Has partition saved democracy in Ireland?

MT

We all know how much Northern Ireland has failed as a democracy. Most Nationalist and Republican thinking attributes this deep societal flaw to the consequences of partition. Had there been no division of an entirely independent island, an all Ireland democracy would have evolved.

I broadly agree with the first part of this outlook. It was much more likely than not that a tribally divided North would in the long run succumb to the ethnic one-upmanship, violent civil strife and democratic failure so depressingly common in other communally splintered parts of the globe. However, the vision of an island wide democracy enjoying peace and harmony is a fantasy – albeit a commendable one – that would never have materialised IMO. Indeed, it’s my contention that cleaving off the region that was destined to suffer democratic collapse from the rest of the island saved stable government in the south.

Had all of Ireland been cut adrift and lumped together, a disastrous civil war of far greater length than that which took place in the 20s would likely have been the result. Just think for a moment about the nature of Irish society in the early decades of the 20th century. Though outnumbered by about 5 to 1 Protestants accounted for the lion’s share of Ireland’s wealth, while those in the Northeast controlled most of its industry. It’s remarkable to think that well after the Second World War the small minority of Southern Protestants still held 60% of the Republics wealth. Just think how lopsided the figures would have been had the industrialised Northeast been included from the outset. So, despite Nationalist Ireland’s numerical strength, the economic power to sustain a prolonged military campaign with supplies and munitions would have lain very much with the opposing camp. At best a bloody and draining stalemate would have been the painful outcome – absolutely disastrous for the emergence of a stable liberal democracy. Just look at how determined well-armed minorities have kept civil wars raging for decades in Africa. The nascent roots of a democratic civil society would have been smothered in a nation wracked by unceasing conflict.

If anyone believes this to be nothing more than alarmist historical claptrap, just look at war torn Africa. Where borders were drawn to include more than one ethnic group endless societal schism has been the result. Tribal warfare has become endemic, rendering any chance of stable democracy impossible. Even where there is some semblance of peace communities have divided into their ancient factions and vote according to ethnic advantage. What African countries desperately need is a wholesale realignment of national borders – partition, in effect – so that states and tribal groupings no longer overlap. This might be the only hope for long term stability and democracy. Would there have been genocide in Darfur had Sudan been partitioned along ethno-religious lines? Not unless the people of the region had decided to butcher themselves.

Just compare the flowering of liberal democracy and the stability of the Irish Republic with the internecine feuding and bloodletting in the likes of Northern Ireland, Africa, the Balkans and the Middle East. As one of the world’s longest continually existing democracies, the harmony of the Republic stands in stark contrast to places where hostile peoples have been corralled together into one state.

Isolating a crisis ridden and now almost schizophrenic region from the rest of Ireland was a harsh measure but IMO it undoubtedly safeguarded democracy in the south.

But why is partition viewed in such a dim light in the very place that prospered as a result of it?

I think there are a number of reasons. Foremost amongst them is that Britain imposed it. Nationalist Ireland was given little or no choice in the matter, seeing it as yet another grievous humiliation foisted upon the country by the hated colonial power. Furthermore, the divide wasn’t even remotely fair. The British government, failing to act as an honest broker between the two sides, favoured Unionism from the outset. With the chair of the border commission sympathetic to Ulster unionism most of its demands were assented to. Tricked and betrayed, a large and growing minority of Nationalist Catholics was left in a cold and alien state. In many ways, the anger and, to some extent, guilt of southerners with regard to those ‘left behind’ has kept alive a desire to grant them the birthright they were denied from the outset. To add to these feelings of indignation at another cruel insult by perfidious Albion was the view that Britain had attempted to cling unto as much of its former imperial power in Ireland as it could.

An intense dislike of Unionism and the view of Unionists as at best treacherous Irishmen and at worst implanted foreign colonials also added to the unease. Granting these Orange interlopers their own state was tantamount to a reward for the hated colonial plantations. This was legitimising the presence of those with no right to be here. 'Unionists should put up or go home'.

There was also an element of the Northern disease of ‘if they’re for it, we’re agin it’. Partition was ushered in by British power and supported by Unionism. How the hell could any Irish patriot not set himself against it? If the enemy’s for partition, we’re for unity, so to speak.

I think another source of discontent is idealism and the influence of historic mythology. There was a conviction – probably reinforced by the success of democracy in the south as opposed to communal fragmentation in the north – that an all-Ireland state would surely have worked. There was a strong belief - though based more in hope than expectation - that Ulster Protestants would see sense and warm to a united Ireland in time.

The ideas promoted during the 19th century Gaelic revival have since taken a strong hold in the national psyche. The people had once lived a free and harmonious existence for centuries until that mildly turbulent age of Celtic innocence was shattered forever by crushing English oppression. It was held as the entire island’s birthright to return once again to that largely mythical golden age.

I suppose too, there has been an attachment to one last grievance. A desire to say, ‘look they wronged us for an eternity, and still our suffering continues.’ The Ireland of martyrs must live on. Indeed, maybe the North is the scar that allows some to fulfil a need to maintain the ancient animus against the Sassenach.

These often emotional arguments may have taken root but I feel partition could well have been misjudged. Though concocted by what was then a ruthless imperial power with little regard for the Irish and only contempt for their nationalism, partition has ironically turned out to be a blessing in disguise. Originally designed to shore up Unionism in a gerrymandered statelet while discarding as much of ‘rebellious’ Nationalist Ireland as possible, it’s the latter’s descendants who’ve enjoyed the greatest benefits. The legacy of Craig and the Ulster home rule movement is a fissiparous tribal powder keg. Self-governance and genuine democracy remain a forlorn hope in Northern Ireland. Instead, a Balkanised society has emerged with two tribes locked perpetually in a bitter internecine struggle. In sharp contrast to this glaring failure, it is the Irish Republic that stands as a shining example of stability, prosperity and democracy.

Dare I say it, but long may partition, democracy and prosperity continue.

Macmorris

MT wrote:

There was also an element of the Northern disease of ‘if they’re for it, we’re agin it’. Partition was ushered in by British power and supported by Unionism. How the hell could any Irish patriot not set himself against it? If the enemy’s for partition, we’re for unity, so to speak.

You've left out the most important reason. The reason most Irish people were opposed to partition was simple, because it meant that there country would be divided.

oscarBravo

Macmorris wrote:

The reason most Irish people were opposed to partition was simple, because it meant that there country would be divided.

Didn't "most people" vote for the treaty?

MT

Macmorris wrote:

You've left out the most important reason. The reason most Irish people were opposed to partition was simple, because it meant that there country would be divided.

I don't think I have, surely the following paragraph reflects that sentiment:

The ideas promoted during the 19th century Gaelic revival have since taken a strong hold in the national psyche. The people had once lived a free and harmonious existence for centuries until that mildly turbulent age of Celtic innocence was shattered forever by crushing English oppression. It was held as the entire island’s birthright to return once again to that largely mythical golden age.

I think I should state that I in no way feel that partition was a perfect solution. It was indeed a painful division of a country the vast majority of people felt should remain as one. However, the main thrust of my first post is that though partition is anathema to many and undoubtedly not a solution anyone would chose in a perfect world, it was a necessary evil to ensure democracy flourished in the south.

I'm convinced that partition has rarely been looked upon in an objective light. Instead it has been judged with the appalling way in which it was imposed and the sinister intentions of the British at the time foremost in mind. My contention is that inspite of the malicious intent - and setting aside genuine grievances - partition can be seen as having resulted in an ironic but vital benefit. It has protected Southern democracy by acting as a bulwark against the tribalism and civil war that has ravaged the north and so many other ethnically fractured parts of the globe.

I feel the idea that a stable all Ireland democracy could have been easily achieved but for partition is simply a fantasy. Commendable, yes but unachievable. The choice from the outset of independence was never one between a 26 county democracy or a 32 county democracy but the much more stark reality of a sustainable democracy in what became the Irish Republic or an unstable war torn all island nightmare.

IMO there was never an all Ireland democracy to be had. In the early 20th century, a decision had to be made between a less extensive Irish democracy or chaos. Look at what happened to Sudan or Sri Lanka. The North's Unionists would have become the Republic's very own well armed and well financed Tamil Tigers.

