Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Reunification Question
Options
Comments
-
Lots and lots of countries have two -- or more -- levels of local government, including at similar population scales to Ireland. The Swiss are an extreme case only in the degree of localism/subsidiarity of powers and finance.The Swiss model is not followed in many other places, because it suits the particular needs of the Swiss, with its different ethnic and linguistic groupings and its particular history.
Great. But we're discussing (the island of) Ireland!Small countries with small populations and a more or less homogenous culture don't need regional parliaments.
And that very clearly wasn't my proposition. I was addressing your implication that the Republic would reject a GFA-like arrangement, were NI to seek entry on those terms.If you think that there was a snowball's chance in hell of them accepting a united Ireland in a potential referendum, you are deluded.
If the demand never arises, I don't plan on twisting any arms. I think the better question is, why are you intent on rejecting it even if it were to?So what evidence do you offer as to why we should have this extra layer of government for which there is no lobby or evident demand?0 -
alaimacerc wrote: »Lots and lots of countries have two -- or more -- levels of local government, including at similar population scales to Ireland. The Swiss are an extreme case only in the degree of localism/subsidiarity of powers and finance.
Great. But we're discussing (the island of) Ireland!
And that very clearly wasn't my proposition. I was addressing your implication that the Republic would reject a GFA-like arrangement, were NI to seek entry on those terms.
If the demand never arises, I don't plan on twisting any arms. I think the better question is, why are you intent on rejecting it even if it were to?
We have two. City/County councils and national government. We don't need the expense or bureaucracy of another layer of a regional parliament. There is no need and no demand. That simple. Whether it's the state as it is now, or as it would be if there were unification, there is no need or demand. And certainly not to make separate rules and political arrangements for the North. How would we be unified if it still had it's separate arrangements.
I reject it because for that reason.0 -
I said "two levels of local government". National government by definition isn't "local".We have two. City/County councils and national government. We don't need the expense or bureaucracy of another layer of a regional parliament. There is no need and no demand. That simple.
Yes, the country's government is self-evidently perfect in every way. I keep forgetting, silly me. It would be a crime and a sin to change a thing!Whether it's the state as it is now, or as it would be if there were unification, there is no need or demand. And certainly not to make separate rules and political arrangements for the North.[/qiote]
That's to fly in the face of what the GFA provides for at present. And the basic political logic of the North. And to extrapolate the future on the basis of what you'd like to happen, by rigorously ignoring what's actually likely to.
Classic exercise in perfect being the enemy of good. We'd be a darn sight more unified than at present, that's what. I've yet to hear your explanation of how countries with federal systems, or indeed with asymmetric devolution, aren't proper, "unified" countries. Whatever that's even supposed to mean.How would we be unified if it still had it's separate arrangements.
And you'll be in a tiny, tiny majority in doing so, if you're still alive and voting if and when the referendum on that basis rolls around.I reject it because for that reason.0 -
alaimacerc wrote: »I said "two levels of local government". National government by definition isn't "local".
Yes, the country's government is self-evidently perfect in every way. I keep forgetting, silly me. It would be a crime and a sin to change a thing!
Sorry, I overlooked the "local" bit. In any case, my point rests. We don't need another layer of governance and bureaucracy, paid for by the taxpayer. The governance we have certainly isn't perfect, it needs improving. Fix what you have instead of making another layer to complicate things; make city and county councils more accountable and responsible and that problem is addressed.Whether it's the state as it is now, or as it would be if there were unification, there is no need or demand. And certainly not to make separate rules and political arrangements for the North.[/qiote]
That's to fly in the face of what the GFA provides for at present. And the basic political logic of the North. And to extrapolate the future on the basis of what you'd like to happen, by rigorously ignoring what's actually likely to.
Classic exercise in perfect being the enemy of good. We'd be a darn sight more unified than at present, that's what. I've yet to hear your explanation of how countries with federal systems, or indeed with asymmetric devolution, aren't proper, "unified" countries. Whatever that's even supposed to mean.
And you'll be in a tiny, tiny majority in doing so, if you're still alive and voting if and when the referendum on that basis rolls around.
