Republican’s support for partition

Jim Gibney’s column in usually quite entertaining, and I particularly enjoyed today’s. “Two-state solution in the only basis for peace” is the supremely sensible headline. “This is not an argument against the right of Israel to exist as a state in the region. Palestinians accept the existence of Israel. They support a two-state solution based on credible borders, Palestine and Israel existing side-by-side. This is the outcome which will bring peace to the Middle East”.

Can’t see the wood for the trees eh Jim?

  • Fraggle

    Who is Jim Gibney? Where is his column? Where is the link? Where is your apostrophe?

    Terrible blogging Michael, sort it out.

  • dantheman

    This has brought blogging to an all-time low level. Go back to the YU weblog where punctuation and links don’t matter!!

    Disgraceful

  • Dec

    Then again, 45% of Israel’s population isn’t Palestinian.

    Can’t tell your arse from your elbow, eh Michael?

  • DaithiO

    I’d support a 2 state solution to our problem.

    Because I recognise Britains right to exist accross the Irish Sea from the island of Ireland.

    I reckon Jim Gibney would support that view too.

    The wood and the trees are an artificially generated illusion.

  • lib2016

    Does someone seriously obect to Britain’s right to exist within credible borders? Such as the Irish Sea, the Channel and the North Sea? Disgraceful! No wonder Michael is really really mad.

  • pedanticfool

    Surely this post contravenes the ball not man rule on slugger – it attacks Jim Gibney as much and maybe more than Gibneys arguments.

  • inuit_goddess

    Pity republicans couldn’t apply Gibney’s argument closer to home:

    After all Unionists do not argue against the right of the Republic to exist as a state. We support a two-state solution based on credible borders, Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic existing side-by-side. This is the outcome which will bring peace to the island of Ireland.

    A two-state solution is the only basis for peace here.

  • dantheman

    inuit_goddess

    you must have just awoken from a 40 year long coma

  • Elvis Parker

    The Belfast Agreement is the effective recognition of a 2 state solution in Ireland. Nationalists know it but they hate it.
    Lets hear you guys:
    “What do we want; Cross border control of Irish waterways for pleasure craft! When do we want it – now!”
    Bobby would be proud of ya

  • Michael Shilliday

    This is to me a display of the fundamental inability of republicans to compromise. The point was that a two state solution is fine, so long as it’s all the way on the other side of Europe, when we’re talking about de Valera’s mythical Irish nation its one Island one state or nothing. Compromise on the fundamental issues to republicans is Unionists doing what they’re told, and I see no deviance from that in the comments in this thread.

  • Fanny

    All well and good, Michael, but WTF is Jim Gibney?

  • Garibaldy

    One of Gerry Adams’ key strategists and Irish News columnists Fanny.

  • lib2016

    Elvis,

    Good post but the GFA includes the right to work for democratic abolition of the UK’s only land border. That’s what we wanted and that’s what we’ve got – it’s not nationalists opposing the GFA!

    Michael,

    Partition was imposed on the Irish nation undemocratically. The historic compromise is the agreement by both sides to allow the border to remain or be abolished by the local electorate. If unionism is satisfied, as so many here claim to be, that there will never be a nationalist majority in the North, then what exactly is your problem?

  • Nathan

    Mainstream republicans have compromised upon their principles and they have reluctantly agreed to a one island, two state model – the dust has settled and NI will remain a separate state unless and until the movers and shakers start to convince a small section of the northern Protestant community that there is plenty to gain from a new one island one state dispensation.

  • Michael Shilliday

    Do you accept the legitimacy of the two state solution in the Government of Ireland Act (1920) and Northern Ireland Act (1998)?

  • Fraggle

    Michael, is that a two state ‘solution’ or a two state transitional period?

  • Occasional Commentator

    The comparison with the Palestinian and Israeli conflict only goes so far. Pretty much everybody on this island is Irish (only a very small number of unionists very very recently have got it into their heads that they are not).

    There also isn’t the same argument over who owns what pieces of land. It’s not as if we have descendants of pre-plantation people looking their estates from descendants of planters. In fact, all we are arguing about is the constitutional arrangements.

    inuit_goddess:
    After all Unionists do not argue against the right of the Republic to exist as a state.

    The northern unionists you mean. Carson had no problem ditching the southern unionists when it suited him. He claimed to be fighting against Home Rule (a one state solution for both islands), only to end up insisting on not one, but two, Home Rule parliaments in Ireland.