Macmorris

MT wrote:

The ideas promoted during the 19th century Gaelic revival have since taken a strong hold in the national psyche. The people had once lived a free and harmonious existence for centuries until that mildly turbulent age of Celtic innocence was shattered forever by crushing English oppression. It was held as the entire island’s birthright to return once again to that largely mythical golden age.

You seem to be implying that anti-partitionism was (and is) some romantic aspiration to a mythic, celtic Ireland, when in fact it was a much more moderate, conservative aim. Ireland had always been united, even under the union. People's opposition to partition had nothing to do with reviving the ancient gaelic order, it was about maintaining the existing territorial set-up, albeit in an independent republic.

I'm not arguing with your main point though. I think you're right about partition being better than the alternative. Although it shouldn't be forgotten that most of the violence in Ireland post-1921 was caused by partition itself. As well as preventing war, partition caused of bloodshed as well. The civil war in the free state and the IRA campaign in the north were due to opposition to partition.

It would have been far better if we had stayed in the union and waited for a few decades until we had gained the trust of the northern unionists.

What you're really saying is that ethnically homogenous states are more stable than the multi-ethnic, multi-cultural ones, which I would agree with. I just wish the liberal elite would remember Ireland's history when it comes to discussing immigration.

Mr.Nice Guy

Surely a key factor was the way the border was drawn? The NI state should have contained only four counties. The Free State should have gotten Fermanagh and Tyrone.

mycroft

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

Surely a key factor was the way the border was drawn? The NI state should have contained only four counties. The Free State should have gotten Fermanagh and Tyrone.

Shoulda woulda coulda. Parrallel dimensions forum is thatda way. We're talking political realities.

What you're really saying is that ethnically homogenous states are more stable than the multi-ethnic, multi-cultural ones, which I would agree with.I just wish the liberal elite would remember Ireland's history when it comes to discussing immigration

Oh I don't think thats what he's saying, I think thats want you want to hear.

A Dub in Glasgo

4 counties would have made NI a joke (not that the 6 did not make it one). The reason the 6 were chosen was the fact that the British wanted the biggest area with an inherent inbuilt majority. That is the reason why Ulster is not NI.

Mr.Nice Guy

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

4 counties would have made NI a joke (not that the 6 did not make it one). The reason the 6 were chosen was the fact that the British wanted the biggest area with an inherent inbuilt majority. That is the reason why Ulster is not NI.

Yes, well put. It's also worth noting the success of the Arbitration courts in 1920 which many Unionists and Protestants accepted because they were fair. These courts operated in 28 of the 32 counties by June of 1920.

Macmorris

mycroft wrote:

Oh I don't think thats what he's saying, I think thats want you want to hear.

What he's saying is that the reason the south of Ireland managed to avoid the kind of ethnic conflict that the north suffered was because the south didn't have to deal with the presence of a sizeable and hostile ethnic minority, which it would have had to deal with if the country had been united. I think that seems to be an endorsement of monoculturalism.

I agree with him on partition (even though I am a nationalist who would love to see Ireland united), it's just I'm not afraid to point out the obvious implication of what he's saying - that if you support partition because you think multi-ethnic states have the potential for political instability, then you have to also take the same line when you start discussing immigration, and the possibility that we may be sacrificing the valuable ethnic homogenity that has been such an important part of the stability of our democracy. As disastrous as the Ulster plantation was in Irish history, the African, Asian and muslim plantations of this country in the next few decades will have much greater potential for igniting ethnic tension, particularly with the muslim influx.

mycroft

Macmorris wrote:

As disastrous as the Ulster plantation was in Irish history, the African, Asian and muslim plantations of this country in the next few decades will have much greater potential for igniting ethnic tension, particularly with the muslim influx.

Which is the traditional racist argument. That racial groups can't interelate and therefore, we should be hostile to intergration. Which is a pretty nifty self fufilling prophecy.

RuggieBear

Macmorris wrote:

What he's saying is that the reason the south of Ireland managed to avoid the kind of ethnic conflict that the north suffered was because the south didn't have to deal with the presence of a sizeable and hostile ethnic minority, which it would have had to deal with if the country had been united....

There were plenty of sectarian killings and intimidation of protestants in the south following partition...especially in cork. What might be called small scale ethnic cleansing...

cdebru

mycroft wrote:

Which is the traditional racist argument. That racial groups can't interelate and therefore, we should be hostile to intergration. Which is a pretty nifty self fufilling prophecy.

it s the logical extension of MTs arguement

boiled down MTs arguement is that only a mono ethnic mono cultural society can be a safe productive one

Society in the 26 counties has moved on from the bitter sectarian divisions because we have freed ourselves from a society where it actually matters wether you are catholic or protestant

privilege is no longer determined by religion

there is no reason why a 32 county Ireland would not have been just as successful in building a progressive society if anything it would have happened much sooner than it did in the predominantly catholic 26 counties

what exactly unionists would have been fighting for MT never explains to be readmitted to the UK which had already turned its back on them

independence from the rest of Ireland unsuported by the UK an independent 2 or 3 counties would not last long

why sectarian divisions remained in the six counties was because it mattered in respect of privilege but also in respect of the future of the statelets very existence
unionists have been looking over their shoulder at nationalists since the foundation of northern Ireland fully aware that force of numbers might someday bring about an end to the existence of their protestant state
there was no benefit to them to make catholics/nationalists feel welcome or equal they did not want them to stay around

Only with the end of the 6 county state can the sectarian divisions be put behind us when privilege or the existance of the state no longer count on how many catholics or protestants there are will it be as unimportant as it is in the 26 counties

mycroft

cdebru wrote:

it s the logical extension of MTs arguement

boiled down MTs arguement is that only a mono ethnic mono cultural society can be a safe productive one

No it's not. He is talking about a specific point about a specific instance. For example you could take it that the Rwanda genocide means two tribes can't co exist in a single society. Despite the evidence that it occurs regularly in african societies, and countries.

He's taking the argument that the case of NI, where if the republican forces had forced a united ireland, the unionist majority would have rejected and there would have been disasterous implications when they rebelled at forced intergration.

Theres a radical difference in forcing two ethic groups to co exist, when one ethic group objects to the presence of another. To what he's suggesting;

As disastrous as the Ulster plantation was in Irish history, the African, Asian and muslim plantations of this country in the next few decades will have much greater potential for igniting ethnic tension, particularly with the muslim influx.

Theres no suggestion that theres any comparsion between Muslim influx, MacMorris is suggesting that there are parrallels. It's very see to say "hostility to different ethic groups makes intergration impossible", when instead the obvious suggestion is to attempt to remove the hostility.

It's taking the jump that members of the unionist community were ready to use arms aganist a united ireland, so therefore we now need to ensure that we object to immirgration, because if the Muslims get here it'll be worse, thats a leap in logic.

It's ignoring the historical political, and economic reasons for the antagonism between these two ethnic groups, and suggesting this means we can't successfully intergrate with other ethnic groups.

there is no reason why a 32 county Ireland would not have been just as successful in building a progressive society if anything it would have happened much sooner than it did in the predominantly catholic 26 counties

what exactly unionists would have been fighting for MT never explains to be readmitted to the UK which had already turned its back on them

Thats a comment that ignores the fact that pre WW1 the unionists were prepared to object to home rule by force if necessary, they imported weapons towards this aim. We can imagine the level of objection to a seperate state.

We had a bloody enough civil war post treaty, can we imagine trying to do this with the north involved. Plus do you really think the british public circa 1920 wouldn't have be a smigen sympathetic to a section of nth ireland fighting to remain part of the british empire?

why sectarian divisions remained in the six counties was because it mattered in respect of privilege but also in respect of the future of the statelets very existence
unionists have been looking over their shoulder at nationalists since the foundation of northern Ireland fully aware that force of numbers might someday bring about an end to the existence of their protestant state
there was no benefit to them to make catholics/nationalists feel welcome or equal they did not want them to stay around

Only with the end of the 6 county state can the sectarian divisions be put behind us when privilege or the existance of the state no longer count on how many catholics or protestants there are will it be as unimportant as it is in the 26 counties

It boggles my mind to find someone who seems like a educated individual esposing this line while supporting SF. While SF gives lip service to these ideals, they still allow their leaders to parade allongside men and women in paramilitary garb, eulogising men who blew up and murdered sections of the community. It's hyprocritical.