The current arrangements under the GFA are for the situation now, with two states on one island. In the unlikely event of a united Ireland, we would have one state on one island. It has to be unified in terms of governance or the "united Ireland" would be a farce. You're either unified or not; if one part of the country is given special treatment, where's the unity?
I love this debate on something that will never happen. It's like discussing how many angels will fit on the head of a pin0 -
Leaving aside Northern Ireland, the UK is comprised of THREE countries. Each of those is a nation in itself, and are held together by their connection to the monarchy. It's not a united country, it's a united KINGDOM. The recent referendum in Scotland shows how precarious that union is.
Ireland is one country, not two. If we want a united Ireland, we can't have different conditions in one part of the country than everywhere else. As long as they need their own parliament and special political arrangements in Northern Ireland, they are not ready to join our sovereign republic. You might want to make some kind of noble sacrifice and become a subject of the British monarch, but I don't think your attitude would have much support in this republic. If people in Fermanagh or wherever want to live in a republic, they are free to move here.
The reality is they will never be ready and it will never happen, so this is just idle talk anyway.
And leave the majority of the county in Loyalists hands. They shouldn't have to leave their county to become apart of this Republic. Tyrone & Fermanagh in 1918, 1921 & 1922 voted in a democratic election to be apart of this state & their act of self-determination was denied from them.
If we can't have a United Ireland then the right thing to do would be to give the counties with Nationalist majorities to this Republic because everybody knows if there should be a border then it's in the wrong place (even the PM DLG said to Dev he had a very weak case for Fermanagh & Tyrone), that's why a border commission was set-up to re-draw the line but the Free State government was paid of not to make any territorial demands & the commission was done away with in 1925. Plus this would guarantee Loyalists their own state forever & they might stop acting like maniacs.0 -
Advertisement
-
If they're not happy in their "country" the obvious thing is to leave and go somewhere they can be happy. People do it all the time.DarkyHughes wrote: »And leave the majority of the county in Loyalists hands. They shouldn't have to leave their county to become apart of this Republic. Tyrone & Fermanagh in 1918, 1921 & 1922 voted in a democratic election to be apart of this state & their act of self-determination was denied from them.
If we can't have a United Ireland then the right thing to do would be to give the counties with Nationalist majorities to this Republic because everybody knows if there should be a border then it's in the wrong place (even the PM DLG said to Dev he had a very weak case for Fermanagh & Tyrone), that's why a border commission was set-up to re-draw the line but the Free State government was paid of not to make any territorial demands & the commission was done away with in 1925. Plus this would guarantee Loyalists their own state forever & they might stop acting like maniacs.0 -
-
If it can't be "fixed" because there is nothing actually wrong with it but you just don't like the style or the design, tough s*&t...Crooked Jack wrote: »Of course, if there is something wrong with your home the obvious thing is to abandon it rather than try to fix it.0 -
DarkyHughes wrote: »And leave the majority of the county in Loyalists hands. They shouldn't have to leave their county to become apart of this Republic. Tyrone & Fermanagh in 1918, 1921 & 1922 voted in a democratic election to be apart of this state & their act of self-determination was denied from them.
If we can't have a United Ireland then the right thing to do would be to give the counties with Nationalist majorities to this Republic because everybody knows if there should be a border then it's in the wrong place (even the PM DLG said to Dev he had a very weak case for Fermanagh & Tyrone), that's why a border commission was set-up to re-draw the line but the Free State government was paid of not to make any territorial demands & the commission was done away with in 1925. Plus this would guarantee Loyalists their own state forever & they might stop acting like maniacs.
I wonder how one would "sort out" Belfast by this.If they're not happy in their "country" the obvious thing is to leave and go somewhere they can be happy. People do it all the time.
It´s not that easy and somehow, both communities have to find a way to live peaceful together.0 -
DarkyHughes wrote: »And leave the majority of the county in Loyalists hands. They shouldn't have to leave their county to become apart of this Republic. Tyrone & Fermanagh in 1918, 1921 & 1922 voted in a democratic election to be apart of this state & their act of self-determination was denied from them.
