Partition works - lets keep it that way.

Fuiseog

1) For decades we believed that the root of our economic woes was partition - the past decade has put that to bed.

2) We have now reached a point where almost everyone in the state has been born post-partition - partition is the norm, not the other way around.

3) The North is a very sick society - rampant poisonous sectarianism, gangsterism, racketeering, smuggling, etc. And these are the good times.

4) Subvention - why would we (even if we could afford to) want to support the North like the British Government does today?

5) Divergent economies - The Republic is a private sectory driven economy, the north is public sector driven - (over 60% of the people are employed by the state!!)

6) Why would we want to move in with Ian Paisley?

7) Why would we want to move in with Gerry Adams? Do you really think his interests co-incide with the common interests of the citzens of this state?

8) We have less in common with nationalists in the north than they do with unionists. They have a shared history over the past century, and they have shared a civil war for the 30 odd years. And we've more in common with Londoners than Unionists do.

9) Do we really want the IDA trying to attract jobs to Belfast instead of focusing on our own cities and counties?

10) We owe the north nothing. Look at all the effort made by successive governments in our name to improve their lot without prejudice, and look at the begrudging way those representing both communities have responded, by racist remarks from the DUP and demands to release Garda Jerry McCabe's killers by Sinn Fein.

11) It is clear that the Republic and Britain can have a cordial and productive relationship despite the North.

If and it is a big if, the two communities in the north manage to live like a normal civilised European state/province/whatever, then anything is possible. Until then, lets make it absolutely clear that this state, which our parents and grandparents worked hard to make what it is today, stays the way it is. The only republic is The Republic - Time to make that clear.

bonkey

Fuiseog wrote:

1) For decades we believed that the root of our economic woes was partition

Did we? I don't recall ever believing that, and was definitely not taught it.

2) We have now reached a point where almost everyone in the state has been born post-partition - partition is the norm, not the other way around.

We have several times been at a point where everyone in the state was born British. Was not also "the norm"? If so, should we not have accepted it?

I'd answer the rest of the points, but they mostly boil down to the same thing:

They're not us, so why would we want them.

I find such logic clashes with the title of the thread. It has nothing to do with partition working, no more than saying blacks had different skin colour to whites was an argument to show that apartheid worked.




jc

hill16

This thread has to be a wind up.

hill16

hill16 wrote:

This thread has to be a wind up.

Tell you what , why don't you lead by bonkeys example and actually engage the posters views with your own logic,or is the subject matter too painfull/difficult for you for some reason?

This is a discussion board, not a cut and run one line comment spot.
If you want to do that take it elsewhere-otherwise engage in the threads with your views/opinions/logic etc and try to put up a credible argument for your way of thinking.

Fuiseog

bonkey wrote:

Did we? I don't recall ever believing that, and was definitely not taught it.


We have several times been at a point where everyone in the state was born British. Was not also "the norm"? If so, should we not have accepted it?

I don't think everyone in the state was born British. Why else was it called the UK of GB and Ireland? And thats post-Act of Union. Prior to the act of Union things were so different that they don't have any modern parallels.

As for the 'acceptance'. Everything on its merits. For the majority of the time between 1802 and 1921 that is exactly what happened. At other times, most notably the land war, governance completely failed the people and they stood up. Not for an ideal, but for an injustice.

bonkey wrote:

I'd answer the rest of the points, but they mostly boil down to the same thing:

They're not us, so why would we want them.

Indeed it is true, They are not us - as the majority of Them would tell you.

But that is neither here nor there, and most definitely not an accurate representation of points 3-11, you've taken the lazy way out with that response, as is your right.

bonkey wrote:

I find such logic clashes with the title of the thread. It has nothing to do with partition working, no more than saying blacks had different skin colour to whites was an argument to show that apartheid worked.
jc

I'm not really interested in justifying the thread title versus its content. If there's a dichotomy, fair enough - clarity regarding the title was uppermost on my mind.

As for the (bizarre) apartheid analogy - bit early in the discussion to be resorting to that sort of thing isn't it? Couldn't you have used apples and oranges instead?

donkeyrobot

Fuiseog wrote:

1) For decades we believed that the root of our economic woes was partition - the past decade has put that to bed.

I have never believed this. Maybe you have, but its not a reason to continue partition.

2) We have now reached a point where almost everyone in the state has been born post-partition - partition is the norm, not the other way around.

moot point, plus just because its the case, again it doesnt make partition right. In SOuth Africa blacks were treated like **** for years but that didnt make it right.

3) The North is a very sick society - rampant poisonous sectarianism, gangsterism, racketeering, smuggling, etc. And these are the good times.

I refuse to take your word on that. as would many many people. the north is as safe and as decent as the south. probably safer and mroe decent and less corrupt.

4) Subvention - why would we (even if we could afford to) want to support the North like the British Government does today?

Isnt that a bit shortsighted? WHy bother breathing? Why bother doing anything? Are you suggesting that the southern government just takes off wheere the british government left off? it'll take a lot more thought than that - again, you arent proving a case to keep partition - you're just saying you havent really thought this through deeply enough.

