How long before Irish reunification?

blanch152

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Our national flag symbolises this desire to unite and, despite predating partition, was adopted without equivocation as the flag of the state... and so on, and so on.

Oh please, our national flag has become one of the key inhibitors to reconciliation.

Please let's not go back to what happened 100 years ago, or worse, invoke the 800 years of oppression. We are living in a situation now, where people live in today. The world has changed since 1919, we can't go back to what was wanted then. Like it or not, Northern Ireland is different now to the South, and that means that many nationalists up North who may not realise it will be equally discomfited by unity. This is not Germany where the division lasted only 45 years, we have had 100 years of partition now. There is nobody who remembers Ireland pre-1916.

Junkyard Tom

30-40 years

markodaly wrote: »

Come off it, you have to do better than that..

You're right. I could do better but haven't developed my thinking on it enough yet.

Let's take the flag as an example. If there's a rejection of a UI then the tricolour becomes an artefact of appropriation by what could only be described as separatists. You can't erase the spirit, intention and vision the flag represents.

That kind of thing would become a massive bone of contention, can't you see this?

blanch152

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

The vision for this state was formed on an all Ireland polity, the territorial claim to the north was codified in the constitution from the start and remains there albiet watered down.

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

The firm will is to united all the people who share the territory of the island of Ireland, that is the primary goal. The secondary objective is to bring about a united Ireland by peaceful means.

However, it is clear that the secondary objective only comes into play on achieving the primary one - that of uniting all the people who share the territory of the island of Ireland.

Ironically, people like me, who advocate integration and an end to segregationist education are actually doing more to promote the aims of the Constitution than those who wrap the green flag around themselves.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Oh please, our national flag has become one of the key inhibitors to reconciliation.

Please let's not go back to what happened 100 years ago, or worse, invoke the 800 years of oppression. We are living in a situation now, where people live in today. The world has changed since 1919, we can't go back to what was wanted then. Like it or not, Northern Ireland is different now to the South, and that means that many nationalists up North who may not realise it will be equally discomfited by unity. This is not Germany where the division lasted only 45 years, we have had 100 years of partition now. There is nobody who remembers Ireland pre-1916.

'May not realise it', how arrogant is that?

1st dalkey dalkey

30-40 years

For years the North had better roads, better health system, better paid jobs and better education.
Even the hard republicans wouldn't have voted to lose all that.
Our entry into the EU changed all of that over the intervening years. Ours roads are now better, our jobs position better, our education equal and as accessible.
Our HSE needs work, but Brexit might bring the NHS down to our level quickly.
And that is the real variable.
How will Brexit work out? And how will the EU, and specifically Ireland, fair?
If our recent economic trajectory continues and the UK's reverses, a lot of strongly held positions will be tested.
It is hard for a farmer, for instance, watch his neighbour across the border get the EU cheque, which he used to get also but which stopped after Brexit. Or for the ordinary worker to see his terms and conditions deteriorate while his cousin over the border still has EU regulation protecting him.

BonnieSituation

20-30 years

blanch152 wrote: »

Oh please, our national flag has become one of the key inhibitors to reconciliation.

Please let's not go back to what happened 100 years ago, or worse, invoke the 800 years of oppression. We are living in a situation now, where people live in today. The world has changed since 1919, we can't go back to what was wanted then. Like it or not, Northern Ireland is different now to the South, and that means that many nationalists up North who may not realise it will be equally discomfited by unity. This is not Germany where the division lasted only 45 years, we have had 100 years of partition now. There is nobody who remembers Ireland pre-1916.

So?

Should we just give up so, and pretty much ignore the NE of the island now because it's been a while?

If the aspiration wasn't still there from a majority of us on the island, then maybe, you'd have a point, but the majority still aspire, so I guess we'll just keep going.


When the day comes, I'm sure you'll all mark your cards in the appropriate box, but please don't continuously barrage those of us who have a different wish and aspiration for this Island to erase the nonsense of partition.

Also, the Tricolour isn't holding up anything.

maccored

30-40 years

blanch152 wrote: »

Unfortunately, people aren't ready for change in Northern Ireland. The two sectarian parties - SF and DUP - still get the highest vote from their communities. We can keep maintaining that status quo, or we can start doing something to change it. Education is key.

