North & South

axtradub12

Will the people of Ireland be ever United?

rsynnott

The best solution is obviously for the Republic and the UK to simply agree to drop their respective claims to the place, provide bilateral peacekeeping and election monitoring for a year or so, and then leave. The terrorists can hardly blow people up in London and Dublin to be let into either country...

snorlax

i'd say it would more likely to become a seperate state with ties to both countries then a united ireland, as you have to take both sides into account for peace to work.

mike65

Lock this thread and lock it now!

Save us all the trouble before it kicks off.

Mike.

uberwolf

axtradub12 wrote:

Will the people of Ireland be ever United?

I'm gonna close this thread unless you produce some thoughts of your own topic.

Villain

Depends on what the people who live up North want, but even that has issues, e.g. say in 5 years all the electorate are asked to vote on whether they want a United Ireland or want Northern Ireland to remain part of the UK and lets say it goes 55% to 45% for a United Ireland. That leaves you with a seriously pi**ed off 45% that could leave to more troubles than before and same goes if the result swings the other way.

Don't get me wrong I hope that within my lifetime I will be able to stand in Belfast and still be in the Republic of Ireland, I just can't see it going smoothly.

county

i think civil war would break out if there was a united ireland,i cant see 1 million unionists sitting back and welcoming this with open arms

Esel

axtradub12 wrote:

Will the people of Ireland be ever United?

Please it lock now.

county

what ever happened good old debate!!!

uberwolf

county wrote:

what ever happened good old debate!!!

you're new here. so innocent. Have a search through the annals of this forum and you'll what happened to good old debate where this topic is involved. Which is why we prefer to keep it to new developments or a well considered opening post to provide a good starting point for reasoned discussion.

netwhizkid

Will we ever be united ? We will but i am pessimestic about the timing, I would love to see it happen and i know it will eventually happen. If the IRA does lay down all arms it will be pointless, (i know i will get stick for this) Even if the IRA disarmed fully and stopped all criminality and repented for everything, Do you think that Paisley and his bigots would accept ? They would protest over the wearing of green by Nationalists in the North. It would be a major blunder if the IRA did disarm (i would like them to but the logic is against this) it would throw the ball in Paisleys court but no doubt he'd knife that ball as soon as he got it. My point is peace will never be achieved when the likes of paisley are around. Just wait another week and the Intimidation of Nationalists and Catholics in general will start again as these bigots don their orange ropes on July 12th. I have no problem with them celebrating this but the way they do it is beyond comprehension. We celebrate St. Patricks Day, yet we don't act the magoot like these bigots.

Yet and as the original topic was will we ever be united ? A lot of Nationalists and Catholics up north would vote to keep things the way it is. some of them i swear are the most two faced sorts. They are all "oh we hate the brits", "yet we love the money thethrow us every year". IF their is to be a breakthrough toward a settlement it will have to happen under blair if the tories gets in power, they'll stop at nothing to keep the north.

Well i hope i have added something to this debate, my views are my views. And what i want like all others on this little island is peace and eventual unity.

Regards netwhizkid

MrPudding

Not if the people in the North have any sense.

Things are currently reasonably OK. Standards of living are OK and services aren't bad. Not the best government in the world but certainly far from the worst.

Or you could be ruled by a government that can't build a swimming pool, takes 15+ years to build a 40km road.

Add to this:

• You will have to pay for your children to see a doctor, dentist, visit A&E or get drugs.
• You will have to pay for yourself to see the doctor or go to A&E.
• Pay more for cars.
• Pay more for booze.
• Pay more for groceries.
• Just generally pay more.
• Have to come up with an extra 6% deposit for your first house.
• Have to pay stamp duty for you first house & higher rates for subsequent house purchases.

I am sure there is more. Things like having to watch a government that seems to be run by unions making decision that seems to be mental.

MrP

netwhizkid

Um, i was trying to make this point but forget it with pointing out how much evil Mr. Paisley is. Why would they or anyone want to be part of this Society ? Everything here is done wrong and would you want Bertie Ahern as your leader ? The man stinks of Coruption emanating through his Party colours.

