Northern Ireland question for under 40s

Galwayguy35

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It is not that hard to work out why she wouldn't know tbh.

I get it that people wouldn't have an interest in politics but you'd still have heard of him surely.

Sleepy

36 and I've little interest in a United Ireland. Northern Ireland is a separate country with a distinctly different culture to the Republic imo. Add the fact it's an economic basket case that'd be a third world country without Westminister (or Dublin in a United Ireland) to fund an insanely bloated public sector and there are pretty solid economic reasons for keeping it separate.

A Little Pony

FrancieBrady wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

Maybe they just don't care Francie. You seem to have an issue with multiple posters who are just being honest. Maybe that is how they feel and they like their country the way it is. I don't think they are trying to wind you up.

I wouldn't be having any fantasy dreams based on a boards thread MLP.

We republicans have somebody on the inside now. She's called Arlene.

The leader of Unionism, ok..

RobertKK

As a person who is 40, I am not for a United Ireland at the present.

I remember as a child, watching the news every day, seeing people being killed because of Northern Ireland, I still remember thinking as a child around 6 or 7 of the IRA breaking into our house and killing all of us, of course it was extremely unlikely, but as a child I had this thought.
Now as an adult, my fear would be the following - the fear it would bring terrorism to Southern Ireland from Loyalists who would not accept the situation, most places in the Republic were relatively unaffected by the terrorism, we had some big atrocities, but for the majority of the country there was very little/none.
I don't want any city, town or village here ending up on international news due to what would be homegrown terrorism, because I don't believe the Loyalists would simply accept it. I have this vision of my beloved Kilkenny city being subject to some incident, yes it may be irrational, but all of my childhood was one endless news stream of terrorism on this island and elsewhere associated with NI.

Then there is the economic situation, NI is our poor relation, it has a major budget deficit which is filled by Westminster. I am quite happy to allow Westminster to fill this deficit for the foreseeable future.

We have peace now, anyone who remembers the bad old days should simply be happy that there is peace and let it be, I don't think a United Ireland brings us continued peace.

jmayo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

A high percentage of southern people will typically be more upset by a football tackle by a British person than they would ever be about what the British army did to Irish people.

You and your sinn fein hijacked the label of Irish republicanism so don't try and hijack the rights to being the only ones who dislike what Britain did in Ireland over the centuries.

And yes there is some truth to the fact that people in Ireland (North and South) and indeed in Britain itself, give more of shyte about Premier League or some UK soap than what is happening on their doorstep and applies to them in their everyday lives.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I love the way the people who say they don't care, but care enough to post and that they think they are some part of an evolving class.
There were always people on this island who didn't 'care'.
We wouldn't have had 40 years of carnage and the decades of sectarian oppression before if southern people cared.

Ah yes the return of the chip on shoulder.
Who wants a group of people who have chips on their shoulder.
One side has chip on shoulder about papists and not being part of UK, the other side about being abandoned by Dublin and the southerners.
They are welcome to each other.

elefant

Deleted User wrote: »

Romance, culture, history and a grá for the aul gaeilge are irrelevancies for the most part for the majority of people when set against jobs, houses, services, peace.

I agree with you there, but even in trying to be as calculated and level-headed as possible in making a decision, I would find it very hard to tick a 'no' box in a referendum for the chance to finally unify the whole island of Ireland as one country.

jmayo

steddyeddy wrote: »

You can bet most Irish do care. The North's heading to Brexit and a substantially poorer future. They're already the poorest part of the island economically and culturally. I think it's only fair to allow them to unite if and when the time comes.

So are you willing to cough up to make them less poorer ?

FTA69 wrote: »

I never got the foreign country stuff, Ireland is Ireland - it always will be. Politically it may be divided between two states but the country is what it is. The notion that the Armagh football team, or Mary McAleese or Gerry Adams or whoever would be considered foreign is just silly to me. Likewise there aren towns, farms and even houses that are split by the border. The notion that one side of a community on the other edge of an arbitrary border drawn by British imperialists are somehow radically different is bogus and you can see that when you go to these areas.

