Is Sinn Fein the prospective meat in Bertie’s sangwich?
There is little doubt that Bertie Ahern has set the cat amongst the pigeons with his announcement that his party will look to organise in Northern Ireland. I’ve laid out a few extended thoughts on Comment is Free. Paul thinks that cross border developments of all kinds on and between these islands are good (and inevitably limited) and that Sir Reg should probably ‘chill’, or even seek out his own East West partnerships. And in AOB, Mitchel McLaughlin still wants his northern mandate recognised in the south (a measure of how unprepared they were for this change of tack?).
>>If you don’t like the rules, you know where the door is.<< – Mick
Great comeback Mick! Standing up for yourself get’s an invite to fuck off. Great stuff! There does seem to be a select few of us who are subject to this kind of hospitality on an ongoing basis. Bully-boy tactics or what!
Your state has only existed for 80 years FiniteDrone, so your idea of the rest of the island as a ‘foreign country’ is an artifically constructed piece of self-serving sophistry. Not convincing, especially given that almost half the population of your state – and a majority of it if you take into account those who were forced to leave to seek opportunities elsewhere – identify themselves as belonging to the same people in the rest of the island. It’s truer to say that unionists are poltical supremacists unaccustomed to sharing power with their ‘lessers’ rather than that your ‘lessers’ are foreign. This was the case when the country was united and is still the case now. The border doesn’t represent ‘domestic’ & ‘foreign’ – it represents ‘power concentrated’ and ‘power diluted’.
As to the likely consequences of a united ireland – your idea that unionists would riot and engage in war is incorrect in my opinion. You state that they do this already and extrapolate from this to say it will get worse when unity comes. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the reality of the situation; riots and division occur now – and seemingly unendingly in n. ireland – because the northern state itself is a perversion. Northern Ireland itself is the origin of these things. What you will find I believe, much to your surprise perhaps, is that with the end of the northern state and the beginning of unity the situation throughout the island will normalise, for that is where normality lies. Of course unionists, habituated to supremacy and the maintenance of a preposterously abnormal state of affairs, will fear and fight against this change. However, like Kafka’s Joseph K, once they breach the fearsome roaring barrier of their fears thay will likely find normality and banality on the other side not thunder, and will themselves breathe a sigh of relief, like all the rest of us.
“Even if dire predictions of doomsday scenarios are not in your consideration can we at least have SOME realism. If not dealing with Bosnia circa 1993 the RoI is at least likely to face something like the ETA campaign even in a best case scenario.
Posted by FiniteDrone on Sep 19, 2007 @ 05:12 PM
You’re flat wrong FD. Unionists will for the most part avoid bloody anarchy. That’s my opinion. They’ll ‘fight’ tooth and nail to prevent a 50+1 vote, but the vast majority will not then go to ‘war’ to create a Protestant Banthustan. I genuinely think the idea would fill them with horror, as it does me.”
You didn’t contradict my point. Everything said above could apply to Basques. By NILT about 15% of unionists could never countenance a united Ireland. In a UI the RoI government will face violence. Whether it will be the odd letter bomb to a TD and the odd riot over a rerouted march or full scale total war Bosnia style neither of us can predict, but it’s something the RoI would have to plan for in any transition to a UI.
No, because the IRA were fighting to incorporate an area into their hypothetical state in which the majority did not identify with it, on the basis of geographical, historical or ethnic imperatives.
But you are advocating violence to retain people in an area into their hypothetical state in which the majority no longer identify with it, on the basis of geographical, historical or ethnic imperatives.
So tell me the difference
merrie,
For what it’s worth, my ‘pertinent advice’ is to take your opponent’s argument to bits, but leave him/her alone. For one, when you do so on such internet fora, you are usually making huge misassumptions about people you do not even know.
Here’s a cut and paste from that wikipedia article I linked earlier on Ad Hominem:
“…consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to an irrelevant characteristic about the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.”
So focus on the claim, look for evidence, examine and then falsify if you can: ie tough argument.
Now, that article goes on to make a valid case for it a given circumstance:
But then:
What too often passes for tough in some of these exchanges is really handbag thuggery, but it is still thuggery and should not be mistaken for challenging argument.
PE:
You’ve enjoyed tolerant hospitality here for long enough. Just get down and do the work, or feel free to leave.
“the only way this could be is if things stayed exactly the way the are, thus robbing the majority of their democratic rights if 50%+1 is achieved.”
No, I’m advocating a fairer partition that would minimise the number of people that would live in a state they didn’t identify with. Or perhaps as a bottom line a new Bosnia / Belgium.
Just because at some future date a partition at the current border might leave less people in a foreign (to them) state than a partition at the Irish Sea it doesn’t make a partition at the Irish Sea, sensible, sane or fair.
“For years the loyalists screamed about how they are the only democrats and how majority rule must be respected but faced with a possible democratic majority in favour of a UI you take up the positions previously occupied by the IRA.”
No, the IRA wanted to force people into a foreign (to them) state on the basis of a historical or geographical claim, not a partition maximising the number of people living in a state they identify with.
“You were justified to be outraged by their violence but also feel justified in taking up their violent path, how can that be?”"
It wasn’t merely the IRA’s violence that I objected to, or even that I primarily objected to. It was that they were trying to force my countrymen into a foreign country without their assent through violent blackmail.
“No, because the IRA were fighting to incorporate an area into their hypothetical state in which the majority did not identify with it, on the basis of geographical, historical or ethnic imperatives.
But you are advocating violence to retain people in an area into their hypothetical state in which the majority no longer identify with it, on the basis of geographical, historical or ethnic imperatives.
So tell me the difference”
The difference is that I am seeking to maximise the number of people living in a state they identify with, not basing the border on historical or geographical claims.
It is the same difference as that between advocating that Bosnia reunite with Serbia and advocating that Republika Srpska reunite with Serbia.
My, my, as per usual this thread has ultimately descended into the boring sectarian tit for tat instead of a debate about Fianna Fail expanding into NI.
I certainly don’t agree with FD’s assertion that widespread violence is inevitable if ever a 50% + 1 pro-UI scenario was to come about. I don’t think the Unionist community would tolerate it one bit.
I believe that the state of NI is and was a justifiable solution to the problems that Ireland faced in the early 20th century. However, I accept that the governance of the state that came after that point was not deserving of these noble aims. Whether Nationalists choose to accept it a highly concentrated region in the North-East of our island was vehemently anti-Nationalist; to have tried to absorb that size-able sect into an independent Ireland against their wishes would probably have led to even greater heartache and bloodshed than what eventually ended up happening in the years following partition (maybe that’s why the War of Independence never spread north of the border – Collins, etc knew they could never win).
This would all have happened under a cloud of fierce religion-fuelled animosity. The circumstances that existed then do not apply now. Both parts of the island are relatively prosperous and Unionists could not realistically fear to be persecuted because of their religious beliefs nor expect a significant lowering of their standard of life if a UI was ever to come about. We would be extremely unhappy at events, not doubt, but militant? Despite us being consistently, and unjustly I might say, cast as the bruising, aggressive oppressors in the piece I seriously doubt that the stomach for supporting what would be another monumentally stupid and divisive terror campaign would be present amongst Unionists in general. I think too many people in Northern Ireland have a good enough recollection of atrocities committed not too long ago to allow another sustained paramilitary effort in their names become a viable strategy. Some thugs may well try and start up a resistance movement if a United Ireland was to ever come about but I would think that they would fail miserably.