  • seabhac siulach

    MS:

    “This is to me a display of the fundamental inability of republicans to compromise. ”

    This is funny, bitterly, bitterly funny…republicans have compromised! Excuse me for saying so but only an idiot would fail to see this.
    What do you call recognition of the partitionist assembly in Stormont and the acceptance of the principle of consent if not compromise? These are important political compromises to basic Republican tenets…
    This Unionists inability (or refusal) to see these compromises for what they are is very depressing…
    Perhaps they do not go far enough (policing?) but that too seems to be up for grabs now…as would be obvious to anyone with a basic grasp of politics. Listen to the statements of the P.Sinn Fein leaders (hint: read between the lines…)
    This wilful failure to recognise painful compromises on the ‘other side’ is odd to say the least, but politically useful for keeping the Taigs out of Stormont, I suppose. Are we to pretend (as Unionists insist) that PIRA and P.Sinn Fein have not moved one inch ideologically since 1994? That would be laughable…or perhaps evidence of a deep stupidity pervading a whole section of a community…that doesn’t see a great political opportunity when it is presented to it, i.e., a parliament in Stormont where Republicans recognise the principle of consent and where Unionists are in the majority…

    “…so long as it’s all the way on the other side of Europe…”

    Since when is Israel/Palestine in Europe? Should we be told??

    Elvis Parker:

    “Lets hear you guys:
    “What do we want; Cross border control of Irish waterways for pleasure craft! When do we want it – now!”
    Bobby would be proud of ya”

    Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North-South_Ministerial_Council

    There were 12 areas included in cross-border agreements, including important areas such as transport, trade, education, health, etc.
    If Plan B includes the implementation of this council (suspended with Stormont) then the joint-coordination of these areas will soon be taken over by a Brit.-Irish ministerial team (my best guess).
    Not just waterways…but I imagine Bobby would be proud in any case (as he might not have considered the large compromises made by Republicans to have been worthwhile…)

  • declan

    The test will come around 2021, if “scenario 2021” comes to be.

    Scenario 2021 is the scenario in which the nationalist demographic increase has come to an end short of that needed to generate a majority for a UI, and the persuasion strategy has also failed.

    At that point, many nationalists may begin to think in terms of a two-state solution with fair boundaries.

  • Greenflag

    inuit_goddess,

    ‘We support a two-state solution based on credible borders, Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic existing side-by-side. This is the outcome which will bring peace to the island of Ireland. A two-state solution is the only basis for peace here. ‘

    I agree . The only question remaining to be sorted is the ‘credible border’. The present border is a nonsense as it includes some 750,000 Irish people (almost half the population in the present NI State) .

    A fair repartition administered and implemented by a neutral international agency is what is needed so that both States can have ‘credible’ borders.

    And we don’t need to wait till 2021 before the penny finally drops that Unionists will not be outvoted into a UI. Why would the Irish Republic want an 850,000 strong alienated and disgruntled unionist minority anyway ? We’ve done well enough without them in the past and we can do even better without them in the future .

    Just because the founding fathers of the Irish Republic believed in a 32 county All Ireland Republic in 1798/1916/1922 etc etc does not mean that we Irish today have to slavishly follow their ideas . The English got over Cromwell and his ‘idealistic ‘ puritan state . We Irish need to do the same in relation to the the ‘dream of a UI’

    The world has changed andf Unionists have been left behind . We Irish need to ensure that we are not left behind also. One way to ensure that we don’t go down the self destructive road of Unionism is to isolate ‘political unionism ‘ in a smaller NI which can then go it’s own way with at least a modicum of democratic legitimacy .

  • marty

    A fair repartition administered and implemented by a neutral international agency is what is needed so that both States can have ‘credible’ borders.

    Nooooooo – for the love of God not another repartition thread!

  • eranu

    hehe. now the ‘R’ word has been said. all this thread needs now is for someone to say ‘securocrats’ , or has that word been laughed out of the internet?

  • FergusD

    Marty posted:

    “Nooooooo – for the love of God not another repartition thread!”

    Eranu posted:

    “hehe. now the ‘R’ word has been said. all this thread needs now is for someone to say ‘securocrats’ , or has that word been laughed out of the internet? ”

    But hang on, the option of re-partition does seem relevant to a thread about a “two state solution” (on the island of Ireland) – surely. If you argue that the only solution that will provide lasting peace and satisfy the demands of rival national identities (Irish and British, which demand their own state – which both nationalists and unionists do) then this clearly raises the question of where the borders of these two states should be drawn to satisfy as many as possible with regard to their national identity and state they wish to live in.

