Northern Ireland- a failure 99 years on?

It is a clear view of uniting Irish people at home and abroad and sharing this island with others. There is an aspirational unity of its people, but gone the claim for land and territory.

So the 'border poll' that Leo and Michael don't think we are ready for yet, is for the purposes of 'uniting minds'.

Who fecking knew! That's gonna ruin Gerry's cornflakes when he finds out he been duped!

markodaly wrote: »

Partition was inevitable Francie. I think you know that, but won't want to admit it.

Partition was meant to be and should have been temporary. The British and Irish governments conspired (willingly or unwittingly) to allow Unionists change the voting system and gerrymander the place to their sectarian and bigoted will that it went 'inevitably' up in flames.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Partition was meant to be and should have been temporary.

So you admit, partition was inevitable.
Baby steps, but its progress.

markodaly wrote: »

So you admit, partition was inevitable.
Baby steps, but its progress.

I never said anything different. It was inevitable when Carson armed his priavte army and re-introduced the gun to Irish politics and when Irish men and women lay down and accepted what they got to the detriment of fellow Irish men and women.

Do you agree it was a complete and utter failure Mark?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

when Irish men and women lay down and accepted what they got to the detriment of fellow Irish men and women.

So, we should have not accepted the Anglo-Irish Treaty... well what should we have done instead, exactly?

Fight on?

ittakestwo

downcow wrote: »

You are arguing against yourself again ie Scotland wouldn’t change its name of it left the uk but you think Northern Ireland should change it’s name ?

No. There was no talk of Scotland changing its name if it choose to leave. Neither remainers or leavers wanted a name change. Northan Ireland was a name give to part of Ireland that stayed in the UK and ROI to part that left. But if there is a UI then the name is back to Ireland. It was Ireland when it was all the UK and it can be Ireland when it is all out. There is no need to change the name.

Do unionists even want to rename the island if there is a UI? This is news to me.

markodaly wrote: »

So, we should have not accepted the Anglo-Irish Treaty... well what should we have done instead, exactly?

Fight on?

We should not have abandoned Irish men and women to their fate. Whatever that took.
We accepted partition and continued to accept the obvious abuses of an artificial majority.
I think that happened because we lost our true leaders in 1916 and the events after.
The sleeveens took over, ignored what was happening essentially and effectively sold out to the church and whoever else had the dollar and the rest is history.

Culminated in the ****show revelations of the establishment having their cake and eating it in Galway.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

We should not have abandoned Irish men and women to their fate. Whatever that took.

Even if it cost thousands of more lives, even tens of thousands of more lives, leaving us in a worse position politically to negotiate a treaty post-1921?

That is the problem with this vein of fanatical Irish Republicanism, its the mirror image of dogmatic Unionism. SF/IRA adopted this position in the late 60's and early 70's... the manifestation of that and the thousands killed is a reminder to all why this type of thought is dangerous. It borders on religious.

It's also a position adopted by traitors who took up arms against the legitimate Irish Free State and subsequent Republic.

markodaly wrote: »

Even if it cost thousands of more lives, even tens of thousands of more lives, leaving us in a worse position politically to negotiate a treaty post-1921?

So at what point should Irish people have lain down Mark?

1700's, 1800's, 1915, 1917?

They made a decision to abandon Irish men and women and it cost thousands of lives when because they were ignored and abandoned it all 'inevitably' went up in flames.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So at what point should Irish people have lain down Mark?

When a reasonable compromise was reached, and in this case, one can clearly look at the 1921 Ango-Irish treaty as that.

Remember, the Dail accepted this treaty, it had a democratic mandate and those who fought against it were traitors, interested in their own ego's than the democratic principles they banged on about.

Do you not believe in Democracy?
Do you support the New IRA and the murder of Lyra McKee because those men that murdered her think of Irish Repiblicanism like you do.

Fionn1952 wrote: »

Referenda can be very useful democratic tools, Downcow.....they just need to be a little better thought out than the UK generally do them. Fortunately in Ireland, we have constitutional protection surrounding our referenda to ensure complex questions aren't asked in grossly simplistic ways.

