David Trimble on the Republic

MDR

Chicago Sun Times - N. Ireland politician visits here

Apparentily we aren't pathetic at all,
just mono-ethnic and mono-cultural.

Is he a lune or does he have a point ?

DiscoStu

You still can't fly Union Jacks [British flags] in Ireland. They'll have a special in the stores for [European Union] items, and you'll see the flags of every country in Europe except the Union Jacks, which will be littered on the floor"

oh boy :rolleyes: it does get tiresome cleaning my shoes on that union jack on my front portch.

I actually had a small bit of respect for the man after he went out on a limb for the good friday agreement, but over that last few years he has just pandered to the anti agreement members of his party.

his comments are more than a bit pot calling kettle black

"If you took away Catholicism and anti-Britishness, the state doesn't have a reason to exist"

if you took away anti irishness from northern ireland what would they have? the british government dosent want them. the province has been a thorn in the side of england for the last 60-70 years.

seamus

"If you took away Catholicism and anti-Britishness, the state doesn't have a reason to exist," said Trimble, whose largely Protestant Ulster Unionist Party wants to keep Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom.

Ahahahahahahaha!! The man hasn't a clue. Why does any state in the world have a 'reason to exist'. I'm neither Catholic nor anti-British, yet my Irish identity is just as strong as anyone's.

The entire article is complete tripe. The Irish population is not 90% Catholic!!

I have never gone into a shop and seen the flag of the country beside the product (except maybe for wines). If they're marked at all, they'll say 'Made in the EU' and nothing more. He's talking out of his arse.

RampagingBadger

I don't agree with what David Trimble said but I think he had a good reason for saying it. It is true that in the last few years he's pandered to the more hard-line elements in his party. I don't think this is by choice. David Trimble has to go with what the will of his party is. If he doesn't he'll be ousted as leader. I'd rather have a moderate intelligent man like David as head of Unionism in the north than any of the alternatives. If he has to bad-mouth the South to appease his voters so be it.

seaghdhas

The problem with bad-mouthing the South to appease the hard-liners is that, coming from him, it justifies their uninformed belligerence. Especially when it contains even some of the things he said.

One other thing, how is a country meant to be multi-cultural, when it could hardly afford to be itself in the first place. Seventy years of on-off support via exports to Britain, not even the North, helped but maybe the South's few years of growth lies elsewhere.

Actually, another thing as well. If Irish institutions were to be modelled on what was Irish, we have clans, chieftans and high kings.

DiscoStu

nobody denies ireland is mono-cultural, but when such blatant hypocrisy is uttered by the head of the nothern ireland government when institutionalized racisim was practised and still is in many cases in the civil service and policing bodies of the north it really pisses me off.
Plus the idea that we go around burning effigies of british cultural icons and destroying the english flag all under the advice of the catholic chuch is pure nonsence.

Hobbes

Has he even been to the south of Ireland? If so where? Sounds like he just passed through the Shannon duty free shop.

mike65

Its been about a year since his last "anti-south" outburst, maybe
its something he just needs to do every so often otherwise he might have a political breakdown...

Mike.

Xterminator

Well, it shows how pathetic unionisim is , when they cant even have an honest appraisal of the Republic.

Eire is increasingly becoming a secular society.

Given the EU bonds, our reliance on the UK ( as a market, as a trading partner, and the links to our encomomies) has been put more into perspective, as shown by our joining the single currency, without waiting to see what the british decide.

Culturally 'irishness' is recognised woldwide an identity in its own right (and as importantly, is recognised by us). I am proud to be irish.
There are still elements of anti-britishness in our culture, (in folk songs, and when we play them in any sport etc.) but that is far from a defining characteristic.

Honestly the Trimble bloke is a joke himself!

X

meglome

"the pathetic sectarian, mono-ethnic, mono-cultural state to our south."

ok in fairness the mono-ethnic, mono-cultural state jibe was true, simply when you live in a poor country people aren't exactly cueing up to come over. Nowadays this isn't really true certainly not in Dublin.

On paper Ireland is something like 95% catholic but that's not necessarily relevant. You couldn't describe modern Ireland as being fervently religious so it's immaterial.

As for the whole not flying union jacks then fair enough I personally don't want them flying. They really have all the wrong connotations in my mind.

