Costs of Irish unification.

blanch152 · 05-01-2018 06:44PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I note that as well as 'projecting' things not said onto arguments that you gleefully and wilfully miss phrases like 'majority of'. :rolleyes:

Well then you won't have a problem with me saying that the majority of the blame for the North's problems today (as opposed to the historical problems) such as poor economic performance, a non-functioning educational system and the lack of a devolved government lie with SF who have more focus on side-issues like the language issue rather than the real everyday issues facing people.

After all I am only apportioning the majority of the blame, not the vast majority.

murphaph · 05-01-2018 07:24PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It is quite usual for sides to become entrenched and to taunt one another after partition.

"Quite usual" implies you can cite a few examples of this beyond NI...can you?

James Brown · 05-01-2018 07:35PM

blanch152 wrote: »

Well then you won't have a problem with me saying that the majority of the blame for the North's problems today (as opposed to the historical problems) such as poor economic performance, a non-functioning educational system and the lack of a devolved government lie with SF who have more focus on side-issues like the language issue rather than the real everyday issues facing people.

After all I am only apportioning the majority of the blame, not the vast majority.

That's simply untrue. Currently it's the DUP going back on previously agreed to Irish language rulings, causing a stalemate by tacking on Ulster Scots and an inhumane view of homosexuality. Neither side are bastions of social policy first, but picking Sinn Fein for the 'majority of the blame' is nonsense.

FrancieBrady · 05-01-2018 07:37PM

blanch152 wrote: »

Well then you won't have a problem with me saying that the majority of the blame for the North's problems today (as opposed to the historical problems) such as poor economic performance, a non-functioning educational system and the lack of a devolved government lie with SF who have more focus on side-issues like the language issue rather than the real everyday issues facing people.

After all I am only apportioning the majority of the blame, not the vast majority.

You can say what you wish but the harsh reality for you is that northern Ireland was all of those things and experienced all of those things long before SF came to prominence.
They only started to be addressed when SF managed to achieve equality for nationalists and as we can all (bar a few diehards) see who exactly it is that is holding up further progress.
If only you would honestly answer the question you would see that.

oscarBravo · 05-01-2018 07:38PM

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Scotland formed as it's own entity and is still seen as such. It wasn't created as a political ruse to explain stealing land. I would support it of course.

OK. So it's "natural" for Ireland to be an all-island political unit, and it's "natural" for Scotland to be a partitioned-off part of an island, because Reasons.

Like I said: dogma.

FrancieBrady · 05-01-2018 07:48PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

OK. So it's "natural" for Ireland to be an all-island political unit, and it's "natural" for Scotland to be a partitioned-off part of an island, because Reasons.

Like I said: dogma.

Ireland was partitioned by an external force. Read about it and it will show you just how unnatural it was. At one point it could have been 4 counties and at another all nine of Ulster.

murphaph · 05-01-2018 08:02PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You can say what you wish but the harsh reality for you is that northern Ireland was all of those things and experienced all of those things long before SF came to prominence.
They only started to be addressed when SF managed to achieve equality for nationalists and as we can all (bar a few diehards) see who exactly it is that is holding up further progress.
If only you would honestly answer the question you would see that.

Wut? I thought it was Hulme and Trimble that Bono got to shake hands....not Gerry and Ian! I understand you like SF but please don't start giving them the credit for the GFA.

oscarBravo · 05-01-2018 08:10PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Ireland was partitioned by an external force. Read about it and it will show you just how unnatural it was. At one point it could have been 4 counties and at another all nine of Ulster.

Ireland was never a unified country except under British rule. I can accept and applaud the desire to have an independent, unified Ireland, but the idea that it's a "natural" state is just dogmatic waffle.

James Brown · 05-01-2018 08:16PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

OK. So it's "natural" for Ireland to be an all-island political unit, and it's "natural" for Scotland to be a partitioned-off part of an island, because Reasons.

Like I said: dogma.

Scotland is still Scotland, it doesn't include Manchester despite any political rule.
So you go take ownership of Coventry. Set up a nice little state-let under your rule and tell any English who take umbrage to that occupation, "A country can't occupy its own territory, it's a logical impossibility". See how you fare.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Ireland was never a unified country except under British rule. I can accept and applaud the desire to have an independent, unified Ireland, but the idea that it's a "natural" state is just dogmatic waffle.

Folks like to add their own reading onto points to suit their own. Ireland was a country that included Ulster long before the occupation. A whole complete Ireland includes Ulster. Naturally, geographically and historically.

FrancieBrady · 05-01-2018 08:27PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

Ireland was never a unified country except under British rule. I can accept and applaud the desire to have an independent, unified Ireland, but the idea that it's a "natural" state is just dogmatic waffle.

Can you show us it's natural state as a Unionist controlled sectarian state?

That was not a natural patitioning and wasn't intended to be final. It was actually intended to re-unite the island. If we do have a UI it would be fulfilling the vision of the original architects of partition in fact.
A UI is quite a natural thing in that respect.