As for the accents, I'm from Cork and people from Dublin will know that straight away when I open my mouth. It doesn't make me a "foreigner" per se.

When I think of Gerry Adams, his nationality is not the first thing that comes to mind.

FTA69 wrote: »

Well I'm from Cork, have lived a third of my life in England and also supported Sinn Féin does that make me "less Irish"? I hardly think you can quantify someone's nationality based on support for a political party (most of whose supporters are in the south now anyway).

Do you have to keep telling us you are from Cork.
Actually if we get rid of Cork I will take the North. :P

A Little Pony wrote: »

Well judging by this thread and while not scientific it seems the Irish people couldn't give a toss.

People in the South do give a toss whether you are killing each other because of what side of a fence you are from or because one side wants to dominate and subjugate the other and they stand up for themselves.

However it doesn't mean we want to invite you in because we know both of you will cost us when you get the hump and start getting rowdy.

Noddyholder wrote: »

I never said anything about cost don't be twisting it , All the main political parties in the south support the unification of Ireland, fact.

Cost is the big one.
And my worry is it would also be a cost in terms of human life.

riffmongous wrote: »

You probably won't get a decent answer here, Boards swung away from Republicanism a while ago, around the same time Reddit became popular (dont bother to ask there either as it'll just be the mirror image of here).

One thing I would say relating to young people though is that zesty Republican memes are becoming pretty popular

oh FFS boards has a huge amount of republican posters.
And the moderation is so skewed around here that no one dare challenge some things.

The Republic of Ireland is still a young state and as was seen in the disastrous construction bubble, political insider corruption, historic insidious catholic church influence and all the shenanigans in Garda, banking, etc this state has still a lot of growing up and maturing to do.

But whereas the Republic is in secondary school, Northern Ireland is in playschool in terms of maturing.
Our political parties are inept and in major need of decent representatives, but in comparison the North's politics is still completely polarised in terms of nationalism/loyalism or basically religion.
UUP leader suggested transfer across the divide and he was nearly run out of the place.

elefant

elefant wrote: »

I agree with you there, but even in trying to be as calculated and level-headed as possible in making a decision, I would find it very hard to tick a 'no' box in a referendum for the chance to finally unify the whole island of Ireland as one country.

For me, that would depend entirely on the lead up process to such a ballot arriving.

Have loyalists reconciled themselves to it? Has the relevant study and preparation on the required political and infrastructural change been done, costed and agreed?

I'm not against a united Ireland, it's just a very strange thing to fixate on from where we are now and the different challenges facing each state as is.

These things happen best organically and over time, not forced by a minority of ideologists.

Tbh, the topic and tenor of the conversation makes me wonder how we might have fared without 1916 and all that. Nobody can say where we would be now, but theres an argument that the better chance of a mature, unpartitioned and independent island was lost for a century as a result of that action.

FrancieBrady

jmayo wrote: »

You and your sinn fein hijacked the label of Irish republicanism so don't try and hijack the rights to being the only ones who dislike what Britain did in Ireland over the centuries.

This old nonsense, I am a republican but I am not a member of SF like an awful lot of republicans.
Maybe try and stop lumping people together to suit your prejudices.

And yes there is some truth to the fact that people in Ireland (North and South) and indeed in Britain itself, give more of shyte about Premier League or some UK soap than what is happening on their doorstep and applies to them in their everyday lives.

It is more than 'some' truth. it is the absolute truth.
Thousands lined our streets doffing hats and waving Union Jacks at Britain's monarch while the Army and successive governments she is the figurehead of hide the details of how involved they were in the deaths of numerous people on southern streets.

Ah yes the return of the chip on shoulder.
Who wants a group of people who have chips on their shoulder.
One side has chip on shoulder about papists and not being part of UK, the other side about being abandoned by Dublin and the southerners.
They are welcome to each other.