5) Divergent economies - The Republic is a private sectory driven economy, the north is public sector driven - (over 60% of the people are employed by the state!!)

did you ever consider why? theres three times a many people down here, plus the norht is a very very small statelet, yet it still needs a public sector to drive it - which means the percentage will be higher.

6) Why would we want to move in with Ian Paisley?

He'll be dead in a few years. [/quote]

7) Why would we want to move in with Gerry Adams? Do you really think his interests co-incide with the common interests of the citzens of this state?

and what are those common interests? as if the people in the south all agree on what they want :rolleyes: Also, whats wrong with gerry adams? he's worked hard for nationalists in the north in a dangerous job. he deserves the nobel peace prize. Besides, you already have conor cruise obrien and no-one could be worse than him

8) We have less in common with nationalists in the north than they do with unionists. They have a shared history over the past century, and they have shared a civil war for the 30 odd years. And we've more in common with Londoners than Unionists do.

we we we ...... how do you prove what you said there?

9) Do we really want the IDA trying to attract jobs to Belfast instead of focusing on our own cities and counties?

so this is your real point - jealousy and selfishness on the part of the irish republic. be afriad .. them nordies will take our jobs!

10) We owe the north nothing. Look at all the effort made by successive governments in our name to improve their lot without prejudice, and look at the begrudging way those representing both communities have responded, by racist remarks from the DUP and demands to release Garda Jerry McCabe's killers by Sinn Fein.

That verges on sectarianism itself that statement. you want northerners to kiss your feet or something? if the south hadnt given away the six counties in the first place we could have avoided all this. your statement should have said 'boy, we caused all this in the first place'.

11) It is clear that the Republic and Britain can have a cordial and productive relationship despite the North.

If and it is a big if, the two communities in the north manage to live like a normal civilised European state/province/whatever, then anything is possible. Until then, lets make it absolutely clear that this state, which our parents and grandparents worked hard to make what it is today, stays the way it is. The only republic is The Republic - Time to make that clear.

Im sure our collective grandparents and those who died for Ireland would turn in their graves reading your post. basically its better to get on well with britain than promote peace in your own country? thats the jist of what I see you saying.

Flex

1) For decades we believed that the root of our economic woes was partition - the past decade has put that to bed.

I never thought that actually.

2) We have now reached a point where almost everyone in the state has been born post-partition - partition is the norm, not the other way around.

Oh, that means we must accept the status quo. So.... the Easter Rising for example, or the rebellion of the United Irishmen were unjustifiable because Britain had been in Ireland prior to when the people in those rebellions had been born?

3) The North is a very sick society - rampant poisonous sectarianism, gangsterism, racketeering, smuggling, etc. And these are the good times

Yeah, I mean the country we live in now has no crime at all. God forbid, if there was reunification, we could criminals and unsavoury characters all of a sudden. Besides, how do you actually know that? Is it an opinion.

4) Subvention - why would we (even if we could afford to) want to support the North like the British Government does today?

5) Divergent economies - The Republic is a private sectory driven economy, the north is public sector driven - (over 60% of the people are employed by the state!!)

Do you actually think the economic state of the north east will never improve and develop? Foreign investment and British payed improvements and developments of infrastructure and so on shall most likely rejuvinate the area.

6) Why would we want to move in with Ian Paisley?

7) Why would we want to move in with Gerry Adams? Do you really think his interests co-incide with the common interests of the citzens of this state?

They would be elected representatives of people of the nation.

8) We have less in common with nationalists in the north than they do with unionists. They have a shared history over the past century, and they have shared a civil war for the 30 odd years. And we've more in common with Londoners than Unionists do.

How do you know that? I feel iv less in common with people from Connacht or Munster than i do with people from the north.What does it matter what weve got in common with Londoners moreso than unionists anyway?And what have we in common with them that unionists dont? Besides the people of this island have a shared history too, over the past 4 centuries.

9) Do we really want the IDA trying to attract jobs to Belfast instead of focusing on our own cities and counties?

Oh dear, instead of Galway ya mean . I would assume by the time reunification comes about, the north east will be alot better off than it is at the moment. We have to help any part of the nation which needs help developing.

10) We owe the north nothing. Look at all the effort made by successive governments in our name to improve their lot without prejudice, and look at the begrudging way those representing both communities have responded, by racist remarks from the DUP and demands to release Garda Jerry McCabe's killers by Sinn Fein.

How can you say we owe the north nothing? People from the north fought in the War of Independance, does their contribution not count? Theyre Irish like you and me. As far as im concerned it was the duty of the government to do everything it could to improve their lot, since up until recently the constitution stated the north was part of the national territory.

11) It is clear that the Republic and Britain can have a cordial and productive relationship despite the North.

And we will continue to have one after reunification.

Until then, lets make it absolutely clear that this state, which our parents and grandparents worked hard to make what it is today, stays the way it is. The only republic is The Republic - Time to make that clear.