If we can't have a United Ireland then the right thing to do would be to give the counties with Nationalist majorities to this Republic because everybody knows if there should be a border then it's in the wrong place (even the PM DLG said to Dev he had a very weak case for Fermanagh & Tyrone), that's why a border commission was set-up to re-draw the line but the Free State government was paid of not to make any territorial demands & the commission was done away with in 1925. Plus this would guarantee Loyalists their own state forever & they might stop acting like maniacs.
We don't want them until they grow up. Seriously, I don't know how ideas like this get any serious traction in a discussion.
For a start, 1922 is irrelevant to the Ireland of today. For a second, there is nothing in the GFA that would lend itself to such a proposal.0 -
Advertisement
-
The Swiss model is not followed in many other places, because it suits the particular needs of the Swiss, with its different ethnic and linguistic groupings and its particular history. Small countries with small populations and a more or less homogenous culture don't need regional parliaments.
It´s less a matter of weather there is a "more or less homogenous culture" is indeed and to the point a matter of how well a central government can take care about and solve local problems. For that latter reason, there are councils in the Republic of Ireland as well as there are those in NI. It´s something of a limited devolution of power where the central government can concentrate on all-national issues.There has never been any call for such a thing before, and the only reason it's proposed now is to pander to those of the Unionist tradition, who in any case haven't the slightest intention or wish to be part of any kind of united Ireland independent of Britain.
Some of them, in particular the moderate minded, could do with a UI as long as it is not brought about by SF. With SF taking power and making the lead to re-unification, the Unionists and the Loyalists would be strongly against it and that is to say for even the moderate minded. The old relation between SF and the IRA is still in the minds of the Unionists and for the legacy from the troubles, they´d never trust SF.If you think that there was a snowball's chance in hell of them accepting a united Ireland in a potential referendum, you are deluded.
As I said, this depends on a variety of things and developments. If there is a chance that this won´t be brought about by the Shinners, there might be a tiny chance of agreeing to this, but this of course also depends on how the British govt. sees it and how they (the Unionists) perceive being treated by their government in London.0 -
We don't want them until they grow up. Seriously, I don't know how ideas like this get any serious traction in a discussion.
For a start, 1922 is irrelevant to the Ireland of today. For a second, there is nothing in the GFA that would lend itself to such a proposal.
I have very often told some staunch Nationalists from NI on another Internet website about that. Their reaction on such expressions, made by Irish people living in the Republic of Ireland was simply to either ignore or dismiss it and point out that "the majority for a UI is secure in the Republic". In other words, they think that every Irish government is left without any other choice but to act in favour of re-unification.
But what strikes me is this part in the Irish constitution:
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/cons/2013-12-01/en/html#part2ARTICLE 3
1 It is the firm will of the Irish Nation, in harmony and friendship, to unite all the people who share the territory of the island of Ireland, in all the diversity of their identities and traditions, recognising that a united Ireland shall be brought about only by peaceful means with the consent of a majority of the people, democratically expressed, in both jurisdictions in the island. Until then, the laws enacted by the Parliament established by this Constitution shall have the like area and extent of application as the laws enacted by the Parliament that existed immediately before the coming into operation of this Constitution.
2 Institutions with executive powers and functions that are shared between those jurisdictions may be established by their respective responsible authorities for stated purposes and may exercise powers and functions in respect of all or any part of the island.0 -
It´s less a matter of weather there is a "more or less homogenous culture" is indeed and to the point a matter of how well a central government can take care about and solve local problems. For that latter reason, there are councils in the Republic of Ireland as well as there are those in NI. It´s something of a limited devolution of power where the central government can concentrate on all-national issues.
Some of them, in particular the moderate minded, could do with a UI as long as it is not brought about by SF. With SF taking power and making the lead to re-unification, the Unionists and the Loyalists would be strongly against it and that is to say for even the moderate minded. The old relation between SF and the IRA is still in the minds of the Unionists and for the legacy from the troubles, they´d never trust SF.
As I said, this depends on a variety of things and developments. If there is a chance that this won´t be brought about by the Shinners, there might be a tiny chance of agreeing to this, but this of course also depends on how the British govt. sees it and how they (the Unionists) perceive being treated by their government in London.
