nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Border Poll discussion

segarox

i hope some people from northern ireland are reading this because it concerns them.

i've been watching a few videos on what might happen to the north following brexit and one of the options is to reunify with ireland, which i believe, is not everyone cup of tea. me personally as an irishman, i have no strong feelings about this but i think it'd be nice to see a complete ireland on a map. however, i think i may have seen an option that hasn't been considered.

what if the north was to vote to rejoin ireland but in name only; establish yourselves as a separate state with your own government, your own police force (technically you have that already; Stormont and the PSNI) and your own currency.

could have the benefits of staying in the EU and not have the unpleasant taste of irish in your mouths. or am i talking rubbish? please, i'd to hear what you have to say.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

[Deleted User]

jm08 wrote: »

Lloyd George threatening ''terrible and immediate war''? No one is threatening war if the WA isn't ratified.

One thing that this whole Brexit thing shows is that British democracy is shambolic.

Lloyd George didn't threaten terrible and immediate war, that is just a nationalist myth

cgcsb

Aegir wrote: »

Lloyd George didn't threaten terrible and immediate war, that is just a nationalist myth

Wiki:

Michael Collins later claimed that at the last minute Lloyd George threatened the Irish delegates with a renewal of "terrible and immediate war"[11] if the Treaty was not signed at once. This was not mentioned as a threat in the Irish memorandum about the close of negotiations, but as a personal remark made by Lloyd George to Robert Barton, and merely a reflection of the reality of any military truce.[12] Barton noted that:

At one time he [Lloyd George] particularly addressed himself to me and said very solemnly that those who were not for peace must take full responsibility for the war that would immediately follow refusal by any Delegate to sign the Articles of Agreement.

Éamon de Valera called a cabinet meeting to discuss the treaty on 8 December, where he came out against the treaty as signed. The cabinet decided by four votes to three to recommend the treaty to the Dáil on 14 December.[13]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Irish_Treaty

Havockk

blanch152 wrote: »

It is democracy. Sometimes the people or the parliamentarians vote for something many of us don't like or don't want, be that Brexit, Act of Union or partition. However, not liking it doesn't make it undemocratic.

That's a completely myopic view of what happened. Besides, it is a parliament in the UK that is sovereign, not the people. How poetically beautiful is that one?

blanch152

Havockk wrote: »

That's a completely myopic view of what happened. Besides, it is a parliament in the UK that is sovereign, not the people. How poetically beautiful is that one?

As I was talking about both jurisdictions, I mentioned both people and parliamentarians. There are people out there who feel betrayed by the referenda on same-sex marriage and the Eighth. That doesn't make the results of those referenda undemocratic.

That is no different to the Dail voting for the Treaty, or the Irish parliament voting for the Act of Union. They were democratic results, even if some or many didn't like the outcome.

jm08

cgcsb wrote: »

Such a tradition would be completely alien to Dublin, not having a resident 'orange' community and all. We have Chinese new year and a community to match. That being said we had the Pope's visit in Dublin despite the lack of a significant community of support, the visit would've been better handled in Mayo

Orange community could travel. Isn't there a big parade in Rosanowlagh every year which I presume wouldn't have a huge 'orange' community.

It doesn't need to be as big as St. Pats day parade. It will be July and there will be loads of tourists around.

cgcsb

blanch152 wrote: »

As I was talking about both jurisdictions, I mentioned both people and parliamentarians. There are people out there who feel betrayed by the referenda on same-sex marriage and the Eighth. That doesn't make the results of those referenda undemocratic.

That is no different to the Dail voting for the Treaty, or the Irish parliament voting for the Act of Union. They were democratic results, even if some or many didn't like the outcome.

So like was LGBT Noise threatening war against Roscommon in 2015??

cgcsb

jm08 wrote: »

Orange community could travel. Isn't there a big parade in Rosanowlagh every year which I presume wouldn't have a huge 'orange' community.

It doesn't need to be as big as St. Pats day parade. It will be July and there will be loads of tourists around.

Hey, if they want to organise it yeah grand, same as everyone else. A bit weird given the total absence of local tradition, but sure whatever they like.

James Brown

It's simply ludicrous to pay homage to the bloody British part of our history (or however one may view it) on any symbolism relating to a unified Ireland free from British rule. It's akin to Germany working in the hammer and sickle upon re-unification. Again, they took on the red hand and are welcome to associate themselves to it as it's not going anywhere. It's not on our flag and wouldn't need be on any new one.