It’s funny how when a Republican comes onto this site and advocates the IRA’s actions over the past 40 years that he receives very little in terms of criticism yet when someone, quite wrongly IMO, comes onto this board and says that he would support any [i]future[/i] terror campaign perpetrated in his name he gets roundly abused. At least be consistent in your praise/condemnation.
It’s also quite demeaning to have folk roundly characterising an entire community as ‘thugs’ or having ‘hermetically sealed skulls’ just because a single Unionist has voiced his argument on this thread. The problem it seems with Nationalists on this thread is that all they can see is the prize – i.e. a United Ireland. They have no concept about how this new state is meant to deal with 1 million disgruntled Unionists, nor do they seem to care.
I’m afraid that even though a new loyalist terrorism campaign is not likely to be in the offing should a UI occur, the attitudes of folk like FD are not few and far between. Nationalists should try not to under-estimate the depth of ‘British’ feeling amongst the Unionist community and would do well to avoid treating us as lapsed Nationalists or acting as if our ideals are somehow morally inferior to theirs. If you’re really serious about uniting Ireland, instead of merely dreaming about it, then you should be ready to address these concerns because this time if an Irish ‘nation’ is to emerge it will have to be a hell of a lot more accomodating to Unionists than the current incarnation was and is, otherwise it’s not going to be very harmonious and a 2 state solution will inevitably be the final outcome.
We are prepared to address you, it’s you who are not prepared to be addressed by us. That is and always was the case. We are accomodating – how much moe accomodating do you want us to be? We speak English, the southern irish took over the laws of the departing power lock stock and barrel, same with the civil service, we participate in and appreciate british culture – from Chaucer and Shakespeare to Corrie and British politics – we appreciate anglo-americanism just like you do, we do not seek to inhibit your cultural expressions.
You by contrast refuse to talk to residents of streets where you insist organisations intimately connected with sectarian partisanship should be allowed to march year in year out in paramilitary procession. You refuse to give any official recognition even now to the language half the population recognise as their historic heritage. You believe you have the right to subject nationalists even now to secretive intelligence gathering and monitoring, even to the point of political interference, in the name of your ‘security’. Only now have you agreed to share a modicum of power with almost half the population, and then only under the aegis of your ultimate guarantor the british.
I hardly think it is us who have to prove ourselves. You are expressiong not reasoned understanding but simply fear, and more fear. You believe you have the right to demand a great deal, above and beyond all the interference and change we have already suiffered culturally and poltically, because you believe you have the right to dictate from on high and disdainfully. You believe all this because you have been habituated to a position that any objective outside observer would call ‘colonial superiority’.
We will meet you on the road to compromise certainly. You however have a job of work to do too; your job is to wake up.
>>PE:
You’ve enjoyed tolerant hospitality here for long enough. Just get down and do the work, or feel free to leave.<<
I was happily engaged with FiniteDrone until you called myself and others thugs, and accused me of shouting down the person that I was engaged with. I’m sure if you could have proved that you would have done so already, so can only conclude that you can’t. You then proceed to treat me with no small measure of condescension when I dared to object, before finally resorting to rudeness. I don’t know you personally Mick so don’t know the kind of man you are. However whenever I label someone wrongly I usually apologise, perhaps that’s just the kind of man I am.
Feel free to respond, I’ve said my bit and won’t be commenting on the matter any further.
Harry
[i]“Your state has only existed for 80 years”[/i]
Em … so has your’s, assuming you are from the RoI that is.
[i]Not convincing, especially given that almost half the population of your state – and [b]a majority of it if you take into account those who were forced to leave to seek opportunities elsewhere[/b] – identify themselves as belonging to the same people in the rest of the island.[/i]
Care to regale us with any concrete evidence that backs up your highly spurious claims? I can only speak from my own experience but I come from an Ulster Protestant extended family where half my cousins are Canadian or live in Britain. I’m far from being unique in so far as Ulster Protestants are concerned – it wasn’t just Catholics that fled NI in the 60s/70s, or the preceding decades, to escape the mayhem. Additionally, do your figures include the sizeable proportion of Northern Irish Protestant ‘diaspora’ who currently live in Britain? I know, for instance, out of the 150 or so folk who were in my year of school, about 90% Protestant, that currently (as far as I know) about a third of them live and work on the other side of the Irish Sea.
[i]It’s truer to say that unionists are poltical supremacists unaccustomed to sharing power with their ‘lessers’ rather than that your ‘lessers’ are foreign. This was the case when the country was united and is still the case now.[/i]
Firstly, there is not and never has been an independent country called ‘Ireland’. There’s never been the sense of collective nationhood that you ascribe to. You confuse a sense of Irish nationalism with what Unionism and Nationalism really boil down to – a sense of co-religionism, which cannot be defined as simply by putting ‘natives’ into one box and ‘planters’ into another. The fact is that 400 years, or 20 generations, after the Ulster Plantation and other settlements were created in Ireland we are all, for the most part, an eclectic mix of the 2 ‘ethnic groups’.
Secondly, ‘political supremacist’? Is the same not true of Nationalism in the Republic of Ireland or do we simply call that a ‘political majority’ in comparison? And please move away from labelling yourself as a ‘lesser’ we both know from your condescending tone that you see yourself as a moral ‘superior’ and that you see your form of Nationalism as somehow infinitely more valid than another form of Nationalism that just so happens not to be as neatly confined by the geographical boundaries of the island of Ireland.
Prince Eoghan
I have enjoyed your input into this and other threads so I hope you do not go away, just as the SF man (cannot remember his name) eventually did because of other people’s personal attacks on him on Slugger. And my, were they vicious, and you had to get to them quickly before they were wiped by the Slugger Admin.
Personal attacks do make people go away and that is unfortunate for the rest of us. So I appreciate Mick’s rule that we should “play the ball, not the man”.
RÃgain Medb
[i]We will meet you on the road to compromise certainly. You however have a job of work to do too; your job is to wake up.[/i]
You just don’t get it do you? I’m not missing half my brain, the half that tells me I should be a Nationalist. I’m not a lapsed Nationalist – I’m a Unionist. I won’t be meeting you anywhere down your road of ‘compromise’ by which you mean road to a United Ireland. I’m more than content to let you have your own ideals and goals – it doesn’t bother me in the slightest, even though you seem to think that all Unionists are ‘political supremacists’ or just plain oppressive.
But I’m afraid that if you want me to share your beliefs, or at the very least foresee how I or the 1 million other NI Unionists fit into your grand plan, then you’ll have to do a lot better than treat me as an imbecile and tell me to ‘wake up’. I’ve tried rubbing my eyes, just for your own piece of mind and you know what – I’m still a Unionist, deal with it.