Nothing wrong with councils. They already exist and will continue to exist. I was responding to a suggestion from a poster that they we would have regional parliaments all over Ireland, and that the one in the North would continue to have its bizarre power-sharing structure. In other words, we would introduce parliaments in the rest of Ireland so the one in NI would continue as is, in a "united" Ireland.
Nothing can be brought about by SF. It can only be brought about by the will of the people of Ireland, North AND South.0 -
If they're not happy in their "country" the obvious thing is to leave and go somewhere they can be happy. People do it all the time.
But they shouldn't have to they have every right to join this Republic. It's the Loyalists who should go somewhere they can be happy because they obviously never really have been happy.0 -
We don't want them until they grow up. Seriously, I don't know how ideas like this get any serious traction in a discussion.
For a start, 1922 is irrelevant to the Ireland of today. For a second, there is nothing in the GFA that would lend itself to such a proposal.
"We don't want them until they grow up" It's sound you's are (who ever "We" is) the ones who need to grow up. There's absolutely nothing wrong with them, they are grown up (a lot more than you by the sounds of it) I have cousins in Crossmaglen & Strabane & the people in those communities are lovely a lot nicer than some of the ones down here & the vast, vast majority of them don't want any sort violence & I want them & I know 1000's of other people who do.0 -
I wonder how one would "sort out" Belfast by this.
It´s not that easy and somehow, both communities have to find a way to live peaceful together.
The map on the right hand side https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repartition_of_Ireland#1969_to_19800 -
DarkyHughes wrote: »But they shouldn't have to they have every right to join this Republic. It's the Loyalists who should go somewhere they can be happy because they obviously never really have been happy.
They have no right to join this country. The changes to Articles 2 and 3 after the GFA removed the territorial claim and put the South in a neutral position about a united Ireland - i.e. the people down here get to vote on it - whereas before the old Articles 2 and 3 would have required us to accept them, even if they were only a breakaway county.
Similarly, by signing the GFA, SF recognised and accepted the Unionist veto on change in Northern Ireland so long as the majority up there want to keep that veto.0 -
The problem will be if the demographics change and the nationalist become the majority. Their leaders will then try to push through a vote, as the assumption that the people of the Republic will agree with them.They have no right to join this country. The changes to Articles 2 and 3 after the GFA removed the territorial claim and put the South in a neutral position about a united Ireland - i.e. the people down here get to vote on it - whereas before the old Articles 2 and 3 would have required us to accept them, even if they were only a breakaway county.
Similarly, by signing the GFA, SF recognised and accepted the Unionist veto on change in Northern Ireland so long as the majority up there want to keep that veto.
What they don't realise is that the people of the Republic aren't automatically going to say yes, because they will realise that the unionists haven't gone away, and would form an substantial disgruntled minority in a future united political entity. Not something people are going to be enthusiastic about.0 -
alaimacerc wrote: »It's related, or at least relatable. We have local government that's in too small units, and has too little power, democratic accountability, and responsibilities. The island has a large "region" that sees itself as very different from the other jurisdiction. It's not rocket science to see a way to try to solve both problems with a similar solution.
Thats very much along the lines I was getting at.0 -
What we don't need is another layer of government. We need to make the system we have function properly. And we certainly don't need to make an exception for NI. If they want to join us, a normal, functioning democracy, they do it on our terms.
IMHO we do need another layer of government in the form of real local government rather then as at things currently stand almost all power being with the executive in the government.0 -
Advertisement
-
The problem will be if the demographics change and the nationalist become the majority.
Some problem alright :rolleyes:
And "they" don't realise that the people of the Republic aren't automatically going to say yes? Firstly they're not idiots, and polls suggest most people in the south favour it anyway.0 -
Some problem alright :rolleyes:
And "they" don't realise that the people of the Republic aren't automatically going to say yes? Firstly they're not idiots, and polls suggest most people in the south favour it anyway.
Polls which as if people are in favour of a united Ireland will of course get a positive result. I've yet to see a poll asking people for specifics. We're not idiots either.0 -
-
Polls which as if people are in favour of a united Ireland will of course get a positive result. I've yet to see a poll asking people for specifics. We're not idiots either.