Trimble should really try visiting the south or at least looking out his car window on the way down.

MDR

You still can't fly Union Jacks [British flags] in Ireland.

Somebody should tell the British Embassy

seaghdhas

I've been told plenty of stories, second or third hand admitedly, about fairly extreme anti-Englishness on the part of the Irish. And about a time when Ireland was heavily dependant on Britain for exports. To be fair these relayed the attitudes of those who wouldn't have been in regular contact with 'foreigners', but it paints a picture. Ireland, like any other open society, is more tolerant to those we know better at this stage. This isn't a phenomenon limited to Dublin. And Dublin itself does have its share of ignoramuses.

Religion ain't an issue, is it. How many people see the Chinese community as a religious grouping, or eastern Europeans in the same way? It's judging a group by the attitudes of it's majority. However some judgements may be out of date, don't allow for the individual, etc. Things that can preclude a person from the benefits of our 'spare' prosperity.

One last thing, if the British economy was managed the way the Irish economy was managed at it's more prosperous times, where would they be. Having said that, I realise the economy is a whole of the good and the bad, but there have been more bad decisions in Britain than in Ireland in relation to what has been achieved. Decisions such as supporting the industry that supports the community, tax rates, et al. There have been good and bad on either side, but on balance this bit of this island is a lot further from where it started eighty years ago than the other island and a bit.

Opitimus

Wouldn't mind him for he knows that history is on our side and when the day of reckoning comes he will see the light

meglome

here is a link to a more complete text of what he said... it get's worse. What do you think?

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/features/story.jsp?story=356049

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Typedef

Yes you are.

I think, however that David Trimble is much like any politician and has little to no actual concrete beliefs. If Mr Trimble seems rabid, it is because he must appease rabidly loyalist elements of his party, elements like the Orange Order and Mr Donaldson.

Clearly, to my mind at least, David Trimble made the choice to reorient his public persona to a more anti Irish stance, so as to remain leader of his party. Yes David Trimble could have kept the UUP in Stormont a few months longer, but he would most likely have been deposed for doing so and lets face it, his replacement Mr Donaldson, is simply a misnomer for a DUP government.

To be honest, if one accepts the notion that a leader reflects to some degree the wishes, aspirations and desires of that leader's people, then it must be Unionists and Loyalists as a socio-political entity, that are bigoted about what this Republic is all about and actually redressing the centuries of elitism and isolation that has traditionally pertained to said socio-political grouping.

In other words, Unionism is not really prepaired to share power with Republicans or Nationalists, to be honest, the cynic inside me says that, perhaps the Northern Unionists and Loyalists think the best thing to do is to ride out the Labour government in Britian and simply wait for the Conservatives in Britain, to re-instate Direct rule (long term) or to use the power of the British government to manipulate Northern affairs to the advantage of the Northern Irish British.

That's how I'd see it anyway.

Bateman

In other words, Unionism is not really prepaired to share power with Republicans or Nationalists

I don't know about that. If we think the UUP are bad powersharing partners, what about the DUP? Worse again, we'd all say. Except that according to the Sunday Indo, Robinson (1st Min?) and Adams (Deputy 1st?) are doing a deal to get rid of Trimble! Don't know what to make of it, I must say it smells of the brown stuff, but ye can't be sure.

rien_du_tout

I wonder is it the real Dav Trimble that slips out for a bit of a mouth-off every year or is he under pressure to say it. Either way it's strange that more isnt made out of the comments. These words of his echo what we think the unionists feel, and that's worrying for the day when a united Ireland comes about. How far will unionists go to stop "Home rule" this time?

seán

Typedef

rien_du_tout:

Number one. Without consent of the 'majority' of the people of Northern Ireland, there cannot be a Republic.

Number two. Military action to attempt to force Unionism into a Republic is (a) counter productive (b) extremely hypocritical of Republicans given Ireland's history of English occupation. Quid pro quo.

The only way this Republic will gain territory is by redrawing the border, otherwise, there may be more 'cross border institutions' (read all Ireland institutions) and there may be more 'devolution of power to the Northern executive' (read Northern Home Rule), but since Unionism is in fact a majority (right or wrong) in the North, there will not be a thirty two country Republic. (Read there will be 'joint authority').

