gormdubhgorm wrote: » Just thinking what a UI would mean for such symbolism of those from a different tradition to 'the victors'? Would it mean the erasing of the Unionist or Royal tradition from history? I mean the statue was built in honour of Queen Victoria after her death. Plus there was more of a call to build one since she also visited Ireland in 1900.
But as usual the Republican narrative took over (in just over a decade) drowning out any other viewpoints. So we had Joyce referring to her as the 'auld bitch'.
But both Cosgrave and De Valera did not want to appear to be a bigots so it was the reason why the statue was left there so long. John Bruton was against moving the Statue to Australia in 1986 as it was made by an Irish artist and part of Irish Heritage.
It has got me thinking what would happen Unionist and Royal symbols if there is a UI. Would it be 'meet the new boss same as the old boss - as The Who said?
Prime example would be Edward Carson. Would the Dub be brought 'home' to Dublin? His Dublin gaff was only a few doors down from Conradh na Gaeilge after all!
a keen hurler and Gaeilgoir Which in my opinion makes him more 'Irish' than many die hard Republican self professed 'Gaels' on this thread.
So would all this talk of inclusiveness be just lip service in a UI (statues taken down etc) or is the annual Orange parade in Donegal a sign that a UI could work and let people carry on traditions?
Junkyard Tom wrote: » I have a much more relaxed view of Irishness myself and don't believe it can be graded by the sport you watch or your proficiency in the native language, also it's not exactly welcoming to Unionists who might see themselves as Irish.
If anything a United Ireland will ensure that artefacts of British colonialism will remain where they are.
gormdubhgorm wrote: » What do you mean by this bit? Nelson's Pillar gone. Queen Victoria Statue gone. Brunswick Street - now Pearse Street. Sackville Street now O'Connell Street and so on.
What exactly is a relaxed view of Irishness?
To me a 'relaxed view of Irishness' means those who are quasi-English and do not even realise it. Which is why many yearn for a UI to paper over the cracks. As it is the only expression of 'Irishness' that is left for them. It is all psychological when it comes down to it. Makes them feel Irish.
jm08 wrote: » There is a Brunswick Street and there is Sackville Place. It was only fitting that the main Streets in Ireland was called after Daniel O'Connell and Paidraig Pearse. As for Nelson's pillar - it was blown up by republicans (and I can understand why), but it was rather liked by the citizens of Dublin. As for Queen Vic - she was an old bitch and deserved to be deported.
Junkyard Tom wrote: » It's far more likely those things would have remained as they were had partition not happened because Unionists would have been there to argue against their removal. I'm also of the opinion that partition allowed the nastiest aspects of both traditions to flourish and had they remained in the one body-politic they'd have kept each other in check. Let's face it, Paisley wasn't far wrong when he described the south as a 'priest-ridden republic' but then, on the other hand, the rotten little Protestant ethnostate (personified by that nutter) was another consequence of partition.
There are weirdos out there who think you're not properly Irish unless your great Grandparents, Grandparents, Parents, and then you, have resided in Ireland. I'd be at the opposite end of the spectrum. I don't think you have to be a Hurling-loving 4th generation, of the soil, Gaeilgeoir to qualify.
Fionn1952 wrote: » As I've mentioned, I'm from the North. I spent the vast majority of my life living there. As of the 2011 census, the majority of the North are not of an Ulster Scots/British background any more. I presume you added, 'Northern Irish' to push the numbers over the magic 50% mark, but as I'm sure you know, 'Northern Irish' identity is not a significant indicator of voting patterns, and could just as easily (and dishonestly) be combined with those who identify as Irish to reverse your statement about the majority around to the other side. Not that this is particularly important; unification won't happen or be prevented on the basis of who your grandfather voted for, or what religion he was. It will be based on the wishes of a very significant middle ground - economic Unionists, Alliance-type voters, middle class Catholics and the likes. Farmers along the border for example, could well find their leanings a lot more fluid depending on the impact of Brexit. As for your last point, yes. This is what we all agreed as part of the Good Friday Agreement. If the majority of the people of NI vote in favour of Unification, then (subject to a vote passing in Ireland), there will be a 32 county Irish Republic. Until then, it remains part of the United Kingdom. What exactly are you asking here? This has only been established for over 20 years....
