United Ireland Poll - please vote

Hamsterchops wrote: »

The bold bit is very interesting, as it might really halt the march to a United Ireland (as in theory) Brexit could bring them the best of both worlds, but only if they'd just stop arguing ovre the sea border/customs details.

The best of both worlds if they stay as they are?

'Best of both worlds' is predicated on the UK finding those 'sunny uplands'. If they don't, full membership of the EU would be the more attractive choice.

Fionn1952

blanch152 wrote: »

It has not been rebutted. Folk tales of Brian Boru don't make a country united under one regime. The historical fact is that Ireland has never been united, except under British rule.

Repeating it won't make it any more true. You're still wrong.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

'Best of both worlds' is predicated on the UK finding those 'sunny uplands'. If they don't, full membership of the EU would be the more attractive choice.

If your statement was true - that free trade with the EU was more important than the intra-UK trade - then the difficulties over the Protocol wouldn't be making waves, as they would be few and far-between.

Fionn1952

blanch152 wrote: »

If your statement was true - that free trade with the EU was more important than the intra-UK trade - then the difficulties over the Protocol wouldn't be making waves, as they would be few and far-between.

Do you think there would be fewer difficulties than we're currently experiencing in the event that the UK went with a hard Brexit and border infrastructure was being installed/manned at the moment?

The problems being experienced right now don't provide any evidence that intra-UK trade is more important than EU trade (that would require comparison with a situation without EU trade), they just provide evidence that Brexit was a crap idea from the start.

Fionn1952 wrote: »

Repeating it won't make it any more true. You're still wrong.

The fact is that Ireland was never politically or administratively united except under British rule.

The romantic story of a historically united Ireland was created in the mid-19th century from fable and fantasy, it is about as historically accurate as Adam and Eve.

Fionn1952 wrote: »

Do you think there would be fewer difficulties than we're currently experiencing in the event that the UK went with a hard Brexit and border infrastructure was being installed/manned at the moment?

The problems being experienced right now don't provide any evidence that intra-UK trade is more important than EU trade (that would require comparison with a situation without EU trade), they just provide evidence that Brexit was a crap idea from the start.

If we had a single agricultural market on the island, with EU rules, then a hard economic border on the island would pose few problems from an economic point of view, given the level of non-agricultural trade. EU provisions regarding border workers would probably be suffice to deal with those who lived and worked in different jurisdictions.

The real issues with a hard border on the island are social, cultural and political rather than economic.

Hamsterchops wrote: »

The bold bit is very interesting, as it might really halt the march to a United Ireland (as in theory) Brexit could bring them the best of both worlds, but only if they'd just stop arguing ovre the sea border/customs details.

The best of both worlds if they stay as they are?

I was meant to respond earlier.

I think my biggest issue with your approach is that with a subject as emotive as this is a "devil's advocate" is hardly required.

The entrenched views aren't going to be countered by "why don't we all just get along".

If we're still asking questions as to the failure of the North after a hundred years, then perhaps the root of the issue is tied up in the decision to create it against the democratic will of the people of Ireland.

If something isn't working after 100 years then maybe just maybe it's time to try something else, like i dunno, reunification?

BonnieSituation wrote: »

I was meant to respond earlier.

I think my biggest issue with your approach is that with a subject as emotive as this is a "devil's advocate" is hardly required.

The entrenched views aren't going to be countered by "why don't we all just get along".

If we're still asking questions as to the failure of the North after a hundred years, then perhaps the root of the issue is tied up in the decision to create it against the democratic will of the people of Ireland.

If something isn't working after 100 years then maybe just maybe it's time to try something else, like i dunno, reunification?

The problem I have with this type of analysis is the yardstick by which how well something is working is measured. 100 years is a long time. Sure it wasn't working after 50 years and there was discrimination, hence the civil rights movement, but most of that is now gone and civil rights are on a par with other European countries such as say Poland or Hungary.

However, many, many other countries are a lot less than 100 years old. Lasting that long must be a measure of success rather than failure.

Saying it doesn't work, while opinion polls show only 35% want to change the constitutional position doesn't wash. There are countries with bigger social problems - US, France to give two large examples - yet nobody is talking about them as failed states.

BonnieSituation wrote: »

I was meant to respond earlier.

I think my biggest issue with your approach is that with a subject as emotive as this is a "devil's advocate" is hardly required.

The entrenched views aren't going to be countered by "why don't we all just get along".

If we're still asking questions as to the failure of the North after a hundred years, then perhaps the root of the issue is tied up in the decision to create it against the democratic will of the people of Ireland.

If something isn't working after 100 years then maybe just maybe it's time to try something else, like i dunno, reunification?

Now don't shoot me because of my lack of knowledge but wasn't Northern Ireland created because the people in those counties wanted to stay in the UK. The majority living in the North where Unionist/Protestants. The rest of Ireland was in the majority Catholic. So the majority in those counties got to create the Republic of Ireland and the majority in the North got to stay in the UK?

