunct term

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Iwasfrozen

dublinbhoy88 wrote: »

that's a defunct term

Funny how geographic facts are termed "defunct" when they become politically inconvenient. Has Ireland been moved a hundred miles out of the archipelago without my knowledge?