People who vote for Sinn Fein don't actually realise how they are viewed by the other community, how having former terrorists within their ranks is unnecessarily provocative and deeply hurtful to unionists. We see it all the time on here because we have many people who defend Sinn Fein even if they don't support them. In reality, they are a divisive party, just like the DUP.

I have not suggested forcing anyone to change school. What I have suggested is a mirroring of the process taking place in the South, where schools are being divested of Catholic patronage and others are taking up the slack. I am proposing that it happen at a faster pace and with more urgency, and yes, compulsorily, in the North, because of the unique challenges that that sectarian state faces. I make no apologies for that, because either you are interested in solving the problem or you are interested in waiting for some demographic dividend in twenty years time, which was predicted to happen twenty years ago.

Blanch152 -when are you ever going to admit you are really a unionist?

theres nothing wrong with being one (more power to you) but youre the first to make bones about francie being a republican but not saying he votes SF (though he's already pointed out his voting preferences to you).

Funny you dont seem to have any views other than "SF bad, Unionists good' - yet apparently you dont have a them and us attitude . nevermind that you seem to have gotten your idea of whats been going on ip there from either the sun or the indo. certainly not first hand experience anyway

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

'May not realise it', how arrogant is that?

You may call it arrogant, but it isn't surprising or unusual to suggest that nationalists in the North have lost touch or sense for how Ireland works. Many of them would be more comfortable in a State that promotes segregation on the basis of religion rather than the secular State that we have become. That may well understand the saying of being careful what you wish for.

I see it in the resistance to desegregation on this thread.

BonnieSituation

20-30 years

markodaly wrote: »

I see you avoided the quesiton, so please do tell us.

What was the question? You asserted that partition "only" came about because there was "gonna be a bigger, tremendous war".

As if the **** didn't actually hit the fan at any point over the preceding decade. Do keep up.

maccored

30-40 years

blanch152 wrote: »

You may call it arrogant, but it isn't surprising or unusual to suggest that nationalists in the North have lost touch or sense for how Ireland works. Many of them would be more comfortable in a State that promotes segregation on the basis of religion rather than the secular State that we have become. That may well understand the saying of being careful what you wish for.

I see it in the resistance to desegregation on this thread.

"desegregation" - sure you dont mean 'they'll do what we tell them' like you were supporting earlier?

BonnieSituation

20-30 years

blanch152 wrote: »

You may call it arrogant, but it isn't surprising or unusual to suggest that nationalists in the North have lost touch or sense for how Ireland works. Many of them would be more comfortable in a State that promotes segregation on the basis of religion rather than the secular State that we have become. That may well understand the saying of being careful what you wish for.

I see it in the resistance to desegregation on this thread.

Don't be changing the goalposts and making this thread about segregation in schools. The same thing happens on every thread of a UI.

One topic becomes the burning issue and then it gets closed down.

Desegregation comes slowly and then a torrent. When I was in school you would have laughed at the Educate Together concept and now I laugh at the idea of RC domination.

So play nice, the concept you espouse is laudable, but forced change of patronage won't work.

blanch152

maccored wrote: »

Blanch152 -when are you ever going to admit you are really a unionist?

theres nothing wrong with being one (more power to you) but youre the first to make bones about francie being a republican but not saying he votes SF (though he's already pointed out his voting preferences to you).

Funny you dont seem to have any views other than "SF bad, Unionists good' - yet apparently you dont have a them and us attitude
.

I am not a unionist, I am Irish and proud to be Irish. Posters like Bonniesituation, despite our political differences, can tell you about my GAA links.

I have previously pointed out that the idea that nationalism should be linked to territory is outdated, outmoded and old-fashioned. I have children living abroad, and they are no more or less Irish than you and I are.

The GFA gives the right to be Irish to everyone born on this island who wants to be Irish - that actually achieves everything that Irish nationalism set out to achieve. I am secure in my national identity, I am not so insecure that I need territory to back that up, I am not so insecure that I need to define myself as not-British to back up my Irishness.

Pearse would be happy, everyone born on this island can call themselves a free Irishman - what more do we need?

