How long before Irish reunification? (Part 2) Threadbans in OP

hometruths

Hamsterchops wrote: »

Who is driving all this "United Ireland" chat anyway?

Are the people of Northern Ireland chomping at the bit to become part of this Republic? or is the UI agenda being pushed and orchestrated by Dublin?

Why he the urge to extract them and their problems from London, only to have their complicated dysfunctionality integrated into this Republic!

Is that what we really want?

Flames maybe fanned from interested parties down South, but I think it is a stretch to say it is orchestrated by Dublin.

I suspect the silent majority in the republic would really prefer not to poke this hornets nest.

If a border poll was called up north that voted in favour of a UI, I think there is a decent chance our electorate would reject the idea.

What happens in that scenario?

jh79

schmittel wrote: »

Flames maybe fanned from interested parties down South, but I think it is a stretch to say it is orchestrated by Dublin.

I suspect the silent majority in the republic would really prefer not to poke this hornets nest.

If a border poll was called up north that voted in favour of a UI, I think there is a decent chance our electorate would reject the idea.

What happens in that scenario?

I think there has to be at least 7 years before we try again.

FrancieBrady

schmittel wrote: »

Flames maybe fanned from interested parties down South, but I think it is a stretch to say it is orchestrated by Dublin.

I suspect the silent majority in the republic would really prefer not to poke this hornets nest.

If a border poll was called up north that voted in favour of a UI, I think there is a decent chance our electorate would reject the idea.

What happens in that scenario?

When can we expect this 'silent majority' to become vocal?

hometruths

FrancieBrady wrote: »

When can we expect this 'silent majority' to become vocal?

They don't need or wish to be too vocal other than ticking the box marked NO in the referendum. That's kind of the point.

ulster

What do the latest polls say about the Republic. I thought we were hovering at 70 pc in favour of reunification.

jh79

ulster wrote: »

What do the latest polls say about the Republic. I thought we were hovering at 70 pc in favour of reunification.

Drops to 30% if it involves an increase in taxes. So in no way a formality.

Fr D Maugire

Yeah, apart from Republicans, I don't think the majority of people would be for re-unification at any cost.

I would say most people would have been happy with the Pre-Brexit situation in that things would slowly keep getting better over time and become less sectarian, but Brexit has shot that to bits. Why it has become a topic more than ever.

hometruths

Fr D Maugire wrote: »

Yeah, apart from Republicans, I don't think the majority of people would be for re-unification at any cost.

I would say most people would have been happy with the Pre-Brexit situation in that things would slowly keep getting better over time and become less sectarian, but Brexit has shot that to bits. Why it has become a topic more than ever.

Agree, I think most were happy to let demographics play out and wait for the inevitable to happen over the long term.

All this recent crap triggered by Brexit has reminded us just how toxic (and costly) the North is.

Asking us to vote to make all that our problem in the near term and expecting a thumping majority in favour is a bit naive I think.

downcow

Fr D Maugire wrote: »

How is it that the plantation was a long time ago(course of the 17th Century), but two of the key events in the so called Unionist Culture also happened in the same 17th Century, Siege of Derry and 12th July yet they are still commemorated every year. Surely if the plantation is ancient history, s o should those two events.

I would also like an explanation on how Presbyterians were treated worse than Catholics during the penal laws. I am not doubting they were persecuted, they were which is why so many went to the US, just how where they treated worse than Catholics. In most historical accounts, the Presbyterians were collateral damage in the effort to persecute the majority religion in Ireland.

Which leads on to the next questions, after being treated so badly by the Anglican church that led to the first Republicans in Ireland, led by mostly Northen Presbyterians. How on earth did they flip so quickly to support the very people who had made life so hard for them during the 18th century. Henry Cooke who was the de facto leader of the Presbyterian Church at the start of the 19th century was strongly opposed to the lifting of the penal rules on Catholics. The Penal laws had been lifted on Presbyterians long before Catholics. Let's not miss that Cooke was also totally opposed to the idea of any mixed education.