FiniteDrone,
“I feel the same about this as I would presume many people in the Republic would feel about being reunited into the United Kingdom. I’m sure they would advocate violence too.”,/i>
Today, in 2007, if a majority of the people in the Republic voted in a free and democratic election to join the UK then those who advocated violence to prevent such an eventuality would be terrorists, plain and simple.
I would hazard a guess the overwhelming majority of my fellow citizens would agree with me and would peacefully live with such a decision.
I say that as somebody who would be horrified beyond belief at the prospect but Irish self-determination means determining your own fate. Fortunately, for me at any rate, my fellow citizens seem to be happy with living in an independent Republic.
I respect my neighbours and if the majority of my neighbours want to become citizens of the UK then I will accept that wish. I won’t plot a campaign of murder and mayhem to thwart their wishes.
I don’t have an issue with you commenting on violence but I have a serious issue with your unreserved endorsement of it as a means to an end (someone else’s generally) and, even worse, your feeling that you would be morally justified in using violence.
Your use of the former Yugoslavia, where hundreds of thousands of innocent people were butchered, is quite ironic.
Don’t you realise that when you advocate a war that you stand a good chance of losing and the borders aren’t specified in any clear way, you could just as easily end up like the Serbs of Kosovo or Krajina as those harbouring the international war criminals in Srpska.
I would hope that the people of Ireland are at a stage where, if nothing else, they would spare themselves this suffering.
@Harry
“Your state has only existed for 80 years FiniteDrone, so your idea of the rest of the island as a ‘foreign country’ is an artifically constructed piece of self-serving sophistry.”
States and nations differ. There are stateless nations and nationless states. Nations are things existing in the minds of humans. All states were created by human beings. Every last one is literally an artifice. So to call any nation or state “artificial” is to state something which is always trivially true.
It is plain that we have a situation of two national identifications on this island. Personally I have trouble understanding how nationalists see Great Britain as foreign when so much of their popular culture, from what football team they support to most of what they watch on TV originates there but somehow they manage that mental leap and view themselves as part of an all-island non British nation, but I accept that that is the case.
To me it is plain that if those two national identifications were living entirely in contiguous geographic areas the solution to the “Irish Question” would be bleeding obvious – put a border right there. I’d be interested to know if you disagree?
Now, that is not the situation. We have people with different national identifications and aspirations living geographically interlaced. This is of course not unique – Kashmir, Bosnia etc. So this is the problem we have to solve. To me, a united Ireland would be a sufficiently unfair solution to that problem for me to go to war over it. Others no doubt have a different view. I make no claim to be typical. I don’t claim that repartition is the only just solution, merely that a united Ireland would be an unjust non-solution.
“It’s truer to say that unionists are poltical supremacists unaccustomed to sharing power with their ‘lessers’ rather than that your ‘lessers’ are foreign. This was the case when the country was united and is still the case now. The border doesn’t represent ‘domestic’ & ‘foreign’ – it represents ‘power concentrated’ and ‘power diluted’.”
Here we have a piece of prejudice not dissimilar to Mary McAleese’s Nazi comparison. I do not consider nationalists “lessers”, or want to give them different rights. I simply want to live in the country I identify as my nation and for my fellows to do likewise.
Are there NI unionists who view nationalists as lessers? Are there nationalists who view unionists as lessers? Are there Falkland Islanders who view Argentinians as lessers? Are there Palestinians who view Israelis as lessers and vice versa? Maybe in all those cases there are some, but this isn’t the core issue of the problem that is to be solved. What you are doing is simply demonising, possibly because you don’t want to face up to the core issue so you displace it onto another alleged cause.
If every unionist who viewed nationalists as “lessers” and every nationalist who viewed unionists as “lessers”, to whatever extent they exist, were to stop doing so overnight, the problem would still be there. It wouldn’t magically disappear.
“As to the likely consequences of a united ireland – your idea that unionists would riot and engage in war is incorrect in my opinion. You state that they do this already and extrapolate from this to say it will get worse when unity comes.”
I really don’t see how a low estimate of violence against the state in a UI from loyalists could be controversial. Does the “marching issue” magically disappear the day after the border poll? Part of any plan for a UI would have to address the issue of security, yet I don’t see it discussed.
“This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the reality of the situation; riots and division occur now – and seemingly unendingly in n. ireland – because the northern state itself is a perversion. Northern Ireland itself is the origin of these things.”
Cloud cuckoo land. The border was created because of the division in the people, not the other way around.
“What you will find I believe, much to your surprise perhaps, is that with the end of the northern state and the beginning of unity the situation throughout the island will normalise, for that is where normality lies. Of course unionists, habituated to supremacy and the maintenance of a preposterously abnormal state of affairs, will fear and fight against this change.”
Wishing to be part of one state as opposed to another is not “supremacy”.
“However, like Kafka’s Joseph K, once they breach the fearsome roaring barrier of their fears thay will likely find normality and banality on the other side not thunder, and will themselves breathe a sigh of relief, like all the rest of us.”
This is a rather romantic and unrealistic view.
@Harry
“
I hardly think it is us who have to prove ourselves. You are expressiong not reasoned understanding but simply fear, and more fear. You believe you have the right to demand a great deal, above and beyond all the interference and change we have already suiffered culturally and poltically, because you believe you have the right to dictate from on high and disdainfully. You believe all this because you have been habituated to a position that any objective outside observer would call ‘colonial superiority’.”
What I am demanding is that borders reflect the national identity of the people within them. That has nothing to do with “superiority”. The fact that I believe that the Dutch should be in a state separate from France does not mean that I think that the Dutch are superior to the French or vice versa. I don’t believe that Falkland Islanders are superior to Argentinians.
Historical grievances do not justify moving borders to engulf areas of a different nationality. The fact that Russia was treated abominably by Germany in the past would not justify the permanent annexation of Germany by Russia. Nor is “we were here first”, when talking about groups present for hundreds of years, a legitimate argument. Imagine the map of the former Yugoslavia if that applied.
@FiniteDrone,
““I feel the same about this as I would presume many people in the Republic would feel about being reunited into the United Kingdom. I’m sure they would advocate violence too.â€,/i>
Today, in 2007, if a majority of the people in the Republic voted in a free and democratic election to join the UK then those who advocated violence to prevent such an eventuality would be terrorists, plain and simple.
I would hazard a guess the overwhelming majority of my fellow citizens would agree with me and would peacefully live with such a decision.”
Perhaps, but would they peacefully live with it if it were an all-archipelago vote? I am not advocating that NI should become independent, or stay within the union, in the event of 50%+1 border poll, merely that making one of the two nations on the island stateless in this event would be unacceptable.
As stated I would be quite prepared to see a repartition now, and I do not want violence if it is avoidable, but faced with a united Ireland, violence to establish an independent state would be my preferred option.
“I don’t have an issue with you commenting on violence but I have a serious issue with your unreserved endorsement of it as a means to an end (someone else’s generally) and, even worse, your feeling that you would be morally justified in using violence.”
I presume that you would advocate violence to preserve your national sovereignty. Let’s not pretend we are all pacifists on this issue.
