I think it is only fair to point out that Bertie was talking about the football team

Amidst the hum's and ha's, his answer isn't probably too far wrong.

So is that a yes or a no Bertie?

Circles,
not in his political lifetime and after that he can't influence the matter in any substantial way.
Asking him will there be a united Ireland is like asking him if he'll live to 80. Ask him when he's 79 and 364 days.

Bertie said he'll retire at 60, which is 2011, so he doesn't see it happening in his next term.

I think his comment is about right in where the majority of Irish people want this all to go in the medium term. Work together for the benefit of all in any way we can and see how we feel about each other then.

And let's not forget one of the big precursors to a united ireland, which is hoping that a few hundred thousand unionists have a presto-changeo miraculous revelation, where they all decide that they were only letting on about feeling british, really they're as irish as shane magowan, or failing that, they are all abducted by aliens.

Yes well - the question was of course not political lifetime, just simply lifetime - and even Bertie can't be sure how long his political lifetime will be (whether he'll reach the 60 or not).
I agree though that it was a good polticians answer, by answering he's own question that was only similar to the one he was asked.
I also agree with the sentiments he expressed.

still an answer would have been nice.

How long is Bertie's political lifetime likely to be? How old's Bertie?

this moves fast - question was answered three posts ago. Mitchel thinks it'll happen by 2016

If/when the people of NI vote to join a united Ireland, would the Agreement still be in effect? i.e. does the Agreement wind itself up in a united Ireland?

OC,

My answer to your question is, Yes, the Agreement ends with the Yes vote on unification by the citizens of NI.

where'e bertie on the commonwealth question? will ireland come a little way towards accomodating ricardo's sense of britishness? in these post-religious, celtic tiger times, those few hundred thousand unionists might be easier persuaded that they're part of a grand Scots / Irish, Gallic / Gaelic tradition (rather than just boring old "British") than he thinks.

Thank you Chris for not leaping down my throat as I had expected from most on here. How do people think unionists will be persuaded? I get the feeling that most think 'well soon they'll be in a minority so feck them'. This is no way to go about any process of reunification, because, if the IRA have taught us anything, it is even if you're in a minority, cause enough mayhem and eventually you'll get what you want. People will have to be shown the benefits. Unfortunately, most people on this site seem to want to portray a united ireland as a victory for republicans, and destruction of unionists. going down this path will not be successful. Republicans need to start thinking of how they can portray a united ireland as a victory for everyone, not just the majority, but EVERYONE. And given that there are a lot of people here whose raison d'etre is being British, and not Irish, I am not clear how that hurdle can be overcome.

Alan/OC

My answer to your question is, Yes, the Agreement ends with the Yes vote on unification by the citizens of NI.

The second part of this is wrong. The Agreement requires two referendums, in NI and RoI, for unification.

Ricardo,

100%. The debate about Irish unity should not be about lording it over a defeated enemy.

If there is any sense of forcing unionists into the space they once force catholics to occupy - into second class citizenship, then it would be a hollow 'victory' indeed.

The emphasis must be on mutual benefits.

Certainly if the agricultural industry being tied into the Britsih approach, particularly in terms of EU negotiations, the beef ban etc have been very detrimental to all farmers regardless of political opinion. BUt the onus is on republicans to demonstrate that there would be greater benefits acrued for an all-Ireland framework.

Similarly in the provision of health services - and the recent stuff from HArney on regional cancer services is a case in point - there are very good arguments to be made for greater all-Ireland thinking.

Recent figures - reported in the Irish News I think - pointed to a increase of 4% in all-Ireland trade built mainly on northern businese waking up to the potential of trading with other companies on the island.

TRansport is another area. THe lack of a comprehensive rail netweork, especially covering the North West is a disgrace. Especially the lack of freight provision.

The list could go on and on - dealing with waste and illegal dumping clearly demands a single Irish body such as an all-Ireland Environmental Protection Agency - thatr would also deal with taking powers away fropm the DoE that report after report tells us has abjectly failed to take enforcement seriously.

And given that there are a lot of people here whose raison d'etre is being British, and not Irish, I am not clear how that hurdle can be overcome.

Ricardo is absolutely right. I think trying to persuade unionism of anything is a complete waste of time. I think a UI will come about much like the Republic did, gradually, and by the time it's here all that will be required is to change the name.

I almost never saw northern reg plates in the south growing up but now the dual carriageways are black with 'em. Unionists are learning that the south is no longer the priest-ridden, rome-ruled agrarian caricature that trimble et al paint.