Regards netwhizkid

skye

Totally have to agree with MrPudding - as a northerner now living in the south I have seen both sides of the fence - IMO there will never be a united Ireland - my heart would love to see it but my head knows that it would be an economic disaster for the people. As for netwhizkids comment saying that we are two-faced people, I have to disagree. Why would you bite off the hand that feeds you? It's very easy for people to make such comments when they are sitting in the "free state" and know nothing about the reality of life in Northern Ireland.

Since moving down here I have had my eyes opened as to how southerners really feel about us...and most of it has not been pretty - I have recieved more verbal abuse in the south than I ever did as a catholic in Northern Ireland - I realise not everyone is like this but we are seen as foreigners who have no right to be down here and should " go home " - but we are home. Yes on paper we may be called British but remember who it was that sold us out to the British.....

netwhizkid

Originally Posted by skye
Yes on paper we may be called British but remember who it was that sold us out to the British.....

Yes indeed, de valera the old fart, He sent Collins to Britain knowing that he'd comeback with the 26 counties. De Valera wanted to keep fighting with sticks and stones. We'd all be Britsh today only for Mick Collins. As for De valera he was a traitor and so are Fianna Fail. nuff said

Regards netwhizkid

Flex

I think ireland will be united, although i doubt ill live to see it. I think that after the Catholic population overtakes the protestant population the "Protestant state for Protestant people" will be no more, then protestants will be able to see that living in a "state" where there is a majority of Catholics wont result in death and destruction and the apocalypse for them. There are enough provisions in place at the moment to allow protestants to remain British regardless of the territorial status of the north.

Flex

skye wrote:

Totally have to agree with MrPudding - as a northerner now living in the south I have seen both sides of the fence - IMO there will never be a united Ireland - my heart would love to see it but my head knows that it would be an economic disaster for the people. As for netwhizkids comment saying that we are two-faced people, I have to disagree. Why would you bite off the hand that feeds you? It's very easy for people to make such comments when they are sitting in the "free state" and know nothing about the reality of life in Northern Ireland.

Since moving down here I have had my eyes opened as to how southerners really feel about us...and most of it has not been pretty - I have recieved more verbal abuse in the south than I ever did as a catholic in Northern Ireland - I realise not everyone is like this but we are seen as foreigners who have no right to be down here and should " go home " - but we are home. Yes on paper we may be called British but remember who it was that sold us out to the British.....

Its unfortunate that youve experienced that kind of treatment Skye, in any part of your country. Iv seen this attitude alot too. Seems to be the new way of thinking ; 'theres Britons there who dont want to be part of Ireland so we've no right to it', yet when i pose the argument ; 'theres Irish in Britain who dont want to be a part of Britain' (which is pretty much the exact same argument) its dismissed . Just remember that not all southerners feel that way bout yas, I regard northerners as being as Irish as me or any other Irishman

MrPudding

Flex wrote:

I think that after the Catholic population overtakes the protestant population......

You are assuming, incorrectly, that all catholics will vote for a United Ireland. Seriously why would they, it is well cushy up there. Don't get me wrong, I love the *idea* of a united Ireland, like a lot of Northern catholics, but I wouldn't actually want one. Talk about a drop in standards of living.

MrP

Flex

I dont expect a UI will come immediately after the Catholics overtake the Protestants, even when it is endorsed by the majority i expect therell be a transitio period of some sort, but what i meant was after living as a minority in a catholic "state", the 'Protestant state' will be finished and they might realise that living in a country with a catholic majority wont result in doom and gloom for protestants or british people.

MrPudding

Compared to what there currently is there will be doom and gloom for both sides.

MrP

MT

I doubt very much that there will be a united Ireland. The Catholic birth rate has slowed to such an extent that it is unlikely that a Catholic majority will materialise. Instead, there may just be a 50/50 society. Then when you look at past surveys a substantially greater number – usually around 25-30% - of Catholics prefer the status quo than a much smaller share of protestants that desire a united Ireland. With that long term trend remaining unchanged a 50/50 society in the North or even one with a slight Catholic majority will not deliver a yes vote in a border poll.