What I was asking about though is why in other threads, when asked about NI being dragged out of the EU against its will, you have defended it as an all-of-the-UK decision. Why would you not apply the same standards to decisions in a hypothetical future United Ireland?

To be clear. If a referendum happens on any issue then I as a democrat will accept it. I just think it’s a very poor way to make a decision on anything. We elect parliaments to interrogate issues and make decisions, not to pass the hard ones on to the people to make a simplistic emotional decision with their hearts.
No contradiction there.
Do you think referendums are a good idea or just when they get the answer you want?

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

You'd wonder what goes through the heads of people like Blanch/Mark/Downcow there when Ireland was literally doing its utmost to prevent a hard border being reinstated on the island? I mean, why would we care if we didn't believe we had some sort of right to act on behalf of the whole of Ireland?

Still no one will tell me why this island should, by right, be one voting entity to be regarded as democratic, and why this should not apply anywhere else including to the nearest landmasses to the east and west of us?
An answer to this would help me understand republicans sense of entitlement

one of the struggles Northern Ireland has had to contend with is that about 25% of its population don’t want it to exist and are working to cause it to fail. That’s hard to manage.
Here’s our recent MEP in full flow, and remember this is the ‘leader’ who recently literally danced at the scene of the ira murder of a Protestant toddler and chanted chuckie ar la. And attended the recent ira funeral which breached covid restrictions. This is just her latest hate outburst https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-northern-ireland-53909887
Will the shinners discipline her. I think we know the answer to that.

You southerners should stay well clear of developing a situation where a significant percentage of your population want your new Ireland to fail. It’s hard work. So if it ever happened you might be best doing everything you can to make your minority feel comfortable - Scotia with a red hand lol
50% +1 would be an unmitigated disaster. You need at least 95% to want the country to work so as to not set off on 100 years of misery.
Of course thankfully it’s fantasy that you have any chance of getting you 50%+ requirement.

Junkyard Tom

downcow wrote: »

Still no one will tell me why this island should, by right, be one voting entity

Why shouldn't it?

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Why shouldn't it?

The question was:

why this island should, by right, be one voting entity to be regarded as democratic, and why this should not apply anywhere else including to the nearest landmasses to the east and west of us?

.....and Tom you are one of the most fervent proponents of this so I guess you have a clear logic

markodaly wrote: »

When a reasonable compromise was reached, and in this case, one can clearly look at the 1921 Ango-Irish treaty as that.

Remember, the Dail accepted this treaty, it had a democratic mandate and those who fought against it were traitors, interested in their own ego's than the democratic principles they banged on about.

Do you not believe in Democracy?
Do you support the New IRA and the murder of Lyra McKee because those men that murdered her think of Irish Repiblicanism like you do.

Gloss over the facts and jump up onto the high moral ground why don't you?

Who was the Anglo Irish Treaty a reasonable compromise for? Are you making decisions for people?

Convenient and politically expedient should not be confused with 'reasonable'. And it doesn't excuse them from ignoring what happened.

Even the Church Of Ireland knew what partition would do and they said it.

*I don't support violence full stop Mark.

downcow wrote: »

The question was:

why this island should, by right, be one voting entity to be regarded as democratic,

Because Unionism made such a mess of the 'artificial majority' that they got. They demonstrated what happens when you do that.
Until recently they have denied democracy to a whole range of people because of cultural and religious bigotry.

When you do that and continue to do it and look like you will do it into the future then sadly and tragically society is destabilised and it will be resisted. Time to restore the balance on the island.

and why this should not apply anywhere else including to the nearest landmasses to the east and west of us?

.....and Tom you are one of the most fervent proponents of this so I guess you have a clear logic

I have no idea what you are asking there tbh.

downcow wrote: »

To be clear. If a referendum happens on any issue then I as a democrat will accept it. I just think it’s a very poor way to make a decision on anything. We elect parliaments to interrogate issues and make decisions, not to pass the hard ones on to the people to make a simplistic emotional decision with their hearts.
No contradiction there.
Do you think referendums are a good idea or just when they get the answer you want?