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

You may call it arrogant, but it isn't surprising or unusual to suggest that nationalists in the North have lost touch or sense for how Ireland works. Many of them would be more comfortable in a State that promotes segregation on the basis of religion rather than the secular State that we have become. That may well understand the saying of being careful what you wish for.

I see it in the resistance to desegregation on this thread.

What 'resistence' is that?

I clearly said the way to change it was to 'invest in choice'.

You are misrepresenting again to score a cheap point about nationalists.

blanch152

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Don't be changing the goalposts and making this thread about segregation in schools. The same thing happens on every thread of a UI.

One topic becomes the burning issue and then it gets closed down.

Desegregation comes slowly and then a torrent. When I was in school you would have laughed at the Educate Together concept and now I laugh at the idea of RC domination.

So play nice, the concept you espouse is laudable, but forced change of patronage won't work.

I am not looking to shut any debate down, I like the cut and thrust of debate, it helps clarify thoughts and even changes positions.

We can let Northern Ireland change slowly, but that means pushing the prospect of a truly united people further into the future. If people are serious about the goals of the GFA and the Articles 2&3 amendments - to push the unification of people - then the desegregation of schools has to be top of the list, and it can't wait for people to want it.

FrancieBrady

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Don't be changing the goalposts and making this thread about segregation in schools. The same thing happens on every thread of a UI.

One topic becomes the burning issue and then it gets closed down.

Desegregation comes slowly and then a torrent. When I was in school you would have laughed at the Educate Together concept and now I laugh at the idea of RC domination.

So play nice, the concept you espouse is laudable, but forced change of patronage won't work.

Children in integrated education has doubled since the GFA and many of the schools are over subscribed, change is happening without any 'force' or oppression.

Junkyard Tom

30-40 years

blanch152 wrote: »

nationalists in the North have lost touch or sense for how Ireland works.

They are Irish people who live in Ireland. You are the one who has lost touch or sense of how Ireland works.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What 'resistence' is that?

I clearly said the way to change it was to 'invest in choice'.

You are misrepresenting again to score a cheap point about nationalists.

I don't take you as the sole voice of Irish republicanism. When I talk about resistance to change, I am talking about a wide range of views expressed across the thread.

There were lots of people opposed to desegregation, not surprising, it is the way that nationalist hold on to nationalists, but it wasn't all about your posts.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

I am not looking to shut any debate down, I like the cut and thrust of debate, it helps clarify thoughts and even changes positions.

We can let Northern Ireland change slowly, but that means pushing the prospect of a truly united people further into the future. If people are serious about the goals of the GFA and the Articles 2&3 amendments - to push the unification of people - then the desegregation of schools has to be top of the list, and it can't wait for people to want it.

How do you think the DUP, a religiously fundamentalist party is going to react if you force integration on them?


Can you lay out the roadmap here? Include concepts in the GFA such as respect, and parity of their esteem in your headings. etc.

blanch152

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

They are Irish people who live in Ireland. You are the one who has lost touch or sense of how Ireland works.

I am not going to take this thread off-topic, but an equally valid geographical representation would show the British Isles. Goegraphy and politics don't mix, let alone nationality and ethnicity.

We have our unity because the GFA guarantees the rights of everyone born on this island who wants to be Irish.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

I don't take you as the sole voice of Irish republicanism. When I talk about resistance to change, I am talking about a wide range of views expressed across the thread.

There were lots of people opposed to desegregation, not surprising, it is the way that nationalist hold on to nationalists, but it wasn't all about your posts.

Quote the poster who said they were opposed to it please?

There are plenty opposed to your method, no doubt about that. Mainly people with direct experience of living in communities there.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

I am not going to take this thread off-topic, but an equally valid geographical representation would show the British Isles. Goegraphy and politics don't mix, let alone nationality and ethnicity.

We have our unity because the GFA guarantees the rights of everyone born on this island who wants to be Irish.

You are the only person I know who has this weird interpretation of the constitution.

Leo Varadkar is not talking that way when he talks about unity, he is talking about physical unity with the British government out of our affairs. As is everyone else...but you.

markodaly

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

You're right. I could do better but haven't developed my thinking on it enough yet.

Let's take the flag as an example. If there's a rejection of a UI then the tricolour becomes an artefact of appropriation by what could only be described as separatists. You can't erase the spirit, intention and vision the flag represents.

