Border Poll discussion

downcow wrote: »

I agree most Unionist politicians would not have the courage to address...

Exactly, just like the Belfast City Hall flag issue Unionists want special treatment, equal treatment isn't good enough, just as it wouldn't be for creating an agreed-upon flag and anthem for NI.

downcow wrote: »

How would you feel about Rugby folk from across the island sitting down to agree and Anthem, flag and name for the Ireland rugby team that we could all buy into?

Anthem and flag in a United Ireland? I've no problem with that personally. We already have a name for our team and territory - Ireland.

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Great, now float the idea with Unionist politicians and watch it get shot up on the runway before it ever gets airborne.

I agree most Unionist politicians would not have the courage to address only to be surpassed by Nationalist politician who would despise it even more.
A growing number of people on either side would embrace it though

downcow wrote: »

I would absolutely embrace that.
We could even start with a sporting anthem as less controversial. but yes i am up for it

Great, now float the idea with Unionist politicians and watch it get shot up on the runway before it ever gets airborne.

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

How would you feel about Unionists sitting down with Nationalists to agree on a flag and anthem for NI?

How would you feel about Rugby folk from across the island sitting down to agree an Anthem, flag and Name for the Ireland rugby team that we could all buy into?

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

It should have been banned. In a UI the parades commission would have to go all-Ireland to prevent people like Willie Frazer from trying to provoke people.

So in this new Ireland would there be no space for a victims of the IRA justice parade in the capital city? - A serious question

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Scotland, Wales and England have their anthems, if NI had an anthem we could probably accommodate it but it doesn't. How would you feel about Unionists sitting down with Nationalists to agree on a flag and anthem for NI?

I would absolutely embrace that.
We could even start with a sporting anthem as less controversial. but yes i am up for it

Bambi wrote: »

I think the fact that the IRFU are too Fenian for your taste says a lot tbh.

That is a sad attitude. You have a long journey before you will be able to treat northern unionists as equal

downcow wrote: »

Do you remember what happened when Protestants took a peaceful march to Dublin City a few years ago - Need i say more about the intolerance of Unionist views
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/feb/26/northernireland.ireland

It should have been banned. In a UI the parades commission would have to go all-Ireland to prevent people like Willie Frazer from trying to provoke people.

downcow wrote: »

A game to avoid playing GSTQ

Scotland, Wales and England have their anthems, if NI had an anthem we could probably accommodate it but it doesn't. How would you feel about Unionists sitting down with Nationalists to agree on a flag and anthem for NI?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I seriously cannot believe you have downplayed decades of systemic sectarian discrimination to have a go at the IRFU.

You have no interest in seriously engaging here.

Francies. This is the approach you have taken on another thread to get me removed.
I gave a clear example of discrimination and i was told that doesn't show systemic sectarianism. indeed is was told that cases where sectarianism is proven in the courts in the South shows that the South is taking things seriously and is not sectarian. So i tried a different tack and showed you an institution where sectarianism is systemic and now you say I am not prepared to engage.
This is why i asked for evidence that sectarianism was systemic in the north because then I would know what you accept as evidence and i could demonstrate same in South

Dytalus wrote: »

However, the majority of the team and its supporters are from the Republic and it's not unreasonable for the IRFU to want to keep them happy by avoiding playing GSTQ on the (very) rare occasions a match is played in Belfast. I don't necessarily agree with that decision, but I can understand it. I can definitely agree with and understand matches only being played in Landsdowne however. Ravenhill's capacity is only a tiny bit over one third of Landsdowne's capacity. It's not even close to sufficient to host the crowds that would attend an international rugby game.

This is not the reason games aren't played in Belfast. The one game that was played was purposely downgraded to an A game to avoid playing GSTQ, not because there wasn't enough seats. Had the 42,000 seater gone ahead at the Maze the games would still not have come here because the IRFU could not stomache british trappings that would appear.
Try to look at this fairly. I have been acknowledging the issues in my community. Try and stretch to seeing that doing stuff in IRFU because the majority of players would be offended otherwise is an example of how the Northern state got it wrong for so long. you got to reach out to the minority players who don't have the confidence or capacity to challenge the sectarian staus quo. This will be hard learning but if you ever want an all-ireland that can ever work then you need to be able to do this

Imreoir2 wrote: »

You claim that An Garda Síochána lacks unionist representation. Firstly, you have not provided any evidence for this as far as I can see, and secondly why would An Garda Síochána have unionist representation. Do you perhaps mean protestant representation? Please tell me you realise that there is very little unionism in the south and that the vast majority of southern Irish protestants do not see themselves as British and do not have any desire to see Ireland united with the UK.