Even if Republicans were in the majority (as may well happen in the next twenty to thirty years), there could never be the sort of Republic you speak of, for the same reasons there can never be a full Direct Rule Union for Northern Ireland (ie, because it would cause war in the British Isles). In such circumstances there would be a fudged form of 'all Ireland' (if even that), a fudged form of it, that would still amount to 'joint authority'. That is where the six counties are right now (in everything but name) and that is the most likely long term amicable solution.

That is the way it is. Get a grip.

rien_du_tout

Typedef :

Number One: I agree with both number 1 and 2 of yours! You seem to have taken more from what I was saying than I meant.

Number Two: I do believe we will have a 32 county United Ireland eventually. I also believe it is in the interests of this nation that that happens but that's beside the point. Under the GFA there will be a poll on joining a united Ireland. Trimble wants this out of the way quickly so the unionists can be safe for another decade or 2 as he sees it. Demographics point to an eventual nationalist majority somewhere down the line.

Also I would question how much "joint authority" the 6 counties are under at the moment when England can suspend the institutions from the GFA without consent from the republic. I dont think joint authority is the long term solution but maybe I should start a different thread if I wanna discuss that!

I am very interested in what way Unionists would react if partition was to end. And I was trying to express that David Trimble's comments are not good for the long term. If at the time when they do(if they do) join a united ireland those comments would probably be very dangerous, and I'm amazed there isnt more uproar over them now. I suppose it's because he's been there done that......

Seán

Typedef

How would Unionists react, lets examine that.

Dr Ian Paisley has been closely associated with 'groups' who eventually became the Northern Loyalist paramilitaries. A so-called 'man of peace'. These groups were initially set up, ostensibly because of Unionist paranoia about being coralled into a Republic. What would happen if the six counties were 'voted' into a Republic, would be that the Unionists would orchestrate a campaign similar to the IRA campaign, to seperate or otherwise 'orangise' whatever sort of new nationalist dispensation were to come to pass.

Thus in reality, if it were the case that nationalism were the 'majority' in the North, Ireland would be faced with 'repartition' or a potential civil war in attempting to corall Unionism into a Republic. That is reality, the reality where the likes of Johnny Adair would 'never' accept a plebiscite to annex the North to the Republic, never.

Quote Ian Paisley : "Never, Never, Never". What could he mean by this statement, perhaps it is a vieled threat? Let's be honest at best, the quote above is a vieled threat. It implys that Unionism will 'never' funnily enough acquiece to a thirty two country Republic, in the same way that Nationalism will never accept Direct Rule, thus a thirty two country Republic is a pipe dream.That is why I must point out, that in the event of a Nationalist majority coming to pass (assuming current population growth motifs bear out), that the only real solution is a partition of the Northern counties as 'another solution' would put this Republic in the position where it would be Irish men, women and children who would be the target of Unionist national frustration.

rien_du_tout

Why are the 6 counties British territory? Because the majority of the people in Northern Ireland want that. It took me a while to accept that it is up to the people of those counties weather they join, even though the partition of the country in the 1st place was a remarkable mistake.

But if some day they vote for to join the 26 counties I would fully support that. The english have shown that they are in control of Northern Ireland by suspending the institutions. Why should the majority of the future in the 6 counties have to take orders from a nation it has voted to leave behind. It seems undemocratic.

I'm not saying we should add a few seats to Dáil Éireann and pretend nothing has happened. But I do think that for example the powers of the commons should,if wished by the majority in the north, be transferred to Ireland. The GFA is an agreement between Ireland and Britian and so would still be used for it's purpose. But the union would be broken, British troops would be gone, and boy would that be a sight!

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Typedef

Remember people. The republic would have to vote in favour of a united Ireland as well, and don't think that's a foregone conclusion.

When you think about it none of the mainstream political parties would be for it because for example FF

No Dave you are quite wrong I think. Even Fine Gael would be massively in favour of uniting the six counties with the rest of the Republic any other stance would be akin to electoral suicide.

Don't forget Fine Gael had lots of IRB men in it too, Collins' men and Fianna Fial broke from Sinn Fein, so at least on that front support from Fianna Fial 'is' a forgone conclusion. Labour subsumed the Democratic Left and the Democratic Left broke away from Sinn Fein. Hmm, I sense a pattern.