Wanting to see a unified island because it offers the best way forward for all of us is a chip on the shoulder????
Are we trying too hard Jmayo? :rolleyes:

FrancieBrady

The view from the other side: I always said on here that the GFA is a sign that the British had made a statement about the north of Ireland. They simply do not see it as British in the same way as they see Scotland. Come a ballot they themselves would be one of the chief persuaders for a united Ireland. This further convinces me.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/uk/northern-ireland-could-rejoin-eu-if-it-votes-for-united-ireland-says-brexit-minister-david-davis-35571589.html

Unlike Scotland, which has been told it could be forced to join a queue for membership of the bloc if the country votes for independence, the province would not have to reapply for EU membership, as the Republic is already one of the existing member states.

According to The Times in a leaked letter to an SDLP MP, David Davis, the Brexit Secretary, wrote: “If a majority of the people of Northern Ireland were ever to vote to become part of a united Ireland the UK Government will honour its commitment to enable that to happen.”

He added: “In that event, Northern Ireland would be in a position of becoming part of an existing EU member state, rather than seeking to join the EU as a new independent state.”

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

A Little Pony

Scotland will decide its future at any time by a vote from the people as they did so. It is no different with Northern Ireland. If the people of Scotland or Northern Ireland wanted to leave the Union, they will do so if that is what they so wish. I don't see the difference in that regard.

FrancieBrady

A Little Pony wrote: »

Scotland will decide its future at any time by a vote from the people as they did so. It is no different with Northern Ireland. If the people of Scotland or Northern Ireland wanted to leave the Union, they will do so if that is what they so wish. I don't see the difference in that regard.

The difference, and it is a hugely significant one, is that there will be no delegations flying to Belfast to try and persuade you to stay in the union, because there is no strategic interest and the British now see unionists as British people living elsewhere on an island that they believe has the right to decide it's own future 'without outside impediment' ('Outside', meaning them, they don't believe they have a right to be deciding anymore)
Unionism has yet to face up to that implication in the GFA and since.

B0jangles

I'm under 40 (just) and I would definitely not be in favour of a united Ireland for the forseeable future. I'm old enough to remember the bad old cycle of bombings and reprisal bombings, of kneecappings and punishment beatings. It's going to be a long time until the scars of that time pass and until they so I can't see the majority of the population of Northern ireland being really ready to integrate with the South. Not to be trite or anything, but a region that still needs an government commission to regulate when and where they can have parades is not exactly the most socially cohesive and stable.

I'm not going to go into the economic concerns which are self-evident and would make a united Ireland at the current time a bad idea even if the social issues were completely resolved.

Mr.Micro

B0jangles wrote: »

I'm under 40 (just) and I would definitely not be in favour of a united Ireland for the forseeable future. I'm old enough to remember the bad old cycle of bombings and reprisal bombings, of kneecappings and punishment beatings. It's going to be a long time until the scars of that time pass and until they so I can't see the majority of the population of Northern ireland being really ready to integrate with the South. Not to be trite or anything, but a region that still needs an government commission to regulate when and where they can have parades is not exactly the most socially cohesive and stable.

I'm not going to go into the economic concerns which are self-evident and would make a united Ireland at the current time a bad idea even if the social issues were completely resolved.

Yes indeed. All it would take is any small dissident group at any time to cause trouble and there you go. It's a guarantee there would be trouble.

A Little Pony

FrancieBrady wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

Scotland will decide its future at any time by a vote from the people as they did so. It is no different with Northern Ireland. If the people of Scotland or Northern Ireland wanted to leave the Union, they will do so if that is what they so wish. I don't see the difference in that regard.

The difference, and it is a hugely significant one, is that there will be no delegations flying to Belfast to try and persuade you to stay in the union, because there is no strategic interest and the British now see unionists as British people living elsewhere on an island that they believe has the right to decide it's own future 'without outside impediment' ('Outside', meaning them, they don't believe they have a right to be deciding anymore)  
Unionism has yet to face up to that implication in the GFA and since.