A Dub in Glasgo

mycroft wrote:

He's taking the argument that the case of NI, where if the republican forces had forced a united ireland, the unionist majority would have rejected and there would have been disasterous implications when they rebelled at forced intergration.

Is that 'forced' integration like, eh, democracy in action??

mycroft

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Is that 'forced' integration like, eh, democracy in action??

:rolleyes:

What gibberish is this. There was a unionist majority in 4 counties, who objected to home rule, and the rebellion, and were prepared to use force to oppose it. If they didn't want to be part of a united ireland, and prefered to be part of the union, why wouldn't that be "forced" intergration?

Mr.Nice Guy

mycroft wrote:

:rolleyes:

What gibberish is this. There was a unionist majority in 4 counties, who objected to home rule, and the rebellion, and were prepared to use force to oppose it. If they didn't want to be part of a united ireland, and prefered to be part of the union, why wouldn't that be "forced" intergration?

Can I ask you what your thoughts would be on this hypothetical situation in which the majority north and south vote for Irish unity, but the two counties of Down and Antrim (who have unionist majorities) oppose this and threaten to use force through their opposition?

mycroft

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

Can I ask you what your thoughts would be on this hypothetical situation in which the majority north and south vote for Irish unity, but the two counties of Down and Antrim (who have unionist majorities) oppose this and threaten to use force through their opposition?

And again welcome to the politics forum and not the parrallel universe forum.

Theres no point discussing the implication if a tiny minority of Unionists who werent prepared to use violence to support their objection, objected to the move.

Following your logic to it's progression, the battle of kinsale never happened, the flight of the earls never happened, and French landing may have been successful.

Asking me to discuss an unlikely possibility without considering what the ramifications of such a situation would have had further back down the line is just daft.

A Dub in Glasgo

mycroft wrote:

:rolleyes:

What gibberish is this. There was a unionist majority in 4 counties, who objected to home rule, and the rebellion, and were prepared to use force to oppose it. If they didn't want to be part of a united ireland, and prefered to be part of the union, why wouldn't that be "forced" intergration?

Gibberish? Imagine calling democracy in Ireland gibberish :rolleyes:

True colours being shown now eh?

A Dub in Glasgo

mycroft wrote:

And again welcome to the politics forum and not the parrallel universe forum.

Thats it, slag other members who do not conform with your political view

Theres no point discussing the implication if a tiny minority of Unionists who werent prepared to use violence to support their objection, objected to the move.

No point because you do not like the implications?

Zombrex

Macmorris wrote:

. As disastrous as the Ulster plantation was in Irish history, the African, Asian and muslim plantations of this country in the next few decades will have much greater potential for igniting ethnic tension, particularly with the muslim influx.

Such a statement shows a rather worrying lack of understanding of both what the plantations actually were (muslims are not being planted in Ireland or anywhere else in Europe) and modern immigration.

Using the Ulster plantations as a warning againt immigration is kinda like using the JFK assassination as a warning against democracy.

A far better parallel, especially considering we are Irish, would be the Irish emmigration of the last 300 years right up to the 80s.

But this is another topic.

folk_smith

is there anything to the idea that there is resentment in the North b/c they feel abandoned by the 26? There was no effort by the 26 to keep the North?

Mr.Nice Guy

mycroft wrote:

And again welcome to the politics forum and not the parrallel universe forum.

Theres no point discussing the implication if a tiny minority of Unionists who werent prepared to use violence to support their objection, objected to the move.

Following your logic to it's progression, the battle of kinsale never happened, the flight of the earls never happened, and French landing may have been successful.

Asking me to discuss an unlikely possibility without considering what the ramifications of such a situation would have had further back down the line is just daft.

The hypothetical situation I mentioned has relevance to the point you seem to support, which is that a minority can hold the majority to ransom by threat of force. Furthermore, my logic doesn't serve to rewrite history, on the contrary it asks you to consider if a very possible scenario in the future in any way changes your view of past events. Sadly, your mind is closed.

Zombrex

folk_smith wrote:

There was no effort by the 26 to keep the North?

You mean other than the civil war?

folk_smith

Wicknight wrote:

You mean other than the civil war?

That was over 80 years ago and represents the first and last efforts to prevent the split. I do think it has gotten to the point where going backwards is out of the question, but I do think there are those in the North who feel as though they were abandoned - just a thought for discussion. I'm quite removed from the situation, so I don't have enough grounding in the facts to form a well-informed opinion, but I would like to get some feedback on this.

mycroft

Gibberish? Imagine calling democracy in Ireland gibberish

True colours. Answer my argument and oh, try not to score points. :rolleyes:

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Thats it, slag other members who do not conform with your political view

No theres no point in discussing a historical political hypothetical, without considering the pre conditions would would have allowed this situation to arise. Pretty soon you're down to a point to, what if william of orange hadn't won the battle of boyne, and what would have happened if we were a roman colony.

No point because you do not like the implications?

And deftly you ignore my point with a counter argument which lacks substance. Either answer my rebuttal, or don't counter attack while ignoring it it, btw this is my point;

If they didn't want to be part of a united ireland, and prefered to be part of the union, why wouldn't that be "forced" intergration?

on the contrary it asks you to consider if a very possible scenario in the future in any way changes your view of past events. Sadly, your mind is closed.

Because it's a primitive argument which ignores the fact that society evolves and changes, and the situation now is different to then. Attitudes change. Public opinion changes. When home rule was on the cards, both sides formed public miltia's to support or show their opposition for the concept. Looking at your logic means I have to transfer the politics, worldview and ethics of a people, 80 years ago, and then apply that to the present day. It's utterly pointless.

Nice to see we've gone from partition to attack anyone whose not one of us.....

Mr.Nice Guy

mycroft wrote:

Because it's a primitive argument which ignores the fact that society evolves and changes, and the situation now is different to then. Attitudes change. Public opinion changes. When home rule was on the cards, both sides formed public miltia's to support or show their opposition for the concept. Looking at your logic means I have to transfer the politics, worldview and ethics of a people, 80 years ago, and then apply that to the present day. It's utterly pointless.

How is it a primitive arguement? How do you know that unionists wouldn't resist reunification by threat of force? My logic doesn't require you to "transfer" anything. In the past we had a situation where the majority of the island would have opposed partition yet the majority of the north-eastern region of the island supported it. I asked you for your thoughts on the possibility of a majority of the counties of Down and Antrim supporting partition even though the majority of the island would oppose it. You have yet to answer. Would you support the right of these unionists to a two-county NI even though the majority of the island as a whole would oppose this?
I find this question very relevant to both the present and the situation 80 years ago and I'm sure others on this forum would agree. Any chance I could have your views?

mycroft

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

How is it a primitive arguement? How do you know that unionists wouldn't resist reunification by threat of force? My logic doesn't require you to "transfer" anything. In the past we had a situation where the majority of the island would have opposed partition yet the majority of the north-eastern region of the island supported it. I asked you for your thoughts on the possibility of a majority of the counties of Down and Antrim opposing partition even though the majority of the island would support it. You have yet to answer. Would you support the right of these unionists to a two-county NI even though the majority of the island as a whole would oppose this?
I find this question very relevant to both the present and the situation 80 years ago and I'm sure others on this forum would agree. Any chance I could have your views?

But I don’t see it as relevant.

The situation 80 years ago was radically different.

And the current situation is radically different to then.

And the future prognosis means this situation is about as likely in the near future as demanding it anexs from the republic. The development of nth Ireland and the rest of Ireland not to mention the whole EU, means that by the time this situation could conceivable arise, the political landscape in nth Ireland won't resemble anything like it is now. So there's little point discussing it. Why can't you grasp that?

Mr.Nice Guy

How was the situation 80 years ago radically different? Partition was a key issue in Irish politics then and it is now. Also you go on to say:

mycroft wrote:

The development of nth Ireland and the rest of Ireland not to mention the whole EU, means that by the time this situation could conceivable arise, the political landscape in nth Ireland won't resemble anything like it is now. So there's little point discussing it.