Well, thats your aspiration, but im against partition so i dont agree. My great grandparents and grandparents worked hard to make this state " what it is today" and suffered for doing so, but they were from Tyrone... damn

por

I'm with Fuiseog on this one.
As a life long resident of the Republic Of Ireland I see no reason why Northern Ireland should be united with the Republic.
There is a huge economic downside, not to mention the security problems it will create.
We have developed into a vibrant, wealthy state down here and we will only get better as long as we keep the status quo.
Can some one give me one good reason why there should be a united Ireland (and the romantic bu**sh*t of a ‘nation once again’ is not a good reason in my book).
I have no problem with NI breaking away from the UK and becoming a separate country within the EU but I hope as long as I live the Republic of Ireland will not be poisoned by the sickness that is ‘the North’

hill16

How can anyone say Partition works.Partition made a minority into a majority which led to years of discrimination and miss rule. :mad:

bonkey

Fuiseog wrote:

I don't think everyone in the state was born British.

Let me phrase it another way. Teh entire population of the country, several times over, was born under British rule. Why shouldn't that have become the acceptable norm, if being born into a partitionist reality should do the same.

As for the 'acceptance'. Everything on its merits.

Well, that utterly undermines your argument of "we were born into it", doesn't it

and most definitely not an accurate representation of points 3-11, you've taken the lazy way out with that response, as is your right.

I'm not the one tarring the entire North of Ireland as "Them" (with deliberate use of capitals), nor the one arguing that Partition should be maintained because it is to the advantage of one group of the relevant people (i.e. those living in the Republic) whilst ignoring whether or not it is working for the rest of the people who are relevant to the discussion, nor examining whether or not the problems that you don't want us to suffer are - in fact - caused by partitioning in the first palce and would cease to be an issue were partitioning to be gotten rid of.

If you want me to offer you a less lazy answer, then offer me less lazy reasoning.

As for the (bizarre) apartheid analogy - bit early in the discussion to be resorting to that sort of thing isn't it? Couldn't you have used apples and oranges instead?

No, its not too early, and no I couldn't have used apples and oranges. Also, given how you didn't pull your punches regarding the North (branding the entire society as sick, for example), I didn't feel inclined to do any different when addressing your post. Or do you maintain that your post was not being unfair in its choice of language, whilst mine was?

You are arguing the correctness of ongoing partition because it is to the benefit of those living in the Republic. Thats no different to arguing the correctness of ongoing apartheid because its to the benefit of the whites.

I don't see how I could have made this point using apples and oranges, even had I been inclined to not use apartheid as a yardstick

As already mentioned, there is also the question of whether or not the problems that make you want to persist partitioning are - in fact - caused by partitioning in the first place. This is no different to the criticisms one could level at black ghettos ad their residents in South Africa, despite the reality that the problems were - at least in part - caused by apartheid in the first place. And as has been seen in South Africa, rather than the resultant problems being a reason to continue the causality (i.e. Apartheid), it was removal of the causality which allowed a solution to those problems to be meaningfully started upon.

Again, I don't see how apples and oranges apply to such reasoning.

jc

Unshelved

Have to agree with the original poster, and indeed with Nuala O Faolain in last week's Sunday Tribune. Our politicians may be crooked (okay, some of them) but the ones up North are in a different league when it comes to lying - to us, to each other and to their own constituents. There's a kind of double-speak up there that we just aren't able to handle - just look at the way Adams is able to run rings around Bertie and Blair for example.

One thing that is rarely spoken of is how the North has benefitted from standards in health care and educational facilities that just can't be matched down here - the level of subsidation of that society by the British taxpayer is huge and would take a huge tumble in the event of unification. I often get the impression that a lot of Northern nationalists don't even realise how good they have it in terms of the NHS and educational grants (all the northerners in the educational establishment I work in seem to be on very generous grants). Bet they'd be the first to whinge if that was taken away and replaced by the ramshackle, grossly underfunded services that we have to put up with here down south. Welcome to the Republic - now take your place in the 48-hour queue for A&E.

Anyway, in the light of the EU, I can't see what the big deal is with a 32-county Ireland. Surely life is better up north now that they can cherrypick and have the best of both the Republic and the Six Counties - i.e. down here for work and low taxes, back up north for low house prices and free dentistry. That's what most of the northerners I know do.

Fuiseog

Maybe I overeached on the scope of this thread.

Point 1) there seems to be unanimity amongst us that the South deos not need the north to prosper economically. And, yes, it was a tenet of republicanism that the Republic, without an industrial base comparable to the North East needed that engine to prosper. But now that we are all wiser after the event, what harm.

2) The last remaining threads of the string that connect modern Ireland with the Ireland of pre-1921 are breaking. There little or no personal relationship left between our current population and that of those days. The past as they say, is a different country

3) Yes the Republic has social problems - the same ones experienced by almost every single european democracy (can't think of an exception). The north has all those and a few home grown ones to boot. Anyone arguing that the north is a peaceful homogenous society - like the Republic - is obviously not in anyway prepared to deal with the reality.