How do you know that? I have seen this argument put across before but it doesn't mean the Prime Minister won't campaign for NI to remain within the Union. Even if you are right, which I don't think you are, it is really irrelevant as it is up to the people in such a vote.

All states within the Union can leave if that is the wish of the people with a referendum. Wales could leave if they so wished in a vote.

FrancieBrady

A Little Pony wrote: »

How do you know that? I have seen this argument put across before but it doesn't mean the Prime Minister won't campaign for NI to remain within the Union. Even if you are right, which I don't think you are, it is really irrelevant as it is up to the people in such a vote.

All states within the Union can leave if that is the wish of the people with a referendum. Wales could leave if they so wished in a vote.

The UK have signed an international agreement saying explicitly that it is up to the island of Ireland alone to decide it's future without outside impediment.

Meaning they (outside) will place no impediment (block or take a side) on the island making a decision.

They ain't coming ALP, why? Because they have 'no strategic interest' anymore, unlike Scotland, were they have strategic interests.

The Malvinas had warships sent to protect it and bring it back into the fold, when a border poll is called they will send polling slips by express post.

Hans Bricks

I can't imagine loyalist paramilitaries posing such a threat in 2017. Most weapons are decommissioned by now are they not ? How on Earth and where on Earth would they obtain such a necessary cache of arms ?

Who would have the weapons arsenal and sympathy for Ulster loyalism in this day and age ? Remember there would be no more BA for them to rely on for collusion and protection.

One of the senior brass in the BA when asked about NI paramilitaries remarked that hardliner unionists were nothing more than gangsters and thugs.

FrancieBrady

Hans Bricks wrote: »

I can't imagine loyalist paramilitaries posing such a threat in 2017. Most weapons are decommissioned by now are they not ? How on Earth and where on Earth would they obtain such a necessary cache of arms ?

Who would have the weapons arsenal and sympathy for Ulster loyalism in this day and age ? Remember there would be no more BA for them to rely on for collusion and protection.

One of the senior brass in the BA when asked about NI paramilitaries remarked that hardliner unionists were nothing more than gangsters and thugs.

There would be the usual wrecking of their own areas, plenty of Never Never Never and then after a time, they would settle down and get used to it.

A prolonged campaign would be completely unmanageable and ultimately pointless. Once gone the UK is not coming back.

chrissb8

I don't really care about it all to be honest. Pointless blood, old blood spilled that's been washed away by a new Ireland. Look where the passion got everyone. Heartache and pain. Aspects such as religion or other attributes don't matter to anyone under 40 when the world is a globally connected communication hub. If you care about a united Ireland you're a fool in my mind. Better men and women have come before us and got us nowhere. Just let it be.

BalcombeSt4

doolox wrote: »

With the subvention and the existence of a very large public service NI would be a drain on the Souths existing tax arrangements and would cost southern taxpayers more, which most are not able or willing to pay. There would have to be a radical shake up in political arrangements on both sides before a political union of any sort could be realised.

Where would the capital of the New state be located?

Would it be a president or some sort of King/Queen?

How many reps North and South? By population or some other base?

Senate or Upper house how would that be arranged? Would the republican South tolerate Lords, Peerages etc and would the North tolerate a non noble president?

Would any of our 1937 constitution or their 1920 Govt of Ireland Act be kept on in the new arrangements or would a completely new set of Laws and constitution be needed? This would stir up old divisions and hatreds and would costs billions to formulate and implement. Who would pay for all this.

What would happen to the "special position" of religion in Ireland??

A huge question which is starting to be moved on in the South with the scandals of the Catholic Church forcing a radical rethink among the people of the South and increasing secularisation being seen as the way forward. Has a similar process taken place in the North?

It was these same type of arguments people like William Martin Murphy were arguing couldn't afford to partition the country in the first place.