FrancieBrady · 05-01-2018 08:34PM

murphaph wrote: »

Wut? I thought it was Hulme and Trimble that Bono got to shake hands....not Gerry and Ian! I understand you like SF but please don't start giving them the credit for the GFA.

Denial now too?

Bono was a PR sideshow for the easily conned. In fact he usually is. 'The Artiste In Permanent Search Of A Bandwagon'.

blanch152 · 05-01-2018 08:37PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Ireland was partitioned by an external force. Read about it and it will show you just how unnatural it was. At one point it could have been 4 counties and at another all nine of Ulster.

Ireland was never united with a central government prior to British rule.

How could something that was never united be partitioned?

If you use your type of logic, it was the partitioning of the Republic from the rest of the natural archipelago of the British Isles that caused all of the problems.

There is no such thing as a natural country.

oscarBravo · 05-01-2018 09:11PM

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Scotland is still Scotland, it doesn't include Manchester despite any political rule.
So you go take ownership of Coventry. Set up a nice little state-let under your rule and tell any English who take umbrage to that occupation, "A country can't occupy its own territory, it's a logical impossibility". See how you fare.

I'd respond to those points, if I had the faintest idea what you're trying to say.

Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom (the clue is in the name). Ireland isn't occupying Munster, and the UK isn't occupying Northern Ireland. These are facts. I know facts aren't fashionable anymore, but I live in hope.

A whole complete Ireland includes Ulster. Naturally, geographically and historically.

"Naturally" is the question we're discussing, so you're begging the question. "Geographically" is meaningless, as you've already argued that Scotland - geographically analogous to Britain as Northern Ireland is to Ireland - deserves independence. And "historically" is simply factually untrue, as the island has simply never been an independent united entity.

I know you won't agree with any of this, because I'm disagreeing with something you believe as a dogmatic article of faith. Which has been my point all along.

blanch152 · 05-01-2018 09:19PM

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Scotland is still Scotland, it doesn't include Manchester despite any political rule.
So you go take ownership of Coventry. Set up a nice little state-let under your rule and tell any English who take umbrage to that occupation, "A country can't occupy its own territory, it's a logical impossibility". See how you fare.

Folks like to add their own reading onto points to suit their own. Ireland was a country that included Ulster long before the occupation. A whole complete Ireland includes Ulster. Naturally, geographically and historically.

That map is of a province of the United Kingdom, it is not a map of Ireland.

jm08 · 05-01-2018 10:16PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

Ireland was never a unified country except under British rule. I can accept and applaud the desire to have an independent, unified Ireland, but the idea that it's a "natural" state is just dogmatic waffle.

Ireland had its own parliament and house of Lords from 1297 until 1800.

There is absolutely nothing natural about the border between NI & ROI. To be anyway natural (as in the creation of a Protestant State for a Protestant People, the original intention of the founders of NI, the border should not have been around the six, but to make it viable they included the present 6 counies).

FrancieBrady · 05-01-2018 10:32PM

Still dying to hear how the subject of the moment 'the partition of Ireland' can be described as 'natural'.

Who's gonna give it a go?

blanch152 · 05-01-2018 10:52PM

jm08 wrote: »

Ireland had its own parliament and house of Lords from 1297 until 1800.

There is absolutely nothing natural about the border between NI & ROI. To be anyway natural (as in the creation of a Protestant State for a Protestant People, the original intention of the founders of NI, the border should not have been around the six, but to make it viable they included the present 6 counies).

Ireland had its own devolved Assembly from 1297 until 1800, all under the sovereignty of the King and Queen of England.

blanch152 · 05-01-2018 10:56PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Still dying to hear how the subject of the moment 'the partition of Ireland' can be described as 'natural'.

Who's gonna give it a go?

It is as natural as the creation of the ROI from the United Kingdom. If we reverse the Government of Ireland Act 1921, we revert to the most common and natural way these islands have been governed through history.

FrancieBrady · 05-01-2018 10:59PM

blanch152 wrote: »

It is as natural as the creation of the ROI from the United Kingdom. If we reverse the Government of Ireland Act 1921, we revert to the most common and natural way these islands have been governed through history.

Read that twice and failed to see a description of the partition of Ireland as a natural thing.

blanch152 · 05-01-2018 11:03PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Read that twice and failed to see a description of the partition of Ireland as a natural thing.

There is nothing natural about nation-states. They are one of the most unnatural creations in human history.

FrancieBrady · 05-01-2018 11:05PM

blanch152 wrote: »

There is nothing natural about nation-states. They are one of the most unnatural creations in human history.

Not in that one either.

What was distinctively different about the 6 counties population that warranted partitioning them from the rest of the island?

Maybe that would allow you to answer the actual question.

jm08 · 05-01-2018 11:12PM

blanch152 wrote: »

Ireland had its own devolved Assembly from 1297 until 1800, all under the sovereignty of the King and Queen of England.