Is that correct or am I wrong?

sebdavis wrote: »

Now don't shoot me because of my lack of knowledge but wasn't Northern Ireland created because the people in those counties wanted to stay in the UK. The majority living in the North where Unionist/Protestants. The rest of Ireland was in the majority Catholic. So the majority in those counties got to create the Republic of Ireland and the majority in the North got to stay in the UK?

Is that correct or am I wrong?

You are correct, and what's more, the Irish Dail voted democratically to accept the partition of the country.

sebdavis wrote: »

Now don't shoot me because of my lack of knowledge but wasn't Northern Ireland created because the people in those counties wanted to stay in the UK. The majority living in the North where Unionist/Protestants. The rest of Ireland was in the majority Catholic. So the majority in those counties got to create the Republic of Ireland and the majority in the North got to stay in the UK?

Is that correct or am I wrong?

Northern Ireland was created because Carson and Craig raised a private army, imported arms and introduced the gun back into Irish politics.

They basically threatened belligerently and both were made Knights of Realm. The British, on Unionists behalf threatened terrible and immediate war, if we didn't sign the treaty. Those who later founded FF and FG acquiesced to the demand.

Shebean

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Northern Ireland was created because Carson and Craig raised a private army, imported arms and introduced the gun back into Irish politics.

They basically threatened belligerently and both were made Knights of Realm. The British, on Unionists behalf threatened terrible and immediate war, if we didn't sign the treaty. Those who later founded FF and FG acquiesced to the demand.

There's also the rigging of boundaries to skew voting in the north and the undemocratic nature of land owners in the south deciding it was all good as it suited their interests.

Taking all that into account, it's very gracious of the Irish to choose to pursue a democratic all inclusive road to a united Ireland.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Northern Ireland was created because Carson and Craig raised a private army, imported arms and introduced the gun back into Irish politics.

They basically threatened belligerently and both were made Knights of Realm. The British, on Unionists behalf threatened terrible and immediate war, if we didn't sign the treaty. Those who later founded FF and FG acquiesced to the demand.

This Carson?

After the partition of Ireland, Carson repeatedly warned Ulster Unionist leaders not to alienate northern Catholics, as he foresaw this would make Northern Ireland unstable. In 1921 he stated: "We used to say that we could not trust an Irish parliament in Dublin to do justice to the Protestant minority. Let us take care that that reproach can no longer be made against your parliament, and from the outset let them see that the Catholic minority have nothing to fear from a Protestant majority."[44] In old age, while at London's Carlton Club, he confided to the Anglo-Irish (and Catholic) historian Sir Charles Petrie his disillusionment with Belfast politics: "I fought to keep Ulster part of the United Kingdom, but Stormont is turning her into a second-class Dominion."

He didn't see himself as an Ulsterman and, unlike many northern unionists it is thought he had an emotional connection with Ireland as a single entity.

sebdavis wrote: »

This Carson?

After the partition of Ireland, Carson repeatedly warned Ulster Unionist leaders not to alienate northern Catholics, as he foresaw this would make Northern Ireland unstable. In 1921 he stated: "We used to say that we could not trust an Irish parliament in Dublin to do justice to the Protestant minority. Let us take care that that reproach can no longer be made against your parliament, and from the outset let them see that the Catholic minority have nothing to fear from a Protestant majority."[44] In old age, while at London's Carlton Club, he confided to the Anglo-Irish (and Catholic) historian Sir Charles Petrie his disillusionment with Belfast politics: "I fought to keep Ulster part of the United Kingdom, but Stormont is turning her into a second-class Dominion."

He didn't see himself as an Ulsterman and, unlike many northern unionists it is thought he had an emotional connection with Ireland as a single entity.

And all was right and there was no discrimination of Nationalists after that. Not a jot.

Given your quite laughable queries earlier as to how NI came about, it's rather humorous how you pulled that one from the proverbial without any sense of what Carson is, was or stood for nor what or how he ended up.

BonnieSituation wrote: »

And all was right and there was no discrimination of Nationalists after that. Not a jot.

Given your quite laughable queries earlier as to how NI came about, it's rather humorous how you pulled that one from the proverbial without any sense of what Carson is, was or stood for nor what or how he ended up.

Google Carson and it comes up on wiki. Hardly rocket science is it?
I have no idea who Carson or Craig are, never heard of them before.

This also came up: https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/heritage/carson-the-uncrowned-king-of-ulster-1.508404

sebdavis wrote: »

Google Carson and it comes up on wiki. Hardly rocket science is it?
I have no idea who Carson or Craig are, never heard of them before.

This also came up: https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/heritage/carson-the-uncrowned-king-of-ulster-1.508404

And have the temerity to come in here and question the rest of us? That's quite a dose of ego you've got going on there.