How did Presbyterians go from supporting the idea of creating a Republic at the end of the 18th century to being completely opposed to the idea of even Home Rule less that a century later. What happened during that period that was so influential?

Sorry, but everything that happened during the troubles can be traced back to what went before.

I have no idea what your point is about the plantation being a long time ago. Of course it was time ago. As for my community celebrating the siege of Derry - it was a long time ago was well, but why should we not celebrate it. Actually we celebrated in a very positive nature. We do not spend time talking about how an army surrounded the city and wanted to massacre all the people in it and the hardships of that time,, but rather we celebrate the 'relief of Derry' and the saving of the me if n women and children. Many people still celebrate Jesus birth which was 2000 years ago. If

You are probably aware that when Protestants are referred to as 'black bastards', it is traced back to when Presbyterians were referred to as blackmouths - this was because they had little else to eat but the blackberries along the roads, hence the mouths were black.
History also shows that in conflict people are more vicious on those that are different but almost like them. Penal laws were implemented against the Presbyterians with gusto by the Anglicans. In addition the Presbyterians had to deal with negative attention from the Catholics


This might answer your question about why Presbyterians became Unionists.
"The General Assembly agreed unanimously that "a separate parliament for Ireland would, in our judgment, lead to the ascendancy of one class and creed in matters pertaining to religion, education, and civil administration. We do not believe that any guarantees, moral or material, could be devised which would safeguard the rights and privileges of minorities scattered throughout Ireland against encroachment of a majority vested with legislative and executive functions."
IfGladstone found it hard to understand that the Ulster Presbyterians who had led the United Irish movement a century before were implacable opponents of his Home Rule policy.
IfThe nub of the Irish Presbyterian opposition to Home Rule was their lack of trust in an Irish Catholic government to maintain civil and religious liberty for Protestants in Ireland."

downcow

Peter Robinson is often flagged up on this thread as someone who is forward thinking and has his finger on the pulse. He was lauded on here by Republicans when he suggested that unionists should be preparing for a border poll. Well I completely disagree with him on that issue, but his article today in the newsletter does, I believe, catch the mood of the moment in the unionist community.
The link is below, two comments of note are:

"It would be wrong to assume that in time unionists will calm down and eventually acquiesce. That is not my assessment.
We are perilously close to a line which, when crossed, will lock us all into a pattern all too familiar to my generation.
The genie will not easily be squeezed back into the bottle."

"There are forces using the exigencies of Brexit to advance a programme of constitutional change through stealth and propaganda.
My advice to those who are driving this agenda forward is as short as it is restrained.
Take care."

I got fairly well rounded upon for saying something very similar the last few weeks

https://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/opinion/columnists/peter-robinson-unionists-are-more-alienated-than-i-have-seen-at-any-time-in-my-50-years-in-politics-3179294

Junkyard Tom

You know I'd say Republican dissidents would be delighted if Unionists kicked off as it would just isolate Unionism even further and increase the non-unionist electorate. It's around 30% of the population who self identify as Unionist now? That would probably drop to 20% after a couple of innocent Catholics got murdered by Unionists.

It would also underscore the dysfunction of a failed unionist enclave and focus minds on bringing it to an end.

downcow

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

You know I'd say Republican dissidents would be delighted if Unionists kicked off as it would just isolate Unionism even further and increase the non-unionist electorate. It's around 30% of the population who self identify as Unionist now? That would probably drop to 20% after a couple of innocent Catholics got murdered by Unionists.

It would also underscore the dysfunction of a failed unionist enclave and focus minds on bringing it to an end.

I obviously disagree with your figures, but I agree that loyalist violence would have exactly the same negative impact on unionist objectives as the IRA violence had on republican objectives

FrancieBrady

schmittel wrote: »

They don't need or wish to be too vocal other than ticking the box marked NO in the referendum. That's kind of the point.

So your point is this demographic will remain silent until they get into the ballot box but somehow they have been vocal enough for you to work out they are a 'majority'? Amazing.