Here you have given a hypothetical situation of future events! How can you be sure the political landscape won't resemble what it does now? The issue of partition will continue to remain in my opinion. I posed a hypothetical situation to you and you won't even have the decency to share your views on the issue. Your reluctance to give an answer to a question would make any Shinner proud. Disappointing.

cdebru

it seems like a simple enough question mycroft

if a majority in the six counties voted on a united Ireland would you accept antrim and north down were there is unlikely to ever be a nationalist majority repartion and oppose the will of the people of the 6 counties and the 26 counties by threat of force

nesf

Um, the plantations that occured in this country bear very little resemblence to modern immigration.

The Ulster Plantation was a systematic ethnic realignment of those counties. Modern immigration is anything but that.

Macmorris wrote:

As disastrous as the Ulster plantation was in Irish history, the African, Asian and muslim plantations of this country in the next few decades will have much greater potential for igniting ethnic tension, particularly with the muslim influx.

I personally support strict immigration laws, but even I cannot see the above as anything but rascist and sensationalist propoganda. There are solid arguments for strict immigration laws and restrictions. You don't need to be making statements like the above.

Macmorris

nesf wrote:

The Ulster Plantation was a systematic ethnic realignment of those counties. Modern immigration is anything but that.

What do you think the result of mass immigration into Ireland will be if not an ethnic realignment of the entire country? It may not be an engineered, systematic plantation, as the Ulster plantations were, but the result will be the same. We will have a large ethnic minority in this country in the next few decades who will have the numbers and the resources to impose their will upon the majority and undermine our values and our way of life.

I personally support strict immigration laws, but even I cannot see the above as anything but rascist and sensationalist propoganda.

If you object to my use of the term plantation to describe the settlement of immigrants in this country, then you need to read more carefully. I meant the term figuratively, not literally. And I didn't say there will be violence, I just made the common-sense observation that in multicultural, multi-ethnic societies there is a greater potential for ethnic conflict than there is in ethnically homogenous societies. After all, isn't that the argument that has been advanced by MT to justify the partition of Ireland, the subject of this thread?

And I make no apology for singling out the muslims. People should rightly be careful to avoid demonising muslims, most of whom are good, law-abiding people. I see no problem with Islam or muslims in their own countries. But when it comes to defending our western way of life and our western values, then we have to be honest about where the greatest threats to those values comes from. And in my opinion, the fact that Islam is set to become the dominant religion in Europe within the next hundred years is a bad thing for the future of our civilisation.

There are solid arguments for strict immigration laws and restrictions.

You mean there are politically-correct arguments for immigration restrictions.

cdebru

Macmorris wrote:

We will have a large ethnic minority in this country in the next few decades who will have the numbers and the resources to impose their will upon the majority and undermine our values and our way of life.
.

how will they impose their will on the majority

MT

Macmorris wrote:

After all, isn't that the argument that has been advanced by MT to justify the partition of Ireland, the subject of this thread?

I believe you're looking at my argument in reverse. I have contended that partition was of benefit to the majority on the island in contrast to the popular reading of history. It seems that your reasoning looks at the outcome through the eyes of the arriving minority.

However, on your point that recent immigration is dangerous as it could lead to a situation similar to that which unfolded in the early 20th century, I'd have to disagree. Furthermore, an argument against immigration is not a corollary of my original post.

There are two key differences between the Ulster plantations and the recent immigration that Ireland has experienced. The first is geographic specificity. The current immigrants are not being placed in a specific region within the Irish Republic. Furthermore, they are quite free to move around the country. This means that no clear bond between this group and a particular area - like a county - is likely to ever materialise. Compare this to the northern plantations where due to there concentration in one part of Ireland a clear link betwee that region and the arrivals was established. Thus, they had a piece of the island that they felt they could justifiably maintain was separate from the rest of Ireland. A country - people and state - had in effect been created within a country. This was the basis for partition. This people/region bond is not there for the new immigrants.

The second is that Ireland's new immigrants - at least those in the Republic as I've encountered some up here who see themselves only as British - want to be Irish. When given the opportunity they take citizenship and from then on view themselves as part of the Irish nation. This was not the case for the planters.

Encouraged to come to Ireland by first Elizabeth and then James in exchange for land having served in the Irish wars, they had no interest in becoming one of the side they'd just helped defeat. So from the outset they saw themselves as outsiders, not a strand - or wishing to be a strand - of the indigenious society or their culture. Add this to a bond with 'their own' region, a desire to remain separate from the preceding culture and not to mention that Ireland having been invaded had no governing class or civil society to encourage their integration, and you had the basis for a whole separate identity and nation emerging in the Northeast.

The current climate of immigration is very far removed from the Ulster plantations. Where there is in particular no immigrant/region bond to the exclusion of another majority in that area then there should be no good basis for national fracture. This is a large part of why there is no movement for separation in the multi-ethnic Singapore, as opposed to Sri Lanka or the earlier case of Ireland.

nesf

Macmorris wrote:

What do you think the result of mass immigration into Ireland will be if not an ethnic realignment of the entire country? It may not be an engineered, systematic plantation, as the Ulster plantations were, but the result will be the same. We will have a large ethnic minority in this country in the next few decades who will have the numbers and the resources to impose their will upon the majority and undermine our values and our way of life.

The result of the Ulster Plantation was this: a traditionally catholic dominated society was replaced with a prostestant dominant one. So quite obviously this formation of a large ethnic minority by modern immigration isn't the same. Since catholics would remain as the dominant ethnic majority in the country this would in no way be the same result as the Ulster Plantation.

Ethnic Minorities can impose their will on the majority in some instances, but it is quite rare. Essentially the minority would either need to be an economic upper class or an educated and wealthy elite when compared to the majority. I don't think that ill-educated polish and turkish immigrants are going to become dominant in our society. They will be integrated into it. Well educated immigrants are not uncommon, but they generally choose to adapt to our society and live along side us rather than try to force change.

If you object to my use of the term plantation to describe the settlement of immigrants in this country, then you need to read more carefully. I meant the term figuratively, not literally. And I didn't say there will be violence, I just made the common-sense observation that in multicultural, multi-ethnic societies there is a greater potential for ethnic conflict than there is in ethnically homogenous societies. After all, isn't that the argument that has been advanced by MT to justify the partition of Ireland, the subject of this thread?

I object to your comparisson of the Ulster Plantation and modern immigration not your use of the word plantation. My reasons for such are outlined above. Where you are getting violence from my argument I'm not really sure :rolleyes: .

And I make no apology for singling out the muslims. People should rightly be careful to avoid demonising muslims, most of whom are good, law-abiding people. I see no problem with Islam or muslims in their own countries. But when it comes to defending our western way of life and our western values, then we have to be honest about where the greatest threats to those values comes from. And in my opinion, the fact that Islam is set to become the dominant religion in Europe within the next hundred years is a bad thing for the future of our civilisation.

Have you lived in mid-eastern culture? Are you aware that during the dark ages that it was mid-eastern cultures that kept the works of the Greek and Roman Philosophers alive? (although yes they did burn alot of it too..) This concept of "defending our western way of life and our western values" strikes me as highly rascist and elitist. We do not have the best way of life. We suffer from a myriad of problems such as rampant unemployment, pollution, corruption and high crime levels. We do not live in an utopian society that needs protection at all costs! Societies throughout the ages have grown by assimilating and borrowing culture from other societies! If we wall ourselves up culturally and become hostile to all foreign culture then our society will stagnate and die. Plus I do not think that our culture of binge drinking idiots with serious health problems is something that should be lauded.

Islamic societies have problems. So do we. We should learn from the mistakes from both and welcome cultural influences from islamic society.

You mean there are politically-correct arguments for immigration restrictions.

No, I don't. Myself and political correctness don't get along very well, although you seem to dismiss political correctness out of hand. Just because a point is PC doesn't necessarily invalidate it.

Discriminating on the levels you are, on the grounds of race and religion is no more valid that the discrimination against people with mental illness or people with disabilities. Yes, sure think the way you do on a personal level. You are completely entitled to do that. But trying to argue that such views are fitting for a modern day society? No that I will oppose and argue.

