United Ireland within our lifetime

catholicireland

Does anyone think its going to happin? I think that it will eventually happin at some time but im not sure yet if it will be in my lifetime. I really hope it does though.
At the moment the majority of people want to be part of the UK, but can anyone see this changing? Could you see the british goverment just give it back?
The day this small island is united under one rule will be a great day in the history of Ireland and for all real Irish people.

Thomond Pk

Tyrone are the All-Ireland champions;

what is the fixation with which government empties your pocket?

Diorraing

I have no doubt that it will happen within the next 30-40 years if not sooner. The British stated in the Downing Street Declaration that they had no economic interests in NI. It is nothing but hassle for them. Unionism is the obstacle. They, however, will eventually realise that being part of a United Ireland will also mean being part of The Celtic Tiger : We will soon see that their loyalties lie with the half-crown, not the crown.

mike65

Diorraing wrote:

We will soon see that their loyalties lie with the half-crown, not the crown.

Boom boom!

One matter that should'nt overlooked is the need to make sure the good people of this republic also want and get a united Ireland as opposed to a 32 county Ireland. Many down here would be sceptical of our friends in the North and thier ability to carry on normal life without feeling what would set the day up nicely is a riot/firebombing/beating/speech.

Mike.

BuffyBot

The day this small island is united under one rule will be a great day in the history of Ireland and for all real Irish people.

I've never quite understood this. Because I'm perfectly happy living in my country (which happens to consist of the 26 counties, which make up the Republic of Ireland) I'm not one of the "real Irish people"?

Maskhadov

We will soon see that their loyalties lie with the half-crown, not the crown.

I dont get it.

As for a 32 county one state Ireland. Im all for it if we dont have the violance, political instability, hatred, tax rises, higher unemployment etc. It all sounds like too much hard work for me

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

mike65

Half-crown

Its an age thing!

Mike.

horseflesh

catholicireland wrote:

Does anyone think its going to happin? I think that it will eventually happin at some time but im not sure yet if it will be in my lifetime. I really hope it does though.

Why??
Apart from some romantic notion, in the "real world" why would you be so keen?
Who would benefit?

horseflesh

horseflesh wrote:

Why??
Apart from some romantic notion, in the "real world" why would you be so keen?
Who would benefit?

But why does everything have to be measured up like some balance sheet, there are things which are not the proper subject of a cost benefit analysis surely. For me, national reunification is much more important than some grubby little stuff that Eddie Hobbs foams at the mouth about like the cost of petcare.

murphaph

Deleted User wrote:

But why does everything have to be measured up like some balance sheet

Because in the real world that's how it is.

Deleted User wrote:

there are things which are not the proper subject of a cost benefit analysis surely.

Is that because they would fail miserably in that cost/benefit analysis though?

Deleted User wrote:

For me, national reunification is much more important than some grubby little stuff that Eddie Hobbs foams at the mouth about like the cost of petcare.

Name the last time Ireland was a single political entity. (Hint-it was under british rule). Now, name the time before that......hmmm, King this and tribe leader that.....Some people think it was for a brief period in the 11th century, but nobody can say for certain. Essentially this island has always been divided politically so reunification just doesn't come into it.

RobVanDamager2

I'm definitely moving out of this country if this ever happens. I'd rather live in baghdad than a united Ireland.......

murphaph

murphaph wrote:

Because in the real world that's how it is.

No it's not, in the materialistic world that's how it is.

murphaph wrote:

Is that because they would fail miserably in that cost/benefit analysis though?

No. It's just that the desire to unite the island cannot be understood through a prism of euros and cents.

murphaph wrote:

Essentially this island has always been divided politically so reunification just doesn't come into it.

I disagree, as do the hundreds of thousands in the 6 counties who call themselves 'Irish' and not 'Ulsterish'.

bonkey

catholicireland wrote:

The day this small island is united under one rule will be a great day in the history of Ireland and for all real Irish people.

And if the non-real Irish people decide to take up arms and fight for re-seperation? You'll accept a return to violence as an acceptable price to pay, as non-real Irish people engage in a terrorist war of seperation against the reals?

I happen to believe the real Irish people are the ones who deal in the reality of today, and not those who indulge in romantic dreams of what could be and suggest not only that they should be but that they are what any "real" Irish person wants.

jc

biko

RobVanDamager2 wrote:

I'd rather live in baghdad than a united Ireland.......