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

Peter Robinson is often flagged up on this thread as someone who is forward thinking and has his finger on the pulse. He was lauded on here by Republicans when he suggested that unionists should be preparing for a border poll. Well I completely disagree with him on that issue, but his article today in the newsletter does, I believe, catch the mood of the moment in the unionist community.
The link is below, two comments of note are:

"It would be wrong to assume that in time unionists will calm down and eventually acquiesce. That is not my assessment.
We are perilously close to a line which, when crossed, will lock us all into a pattern all too familiar to my generation.
The genie will not easily be squeezed back into the bottle."

"There are forces using the exigencies of Brexit to advance a programme of constitutional change through stealth and propaganda.
My advice to those who are driving this agenda forward is as short as it is restrained.
Take care."

I got fairly well rounded upon for saying something very similar the last few weeks

https://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/opinion/columnists/peter-robinson-unionists-are-more-alienated-than-i-have-seen-at-any-time-in-my-50-years-in-politics-3179294

Who is using 'stealth'?

It is entirely open and transparent.

hometruths

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So your point is this demographic will remain silent until they get into the ballot box but somehow they have been vocal enough for you to work out they are a 'majority'? Amazing.

By silent I mean that they never mention it as a priority compared to things like health, housing, economy etc. So I have worked out that these things are more important and as things stand right now a UI is likely to compound these concerns.

What evidence have you seen that makes you believe a vote on a United Ireland would be carried down here?

BonnieSituation

jh79 wrote: »

Drops to 30% if it involves an increase in taxes. So in no way a formality.

Good thing tax implications aren't put on the ballot.

Nice to see were starting this Godforsaken journey again.

FrancieBrady

schmittel wrote: »

By silent I mean that they never mention it as a priority compared to things like health, housing, economy etc. So I have worked out that these things are more important and as things stand right now a UI is likely to compound these concerns.

You aren't explaining how you think they are a 'majority'?

What evidence have you seen that makes you believe a vote on a United Ireland would be carried down here?

I haven't made a claim like that.

I think that if a UI is couched as an investment that we will vote for it. I base that on the visible pride we have in the foundation of this state and the fact that constitutionally we aspire to a UI, something an overwhelming majority voted to put in the constitution. There is also the ancillary evidence that not a single political party is against a UI, nor will be. Politics reflects the people and in this case the fact that n political party or TD has emerged to present this 'silent majority' you talk about suggests it doesn't exist.

jh79

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Good thing tax implications aren't put on the ballot.

Nice to see were starting this Godforsaken journey again.

It's gonna be part of the discussion like it or not. Will be interesting to see the estimates of what the % is likely to be.

All needling aside, the trends suggest cost will have an impact on voting patterns, the question in that poll was too general to draw any other conclusion than cost is a factor. But the conversation has started and we'll soon have a good idea of the true cost and whether we are willing to pay it.

BonnieSituation

jh79 wrote: »

It's gonna be part of the discussion like it or not. Will be interesting to see the estimates of what the % is likely to be.

All needling aside, the trends suggest cost will have an impact on voting patterns, the question in that poll was too general to draw any other conclusion than cost is a factor. But the conversation has started and we'll soon have a good idea of the true cost and whether we are willing to pay it.

Like it or not?

It's partitionists like you that have not wanted to talk about it. Thankfully the conversation has started, like it or not.

James Brown

Think of the good will and strength behind same sex marriage. A referendum on a United Ireland with be many more times as potent. The U.S. will push for it. Everyone knows it's a bull**** situation as is.
It will be, 'do you want a United Ireland or do you not?'
If it's shown there's money in it, (which I believe there will be in the form of investment) even the like of FG will jump on board.

hometruths

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You aren't explaining how you think they are a 'majority'?

I think that when it comes down to it, more than 50% will vote against a united Ireland. I used the phrase silent majority, because I don't think the majority will rally and campaign vocally against a UI, just they care about other stuff more.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I haven't made a claim like that.

I think that if a UI is couched as an investment that we will vote for it. I base that on the visible pride we have in the foundation of this state and the fact that constitutionally we aspire to a UI, something an overwhelming majority voted to put in the constitution. There is also the ancillary evidence that not a single political party is against a UI, nor will be. Politics reflects the people and in this case the fact that n political party or TD has emerged to present this 'silent majority' you talk about suggests it doesn't exist.