My personal views on strict immigration laws is due to economic factors not due to the race, religion or caste of the immigrant in question. I just feel that there should be (what is the equivilant of) discrimination on educational/job skills grounds on adults entering this country. I believe that any person immigrating into this country should either be able to show a good education or good job skills as these will aid them in integrating into the country. I do not feel that we should be a charity for people who leave their country. Our economy could not support it, we are a tiny country, we don't have the economies of scale that other European countries have. We cannot absord a big influx of immigrants without serious negative economic consequences. It needs to be planned and limited by legislation. Not a very PC view, but it's one I hold.

Edit: To make myself clear, I oppose the discrimination against immigrants on grounds such as race and religion since these are not factors that should matter on a large scale in my opinion. Job skills and education however are valid catagories with which to judge immigrants in my opinion.

I have seen immigration happen in the micro scale in my old home town in north cork. First off there was a bunch of romanian immigrants, they robbed, stole and the crime rate of the town went from negligible to being a severe problem. They refused to send their children to the schools, and made no effort to integrate with the already present society. They eventually were relocated.

Then there was an influx of Nigerian immigrants. Now culturally, these guys were miles away from us when compared to the Romanians. The difference? There have been few problems with their integration. They joined the society and began working very hard. They sent their kids to go to school with the irish children, and now 5 years on they are an integral part of the society.

Lesson: Culturally similarity does not mean immigrants can integrate well.

mycroft

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

How was the situation 80 years ago radically different? Partition was a key issue in Irish politics then and it is now. Also you go on to say:

New around here are we? pre world war one tens of thousands of men on both sides of the border, were willing to take up arms to remain in the union or for home rule. Massive private arms existed. The level of popular support was unmatched. The situation was radically different in that Partition was a key issue in Irish politics then and now, I don't think the general public still feel that to the same degree that they did then. What with the not having citizen miltias n all.

Here you have given a hypothetical situation of future events! How can you be sure the political landscape won't resemble what it does now? The issue of partition will continue to remain in my opinion. I posed a hypothetical situation to you and you won't even have the decency to share your views on the issue. Your reluctance to give an answer to a question would make any Shinner proud. Disappointing.

I don't have the decency?
:rolleyes:

Look It's a stupid bloody question. Period.

I cited two hypothetical parameters which might affect the existance of this state, to point out how ludicrous your suggestion was. Don't try and twist this to make me seem like a hyprocrit, I'm merely pointing out the diverse set of variables that would make this seem highly unlikely. This ludricously vague notion of yours.

You may as well ask me, how the rise of atlantis will effect fishery borders in the EU. Or the return of Avalon will effect the privatisation structure of british rail.

You haven't explained the population of this mythical state? Does your proposed population take into consideration falling rural population density. Is it independentally financially sustainable? Or economically? Or will it have enough natural resources? Will it need to import food? Will it remain part of the union? Or a seperate state? Will it have an agressive foreign policy towards to the rest of NI? Will it be mild mannered orange men, or rabid combat 18/UVF style thugs? WIll it be able to meet it's own electrical power needs? How large will it be?

I'm not going to answer inane question posed to me, unrelated to the topic of this thread, and then have someone say "have the decency to answer" when the question is purile nonsense. Approach this with a more mature attitude, and don't start whinging when people don't want to play the game using your simplisitic rules.

it seems like a simple enough question mycroft

Too simple. It ignores the reality of what would have to occur for this to become an eventuality.

Oh and cdebru, you've ignore plenty of my points addressed to you, maybe you should considering answering my reply to you, before you join in hassling me to answer niceguy.

cdebru

mycroft wrote:

You haven't explained the population of this mythical state? Does your proposed population take into consideration falling rural population density. Is it independentally financially sustainable? Or economically? Or will it have enough natural resources? Will it need to import food? Will it remain part of the union? Or a seperate state? Will it have an agressive foreign policy towards to the rest of NI? Will it be mild mannered orange men, or rabid combat 18/UVF style thugs? WIll it be able to meet it's own electrical power needs? How large will it be?

I'm not going to answer inane question posed to me, unrelated to the topic of this thread, and then have someone say "have the decency to answer" when the question is purile nonsense. Approach this with a more mature attitude, and don't start whinging when people don't want to play the game using your simplisitic rules. .

he is not asking you wether it would be economically viable the question is simply if two referendums were held and the 26 counties and the 6 counties both accepted reunification
what would your view be if 2 counties with a large unionist majority refused to accept the outcome of the referendums and threatened to oppose it with force

cdebru

mycroft wrote:

No it's not. He is talking about a specific point about a specific instance. For example you could take it that the Rwanda genocide means two tribes can't co exist in a single society. Despite the evidence that it occurs regularly in african societies, and countries.

He's taking the argument that the case of NI, where if the republican forces had forced a united ireland, the unionist majority would have rejected and there would have been disasterous implications when they rebelled at forced intergration.

Theres a radical difference in forcing two ethic groups to co exist, when one ethic group objects to the presence of another. To what he's suggesting;.

see what it ignores is that the root cause of the problem in the North is british imperialism
why the fighting has continued for over 80 years is the nature of the british propped sectarian state that offered privilege to one section and denied basic human rights to another there is no reason why protestants and catholics cannot live together in harmony as they do in the south and all over the world
once the reason for the conflict has been removed ie british imperialism




.

mycroft wrote:

Thats a comment that ignores the fact that pre WW1 the unionists were prepared to object to home rule by force if necessary, they imported weapons towards this aim. We can imagine the level of objection to a seperate state.

We had a bloody enough civil war post treaty, can we imagine trying to do this with the north involved. Plus do you really think the british public circa 1920 wouldn't have be a smigen sympathetic to a section of nth ireland fighting to remain part of the british empire? .

No it doesn't faced with the position of no longer being a part of the UK fighting to be a part would make no sense once the UK had rejected them the only other option would be independence which would not have been economically viable considering how small it would have been

mycroft wrote:

It boggles my mind to find someone who seems like a educated individual esposing this line while supporting SF. While SF gives lip service to these ideals, they still allow their leaders to parade allongside men and women in paramilitary garb, eulogising men who blew up and murdered sections of the community. It's hyprocritical.

for the 100 th time I dont support SF Iam a republican sometimes i agree with them others I don't

mycroft

cdebru wrote:

he is not asking you wether it would be economically viable the question is simply if two referendums were held and the 26 counties and the 6 counties both accepted reunification
what would your view be if 2 counties with a large unionist majority refused to accept the outcome of the referendums and threatened to oppose it with force

Through. clenched. teeth.

He's not asking I am this magical unionist land if it wasn't sustainable they're be little point in it's existance, and eventually the population would be forced to recognise this. I'm asking about what level of violence? How large is this state? Whats it's politics? What would force this drastitic situation in being?

You guys love to argue in the abstract because it allows you to debate the issue outside the reality of the situation. This is the politics forum and I see little reason debating something this inane. You may as well ask me to consider the implications of Hawaii attacking us.

Theres the principle and the reality. While in principle many of us recognise that the state of Israeli may have the right of existance, it's the reality of that existance that causes the issues. Gibbering on about some Antrim, Down version of lichenstein isn't discussing politics.

And cdebru again I raised a number of issues with a post of yours a while back in this thread, quit hassling me to answer niceguys nonsense, and address some of the issues I raised.


edit.... finallly

No it doesn't faced with the position of no longer being a part of the UK fighting to be a part would make no sense once the UK had rejected them the only other option would be independence which would not have been economically viable considering how small it would have been

And the only adequate response is "yeah right" No way never going to have happened. There is no chance in hell the british govt and people would have been willing to cut off NI. Never would have happened. The naivety displayed here is impressive. m

sceptre

Macmorris wrote:

What do you think the result of mass immigration into Ireland will be if not an ethnic realignment of the entire country?

Under the current topic of this thread I don't actually care. The next one of you guys to attempt to throw an unrelated thread into a thread about your own fetish topic of immigration by the muslims or whoever will get the lot of you banned on sight. Use your brain and take it to a different thread. On topic or no topic.