    I can see numerous practical problems with re-partitio, which could be insuperable, but it is a logical position to take and ecompasses the democratic and majoritarian arguements of both sides (well, maybe not the “classical” republican arguement, but then that seems to have been abandoned anyway by all but a tiny minority).

    Oh, and if you accept a two state solution for Israel and Palestine, isn’t it clear that the essential problem is that the Palestinians, who under the PLO made fundamental concessions in this regard, have still not got a viable state? So there isn’t actually a two-state solution in place in Israel/Palestine. Listening to a Hamas minister on Newsnight a few weeks ago it seemed clear to me that Hamas would negotiate with Israel over a two-state solution, but they want clear acceptance from Israel of the principle of a viable Palestinian state, probably with “right of return”.

    12,000 Israeli shells landed in Gaza in the last few weeks BTW – see also Anan’s comments on “two-state solution”.

  • marty

    But hang on, the option of re-partition does seem relevant to a thread about a “two state solution” (on the island of Ireland) – surely.

    Fergus,
    your comment would be fair enough if we hadn’t already had numerous lengthy on-topic and off-topic repartition threads in the past few weeks. And after all of them it’s still a barmy idea for reasons that should be too obvious to go into (again).

    Now look – I’m contributing to a thread on repartition! Nurse!

  • Greenflag

    Marty,

    ‘for the love of God not another repartition thread!

    ‘Love of God ‘?

    Who loves ye Marty? Your wet nurse ?

    God obviously doesn’t love people who live in poor countries . That’s why he/she/it ensures so many are killed /politically repressed/denied civil rights and discriminated against. Even Father Jack Hackett hates the poor and the needy:) God may have already turned his back on NI and this is why the R word is now in vogue .

    Anyway it was inuit- goddess who brought up the subject of ‘credible borders’. You can’t have a credible border between two States on the island of Ireland without a fair Repartition.

    That’s all that needs to be said re the R word for now 🙂

  • Elvis Parker

    Lib2098
    ‘That’s what we wanted and that’s what we’ve got’
    You always had that you loser

    seabhac siulach
    You talk up the cross border bit all you like mate its defeat no matter how you cut it.
    And as for Plan B – in yer dreams. Why would the Brit Govt concede this?

    Declan re 2021
    ‘At that point, many nationalists may begin to think in terms of a two-state solution with fair boundaries’
    Or they could catch a grip of their knickers and think about it now!!

  • FergusD

    Marty said:

    Marty posted:

    “Fergus,
    your comment would be fair enough if we hadn’t already had numerous lengthy on-topic and off-topic repartition threads in the past few weeks. And after all of them it’s still a barmy idea for reasons that should be too obvious to go into (again).”

    This would imply that the original partition was barmy then becuae surely the same objections would/did apply?

    A rhetorical question, not requiring or expecting an answer if this subject is considered dead. Actually I wouldn’t favour re-partition, but I’m curious as to why it is so often avoided as a possible solution.

  • marty

    God may have already turned his back on NI and this is why the R word is now in vogue.

    In vogue? Who with? Other than yourself and the ubiquitous Declan?

    That’s all that needs to be said re the R word for now 🙂

    I’ll drink to that :O)

  • Greenflag

    Fergus,

    ‘Actually I wouldn’t favour re-partition, but I’m curious as to why it is so often avoided as a possible solution. ‘

    Very simply Fergus is because it could and would work . It would leave the 32 county UI or bust and the DUP ‘No surrender’ types without a leg to stand on .

    NI is a two legged stool and can’t stand on it’s own anyway . Taking away another leg won’t change that political or economic fact of life other than having a new line on the map.

    Another reason for the avoidance of the R word or solution is because it would reduce the number of instances/occassions in which both tribes get to ‘hate ‘ each other .

  • Harry Flashman

    lib2016 (why do I bother?)

    “Partition was imposed on the Irish nation undemocratically”

    Funny, I understood that partition was ratified by Dail Eireann and the electorate of the Irish Free State, given that it would also have been carried in a referendum in Northern Ireland, I need a bit of help with the word “imposed”.

  • DaithiO

    seabhac siulach

    “Since when has Israel/Palestine been in Europe”

    Some people have a very blurred distiction between Europe and Eurovision.