Fionn1952 wrote: » Unfortunately for the absolutely TINY minority of people who desire an independent NI (seriously, this isn't a new idea, it has never had any support beyond some minor fringe types), the UK, NI and Ireland are all signed up to an international agreement which gives two outcomes. Remaining part of the UK, or unifying with Ireland. Should you feel strongly about this idea of yours, I'll enjoy your efforts to pass the referenda required and secure the agreement of the British, Irish and NI governments, along with your work to ensure EU support in your plan to replace the Good Friday Agreement. I'm not saying it's impossible.....but pretty close. As a counterpoint, don't you think your elaborate plan would be a big shock to Republicans, who have been told they now have a legitimate and peaceful pathway to Unification, only to have it pulled out from under them to keep a minority (in the hypothetical event of a border poll passing) happy? Isn't it a bit unsettling for a large swathe of the population to be told their opinion matters less, and their vote isn't worth as much as another group?
downcow wrote: » So fionn are you saying that in the scenario of Northern Ireland leaving the UK that there cannot be a discussion about a devolved Northern Ireland within an Irish Republic?
FrancieBrady wrote: » Like the 'independent NI' idea you have to explain why that would be a good idea. Vote for a UI and leave the same dysfunctional system in place? It would be lunacy and really could only be suggested by those too belligerent to change.
Fionn1952 wrote: » I'd disagree entirely, Francie. It would be totally different to an independent NI - for one, as an outcome it isn't already dismissed by the GFA. Secondly, expecting things to just flip like a light switch and suddenly be all sunshine and rainbows is....naive at best. There will at least be a transition period from NIs current status to whatever the future holds, and I'd say its pretty unlikely that NI devolution will be early up on the chopping block.
FrancieBrady wrote: » I've never expressed the idea that it would be 'sunshine and rainbows' Fionn. I asked the question, why would you leave the same dysfunctional system in place if the majority want to have a go at a UI? That hasn't been explained.
gormdubhgorm wrote: » Fair points, well put. So in reality you are agreeing with me 'Irishness' as a concept these days is a very loose and fast idea. It has to be, because of the very nature of its history. But as a result it is riddled with contradictions. It is a bit of a pretense more than anything at times. If you look at Jack Charlton (as English working class as you can get) who viewed himself as Irish. His house littered with Irish stuff. A fella who was made an honorary Irish citizen.https://www.independent.ie/sport/soccer/international-soccer/jack-charlton-i-didnt-retire-i-got-sacked-really-34424666.html# Here is a picture of him looking at his Freedom of the City of Dublin in his house.[IMG]His son married a Dublin woman. And Jack felt so Irish he did not see the irony when he said he would not like to see Ireland get a foreign manager. (Think it was after McCarthy) When Jack was pulled up on it he said that he thinks of himself as Irish. I think now in relation to this thread it is telling that there was a man who fell in love with Ireland (not born in the ROI or even the Island of Ireland) yet[/img]never felt the need to be anti-partition or Catholic to feel Irish. Did he ever sing Amhrain na bhFiann? Which changed a nations perception from this: [img][/img] To this: [img][/img] On the other end of the spectrum we have Shane Paul Doherty (Londonderry/Derry man) who was indoctrinated into what 'Irishness' was from a young age so became a child solider of the IRA until seeing the light (before all of his comrades). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=
Fionn1952 wrote: » The concept of devolution itself isn't dysfunctional, Francie. It works quite well in a LOT of countries. As for the majority wishing to give a UI a go, this is not contradicted or prevented by devolution for NI. I lived through long enough of, 'well we have the majority so sit down and shut up, we'll do what we want' to ever wish to see those mistakes made again. Would devolution potentially help avoid the shock to the system of such a huge transition? Maybe. I'd need to hear opinions from moderate Unionists on the matter. To be clear, it isn't an idea I would personally agree with, I certainly won't be campaigning for it myself, but if I was hearing a lot of voices from the broader Unionist side saying, 'this would get us on board', I would at least be willing to listen. You've repeatedly stated that your vision of unification is not just NI being subsumed into the current Irish state, but rather the building of a new Ireland.....why should decentralisation/devolution not at least be part of that conversation? If it's a rebuild job, then obviously said devolved government could have significant reform applied, and given the major sticking point of that government is no longer an issue, potentially act more like an actual functioning government?