4) Subvention - the least sexy and the most expensive reason of them all.

5) The reason for the massive stae sector in the north is a) a bloated security industry, b) a complete lack of private investment because the place is undesirable as a business location c) subvention

6 & 7) Paisley and Adams.

Two contrasting answers - re Paisley -
a) respect him as an elected representative - spot on, can't argue with that, but I don't see how his supporters would do much for the rest of the country beyond his narrow constituency. Just look at the way his catholic cosntituents in and around Ballymena are being driven from their homes in recent days, with muted condemnation from him and his organisation.

b) he'll be dead soon.
This is pathetic.

and followed by the comment that the man who planned Bloody Friday, and to this day has never publicly admitted to being in the IRA, let alone responsible for the greatest single days carnage in over thirty years is due a Nobel prize is sad.

This is typical mindless, thoughtless republicanism - as long as the two communities in the north are divided there is no united Ireland, regardless of what the map looks like. Of course it is the ideal and not the reality that captivates republicans.

8) Point is that there is little or no difference between people of all sections of these islands. If we are honest about accepting people from Nigeria as Irish, this means that the old view of how 'being Irish' is consigned to the dustbin. The old historical ties with the north are no more or less valid than the new ties with Poland and Lativa.

9) Unashamedly selfish reason. Competition for finite resources is a fact of life. Sharing those resources with an economically weaker north would not be pretty.

10) yes thats right - we owe the north nothing. The north owes us big time. It is about time it grew up and behaved like a mature society, not some medieval kingdom with warrior tribes, secret societies and highway men.

As for those that fought in the war of independence north of the border, without being flippant, I'd say there aren't may left. They are owed the exact same as what the southern volunteers were owed. History doesn't keep accounts - and it most certainly never balances the books. Hanging your aspirations for the future for all on a version of the past you subscribe to is folly.

11) So we're all agreed that the Brits ain't so bad after all. Except for Paisley and all the Irish ones that are still alive.

Nuttzz

The PSNI and British Army in the north are about the same size as the Gardai and the Irish Army down here, if we were to take over the north from the british we would have to hire the PSNI and replace the BA troops leaving. Why would we want to spend the money doing this. We would have to increase taxes on both sides of the border to pay for this, public sector in Northern Ireland accounts for 27 percent of gross domestic product compared to 18 percent in the UK and 15 percent down here.

There is a romantic arguement to unite the island but there isnt an economic one

donkeyrobot

i have already said my piece and will not continue with it. You obviously have the belief that the south should be cut away from the north completely - fair enough. personally i think its barmy, not well thought out and quite quite selfish, but thats only my thoughts on it. Just sail off to Britain now and be done with it.

As for paisley being dead - it was a pathetic answer to an even more pathetic question. It was *gosh* *shock* said in sarcasm.

Jesus Trash Can

[2) We have now reached a point where almost everyone in the state has been born post-partition - partition is the norm, not the other way around.
3) The North is a very sick society - rampant poisonous sectarianism, gangsterism, racketeering, smuggling, etc. And these are the good times.
Point no. 1 Was Vichey France "the norm"? Had Hitler prevailed would you now be agreeing with a nazi version of history that would be calling the French ressistance terrorists? Ireland has existed since the prehistoric without partition, so how does a mere 80 years become "the norm"?

Point no. 2 The 6 counties is and always has been, despite (but more likely becouse of), the pretensions of the Protestant accendaency, a very sick place. The Irish in the north paid the price for your freedom and prosperity. It is exactly becouse partition is not "the norm" that it is a sick society and will continue to be dogged by injustice, rascism and a grotesque form of British nationalism.

donkeyrobot

Nuttzz wrote:

The PSNI and British Army in the north are about the same size as the Gardai and the Irish Army down here, if we were to take over the north from the british we would have to hire the PSNI and replace the BA troops leaving. Why would we want to spend the money doing this. We would have to increase taxes on both sides of the border to pay for this, public sector in Northern Ireland accounts for 27 percent of gross domestic product compared to 18 percent in the UK and 15 percent down here.

There is a romantic arguement to unite the island but there isnt an economic one

why would you have to employ the PSNI .. and replace the british army ??? if theres peace then why? Actually dont answer that, as this thread just outlines how people dont really think alot before trying to work out why a united ireland shouldnt happen.

donkeyrobot

Fuiseog wrote:

and followed by the comment that the man who planned Bloody Friday, and to this day has never publicly admitted to being in the IRA, let alone responsible for the greatest single days carnage in over thirty years is due a Nobel prize is sad. .

did I miss the the evidence you obviously posted to support this?

murphaph

Agree entirely with the OP. They're society/economy in NI has diverged from that of Ireland to a degree where unification would be a whole lot of effort and include unknown risks (Loyalist terrorism for one!) for no substantial gain for the majority of inhabitants on the island and indeed a loss in quality of services for northerners! As another poster pointed out-"a nation once again" and other such bullsh!t does not constitute a sound argument, it's just a romantic aspiration for a diminishing number of people.