MT

cdebru wrote:

it s the logical extension of MTs argument

As I have explained above, it’s not.

cdebru wrote:

boiled down MTs arguement is that only a mono ethnic mono cultural society can be a safe productive one

No it’s not. My view is that the consequences of immigration can vary considerably depending upon the way in which the arrivals settle in the host nation. In this respect, the Ulster plantations had a very different outcome from that resulting from the sort of immigration rich countries experienced during the 20th century. Thus, depending very much on how it’s achieved a multi-ethnic/cultural society can remain as united and be as ‘productive’ – if not more so – as a mono-ethnic one. However, if the undertaking is managed in a very different way with very different aims, it could lead to a situation like that which developed in much of Ulster.

Simply put, the circumstances and subsequent history of the Ulster plantations made a united all-island democracy all but impossible. The current system of immigration should not threaten in any way a united democracy in the Irish Republic.

cdebru wrote:

Society in the 26 counties has moved on from the bitter sectarian divisions because we have freed ourselves from a society where it actually matters wether you are catholic or protestant

And why has this positive development been allowed to happen. I think you’ll find it’s exactly the crux of my post. My contention is that the current rosy scenario would never have been able to materialise had all 32 counties been placed in the one independent state from the outset. Only by quarantining the geographic minority that had long established a parallel identity was liberal democracy given the peace and freedom from incessant war and ethnic strife in the 26 county state to flourish and mature. The welcome state of affairs you highlight above arrived because of partition and not in spite of it IMO.

cdebru wrote:

what exactly unionists would have been fighting for MT never explains to be readmitted to the UK which had already turned its back on them

They would have fought a war for separation – it’s as simple and as devastating as that. They may well have been misguided or wrong headed in your or many other’s view but they would have fought for separation no less. Whether, it was for reunification with Britain, their own independent state, even if it was doomed for failure, the damage resulting from such a conflict – in terms of the economy, societal cohesion or even the viability of a united state – would not have been diminished in its effect. Regardless of the logic, the developments in separate communal identity that had occurred in previous centuries and had heightened with the close of the 19th guaranteed a war. Hence, the gathering of arms, militarisation and the covenant that all unfolded in the north as their fear of all-island home rule grew.

Remember, wars have been fought over much less. And there are few greater incentives than a threat to nationality. No matter how wrongheaded we might have viewed their instincts, they saw themselves as a nation apart – or more specifically not wishing to join the new and emerging independent nation to the south. Just look at how a similar sentiment has seen wars rage on for years in the Balkans, Sri Lanka, Lebanon, Indonesia, Democratic Republic of Congo and countless other parts of Africa. Just because the minority in each instance may appear to be fighting a futile campaign in the eyes of others, it doesn’t make the conflict any less devastating in its effects on the nation in turmoil, or indeed on the majority in the opposing camp.

cdebru wrote:

why sectarian divisions remained in the six counties was because it mattered in respect of privilege but also in respect of the future of the statelets very existence
unionists have been looking over their shoulder at nationalists since the foundation of northern Ireland fully aware that force of numbers might someday bring about an end to the existence of their protestant state
there was no benefit to them to make catholics/nationalists feel welcome or equal they did not want them to stay around

I haven’t posted anything in disagreement to this. The first line of my post acknowledged the failure of the North.

But your explanation of the North’s failure again only adds weight to my contention that partition was necessary for the rest of Ireland. Nationalist Ireland had no considerable minority to look over its shoulder at – a minority that, as in the north, considered itself separate and would have never relinquished its desire for a very different constitutional outcome. This minority – Ulster Protestants – would have been as threatening to the majority, if not in all likely hood more so, than the minority in the North’s gerrymandered statelet. Though they lacked numbers, they had wealth – with Ulster Prods thrown in the religious minority would have accounted for the lion’s share of the new nation’s wealth. Combine this with a near monopoly on established industry and you would have had a recipe for suspicion and most likely downright hostility. The Catholic minority in the North was too poor in the opening decades to challenge the status quo, the minority in an all island state would have had every advantage with regard to financial resources.

As in the North, a cohesive civil society, stability or liberal democracy would never have withstood this mutual fear and loathing. There would have been a considerably more powerful minority. One, I believe, that would have been impossible to have kept in the state without all out civil war. The outcome of which would have been a nation torn asunder – partition in a much bloodier way – or the collapse of democracy. Indeed, even in the event of a partition following civil war society in the South may well have been so traumatised that democracy could have failed anyway – the worst of both worlds. Had the South won such a protracted and painful conflict there’s little doubt how the north would have been dealt with. Put it this way, civil rights and equality would not have been on the agenda. The resulting sectarianism between bloodied and hate-filled protagonists would have insured an eternity of sectarian mistrust and discrimination. A discrimination all the more pertinent to ensure Northern Prods would lose their threatening financial advantage and never again amass the funds that might allow another separatist war.

It was only by excluding this wealthy, industrialised alien group – crucially identifying with its own region to the exclusion of a common national bond – that peace and democracy could survive and flourish in the Irish Republic.

cdebru wrote:

Only with the end of the 6 county state can the sectarian divisions be put behind us when privilege or the existance of the state no longer count on how many catholics or protestants there are will it be as unimportant as it is in the 26 counties

I couldn’t disagree more. The hatred and fear will continue in the North but this time there’ll be no bulwark to halt the spread of such poisonous sentiments spreading south. Once violence breaks out and bombs explode in Dublin liberal democracy will be replaced with the balkanised voting patterns found throughout NI. You can forget about socio-economic issues when the threatened majority in constant fear of a northern breakaway – not to mention the northern Protestant minority – feels it can only hold the state together by voting in one staid, unchanging ethnic block at election after, after election, after election… It’d be a rerun of the dire history of NI all over again – except this time the entire island would be dragged into the sectarian miasma.

Mr.Nice Guy

mycroft wrote:

New around here are we? pre world war one tens of thousands of men on both sides of the border, were willing to take up arms to remain in the union or for home rule. Massive private arms existed. The level of popular support was unmatched. The situation was radically different in that Partition was a key issue in Irish politics then and now, I don't think the general public still feel that to the same degree that they did then. What with the not having citizen miltias n all.

Thanks for the history lesson but it was unnecessary. I'm well aware of the situation back then but the reason these militias came into being was at the prospect of Home Rule being on the cards with a Liberal Government in power. It is very likely that if it becomes apparent a majority in the North would favour reunification that similar militias on the loyalist side would come to the fore. Surely you accept this?

mycroft wrote:

I don't have the decency?
:rolleyes:

Look It's a stupid bloody question. Period.

No it's a very relevant question and one in which you refuse to answer. Why are you so hostile? What's wrong with giving your views on a very likely situation involving unionists who refuse to accept Irish unity under democratic circumstances?

mycroft wrote:

I cited two hypothetical parameters which might affect the existance of this state, to point out how ludicrous your suggestion was. Don't try and twist this to make me seem like a hyprocrit, I'm merely pointing out the diverse set of variables that would make this seem highly unlikely. This ludricously vague notion of yours.

You are behaving like a hypocrite. You refuse to answer my hypothetical situation which might affect the existence of the state yet you see no problem in offering your own "hypothetical parameter" which might affect the existence of the state. Why won't you give me an answer man? It's a perfectly reasonable hypothetical situation!

mycroft wrote:

You may as well ask me, how the rise of atlantis will effect fishery borders in the EU. Or the return of Avalon will effect the privatisation structure of british rail.

Now you're just acting childish. My situation doesn't involve far away magical lands or kingdoms, it involves the island of Ireland and involves groups who have taken up arms before against democracy.

mycroft wrote:

You haven't explained the population of this mythical state? Does your proposed population take into consideration falling rural population density. Is it independentally financially sustainable? Or economically? Or will it have enough natural resources? Will it need to import food? Will it remain part of the union? Or a seperate state? Will it have an agressive foreign policy towards to the rest of NI? Will it be mild mannered orange men, or rabid combat 18/UVF style thugs? WIll it be able to meet it's own electrical power needs? How large will it be?

I'm not advocating a two county NI, that's why I didn't go into such detail. The point of my hypothetical situation was to see what your views were on the unionists once again opposing democracy through violence. Any chance I could get an answer?

mycroft wrote:

I'm not going to answer inane question posed to me, unrelated to the topic of this thread, and then have someone say "have the decency to answer" when the question is purile nonsense. Approach this with a more mature attitude, and don't start whinging when people don't want to play the game using your simplisitic rules.