    Then they have the gall to pontificate to the rest of us.

    😉

  • seabhac siulach

    Elvis Parker:

    “seabhac siulach
    You talk up the cross border bit all you like mate its defeat no matter how you cut it.”

    Defeat, victory, mere words that do not interest me…which I never, in fact mentioned…

    “And as for Plan B – in yer dreams. Why would the Brit Govt concede this?”

    Read your Good Friday Agreement (GFA) document again,…mate,…it is all in there. That is, they have already conceded this (sorry to break it to you 8 years on)…i.e., cross-border joint-coordination of 12 areas including trade, education, health, etc. It is included in the GFA, which is, above all else, an international treaty agreement between two sovereign countries, the UK and the Republic of Ireland. Therefore, the UK govt. has to honour that agreement under international law…it is as simple as that. In the absence of agreement between the DUP and Sinn Fein then the outstanding matters in that agreement, i.e., the North-South strand will still have to be taken care of…i.e., in the North-South ministerial council. Is that a victory for one side or a defeat for the other? Who cares…it will still mean that the South will help to coordinate an all-Ireland health, education, trade, etc. situation. It does not mean, however, that they will have any direct powers over the six counties, these still residing with the UK govt.

  • memorystick

    What a desparate post! Are you honestly trying to avoid that fact that in the Good Friday Agreement you recognised and agreed to recognise partition and reduced your grand republican ideals for which republicans bombed, went to prison and died for in the last 30 years to a mere aspiration. Cross border co-operation on issues like the above to commonplace all over Europe between different countries – Hardly a concession. You are clearly in denial.

  • DK

    Fergus: “Actually I wouldn’t favour re-partition, but I’m curious as to why it is so often avoided as a possible solution.”

    Because no-one could draw the map. There are too many enclaves and infrastructural adjustments that would have to be made. And besides, the old troubles are long over, so why bother create a whole new troubles?

  • Elvis Parker

    seabhac siulach
    Tsk Tsk you really must read the agreement. The areas of copoeration and specifically the croos border bodies operate under the North – South Ministeral Council and the Ministers are answerable to Assembly. No Assembly no North/South Council no progress on north south cooperation.
    Here’s an idea. Sinn Fein could accept democratic norms and support the police!!
    Come to think of it what is the attraction for Unionists of getting the Assembly going?

  • seabhac siulach

    Memorystick:

    “Are you honestly trying to avoid that fact that in the Good Friday Agreement you recognised and agreed to recognise partition and reduced your grand republican ideals for which republicans bombed, went to prison and died for in the last 30 years to a mere aspiration.”

    Who suggests that I have or had ‘grand republican ideals’? I mention this nowhere. And no one is denying anything. Did I not write that it is republicans who have made the major compromises?
    In approving the GFA the people themselves recognised the fact of continued partition by their vote…until consent is given for unity.
    And in fact, yes, republicans did fight and die for an aspiration…a mere apiration to a republic. What else where they fighting for? In time most have seen that that could not be achieved through low-level violence and realised instead that it could be better and more successfully achieved peacefully (if on a much longer timescale). The present situation is bearing this out as Unionism is seen to be more and more impotent and irrelevant in the actual running of the 6 counties. Plan B will merely confirm this and lead to a Southern influence in 6 county affairs.

    “Cross border co-operation on issues like the above to commonplace all over Europe between different countries – Hardly a concession. You are clearly in denial.”

    That may be true (and I am not sure of this, any examples?) but they are not commonplace between the UK and the ROI specifically in the 6 counties. It is not much of a concession, granted, but it gives the Southern govt. a foot in the door and an influence on the future direction of most aspects of the future governance of the six counties, especially as in future most education, health and other matters will be decided in consultation between both govts. in a likely ministerial council.

    Elvis Parker:

    “…the croos border bodies operate under the North – South Ministeral Council and the Ministers are answerable to Assembly. No Assembly no North/South Council no progress on north south cooperation.”

    Exactly, so in the absence of Stormont the two govts. are clearly indicating that the achievable parts of the GFA will still be implemented…the so-called plan B, which has been flagged to operate under the terms of the GFA by Bertie Ahern (to the UDA and others). This means that the North-South parts of the agreement are to implemented…if there are no Stormont ministers to sit in a North-South ministerial council then I suggest that their places will be taken by Direct Rule ministers. This will be the plan B.