There is already creeping unification in professional and infrastructural bodies. If unionism wants to retain the union they need to start working hard on eliminating the problems causedd by the border because they will be the fuel for unification. In my opinion unionism is going to fail because they view NI as a zero sum game and are incapable of doing something that benefits the other community.

On the commonwealth question - so long as britain is a monarchy AND the queen/king is in any way the formal/titular/actual head then absolutely no way in hell can the Irish Republic be associated with it.. When britain is ready to join the 19th century then get back to us.

Ricardo,
it would be a defeat for unionism as it is currently constructed just like it would be for militant Irish republicans as they are currently constructed.

A unified Irish Republic, at peace with itself, would be neither's tastes, in my view. McDowell as Justice Minister, Robinson in Finance.

It will be a victory the people of this island though if the majority of all traditions want it and this will only happen if it is clear as the noses on all our faces that our interests, and the interests of the island as a whole, are best served by a unitary state.

Step 1: stop killing and attacking each other
Step 2: work hard in areas that will be mutually beneficial

Considering how long it is taking us to get past step 1, and I include all traditions in that, I just hope step 2 goes a little quicker.

P.S. These steps might not lead to a unified state but they will lead to an island at peace.

Fair Deal,

I've heard this comment about two polls, but I can't find it in the Agreement. The only information I see is in:

DRAFT CLAUSES/SCHEDULES FOR INCORPORATION IN
BRITISH LEGISLATION
1. (1) It is hereby declared that Northern Ireland in its entirety remains part of the United Kingdom and shall not cease to be so without the consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland voting in a poll held for the purposes of this section in accordance with Schedule 1.
(2) But if the wish expressed by a majority in such a poll is that Northern Ireland should cease to be part of the United Kingdom and form part of a united Ireland, the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament such proposals to give effect to that wish as may be agreed between Her Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom and the Government of Ireland.

...

SCHEDULE 1
POLLS FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 1
1. The Secretary of State may by order direct the holding of a poll for the purposes of section 1 on a date specified in the order.
2. Subject to paragraph 3, the Secretary of State shall exercise the power under paragraph 1 if at any time it appears likely to him that a majority of those voting would express a wish that Northern Ireland should cease to be part of the United Kingdom and form part of a united Ireland.
3. The Secretary of State shall not make an order under paragraph 1 earlier than seven years after the holding of a previous poll under this Schedule.

Robert Keogh:

The idea of rejoining the commonwealth may seem unpalatable, but what harm would it do? It would reassure those of the British persuasion that a united Ireland wouldn't entail cutting them entirely adrift from all things British without involving any sacrifice of political sovereignty.

Didn't South Africa rejoin after becoming a democratic republic after all?

It amuses me to watch the development of the this goal-post-moving business of "oh, well you can't have a united ireland without unionist consent".

Eh, you can actually - as soon as a majority in the North vote for a United Ireland then that's it - done.

As for suggestions that the disenchanted unionist slow-learner brigade would then embark upon a successful campaign of guerilla resistance a la the provos - you must be joking. These untermenschen can barely organise a bonfire without injuring themselves/killing themselves/getting themselves arrested/dying in a blizzard of cocaine.

The only reason that the Provos were able to wage any sort of successful campaign in the seventies, eighties and early nineties was because they enjoyed a modest but significant level of suport both in Ireland and abroad. Who in their right mind (apart from the unionist rump themselves) will sympathise with Unionist resistance to a united Ireland ? Nobody.

Alan,
there would have to be a poll in the Irish Republic too to alter the State's constitution accordingly, which requires a referendum.

"As for suggestions that the disenchanted unionist slow-learner brigade would then embark upon a successful campaign of guerilla resistance a la the provos - you must be joking. These untermenschen can barely organise a bonfire without injuring themselves/killing themselves/getting themselves arrested/dying in a blizzard of cocaine.

The only reason that the Provos were able to wage any sort of successful campaign in the seventies, eighties and early nineties was because they enjoyed a modest but significant level of suport both in Ireland and abroad. Who in their right mind (apart from the unionist rump themselves) will sympathise with Unionist resistance to a united Ireland ? Nobody."

Quite correct.

"These untermenschen can barely organise a bonfire without injuring themselves/killing themselves/getting themselves arrested/dying in a blizzard of cocaine"

Un-PC, inflammatory comment. But it didn't half make me laugh..

