Why I'll say no to a united ireland

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122048562#Comment_122048562

Sovereignty as an absolute is another one of those outdated 19th century concepts.

Sovereignty is no longer absolute, it can be shared, it can be devolved.

Fionn1952

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122048641#Comment_122048641

Ehh.....isn't sovereignty by definition absolute? Supreme Authority?

I'm not saying it to sh*t on devolution, but words have meanings. You can’t just decide to make up your own softer meaning for it and hand wave off dictionary definitions as 19th century concepts.

Francis McM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122045167#Comment_122045167

Not spooked by it, simply I said it is best to take all statistics like that in context. In 110 years time some people may be trying to argue Irish was widely spoken in Ireland in 2024, given the number of people who claim on the census now they can speak Irish. The total number of people (aged 3 and over) in Ireland who claimed they could speak Irish in April 2022 was 1,873,997, representing 40% of respondents. However, drill down in to it and you will find of these, 472,887 said they never spoke it and a further 551,993 said they only spoke it within the education system. That would still leave 849,117 who say they speak Irish outside of the education system. I never heard that many of this 849,117 group in newsagents or bookshops looking for Irish language puiblications, or debating "as gaelige" here on boards.ie

Stop 1000 Irish people in the street and try to find some of the claimed 1,873,997 who can speak Irish. I mean speak it, hold a proper conversation, not just know a "cupla focail".

Lots of people know how to say Adios or Auf Wiedersehen but would not claim to be able to speak Italian or German.

Similarily, given that over 200,000 people from Ireland volunteered for service with British forces in WW1, big deal if 74 from East Belfast ticked the box on some form saying they were Irish speakers, in the rush to go to war. I would say the number who could not even write was much much higher, given over a century later, with the benefits of EU funding and everything else, if you google "illiteracy in Ireland", you will see the headline "The OECD Adult Skills Survey shows that 17.9% or about 1 in 6, Irish adults are at or below level 1 on a five level literacy scale. At this level a person may be unable to understand basic written information. 25% or 1 in 4 Irish adults score at or below level 1 for numeracy."

Maybe the question in 110 years time will be why would Northerners want to join with the 26 counties if Irish speaking is so common here 😂, and illiteracy so high here😉

110 years ago people emigrating to America did not even get their names spelt correctly on records.

So lies, damned lies and statistics. In the promotion of the Irish language I would be slow to believe anyone who has a vested interest. Given 25% or 1 in 4 Irish adults score at or below level 1 for numeracy, maybe we should be trying to improve first before we increase the amount of money in to the resurection of the Irish language. (most people have been put off it by being forced to learn it throughout their school lives, hence it is dead, certainly in newsagents, bookshops, even on boards.ie I think).

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122048704#Comment_122048704

If you take sovereignty as absolute, then the UK does not have sovereignty over its own country.

There is a wealth of research on modern concepts of sovereignty.

Just take Ireland. Would a coalition of Apple and Intel be able to affect Ireland's sovereignty?

Fionn1952

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122048754#Comment_122048754

Absolute power to make decisions doesn't mean those decisions won't have consequences (see Brexit), so no I wouldn't say Apple and Intel would be able to affect Ireland's sovereignty.

What sovereignty does the UK lack? Trade Agreements they chose to enter and have the ability to leave if they so choose? Not choosing to exercise your sovereignty at all times isn't itself a surrender of sovereignty. Having the ability to do so is what I would view as key.

Francis McM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122048754#Comment_122048754

Well, if you take Apple alone, Apple's main Irish arm paid corporation tax totalling $7.871bn (€6.57bn) last year. That is an awful lot of money, when you consider how even Taoiseach in the past have bent over backwards for much smaller sums, pocket money by comparison. It was reported under the old ‘passports for sale’ programme, for instance, it was shown in 1994 that Taoiseach Albert Reynolds’s pet food business had benefited from a IR£1 million investment by a Saudi family who were subsequently granted Irish citizenship.Four years before that, more Saudis were granted citizenship on the basis of a promised IR£20m investment in Ireland.