Flex wrote:

Its unfortunate that youve experienced that kind of treatment Skye, in any part of your country. Iv seen this attitude alot too. Seems to be the new way of thinking

While I certainly don’t condone the mistreatment of Skye, I think this change of attitude amongst people in the Republic is very welcome news. So too, indeed, is the outlook I’ve outlined above. Keeping the North’s failed society at bay is essential in maintaining a functioning democracy in the Irish Republic. There would be disastrous consequences for this island’s only real democracy if it was contaminated with the poisonous tribal psychosis that passes for politics in the societal basket case that is Northern Ireland. Sectarianism must be quarantined from the rest of the island. Neither the raving biblical theocrats in the likes of the DUP or the unwittingly anti-Irish delusions of paranoid Republicans with xenophobic inferiority complexes must be allowed to pollute Ireland’s only haven of harmonious democracy.

However, few in the ‘Free State’ – as Northern Republicans like to spit – will have to worry about the deluded tribesmen and their ethnic entrepreneurs up North ever voting to join and destroy their democracy. As each sectarian grouping inhabits a deranged victim/saint complex they’ll never vote to give up the public sector gravy train that is the ‘70% state-funded’ NI economy. So convinced is each grouping that they have been or will be victimised at some point they’ve absolved themselves of all responsibility. Like the narcissist that sees no fault in himself, choosing to blame all others for his woes, these perpetual victims condemn all others for perceived slights and past wrongs, viewing their own history through rose tinted glasses.

Unionists rail against the Republic’s involvement in ‘their’ state’s affairs, British betrayal and whinge about a future of oppression in an all Ireland state. Have they ever done anything that might have warranted such ‘treatment’? Not according to them because don’t you know, 'they’re the real victims in all of this'. And in typical victim mode they believe they can live off the British taxpayer for the rest of their lives because bad old Blighty had attempted to sell them out and is ‘to blame for everything.’

Republicans rage about British oppression and condemn the ‘treachery’ of the ‘Free State bastards’ down south. I mean, how dare those uppity Southerners refuse to pay Marty and Gerry a salary in the 32 county paradise. And have Republicans ever done anything to contribute to the North’s failure. Of course not, their campaign of bloodshed and violence was only in the interests of peace and harmony. Didn’t you realise, 'they’re the real victims in all of this'. And just like the Unionists, in consummate victim mode they believe they can live off the British taxpayer for the rest of their lives because bad old Blighty is ‘to blame for everything’.

Isn’t it ironic that the two things that Republicans and Unionists have in common is their belief that Britain is to blame for everything and that the British owe them the earth in payback. It’s this attitude that will see them railing at the Brits until the crack of doom while refusing to leave the cushy lifestyle of the British welfare state generous subsidies.

The Irish Republic needs this primeval society like a hole in the head.

Then there's the corrosive effect of a desire for an all-island state in the Republic itself. Governance is only harmed with the disconnection engendered amongst a number of citizens by their all-consuming obsession with territorial expansion and the consequent disillusion with the nation as it currently stands. Nation states function best when their populations accept and support their borders as they are. Dreaming of an idealised future state, considerably removed from its present form, does nothing to focus minds on the very real problems of the country in this day and age. But that’s being discussed in another thread…

In short, I say long may partition continue and long may support for an all-island state wither. The fantasists can dream about governing a ethno-religiously torn 32 county Republic in some distant time: let the realists govern the Irish Republic today.

axer

MT wrote:

While I certainly don’t condone the mistreatment of Skye, I think this change of attitude amongst people in the Republic is very welcome news. So too, indeed, is the outlook I’ve outlined above. Keeping the North’s failed society at bay is essential in maintaining a functioning democracy in the Irish Republic. There would be disastrous consequences for this island’s only real democracy if it was contaminated with the poisonous tribal psychosis that passes for politics in the societal basket case that is Northern Ireland. Sectarianism must be quarantined from the rest of the island. Neither the raving biblical theocrats in the likes of the DUP or the unwittingly anti-Irish delusions of paranoid Republicans with xenophobic inferiority complexes must be allowed to pollute Ireland’s only haven of harmonious democracy.