I've already answered this, Downcow. It is literally in the post you've replied to;

Referenda can be very useful democratic tools, Downcow.....they just need to be a little better thought out than the UK generally do them. Fortunately in Ireland, we have constitutional protection surrounding our referenda to ensure complex questions aren't asked in grossly simplistic ways.

I think Ireland finds a good balance between representative and direct democracy myself, as we have a constitution to protect us from the whims of the government of the day, but not a full direct democracy that means we have to have referenda on a very regular basis. It isn't perfect and sometimes results in the electorate having to try and answer questions that many don't fully understand.

It does beat the alternative, like certain issues in the North which had a clear majority support among the general population but were blocked by one party.

As a full supporter of representative democracy, I take it that you would support Irish unification when the majority of elected representatives in the North would vote for it rather than when a referendum passes? That is a surprising one to me, as I think that point is much closer than the point which over 50% would vote for it in a referendum. The latest Westminster election already has parties that absolutely support unification at 50% of all seats, so a one seat drift and you'll be all aboard for unification.....or are you only in favour of representative democracy when it gives you the outcome you want? Or is it just when you have a gerrymandered majority in place already?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Gloss over the facts and jump up onto the high moral ground why don't you?

Who was the Anglo Irish Treaty a reasonable compromise for? Are you making decisions for people?

Convenient and politically expedient should not be confused with 'reasonable'. And it doesn't excuse them from ignoring what happened.

Even the Church Of Ireland knew what partition would do and they said it.

*I don't support violence full stop Mark.

It certainly wasn't reasonable for the people of my home county who had their democratic wishes ignored and were essentially sacrificed to allow for the gerrymandered state to be large enough to be in any way functional.

That being said, thinking mistakes were made 100 years ago in no way translates to support for violence now....a point that it's very sad that has to be stated lest some try and conflate that with supporting the murder of Lyra McKee.....

Fionn1952 wrote: »

It certainly wasn't reasonable for the people of my home county who had their democratic wishes ignored and were essentially sacrificed to allow for the gerrymandered state to be large enough to be in any way functional.

That being said, thinking mistakes were made 100 years ago in no way translates to support for violence now....a point that it's very sad that has to be stated lest some try and conflate that with supporting the murder of Lyra McKee.....

My view is that partition is the root of the problem and what was ignored after it happened - the changing of the voting system and systemic sectarian and religiously bigoted government that it allowed - by both governments until the inevitable (many many people including the British government and religious and civic leaders knew what would happen) conclusion -war/conflict.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Who was the Anglo Irish Treaty a reasonable compromise for? Are you making decisions for people?

Convenient and politically expedient should not be confused with 'reasonable'. And it doesn't excuse them from ignoring what happened.

The people are sovereign Francie, you seem to forget that. A treaty was voted on in the Dail and was passed.

Just because you seem to have a problem with it does not mean the majority was willing to follow you into the trenches and fight a more bloody war for a few more crumbs.

Fanaticism is a dangerous game.

Zebra3

markodaly wrote: »

Fanaticism is a dangerous game.

It certainly is, yet there are no shortage of those who support the aims of British colonialists in Ireland.

markodaly wrote: »

The people are sovereign Francie, you seem to forget that. A treaty was voted on in the Dail and was passed.

Just because you seem to have a problem with it does not mean the majority was willing to follow you into the trenches and fight a more bloody war for a few more crumbs.

Fanaticism is a dangerous game.

I could be mistaken, but weren't you previously suggesting that 50%+1 was too low a bar to set for unification? Why is majority rule a justifiable reason to partition a country, but not to end that partition?

I'd also point back to my comment on my home county, which was one of two sacrificed off to NI against the wishes of the populace of those counties....democracy when it suits, is it?