Hamsterchops wrote: » ...oh gosh man, did he say Londonderry/Derry how could he use such an offensive term :eek: It's's Derry, unless he's open to inclusiveness.
BonnieSituation wrote: » What are you on about? No one calls it Londonderry unless they're making a political point or trying to sop to Unionists to show how "with them" and their culture that they are. Give over your faux-outrage.
BonnieSituation wrote: » Let's look at why devolution takes place in the UK to begin with. Now let's look at why devolution was needed in the North. Now ask, why would devolution be needed in the north as part of a UI? Beligerent unionism and beligerent unionists think that in the event of a UI they would be treated like Nationalists were in NI at Partition. We all know this is patently not the case. A state as small as Ireland needs less local administration, not more. A semi-autonomous region within Ireland continues with the "othering" and is something that needs to be consigned to history.
Fionn1952 wrote: » Absolutely not, Downcow. It would not be my preferred choice, but I'm just one opinion among millions. I don't see what in my post suggests that there couldn't be discussion around that, should there be a significant number of people calling for it. A devolved NI that's part of the Irish Republic would still mean a 32 county Ireland, so it wouldn't contradict the two outcomes of the GFA. A devolved NI would be at least as much a part of Ireland as NI is currently part of the UK (given the geography, I'd argue more so). I'd go a step further and say that I'd almost be certain that at least temporarily, should a border poll pass, that there will be a devolved NI government while the proverbial reins are being handed over from Britain to Ireland. Whether that is transitionary or more lasting, I honestly don't know. If I felt that this would be seen as an olive branch by Unionism, and put minds and ease among that community, I could see myself being convinced on it. The issue is Unionists refuse to engage in, 'what if' discussions for fear of being perceived to legitimise the goal of unification. I would see it as more prudent for some of your leaders to be pragmatic enough to say, 'well we don't support this, but we can see it is a possibility at some point in the future. Should it come to pass, our least bad scenario looks like.....' Refusing to acknowledge that it is at least possible some time in the future as you have done on here, well that makes it really difficult to give you a voice in shaping that outcome.
Hamsterchops wrote: » Devolution from Dublin, instead of devolution from London. Much of a muchness?
BonnieSituation wrote: » What are you on about?No one calls it Londonderry unless they're making a political point or trying to sop to Unionists to show how "with them" and their culture that they are. Give over your faux-outrage.
BonnieSituation wrote: » Londonderry man? Seeing the light? Grow up.
Jack was an Irish citizen. Nothing honorary about it despite its colloquial name. Citizenship can bestowed by the State on those deemed worthy. Chester Beatty and Alfred Beit are others who were honoured in this fashion.
Can you stop repeating yourself though. Your posts are just the same ill-informed repetitive nonsense about "true oirishness". Please stop. We get it.
gormdubhgorm wrote: » My main point is more complex than that. Also you only seem to call my posts 'ill-informed' because of how you disagree with my points. And/or find them uncomfortable, which clearly rattles you for some reason. Then this in turn prevents you from debating in coherent manner. So your last resort is to tell me to basically go away. If you want to debate that is fine 'déan iarracht níos fearr le do thoil'. You are better than that.
downcow wrote: » Probably for the same reason as we agreed to do it while the majority want to stay in the UK. Do you believe that a devolved Northern Ireland is more acceptable to nationalists than a Northern Ireland run completely by the UK Westminster? And if you do then you should be able to join the dots