Well, it'll be a long time before a UI happens, if at all, but if those are your feelings, why not jump the gun and move next week?

bonkey

bonkey wrote:

I happen to believe the real Irish people are the ones who deal in the reality of today, and not those who indulge in romantic dreams of what could be and suggest not only that they should be but that they are what any "real" Irish person wants.

So first of all Horseface and Murphaph believe those of us who would like to see reunification occur are not living in the real world.

And now bonkey you raise the suggestion that we are not real Irish people?

I like to think of myself as a very real Irish person in a very real world and I would like to see the country united. I appreciate that there may be cogent arguments against it, but surely 'get real' is not one of them.

billy the squid

Deleted User wrote:

But why does everything have to be measured up like some balance sheet,

Ideologies don't pay my rent, I can't give national pride to my landlord every week. Merging northern Ireland with the republic would be an economical disaster. I would rather have a job in a partitioned ireland than be unemployed in a united one.

For me, national reunification is much more important than some grubby little stuff that Eddie Hobbs foams at the mouth about like the cost of petcare.

Supporting my self and my family would be higher on my list of priorities than a united ireland. I have nothing to gain from a united ireland. what happens after my lifetime is of little interest to me as there will be nothing I can do about it when it happens.

billy the squid

billy the squid wrote:

Ideologies don't pay my rent, I can't give national pride to my landlord every week.

I appreciate that. But that doesn't mean that the desire for a united Ireland is nonsense, just that you have different priorities. I couldn't imagine a life where all I cared about was what was in my wallet. And surely even you have basic desires that you can't rationalise in terms of money - pride in seeing your county do well in sport, religious belief, all the albums of a particular band etc. etc. There are thousands of aspects of life that could be dismissed with the argument that they don't put bread on the table, but that does not make them any less important to many people.

billy the squid

Deleted User wrote:

I appreciate that. But that doesn't mean that the desire for a united Ireland is nonsense, just that you have different priorities. I couldn't imagine a life where all I cared about was what was in my wallet. And surely even you have basic desires that you can't rationalise in terms of money - pride in seeing your county do well in sport, religious belief, all the albums of a particular band etc. etc. There are thousands of aspects of life that could be dismissed with the argument that they don't put bread on the table, but that does not make them any less important to many people.

What is in my wallet is not the only thing that I care about, but taking on the economic burdon would affect what is in my wallet. and this is one of the reasons I would not be in favour of merging Northern Ireland and the Republic.

I wouldnt consider the political status of northern ireland as a basic desire. I dont need northern ireland for my survival.

Incidently-Fiscally theres another side to the coin here being ignored and it shouldnt be.

For talks sake if there was a united Ireland in the morning the resulting cost of it would be greatly borne by the E.U I think.
Certainly our GDP per head would fall enough to make us qualify for net reception of funds rather than the direction we are going in at the moment ie towards net contributions.
I'm not entirely convinced of the arguments that taxes would have to significantly rise.

Surely the main difference between North and south is in the area of health and social services and these are subject in the south to major ineffeciencies-something that it would be imperative to have fixed were there to be reunification.
We wouldnt lose the attractiveness that we have at present for foreign direct investment by job creating foreign companies unless we were going to lose it anyway.
So that factor would be neutral to reunification.

Maskhadov

If you take away all the violance stuff and both parts of the island wanted to become one the issues boil down to money or the lack of it.

The republic of Ireland needs €140billion Euro over the next 15 years (from 2007) just to bring it in line with the rest of western Europe. How much does the north need when its GDP 40% is lower than the rest of the United Kingdom. The Brits havent spent a penny on the north since the 60's and I dont want to be the one picking up the bill.



I get the 1/2 crown thing now

Were going to have to pay for the 6 counties with a big tax rise and what exactly do we get in return ???

catholicireland

I'd rather live in baghdad than a united Ireland.......

explain why?

By the way, the majority of Irish people are FOR a united Ireland, so I think the Irish Goverment should try and achieve this if they say they represent us.

murphaph

catholicireland wrote:

By the way, the majority of Irish people are FOR a united Ireland

To use your own expression, explain why? (and more importantly, how do you know, have you asked everyone?)

black_jack

catholicireland wrote:

explain why?

By the way, the majority of Irish people are FOR a united Ireland, so I think the Irish Goverment should try and achieve this if they say they represent us.