I would've thought it's a pretty cut-and-dry issue actually. You're either for or against it and polls suggest the majority are for it.
If anything I think a greater problem for republicanism is the fact that currently a lot of people from a catholic background in the north are happy with the status quo despite negligible numbers voting for unionist parties. Personally I'm not sure how that will develop. You get someone like Godge talking about people learning to live with one another, most people have. There's a problem within loyalism though. Not saying my side is perfect but there's an issue there that unionist politicians are afraid to touch.0 -
You need to think a bit beyond the seemingly cut and dry. There is a massive difference between a vague support for a united Ireland, and a specific support for a united Ireland with a large group of disgruntled unionists in the north eastern corner. I'm all for the former, certainly not for the latter.I would've thought it's a pretty cut-and-dry issue actually. You're either for or against it and polls suggest the majority are for it.
If anything I think a greater problem for republicanism is the fact that currently a lot of people from a catholic background in the north are happy with the status quo despite negligible numbers voting for unionist parties. Personally I'm not sure how that will develop. You get someone like Godge talking about people learning to live with one another, most people have. There's a problem within loyalism though. Not saying my side is perfect but there's an issue there that unionist politicians are afraid to touch.
You are right that the support in NI for a united Ireland may not be as solid from the nationalist community as many people would think. From what I see, a lot of people I've talked to from the North seem to identify as Northern Irish rather than Irish or British. People from both communities. That might well be the way of the future, and not a bad way at all.0 -
DarkyHughes wrote: »But they shouldn't have to they have every right to join this Republic. It's the Loyalists who should go somewhere they can be happy because they obviously never really have been happy.
This sounds strongly like "ethnic cleasing" or to put it a bit more "moderate", "re-settling" of certain people.
Almost the same applies for the Suggestion in the map shown on that page via your link.DarkyHughes wrote: »The map on the right hand side https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repartition_of_Ireland#1969_to_1980
To use a side note in regards to something that has nothing to do with Northern Ireland and her place in a UI, the pattern one has seen for months in the Ukraine crisis where people had to leave their homes because they became a battle Zone, is the result of such "efforts" of "ethnic cleansing" to path the way for the "unification" of a certain part of territory with another certain country. The reason for why I use this example in relation to this thread is simple, one can´t do such things anymore in our times without facing international sanctions and consequences like Russia does. But well, Russia is a big country and has her resources whereas Ireland is a small country (even by taking the whole island of Ireland into account in territorial relation) and would emense suffer from international Isolation.
The Loyalists will go nowhere and they have the same right to stay at their homes like every other Person living on this Island who is born, raised and lives on his birth right here.
There is only one way forward and that is to respect and accept them as being part of the population of this Island. It´s the least one can give them and in return, they should do the same towards their counterparts. It´s not that easy like it sound, but I think that it isn´t worthy one drop of blood to gain a UI.0 -
alaimacerc wrote: »Indeed not. It'd be something to be contemplated only once they'd exhausted every other possible alternative. For the foreseeable future, I expect them to go to pretty extreme lengths to even avoid coalition -- much less merger -- as that would very likely entail many of the same negative consequences.
I don´t see any need for them to merge either.Never heard of them -- does that measure their impact since they were set up? If FG were ever to catch a coherent ideology, or set of policy ideas, would they even know what to do with it? Nice trippy green mandala, though (if you ignore the distracting and meaningless slogans daubed across it.