Imreoir2

blanch152 wrote: »

Well, yes.

The Irish parliament voted for the Act of Union.

The Irish Dail voted to accept the Treaty.

Both of those democratic actions gave legitimacy to various aspects of British rule.

Unpleasant truths for those of a romantic nationalist worldview, but truths nonetheless. You can argue on exactly how much legitimacy they had, but for a significant minority of people living on this island, those decisions are part of their heritage and should be recognised and embraced in a united Ireland.

The pre act of union Irish parliament was made up of planters, the vast majority of the population was not only not represented, but legally discriminated against. It had no legitimacy to represent Ireland at all if you ask me.

blanch152

Imreoir2 wrote: »

The pre act of union Irish parliament was made up of planters, the vast majority of the population was not only not represented, but legally discriminated against. It had no legitimacy to represent Ireland at all if you ask me.

You can take that view, but in the context of the time, it was as democratic as any other decision in the world, most probably more so.

Imreoir2

blanch152 wrote: »

You can take that view, but in the context of the time, it was as democratic as any other decision in the world, most probably more so.

That is a rather meaningless destinction if you ask me.

blanch152

Imreoir2 wrote: »

That is a rather meaningless destinction if you ask me.

Not at all. Context is everything for decisions and how you view them. In the context of the day, the Irish Parliament made a democratic decision.

Imreoir2

blanch152 wrote: »

Not at all. Context is everything for decisions and how you view them. In the context of the day, the Irish Parliament made a democratic decision.

Except that even in the context of the day, the "Irish Parliament" was anything but a parliament representing Ireland. It was a planter parliament that had no legitimacy to represent the people of Ireland. A vote took place, but it had no mandate.

blanch152

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Except that even in the context of the day, the "Irish Parliament" was anything but a parliament representing Ireland. It was a planter parliament that had no legitimacy to represent the people of Ireland. A vote took place, but it had no mandate.

We will just have to agree to differ then.

I think it was about as democratic as a decision could be in the context of the times. You think it was undemocratic by modern thinking. While we differ, our views are not incompatible.

Havockk

blanch152 wrote: »

You can take that view, but in the context of the time, it was as democratic as any other decision in the world, most probably more so.

That's not a democratic society. And it's patently ridiculous to describe a parliament that excluded over 90% of the population as democratic. Context or no, this would be laughed out of any debate.

Peregrinus

blanch152 wrote: »

Not at all. Context is everything for decisions and how you view them. In the context of the day, the Irish Parliament made a democratic decision.

In the context of the day, the Irish Parliament would have been furious at the suggestion that it had made a democratic decision, or that it ought to do so. It did not consider itself a democratic body; it would have been appalled at the prospect of becoming one. In the context of the day, "democracy" was a pejorative term.

View

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Except that even in the context of the day, the "Irish Parliament" was anything but a parliament representing Ireland. It was a planter parliament that had no legitimacy to represent the people of Ireland. A vote took place, but it had no mandate.

That is incorrect. It was THE Parliament for Ireland. There was no other body making legitimate decisions for the people of Ireland. And yes the standards of the day do determine the legitimacy of the decisions made since it is up to the people of the day to accept them or not.

If you are trying to tie “legitimacy” to the percentage of the population who can vote in an election, you are going nowhere. By that standard, any additional change to the eligibility to vote in a country - such as lowering the voting age to 16 - would mean that the decisions of all previous Parliament’s, made under the previous more restrictive conditions, would automatically become “illegitimate” and “undemocratic” under the new eligibility standards.

In Ireland’s case that would mean for instance that not only was the Parliament that passed the Act of Union “illegitimate” and “undemocratic” but so too was the pre-1922 “Parliament of Southern Ireland”/Dail that approved the Anglo-Irish Treaty that created the Free State (since all women bar a handful of wealthy ones were excluded from voting).

Are you really to argue that the decision to become independent (or at least a Dominion within the Empire) was illegitimate and undemocratic because virtually all women were denied the vote?

jm08

View wrote: »

That is incorrect. It was THE Parliament for Ireland. There was no other body making legitimate decisions for the people of Ireland. And yes the standards of the day do determine the legitimacy of the decisions made since it is up to the people of the day to accept them or not.