Wanderer2010

The Under 40 thing may be a bit misleading. I know a few people in their 30s who were raised in the Republic and they are a fountain of knowledge on all things Easter Rising, IRA, Provo IRA, Real IRA, UVF etc etc. then there are people of all ages who don't really know much about it, I read a few Tim Pat Coogan books on the subject a few years ago and was very enlightened by it. I probably should take more interest in our history.

I do remember reports on NI in the news growing up but didn't take much notice. One news report I will never forget is the IRA bombing of Arndale in Manchester city centre 1996, that was an absolutely chilling act and all the more if people weren't evacuated. The image of the remote control bomb defuser will stay with me forever.

FrancieBrady

chrissb8 wrote: »

I don't really care about it all to be honest. Pointless blood, old blood spilled that's been washed away by a new Ireland. Look where the passion got everyone. Heartache and pain. Aspects such as religion or other attributes don't matter to anyone under 40 when the world is a globally connected communication hub. If you care about a united Ireland you're a fool in my mind. Better men and women have come before us and got us nowhere. Just let it be.

The 'leave me alone I'm on my phone' element of youth always existed to some extent but in many countries that age group were responsible for radical change. Students used to be radical but are now more or less dormant politically and have gotten socially lazy.
However we witnessed youth getting involved in the Marriage Equality issue so all is not lost to Apple and Microsoft, Instagram and Facebook.

If a united Ireland is to be a 'new Ireland' I think the youth constituency will get heavily involved in that, they would be foolish not to after all.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The UK have signed an international agreement saying explicitly that it is up to the island of Ireland alone to decide it's future without outside impediment.

Meaning they (outside) will place no impediment (block or take a side) on the island making a decision.

They ain't coming ALP, why? Because they have 'no strategic interest' anymore, unlike Scotland, were they have strategic interests.

The Malvinas had warships sent to protect it and bring it back into the fold, when a border poll is called they will send polling slips by express post.

I think you misunderstand the nature of the commitment.

What that means is that if the people of Northern Ireland decide at some point in the future that they wish to unite with the people of the South, then no impediment will be put in the way by the UK government. The idea behind it was to prevent an anachronistic House of Lords blocking a deal.

It is a much bigger stretch to imply that, say, the UK Conservative Party couldn't campaign to retain the Union.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

I think you misunderstand the nature of the commitment.

What that means is that if the people of Northern Ireland decide at some point in the future that they wish to unite with the people of the South, then no impediment will be put in the way by the UK government. The idea behind it was to prevent an anachronistic House of Lords blocking a deal.

It is a much bigger stretch to imply that, say, the UK Conservative Party couldn't campaign to retain the Union.

Read the wording.
They have the 'right to decide without outside impediment' that means no interference.

Britain has said separately that it will not stand in the way of a decision to unite.

Unionism keeps getting knocked back because it refuses to accept this implication in the GFA. Coupled with no strategic interest any casual reader can understand it. Unionism's leaders do too, hence the absolute refusal of a border poll (that they claim they will easily win and by lordy do they need a 'win) and the debate. They know only too well what that will mean.

jmayo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

This old nonsense, I am a republican but I am not a member of SF like an awful lot of republicans.
Maybe try and stop lumping people together to suit your prejudices.

For someone not a member you sure do spend a lot of time defending them, lauding them and eulogising them.
Isn't it a bit rich of you complaining about others and prejudices.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It is more than 'some' truth. it is the absolute truth.
Thousands lined our streets doffing hats and waving Union Jacks at Britain's monarch while the Army and successive governments she is the figurehead of hide the details of how involved they were in the deaths of numerous people on southern streets.

I don't remember thousands out waving union flags.
I guess we could have torn up the paving and flung it at her, but I don't think it would manage to bring back the dead.
The thing is if Martin McGuinness could bring himself to meet her and shake her the hand the least we could do was not go out to chase her away.
Before you put words in my mouth that also does mean we run out waving her flag at her.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Wanting to see a unified island because it offers the best way forward for all of us is a chip on the shoulder????
Are we trying too hard Jmayo? :rolleyes:

For someone that wants to move forward to a United Ireland you are spending an awful lot of time harping back to the grievances of the past.