Let NI reinstate devolved government and see how they get on with each other in a terrorist free environment for a couple of decades before any thought of unification is raised!

Hydroquinone

donkeyrobot wrote:

why would you have to employ the PSNI .. and replace the british army ??? if theres peace then why? Actually dont answer that, as this thread just outlines how people dont really think alot before trying to work out why a united ireland shouldnt happen.

What makes you think there'd be peace?
The Loyalists aren't even being peaceful now, so imagine the stink they'd kick up if they were ruled by Dublin.

Fuiseog

bonkey wrote:

Let me phrase it another way. Teh entire population of the country, several times over, was born under British rule. Why shouldn't that have become the acceptable norm, if being born into a partitionist reality should do the same.

In Scotland it did. Why didn't it happen here? Thats a very big question. But the visit of Queen Victoria in 1902 would indicate that it was acceptable to the general population of Dublin at least a hundred years ago. How it changed so dramatically in 20 years is stunning.

bonkey wrote:

Well, that utterly undermines your argument of "we were born into it", doesn't it

Not at all. I am not arguing that "we were born into it".

bonkey wrote:

I'm not the one tarring the entire North of Ireland as "Them" (with deliberate use of capitals), nor the one arguing that Partition should be maintained because it is to the advantage of one group of the relevant people (i.e. those living in the Republic) whilst ignoring whether or not it is working for the rest of the people who are relevant to the discussion,

Surely you're not ignoring the wishes of the majority of the population in the north who feel that partition is a good thing?

bonkey wrote:

nor examining whether or not the problems that you don't want us to suffer are - in fact - caused by partitioning in the first palce and would cease to be an issue were partitioning to be gotten rid of.

Please point out one item in the list above that would disappear if the border disappeared in the morning

bonkey wrote:

If you want me to offer you a less lazy answer, then offer me less lazy reasoning.

Big topic - hard to get into the nitty gritty without losing focus

bonkey wrote:

No, its not too early, and no I couldn't have used apples and oranges. Also, given how you didn't pull your punches regarding the North (branding the entire society as sick, for example), I didn't feel inclined to do any different when addressing your post. Or do you maintain that your post was not being unfair in its choice of language, whilst mine was?

Fair enough - I didn't pull any punches - the language is very strong, I just tend to dismiss comparisons between our own petty squabble and some of the more notorious regimes/characters on the world stage - Apartheid South Africa included.

bonkey wrote:

You are arguing the correctness of ongoing partition because it is to the benefit of those living in the Republic. Thats no different to arguing the correctness of ongoing apartheid because its to the benefit of the whites.

Now now... lets get real. To compare the lot of any group in the north with that of the black population during apartheid is to lose a sense of perspective.

bonkey wrote:

As already mentioned, there is also the question of whether or not the problems that make you want to persist partitioning are - in fact - caused by partitioning in the first place.

Are you suggesting that the fundamental problems in the north are not due to sectarianism but the border? Come on.... Is that why people a hundred miles from the border throw bags of urine at school children?

bonkey wrote:

This is no different to the criticisms one could level at black ghettos ad their residents in South Africa, despite the reality that the problems were - at least in part - caused by apartheid in the first place. And as has been seen in South Africa, rather than the resultant problems being a reason to continue the causality (i.e. Apartheid), it was removal of the causality which allowed a solution to those problems to be meaningfully started upon.

jc

Back to SA again. I'm not willing to draw parallels between SA, Nazi Germany, Pol Pot or Ghengis Khan with the seemingly intractable squabbles between neighbours in the north. Even more ridiculous when the republic is playing FW De Klerk to the north's Nelson Mandela. Once again - that ain't where the big divide on this island is...

donkeyrobot

murphaph wrote:

Let NI reinstate devolved government and see how they get on with each other in a terrorist free environment for a couple of decades before any thought of unification is raised!

Logically thats what will have to happen anyway. it'll take decades for a UI, but it will happen - as it has to happen. Partition is un natural

hydroquinone wrote:

What makes you think there'd be peace?

There will have to be peace first. Peace is the present concern. There are already gangs like the loyalists in Dublin. In fact Dublin is just as dangerous as loyalist belfast if you ask me .. which no-one was, but anyway

donkeyrobot

Fuiseog wrote:

In Scotland it did. Why didn't it happen here? Thats a very big question. But the visit of Queen Victoria in 1902 would indicate that it was acceptable to the general population of Dublin at least a hundred years ago. How it changed so dramatically in 20 years is stunning....

erm .... that visit didnt actually go too well due to the rioting and protests against her.

If you are one of those who believe the word 'jackeen' comes from quiet dublin people cheering on the queen then your history is flawed as it was the opposite and indeed, that isnt where 'jackeen' came from.

Unshelved

Donkeyrobot said

i have already said my piece and will not continue with it. You obviously have the belief that the south should be cut away from the north completely - fair enough. personally i think its barmy, not well thought out and quite quite selfish, but thats only my thoughts on it. Just sail off to Britain now and be done with it

.