Yeah where, did you speak to everyone. You'll find that the majority of southerns renounced our historic claim on the north in the good friday agreement referendum.

So and this is a good point. Why? Seriously? What is the point? Theres peace of a sorts, why push the issue? What benefits will we recieve? what freedoms do the people of the north not have that demand that the historic renunification of Ireland as a united Ireland again.

Spare me some historical bollocks about some spurious point about it being beyond tangible, or financial reasons. Right now, theres no tangible difference between here and the north, and the financial well, ever paid for a pint in a pub in kerry or a pub in dublin? Theres inequalities. So tell me, how and what are the benefits of a united ireland. Other than the warm mushy feeling in your pants.

Hang on. While we're at it exactly was there a unitied whole, unified country, under one leader. Honestly, cause hey even in the time of high kinds Boru et all had at best some control over some of the Isle and scant control of the rest.

It's pretty much luxemburg wistfully wishing to be a nation once again with Portgual.

We never really were a unitied Ireland, really ever. Hang on "a nation once again?"


YOU MEAN THE WOLFE TONES HAVE BEEN LYING ALL THIS TIME!!!!!

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Diorraing

RobVanDamager2 wrote:

. I'd rather live in baghdad than a united Ireland.......

Good riddance. What is the point of a UI? Well, what was the point of gaining independance from the Brits in the first place - please answer that all you UI sceptics. It wasn't gained because we'd be better off financially, it was gained because the Irish people are a proud race who would never lie down to oppression from any other country. I'm not in favour of uniting Ireland through violence but when (and I emphasise when) there will be a nationalist majority, I will be first to welcome EVERYONE in the 6 counties. I detest the attitude of some southerners who think that it was ok for the south to get independance in 1922, but when the north wants in, we wont let them because we're too stingy to part with a few bob. If a majority seeks it, they have every right to join us!

Diorraing

black_jack wrote:

Hang on. While we're at it exactly was there a unitied whole, unified country, under one leader. Honestly, cause hey even in the time of high kinds Boru et all had at best some control over some of the Isle and scant control of the rest.

At least Boru and the rest of them were IRISH and not oppressive Brits who decided they'd take peoples rights away from them on the grounds of race and religion. If my memory serves me correctly, Hugh O'Neill and Red Hugh O'Donnell managed to muster an All-Ireland force, Wolfe Tone established a certain All-Ireland body known as "The United Irishmen". It is true that a United Ireland wasn't always a concept, but a united Italy wasn't heard of until the start of last century, Germany until Bismark's reign (1870). Does that make the unity of these countries illegitimate? The concept of a UI is a lot older than the unity of most other countries.

bonkey

Deleted User wrote:

And now bonkey you raise the suggestion that we are not real Irish people?

You see a problem with this, but not with yoru own suggestion that only those who support a United Ireland are "real" Irish?

I like to think of myself as a very real Irish person in a very real world and I would like to see the country united. I appreciate that there may be cogent arguments against it, but surely 'get real' is not one of them.

I think "Get Real" is very much one of them. The political reunification of Ireland, without the genocide of unionists, would almost certainly lead to a return to the days of violence and terrorism.

jc

black_jack

black_jack wrote:

Other than the warm mushy feeling in your pants.

Hmmm, guess it's the feeling some here get when they find 50 cents in the gutter.

Look, there's no point having a big argument over it. Those of us who want reunification can continue with our wants, and those who believe we only exist to find a mate/ procreate/ build shelter/ provide for the offspring can go on their happy way too in the pursuit of baser needs. As I said above, people prioritise differently.

bonkey

bonkey wrote:

You see a problem with this, but not with yoru own suggestion that only those who support a United Ireland are "real" Irish?

I never made that point at all, and please don't attribute to me an argument I never put forward. Read the posts before mine, I was rejecting the notion that 'reality' meant rejecting reunification. I suspect I'm as real as you, I breath, I exist, I can't be more real, and I'm Irish. But I certainly never said those who oppose reunification were not real Irish people.

bonkey

Deleted User wrote:

I never made that point at all, and please don't attribute to me an argument I never put forward.

My apologies. CatholicIreland put it forward, but you still appear to have no issue with it, seeing as you've felt the need to object to other uses of the term, but not his/hers.

jc

bonkey

bonkey wrote:

My apologies. CatholicIreland put it forward, but you still appear to have no issue with it, seeing as you've felt the need to object to other uses of the term, but not his/hers.