BTW I have no problem with a unified island if a chunk of the inhabitants up there feck off with their prejudices, hatred and yes chips on shoulders.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The UK have signed an international agreement saying explicitly that it is up to the island of Ireland alone to decide it's future without outside impediment.

Meaning they (outside) will place no impediment (block or take a side) on the island making a decision.

They ain't coming ALP, why? Because they have 'no strategic interest' anymore, unlike Scotland, were they have strategic interests.

The Malvinas had warships sent to protect it and bring it back into the fold, when a border poll is called they will send polling slips by express post.

Ah yes the old Malvinas.
Francie listening to you is like watching an episode of Reeling in the Years from 1982.

FrancieBrady

jmayo wrote: »

For someone not a member you sure do spend a lot of time defending them, lauding them and eulogising them.
Isn't it a bit rich of you complaining about others and prejudices.



I don't remember thousands out waving union flags.
I guess we could have torn up the paving and flung it at her, but I don't think it would manage to bring back the dead.
The thing is if Martin McGuinness could bring himself to meet her and shake her the hand the least we could do was not go out to chase her away.
Before you put words in my mouth that also does mean we run out waving her flag at her.



For someone that wants to move forward to a United Ireland you are spending an awful lot of time harping back to the grievances of the past.

BTW I have no problem with a unified island if a chunk of the inhabitants up there feck off with their prejudices, hatred and yes chips on shoulders.



Ah yes the old Malvinas.
Francie listening to you is like watching an episode of Reeling in the Years from 1982.

It is prejudice which stops you from accepting that debating on republican issues is not necessarily a SF thing. The 'themuns' syndrome. You have made your mind up what I am and everything follows from that. Sigh and Yawn.


And in order to face the future you have to own the past.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Read the wording.
They have the 'right to decide without outside impediment' that means no interference.

Britain has said separately that it will not stand in the way of a decision to unite.

.

That is your interpretation and your opinion of what it means which is fine. People can have different interpretations of legal language. My opinion is different and I would suspect, my opinion is more akin to what the Tories believe and possibly others in the UK too.

"without outside impediment" does not mean "without campaigning from the UK conservatives or the UK Government or the Queen"

http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/impediment

Here is a link for synonyms for "impediment". I don't see the word "interference" on it. I maybe wrong on this but I think that you believe that "right to decide without outside impediment" means "right to decide without outside interference". To me, they are two very different things.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

That is your interpretation and your opinion of what it means which is fine. People can have different interpretations of legal language. My opinion is different and I would suspect, my opinion is more akin to what the Tories believe and possibly others in the UK too.

"without outside impediment" does not mean "without campaigning from the UK conservatives or the UK Government or the Queen"

http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/impediment

Here is a link for synonyms for "impediment". I don't see the word "interference" on it. I maybe wrong on this but I think that you believe that "right to decide without outside impediment" means "right to decide without outside interference". To me, they are two very different things.

You are entitled too to your opinion, but don't ignore all the other signs too. Which is what unionism is busy doing.
The 'no strategic interest' etc. And the rather shockingly bláse statement by Davis today (would you ever imagine him saying it about Scotland)

The signs are all there. the UK are more or less done with the north. It is for the island of island to decide.

Meanwhile they are frantically trying to stop Scotland having their say.

Mr.Micro

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It is prejudice which stops you from accepting that debating on republican issues is not necessarily a SF thing. The 'themuns' syndrome. You have made your mind up what I am and everything follows from that. Sigh and Yawn.


And in order to face the future you have to own the past.

There is more to the world than NI. Anybody who disagrees with you or holds a different opinion ...its prejudice, lol. It's time to let go of the past.