    “Come to think of it what is the attraction for Unionists of getting the Assembly going?”

    The stupidity of that remark takes some beating…well, let’s say control over local issues, like rates, water charges, etc. Things like that. Local democracy…you know the thing they have in Scotland and Wales. How about the chance to not have unaccountable English, Welsh or Scottish direct rule ministers imposing their plans without the politicians in the 6 counties having a say in what happens…as say is due to happen with the imposition of business rates…and so on…the list is endless. But then, I guess it is better to live as unaccountable ‘children’ taken care of by your ‘parents’ from Britain than to stand up and take aduly decisions…better to let the Brit. ministers take the politically damaging fallout from any necessary but unpopular decisions. Cowardice wrapped up as morality. And please stop that nonsence of Sinn Fein acceping democratic norms…they already have, unless you haven’t been watching…but then it would seem some in Unionism are deliberately blind when it suits them…

  • lib2016

    Elvis,

    North-South cooperation is proceeding as we post and has been for years. The connections for all-Ireland electricity and natural gas grids are already partially made. The all-Ireland Tourist authority is already in place.

    The Irish civil servants are already based in Maryfield, and arrangements are being made for more senior reinforcements to be installed shortly.

    In fact there have been allegations that Sinn Fein have been dragging things out because they were accomplishing so much behind the scenes. It wasn’t nationalists who demanded a local Assembly and since they will soon control the majority of local councils they may well choose to go that way. Why take a chance on unionism splitting when nationalists will soon have a majority in local government?

  • lib2016

    Harry,

    Take into account an Occupation Army and numerous Auxiliary Forces not to mention the Black and Tans, backed by a British Prime Minister threatening ‘immediate and terrible war’ and you get what most reasonable people would consider duress amounting to blackmail. Oh course, you’re a unionist…….!

    Elvis,

    I missed your earlier reference to ‘defeat’. If both sides don’t profit from the deal it won’t work – haven’t the last 80 years taught unionists anything?

  • Greenflag

    DK,

    ‘Because no-one could draw the map.’

    A 12 year old with an average IQ and a head for numbers could probably get a ‘repartition’ map about 95% right in 2 hours given the census figures, and an NI District Council electoral map to work with . I refer you to the previous thread on the viability of Repartition.

    The reason a neutral international agency is suggested is for the sake of ‘objectivity’ .

    ‘And besides, the old troubles are long over’

    Are they ? Seems others don’t agree . I refer you to recent UDA self ethnic cleansing and the nutters responsible for the Newry fire bombings .

    ‘Why bother create a whole new troubles? ‘

    What do you mean by ‘new’ ? It’s just the same as before except at a lower level of ‘intensity’ . I’d wait until the ides of November are well past before I’d bet on a non resumption of widespread inter communal violence across NI. Don’t hatchet your count before he chickens!

  • Brian Boru

    The context is different because the 2 states in question would be independent in the Middle East situation whereas NI is not independent and is part of the UK. Furthermore, It is highly questionable if a Palestinian state would have a 33-40% Jewish minority, whereas the NI state has such a Catholic minority. Had the borders of NI been drawn in close correlation to the wishes of the people in the various geographical areas in the North of Ireland then resentment of partition would have been less.

  • 50%+

    This thread is a good indication of the hopelessness of a nonsectarian solution to the NI situation. When Unionists speak of a ‘two state solution’ they mean their state to be a ‘protestant parliament for a protestant people’.
    I’m afraid that Shilliday and Elvis will have to sod off back to Scotland with the rest of their colonists ilk and leave the island to descent people.

  • declan

    “I’m afraid that Shilliday and Elvis will have to sod off back to Scotland with the rest of their colonists ilk and leave the island to descent people.”

    Thing is, there is no sign of that. In fact there are more people moving from Scotland to NI than from NI to Scotland each year. So there is no point putting your hope in that.

  • Garibaldy

    50%+,

    Glad to see the desire to unite the people of Ireland is alive and well

  • voive of reason

    I see seabhac siulach is dribbliong the SF sycophantic dribble again…

    Cowardice wrapped up as morality as demonstrated by the Shinners.

  • harpo

    ‘This has brought blogging to an all-time low level’

    dantheman:

    All time low? The horror of it all! Thousands flee city shocker!

    It’s this sort of attitude that gets bloggers the reputation that many of them have – as being elitist.

    ‘Who is Jim Gibney?’