Let's clear up a misconception that you seem to have here and now, protestants in the Republic are not unionists who are merely keeping their heads down, they are in the vast majority of cases proud and patrotic Irish men and women who participate fully in the life of the nation both publicly and privatly.

Yes, I completely agree with you and didn't state anything different. Most protestants still living in Irish Rep. are proud Irish and nationalist. Significant exceptions to this in the border counties, but I agree with your point

As for Garda rep of Prods. It wasn't me claimed it, it was another poster who used it as evidence that the prods would not participate in society and I think he gave a fairly resonably evidence of numbers - but go back to him if you're not happy

FrancieBrady

I seriously cannot believe you have downplayed decades of systemic sectarian discrimination to have a go at the IRFU.

You have no interest in seriously engaging here.

blanch152 wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/eilis-ohanlon-after-brexit-irish-unity-could-be-scuppered-by-a-new-project-fear-37630391.html

I don't have time to go back to the census findings in detail but this sentence is revealing:

"In the last census, 45pc of people in the North self-identified as Catholic, but only 25pc gave their nationality as Irish."

That is hardly an accurate shorthand.

That should read: 25% claimed an exclusively Irish identity.
That is different to what you are trying to claim.

The full info on identity.

British only: 39.9%
Irish only: 25.3%
Northern Irish only: 20.9%
British and Northern Irish only: 6.2%
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_Northern_Ireland

blanch152 wrote: »

I did address that earlier, in saying that the one (UK) looking for something (Brexit) has to pay a price. Ditto when the one (Ireland) looking for something (Unity) should also pay a price

Buts its the people of NI (which is now British territory) are looking for unity with the ROI. The British Government has declared it has no strategic interest in keepign NI in the UK.

However, that is not the end of the story. The Commission and the other EU institutions operate informally on a quota basis, with each member State getting a share of the staff based on their size. If you pull out, your people are no longer needed, and you take your share, or their cost, with you.

Its not just those presently employed, its people who are already on pension that need to be paid. As for those now working there, it seems many are eligible for either Belgian or Luxembourg citizenship so will not be losing their EU jobs.

You still have not explained why the British Gov. didn't even attempt negotiate with the EU over this issue bearing in mind they have generally thrown the kitchen sink at negotiations.

blanch152 wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/eilis-ohanlon-after-brexit-irish-unity-could-be-scuppered-by-a-new-project-fear-37630391.html

I don't have time to go back to the census findings in detail but this sentence is revealing:

"In the last census, 45pc of people in the North self-identified as Catholic, but only 25pc gave their nationality as Irish."

That is hardly an accurate shorthand.

It is when you find that when the protection of the GFA compromise is stripped away in the case of a hard deal Brexit, 98% of Catholics would vote for a UI while 92% of Protestants would vote against.

The reason that it is so important to protect the peace process and the GFA is that it allows the constitutional question to receed into the background. Start kicking one side or the other, as Brexit has done, and you find that the communities head back to their respective trenches.

Until that changes, it is not fit to take its place in a modern Ireland.

It is one of the clear cultural differences now between North and South that such beliefs remain strong up there.

Perhaps you missed it, but that is also a clear cultural difference between NI and England. Sectarianism is no more rife in Coventry than in Cork. Personally I am of the opinion that allowing partition in the first palce is one of the biggest reasons for NI being how it is. Partition was based on a sectarian headcount from day one. I don't think it can change much until NI does take it's place in a modern Ireland. Either way, it is for the people of NI to decide.

Imreoir2 wrote: »

While on an individual level a person might not be at all wedded to the religion of their communal background, the sectarian nature of the northern state was such that actual religious practice or committment was not the issue, it was merely a badge of tribe. You may well be an atheist, but you are still a protestant atheist or catholic atheist in the eyes of the other.

Until that changes, it is not fit to take its place in a modern Ireland.

It is one of the clear cultural differences now between North and South that such beliefs remain strong up there.

blanch152 wrote: »

Are we living in the early twentieth century when women were not allowed to vote or work?

If you want to apply the mores of the time, only men should have the right to vote in a referendum on unity, which just shows how dated that thinking is.

I would respectfully suggest that your opinion represents the thinking of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries in respect of the Irish question.

Most people are not as wedded to their religion, their ethnicity, their nation as they were in those times. Furthermore, the enlightened middle won't vote for a united Ireland purely on the triumphalism of a sectarian headcount.

While on an individual level a person might not be at all wedded to the religion of their communal background, the sectarian nature of the northern state was such that actual religious practice or committment was not the issue, it was merely a badge of tribe. You may well be an atheist, but you are still a protestant atheist or catholic atheist in the eyes of the other.