This Collins Institute is - from its´s outset - supposed to be a think-tank Group where various ideas and suggestions to improve life and politics in the Republic of Ireland are welcome. It is something like a mirror Image of the present coalition government of FG/LAB and this is displayed in the writings on that site. So, one has a combination of conservative and social democratic principles put together but the last time when I´ve visited that site, there wasn´t much activity to notice. That was some half year ago. I don´t think that it is a bad idea, though some people on another Website in a thread there criticized the claim of FG on Michael Collins´ legacy. That is some issue FG has with that because when FG was founded, Collins was already some 11 years dead. To connect that Party to his legacy only goes via Irish Republicanism because what is left from his own ideas is just a compilation of letters, bits of paper with some notes and records of his speeches supporting the Anglo-Irish-Treaty. But probably that is enough for FG to see herself as the Party he had been a member of himself. The link between FG and Collins goes through the history of the predecessors party of FG.Of course they are. A conservative party for a deeply conservative electorate. Hence the need to a more hypobolical insult for their political opponents -- especially for those that are just as conservative, or indeed keen to deflect from their own tactics' resemblance to fascism's. Though of course that's what the nasty UK party is called, so you'd think it was good for a jibe on that score, at least.
Sometimes, and more so in the light of the historical developments of both parties FF and FG, it´s often hard to tell one from another regarding being a conservative party. The best Thing to distinguish them is that those who founded FG ten years after the end of the Irish Civil War were on the pro-treaty side whereas FF was against it. Despite that, FF made her change under the leadership of Sean Lemass and thus became the Party that modernised Ireland. FG on the other hand was perceived as the Party that supported the peasants (roughly spoken). But curious enough, Dev himself was of that idea to continue and maintain Ireland as an agricultural country. In due course, under Lemass, FF changed from that towards being more liberal and the modernising power in Ireland. Where Dev was the ideologist, Lemass was the pragmatic economist. Well, that is how I perceive them.
UKIP is in my view a staunch anti-EU Party who has only one aim which is to bring the EU down and think that a Europe based on trade only (the Common Marked remaining after the dismanteling of the EU) is possible. I doubt that because the whole thing has developed itself too far as that to turn back the clock would go without any damage at all.
I would rather see the EU reformed and I´m also interested in the proposals the British PM David Cameron will put Forward to the EU after the Greek crisis has calmed down. Although a Social Democrat myself, I´d Support Cameron in his attempts in case his proposals make sense and improve the whole EU, thus reducing bureaucratism. But what we seen These days is that national egoism are on the rise and that´s also because of the aftermath of the bank crisis from the past couple of years. Immigration problems do their part to it too. Much food for the extremists there and it is on the Establishment parties, like the Tory Party and Labour Parties to address These problems and find Solutions that can grab off the water from parties like the UKIP.Possibly. I'm not sure their European affiliation has any more significance than where their Drunkard's Walk has taken them to for the time being.
I think that in the wider public perception of Party affiliations in the European Parliament, People don´t care much about because the EP doesn´t has the same importance like the European Commission. Up to last week, when Tsipras got to face the anger of members of this parliament, one hardly notice what they are doing there anyway. It just get noticed when the regulations are transformed into national law and thus have their effect on the people directly.These rightist groups are amazingly unstable, though. The pretty-far-right don't want to associated with the slightly-more-far-right. And if you're trading on xenophobia, there's little play to be had from palling around with foreigners... who just happen to hate other foreigners. Likely including you, to some extent. Hence these tend to bump along the minimum qualifying criteria for a while, then split apart and reform as something slightly different.
The less united and unstable they are and remain, the better.Very little. It's mainly a sliding scale of denial of the political facts. At one extreme you have the remnants of physical force Republicanism; then there's the non-violent Legitimatists, who have the same dogma, just a different strategy; then you have the "ship out", "greening of the north" types; then you have the people that claim to suypport the GFA, but say NI is still somehow "illegitimate" anyway -- which I can't make any sense of; then there's the people who can't quite bring themselves to refer to either jurisdiction by its official, preferred name. Eventually you get down to people in FF for whom it's just the lineage from their great-grandfather, a tagline on their party, something to write snotty letters to the British Embassy regarding, and a way to feel vaguely more "patriotic" than FG.
From my experiences on such matters, I´ve met many People who not only look at it but also argue about it from a very ideological angle. Thus the blinkered views and expressions of opinions which are very often very one-sided. They are not open minded enough to think outside their own box system and debating such topics with them is often like running in circles (that to say the least, it soon turned into Name calling etc.).I think it's very different for people who got rid of their monarchy centuries ago, or whose "domestic" rulers were gotten ridden in circumstances that were either relatively civilised, or just plain overshadowed by other events. Clearly in Ireland the circumstances were very different, and relatively recent, too.