Thats what happens when people are left in limbo to be ruled (badly) by a distant government. I don't think that the attitude is changing - just look at the increase in support for Sinn Fein in the south. The british government have made nothing but bad decisions on how to deal with Northern Ireland since it was partitioned off from the Republic of Ireland. Fear fuels both sides of the divide. The british government have kept adding this fuel purposefully. The Republic of Ireland are to blame for not intervening publically and forcefully earlier - always letting the british away with what they were doing.

MT wrote:

Republicans rage about British oppression and condemn the ‘treachery’ of the ‘Free State bastards’ down south.

They were abandoned.

MT wrote:

I mean, how dare those uppity Southerners refuse to pay Marty and Gerry a salary in the 32 county paradise.

You mean why should we pay a salary to them instead of the corrupt politicians in the Republic of Ireland that still get paid by the state even in prison.

MT wrote:

And have Republicans ever done anything to contribute to the North’s failure. Of course not, their campaign of bloodshed and violence was only in the interests of peace and harmony. Didn’t you realise, 'they’re the real victims in all of this'. And just like the Unionists, in consummate victim mode they believe they can live off the British taxpayer for the rest of their lives because bad old Blighty is ‘to blame for everything’.

The british never helped the situation.

MT wrote:

Isn’t it ironic that the two things that Republicans and Unionists have in common is their belief that Britain is to blame for everything and that the British owe them the earth in payback. It’s this attitude that will see them railing at the Brits until the crack of doom while refusing to leave the cushy lifestyle of the British welfare state generous subsidies.

Maybe because there is some truth in it.

MT wrote:

The Irish Republic needs this primeval society like a hole in the head.

So lets just ignore it then. Pretend its not happening. Sure its not our problem.

MT wrote:

Then there's the corrosive effect of a desire for an all-island state in the Republic itself. Governance is only harmed with the disconnection engendered amongst a number of citizens by their all-consuming obsession with territorial expansion and the consequent disillusion with the nation as it currently stands. Nation states function best when their populations accept and support their borders as they are. Dreaming of an idealised future state, considerably removed from its present form, does nothing to focus minds on the very real problems of the country in this day and age. But that’s being discussed in another thread…

I guess its a good thing that Connolly & co didn't think the same as you.

rsynnott

axer wrote:

T The Republic of Ireland are to blame for not intervening publically and forcefully earlier - always letting the british away with what they were doing.

You're suggesting going to war with the UK over a territory where the majority of the population wish to remain part of the UK, correct? What a good idea.

axer

rsynnott wrote:

You're suggesting going to war with the UK over a territory where the majority of the population wish to remain part of the UK, correct? What a good idea.

read my post again please. I'm saying that the Republic should have intervened in the North with either strong demands to be met and if that didnt work sending in troops. They could not send in troops now though.

rsynnott

axer wrote:

read my post again please

Hmm, what does forcibly mean, then? More blowing up children?

axer

edited above post to expand on what I mean. I'm talking about in the 60's or 70's

rsynnott

axer wrote:

edited above post to expand on what I mean. I'm talking about in the 60's or 70's

Ah, right, some people just post a reply. And what do you think would have happened, if we'd invaded a territory of one of the most powerful nations on the planet ,most of whose people didn't want to see us coming?

axer

rsynnott wrote:

Ah, right, some people just post a reply. And what do you think would have happened, if we'd invaded a territory of one of the most powerful nations on the planet ,most of whose people didn't want to see us coming?

Sorry was already editing. I don't think that britain actually wanted or wants the North. It would have been the only way human rights could be monitored or restored for the catholics living there. It would have been a political disaster but would have pushed progress and things might be different today as a result.

Sand

read my post again please. I'm saying that the Republic should have intervened in the North with either strong demands to be met and if that didnt work sending in troops. They could not send in troops now though.