FiniteDrone
“Does the “marching issue†magically disappear the day after the border poll?”
Probably.
Your argument, though morally rebarbative, is of course one that would have to figure on the extreme fringes of any discussion on reunification.
I wonder though, where you think the line is drawn in terms of legitimacy? You say that a people, whom you define as a nation, has an inherent right to self-determination.
I just wonder, how many persons are necessary to constitute a “nation”? I mean, have you a number in mind? A million? A thousand? I presume you wouldn’t you go the whole Godwinian hog and say that an individual has a right to declare himself a nation? Anyone who, for example, believes in the rule of law, accepts that though we are all individuals, we are all also part of a border social context, and that true justice lies in striking the correct balance between our individuality and our place in the collective.
So I guess you would accept that no man is an island, that no two people, or even two thousand people, can simply absent themselves from the broader context of their existence? You argue that Ulster Protestants constitute a nation – I won’t disagree, but I would ask you to explain in what way you believe this to be the case? How are they a nation? What is your definition of a nation? How homogenous do they have to be in general terms? How homogenous would their opinion have to be to justify going to war?
And I really think you should deal with George’s most pertinent and ultra-realistic questions about the nuts and bolts of a terrorist campaign. How about if your war is opposed by most within your “nation”? How about if big chunks of your “nation” simply reject your definition, or indeed your right to define them and the “nation” they belong to? Are you prepared to kill those within your “nation” who do not support your political views?
I understand the depth of your feeling, but you should understand that Irish republicans know better than most people on earth where this all leads. Either the grave or, if you’re lucky, prison. It’s not a glamourous fate, notwithstanding all the rhetoric about “dying for your country”. Seriously, your country won’t benefit one iota for your throwing your life away.
FD
“Perhaps, but would they peacefully live with it if it were an all-archipelago vote?”
The corallory of that is an all-island vote, but that’s not the situation here. There’d have to be 50%+1 in NI for reunification to come about. Your analogy is wrong.
“…merely that making one of the two nations on the island stateless in this event would be unacceptable.”
Unacceptable to you, perhaps. But you are just an individual. Who are you to declare what is acceptable? Whether it can be declared that it is “unacceptable” to those you define as your “nation” is a matter that we cannot know at this point. All you can know for sure is that it wouldn’t be acceptable to you personally. That is no justification for a war – especially one which you will style as one of the “national liberation” of a nation that’s will is unclear.
What if there were only a small number within your “nation” who felt as you do? How many volunteers would be enough? What if it was only you? What if yours was a war of personal liberation, instead of one of national liberation?
Who would you target? Who would you kill? Who wouldn’t you kill?
(And please, not to be a nitpicker, but could you desist from the analogies with the Balkans? They are extremely distracting and muddy the issue – as is almost always the case with analogies. I’m happy to talk about Ireland on its own terms, without the inevitable distortions of a Balkan prism.)
FiniteDrone
“Does the “marching issue†magically disappear the day after the border poll?â€
Probably.”
With Dublin calling the shots it’s highly unlikely. I have no doubt that some unionists would even see bias where there was none in Dublin’s actions, as nationalists sometimes have wrt. British decisions. To be actually ruled by Dublin could only exacerbate sensitivities in areas like that.
“Your argument, though morally rebarbative, is of course one that would have to figure on the extreme fringes of any discussion on reunification.”
It’s not all that fringe. Right now I don’t know how many unionists would prefer war over a UI, but I would be very surprised if it wasn’t in double figures in terms of a percentage.
“I wonder though, where you think the line is drawn in terms of legitimacy? You say that a people, whom you define as a nation, has an inherent right to self-determination.
I just wonder, how many persons are necessary to constitute a “nationâ€? I mean, have you a number in mind? A million? A thousand? I presume you wouldn’t you go the whole Godwinian hog and say that an individual has a right to declare himself a nation? Anyone who, for example, believes in the rule of law, accepts that though we are all individuals, we are all also part of a border social context, and that true justice lies in striking the correct balance between our individuality and our place in the collective.”
Of course there must be pragmatism on size. We cannot have Passport to Pimlico, but we would be talking about a state with a population similar to many countries who no-one contests the existence of due to size. Size is not the issue here. There may be issues, size isn’t one of them.
“So I guess you would accept that no man is an island, that no two people, or even two thousand people, can simply absent themselves from the broader context of their existence? You argue that Ulster Protestants constitute a nation – I won’t disagree, but I would ask you to explain in what way you believe this to be the case? How are they a nation? What is your definition of a nation? How homogenous do they have to be in general terms? How homogenous would their opinion have to be to justify going to war?”
All nations ultimately exist in people’s heads. I simply do not identify with any sense of all island Irishness. I don’t even concern myself with it’s current affairs because I do not identify it as part of my mental sphere. When sufficient numbers in certain areas have such a distinction of viewing themselves with a different identity that constitutes a nation. Surely that is not hard to understand since it was essentially the basis by which southern Ireland left the United Kingdom.
“And I really think you should deal with George’s most pertinent and ultra-realistic questions about the nuts and bolts of a terrorist campaign. How about if your war is opposed by most within your “nationâ€? How about if big chunks of your “nation†simply reject your definition, or indeed your right to define them and the “nation†they belong to? Are you prepared to kill those within your “nation†who do not support your political views?”
I cannot know for certain how much support such a campaign would have. It might be so large as to merit describing it as as a “war” rather than a “terrorist campaign” or just me and a bag of fertiliser. I can only know with certainty my own mind, and I know that I would be prepared to fight for freedom from a united Ireland. I seriously doubt I’d be alone though, look at the scale of loyalist paramilitarism even with just the threat of a UI from the IRA’s campaign, and I’m someone who would never have considered joining a Loyalist paramilitary group during “the troubles”
“I understand the depth of your feeling, but you should understand that Irish republicans know better than most people on earth where this all leads. Either the grave or, if you’re lucky, prison. It’s not a glamourous fate, notwithstanding all the rhetoric about “dying for your countryâ€. Seriously, your country won’t benefit one iota for your throwing your life away.”
Thanks for the advice, but it would be my decision and my responsibility for the consequences. I think my useful purpose here is to demonstrate that my views exist. There seems to be a lot of naivete about some utopian transition to a united Ireland. Your idea that the marching issue would disappear in a united Ireland for example. Hard to get my head around such thinking.
Missed the last four and a half hours…stupid trains…but trying to catch up.
Mick – you have a Unionist threatening violence if they lose a border poll and you are calling the nationalist commentators thugs ?
I appreciate a balanced input is good for all but that’s a bit much.
Dewi,
Ball, man. There is a cardinal difference between the two. See post 5 on this page if you’re unsure.
I want to see everyone put their best case forward, regardless of where they come from politically. But I’ve zero time for people who engage in pre-programmed bombast that bears little relation to reality.
” “Perhaps, but would they peacefully live with it if it were an all-archipelago vote?â€
The corallory of that is an all-island vote, but that’s not the situation here. There’d have to be 50%+1 in NI for reunification to come about. Your analogy is wrong.”