    Fraggle and Fanny:

    You are on a blog dedicated to Northern Ireland affairs and you don’t know who Jim Gibney is?

    ‘Surely this post contravenes the ball not man rule on slugger – it attacks Jim Gibney as much and maybe more than Gibneys arguments.’

    pedanticfool:

    Where exactly did he attack Gibney? He said he enjoys Gibney’s columns. You just don’t like him attacking Gibney’s arguments.

  • harpo

    ‘Partition was imposed on the Irish nation undemocratically.’

    lib:

    Would it have been OK if it had been imposed democraticlly?

    And what is this Irish nation that you mention? Do you mean the people or the territory of the island?

    What folks like you fail to realise is that at the time of partition there were 2 peoples on the island. One lot who wanted an independent Ireland, and one lot who wanted to stay in the UK.

    Partition was the only solution that could satisfy the wishes of both. Was it perfect? Of course not, but no such solution ever is. Just as a 2 state solution in the middle east won’t be.

  • harpo

    ‘Listen to the statements of the P.Sinn Fein leaders (hint: read between the lines…)’

    seabhac siulach:

    We shouldn’t have to read between the lines. We are constantly being told by people what various Provo SF people actually mean, because the things that people claim that they mean don’t actually come out of their mouths, or appear in their written statements.

    Why is that?

    Why can’t PSF leaders talk straight, and say what they actually mean? Why are we constantly told that this action or that action by PSF means something that isn’t apparant from just viewing it?

    The excuse is often given that they can’t come straight out and say things because that would upset their voting base. Well too bad. If they actually mean something they should just say it.

    ‘This wilful failure to recognise painful compromises on the ‘other side’ ‘

    Painful? What has been so painful for the Provos, apart from the pain of not getting to kill people any longer? What pain is involved in taking part in democratic politics?

    ‘Are we to pretend (as Unionists insist) that PIRA and P.Sinn Fein have not moved one inch ideologically since 1994?’

    Tell us how they have moved ideologically since 1994. Isn’t TUAS still in place?

  • harpo

    ‘seabhac siulach

    “Since when has Israel/Palestine been in Europe”

    Some people have a very blurred distiction between Europe and Eurovision.

    Then they have the gall to pontificate to the rest of us.’

    DaithiO:

    He didn’t say that Israel/Palestine was in Europe. He said that it was on the other side of Europe, in the same way you would say that your cottage was on the other side of the lake. That doesn’t mean that you cottage is actually in the lake. It means it is on the other side of the lake.

    Do you both get it?

  • harpo

    ‘Therefore, the UK govt. has to honour that agreement under international law…it is as simple as that.’

    seabhac siulach:

    Wrong. No party to any agreement HAS to honour the agreement. They can do as they wish. Countries break agreements all the time if you hadn’t noticed. International law is the same as all other law. It can’t prevent people doing whatever they want, never mind if there is some agreement in place. Ever heard of breaking the law?

    The important thing is to ask what the remedies are if either party refuses to carry out their committments under the agreement.

    Do you know what the remedies are if either party doesn’t carry out their committments under the GFA?

  • harpo

    ‘The context is different because the 2 states in question would be independent in the Middle East situation whereas NI is not independent and is part of the UK.’

    Brian:

    Yes the context is different, but the principle is the same. It’s about the right to self-determination. It doesn’t matter what the peoples involve choose, so long as they get to choose.

    Thus in the case of the island of Ireland you had 2 peoples who wanted different things. The solution – partition.

    It’s no different in the middle east. You have 2 peoples who want different things. The solution – partition.

  • Dan

    Harpo,

    I think you’re stating the obvious re Partition.

    One option was partition. I guess some weren’t satisfied with how much territory was left outside of the new Free State borders. For example, why were Fermanagh and Tyrone not included?

    On the other hand, unionists could have accepted that the majority of the people on the island of Ireland wanted out of the UK and swallowed their pride.

    Instead, they carried on a tradition of being the favored ones and getting the better end of the deal.

  • seabhac siulach

    voive of reason:

    “I see seabhac siulach is dribbliong the SF sycophantic dribble again…”

    So much for playing the ball not the man…but then I am defending the Republican perspective so I guess all comments, no matter how illiterate and stupid, are valid, is that it?

    Oh well, if it comes down to insults then my points must be hitting home…

    Harpo:

    “Wrong. No party to any agreement HAS to honour the agreement. They can do as they wish. Countries break agreements all the time if you hadn’t noticed.”