The Republic invade the UK?!?!

Well, it would be one way of ending partition - back under British rule!

rsynnott

axer wrote:

I don't think that britain actually wanted or wants the North. It would have been the only way human rights could be monitored or restored for the catholics living there. It would have been a political disaster but would have pushed progress.

Considering Ireland was a raving manic Catholic church dependancy at the time, it mightn't have been the greatest for the majority population, though... I can't imagine the UK would sit idle while magdalene laundries were foisted on its people.

axer

rsynnott wrote:

Considering Ireland was a raving manic Catholic church dependancy at the time,

All the more reason for it to happen - considering the amount of catholics murdered through british collusion and by the british army. I guess realistically it couldnt happen but they should have threatened to the point of lining the army up at the border.

rsynnott

axer wrote:

All the more reason for it to happen - considering the amount of catholics murdered through british collusion and by the british army.

People in the North (and they were generally not entirely innocent of wrongdoing) wre killed by unionists and the British. That is not a good reason to commit a couple of million people to a horrible church-controlled mess, and the UK would not have stood for it. The answer to a system that is unjust to catholics is NOT to replace it with a system that is unjust to protestants, you know...

axer

rsynnott wrote:

People in the North (and they were generally not entirely innocent of wrongdoing) wre killed by unionists and the British. That is not a good reason to commit a couple of million people to a horrible church-controlled mess, and the UK would not have stood for it. The answer to a system that is unjust to catholics is NOT to replace it with a system that is unjust to protestants, you know...

I don't believe it was an injust system to protestants. It was more injust to catholics as they were the ones sent to those laundries etc. I believe protestants would have been treated fairly had the country not been partitioned.

rsynnott

axer wrote:

I don't believe it was an injust system to protestants. It was more injust to catholics as they were the ones sent to those laundries etc.

The political/religious mess in Ireland at that time was injust to everyone. Especially women, gay people, illegitimate children, non-catholics, people who wanted to have sex without concieving... but everyone, really.

axtradub12

If Britain were to pull out of Northern Ireland,and Ireland as a whole over some rule by the EU.All British bussiness i.e shopping malls ect. Unemployment would reach a new High over night.

axer

It was and still is a very young state. We have developed very quick. Maybe it would have become less of a church controlled state had a large group of another religion been part of it.

rsynnott

axer wrote:

It was and still is a very young state. We have developed very quick. Maybe it would have become less of a church controlled state had a large group of another religion been part of it.

Do you really believe that? We should be thankful that it was only as church controlled as it was; it could have been a lot worse. We've only very recently shaken off some of the last legacies of church domination; in 1993, homosexuality and condoms(!) were legalised. This has gone off topic...

axer

axtradub12 wrote:

If Britain were to pull out of Northern Ireland,and Ireland as a whole over some rule by the EU.All British bussiness i.e shopping malls ect. Unemployment would reach a new High over night.

The longer it takes before it happens the worse it will be when it happens.

rsynnott

axer wrote:

The longer it takes before it happens the worse it will be when it happens.

I see no reason to suppose it will EVER happen. We'll probably all be part of a one-nation Europe before it happens.

axtradub12

I was reading this with interest this evening, take a peep, www.irishunionism.org

I think they beating an old drum

rsynnott

axtradub12 wrote:

I was reading this with interest this evening, take a peep, www.irishunionism.org

I think they beating an old drum

Hmm, they sound just about as sane as you do, tbh.

county

as a english man living in this country and my gf coming from the north i like to say i see both sides of the issue,[she is a nationalist]over the last few years peoples opinons in the south have changed sum what,when i first moved over here every time i opened my mouth i got abuse,but it seams more so the abuse is directed to my gf,you can honestly say the people in the south would accept the northeners in a united ireland,living in the south has totally changed my gf,s views on a united ireland,she would rather remain a part of the uk and would hate to see united ireland,i have my own views on the subject and we do debate sum what but not being welcome in your so called country i think is a little bit sad

Flex

MT wrote:

I doubt very much that there will be a united Ireland. The Catholic birth rate has slowed to such an extent that it is unlikely that a Catholic majority will materialise. Instead, there may just be a 50/50 society. Then when you look at past surveys a substantially greater number – usually around 25-30% - of Catholics prefer the status quo than a much smaller share of protestants that desire a united Ireland. With that long term trend remaining unchanged a 50/50 society in the North or even one with a slight Catholic majority will not deliver a yes vote in a border poll.