Isn't the point of boards to engage in discussion - I don't agree with you, but how are you supposed to change anyone's opinion or get respect for your own with an attitude like that?

Furthermore, Donkeyrobot - No, Gerry Adams has never been convicted of IRA membership, but NOBODY believes that he was not a member of the IRA - this is the best example of what I call "Northern doublespeak". I say "Adams was a member", you say "where's the evidence", but you THINK "he is a member but it'll never be proven". See other examples regarding the Northern Bank robbery, the murder of Jean McConville - well, I could be here all night if I was to go on. Suffice it to say that it proves my original argument - when it comes to paramiliary organisations lying is a way of life in NI and it is not something that the Republic is equipped to deal with.

Murphaph said

Let NI reinstate devolved government and see how they get on with each other in a terrorist free environment for a couple of decades before any thought of unification is raised!

A constructive idea and worth pursuing. Unless you're a NI politician that is - although it must be lovely to be paid for a job that you don't even bother to do.

Finally, Jesus Trashcan said

Point no. 1 Was Vichey France "the norm"? Had Hitler prevailed would you now be agreeing with a nazi version of history that would be calling the French ressistance terrorists? Ireland has existed since the prehistoric without partition, so how does a mere 80 years become "the norm"?

Here we go - cite the Nazis. Does EVERY debate about the North have to come down to quoting spurious argument about the Third Reich? Just how is that example conducive to your argument? Ridiculous.

donkeyrobot

so then ... dont believe anyone in the north as they are all liars ... well done.

Also, northern bank robbery was 9 months ago and theres STILL no proof whatsoever to say the PIRA (nevermiond SF) had anything to do with it.

I cant debate these things with you as your mind is completely made up, based on such assumptions that Admas just like, was in the IRA and take your word for it, and blah blah blah blah .. yet Im sure if someone stuck you with a point, you'd ask to see the evidence to back it up - yet have none yourself to back up what you say about the north. Now THATS doublespeak.

mike65

I'll go with the OP and other "West Brit Traitors"

There is simply NO compelling logic to a 32 county Republic, you can argue there is no compelling logic for a 6 county "sub state" either but its there already and could work perfectly well if only its quarrelsome inhabitants were willing to try and get along.

I've always reckoned those in Norn Iron who are that pissed off with the state they're in should pack thier bags and live in this fine republic where they can enjoy the advantages of the free state such as expensive free education, sky high house prices, rampet price-jaking, high levels of indirect tax, a lousy transport infrastucture and er I may leave....

Everyone has worked pretty hard in recent times to get where we are (as flawed as it is) why blow it all for a political mess of pottage?

Mike.

Fuiseog

Jesus Trash Can wrote:

Point no. 1 Was Vichey France "the norm"? Had Hitler prevailed would you now be agreeing with a nazi version of history that would be calling the French ressistance terrorists? Ireland has existed since the prehistoric without partition, so how does a mere 80 years become "the norm"?

Point no. 2 The 6 counties is and always has been, despite (but more likely becouse of), the pretensions of the Protestant accendaency, a very sick place. The Irish in the north paid the price for your freedom and prosperity. It is exactly becouse partition is not "the norm" that it is a sick society and will continue to be dogged by injustice, rascism and a grotesque form of British nationalism.

1) of course we would. The Americans dropped two nuclear bombs and we've filed that under 'bad things that had to be done to avoid further suffering', instead of 'worst outrages of the 20th century'. Victors write history - that's the way it is.

And Ireland hasn't existed as a single united political entity except for a very brief period in the tenth century. Not that anything in prehistoric times is in any way relevant to modern day politics, one way or the other. Tribal leaders in Mayo as recently as the 13th century used to shag a horse as part of an inauguration ceremony, will we bring that back too?

2) Blame the rich prods, all their fault. Good man, that is really thinking outside the box. A civil war with thousands killed in thirty years of republican and loyalist violence from the less affluent homes of the north had nothing at all to do with it.

Nuttzz

donkeyrobot wrote:

why would you have to employ the PSNI .. and replace the british army ??? if theres peace then why? Actually dont answer that, as this thread just outlines how people dont really think alot before trying to work out why a united ireland shouldnt happen.

well I will anyway.... So your saying that the 6 counties if in a united ireland wouldnt need a police force or an army? what would you do send our already overstretched gardai up to cover the north too???

As for the army, Do you think that the loyalist paramilitaries will just roll over and let their bellies be tickled??? :rolleyes:

biko

Fuiseog wrote:

The North is a very sick society - rampant poisonous sectarianism, gangsterism, racketeering, smuggling, etc. And these are the good times.

I'd choose the north to the big smoke anyday. Have you even been up?
As soon as Mr Paisley passes on thing ought to cool down considerably.

Sand

Theres no sensible grounds for removing the border. Idealistic grounds maybe, but nothing rooted in reality. Any economic grounds are covered by the free movement and trade within the EU. In terms of government, the UK is no better or worse than the Republic, and indeed they at least have some practise at dealing with the sectarian divide there, whereas we do not, and sectarian divisions would only be inflamed by such a significant constitutional change.