No need to apologise, just wanted to clarify my position.

To be honest, not sure I'd agree with anyone with the handle 'CatholicIreland'. Maybe he's being ironic, but otherwise not sure we'd agree on much...

Mighty_Mouse

Merging northern Ireland with the republic would be an economical disaster.

Personally I wouldnt consider it a factor on whether or not Ireland should fight for reunification but I never real appreciate the reasoning behind this argument. Larger economy, better infrastructure, 2nd biggest city in ireland etc. Also ireland are in Europe so we wouldn't be left to pick up the tab in terms of regional development. Introduce an Irish oriented education system and hey presto!.

The political reunification of Ireland, without the genocide of unionists, would almost certainly lead to a return to the days of violence and terrorism.

I dont see why it should. For 1 thing it can't happen unless they actually agree to it!! Which means it's up to political leadership to create an Ireland where unionist culture is apprecitated and given support to prosper.

Ideologies don't pay my rent, I can't give national pride to my landlord every week.

Im glad to see your eeking out a very fulfilling existance! :eek:

No they aren't, by recent surveys just over..................................

The majority of people on this Island vote for republican/nationalist parties. <<"Fianna Fail - the Republican Party" >>

catholicireland

To be honest, not sure I'd agree with anyone with the handle 'CatholicIreland'. Maybe he's being ironic, but otherwise not sure we'd agree on much...

Thats ok, everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

The political reunification of Ireland, without the genocide of unionists, would almost certainly lead to a return to the days of violence and terrorism.

Well not much can be done if unionist scum want to kill and shoot people. It will happin some day, and I think we should start addressing the point now before that actually happins. It might save some lives.

No they aren't, by recent surveys just over half of people in the republic support a UI and we know from Nationalist/Unionist voting and the CAIN surveys that well less than 50% of Northerners support a UI hence the number of people in the 32 counties is probably somewhere between 40 and 50 percent. So the majority aren't

I would have to disagree. If the people in the Irish Republic were actually asked for real if they wanted the north back with a real vote then I would be certain that the vast majority of votes would be yes. Asking a small select group of people does not represent the whole counrty. I bet rural Cork for instance wasnt asked in that survey where over 55% of people asked want a United Ireland. See what I mean. Also, while a majority of people in the north would probably want to remain part of the uk, if you counted the 32 countys, i would say that you deffinately would have a yes vote for a united Ireland.

catholicireland

catholicireland wrote:

Thats ok, everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

Hmm, still can't figure if you are extremely sincere, in which case I salute your integrity even if we mightn't sing off the same hymn sheet, or it's all an extremely subtle wind up, in which case I salute you anyway...

The Corinthian

catholicireland wrote:

I would have to disagree. If the people in the Irish Republic were actually asked for real if they wanted the north back with a real vote then I would be certain that the vast majority of votes would be yes. Asking a small select group of people does not represent the whole counrty. I bet rural Cork for instance wasnt asked in that survey where over 55% of people asked want a United Ireland. See what I mean. Also, while a majority of people in the north would probably want to remain part of the uk, if you counted the 32 countys, i would say that you deffinately would have a yes vote for a united Ireland.

This is entirely based upon supposition and opinion. You assume that the survey was carried out on "a small select group of people". You "bet rural Cork for instance wasnt (sic) asked in that survey". You claim that the 32 counties "deffinately (sic) would have a yes vote for a united Ireland".

Seriously, there are so many suppositions in what you've come out with that it is closer to invention than it is to opinion. If you want to convince people of your arguments you really must back them up with facts.

catholicireland

This is entirely based upon supposition and opinion.

No, its common knowledge. Just because i cannot give you a web-site link about some poll doesnt mean its not true. You are just being awkward and you know it.

Praetorian

I think a lot of people in the Repubic would not want a United Ireland for fear of it ruining our prosperity like West Germany did for East Germany. There would also be a high probabilty that the Unionists / Loyalists would declare war on newly enlarged state and there would be endless killings and bombings in the 32 counties. Apparently a lot of catholic (nationalists / republicans) up the north would also not vote for a UI because they benefit so much from the "brew" and British healthcare. It would probably take a large catholic majority for a UI to even become a possabilty. Probably something like 55-58%.

I personally would like to see a United Ireland in my lifetime, but I also believe there is a chance that it will be more hassle than it's worth.