Joking aside, I think that if a plebiscite were held in the Republic as to whether or not the Irish people were in favour of unification, the pro-Unification vote would be in the high eighty to ninety percentages.

Typedef

But the union would be broken, British troops would be gone, and boy would that be a sight!


You are missing my point. Of course I want to see National Unification, but what I don't want to see is total subsumation of the 'entire' Northern State, because that would create civil war with the Northern Unionists, whether speaking in terms of the entire numbers game of 'democracy' the Unionists would be right or wrong.

I don't want to coralle Unionism into a Republic by way of a few percentage points on a demographic of the North's population in ten or fifteen years time. If the Nationalist population does eventually exceed that of the Unionist (as the current growth rates would seem to suggest will be likely) then I propose, total parition of the Northern State. I don't propose to subsume the wishes of the Northern minority to the GroSS national ambitions of the Irish, that's not necessary and is incongrous with the compassionate nature that this State so aptly proports in many humanitarian situations World Wide.

In short abrogation of the wishes of a hypothetical Unionist minority in a simple numbers game is not a requisite for National Union in the Irish context, simply a redefinition of the border, which long-term seems like a fair, amicable and decent (morally) solution.

Bod.

MDR

Joking aside, I think that if a plebiscite were held in the Republic as to whether or not the Irish people were in favour of unification, the pro-Unification vote would be in the high eighty to ninety percentages.

None, of the statistics I have ever seen would suggest this. Me thinks that most Irish People are vary wary of Northern Ireland, its the great unknown, the others, and given all the nasty news over the years they would very nervous of bringing them back into the fold, after all they vote 'Yes' by over 9x% to constitional change giving up any claim we have over the north.

I would reiterate DaveIRL's point that, a vote YES in the republic is far from a forgone conclusion, even more unlikely is a vote for re-unification in the North (as long as they are allowed the basic civil right of self-determine). Anyone who believes any different on either of these two points, is living in a Green Dreamland

Typedef

Nobody is disputing the principal of consent MDR. Ok, I'm not disputing the principal of consent.

What I do say is that if current rates of growth in Northern Ireland bear out, it will come to pass that Nationalism is in fact the majority. In which case 'technically' the Northern State could be voted into a Republic (assuming the Republic consented (possibly over a number of plebiscites on the issue)).

This use of numbers to subsume the national desires of the Unionists, is in my view a spurious avenue, but still in our hypothetical situation, Nationalism has come to be the majority in the North. So my solution to subsuming Unionism into a Republic, is simply repartition.

Again I have to point out that even the most notably pro-British party (Fine Gael) were originally comprised of ex-IRB men. It was a Fine Gael Taoiseach who declared Ireland a Republic.

Given these facts I think it extremely unlikely a re-Unification vote would go against expansion of the Republic.

MDR

If the Nationalist population does eventually exceed that of the Unionist (as the current growth rates would seem to suggest will be likely) then I propose

Catholic and Nationalist population are not the same thing TypeDef, the Catholic population are on track to exceed the number of protestants, but a large proportion of Catholics only pay lip service to the ideals of Nationalism, and would prepare to remain part of the UK, due in most part to a more attactive personal tax regiem.

Your idea of what more or less amounts to a boundary commission revisited, in the unlikely event of a Nationalist majority is flawed. You will still end up with lots of dis-gruntled (possibly to the point of arms) unionists in the south, unless of course you are prepared to coral them within the newly defined borders of the North, in fine Israeli style ...

Bateman

>thus a thirty two country Republic is a pipe dream.


In fairness, the forces that prevent it are waning and the forces that puch for it are growing stronger. It is written into the GFA that in the event of a majority voting to enter into a 32 county Republic, legislation shall come to pass to implement this. This is the accepted wisdom.

You would be correct to point out that we have no comprehension of what life could be like within this structure, but to predict that Loyalist paramilitaries would run riot is ludicrous. People like Adair would be summarily rounded up imemdiately, and of the Gardaí engaged with Republican paramilitaries to a degree nearing collusion in the North, life might not be all that bad.

Typedef

No, not all 'Catholics', would vote for Unification. The South I think would, that is my opinion and I have offered evidence for that.

The North? It's difficult to say. It is true to say that most 'Catholics' vote either for Sinn Fein or the SDLP, both of whom to varying extents support Irish reunification (in fact Mark Durcan has recently set that position out as being the goal of the SDLP).