If you are trying to tie “legitimacy” to the percentage of the population who can vote in an election, you are going nowhere. By that standard, any additional change to the eligibility to vote in a country - such as lowering the voting age to 16 - would mean that the decisions of all previous Parliament’s, made under the previous more restrictive conditions, would automatically become “illegitimate” and “undemocratic” under the new eligibility standards.

In Ireland’s case that would mean for instance that not only was the Parliament that passed the Act of Union “illegitimate” and “undemocratic” but so too was the pre-1922 “Parliament of Southern Ireland”/Dail that approved the Anglo-Irish Treaty that created the Free State (since all women bar a handful of wealthy ones were excluded from voting).

Are you really to argue that the decision to become independent (or at least a Dominion within the Empire) was illegitimate and undemocratic because virtually all women were denied the vote?

In the terms of the time, that 1799 parliament was corrupt - any office holders who opposed the union were dismissed, new peers were created just to win the vote, bribes were used.

https://www.libraryireland.com/JoyceHistory/Union.php

cgcsb

blanch152 wrote: »

You can take that view, but in the context of the time, it was as democratic as any other decision in the world, most probably more so.

A parliament where only colonists were represented? are you serious? even pre-revolution France had 3rd estate representation of the peasantry and the French chopped the heads off the people who perpetuated that system. The Irish were just to submissive an docile, they needed to be doing more scalpings.

View

jm08 wrote: »

In the terms of the time, that 1799 parliament was corrupt - any office holders who opposed the union were dismissed, new peers were created just to win the vote, bribes were used.

https://www.libraryireland.com/JoyceHistory/Union.php

The use of words like “corrupt” and “bribe” in the absence of a law and/or court ruling to that effect is a subjective political term.

Patronage is and always has a part of politics.

Is it “corrupt” that we had Shane Ross promoted to Ministerial office? Or that the DUP get a billion to prop up May? Or is it a “bribe” that U.K. MEPs will get “loss of office” payments as part of their imminent forced retirement?

Imreoir2

View wrote: »

That is incorrect. It was THE Parliament for Ireland. There was no other body making legitimate decisions for the people of Ireland. And yes the standards of the day do determine the legitimacy of the decisions made since it is up to the people of the day to accept them or not.

If you are trying to tie “legitimacy” to the percentage of the population who can vote in an election, you are going nowhere. By that standard, any additional change to the eligibility to vote in a country - such as lowering the voting age to 16 - would mean that the decisions of all previous Parliament’s, made under the previous more restrictive conditions, would automatically become “illegitimate” and “undemocratic” under the new eligibility standards.

In Ireland’s case that would mean for instance that not only was the Parliament that passed the Act of Union “illegitimate” and “undemocratic” but so too was the pre-1922 “Parliament of Southern Ireland”/Dail that approved the Anglo-Irish Treaty that created the Free State (since all women bar a handful of wealthy ones were excluded from voting).

Are you really to argue that the decision to become independent (or at least a Dominion within the Empire) was illegitimate and undemocratic because virtually all women were denied the vote?

The pre act of union parliament was an occupiers parliament that had no mandate or legitimacy to act on behalf of the people of Ireland. That occupiers parliament may have had a slightly democratic form representing a small section of the planter community, but it did not represent, and did not even pretend to represent the people of Ireland. Their power was based on right of conquest, and nothing more, which is no legitimacy at all.

James Brown

An body, not elected by the people does not have a mandate to represent the people, even if a foreign government says they do. Any decision come to is essentially a private one, albeit far reaching. If you weren't asked, you're not represented. If you didn't elect the decision makers, the decisions are theirs alone.

View

Imreoir2 wrote: »

The pre act of union parliament was an occupiers parliament that had no mandate or legitimacy to act on behalf of the people of Ireland. That occupiers parliament may have had a slightly democratic form representing a small section of the planter community, but it did not represent, and did not even pretend to represent the people of Ireland. Their power was based on right of conquest, and nothing more, which is no legitimacy at all.

Your “occupiers” had at that stage been in Ireland for hundreds of years - they would (virtually) all have qualified, under modern rules, for Irish citizenship had that been available at the time. And, if, in your eyes, that isn’t enough to make them Irish, then it is little wonder that the average NI unionist wants nothing to do with any prospect of a united Ireland.