The question is the border used. What group would constitute the demos. I am not demanding an independent or British NI in the event of a 50%+1 border poll. I would agree that in that scenario NI would be illegitimate. However in that scenario a united Ireland would be much more unfair and much more immoral than an alternative two state solution. Also I really would be saying the same thing if the same scenario were happening in another country.
As I said I’m perfectly open to moving the border, before any border poll, even right now, and hopefully putting the issue to bed in a stable settlement without this “winner takes all” element.
” “…merely that making one of the two nations on the island stateless in this event would be unacceptable.â€
Unacceptable to you, perhaps. But you are just an individual. Who are you to declare what is acceptable? Whether it can be declared that it is “unacceptable†to those you define as your “nation†is a matter that we cannot know at this point. All you can know for sure is that it wouldn’t be acceptable to you personally. That is no justification for a war – especially one which you will style as one of the “national liberation†of a nation that’s will is unclear.”
True I am an individual. If I march to war and no-one else turns up then that’s my hard luck, though I doubt I’d be alone. I can only with certainty speak of my own mind.
“What if there were only a small number within your “nation†who felt as you do? How many volunteers would be enough? What if it was only you? What if yours was a war of personal liberation, instead of one of national liberation?”
These questions apply to any such war. I don’t see why a special case should be made here. It may succeed, it may fail. Can’t know until it happens.
“Who would you target? Who would you kill? Who wouldn’t you kill?”
Those who use force to resist a fair two state solution. If they are Protestant, Catholic or Hindu would not make a difference, and if Catholics or Hindus wished to join with me I would not have a problem with that in principle. As stated before I myself am an atheist.
“(And please, not to be a nitpicker, but could you desist from the analogies with the Balkans? They are extremely distracting and muddy the issue – as is almost always the case with analogies. I’m happy to talk about Ireland on its own terms, without the inevitable distortions of a Balkan prism.)”
I think it may be more that you find them unpleasant than uninformative. Could be wrong though.
FD
Now you are chamioning the cause of re-partition, how do you rpopose setting the border? At what percentage do you calculate the border 40-60 50-50
and how exactly do you determine what the percentage is? is a door to door poll to be conducted? a secret ballot where every one marks their affiliation so that majorities can be determined?
Secondly how often are the borders redrawn? every time the simple majority shifts in a geographic area? every 5 years on a predetirmined schedule?
Can we work this block by block or do you envision village by village? what if by whatever means you detirmine for re-partition there is a political island like say Ballymena do they become like west berlin with check point charlie to usher their citizens in and out of a narrow access coridor
But lets start with the biggest lie and the most obvious elephant in the room, why was the area west of the Bann included in the original partition when it never had a loyalist majority
And if you want an archipeligo wide referendum on whether nIreland should remain in the UK, You would still lose because opinion polls in england have already shown that the majority of its citizens want the “Irish question” answered with a resounding get out and stay out
“Unfortunately in this country, you don’t really have to scratch too far to find the thug just waiting to happen. Democracy at it’s finest – if it doesn’t go our way, let’s start a war.”
Given that Mick decided to use my quote as the basis for his ticking off, I thought I’d repost it and invite anyone to explain to me where the man/ball reference comes from. It matters not a jot whether a poster is unionist or nationalist and the only reason I pointed a finger at FD’s unionism is because he made his loyalties quite clear in his reason for advocating violence in response to a future perceived democratic outcome.
The same can be applied equally to enough turds on my side of the fence. If calling anyone willing to resort to violence to subvert the democratic process a thug, the I hold my hands up as guilty – happily so.
What’s interesting is that the few other unionist posters who have commented here, have not sought to justify FD’s advocacy for violence when things don’t go your way. To me, that speaks volumes.
“Today, in 2007, if a majority of the people in the Republic voted in a free and democratic election to join the UK then those who advocated violence to prevent such an eventuality would be terrorists, plain and simple.” – George
Totally disagree, George.
Self-determination is an inalienable right to every citizen; and, as such, isn’t subject to the whims of the majority. In other words, if 50+1 % of Mexicans voted to become Chinese, adopting their politics, economics and culture, etc, their vote wouldn’t overrule the inalienable right of indigenous people of Mexico to express their culture and to “freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.” The Mexicans who wished to retain their culture would still be entitled to self-determination (a nation state) under international law.
This doesn’t contradict statements that the will of the 50+1 % of NI voters should be respected since there is no opposing claim to self-determination made by unionists that is valid. Those who identify themselves as British already have a nation state, i.e. Great Britain. The actual claim made by unionists is invalid because it is actually a claim for a second nation state – a home away from home, if you like.
The line is simple. Call the man a thug for the position he has taken up (no matter how unpopular it may be, it is a position), and you give up carrying the burden of argument. Again see post 5.
It’s clear enough.
@Dewi
“Mick – you have a Unionist threatening violence if they lose a border poll and you are calling the nationalist commentators thugs ?”
As someone pointed out earlier why is this “worse” than someone supporting the Provo campaign? They were threatening (and carrying out) violence after effectively losing a border poll for decades. Not for independence of nationalist areas but for complete dominance over the whole island. Yet people supporting the Provo campaign have posted here without the same amount of fireworks.
Of course I believe my position to be much more ethical than the Provos for reasons I’ve already stated. I want the fairest border possible.
@Sean
“Now you are chamioning the cause of re-partition, how do you rpopose setting the border? At what percentage do you calculate the border 40-60 50-50
and how exactly do you determine what the percentage is? is a door to door poll to be conducted? a secret ballot where every one marks their affiliation so that majorities can be determined?”
I can hardly go into such details now. There are many historical examples around the world of the redrawing of borders. Hardly any European country has the some borders it had in 1900. I would bring up Yugoslavia but apparently that’s verboten.
“Secondly how often are the borders redrawn? every time the simple majority shifts in a geographic area? every 5 years on a predetirmined schedule?”
I would wish for a stable settlement that everyone would view as permanent.
“But lets start with the biggest lie and the most obvious elephant in the room, why was the area west of the Bann included in the original partition when it never had a loyalist majority”
Well if you are saying that border was unjust then how exactly would you argue that drawing the border at the Irish Sea would not be even more unjust? Either then or now.
“And if you want an archipeligo wide referendum on whether nIreland should remain in the UK, You would still lose because opinion polls in england have already shown that the majority of its citizens want the “Irish question†answered with a resounding get out and stay out”
The hypothetical presumption was that this would happen after the union had ended.
@Pacman
“FD – killing people because a vote doesn’t go your way isn’t ethical. You’ll be no better than the Provos.”
No, because I am only asking for the fairest and most just border. The Provos were asking for the whole island no matter what.
FD
“Your idea that the marching issue would disappear in a united Ireland for example. Hard to get my head around such thinkingâ€
You misunderstand me. I mean that if Ireland was reunified, I think the vast majority of nationalists would be quite content to see the loyal orders march absolutely wherever they want. I think most nationalists would welcome them with cups of tea, and look forward to the twelfth of July as a major public holiday and an excuse for a good session. Context is everything, and nationalism’s relationship with the loyal orders in the context of a UI would be nothing like the relationship today.