If anyone here is whinging, it is you. I just want to know why you won't answer a perfectly reasonable hypothetical situation on a potential future event which takes into account issues that existed 80 years ago

cdebru

mycroft wrote:

Through. clenched. teeth.

He's not asking I am this magical unionist land if it wasn't sustainable they're be little point in it's existance, and eventually the population would be forced to recognise this. I'm asking about what level of violence? How large is this state? Whats it's politics? What would force this drastitic situation in being?

You guys love to argue in the abstract because it allows you to debate the issue outside the reality of the situation. This is the politics forum and I see little reason debating something this inane. You may as well ask me to consider the implications of Hawaii attacking us.

Theres the principle and the reality. While in principle many of us recognise that the state of Israeli may have the right of existance, it's the reality of that existance that causes the issues. Gibbering on about some Antrim, Down version of lichenstein isn't discussing politics.

And cdebru again I raised a number of issues with a post of yours a while back in this thread, quit hassling me to answer niceguys nonsense, and address some of the issues I raised.


edit.... finallly

is it too hard to answer because the implications of your answer are blindingly obvious
if you accept it it flies it the face of democracy and the GFA and what you allegedly believe in
if you reject it then why not have rejected it 80 years ago


but given that you want to know how much violence how big the state might be etc i take it you would be quite prepared to let unionists use the threat of force to avoid the rule of law and democracy

mycroft wrote:

And the only adequate response is "yeah right" No way never going to have happened. There is no chance in hell the british govt and people would have been willing to cut off NI. Never would have happened. The naivety displayed here is impressive. m

despite the fact that opinion polls show the majority of people in the uk would be quite happy to rid themselves of the 6 counties
and that a former prime minister looked into those options in the 70s





your continued attempts to provoke a response by your condescending atitude and insults says more about yourself and your inability to argue your position rationally

mycroft

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

Thanks for the history lesson but it was unnecessary. I'm well aware of the situation back then but the reason these militias came into being was at the prospect of Home Rule being on the cards with a Liberal Government in power. It is very likely that if it becomes apparent a majority in the North would favour reunification that similar militias on the loyalist side would come to the fore. Surely you accept this?

:rolleyes:

You were the one saying the situation hadn't changed.

Now how is it very likely that the loyalists would reform militias? Wheres your evidence? How do you think it will just as likely in 80 years? Just saying they'll form militia's because they did 80 years ago, doesn't mean they will in the future. What evidence do you have to back this assertion?

No it's a very relevant question and one in which you refuse to answer. Why are you so hostile? What's wrong with giving your views on a very likely situation involving unionists who refuse to accept Irish unity under democratic circumstances?

As pointed the hypothetical is just too vague. How is it very likely? Wheres your proof?

You are behaving like a hypocrite. You refuse to answer my hypothetical situation which might affect the existence of the state yet you see no problem in offering your own "hypothetical parameter" which might affect the existence of the state. Why won't you give me an answer man? It's a perfectly reasonable hypothetical situation!

No it's an idiotic and inane one. I've presented some of the most fundamental and basic issues a state such as the one you propose, would face. You said it is a potential very likely occurance If it's so likely such issues would have already been discussed and options considered. If it's such a plausible outcome, then these issues should be considered, which you're not because your proposal is childlike in it's simplicity.

Why won't you give me answer man? :rolleyes:

You want to talk about the final hurdles toward renunification come with a well thought out and reasoned discussion point. Don't present some futuristic NI "The man in the high castle" concept.

Now you're just acting childish. My situation doesn't involve far away magical lands or kingdoms, it involves the island of Ireland and involves groups who have taken up arms before against democracy.

Childish I'm not someone who had a hissy fit when I declined to debate this issue at your level. I was drawing an analogy, your supposed spurious state is about as plausible as the two ideas I mentioned above.

I'm not advocating a two county NI, that's why I didn't go into such detail. The point of my hypothetical situation was to see what your views were on the unionists once again opposing democracy through violence. Any chance I could get an answer?

Gibber. Must adhere to the charter. Unionists and Republicans are already and currently objecting to democracy through violence, you've created this magical analogy of a surprious state and asked me my opinion on it, and I've gone "it's a idiotic analogy because of the following factors" and you got in a huff.

If anyone here is whinging, it is you. I just want to know why you won't answer a perfectly reasonable hypothetical situation on a potential future event which takes into account issues that existed 80 years ago

Because it's not a perfectly reasonable hypothetical which takes into account issues that existsted 80 years ago but doesn't take into account future issues doesn't consider the ramifications of the peace process or the increased roll the EU is playing in it's member countries, and doesn't even begin to consider some very plausible and real hurdles that stand between this hypothetical and y'know reality.

cdebru wrote:

for the 100 th time I dont support SF I am a republican sometimes i agree with them others I don't

Translation I get to wear my alleigance to SF like a flag of convenience ensuring I can avoid some of the more difficult questions and morality issues that come with supporting them, by claiming you don't support them on this.

Just out of curiousity, what sort of republican are you, if not SF, IRSP? 26 county continuity council? Fianna Fail?

is it too hard to answer because the implications of your answer are blindingly obvious
if you accept it it flies it the face of democracy and the GFA and what you allegedly believe in
if you reject it then why not have rejected it 80 years ago

Really trying to put words into my mouth cdebru.
:rolleyes:

I'm not answering because the question is too vague, the way the republican side on the board like it because it leads to moral ambiguity. Now you want to go ahead and call me a liar, or retract the above.

but given that you want to know how much violence how big the state might be etc i take it you would be quite prepared to let unionists use the threat of force to avoid the rule of law and democracy

No I'm trying to get to grips to what ever vague nefarious concept niceguy is presenting to us. He's brought in the "threat of violence" I just wanted him to clarify what he was rambling on about.

despite the fact that opinion polls show the majority of people in the uk would be quite happy to rid themselves of the 6 counties

Care to link to those polls? For starts we're talking about when the treaty was signed, no way no how, would the british public have deserted NI.

Also FYI the british prime minister was Howard Wilson, and the decision was the last ditch get the hell out of NI during the UWC strike. This was during some of the worst crisis to hit britain in peace time, and the plan was considered as a last resort. It was rejected because it would be unpopular, and was only considered during the unionist led UWC strike and when Suez was heating up.

MT

cdebru wrote:

see what it ignores is that the root cause of the problem in the North is british imperialism

The original cause, yes. The North is a failed and divided society today regardless of any outside influence. The ethnic hatred and the desire on the part of Northern Protestants to maintain an identity and existence apart from the rest of the island and its people does not depend – though it may once have – on Britain’s involvement in Northern Ireland. That sentiment will not die with the arrival of a united Ireland and therein lies the threat to democracy in the Irish Republic.

cdebru wrote:

why the fighting has continued for over 80 years is the nature of the british propped sectarian state that offered privilege to one section and denied basic human rights to another there is no reason why protestants and catholics cannot live together in harmony as they do in the south and all over the world

That is far too simple a reductive explanation for the problems that exist in the North. Firstly, remove the sectarian state and you still have a large group of Protestants in the North that desire a separate homeland. You’d still have both tribes sectarian hatred for each other – an animus that has lasted centuries and is unlikely to diminish while both sides are forced to compete in a single jurisdiction, whatever its name. The potential for ‘fighting’ will not disappear.

As for the violence emanating from the IRA, it was never concerned primarily with ‘basic human rights’. Their’s was a campaign for constitutional change. In the broader scheme of things, the tension and ensuing violence was part of a vicious cycle that had resulted in fear, which resulted in ethnic one-upmanship, resulting in grievance, resulting in tit for tat violence. Such ethnic sparring has persisted in the North for centuries – long before NI came into existence. Then, throw in national identity and constitutional uncertainty and you have a recipe for internecine feuding bordering on civil war.