Also, in the age of the divine right of kings (which only gradually sputtering to an end in the 18th Century), the right to govern Ireland came directly from the pope (bar a short interlude when it was handed to the King of Spain at the time of the reformation). And, at the time, unless you fancied running the risk of being declared a heretic, that was an opinion that the people of the time accepted.

View

Matt Barrett wrote: »

An body, not elected by the people does not have a mandate to represent the people, even if a foreign government says they do. Any decision come to is essentially a private one, albeit far reaching. If you weren't asked, you're not represented. If you didn't elect the decision makers, the decisions are theirs alone.

In the Kingdoms of the time, the mandate came from the King down, not from his subjects up. The latter idea is a modern invention and one which causes problems - are you seriously trying to claim their was no mandate for Irish independence because almost no women had the vote at the time?

An Ciarraioch

View wrote: »

Your “occupiers” had at that stage been in Ireland for hundreds of years - they would (virtually) all have qualified, under modern rules, for Irish citizenship had that been available at the time. And, if, in your eyes, that isn’t enough to make them Irish, then it is little wonder that the average NI unionist wants nothing to do with any prospect of a united Ireland.

Also, in the age of the divine right of kings (which only gradually sputtering to an end in the 18th Century), the right to govern Ireland came directly from the pope (bar a short interlude when it was handed to the King of Spain at the time of the reformation). And, at the time, unless you fancied running the risk of being declared a heretic, that was an opinion that the people of the time accepted.

Firstly, the Irish Parliament was elected according to the Penal Laws, not only disenfranchising Catholics, but also Presbyterians (hence the latter's involvement in the United Irishmen).

Secondly, the infamous papal bull issued to Henry II was issued by the only English Pope, Adrian IV, in 1154, and future popes supported Irish Catholic aspirations to self-government, with Rinunccini the papal delegate to the Catholic Confederation of the 1640s.

An Ciarraioch

View wrote: »

In the Kingdoms of the time, the mandate came from the King down, not from his subjects up. The latter idea is a modern invention and one which causes problems - are you seriously trying to claim their was no mandate for Irish independence because almost no women had the vote at the time?

The refusal of most Irish people to convert to Anglicanism when the monarchy did, suggests a disinclination to accept such a mandate.

James Brown

View wrote: »

In the Kingdoms of the time, the mandate came from the King down, not from his subjects up. The latter idea is a modern invention and one which causes problems - are you seriously trying to claim their was no mandate for Irish independence because almost no women had the vote at the time?

The time means absolutely nothing. The point is it was not a democratic mandate, the peoples choice. Whether you like the decision or not, does not change the facts. It's not about looking at it from a modern views. It's completely wrong to suggest the Irish people signed up to anything at that time. They did not. It was not the will of the people how every one defines democracy or how it was viewed at the time.

Long story short, recognising the people we are getting away from in any unified all Ireland symbolism is ridiculous. Ulster will always have a place regardless of who attempts to appropriate it.

fly_agaric

Matt Barrett wrote:

Long story short, recognising the people we are getting away from in any unified all Ireland symbolism is ridiculous.

There's going to be a noisy, (possibly) cantankerous, (definitely) awkward few 100k of their descendants in any putative UI. People on both sides are really going to have to go along to get along on at least some of these symbology/"flags" issues or store up more pain for very little gain. Perhaps people should rethink whether they really, really want UI if they think the reality of UI is going to be just like a big Ireland where nothing really changes except a few extra counties tacked on that tidies up the map.

downcow

Imreoir2 wrote: »

The UK has roundly faild to act given the abhorrence with with many nationalists in NI view British symbols. Lets not forget that while many IRA men's coffins were draped with the tri-colour, many B-specials coffins were draped with the Union Jack. There are no neutral symbols here.

I agree with you both tricolour and union flag are abhorrent to one community or other dnd both would be unacceptable

downcow

jm08 wrote: »

This New Ireland - how is it meant to differ from what we have now? The Ireland people think of is that old, RC dominated, conservative country. I think we have moved away from that and if you look at the two Ireland's now, its NI that is still extremely conservative (both nationalists and unionists).

I haven’t watched RTÉ in many years but switched on this week to watch brexit. I was amazed to see the main news begin with those bells. It would not be tolerated for five minutes up north if either side decided to try to own the news. So we have all some work still to do.