You will still end up with lots of dis-gruntled (possibly to the point of arms) unionists in the south, unless of course you are prepared to coral them within the newly defined borders of the North, in fine Israeli style ...

Hmm, I'm not really seeing how a revisitation of the Boundary Comission is flawed. If one assumes it will fail, then yes the idea is supurious, however if one works from a position that the aim of the Commission is to have Ninety plus percent of each given ethnic group living in their chosen State and then sets out to achieve such an aim, I don't really see how the notion of a re-visited Boundary Commission is in fact spurious, unless you can demonstrate to me how such an entity can be 'assumed' to fail?

Bateman

>The english have shown that they are in control of Northern Ireland by suspending the institutions

I think the English have shown that they are in control of Northern Ireland since suspending the institutions. At whose behest did they suspend them? Trimble.

Typedef

It is written into the GFA that in the event of a majority voting to enter into a 32 county Republic, legislation shall come to pass to implement this. This is the accepted wisdom.

For two reasons I can't accept a thirty two country Republic.

Number one because it would 'force' Unionism into a Republic, lots of whom are ordinary decent people who simply want to live under Britian and I most certainly would not want to abrograte the National wishes of another person, unless that person is hell bent on abrogating mine and honestly, I don't think the Unionists care.

Number two, if a Nationalist majority were to outvote Unionism, it would cause a civil war and basically no one wants war. If you think that the Loyalist paramilitaries would not agitate to resist a thirty two county Republic, then how could one countenance statements like "Ulster will fight, Ulster will be right" and so on? I think it highly likely Loyalist paramilitaries would resist the abolition of the Union (and a redrawing of the border for that matter), however once the border was redrawn the Unionists would still be part of the Union, whilst under a thirty two country 'solution' Ireland would be left with the ongoing security nightmare that the Loyalists in the North have stated would come to pass in the event of moves towards a United Ireland.

So simply the concept that that Northern Unionists should 'ever' be forced into a Republic is in my opinon suprious for the two main reasons given above.

MDR

The South I think would, that is my opinion and I have offered evidence for that.

The evidence you use from what I have read, is mostly drawn from the original make up of the main political parites in the Republic. The two states, have had 80 years to grow apart, not mention the troubles to irrepairable damage

The North? It's difficult to say.

Its not really, informal poles that are conducted in the North always come out with a large majority in favour of retaining the Union. Me thinks even Sinn Fein has conceeded this, once or twice, but amn't sure.

I lived in Northen Ireland for a long time, I have close friends who come from Unionist and Nationalist backgrounds, most whom distance themselves from their origins to a certain extent. And I can tell you with a high degree of certainity that I can't see a 'Yes' vote in the short to medium term, who knows what will happen in the long term, hopefully will be a federal europe at that stage ... It all comes down to money, they know they are better off (finiancally in Britain)

I'm not really seeing how a revisitation of the Boundary Comission is flawed

Would you divide Belfast into East and West, with a new Berlin Wall ? Well no it would actually be a bit more complex than that, 'cos the North is mostly unionist and the south is a good mix. So what we will do is divide the North & East off from the West and call the South no man's land ?

Or how about south Tyrone, would you propose putting a wall around Dungannon and the other few Unionist enclaves for its own protection and giving the rest back to the republic. We would need to rename it the Gaza Strip ...

The population is too fragmented with in the province, to attempt to revisit the Boundary Commission.

Bateman

Remember people. The republic would have to vote in favour of a united Ireland as well, and don't think that's a foregone conclusion.

When you think about it none of the mainstream political parties would be for it because for example FF would lose their position as the dominant party in an all Ireland because of the completely different political landscape.

---

If this is all that "Southern Unionism" has to offer then it doesn't even exist. A majority of people in the South voted in favour of the GFA clearly because they felt that it furthered Nationalism. And those who didn't? Well their primary motive was probably good old Articles Two and Three, which have now been thrown into history. So between the two blocs, I think its inconceivable that any party in the Republic would go against unification. As previosly stated, it would be suicide. Irish parties have always been willing to work within the circumsatances in which they find themselves.






>that's not necessary and is incongrous with the compassionate nature that this State so aptly proports in many humanitarian situations World Wide.