The only reason you might want the border gone is if you are either a Provo or an idealogical republican. Then its just an article of faith, much as Christians believe Jesus redeemed mankind upon the cross. Its certainly not a good reason to remove it, no more than Cathoic beliefs are a good reason to make the Pope ruler of all mankind. Even nationalists in the North might be surprised at the answers if they found themselves asking "What have the Brits ever done for us!?!?!?" Certainly in comparison to the deal theyd get in the Republic.

Some Provos and some Republicans argue that the island of Ireland should be united on the basis of geography. Id love to lock them in a room with a gang of violently inclined Scottish and Welsh nationalists to discuss the finer points of this theory. Given the geographical imperitive for unity, I find SFIRAs anti - EU stance to be mystifying, surely they would be wholly in favour of a unified european superstate on the grounds that Europe is basically all the one peninsula sticking out of the Asian landmass....

Flex

Fuiseog wrote:

In Scotland it did. Why didn't it happen here? Thats a very big question.

Ill answer that for you,..... IRELAND IS NOT A REGION OF BRITAIN, but Scotland is.

A Dub in Glasgo

How anybody can say Partition has worked for Ireland is beyond me.

Partition created that sectarian cesspit called NI with its inherent in built sectarian majority. The RoI took about 73 years to get to a position where it now has a booming economy. This was mainly due to the RoI getting real beneficial help from the EEC/EU (something which would have happened if Ireland was one country anyway). Partition did not work for the RoI... membership of the EU worked. That membership would not have mattered if it was 26 counties or 32 counties.

Partition did not work for NI.

Mighty_Mouse

I still struggle to understand the economic reasoning against a United Ireland. The north has good agricultural land, a large city, a port etc. I dont see why a united Ireland wouldnt mean more resources to generate wealth.

Anyways I heard Leitrim was not contributing a lot to our GDP lately. Will we cut it off? Let those Leitrim thicks swim for it. Sure its just their bad luck; and anyways cant they move to Galway like most people would do?

bonkey

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

How anybody can say Partition has worked for Ireland is beyond me.

...

Partition did not work for NI.

Heh.

Partition did not work for Northern Ireland, you say?
Partitioning has had some advantages (and its removal would be problematic) for the Republic of Ireland....as others have said?

So how can people say that partitioning has worked for Ireland?

Simple - they just talk about a different Ireland to those who believe it hasn't worked.

jc

Jesus Trash Can

Here we go - cite the Nazis. Does EVERY debate about the North have to come down to quoting spurious argument about the Third Reich? Just how is that example conducive to your argument? Ridiculous.[/QUOTE]

I am not and never have compared the occupation of this country to that of the third reich, if you looked at it a bit deeper instead of going off on one, you would understand the point I'm making is this, who's version of history do we choose to live with? The one that leaves it easier to do nothing despite injustices, (and I mean injustices against the entire community), or the one that demands the engagement of the imagination despite the difficult task ahead, looking at your reaction I can see the former will probably sit better with you. Pathetic.

Sand

The RoI took about 73 years to get to a position where it now has a booming economy.

Which had more to do with a Great Depression, a World War and a series of foolish protectionist economic polices and then of course the tax and spend idiocy until the nightmare that was the 80s forced the government to run a proper economy. It had very, very, very little to do with partition.

I still struggle to understand the economic reasoning against a United Ireland. The north has good agricultural land, a large city, a port etc. I dont see why a united Ireland wouldnt mean more resources to generate wealth.

Irish companies already have access to the Norths infrastructure, labour supply and markets via the EU. Removing the border would be just window dressing.

Jesus Trash Can

Mighty_Mouse wrote:

I still struggle to understand the economic reasoning against a United Ireland. The north has good agricultural land, a large city, a port etc. I dont see why a united Ireland wouldnt mean more resources to generate wealth.

Anyways I heard Leitrim was not contributing a lot to our GDP lately. Will we cut it off? Let those Leitrim thicks swim for it. Sure its just their bad luck; and anyways cant they move to Galway like most people would do?

Well said. To hell or to er, Tuam.

murphaph

Jesus Trash Can wrote:

Well said. To hell or to er, Tuam.

Well, I hear hell is warm this time of year

MT

Like many others here I too would agree entirely with the original OP. Both a united Ireland itself - and indeed the aim of unity – would have only negative consequences of the Republic’s society.

In short I think partition has worked wonderfully in insulating a fledgling democracy from the entrenched sectarianism and hatred prevalent in the North. Hatreds that have long since bordered on the psychotic and would have disastrously destabilised Ireland’s only real democracy. A large country such as Britain – politically, economically and emotionally detached from the North – could contain and manage the madness there in a way an all too involved south could never have done. I firmly believe that had the ‘troubles’ occurred within an island wide state, the poison would have contaminated the rest of the country and spread south. With an entire country embroiled physically and emotionally there might have been no end. Britain on the other hand had the size and the distance of mind to deal with the North’s societal collapse in a way that ensured it still remained standing at the end to put in place some form of ‘peace-process’.