Here the EU is telling us to take in lots of immigrants, Ukranians etc; I do not think we have the soverignity to say no. The UK is soverign, they currently do not have to take in unlimited amounts of Ukranians, refugees etc.

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122048815#Comment_122048815

The real world no longer operates on the basis of absolute power to make decisions.

Sovereignty as envisaged in Westphalia in 1648 is no longer absolute.

Those who cling to it nowadays are of the Putin/Trump/Netanyahu mindset.

Fionn1952

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122048903#Comment_122048903

There's absolutely an argument (and one that I'd agree with) that operating on the basis of soft power is much more desirable....but that doesn't change the definition of Sovereignty just so you can try and bend it to apply to inherently non-sovereign devolved governments.

The fact that you've just named two current and one recent (and potentially future) world leaders with access to nuclear weapons really demonstrates the downfall of your own example. They're hardly from 1648, Blanch.

Sovereignty as a concept hasnt magically gone away, though it certainly has to be balanced around the consequences a-la FAFO....but NI doesn't have the sovereignty to decide on the FA part of that.

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122048993#Comment_122048993

You are also forgetting the GFA where the people of Northern Ireland are given sovereignty over their future, albeit one that an unnecessarily constrained binary option. Sovereignty is no longer black and white.

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122049744#Comment_122049744

No they haven't been given sovereignty. Read the agreement.
Sovereignty is in the hands of the UK parliament (and Ireland's) to give effect to the 'wishes' of the people. They (the UK parliament) can choose to not give effect if they wish and break the GFA agreement.

If the UK wish to break the GFA which is an agreement with the Irish state, they have the overarching sovereignty to do that if they wish. The people of NI have no say in that decision just like they didn't with Brexit and the Protocol. Parliament is sovereign.

Fionn1952

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122049744#Comment_122049744

As with everything in UK politics, Parliamentary Sovereignty is supreme.

The British-Irish Agreement, which set out the future of NI was signed on behalf of two actual sovereign governments by Tony Blair, Bertie Ahearne, Mo Mowlam and David Andrews, not anyone from Northern Ireland.

The Multi-Party Agreement, which actual NI representatives signed just endorses the decisions that those who actually have the power to make those decisions agreed on.

If I ask the kids what they want for dinner, it doesn't mean they have control over the household, Blanch. Ultimately that's what you're arguing here.

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122050202#Comment_122050202

The GFA is testament to how unsovereign NI is rather than a sign of it's sovereignty.
The UK didn't even have full sovereignty over it in negotiations with the EU, precisely because of the GFA.

Partition coming back to bite them.

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122050202#Comment_122050202

They don't have to eat that dinner. They have sovereignty over that.

Fionn1952

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122050499#Comment_122050499

Finally, we're agreed.....Stormont has the sovereignty equivalent of a child refusing to eat their dinner.

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122050703#Comment_122050703

Touche

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122050703#Comment_122050703

This, I think, is the heart of the thing.

Over on our largest offshore island they've been having conniptions about Brexit for the past eight years or so. And these conniptions include much hyperventilating about "sovereignty".

There's two warring conceptions of sovereignty in play here. You've got the toddler conception of sovereignty which basically runs like this: "We're a sovereign country. A sovereign country can do whatever it wants, whenever it wants, without legal constraint. We can act as we choose; we make our own decisions; other countries can't tell us what to do. Therefore, if we want to, e.g., violate the Northern Ireland Protocol, we have the right to do that. Nobody can stop us, and anyone who tries violates our sovereignty, bullies us, oppresses us, and is on moral plane with Nazi Germany."

And they you've got the adult conception of sovereignty, which goes like this: "One of the defining characteristics of sovereignty is the capacity to enter into binding obligations with other sovereigns. And one of the characteristics of binding obligations is that they are, well, binding. So if we make a treaty which includes the Northern Ireland Protocol, we are bound by that, not despite being sovereign but because we are sovereign. And if we violate that treaty we are breaking the law, and the other parties to that treaty are legally entitled to take proportionate measures to compel us to comply with the obligations we have underaken".