“It’s not all that fringe. Right now I don’t know how many unionists would prefer war over a UI, but I would be very surprised if it wasn’t in double figures in terms of a percentage.â€
Ten percent of c.900,000 Protestants would be 90,000. You really think you would get 90,000 men at arms to join your struggle? That’s more than you got in 1912, and the world is a radically different place today. You think that, say you founded a political party violently opposed to the new state, you’d even get 90k votes? I don’t. Again, Irish republicans know that rhetoric is one thing, but getting men to leave their homes and hearths and sign up for gaol or death is quite another. I’d say if you got 900, or 0.1% you’d be doing well. That means your entire army of rebellion could be comfortably housed within the prison system. Reality bites.
“I wonder though, where you think the line is drawn in terms of legitimacy? You say that a people, whom you define as a nation, has an inherent right to self-determination.
“Of course there must be pragmatism on size. … Size is not the issue here. There may be issues, size isn’t one of them.â€
You seem to contradict yourself here.
“We cannot have Passport to Pimlico, but we would be talking about a state with a population similar to many countries who no-one contests the existence of due to size.â€
Have you a figure in mind? This is all very vague, woolly stuff from someone who is talking about war.
“All nations ultimately exist in people’s heads.â€
But states don’t. States are the tangible outworking of the collective desire of large groups of people – people who are usually geographically contiguous – and they don’t just happen by themselves. How many, or how few people can hope to define themselves as a nation and go on to organise a state, is a matter of context. Why do you think that a tiny Protestant enclave in Ireland could achieve the real-world, nuts-and-bolts goal of creating a state? How would you propose to achieve this goal? What, in turn, would the achievement of this goal, achieve for the people within your new state?
“When sufficient numbers in certain areas have such a distinction of viewing themselves with a different identity that constitutes a nation.â€
What number would you consider to be sufficient? Is this your absolute judgement, or would you accept that this judgement can only be made with reference to all the salient factors?
“I cannot know for certain how much support such a campaign would have.â€
I’ve already explained why I don’t think it’d be a war. If it’s just you and a bag of fertiliser, then you’d belong in prison, as your actions would simply be sociopathic. The question is, how many comrades would you need in order to claim moral legitimacy? Again, Irish republicans have been down this road. The answer is probably that you’d need to organise a political party with a social programme, to complement your war machine. Then you’d need to win a democratic majority within the geographical area occupied by your notional “nationâ€, the area I suppose you would regard as your “countryâ€. Then you’d need to either prosecute your war to the finish, or press for negotiations with the Irish government on the question of your secession.
Can’t see any of it happening, frankly. We’ve all seen that movie before.
(contd)
“I can only know with certainty my own mind, and I know that I would be prepared to fight for freedom from a united Ireland.â€
Fair enough. But you accept that a little more than that is required? Again, ask a republican. Insurrections don’t just happen by themselves.
“I think my useful purpose here is to demonstrate that my views exist. There seems to be a lot of naivete about some utopian transition to a united Ireland.â€
I don’t think that anyone doubts that your views exist, and I’m grateful to you for your honest and dogged performance here today. However, you forget that your political opponents are Irish republicans, and as I’ve said, very few on earth know more about how hard it is to organise an anti-state insurrection. Irish republicans know whereof they speak, and they’re not in terror of a unionist insurrection.
“The question is the border used.â€
And the agreement reached by the British and Irish governments (with the US as guarantor), backed by every major party on these islands, by 71% in the north and 96% in the south at referendum, is that the border used should be the one around the six counties of northern Ireland. That means that the only way NI can cease to exist is if the people here vote for that outcome. Everyone has agreed to this. What you’re doing is reserving the right to break the rules if you lose.
“However in that scenario a united Ireland would be much more unfair and much more immoral than an alternative two state solution.â€
Not so. The principle of consent is the consensus here in NI and across these islands. Currently there are c.750,000 people in NI who aren’t in the state of their choosing who accept this principle. Unionists also accept it. This is where the game is at. All anyone has a right to expect is fair play. That means that if a majority vote for unity, the opposed minority must accept it. After all, NI would only have ceased to exist for exactly the same reason it came into existence in the first place.
“As I said I’m perfectly open to moving the border, before any border poll, even right now, and hopefully putting the issue to bed in a stable settlement without this “winner takes all†element.â€
But you’re an individual. Where the people of these islands are at, is the consent principle. Your refusal to accept this puts you at the extreme fringes of our politics. Should you attempt to oppose any democratic mandate violently, your place would be in gaol.
“I can only with certainty speak of my own mind.â€
Yes but you cannot simply absent yourself from the implications of the opinions of others. There is no right to, and no legitimacy in, a one-man war.
“Those who use force to resist a fair two state solution.â€
We’re talking about a context in which majorities north and south have voted for unity, in the manner presently agreed by all parties. Therefore there can be no such thing as a “fair†two-state solution. The two-state solution presently in place is the only one there will ever be. That is the agreement that exists between unionism and nationalism, between the British and Irish states. There is no other game in town. You are talking about operating as the judge, jury and executioner, and your only justification is that you, personally, as an individual, feel really really strongly about it. I hate to call names and I don’t mean to be provocative, but that’s sociopathic thinking.
“I think it may be more that you find them unpleasant than uninformative. Could be wrong though.â€
I just hate analogies in argument. They are often nice rhetoric but are usually meaningless, and useful only to those who feel the need to obfuscate. I prefer to discuss issues on their own terms, instead of trying to superimpose one issue on top of another.
Mick
Would you agree with this slightly amended version of your statement?
“Call the man a thug for the position he has taken up (no matter how thuggish it may be, it is a position), and you give up carrying the burden of argument.”
I’m not saying it applies here, but surely there are occasions when to call someone a thug is simply fair comment?
I have to say I was astonished by your post earlier, describing the criticisms of FiniteDrone’s posts as “thuggish”. (Though one or two posts that came later might have been worthy of that description.) For one thing, FD hasn’t responded in anything like so sensitive a manner. It has been an interesting debate, albeit one far removed from FF organising in the north.
I understand your desire to make sure everyone feels at home here, but FD seems more than able to take care of himself.
(Also, don’t let the more passive-aggressive posters play you.)
FD
“I would bring up Yugoslavia but apparently that’s verboten.”
Ah now!
It’s not verboten, I’ve just argued that it’s a waste of time. This is an uncharacteristically passive-aggressive remark – especially from someone who’s talking war!
I find Finite Drone’s position relatively unsuprising. I come from a pretty hardline part of Northern Ireland (South Londonderry) and I have heard these statements before. Usually they are in jest or from boys trying to show off. I hope one of these explanations is the case here.
I am a pretty straight forward Prodiban unionist.
I would however, ask Finite Drone have you seen people die? I have and it is trully terrible. Death is awful especially violent death. It is nothing like Saving Private Ryan, that is way too quick and sanitised.
I thankfully had no immediate relatives killed in the troubles. My wife’s family did. Believe me they wish for no one’s death and yet at least one of them might have some “right” to do so.