I agree no party will campaign against it.

I actually think we will have a border poll in the North during the lifetime of the next Dail, and SF will be leading the government at the time.

Ironically I think they will preside over the Irish people rejecting a united Ireland. If you told me that in 1998, I'd have thought it was utterly bonkers!

BonnieSituation

schmittel wrote: »

I think that when it comes down to it, more than 50% will vote against a united Ireland. I used the phrase silent majority, because I don't think the majority will rally and campaign vocally against a UI, just they care about other stuff more.



I agree no party will campaign against it.

I actually think we will have a border poll in the North during the lifetime of the next Dail, and SF will be leading the government at the time.

Ironically I think they will preside over the Irish people rejecting a united Ireland. If you told me that in 1998, I'd have thought it was utterly bonkers!

The silent majority nonsense is just cover for someone who has no evidence.

Absolutely pointless.

Sunny Disposition

downcow wrote: »

I appreciate the honesty in your post.
As for the issues you raise. I see the plantation as something long back in history. Who are you going to blame? Those living in Dublin now whose ancestors benifited? Do you blame my people? - some of whom arrived during the plantation and most who did not arrive during the plantation. Presbyterians were treated worse than Catholics by the Anglican rulers at times - we have let it go. We don’t blame our Anglican neighbours. I honestly think it’s nuts to refer to the plantation as a factor today. It was a long time before land was taken off native Americans, auusies, etc, etc. I think it’s this old victim mentality. If it’s not the plantation then it’s the famine. Many of your people benefited from both.

Bloody Sunday is over-egged. It was very unfortunate but it certainly wasn’t any worse (and I would suggest not as bad as) la mon etc. These were protesters and there was a riot taking place. The people in la mon were having dinner and were burned to death simply because they were Protestant .

Many Catholics were treated badly after partition and it was blatant sectarianism and to be condemned. But you are missing the context. They were seen by those running the country as out to wreck the country (no excuse) but a reality.
I do get fed up with nonsense like Catholics didn’t have the vote etc - just lies.

These issues were all complex but I am accepting us brits got it very wrong a lot of the time I am sorry for that. But I have to stomach the constant innocence being portrayed by many on this forum of the Irish. You Irish have discriminated against us brits in a major way also but seem in denial. No acceptance by many of the vicious sectarian campaigns of the ira. No responsibility taken for 70% of the Protestant population having to get out of ROI, nor the mass movement of people in ni eg 90%+ of the Protestant population of derry have to set up new communities on the waterside and those that are left living in a fortress. No acceptance of the sectarianism of the ira cleansing entire towns of Protestants eg my home town
Etc etc

There’s a lot there, too much to respond to at once.
I think the plantation still is relevant, because integration never followed.
Saying Bloody Sunday is over egged, hats a pterttt bad choice of words.
Very few if any Catholics think wrongs haven’t been inflicted on Protestants, you’d find it hard to get someone who doesn’t think that tbh. But there’s no question that Irish Catholics have been dispossessed and terribly mistreated over the arc of the history of Irish-British relations. There’s really no question they have been far worse treated than the descendants of the planters.

FrancieBrady

schmittel wrote: »

I think that when it comes down to it, more than 50% will vote against a united Ireland. I used the phrase silent majority, because I don't think the majority will rally and campaign vocally against a UI, just they care about other stuff more.



I agree no party will campaign against it.

I actually think we will have a border poll in the North during the lifetime of the next Dail, and SF will be leading the government at the time.

Ironically I think they will preside over the Irish people rejecting a united Ireland. If you told me that in 1998, I'd have thought it was utterly bonkers!

SF around 30% of the vote, at least to be in power, no other party campaigning for a No vote for the very good reason that it would be political suicide, but you still see a majority vote against? Did somebody mention 'bonkers'?

Nqp15hhu

Hamsterchops wrote: »

Who is driving all this "United Ireland" chat anyway?