    No, I had not noticed (do you have any recent examples between European countries?). If the Brit govt. does not honour the GFA then there will be a political crisis between the two states…it is hardly a trivial matter. It is also of some interest to republicans who have staked everything on the success of the GFA…

    “Do you know what the remedies are if either party doesn’t carry out their committments under the GFA?”

    Yes, it will be called Plan B!

  • FergusD

    Dan said:

    “One option was partition. I guess some weren’t satisfied with how much territory was left outside of the new Free State borders. For example, why were Fermanagh and Tyrone not included?”

    Which refers back to the idea of two people (nations?) and self-determination. Problem is how that self-determination is implemented. Were the people of Tyrone and Fermanagh allowed self-determination? If not why not? What is sauce for the unioinist goose is surely sauce for the nationalist gander. If so would they have chosen to be included in the Free State? What WAS the basis for the setting of the boundaty of NI? If the two entities are to be stable and viable surely this is a key question (for both NI/RoI and Israel/Palestine.

  • Fraggle

    We all know the basis for the boundary of NI was a greedy land grab on the part of unionism. Sadly for their heirs, they bit off more than they could chew and might run the risk of having to cough the whole lot up.

  • lib2016

    The guarantor for the GFA is the USA, which is likely to have a Democratic administration after the next election.

    Unionists are rejected both by both America and Westminster while Brussels is in the grip of the antichrist. Games up!

    Oh! – it may take until 2011/2012 for things to work themselves out on the ground but Blair and Bertie, whatever you may say about them, aren’t b…sh.tters and they’ve been jerked around enough. It’s too late now for the DUP to start trying to educate their electorate – they can’t go into powersharing and survive.

  • Donegal-John

    The border is the biggest money spinner for republicans, as they can smuggle fuel,tobacco rob and murder on one side of the border and then live on the other side.

  • FergusD

    Fraggle said:

    “We all know the basis for the boundary of NI was a greedy land grab on the part of unionism. Sadly for their heirs, they bit off more than they could chew and might run the risk of having to cough the whole lot up..”

    Still no answer as to if there was a rational, democratic. majoritarian reason for drawing the boder where it is, that took into account of the views and aspirations of the local populations. Fraggle thinks not, what is the unioinist justification for the present border?.

    If a two state solution is to work the two states have to be viable, that is enjoy the support of a large majority of their respective populations. I suggest that if it is the case that 40%, or thereabouts, of the population of NI do not wish to be part of that entity, then it is very hard to see how NI could ever have worrked. I don’t think any state in the world has survived in such a situation.

    Either that state manages to win the support of a majority of that 40%, or some other solution must be found.

    One alternative would be re-partition, which could create two states/political entities with the vast majority in support of each.

    The alternative would be the transformation of NI into an entity that would command the support of, I dunno, but greater than 80% of the population. Which means winning the support of the majority of the nationalist community for NI as part of the UK. Balls in the court of the unonists on that one surely. Has unionism ever attempted to do that?

    A one-state solution puts the ball in the coiurt of nationalists/republicans (to convince the unionsists to join a UI) or unionists (to convince the others to re-join the UK). I suggest that neither has attempted to do either of these. Or at least, not in a peaceful way.

    In the present circumstances. it seems to me, unoinists have an opportunity to convince nationalists that they could be happy in a NI as part of the UK. This would mean coming to terms with the feelings of the nationalist community as a people who feel “trapped” in a state that doesn’t reflect their national identity (which I assume is the basis of the conflict of the last 30 years). And something which you would imagine unioinsists could understand, as they don’t want to be forced into a atate that doesn’t reflect their national identity. Street signs in Irish (a.k.a another thread on Slugger) would seem a small price to pay to go some way to achieve that in the context of a NI in the UK, I would have thought. If that sort of thing is all it would take, what are you waiting for!

    Same applies to republicans/nationalists and their aspiration for a one-state solution in the form of a united Ireland of course. Given that PSF now accepts that unionists must be persuaded, not forced, into a UI. Pity it took so long for them to realise that, and so many lives.

  • Dan

    To be fair, I’d say it’s closer to 30% of the population of NI want out of the UK.

    Don’t some 25% of RCs vote for non-nationalist parties?

  • Southern Observer

    ”Don’t some 25% of RCs vote for non-nationalist parties? ”
    Not unless some 25% of Protestants vote for nationalist parties.