SF/IRA murdered people here for years and any campaign that unionists would have would simply be a mirror image of it. This would be no heroic last stand. This would be simple sectarian murder. Remember the old lie Dulce et Decorum est pro patri mori.
I do not wish to be condescending but I would counsel you to think carefully about the morality and indeed praticality of what you advocate.
Incidentally since I am likely to move to an area I guess you would regard as expendable what should I do when your war of liberation starts?
I guess Dewi or PE I might need to take you up on those offers after all.
Pacman: What’s interesting is that the few other unionist posters who have commented here, have not sought to justify FD’s advocacy for violence when things don’t go your way. To me, that speaks volumes.
Of course not. For pro-agreement unionists, like myself, the Principle of Consent was clearly a two edged sword we accepted as part of a package. For pragmatists, pro or anti agreement (like myself…) re-partition would be a human-rights disaster waiting to happen (the Balkan analogy makes sense here). For some anti-agreement unionists, the position has been ‘not an inch’ for the last 80 years, for other AAUs violence is so inherently wrong that they will peacefully accept the ‘bad’ in order to avoid the worse.
Others, on pro and anti sides of the fence, may see FD’s two-nation argument as less convincing than a two-state argument based on ‘identity’, which I think is a more realistic term than ‘nation’ these days. But, re-cast in those terms, and rejecting violence, the *argument* is not wrong. Unless you deny the legitimacy of the unionist identity, of course.
Overall, there are many, many reasons to reject both violence and re-partition in the event of a nationalist 50%+1.
But as for the practicalities of re-partition – how about the following: border wards polled along the border from NW to SE. Then a second pass along the new border wards. Then a third, fourth etc. Unionist enclaves to either be lost, or to cut a ‘path home’ through nationalist wards depending on which community has the majority in the enclave+path home. The multiple ‘passes’ along the border could be virtual operations, with each ward polled on the same day. We could then get the nightmare (ethnic cleansing, rejectionists, obstructionists, absolutists) over with quickly…
In brief answer to some points:
the much higher rate of nationalist emigration is an established fact. The high rate of catholic unemployment – aimed as much at discouraging the southern irish from migrating north in search of work as it was aimed at encouraging emigration among the ‘disloyal’ elements – is also an established fact.
The Irish nation exists, to suggest otherwise is the kind of sneering racist viciousness characteristic of supremacists who think they have the power to casually demand that those they rule over must justify their very existence. Indeed, why would the british target it so consistently and coherently throughout the centuries if it didn’t exist?
Irish culture was identifiably similar and unique throughout the island for millennia. We were not ‘terra nullus’, nor a place consisting of a few stray dogs and a couple of aborigines. The nature of the development of our state or denigrating the uniquesness of our culture provides no legitmacy whatsoever to those who sought to use force to enslave us. Again to deny that Ireland and the Irish existed is the essence of self-serving colonialism. One does not discuss such insults with such people, one places a bullet between their eyes.
Re-partition is being considered as a solution now because its all you’ve got left. It is little more than a game of ‘suit myself’ – first whittled down to 2 counties, then one, then a locale, then a town, then a street and finally a house. Suiting yourself, all the way down, just a siege mentality dressed up as a political philosophy. Those who say they have nothing in common with the south and that it’s a foreign country should have said that to the Orangemen who marched down to Boycott’s estate in Mayo to break the strike. Or who ran the RIC nationwide for decades.
The truth is that 80 years of suiting yourself with partition has allowed you to indulge in these entirely constructed and novel attitudes – they can just as easily be undone by a different political dispensation island-wide, and deconstructed with more authenticity.
And more, what suits you does not suit us. Unionism – whether of old or in attempts to repartition – is not in our national interest. Our national interest is to unite our country, even if it means defeating you. Sorry if that doesn’t suit you – it suits us.
Turgon – welcome anytime of course.
Billy,
The sense, I guess, is about the same. Though the distinction between position held and the person holding it is crucial to the promotion of lithe discussion. Ad Hominem argument consistently seeks to blur that line.
I am off to bed…
Harry,
“Our national interest is to unite our country, even if it means defeating you. ”
Although I do not support Finite Drone’s views on violence I trust that “defeating” unionists is a non violent thing. Comments like “One does not discuss such insults with such people, one places a bullet between their eyes.” are not going to persuade many unionists. I have a worrying feeling though that you are not too worried about persuading. Please correct me.
What is “defeating” unionists anyway. If there was a united Ireland I would still not regard myself as Irish. We have all been over this time and time again. I just do nor feel Irish. Does that mean I have no place in your new country? There would be a large rump of ex-unionists (okay lets be honest Prods) who would be extremely luke warm to your state. They would probably cause considerable political (if not military) problems.
Do you not understand (maybe do not care) that views like the above are fuel to the fire of people like Finite Drone.
Still I do not worry too much I am yet to be persuaded that there will ever be a pro united Ireland majority but I am sure you or someone else is about to produce a raft of statistics proving me wrong. When you get it though have a think about what sort of “unity” you want and indeed what sort of “unity” the nationalist people of the whole land mass want.
Turgon – they are wonderful people with brilliant songs – they are “different” to you I know but I still don’t get how quite “different” they are.
a large rump of ex-unionists (okay lets be honest Prods)
I have never rally understood why unionists seek to cast everything in terms of religion. I suspect it’s in order to justify a feeling of impending oppression through insisting on an alleged irrationality on the part of their poltical opponents. A neat sidestepping of addressing the real casue of poltical issues in this country by pretending that nationalism is at root just a kind of crazy religious hatred. This of course is not true, though it would appear that unionists feel more comfortable casting politics in religiously sectarian terms than nationalists do. Ironic really, but no doubt effective as a form of psychological rationalisation.
I do not wish to defeat Protestants, nor do I deny the uniqueness of unionisms culture and viewpoint. I do not assert that unionists suffer from ‘false consciousness’ as some would say. I believe unionists are a national minority who have been pampered for centuries into believing they are entitled to nationhood at the expense of the much greater numbers of people around them. I believe unionism is a poison which has been injected and sustained in the body politic of this island by a british state which sought to use it as a proxy for achieving its aims on this sialnd. I believe that we Irish have the right to be free of this. This does not threaten anyone nor does it mean the oppression of protestants. If however it requires the defeat of a molly-coddled recalcitrant minority who foolishly believe they have the right to damage and inhibit the development of our nation for their own eternally backward looking reasons and because, at base, someone else is giving them lots of guns, then so be it. Agreement is best and I’m a reasonable man but the days of interfernece in our national life should be over and we should move on. The protestants of northern ireland should take their place within the nation.
This debate has evolved into discussing a doomsday eventuality that, quite frankly, will never happen.
Everyone knows the rules of the game, as Reader points out the consent principle, one which Unionism has argued legitimacy for for decades, is a double-edged sword. None-the-less it is also one that validates and re-affirms the existence of Northern Ireland – this is not a threat to Unionism (an immediate one anyway) and any likely future growth in the number of people wishing to become part of a United Ireland will be heavily analysed. An actual shift in demographics, not an approximation in how things might turn out, will be foreseen in the most minute detail. As such, I suspect that Unionism will not be caught off-guard if a UI was ever to occur and the potential knee-jerk reaction and fervour within said community, which would be required to spark off FD’s proposed resistance movement, to counter the result of any border poll would dissipate over the years preceding any vote.