Praetorian

catholicireland wrote:

88.4% of Irish people are Roman Catholic

That may be true but I reckon 88.4% of those people are non practicing non believers

Lies and damn statistics

Cronus333

catholicireland wrote:

Does anyone think its going to happin? I think that it will eventually happin at some time but im not sure yet if it will be in my lifetime. I really hope it does though.
At the moment the majority of people want to be part of the UK, but can anyone see this changing? Could you see the british goverment just give it back?
The day this small island is united under one rule will be a great day in the history of Ireland and for all real Irish people.

I don't want a united Ireland. Do that make me not Irish? according to you that means Im not from our fair Isle

The Corinthian

catholicireland wrote:

No, its common knowledge. Just because i cannot give you a web-site link about some poll doesnt mean its not true. You are just being awkward and you know it.

No, it's what you claim to be common knowledge. If it was common knowledge then we would, by definition, share it. As we do not share it, then it cannot be common knowledge, but the opinion of a subset of Society. Perhaps simply your own.

For example, that a skull symbol on a bottle means the contents are poisonous is common knowledge. We don't have to tell people that because we know that 99.99% of people already know this - hence common knowledge. Your assertion, however, is not because people here not only disagreed, but hadn't even heard of such a claim before.

The only way that it could still be common knowledge is if those disagreeing with you here were not part of the Society you claim the information is common knowledge to. So if you mean it is common knowledge in rural Cork, you may well be right, but if you mean Ireland, then you would have to claim that the posters here are both not Irish and not resident in Ireland - which frankly would be pretty delusional upon your part.

Tazz T

It's interesting to note how many people are citing how expensive it would be to include the North as part of the republic when it's less than the 20 years since that was the exact same issue for the North.

Over the past ten years the republican element in the North has increased much faster than the Unionist element, but that time has also eroded the sense of republicanism and I feel a lot of republicans would think twice now before entering as a United Ireland. The loss of free medical care as well as the stigma associated with the 'Rip off Republic' would make people think twice.

I'm from Derry originally and know this is how people feel, altho I'd love to see a United Ireland in my lifetime.

The North although much poorer than than the south at the moment is beginning to boom. Perhaps people will start thinking differently down here in the next ten years.

/I wonder would a United Ireland mean all the large Sainsbury's and DIY stores up North would have to close for being over the maximum size legislation?

And would the Vintners Association shut down all the JD Wetherspoons for selling beer at 'competitive' prices?

Mighty_Mouse

but that time has also eroded the sense of republicanism and I feel a lot of republicans would think twice now before entering as a United Ireland. The loss of free medical care as well as the stigma associated with the 'Rip off Republic' would make people think twice.

I think your getting catholism mixed up with republicanism!

bonkey

Mighty_Mouse wrote:

Which means it's up to political leadership to create an Ireland where unionist culture is apprecitated and given support to prosper.

One could say the exact same about the North - that there's no need for the Republicans to actually want to rejoin the republic - all they need is a Northern Ireland where their culture is appreciated and given the support to prosper.

You won't convince the unionists to join the republic any more than you'll convince the republicans that their ultimate goal is not to unite with the Republic.

IIRC, unification can only happen under the current arrangements if - amongst other conditions - both communities in the North seperately agree. In other words, a majority of Unionists would have to vote to leave the Union and join the Republic. Thats as counter-intuitive a concept as you get - by definition a unionists wants the Union over the Republic so why the flock would they vote otherwise? Indeed, to vote otherwise would make them a Republican!

If I'm wrong, or the rules change, and only a majority of the population of the North is required, then you can force the Unionists into the Republic. I'd wager they'd accept that as well as the Republicans in the North accepted their fate when partitioning was implemented.

jc

black_jack

Diorraing wrote:

At least Boru and the rest of them were IRISH and not oppressive Brits who decided they'd take peoples rights away from them on the grounds of race and religion. If my memory serves me correctly, Hugh O'Neill and Red Hugh O'Donnell managed to muster an All-Ireland force, Wolfe Tone established a certain All-Ireland body known as "The United Irishmen".

Who's membership could be measured in the thousands, not a grand unifying army.

It is true that a United Ireland wasn't always a concept, but a united Italy wasn't heard of until the start of last century, Germany until Bismark's reign (1870). Does that make the unity of these countries illegitimate? The concept of a UI is a lot older than the unity of most other countries.