Fact is that the Protestant population is generally "older" than the Catholics, along with the fact that in 2004 51.5% of all primary school children were Catholics seems to indicate that the Catholic population is on the verge of overtaking the Protestant population. God knows, perhaps ill see a Ctholic NI in my lifetime? Anyway, when that does happen the "Protestant state for Protestant people" will be gone and Protestants might realise that Catholics holding the majority wont destroy them. And once again if 25-30% of Catholics favoured the Union then Unionists would win 65% or more of the seats, which they dont. The SDLP and SF usually take 42-44% of the share which is consistant with the fact 44%(probably slightly higher now) of NI is Catholic.

And have Republicans ever done anything to contribute to the North’s failure. Of course not, their campaign of bloodshed and violence was only in the interests of peace and harmony. Didn’t you realise, 'they’re the real victims in all of this'.

Didnt nationalists turn to the IRA as a result of being treated like second class pieces of **** and being ignored for decades (for centuries if you want to look at it in its broader context) in their own country, rather than a desire to start a fight.

In short, I say long may partition continue and long may support for an all-island state wither.

In short, I say please God may that not happen, and may the ideals of Irish Republicanism, as born in 1798, live on.

It seems theres two threads dealing with very similar topics at the moment. Anyway, Ill paste this question here too, to hopefully get an answer from the pro-partitionists
Id like to pose a question to all the pro partitionists on this thread. Basically it goes like ;If Ireland can be partitioned because people from Britain are living here who desire a link with Britain, why cant the same be done for the Irish living in Britain? The situations are pretty identical ; Irish have been in Britain for centuries, still feel a strong sense of Irishness and attachment to the Irish State(for example Liverpool consistantly elected Irish nationalist MP's) and so on. Only difference between the Irish in Britain and British in Ireland is the Irish didnt arrive in Britain with soldiers to drive the natives out of the place.As some also love pointing out how Ireland was, in their opinion not a single entity which validates partitioning Ireland ,well, Ireland was just as much a single political entity and had as much structural union as Britain.Thus, if Ireland could be partitioned to allow people from the island of Britain to maintain a "link" with that island, then people from the other island of the UK(as it was) could be afforded a similar right. If you agree with this arguement your consenting partition in Ireland is wrong and shouldnt exist unless a corresponding arrangement is made for the Irish in Britain; if you disagree your being hypocritical.

Sand

God knows, perhaps ill see a Ctholic NI in my lifetime? Anyway, when that does happen the "Protestant state for Protestant people" will be gone and Protestants might realise that Catholics holding the majority wont destroy them. And once again if 25-30% of Catholics favoured the Union then Unionists would win 65% or more of the seats, which they dont. The SDLP and SF usually take 42-44% of the share which is consistant with the fact 44%(probably slightly higher now) of NI is Catholic.

You might see a Catholic majority, but it will still be a unionist NI in all reality.

Currently its difficult for Catholics to vote for openly unionist parties for reasons of sectarian divide - give it 10-20 years of relative peace and that will change. Id imagine most Unionist Catholics vote for whatever party best represents them locally for as long as the "Question" remains far off in the future. When the "Question" comes to the fore in a Catholic majority NI then theyll vote in *their* best interests, whilst we will vote in *our* best interests which will lead to the border remaining.

Didnt nationalists turn to the IRA as a result of being treated like second class pieces of **** and being ignored for decades (for centuries if you want to look at it in its broader context) in their own country, rather than a desire to start a fight.

Arent you just proving MTs point for him?

If you agree with this arguement your consenting partition in Ireland is wrong and shouldnt exist unless a corresponding arrangement is made for the Irish in Britain; if you disagree your being hypocritical.