I don´t think that, besides the USA, that many European countries got rid of their monarchy centuries ago. The majority of the European countries had a short first live time of their Republic because it was either threatened, overtaken or abolished by occupation during the period of Fascism and Nazism in the period prior and during WWII. What followed afterwards in the East was the establishing of Socialist Republics which were in truth just Communist dictatorships. Some kept their monarchy and managed to transform it into a constitutional monarchy, on the pattern of the British monarchy (see present Belgium, the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Spain). I´d rather say that to have a majority of Republican countries in Europe is indeed more of a recent tradition, more so after the end of the cold war when those former Soviet satellite countries became real parliamentary democracies. Given this short period of developments after WWI, Ireland is among the long lasting republican countries by taking the decades of the Irish Free State and the Irish State from 1937 to 1949 with it.Very clearly not. As I think I mentioned earlier, the GP is organised on an all-Ireland basis in a manner designed to mirror the GFA dispensation. Not to cherrypick it.
As far as I´m aware, the GP isn´t performing that well in general elections and even less people are interested in them in NI.And there's more of the Orange ones that are just gratuitously, stupidly obnoxious to the neighbourhoods they march through -- for whatever reason or combination of reasons that is, exactly. There's more in total, so you get more "bad outliers" just because of expected variation in idiocy? Cycles of antagonism with residents? PUL are inherently worse people than CNR? Doubtless there's a QUB master's dissertation in this at the least.
This sort of problems seem to last for even a longer time to come. Hopefully the younger Generations will solve that once upon in a time, given that they won´t follow in the footsteps of their parents and grandparents who can´t make a change. By this, I´m talking about the post-troubles Generations, born after the GFA and born in the future.0 -
The problem will be if the demographics change and the nationalist become the majority. Their leaders will then try to push through a vote, as the assumption that the people of the Republic will agree with them.
What they don't realise is that the people of the Republic aren't automatically going to say yes, because they will realise that the unionists haven't gone away, and would form an substantial disgruntled minority in a future united political entity. Not something people are going to be enthusiastic about.
The border poll won't come about just because of demographics.
To guarantee that a poll in Northern Ireland would see a yes vote for unity, you would need a nationalist demographic of 60% as there are quite a number of nationalists up there who would be in the "not yet" camp.0 -
This sounds strongly like "ethnic cleasing" or to put it a bit more "moderate", "re-settling" of certain people.
Almost the same applies for the Suggestion in the map shown on that page via your link.
To use a side note in regards to something that has nothing to do with Northern Ireland and her place in a UI, the pattern one has seen for months in the Ukraine crisis where people had to leave their homes because they became a battle Zone, is the result of such "efforts" of "ethnic cleansing" to path the way for the "unification" of a certain part of territory with another certain country. The reason for why I use this example in relation to this thread is simple, one can´t do such things anymore in our times without facing international sanctions and consequences like Russia does. But well, Russia is a big country and has her resources whereas Ireland is a small country (even by taking the whole island of Ireland into account in territorial relation) and would emense suffer from international Isolation.
The Loyalists will go nowhere and they have the same right to stay at their homes like every other Person living on this Island who is born, raised and lives on his birth right here.
There is only one way forward and that is to respect and accept them as being part of the population of this Island. It´s the least one can give them and in return, they should do the same towards their counterparts. It´s not that easy like it sound, but I think that it isn´t worthy one drop of blood to gain a UI.
There has always been an undertone of "ethnic cleansing" to SF/IRA pronouncements on a future united Ireland along the lines of if they don't like it, they can get lost.0 -
Advertisement
-
There has always been an undertone of "ethnic cleansing" to SF/IRA pronouncements on a future united Ireland along the lines of if they don't like it, they can get lost.
More ludicrous, baseless nonsense. Although when your partners are katy and thomas what else is to be expected.
im still waiting on this link showing where Adams told protestants to get the boat to England. The story sourced from a mate's cousin's deaf uncle 40 years ago, or something equally reliable, that you all eagerly swallowed.
No? Anybody? .....0
Advertisement