BonnieSituation wrote: »

And have the temerity to come in here and question the rest of us? That's quite a dose of ego you've got going on there.

sebdavis wrote: »

This Carson?

After the partition of Ireland, Carson repeatedly warned Ulster Unionist leaders not to alienate northern Catholics, as he foresaw this would make Northern Ireland unstable. In 1921 he stated: "We used to say that we could not trust an Irish parliament in Dublin to do justice to the Protestant minority. Let us take care that that reproach can no longer be made against your parliament, and from the outset let them see that the Catholic minority have nothing to fear from a Protestant majority."[44] In old age, while at London's Carlton Club, he confided to the Anglo-Irish (and Catholic) historian Sir Charles Petrie his disillusionment with Belfast politics: "I fought to keep Ulster part of the United Kingdom, but Stormont is turning her into a second-class Dominion."

He didn't see himself as an Ulsterman and, unlike many northern unionists it is thought he had an emotional connection with Ireland as a single entity.

Carson was a Dub.

That his views may have changed or somebody sought to airbrush him doesn't change what he and others did earlier and its consequences.

Well done on leaping to the defence of somebody you know nothing about by your own admission.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Northern Ireland was created because Carson and Craig raised a private army, imported arms and introduced the gun back into Irish politics.

They basically threatened belligerently and both were made Knights of Realm. The British, on Unionists behalf threatened terrible and immediate war, if we didn't sign the treaty. Those who later founded FF and FG acquiesced to the demand.

You left out the bit where the democratically elected parliament accepted the Treaty that partitioned the country.

blanch152 wrote: »

You left out the bit where the democratically elected parliament accepted the Treaty that partitioned the country.

Under threat of 'immediate and terrible war' if they didn't. Blanch take the blinkers off and accept the history of what actually happened would you?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Under threat of 'immediate and terrible war' if they didn't. Blanch take the blinkers off and accept the history of what actually happened would you?

Was there a vote of the democratically elected parliament or not? Yes or No
Did the democratically elected parliament vote yes or no to partition?

Your revisionism of events doesn't do you credit.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Under threat of 'immediate and terrible war' if they didn't. Blanch take the blinkers off and accept the history of what actually happened would you?

It's amazing how they just keep repeating the same talking points over and over.

The debates leading up to a border poll are going to be something.

Junkyard Tom

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Under threat of 'immediate and terrible war' if they didn't.

He's more than aware of that, it's just muck-spreading.

blanch152 wrote: »

Was there a vote of the democratically elected parliament or not? Yes or No
Did the democratically elected parliament vote yes or no to partition?

Your revisionism of events doesn't do you credit.

Did the British in the person of Lloyd George issue a threat blanch?

There is no revisionism...there is however context.

You wilfully ignore the context when it suits you.

BonnieSituation wrote: »

It's amazing how they just keep repeating the same talking points over and over.

The debates leading up to a border poll are going to be something.

This will be the kind of stuff the DUP and belligerent Unionists will be taunting with. This is who partitionists will be allying with.
It will be fascinating to see who stands up here politically to voice this stuff.
My money is on nobody, not a single politician will voice this self deprecating context-less invention.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Did the British in the person of Lloyd George issue a threat blanch?

There is no revisionism...there is however context.

You wilfully ignore the context when it suits you.

Yes, there was context, but context doesn't change the expressed democratic will of the people's representatives as they could consider that context.

When Covid regulations were brought in that restricted freedoms, they were in a particular context, and they would have been unthinkable a few years ago, however that context doesn't detract in any way from the democratic legitimacy of the decision to introduce the Covid regulations.

Context may help to contextualise and explain a particular democratic decision, but it doesn't reduce its legitimacy.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

This will be the kind of stuff the DUP and belligerent Unionists will be taunting with. This is who partitionists will be allying with.
It will be fascinating to see who stands up here politically to voice this stuff.
My money is on nobody, not a single politician will voice this self deprecating context-less invention.

I doubt you or anyone else here will live to see what happens as it depends on a border poll actually happening.

blanch152 wrote: »

Yes, there was context, but context doesn't change the expressed democratic will of the people's representatives as they could consider that context.

When Covid regulations were brought in that restricted freedoms, they were in a particular context, and they would have been unthinkable a few years ago, however that context doesn't detract in any way from the democratic legitimacy of the decision to introduce the Covid regulations.

Context may help to contextualise and explain a particular democratic decision, but it doesn't reduce its legitimacy.

The threat of war from a much stronger bully after a long period which included devastation from WW1 and our own conflict/war is being compared to the voluntary actions taken in the face of a pandemic?

Are you for real?

blanch152 wrote: »

I doubt you or anyone else here will live to see what happens as it depends on a border poll actually happening.

I may not have lived to see my children finish school...didn't stop me sending them to it.