George,

I understand that the Republic of Ireland would have to do something after the unification poll was taken in Northern Ireland, but i don't see anything about that in the Agreement. Not arguing the logic, just the contents of the GFA.

Could somebody please outline the benefits of the Commonwealth to Ireland, apart from the fact that we might have a chance of winning some medals at an international sporting event?

What has it done for Northern Ireland for example? How many Commonwealth-inspired economic delegations have been there looking to invest?

Anyway, we have our own Commonwealth, it's called the Irish Diaspora and if the Ulster Scots and the rest of Ulster British/Irish, who apparently have 20 former US Presidents in their ranks, come on board who needs it?

It just seems to me like a post-colonial rehab club.

Hi, my name is India and I'm a recovering colony.

Robert

I'm new to this site so apologies if I go over old ground but as far as I know there's 53 nations in the Commonwealth, 32 are republics. Its members are home to 30% of the world's people - Britain's just 1% or so. The Chair's Nigerian and the Chief Exec (Gerneral-Secretary I think)is a Kiwi. The Queen's got a wee job 'til she dies but it's no more that the Brtish Commonwealth than the Indian, Irish or Scottish Commonwealth. Who sent most people to the other members states? Not joining looks a bit like not wanting to be in any club with the Brits and Ireland's already in at least three (UN, EU, British-Irish council).

Alan,
I would agree with you, actually, now I read the GFA text. I suppose they take unification as a given considering the Irish constitution does state a "firm will" for it if consent is there in both jurisdictions and this was voted on in 1998 and passed with a 95% vote.

In other words, theoretically, NI could have one and then it would be up to us. Actually I'd prefer that as one wouldn't want to be stood up on the altar.

Bored.

You're wrong.

Of course Ricardo - I do apologise.

Alan
"I understand that the Republic of Ireland would have to do something after the unification poll was taken in Northern Ireland, but i don't see anything about that in the Agreement."

They might vote and say 'yes, we want in'. Doesn't mean we'd let them in :) We'd definitly have our say too, nothing would happen without a yes vote south of the border. Doesn't matter if it's in the GFA or not, IMHO.

I was hoping for a more vitriolic response!

What I was getting at was: When the 'troubles' were in full swing, the IRA enjoyed a lot of support from working class catholics and middle class catholics. The reaction of middle class prods to loyalist paramilitaries was to turn away from them, possibly leading to the creation of this 'untermenschen' as you have less than graciously termed them. Were a united ireland declared tomorrow, majority or not, I believe that loyalist paramilitaries would get more widespread support from working and middle class prods, in the same way the IRA did. That in itself would be 'a modest but significant level of suport'. How would republicans react to this? How could they condemn it, given that it would be the exact course of action that they chose when they had a political settlement imposed on them, even when that was the wish of the majority? The IRA have set a precedent for slaughter on this island, and I fear that others will follow their example in future.

Maca,

I agree that the RoI would have to take some kind of action, and the UK would have to wrap up its move out. This discussion actually goes back to:

If/when the people of NI vote to join a united Ireland, would the Agreement still be in effect? i.e. does the Agreement wind itself up in a united Ireland? Posted by: Occasional Commentator at July 29, 2005 03:48 PM

My opinion is that the GFA ends with the NI poll, and its all RoI/UK mopping up after that.

George,

What do you mean "apart from the fact that we might have a chance of winning some medals at an international sporting event?"

Don't you think it's a pity that when sport is the one thing we have that on this island that does work cross border we aren't sending an all-ireland squad to the sevens in Melbourne next year. When the united Ireland does come do the 29% of Ireland's people who live up here not get to go to the games any more. Some engagement.

Chris
"Don't you think it's a pity that ... we aren't sending an all-ireland squad to the sevens in Melbourne next year"

I doubt many people actually give a shit, to be honest.

"When the united Ireland does come do the 29% of Ireland's people who live up here not get to go to the games any more."

Why wouldn't they? The commonwealth won't end, Britain would still be in the CW, and the 29% would still be British citizens.

Ricardo - firstly - I don't consider myself to be subject to any social, moral or intellectual imperative to act 'graciously' in my description of paramilitary groups.

Secondly, even allowing for a sudden (and in my view risibly unlikely) conversion in taste of the Northern unionist middle classes - where would any 'modest but significant' suport come from outside of the North? Absolutely nowhere. The rest of the world would see these clowns for the obstructive, sectarian scum that they are and always have been.