Are the people of Northern Ireland chomping at the bit to become part of this Republic? or is the UI agenda being pushed and orchestrated by Dublin?

Why he the urge to extract them and their problems from London, only to have their complicated dysfunctionality integrated into this Republic!

Is that what we really want?

As someone who resides in Northern Ireland and who was born and raised here. I rarely if ever hear of anyone talking about a United Ireland in public. Maybe it would've come up the odd time in my Maternal Grannies house, otherwise no it is rarely discussed. I think most people are just thinking of their everyday lives and whatever problems they have at that time.

If anything I think the media is trying to stirr it up as a narrative. And most forums seem to be saturated with Irish Nationalist 10/1 to Unionists which is not the true demographic, so it sort of gives the impression that they're the majority.

Nqp15hhu

Fr D Maugire wrote: »

How is it that the plantation was a long time ago(course of the 17th Century), but two of the key events in the so called Unionist Culture also happened in the same 17th Century, Siege of Derry and 12th July yet they are still commemorated every year. Surely if the plantation is ancient history, s o should those two events.

I would also like an explanation on how Presbyterians were treated worse than Catholics during the penal laws. I am not doubting they were persecuted, they were which is why so many went to the US, just how where they treated worse than Catholics. In most historical accounts, the Presbyterians were collateral damage in the effort to persecute the majority religion in Ireland.

Which leads on to the next questions, after being treated so badly by the Anglican church that led to the first Republicans in Ireland, led by mostly Northen Presbyterians. How on earth did they flip so quickly to support the very people who had made life so hard for them during the 18th century. Henry Cooke who was the de facto leader of the Presbyterian Church at the start of the 19th century was strongly opposed to the lifting of the penal rules on Catholics. The Penal laws had been lifted on Presbyterians long before Catholics. Let's not miss that Cooke was also totally opposed to the idea of any mixed education.

How did Presbyterians go from supporting the idea of creating a Republic at the end of the 18th century to being completely opposed to the idea of even Home Rule less that a century later. What happened during that period that was so influential?

Sorry, but everything that happened during the troubles can be traced back to what went before.

This is Ulster Protestant culture, not Unionist culture.

Nqp15hhu

Fr D Maugire wrote: »

Yeah, apart from Republicans, I don't think the majority of people would be for re-unification at any cost.

I would say most people would have been happy with the Pre-Brexit situation in that things would slowly keep getting better over time and become less sectarian, but Brexit has shot that to bits. Why it has become a topic more than ever.

Why would people in the Republic who don't live in NI care about that?

Nqp15hhu

schmittel wrote: »

Agree, I think most were happy to let demographics play out and wait for the inevitable to happen over the long term.

All this recent crap triggered by Brexit has reminded us just how toxic (and costly) the North is.

Asking us to vote to make all that our problem in the near term and expecting a thumping majority in favour is a bit naive I think.

Do you understand what you are saying here? I see this continually raised as a point by southerners, it is quite sectarian and narrowminded to want Protestantism to 'die out'.

Thankfully the 'change' in demographics does not guarantee a United Ireland, and the change is levelling off.

With all of the negative influence that the Catholic church had on the Republic, one would think that its citizens wouldn't be desperate for a stronger link to Catholism.

Nqp15hhu

downcow wrote: »

I obviously disagree with your figures, but I agree that loyalist violence would have exactly the same negative impact on unionist objectives as the IRA violence had on republican objectives

Except as of recent times its actually been a 'positive' influence to their goals, with the Irish Cabinet and several international leaders using it to support the NI Protocol (without consent of the people here).

Nqp15hhu

James Brown wrote: »

Think of the good will and strength behind same sex marriage. A referendum on a United Ireland with be many more times as potent. The U.S. will push for it. Everyone knows it's a bull**** situation as is.
It will be, 'do you want a United Ireland or do you not?'
If it's shown there's money in it, (which I believe there will be in the form of investment) even the like of FG will jump on board.

So you think that a United Ireland will solve the division in my country? How? It'll just flip things over.