I just don’t buy into the idea that a United Ireland would ever come about by way of a 50%+1 scenario. It is a far too simplistic way to end a very complex problem. Nationalist commentators here seem to get all giddy at the prospect of a UI happening in 30 years from now and they arrive at this conclusion by crudely extrapolating primary school figures several decades into the future. This is, at best, clutching at straws. I will repeat my stance again, if Nationalists want a United Ireland they will have to convince Unionists, unless they do this successfully then in all likelihood a UI will never happen. Where FF come into this equation is that they are far more likely to achieve this goal than SF are. The flip-side of the coin however is that they might introduce some real-politik to the stale scene North of the border – in this eventuality there can only be one winner – Unionism. If tribalism is successfully removed from NI politics people might start voting on the aspects of their everyday life that maybe affected directly by their decision – the prospect of an All-Ireland utopia sometime in the future will be far from being the first thing on their minds.
Every peaceful day that passes beyond the GFA being signed is another nail in the coffin for 32 county sovereignty. The reality is that things here aren’t so bad and if people have jobs, leisure time, prosperity and a good standard of living in the most part they won’t vote for change. Especially when change does not offer a significantly better alternative to their current lifestyles for all the potential upheaval that a UI might bring. People in essence aren’t political animals and don’t occupy the boards of Slugger – they are practical and on the most part will vote for what is in their own best interests. This is where the notion of the often derided ‘Castle Catholic’ comes into play. And we haven’t even considered the impact that immigration, never-mind the advantages that a normalised instead of polarised society, might bring to the fore. Immigrants come here to get jobs – a vote for UI means uncertainty, I would hedge a bet that the vast majority of any voting pockets of the immigrant community are Unionist by default.
Who is to say that the sole purpose of FF’s sortie North is not just to eradicate SF? After all that was pretty much FF’s raison d’etre under DeValera and Lemass – to wipe out any remaining pockets of Republican militarism before it had the chance to re-ignite. Is it not possible for FF to embrace the status-quo, especially if things continue to progress and wounds continue to heal north of the border? As others have pointed out previously, it is not in the interests of FF to export, what has become solely the Ulster problem, to all-Ireland stage once again if considerable resistance to a UI still exists amongst the Unionist people. Maybe a 2 nation solution, where North and South co-exist on friendly terms, is inevitably the only practical answer never-mind being the only likely outcome.
Repartition, a large constituency of ‘unionist catholics’, immigrants – sounds to me like unionists are the ones clutching at straws and engaging in some intellectual comfort eating.
To say that 50%+1 is too simple to be an accptable solution but to insist that nationalists live every day in defeat under such a formula is hardly a recipe for stability or for convincing your opponents.
Why is DFianna Fáil coming north? I would say that they are very unlikely to come north anytime soon. When Ahern says he’s coming north what does he mean and when does he mean it. So far he’s said: “Fianna Fail the Republican Party, will now move to develop a strategy for organising on a 32 county basis.” Any students of Bertiespeak will recognise so many qualifications in there that the outcome may well be meaningless, just like the many reports commissioned and binned by Fianna Fáil over the last 10 years. No better party for waffle and shite without any substance whatsoever.
Perhaps they know they must do something to fill the vacuum left after the collapse of expectations following Sinn Féin’s electoral performance. Or perhaps Ahern is working on a form of latter-day Home Rule where poltical developments across the island are Jasnus-faced – moves toward a united ireland are accompanied by moves toward closer ties with the UK for the entire country. This would certainly seem to be an pattern that is identifiable in the massive wave of anglicisation that the Republic has undergone under Ahern’s leadership. The fact that such moves drastically overplay the influence of unionism relative to its proportion of the population do not seem to matter to Ahern – apparently British guns impress him terribly. Perhaps he’s merely trying to avoid civil war as the two communities reach parity up north.
Whatever the reason for this move I very much doubt we’ll see much movement beyond the development of a couple of cumanns over the next 10 years.
If there was a united Ireland I would still not regard myself as Irish. We have all been over this time and time again. I just do nor feel Irish. Does that mean I have no place in your new country?
Put it this way. If you were registering Eastern European immigrants for some purpose or other, and after dealing with five of them who said they were from Lithuania, you were confronted with a sixth who also appeared to come from Lithuania, but said he didn’t feel Lithuanian, what would your reaction be? Total boredom, I should think. We are not interested in his patriotic feelings, we just want to know where to deport him if he goes mad.
The pre-history of Lithuania, its Polish and Russian speaking minorities, and their present identity crises, are not a matter of concern to us. Ireland has within its borders many people who do not feel Irish, because they are not Irish, they are recent immigrants. All that is required is that you accept that if you live in a constituency, say for example Mid Ulster, with an MP, who for the purpose of this argument we will call Martin McGuinness, then probably a majority of the electors of this area do feel Irish, and the likelihood is that this area at least will eventually regularise its status in a Hibernian direction.
Equally, in the (hopefully wholly fictitious) scenario of you being found wandering round Vilnius is a state of schizophrenia, what the authorities there would want to know is whether to put you on a plane for Heathrow or Dublin. The latter course would probably be the better one, so I would hope that you would forgive them if, for purely administrative purposes, they decided to classify you as Irish.
“Fianna Fail the Republican Party, will now move to develop a strategy for organising on a 32 county basis.â€
I interpret this as meaning FF will merge with a Northern Nationalist Party. I can’t imagine the cute hoors will entertain with equanimity the prospect of losing to reunification their majority, and all hope of achieving a majority.
Given that the SDLP have welcomed this announcement, I can only suppose it is going to be them. The really cute option would be if they could get both Nationalist parties to join them, but politically that would be very difficult if not impossible.
a second all Ireland party can only bolster SF as now they have proof that they are on the right track even if they fundamentally disagree with FF there will be just 2 all Ireland party’s campaigning for an all Ireland. While dupers and upers look for a new direction
and as for who will vote UI or re-partition i will always believe that people will vote for their wallet and that is not a nIreland in the UK
I agree with George, if (hypothetically) 50%+1 of the Southern electorate were to vote to rejoin the U.K. I would hold my hands in the air and say ‘so be it’.
F.D.’s comments call to mind Professor Joseph Lee’s astute observation on the ambivalent attitude to democracy of some sections of unionism:
‘Q.When is a majority not a majority?
A.When it delivers the wrong result.’
Interestingly F.D. seems to hint that the Provo campaign would have been justified if only they had pushed for a 28/29 county republic rather than a 32.
The snag is, F.D., if there are hotheads on the unionist side prepared to take up arms to resist a pro-UI vote there will be plenty of hotheads on the other side prepared to do the same to enforce it.
Mick,
I know this is your show and you can call the tune but as head bottlewasher some effort at neutralism is ,I think, axiomatic. This being the case I am apalled by the partisan nature of some of your interjections.
Sorry, that should read ‘appalled’.