Mighty Mouse wrote:

I still struggle to understand the economic reasoning against a United Ireland. The north has good agricultural land, a large city, a port etc. I dont see why a united Ireland wouldnt mean more resources to generate wealth.

With that attitude you’d have made a fine 18th colonialist. But tell me, should there be a united North American state on such grounds? Maybe George Bush should seek to annex Canada and Mexico for their, er… resources.

Isn’t funny how so many ‘Republicans’ can rave on about the integrity of the Irish landmass and how this invalidates the border and yet give support for the Basque separatist struggle in Spain? One rule for this island and another for the Iberian peninsula?

Flex

Like many others here I too would agree entirely with the original OP. Both a united Ireland itself - and indeed the aim of unity – would have only negative consequences of the Republic’s society.

How? The aim of Irelands society for the past 80 years has been to unite the country, and weve turned out alright. When reunification is occurs it will be because the majority of NI voted for it, how can that be negative? I realise reunification might not sit well with some people, but quite frankly, tough ****. If they hadnt insisted on forcing 420,000 Catholics to live in the new NI and then refused to cooperate with the Boundary Commission (but luckily for them their pals in London totally cheated us and decided not to fulfil their obligation with regards to partition) then they could possibly have found themselves in a situation where, instead of facing a Catholic majority in 40 years or so, they could have a strong majority. Youve made your beds, and you can lie in them.

With that attitude you’d have made a fine 18th colonialist. But tell me, should there be a united North American state on such grounds? Maybe George Bush should seek to annex Canada and Mexico for their, er… resources.

I would never support the wrongful expansion of Irelands borders at the expense of another country.

Isn’t funny how so many ‘Republicans’ can rave on about the integrity of the Irish landmass and how this invalidates the border and yet give support for the Basque separatist struggle in Spain? One rule for this island and another for the Iberian peninsula?

Iv never actually cited the Basques or others to support a UI like that. First off i think its silly, because when the country is reunited, the situation will be reversed.ie. those who had supported the Basques or whatever would find themselves in a situation needing to oppose them and so on. Besides those situations are different in so many ways to ours. Second, with all due respect to the Basques and Palestinians and so on... I really dont have a great deal of interest in what they do or how they cope in their struggles, because im more interested in Irelands and the Irish peoples. Third, I dont feel the need to validate Irish Republicanism/Nationalism by making sure someone else in some other place has similar aspirations.

Dave!

Flex wrote:

I would never support the wrongful expansion of Irelands borders at the expense of another country.

The British, on the other hand...

A Dub in Glasgo

DaveMcG wrote:

The British, on the other hand...

...... would

Dave!

lol, yes; would, have done, and will do again!

murphaph

Flex wrote:

I would never support the wrongful expansion of Irelands borders at the expense of another country.

DaveMcG wrote:

The British, on the other hand...

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

...... would

I think the british government would actually like to expand Ireland's borders at the expense of Ireland (and save herself a considerble few bob in the process).

catholicireland

The north is the property of Ireland, the British are just a bunch of invading bas***ds! They are the most hated people on earth!

CerebralCortex

catholicireland wrote:

The north is the property of Ireland, the British are just a bunch of invading bas***ds! They are the most hated people on earth!

You can see that catholicireland is going to have a fruitfull future in uniting the people of this world torn apart by pride and nationalism.

rsynnott

catholicireland wrote:

The north is the property of Ireland, the British are just a bunch of invading bas***ds! They are the most hated people on earth!

Really? Most hated people on Earth? You've done a poll, then? (And IMO, your own namesake has done more harm to this country than England could ever have imagined doing).

Dave!

CerebralCortex wrote:

You can see that catholicireland is going to have a fruitfull future in uniting the people of this world torn apart by pride and nationalism.

lmao

I agree with his sentiment, I guess, although I'm more careful with my words, lol.

CerebralCortex

rsynnott wrote:

Really? Most hated people on Earth? You've done a poll, then? (And IMO, your own namesake has done more harm to this country than England could ever have imagined doing).

I agree your onto something there.

oscarBravo

Flex wrote:

I realise partition might not sit well with some people, but quite frankly, tough ****.

I wonder if the transposition of a single word will help you understand how unreasonable your position looks from the outside?

Dave!

Jesus Trash Can wrote:

Here we go - cite the Nazis. Does EVERY debate about the North have to come down to quoting spurious argument about the Third Reich? Just how is that example conducive to your argument? Ridiculous.

Godwin's Law, mate, lol

murphaph

catholicireland wrote:

The north is the property of Ireland

You dodn't think Northern Ireland belongs to the Northern Irish?

catholicireland wrote:

..the British are just a bunch of invading bas***ds! They are the most hated people on earth!

All 60 million of 'em :rolleyes:

The rabid 'need' for a united Ireland displays a deep felt inadequacy in an individual or if that individual is from Ireland, in how that individual perceives his country.