To continue the toddler analogy: a four-year old cannot enter into a loan agreement and cannot be compelled to repay money because he’s a toddler; he cannot form a contract. But an adult can enter into a loan agreement and the agreement can be enforced against him. Do we imagine the adult has less independence, less control, less autonomy than the toddler? We do not; the capacity to enter into adult relationships, even legally binding, enforceable ones, is empowering, not diminishing.

So it is with countries. Basically, sovereignty is the status of being a grown-up state. And Brexiters have a toddler's view of what it is to be a grown-up. Toddlers think that being a grown up means you can eat all the sweets you want, can go to bed whenever you like, always have money in your pocket for whatever you decide to buy and nobody ever tells you off. Most of us learn as we grow up that, sadly, adulthood is not like that at all. People who do not or will not learn this, and try to live out the toddler concept of adulthood, are to be pitied; they have dysfunctional, chaotic and miserable lives. And this is, basically, the fate that befalls countries that try to cling to a toddler view of sovereignty.

OK, all that's a bit of a digression in this thread. Northern Ireland doesn't exemplify either the toddler or the adult version of sovereignty. The question of whether NI is bound by the treaties it enters into never arises, because NI cannot enter into treaties at all. It cannot borrow money. It cannot undertake obligations. It cannot give commitments to other sovereigns. Westminister has to do all these things on its behalf.

Even internally within the UK, NI has nothing like sovereignty. If you look at federal countries like the US or Australia, the states have powers and capacities which they do not get from the federal government, which they can assert against the federal government, and which the federal government cannot take away. Internally, with the US or Australia, these powers are sometimes referred as, or compared with, a species of sovereignty. But this is not the case with the UK; the NI Assembly only has the powers given to it by the Northern Ireland Act 1998, an Act of the Westminster Parliament. Westminster can amend, replace or replace that Act or any part of it whenever it wishes. The NI Assembly exercises as much sovereignty as Newry and Mourne District Council does — which is to say, none at all.

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122051816#Comment_122051816

Good post.
Ultimately Westminster is responsible for the state NI got into. They had the power but not the will, to ensure their partition experiment was equal and fair. Instead they allowed a one party sectarian statelet to operate for roughly 50 years then tragically tried to shore it up for a few more years.

Francis McM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122052080#Comment_122052080

There you go again FrancieBrady, blaming the British for shoring up our state for the first 50 years, and a few more years after that. Because it was FF/FG you call it one party, and you call it sectarian because few if any Protestants got jobs in the government, Gardai, army etc. I suppose not surprising when DeValera said he he had one job to give and 2 applicants, one Protestant and one Catholic, he would always give it to the Catholic.(or words to that effect). At least in N.I., 3000 of the 7000 jobs in the RUC were reserved for Catholics when it was set up, and 18% of the UDR was Catholic in its early days. So not surprising the minority got smaller south of the border and the minority north of the border grew.

You never forgave DeValera for executing some IRA in prison during the early 1940s, did you?

But for you to harp on about Westminster supporting our one party sectarian state here in the 26 counties is a bit much. True, Britain did shelter us and do the heavy lifting during WW2 and the Cold war. Imagine if your SF had been in power though, given some of the bed-fellows SF/IRA have associated or tried to associate with over the years : Nazi Germany, Libya, North Korea, Farc in Columbia,Russia, Hamas etc.

Sovereignty? There is no doubt N.I. and the free world has done better being associated with Britain during the past 100 years than the people under the regimes of Nazi Germany, Libya, North Korea, Farc in Columbia,Russia, Hamas etc.

droidman123

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122052526#Comment_122052526

And who did the heavy lifting as you call it for britain during ww2? Usa? Russia? There is no logic in your argument

Francis McM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122053016#Comment_122053016

Knew you would nit-pick over something tiny. In the defence of these islands, yes the UK done the heavy lifting compared to us. Especially in those dark days in the early part of the war, before Russia or the US joined the war. And before you say "oh but we were neutral" : yes we were, but so were lots of others. Think of Nazi Germany's invasion of Denmark and Norway , and Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg …

And FrancieBrady blames the British for "shoring up" our state for the first 50 years or so. I guess he is even blaming the British for the fact DeValera executed some IRA in Irish prison in the 1940s. If there was bad weather in the 1940s (the big snow of 1947?) he would probably blame them for that as well.

droidman123

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122053080#Comment_122053080

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122053080#Comment_122053080

Unlike the nice british,who never invaded anyone

FrancieBrady

How what happened in WW2 is an excuse for allowing a sectarian statelet to operate for 50 years inside the UK defeats me. It is just another deflection attempt.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122053080#Comment_122053080

I'm sorry, but this is just bizarre, even by the standards of Francis's usual takes on history.

The Nazis had no ambitions to invade Ireland. The UK being at war with Germany did precisely zero to defend us from a Nazi invasion, any more than their being at war with Italy defended us from an Italian invasion, or their being at war with Japan defended us from a Japanese invastion.. Arguably, it created the risk of a Nazi invasion; the only possible reason the Nazis could have had for invading Ireland would be to support operations against the UK after it declared war on Germany.

We might have lots of reasons to be glad that the UK declared war on Germany, but "defending Ireland from German invasion" is absolutely emphatically unquestionably 100% not one of them. It requires a profound degree of ignorance about the history of WWII to think that it is.

Suckler

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122053477#Comment_122053477

Let's also appreciate FrancisMCM's mental gymnastics to get to that point; they had to first wholly misunderstand the "Shoring up" statement to then bring the Nazi's in to play.

Francis McM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122053108#Comment_122053108

You implied it was the more sectarian statelet outside the UK that they "shored up". In that era the minority decreased in the 26 counties and increased in the 6 counties: which state do you think was the more sectarian? Stop deflecting. You have never forgiven DeValera for executing some IRA in Irish prison in the 1940s and try to blame the British for that too.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122053477#Comment_122053477

You might think Nazi Germany would never have invaded Ireland no matter what but did they not invade and occupy other better armed Neutral countries like Denmark, Belgium, Holland, Norway and Luxemburg, and send those countries Jews, homosexuals, communists, gypsies etc to the extermination camps? And take their resources? If the UK had surrendered in the early years of the war, before US and Russia even joined the war, it would be logical to conclude they would have invaded Ireland too seeing as they invaded everywhere else in Europe they could.

Choochtown

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122054186#Comment_122054186

Yeah very logical.

Just like the way they invaded Switzerland, Spain, Portugal, Turkey, Malta, Sweden, Andorra … eh?

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122054186#Comment_122054186

I never mentioned the 26 counties.

Ultimately Westminster is responsible for the state NI got into. They had the power but not the will, to ensure their partition experiment was equal and fair. Instead they allowed a one party sectarian statelet to operate for roughly 50 years then tragically tried to shore it up for a few more years.

Charles Babbage

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122052526#Comment_122052526

Protestants didn't get jobs eh? Apart from being Ambassadors, Supreme Court judges, Presidents and the like?

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122054186#Comment_122054186

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122054186#Comment_122054186

See, this is what I meant about profound ignorance of WWII history. Germany invaded the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg to prosecute their war with France; the Benelux countries were in the way. They invaded Denmark and Norway to forestall a British plan, being openly discussed at the time, to occupy Norway, to block German access to Swedish iron.

I am not a fan of Nazis, and I am not denying the aggressive nature of Naziism. They did invade countries whose territory they wished to annex to themselves - Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, the Soviet Union. But to the north and the west, all their invasions were in pursuit of strategic objectives in their war with France and the UK; as Choochtown has pointed out, there were many neutral countries they did not invade because they had no strategic reason to do so. The notion that these countries were "protected" by France and the UK is absurd. The only reason any of them might have been at any risk of invasion in the first place was because of Germany's war with France and the UK.

downcow

you seriously think we should leave the 3rd most attractive country in the world to work in (even post Brexit) and join the 36th most attractive? Your having a laugh 😂🤣

https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2024/0424/1445259-ireland-work/