It's nice to hear that self determination for some people was a noble and just war to fight, but for my community, self determination was just a few crumbs.

markodaly wrote: »

The people are sovereign Francie, you seem to forget that. A treaty was voted on in the Dail and was passed.

Just because you seem to have a problem with it does not mean the majority was willing to follow you into the trenches and fight a more bloody war for a few more crumbs.

Fanaticism is a dangerous game.

Now putting words into my mouth.

As we seen elsewhere you are quick to taunt those who compromise and agree and who observe the will of the people.

As I said on that thread as hypocritical as it gets.

Partition was formulated between a Conservative party that was largely unopposed in Westminster and their Unionist allies.

Because much of our natural leaders had been executed and killed, opposition to it and communication of the inherent, recognised dangers was weak.

The greatest sins were to come though as outlined.

Fionn1952 wrote: »

.democracy when it suits, is it?

The Arlene/DUP version - 'we must Brexit because the entire UK voted for it - but you can't have the same rights as the rest of the UK coz we are agin those rights'.

As confused and hypocritical as mark is.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The Arlene/DUP version - 'we must Brexit because the entire UK voted for it - but you can't have the same rights as the rest of the UK coz we are agin those rights'.

As confused and hypocritical as mark is.

Democracy for some, miniature Union flags for others!

abortions-for-some-miniature-aamerican-flags-for-others-our-ideal-37495722.png

Jump_In_Jack

downcow wrote: »

one of the struggles Northern Ireland has had to contend with is that about 25% of its population don’t want it to exist and are working to cause it to fail. That’s hard to manage.
Here’s our recent MEP in full flow, and remember this is the ‘leader’ who recently literally danced at the scene of the ira murder of a Protestant toddler and chanted chuckie ar la. And attended the recent ira funeral which breached covid restrictions. This is just her latest hate outburst https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-northern-ireland-53909887
Will the shinners discipline her. I think we know the answer to that.

You southerners should stay well clear of developing a situation where a significant percentage of your population want your new Ireland to fail. It’s hard work. So if it ever happened you might be best doing everything you can to make your minority feel comfortable - Scotia with a red hand lol
50% +1 would be an unmitigated disaster. You need at least 95% to want the country to work so as to not set off on 100 years of misery.
Of course thankfully it’s fantasy that you have any chance of getting you 50%+ requirement.

50%+1 vote could happen very soon, possibly after Brexit.
And if that were to happen it would be the end of partition forever, no going back to gerrymandered borders and sectarian policies. Ireland whole and united forever more.

Maybe it’s for a separate thread but if you wanted to discuss what you think would be stumbling blocks to integrating the 6 counties after partition I’d be interested to hear it.

For example, how to integrate the Welfare, Health, Education, Legal, Political systems, and how long it would take to complete.
Also the change of currency.
Any other big issues?

Hopefully the 100 years partition doesn’t take too long to recover from, maybe 10 years is being optimistic.

Fionn1952 wrote: »

I could be mistaken, but weren't you previously suggesting that 50%+1 was too low a bar to set for unification? Why is majority rule a justifiable reason to partition a country, but not to end that partition?

I'd also point back to my comment on my home county, which was one of two sacrificed off to NI against the wishes of the populace of those counties....democracy when it suits, is it?

It's nice to hear that self determination for some people was a noble and just war to fight, but for my community, self determination was just a few crumbs.

Well first of all the Anglo - Irish treaty was not a referendum, it was voted on in the Dail.

Second, you answered your own question there.

With such a hugely contentious question, do you really think its healthy to just try and squeeze out a 50%+1 majority even though we have seen the results of this from Brexit and even the contentious vote on the Treaty?

We should learn from history, not repeat it. Those looking at a border poll ASAP and then try to squeeze out a victory are fanatics not interested in unifying the Island, they are only interested in a land grab.

As to your last point, we can all play that game.
Why don't we get each county to vote for a UI? Sure, we can subsume Tyrone and Fermanagh easily enough, but what about the other 4 counties?