Thirdly, Northern unionism has shown again and again that it doesn't have the stomach for resistance in the modern age. Drumcree? Dead on it's feet. Anglo-Irish Agreement ? After a few years farcical 'protest' it all died off. Personal protest and sacrifice ? HHHmmmm - just one of many examples - think of the large numbers of 'loyalist' hunger strikers over the years (that's right, most of them actually gained weight during their 'protests' and many (stand up Clifford Peebles among others) were discovered to have been stuffing their faces with Mars Bars and curry chips on the sly).

Fourthly, there is a large section of the Northern Protestant population who don't dread a United Ireland and don't associate it with the sky falling down on their heads (many of my close Protestant friends fall into this category).

Finally, with only limited local support and no British or other foreign support, any twats deciding to start their tiresome sectarian twaddle would be crushed in no time.

Ricardo,
You should know by now that according to the likes of "Bored", we Unionists are a completely
different sort of human to those "historically magnificent, pure-blooded Gaelic beacons of light"(not quite sure where I first saw that quote) who sit in judgement of others across this island, so don't worry too much about the little outbursts of sarcasm, especially on a Friday night;)

Having said that, I've got to agree with him/her that if anyone is relying on the tactical and planning skills of the loyalist headhonchos to save us from the United Ireland, they're going to be sadly disappointed.

I also disagree with you on you belief that a substantial number of Unionists would support a similar campaign to that which the Provos waged. I really don't think there would be the stomach within the Unionist community at large for it. My suspicion is that there would a low-grade campaign which would soon fizzle out, waged by the kind of low-life who invaded Garnersville this week. I'm sure there would also be emigration of some, but I also think that other than complaining about the hassle of having to change their bank accounts and investment plans,the vast majority of the garden centre,golf club middle-class Unionists won't put up much of a fight.

Imagine this situation. It is May 1945 and the German Field Marshal has just signed the documents for surrender. He turns to the Allied commanders and says ‘Right; now that’s over let’s talk about how extensive the new German borders will be. Do we get the whole of Poland and only part of the Ukraine or the whole of the Ukraine?’ The ludicrous triumphalism of some of the posts from Republicans is exactly equivalent.
The pro-union people of Northern Ireland (Catholic and Protestant) have not been bombed into a united Ireland, nor are they about to be ‘persuaded’ into such an arrangement. A border poll now would give about 38% in favour of a UI and even when the demographics are most favourable, in about the year 2050, it will still be less than 45%. Instead of dreaming the impossible dream why not concentrate on making NI a better place for all.

Paul - I'm English you twat.

Paul,

100% correct, especially if we get an all-Ireland team for the sevens.

Bored,
Calm down!

"I'm English you twat".

Check my first paragraph again .

Whatever your nationality, it still makes sense.

Not in my political lifetime

Translated means - Not a hope I'm getting involved in that.

Brilliant answer all the same - completely meaningless and inoffensive. And just a few more splinters in his ass from sitting on the fence.

A classic bit or question dodging by the bold Bertie. He knows he's not going to see a "united Ireland", but by saying so, he would have advanced too far from previous FF leaders and allowed SF/IRA to claim to be the "Republican Party".

Three generations of FF politicans have gone on record as saying that they expected to see to see a "united Ireland" in their lifetimes. Two of those generations are now pushing up daisies and I wouldn't bet much of David Andrews being any different.

Much more significant was Ahern's answer to the question posed by John Bowman on RTE last night as to whether he saw a FF/SF coalition government as a possibility. His answer "impossible" (repeated for emphasis).

"Mitchel thinks it'll happen by 2016". I assume this is the infamous SF chairman, who according to his last prediction is now the MP for Foyle.

Mitchel really is a huge loss to the world of literature, I'm sure his "Little Book of Faux Pas" could be a best seller.

Paul,
how do you know what the people of NI will vote for in the next 30 years? Where's the crystal ball or are you going on the sectarian headcount, that it's all down to demographics?

The number of unionist votes has dropped by a whopping 100,000 in the last 20 years in Westminster elections and I put a lot of that down to what they have to endorse, Paisley for example.

Unionism isn't a monolith and not all Protestants living in Ireland are genetic unionists. I think a lot of Protestants in NI have already decided to remain stumm rather than encourage the leaders of the unionist community,whose world view is different to theirs, by giving them their vote.