That kind of thing would become a massive bone of contention, can't you see this?

If a UI is rejected in the south, it will be done so because the percieved costs of it will be too high and/or NI will be seen as too difficult to integrate completely with the south. All this will be fleshed out in due course. Indeed, the shoe could be on the other foot as part of the UI 'agreement' that we will be voting on, could be very very unpaltiable for armchair republicans. E.g. rejoining the commonwealth.

What most people should be agreeing on though is the end to any policy that permits and maintains the status of a segregatted and sectarian state. First of the bat, would be the end to segregatted education.

BonnieSituation

20-30 years

markodaly wrote: »

If a UI is rejected in the south, it will be done so because the percieved costs of it will be too high and/or NI will be seen as too difficult to integrate completely with the south. All this will be fleshed out in due course. Indeed, the shoe could be on the other foot as part of the UI 'agreement' that we will be voting on, could be very very unpaltiable for armchair republicans. E.g. rejoining the commonwealth.

What most people should be agreeing on though is the end to any policy that permits and maintains the status of a segregatted and sectarian state. First of the bat, would be the end to segregatted education.

Can only "armchair republicans" reject the needless membership of an organisation headed by a foreign monarch, future or current?

maccored

30-40 years

blanch152 wrote: »

The GFA gives the right to be Irish to everyone born on this island who wants to be Irish - that actually achieves everything that Irish nationalism set out to achieve.

so why are you espousing the idea that forcing your will upon them is better than the current level of segregation?

Even governments agree people have the right to choose - yet you tell them you'll choose for them?

Isnt that a contradiction - or are you going to tell me your whole debate about 'segregation' you've been having with francie is somehow different?

maccored

30-40 years

markodaly wrote: »

If a UI is rejected in the south, it will be done so because the percieved costs of it will be too high and/or NI will be seen as too difficult to integrate completely with the south. All this will be fleshed out in due course. Indeed, the shoe could be on the other foot as part of the UI 'agreement' that we will be voting on, could be very very unpaltiable for armchair republicans. E.g. rejoining the commonwealth.

What most people should be agreeing on though is the end to any policy that permits and maintains the status of a segregatted and sectarian state. First of the bat, would be the end to segregatted education.

why would ireland rejoin the commonwealth regardless of what happens? its obvious markodaly wants ireland to rejoin 'a political association of 53 member states, nearly all of them former territories of the British Empire'.

Why would Ireland go backwards and do that?

maccored

30-40 years

markodaly wrote: »

If a UI is rejected in the south, it will be done so because the percieved costs of it will be too high and/or NI will be seen as too difficult to integrate completely with the south.

i think theres your problem. If you believe the north integrating into the south is the answer then Ive no idea what question you've been asking, but its obviously not about the chances of a united ireland.

'Barking', 'tree, 'wrong' and 'up' are some words that spring to mind

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

That oppressive, force attitude again. Second time from two different posters.

You clearly didn't read the whole article that you posted and cherrypicked a bit out of. If you had, you would have seen examples of parents and communities voting for integration when given the choice and encouragement.

I mentioned it in my post actually.

State funding to all religious schools in the north should be stopped immediately and funding should be only given to those which are fully integrated.

I am not forcing anything anyone, they are still free to attend their religious school but they will have to pay for it. Seperation of church and state and all that, something you favour in the south. Why are you partionist in your thinking Francie?

markodaly

BonnieSituation wrote: »

What was the question? You asserted that partition "only" came about because there was "gonna be a bigger, tremendous war".

As if the **** didn't actually hit the fan at any point over the preceding decade. Do keep up.

I see you are a slow learner. So, I will go back to bascis.
Why was partition implimented in the first place?

Once you answer that, you can tell us what the Unionists would have done if parition was not part of the Anglo-Irish treaty of 1921?

markodaly

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Can only "armchair republicans" reject the needless membership of an organisation headed by a foreign monarch, future or current?

If it is a choice betweem a UI or the commonwealth, what would you do?

A UI is not going to be some nationalist/republican dream, there will be compromises on both sides.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

If it is a choice betweem a UI or the commonwealth, what would you do?

A UI is not going to be some nationalist/republican dream, there will be compromises on both sides.

What is it you think nationalists/republicans are 'dreaming' about?