Yeah. So. And. What. Are you honestly using Bismarck are justification for a united ireland. No one can rise up and give a compelling argument not based on the historical dreams of a Wolfe Tone or a Pearse.

super_furry

I certainly hope it doesn't come to pass in my lifetime. From a financial standpoint it would cripple the Republic and it's citizens, while sparking another inevitable wave of terrorism and bombings as the unionists would be certain to attack the south.

bonkey

bonkey wrote:

IIRC, unification can only happen under the current arrangements if - amongst other conditions - both communities in the North seperately agree. In other words, a majority of Unionists would have to vote to leave the Union and join the Republic.
jc

I could be wrong too but I think the set up you describe applies to the voting arrangement in the NI assembly but not to the conditions for a UI.

Iirc the GFA states that the GB parliament must legislate for unity if a referendum is passed by more than 50% ie if it has a simple majority.

However a referendum on the subject can only be held every 7 years-so if you hold one now and the result is A UK then the next one cant be untill 2012 and if you hold one then and its still a UK result , then the next one is in 2019 even if theres an election in 2013 that delivers say a 60% nationalist/republican vote.

Thats why some unionists want a border poll now , so as thye can put in train some certainty regarding probably another 21 years of definite non change.
Despite some of the opinions in this thread-With Nationalist/Republican voting figures circa only 3 or 4% off the Unionists figures and with the nationalist ones rising slowly whilst the unionist count is more stead-I can see why some unionists would be worried.

Diorraing

black_jack wrote:

Yeah. So. And. What. Are you honestly using Bismarck are justification for a united ireland. No one can rise up and give a compelling argument not based on the historical dreams of a Wolfe Tone or a Pearse.

Quite clearly i'm not using Bismark as a justification for a UI - that would undermine my argument. A UI would be far more legitimate than Bismark's unification of Germany which was achieved through a series of wars and against the will of all other lands apart from Prussia. I argue for a United Ireland when there is a nationalist majority and which shall not be attained through violence. The money put into unifying the country would be pretty worthwhile when you consider the millions the Government pissed away on E-voting, Bertie Bowl, Tribunals, The Spire etc.

Kilsally

I don`t think Northern Ireland is "poorer" than the Republic.
NI has free health care and the whilst wages are less, house prices are less and the cost of living is less.

The problem occurs in that if unified the current UK subsidy would need to be provided the Republic which is alot smaller population than the UK or have a huge drop in living standards in NI, although reform of the much over staffed and unefficient civil service due to direct rule would help this ALOT. There are WAY to may civil servants. Reform of local government is coming with the creation of 6 or 7 "super councils" as opposed to the current 18 or so....the NI Assembly could also be made much more streamlined with less MLA`s and less departments and the civil service overall should be brought into line with the UK as the NI civil service is still modelled on the old system and has not had the reform of the mainland civil service.

bonkey

Diorraing wrote:

What is the point of a UI? Well, what was the point of gaining independance from the Brits in the first place - please answer that all you UI sceptics. It wasn't gained because we'd be better off financially, it was gained because the Irish people are a proud race who would never lie down to oppression from any other country.

And by this logic, unless the people of NI are still being oppressed, and their country still being run in the manner of Ireland-pre-partition (i.e. as a money-generator for England), then there is no remaining reason to seek independance.

Unless, of course, you see being ruled by the people you don't wish to be ruled by as oppression in itself. If you do, then you are suggesting that we simply change the oppression of the Republicans in the North for the oppression of the Unionists.

jc

LordSutch

From a Unionists point of view a United ireland is Pie in the Sky for several reasons, and its up to us in the South to make it look more interesting for them to leave the UK and join us, but at this moment in time whats the incentive for them to leave the UK?: Firstly they have the NHS which isnt perfect but it does mean a "Free" trip to their Doctor/ Dentist (can we better that)? they are also British which means that they do not identify with our Green/White/Orange version of Irishness (Can we take their Britishness away from them)? and what about their seperate History to ours, ie: The Second World War (Can we pretend that we supported them against the Nazi's)?
The more you look into the possability of a United Ireland the more you realise that its only Irish Nationalists that want it - Unionists/ Loyalists certainly dont, and as for Westminster and the people of Britain they dont want the North either! so it looks like they will remain in the UK until the Britishness is bread-out of them which might or might not happen within the next Fifty years?