---

Bollocks. Its consent, and consent is the holy grail for Unionists. Its them that insisted that consent be written into the GFA, and your argument is contrary to the spirit and the letter of the GFA. I assume then that you voted anti-agreement, and consider yourself as such. Or if its "just as aspect of the agreement that you happen to disagree with", then its apretty big one.



(in fact Mark Durcan has recently set that position out as being the goal of the SDLP).

---

The extraordinary scenes of celebrations from the SDLP that followed the announcing of a power-sharing assembly would suggest that Durkan is delighted with power-sharing and anything more would rock his fragile boat.

Bateman

Me thinks even Sinn Fein has conceeded this, once or twice, but amn't sure.

---

Well its tacitly conceded in the GFA isn't it? The principle that the people of the island of Ireland and only the people of the island of Ireland can excercise their right to self-determination and that if majorities vote in favour in both parts of a United Ireland then this will come to pass?
Sinn Féin signed up to the agreement, make no mistake, they have long ago accepted partition.

Typedef

The evidence you use from what I have read, is mostly drawn from the original make up of the main political parites in the Republic. The two states, have had 80 years to grow apart, not mention the troubles to irrepairable damage

Ok, lets take an example from the 1980s. Garrett Fitzgerald signed the Anglo-Irish agreement, yet another Fine Gael Taoiseach, during a time when the troubles were as bad as ever.

This I think is proof enough that even the most supposedly (pro-British) parites in Ireland are, when you cut right down to it, quite nationalist.

Its not really, informal poles that are conducted in the North always come out with a large majority in favour of retaining the Union

Perhaps so, perhaps if you supply some numbers from the poles? In any case, if one looks at how Northern Nationalists (or Catholics if you prefare) actually vote, for the most part it is the SDLP and Sinn Fein (in that order). Both main nationalist parties are in favour of total re-Unification so I find it incongrous to claim that such a long established policy from both of these parties is in fact going to prove to be a fallacy in terms of actual votes on Unification in the event demographics bear out the current rates of growth and Nationalism is in the majority in the North.

hopefully will be a federal europe at that stage

Actually, hopefully that will never happen.

Would you divide Belfast into East and West, with a new Berlin Wall ?

That is generally what would 'have' to be done, and yes before you even make the point, I accept that at best, such division would be a logistic nightmare.

I do have to say though that if (and probably when) the Nationalists are the majority in the North (given current population growth rates) I would rather the Unionists were given the option to repartition, that is all.

The population is too fragmented with in the province, to attempt to revisit the Boundary Commission.

However that doesn't really address the fact (working from the Nationalist majority hypothesis in the future) that if the provence were not repartitioned, the extreme Loyalists, you know the ones I mean, like Ian Paisley who say things like "Catholics breed like rabbits" and "Mary was the whore of Rome", would most likely orchestrate a war against this Republic and it's people.

Typedef

I assume then that you voted anti-agreement, and consider yourself as such. Or if its "just as aspect of the agreement that you happen to disagree with", then its apretty big one.

Assumption is the mother of all f*ckups Bateman. I voted in favour of the Agreement because it to quote you "furthered Nationalism". Anyway.

Yes the principal of consent is part of the Good Friday agreement, however as I have stated a good few times, I don't think majority rule implys real consent when one deals with diametrically opposed socio-polical ethoses.

That is why incidentally power-sharing exists in Northern Ireland, because Majority Rule just doesn't cut it.

I'm glad we had this opportunity to talk.

rien_du_tout

I dont think the threat of a civil war is the right reason not to re-unify, on condition of majority wanting it balh blah blah........ If it's wanted then it should be done. Does anyone know if the GFA could continue with re-unification??

I dont like the repartitioning idea because it's partion that gave us what we have today. I think it has proved to increase division socially and culturally as can be seen from differences between north and south which have devoloped over a short enough period. Accepting long term full-partition (that being some of ireland still under london-rule) would be no better than leaving it like it is.


Also Typedef , under your idea we should have the immediate partition of nationalist and unionist areas. Why do you feel it could only happen at a stage when the majority wants reunification?? Dont you think its strange to say that its ok for the unionists to be in the majority and keep the nationalist areas, but if the nationalists get a majority they have to give up the unionist areas?? Logic there is flawed I feel.