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Certainly, but while the Catholic/Protestant shorthand for political beliefs is problematic because of it's sectarian nature, it is also largely accurate and we are where we are because that sectarian devide was built over decades by the nothern state.

https://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/eilis-ohanlon-after-brexit-irish-unity-could-be-scuppered-by-a-new-project-fear-37630391.html

I don't have time to go back to the census findings in detail but this sentence is revealing:

"In the last census, 45pc of people in the North self-identified as Catholic, but only 25pc gave their nationality as Irish."

That is hardly an accurate shorthand.

Deleted User wrote: »

Given than NI was established with the same sectarian, settler-colonial "headcount", it would be apt.

Are we living in the early twentieth century when women were not allowed to vote or work?

If you want to apply the mores of the time, only men should have the right to vote in a referendum on unity, which just shows how dated that thinking is.

Deleted User wrote: »

At any rate, until they start asking 'Are you an Irish nationalist or UK unionist?' on the Census form, the religion question is the nearest reliable indicator of whether somebody wants Irish reunification or British rule in the North. Most people can accept this. Although it is nice that now that Protestants are, for the first time, a minority (48%) according to the 2011 NI Census, more unionists are shying away from defining the conflict in these chimerical religious terms. At its heart the conflict in this small remainder of England's Irish colony currently dressed up as "Northern Ireland" remains a settler-colonial conflict with, despite the changing labels and representations, the same dynamics of power and conflict reproducing themselves since 1609.

I would respectfully suggest that your opinion represents the thinking of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries in respect of the Irish question.

Most people are not as wedded to their religion, their ethnicity, their nation as they were in those times. Furthermore, the enlightened middle won't vote for a united Ireland purely on the triumphalism of a sectarian headcount.

blanch152 wrote: »

This reminds me of the sectarian poster produced by a Sinn Fein candidate in the last Assembly elections about the numbers of Catholics versus the number of Protestants.

There is nothing more sectarian than reducing the issue of what the North should like like down to a headcount based on religious belief.

Certainly, but while the Catholic/Protestant shorthand for political beliefs is problematic because of it's sectarian nature, it is also largely accurate and we are where we are because that sectarian devide was built over decades by the nothern state.

downcow wrote: »

That march was organised by FAIR (Families Acting for Innocent Relatives)

But Ok lets move on to discrimination in sport. Would you agree its fair to say GAA is synonymous with sectarianism or do you guys need examples?

Willie Frazer's outfit who only sees protestants as victims of terrorism. Noting FAIR about that.

Read up on him. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_Frazer

[Deleted User]

When the British state stops subsidising the small remnant of its state in Ireland, a huge, huge number of realities will hit home to the greatest supporters of that rule. The day of that enormous subvention being tolerated by people in post-Brexit Britain (England and Wales?) are without doubt nearing their end. Back in the 1980s Clare O'Halloran wrote a [url=massively revisionist book that even then was a reactionary joke. Anyway, in it she went on a rant against Seán Ó Faoláin's famous description of unionists as 'more loyal to the half-crown than to the crown'. We'll see a lot of truth now from the heartlands of middleclass and embitious unionists. Expect a new historiography focusing on the Irish Volunteers of the 18th Century and other aspects of Protestant, but Irish nationalist, history.

Combined with a growing Catholic population, an increasing number of progressive Protestants who share not only an Irish identity but a European identity and see the huge practical economic and social value of remaining in the EU.

I don't think most Irish people who discuss NI are really aware of the demographic shift, as opposed to having a vague notion about it.

See the table 'The religious affiliations in the different age bands in the 2011 census were as follows' where there are now more Catholics than Protestants at every age bracket under 39. The usual trite "not every Catholic is a nationalist" is really just head-in-the-sand stuff now when the post-Brexit reality is added:

Demographic change in Northern Ireland

2011 Census (blue=Catholic; red = Protestant):

[Deleted User]

blanch152 wrote: »

This reminds me of the sectarian poster produced by a Sinn Fein candidate in the last Assembly elections about the numbers of Catholics versus the number of Protestants.

There is nothing more sectarian than reducing the issue of what the North should like like down to a headcount based on religious belief.