As for the inability of protestants and catholics to live together in harmony, this will always persist while both sides differ over their ethnic and national identity. Crucially, while these identities are tied to a shared region then both will forever be forced to compete for a constitutional settlement to the advantage of one side at the expense of the other.

cdebru wrote:

once the reason for the conflict has been removed ie british imperialism

I couldn’t disagree more. What you propose would result in Northern Protestants having to accept a united Ireland and the loss of their separate identity. They do not want to be a part of the Irish nation. This is just as unfair as the prevailing situation. It could only work if they underwent a road to Damascus conversion in terms of self-identity. Given that Northern Nationalists have continued to hold on to their separate identity, not to mention Southerners before them, this would seem extremely unlikely. Indeed, you could propound a similar argument from the opposite view point. If the people of the Irish Republic relinquished any desire to extend sovereignty over the North while its Catholic population adopted a new British identity the problem would also be solved. But is that likely? Equally, it’s just as intolerable as the current situation where Northern Nationalists live at best in a sort of identity limbo and at worst are forced to accept the reality of life as nationals of a state they want no part of. Why force this upon the other side?

I’m afraid your comments above sound eerily like the much disparaged Marxist false-conciousness theories put foward by Republican academics in the 1970s. According to these, the nationalist identity was seeminly genuine whereas the unionist identity was apparently a mere figment of their imagination cleverly placed there by British propaganda/influence/imperialism, etc. No doubt they'd have offered Unionists tinfoil hats had the opportunity arisen - keep out the electromagnetic brainwaves of the imperial manipulator and all that.

The only long term solution in my view – and I won’t go into this in detail as it’s OT – is repartition and voluntary resettlement. Northern Nationalists get the identity and state they desire and likewise for Northern Protestants/Unionists. This way, neither side is forced to deny their preferred ethnicity or live in a state they do not identify with.

A Dub in Glasgo

mycroft wrote:

Care to link to those polls? For starts we're talking about when the treaty was signed, no way no how, would the british public have deserted NI.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Northern_Ireland/Story/0,2763,540092,00.html

You would be surprised at how the British people view the big black hole that is NI and how their taxes are being sunk in that black hole to prop up an artifical state.

Mr.Nice Guy

mycroft wrote:

:rolleyes:

You were the one saying the situation hadn't changed.

Now how is it very likely that the loyalists would reform militias? Wheres your evidence? How do you think it will just as likely in 80 years? Just saying they'll form militia's because they did 80 years ago, doesn't mean they will in the future. What evidence do you have to back this assertion?

Because not all unionists support the GFA which allows for Irish unity if the north and south votes for it. Rejectionist Unionism like that espoused by Paisley has seen the formation of Ulster Resistance and it is very likely that Unionists would form similar groups to oppose the reunification of Ireland.

mycroft wrote:

As pointed the hypothetical is just too vague. How is it very likely? Wheres your proof?

It was a hypothetical question to gauge your views on the prospect of some Unionists opposing Irish unity by threat of force!

mycroft wrote:

No it's an idiotic and inane one. I've presented some of the most fundamental and basic issues a state such as the one you propose, would face. You said it is a potential very likely occurance If it's so likely such issues would have already been discussed and options considered. If it's such a plausible outcome, then these issues should be considered, which you're not because your proposal is childlike in it's simplicity.

Why won't you give me answer man? :rolleyes:

I really don't understand why you find it so difficult to grasp that I'm presenting you with a hypothetical situation and that the point of it is not to discuss the likelihood of a two county NI, but the likelihood of opposition through force. Can you not offer me an answer? It's beyond ridiculous at this point.

mycroft wrote:

You want to talk about the final hurdles toward renunification come with a well thought out and reasoned discussion point. Don't present some futuristic NI "The man in the high castle" concept.

The point of my hypothetical situation was not about the final hurdles towards reunification but rather to assess whether you would find it acceptable for a minority in the North to dictate to the majority.

mycroft wrote:

Childish I'm not someone who had a hissy fit when I declined to debate this issue at your level. I was drawing an analogy, your supposed spurious state is about as plausible as the two ideas I mentioned above.

Please show me how I had a "hissy fit". I think I've remained pretty calm considering you constantly duck my questions and give me sarcastic smilies to deal with.

mycroft wrote:

Gibber. Must adhere to the charter. Unionists and Republicans are already and currently objecting to democracy through violence, you've created this magical analogy of a surprious state and asked me my opinion on it, and I've gone "it's a idiotic analogy because of the following factors" and you got in a huff.

SOME Unionists and Republicans are objecting to democracy through violence but it is not on a scale of the threat posed 80 years ago. If I've gotten into a "huff" it's because you've ignored the point of my analogy and have decided to do your best to discredit it as a way of avoiding giving me an answer. Sadly for you, I don't think my analogy can be discredited.

mycroft wrote:

Because it's not a perfectly reasonable hypothetical which takes into account issues that existsted 80 years ago but doesn't take into account future issues doesn't consider the ramifications of the peace process or the increased roll the EU is playing in it's member countries, and doesn't even begin to consider some very plausible and real hurdles that stand between this hypothetical and y'know reality.

You'll appreciate the above paragraph is hard to answer as I'm not sure what you're tryng to say here. My hypothetical is set in the future and is very relevant to the ramifications of the peace process. What does the EU have to do with anything? You neglect to elaborate on this. The fact is the only "plausible and real hurdle" is the fact that a vote for unity in the North seems unlikely for the forseeable future but if it did happen, my hypothetical remains very relevant.

I am going to retire for the evening now but I hope that I will eventually get an answer from you regarding your thoughts on two Unionist counties, such as Down and Antrim, opposing reunification despite the north and south voting for it. Please have the courtesy to answer so I can assess whether you would feel it acceptable to respect the wishes of the two counties or to ignore them in favour of the majority north and south. Thank you.

mycroft

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

mycroft wrote:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Northern_Ireland/Story/0,2763,540092,00.html

You would be surprised at how the British people view the big black hole that is NI and how their taxes are being sunk in that black hole to prop up an artifical state.

cdebru wrote:

despite the fact that opinion polls show the majority of people in the uk would be quite happy to rid themselves of the 6 counties

Dub when did;

26% say it should continue as part of the Uk

41% say it should be part of a united ireland.

I'd say that that poll is more an inditment of my opinion that most of us in UK and Ireland would just like to saw it off and ditch it somewhere near greenland :rolleyes:

cdebru

mycroft wrote:

:rolleyes:

.



Translation I get to wear my alleigance to SF like a flag of convenience ensuring I can avoid some of the more difficult questions and morality issues that come with supporting them, by claiming you don't support them on this.

Just out of curiousity, what sort of republican are you, if not SF, IRSP? 26 county continuity council? Fianna Fail?.

an independent minded republican with no allegiance to any political party

i dont trust sinn fein no more than i dont trust FF

mycroft wrote:

Really trying to put words into my mouth cdebru.
:rolleyes:

I'm not answering because the question is too vague, the way the republican side on the board like it because it leads to moral ambiguity. Now you want to go ahead and call me a liar, or retract the above.



No I'm trying to get to grips to what ever vague nefarious concept niceguy is presenting to us. He's brought in the "threat of violence" I just wanted him to clarify what he was rambling on about.



Care to link to those polls? For starts we're talking about when the treaty was signed, no way no how, would the british public have deserted NI.

.

your not answering because you cant

and DIG has linked a poll for you blows the **** out of your arguement about the brits could not abandon the north

A Dub in Glasgo

mycroft wrote:

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Dub when did;

26% say it should continue as part of the Uk

41% say it should be part of a united ireland.

I'd say that that poll is more an inditment of my opinion that most of us in UK and Ireland would just like to saw it off and ditch it somewhere near greenland :rolleyes:

Well if you do what all pollsters do with respect ot the undecided votes, the United Ireland option is the majority.

Even if you do not 'adjust' the figures and decide to take the undecided as 'ditching it off Greenland', it is obvious that the majority in that poll 'would be quite happy to rid themselves of the 6 counties' which is exactly what cdebru said and you even agree with it!!

MT

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

You would be surprised at how the British people view the big black hole that is NI and how their taxes are being sunk in that black hole to prop up an artifical state.

You might be surprised at how surveys by the ESRI show a steady decline in support in the Republic for unity. Indeed, I believe only a slight majority of 54% were in favour at the last count. It seems likely that if these trends continue no one will want the North very soon.

Out of curiousity could you define what constitutes an 'artificial state'?