Nope. It had its own Parliament (called the Irish House of Commons) and a House of Lord (which was made up of the Anglo-Irish gentry). It had a King, who also happened to be King of England. It levied taxes. Roman Catholics and Presbyterians were not allowed be MPs. It was an all-Ireland parliament.

edit: brief history for you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_of_Ireland

blanch152 · 05-01-2018 11:28PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Not in that one either.

What was distinctively different about the 6 counties population that warranted partitioning them from the rest of the island?

Maybe that would allow you to answer the actual question.

What is distinctively different about Italy that caused all of the Italian provinces to merge?

What is distinctively different about Yugoslavia that caused it to break up?

What is distinctively different about Catalonia that it should be independent from Spain?

What is distinctively different about Germany's border with France that changes every century?

What is distinctively different about the Czech Republic rather than Czechoslovakia?

What is distinctively different about Belgium that it can keep the Flemish and the Walloons together under one government unlike Northern Ireland?

All nation-states, all boundaries are unnatural.

FrancieBrady · 05-01-2018 11:36PM

blanch152 wrote: »

What is distinctively different about Italy that caused all of the Italian provinces to merge?

What is distinctively different about Yugoslavia that caused it to break up?

What is distinctively different about Catalonia that it should be independent from Spain?

What is distinctively different about Germany's border with France that changes every century?

What is distinctively different about the Czech Republic rather than Czechoslovakia?

What is distinctively different about Belgium that it can keep the Flemish and the Walloons together under one government unlike Northern Ireland?

All nation-states, all boundaries are unnatural.

I read that and failed, yet again to find an answer to the question I asked.

Maybe I will simplify a bit more.

In 1820-1870- 1900- 1918 what was the difference in identity between someone in Clare and someone in Tyrone?

Would the lack of a difference had anything to do with the architects of partition believing it was just a temporary arrangement for instance?

blanch152 · 05-01-2018 11:44PM

jm08 wrote: »

Nope. It had its own Parliament (called the Irish House of Commons) and a House of Lord (which was made up of the Anglo-Irish gentry). It had a King, who also happened to be King of England. It levied taxes. Roman Catholics and Presbyterians were not allowed be MPs. It was an all-Ireland parliament.

edit: brief history for you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_of_Ireland

Doesn't take away from the point that Ireland was only united under British rule.

FrancieBrady · 05-01-2018 11:50PM

blanch152 wrote: »

Doesn't take away from the point that Ireland was only united under British rule.

Is there a yearning to be part of the UK in that answer? I really don't see how you can give that answer otherwise. There is a strong whiff of triumphalism about it.
There was no difference between somebody in Tyrone and somebody in Clare in identity terms before partition. And no difference now - except among those the statelet of NI was created for.

blanch152 · 05-01-2018 11:57PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I read that and failed, yet again to find an answer to the question I asked.

Maybe I will simplify a bit more.

In 1820-1870- 1900- 1918 what was the difference in identity between someone in Clare and someone in Tyrone?

Would the lack of a difference had anything to do with the architects of partition believing it was just a temporary arrangement for instance?

During those time-periods, there was as much difference in identity between someone in Kerry and someone in Newcastle or Edinburgh or Cardiff or Cornwall as in your example.

We were all British, whether you like it or not, and for the most part, we were happy to be British, another uncomfortable truth.

jm08 · 05-01-2018 11:59PM

blanch152 wrote: »

Doesn't take away from the point that Ireland was only united under British rule.

Up to 1801, the arrangement was similar to what the Free State until it became a Republic. In that time, Ireland fought an economic war with Britain and stayed neutral in WWII. In other words, the Dail did what it liked.

Kingdom of Ireland in personal union with Kingdom of England 1542–1707, and Kingdom of Great Britain from 1707 to 1801. Formed integral part of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (see below) 1801–1922, when Irish Free State was formed from most of the island of Ireland.

Irish Free State in personal union with United Kingdom (de jure) from 1922 to 1949, when the Free State officially became the Republic of Ireland.

FrancieBrady · 06-01-2018 12:00AM

blanch152 wrote: »

During those time-periods, there was as much difference in identity between someone in Kerry and someone in Newcastle or Edinburgh or Cardiff or Cornwall as in your example.

We were all British, whether you like it or not, and for the most part, we were happy to be British, another uncomfortable truth.

Nothing uncomfortable about it at all. I have no problems with the actual history of our country.

So let me get this straight, you are saying that somebody from Clare or Tyrone had the exact same identity as someone from Newcastle or Edinburgh etc etc?

So why were only 6 counties partitioned off?

blanch152 · 06-01-2018 12:03AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Nothing uncomfortable about it at all. I have no problems with the actual history of our country.

So let me get this straight, you are saying that somebody from Clare or Tyrone had the exact same identity as someone from Newcastle or Edinburgh etc etc?

So why were only 6 counties partitioned off?

No, that is not what I said.

Costs of Irish unification.

Comments