Given than NI was established with the same sectarian, settler-colonial "headcount", it would be apt. At any rate, until they start asking 'Are you an Irish nationalist or UK unionist?' on the Census form, the religion question is the nearest reliable indicator of whether somebody wants Irish reunification or British rule in the North. Far from perfect, and undoubtedly getting less perfect as the south changes and in the post-Brexit era. However, it is still the best indicator of a bad lot. Although it is nice that now that Protestants are, for the first time, a minority (48%) according to the 2011 NI Census, more unionists are shying away from defining the conflict in these chimerical religious terms. Changing that religious definition is long overdue. At its heart the conflict in this small remainder of England's Irish colony currently dressed up as "Northern Ireland" remains a settler-colonial conflict with, despite the changing labels and representations, the same dynamics of power and conflict reproducing themselves since 1609.

downcow wrote: »

I will rephrase that. I was not implying 'all' protestants. but it is undeniable that 'many' protestants had a very hard station in their catholic country

If it is undeniable, then surely it is possible to point to actual evidence? All you have done is show one isolated incident. You really need to show a pattern of widespread discrimination for you statement to have any credibility.

downcow wrote: »

The stuff I find incredible is that when the numbers in various institutions like the Guards in ROI lack unionist representation you actually blame unionists for that - of course when the same situations happens up north you blame the institution.

You claim that An Garda Síochána lacks unionist representation. Firstly, you have not provided any evidence for this as far as I can see, and secondly why would An Garda Síochána have unionist representation. Do you perhaps mean protestant representation? Please tell me you realise that there is very little unionism in the south and that the vast majority of southern Irish protestants do not see themselves as British and do not have any desire to see Ireland united with the UK.

Let's clear up a misconception that you seem to have here and now, protestants in the Republic are not unionists who are merely keeping their heads down, they are in the vast majority of cases proud and patrotic Irish men and women who participate fully in the life of the nation both publicly and privatly.

When a Protestant takes a case against your educate system and demonstrates discrimination, you turn that around to show how effective your equality laws are - of course when the same happens up north again you use that to demonstrate clear discrimination.

Again, if there was not one single example to be found it would be rather surreal. What the case demonstrates is that the school in question was found to be in breach of the established rules and practices, showing that the established rules and practices are non-discriminatory. It also shows that a protestant finding themselves in that situation can be confident that the state will vindicate their right to equal treatment.

Unlike the situation that had prevailed in NI, there is no systematic discrimination. The rules themselves have not been designed and implemented specifically with the aim of furthering discrimination as was the case for so long in the north.

You asked for more comprehensive evidence that shows sectarianism at the heart of institutions in ROI. I cannot work my way through every institution but let's start with a very timely one, since the Six Nations is currently on. IRFU provides for unionists of the North a good example of how they would be treated in an all Ireland setting. There is zero recognition of Unionist/british culture. They continue to insist on playing the Irish national anthem no matter how it offends many of the team members - Even though there was a clear commitment made at unification of the teams that this would not happen. of course many middle-class unionists have done exactly what some middle class Catholics done up north, and their Protestant counterparts done down south, ie keep their heads down, hold their noses, and say nothing.

Would you accept this as a fairly clear example of the Unionist community being discriminated against by an institution??

There is just so much to unpack here, the IRFU is not an institution of the Republic of Ireland, it is a private sporing body that operates both inside and outside the territory of the Republic. If you want to prove that the institutions of the Republic are sectarian, you should probably deal with an actual institution of the republic in the first palce.

Additionally, there is no unionist community to speak of in the republic for the IRFU to discriminate against and on the specific issue of anthems, there is a reason that Irealnd is the only team that has two.

jm08 wrote: »

If it is as you claim it is, why did the British Government accept its EU pension liability without a protest?

I did address that earlier, in saying that the one (UK) looking for something (Brexit) has to pay a price. Ditto when the one (Ireland) looking for something (Unity) should also pay a price.

However, that is not the end of the story. The Commission and the other EU institutions operate informally on a quota basis, with each member State getting a share of the staff based on their size. If you pull out, your people are no longer needed, and you take your share, or their cost, with you.

downcow wrote: »

Yes, my point also - where did all the working class prods go. We know there we some middle class prods doing very nicely - i am not disputing that

There was little or no industry in the south, so the biggest employment opportunity was the British Army. Many stayed with the British Army (if they were not killed in the two world wars). The rest probably emigrated to England and US along with their fellow catholic countrymen to find work.

The economist David McWilliams (with a Scottish, protestant grandfather who came to Dublin as a stone cutter to repair the buildings damaged in 1916, war of independence in Dublin). His father married a catholic and David was brought up as a catholic. So I'd say that is what happened to a lot of working class protestants. That also worked the other way. I had a protestant work colleague who married a catholic about 30 years ago. They brought their kids up as protestants because there was better schooling opportunities (smaller classes, better funding etc) for protestant children.

Chips Lovell

It's important not to conflate protestantism with unionism. The vast majority of southern protestants aren't unionists, let alone Orangemen.

In fact, conflations of protestantism with unionism is one of the chief forms of stick that southern protestants do get when they experience it, i.e. people thinking that if you're a protestant you're not really Irish or that you're a unionist.