On whether the north would vote for reunification or not. I've seen a poll from a leading unionist newspaper, which was on the net, which had a 40% vote (i think) for "do you think you could in the future vote for a united ireland". I'll try and find the page....it was about a year ago.

I really think there is no question about the result in the south. People individually would have some slight fear of the north, the economic concequences and such but there would be a general happiness and embrace of it I feel. I wouldnt count on the 9*% though.........

dathi1

when are the censes figures out? I hear the word "Dual Consent" being banded around a lot lately.

Typedef

Also Typedef , under your idea we should have the immediate partition of nationalist and unionist areas. Why do you feel it could only happen at a stage when the majority wants reunification??

Actually you are right. I do think repartition should happen now, but, I'm not so stupid as to think that the Unionists would give up any of the Six counties, unless it was thought the entire State might be ceded to the Republic. Not fair, not just, but, reality.

MDR

Ok, lets take an example from the 1980s. Garrett Fitzgerald signed the Anglo-Irish agreement, yet another Fine Gael Taoiseach, during a time when the troubles were as bad as ever.

Mrs Thatcher signed it as well, does that maker her pro-reunification. You see I have trouble with your read on history, you see the Irish Policitical (also that of the people) support for the anglo-irish agreement and the GFA as being evidence of a desire for reunification. I disagree, I simply see them as been driven by the will of the people and the polictical establishment to see peace in the north, nothing more.

In any case, if one looks at how Northern Nationalists (or Catholics if you prefare) actually vote, for the most part it is the SDLP and Sinn Fein (in that order).

You see the lines between unionist and nationalist aren't nearily as clear as you would like them to be. Many people vote for nationalist political parties because they feel they are best represented by them, many people still vote FF or FG even though they don't agree with _all_ their policies. This exaggerated in the north of Ireland, I will conceed thought that the rise in support for SF is also a rise in support for reunification, however dispite this i still do not believe that policatal party voting trends overall in the north is a fair reflection or how a reunification vote would go.

Actually, hopefully that will never happen.

Suffice to say we will have to agree to disagree on this matter.

the extreme Loyalists, you know the ones I mean, like Ian Paisley who say things like "Catholics breed like rabbits" and "Mary was the whore of Rome", would most likely orchestrate a war against this Republic and it's people.

any changes you make to the Norths boundary, will be seen by the Unionist community as a whole, not just the extremists as an attack upon their home and they will defend it in kind. The loyalist extremism you have refered to, is no better or worse, and no less founded than its nationalist counterpart. Have no illusions that, if you start playing with the border, you will start find bombs in Dublin. Your idea of repartition is not going placate them in the way you hope.

If you made me king of the world for a day, I would break the union, make Northern Ireland, a soverign (I use the word loosely, cos I don't believe it exists), independent (again I use the word loosely) Nation, free from both tradition, a sort of king Solomon cutting the bady in half (or was that King David ?).

Bateman

>If you made me king of the world for a day, I would break the union, make Northern Ireland, a soverign (I use the word loosely, cos I don't believe it exists), independent (again I use the word loosely) Nation, free from both tradition, a sort of king Solomon cutting the bady in half (or was that King David ?).

---

Against the will of nearly everyone there. Well thats democracy for you.

BJJ

More hatred and Racism towards Eire from Trimble,

just typical

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

BJJ

daveirl


Education time


Here in Ireland we speak our own dialect, we don't all speak the Queens English.
Irish people use there own unique expressions and phrases.

Just like how Americans might say "I put the groceries from the liquor store in the trunk"
"Do you eat Candy?"

Or how Aussies may say "G'day sport, what's your game?"
We use Eire and many other Irish words in every day life such as

"How's the craic?"

So



What's the craic,
are you English or Aussie ?

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

BJJ

Education time



Yes
the word EIRE is constantly used almost everyday in Ireland
it is the word used to describe the Republic of Ireland and can be found on stamps, in history books, on flags, banners, in bars, in the proclamation of the Irish Republic, on our Coinage or Currency, often even Americans can be heard singing "Eireann go Breagh".

Now seen that you seem to have a problem with the term Eire describing the Irish Republic, my guess is that you must be ENGLISH




?

sceptre

trollfeeding

daveirl

This post has been deleted.