Oh I agree with both cases, that partition is justifiable in either case - only one small problem with your either or thesis...a majority in the North agree with partition.

Theres no such political critical mass anywhere in the UK.

Other than that of course its entirely the same proposition.

Flex

Sand wrote:

You might see a Catholic majority, but it will still be a unionist NI in all reality.

Currently its difficult for Catholics to vote for openly unionist parties for reasons of sectarian divide - give it 10-20 years of relative peace and that will change. Id imagine most Unionist Catholics vote for whatever party best represents them locally for as long as the "Question" remains far off in the future. When the "Question" comes to the fore in a Catholic majority NI then theyll vote in *their* best interests, whilst we will vote in *our* best interests which will lead to the border remaining.

I said a Catholic NI, not a UI. Anyway, if catholics were really in favor of the union they could simply vote Alliance party. Also while some catholics may be or become unionists, the same could happen with protestants becoming nationalists, after a few years of peace. Just look at how many people in the south are now in favor of maintaining the union between Britain and Ireland for example, attitudes may change. Perhaps a formation of a 'Southern Irishmens Unionist Party' isnt far away.

Arent you just proving MTs point for him?

I dont think so. From MT's point i got the impression that the blame for situation in NI rests equally on the shoulders of republicans and unionists, which it doesnt. While both sides do have to answer for it, Unionists should shoulder more of the responsibility

Oh I agree with both cases, that partition is justifiable in either case - only one small problem with your either or thesis...a majority in the North agree with partition.

Theres no such political critical mass anywhere in the UK.

Other than that of course its entirely the same proposition.

I intended it to be the same proposition, i wanted to use arguments i often hear against the people i hear them from.
What if a political organisation was formed? Would people here support it with the same enthuasiasm they support the British unionists in the north east? Most likely no. The idea would be dismissed and be considered a joke. Partition Britain, absolutely not; partition Ireland, sure no problem would most likely be the attitude. Besides, at the time Ireland was being partitioned to allow for Britons in Ireland to maintain the link to Britain, Liverpool had consistantly elected nationalist MP's, so we should have gotten Liverpool? Anyways, I think its a good argument and could be used to good effect by nationalists. I know plenty of people in Glasgow, London and Liverpool who'd welcome being a part of the Irish nation.

Thanks for the response BTW

rsynnott

Flex wrote:

I said a Catholic NI, not a UI. Anyway, if catholics were really in favor of the union they could simply vote Alliance party. Also while some catholics may be or become unionists, the same could happen with protestants becoming nationalists, after a few years of peace. Just look at how many people in the south are now in favor of maintaining the union between Britain and Ireland for example, attitudes may change. Perhaps a formation of a 'Southern Irishmens Unionist Party' isnt far away.

The only real reason for Irish people to want a united Ireland is emotional; for people in the UK it's a chance to get rid of the place. I doubt you'll see many protestant nationalists (in the north; you might see some in the UK). Independance still seems the best for all concerned...

djmarkus

An independant state is the only way to get peace, but it wont make enough revenue to sustain itself. In years and generations to come all sides of the divide will interbreed and mingle and there will be peace

rsynnott

djmarkus wrote:

An independant state is the only way to get peace, but it wont make enough revenue to sustain itself.

I don't see why not. Possibly not to the standard to which it has become accustomed, but it would still be among the richest countries in the world...

uberwolf

djmarkus wrote:

An independant state is the only way to get peace, but it wont make enough revenue to sustain itself. In years and generations to come all sides of the divide will interbreed and mingle and there will be peace

presumably a massive factor in the requirement for a susbsidy is the political instability stifling inward investment?
Also as an independent state they would prob ride the Euro gravy train...

rsynnott

Assuming they joined; most of the major parties their currently are confirmed euro-skeptics, no?

uberwolf

rsynnott wrote:

Assuming they joined; most of the major parties their currently are confirmed euro-skeptics, no?

in the hypothetical Northern state that is being touted I project that that will no longer be the case.