Yes, there are lots and lots of people in NI who see the bigger picture but at the moment they just can't say it openly because the situation is too raw.

Times change, people's views change. They may not, but they may. Only time will tell.

Chris,
so all the Commonwealth has to offer is entry to a Sevens (I assume Rugby) tournament in Melbourne.

Pretty inclusive alright. Why don't they just organise a fee-paying school jamboree?

Sorry but how much does this Commonwealth membership cost and couldn't we spend it on something more constructive, like a decent stadium.

How many blazers get free trips out of the Commonwealth and how many public servants suckle from its teat?

Can anyone let me know what it has done for Northern Ireland or what it would give to Ireland?

George,

you're leading me on to thin ice here old man but wouldn't Irish membership give the Australians some-one to play the old footie with on an international stage.

why do you keep talking about what it would do for you anyway greedy guts. It's about building a common sense of Irishness on something more than Brit hating. You say it's a good thing prods are coming over and as soon as I make a litle suggestion about joining a sports club with some old chums you want to put me back in my box.

I'm not sure what it costs by the way. I'll ring the membership secretary and get back to you.

and wtf is a genetic unionist?

George,

you're leading me on to thin ice here old man but wouldn't Irish membership give the Australians some-one to play the old footie with on an international stage.

why do you keep talking about what it would do for you anyway greedy guts. It's about building a common sense of Irishness on something more than Brit hating. You say it's a good thing prods are coming over and as soon as I make a litle suggestion about joining a sports club with some old chums you want to put me back in my box.

I'm not sure what it costs by the way. I'll ring the membership secretary and get back to you.

and wtf is a genetic unionist?

oops

Chris,
I just don't see where a sense of commonality can be found in an organisation that means absolutely nothing to me or most of my compatriots.

Surely it would have to have a semblance of meaning to us too or do I have to simply sign up so my new-found northern compatriots would feel more at home?

You might as well ask the nation to take up boules or camel racing for the sake of a common Irishness. Why not but don't be surprised if it doesn't take off.

Mavbe you can tell me where this great attachment to the Commonwealth comes from for people in NI because I was born 100 kilometres down the road and it never meant diddly squat to me?

It seems like to be British is to be in the Commonwealth. Fine but I'm not British so I'd like a little bit of an explanation as to why.

At the moment, I don't know what it does apart from giving its leaders the chance to meet up and chew the fat every once in a while and for its athletes to compete against each other.

I honestly don't know why Ireland should join. I'm not talking about being greedy, I just think we can use our energies more constructively to build bridges with other nations.

Eastern Europe, the United States, Russia, China and Asia in general is where we should be working on our ties, not wasting time playing lip service to something like the Commonwealth.

I also just think of Groucho Marx saying "I wouldn't be a member of a club that would have me as a member".

I used the term "genetic unionist" to point out to Paul that humans don't have a pre-determined political ideology, with them at birth which is passed on to their children.

My way of saying using demographics when it comes to determining the future strength of political ideologies such as unionism is crap.

Its a yes ya bastards.. there is no other ticket or show in town.. you just watch from now on.
How wonderful life is now you're in the world.

"Bertie: "will there be a united Ireland?"

No but thanks for asking

b George

I also just think of Groucho Marx saying "I wouldn't be a member of a club that would have me as a member".

What about one from which you were banned from leading because of your religion.

Commonwealth membership for Ireland and the removal of the ban on Catholics becomming British head of state would be nice gestures.

Henry94: What about [a club] from which you were banned from leading because of your religion.

The Commonwealth has no such restriction.

No-one was asking you to bring the Republic back into the UK - which does have that restriction.

We're saving that idea until after decommissioning :-)

"used the term "genetic unionist" to point out to Paul that humans don't have a pre-determined political ideology, with them at birth which is passed on to their children.

My way of saying using demographics when it comes to determining the future strength of political ideologies such as unionism is crap"

George,
Sorry for the late comeback, either I've been lazy in the terminology I used, or you've misunderstood me.

If the present situation continues within NI,then demographics( by this I presume you mean the religous breakdown) wil play less and less a part in deciding our future constitutional status, there'll be more and more Catholic Unionists and Protestant nationalists/Republicans. I fear the Unionist parties will have more difficulty adjusting to this, but it's about time they started making the case for the Union on grounds other than religion.

Way back before the troubles got going I think the kids in methody voted for a united ireland at some debate or other.

Who knows what might have developed over thirty years without Paisley and co stopping the civil rights marches and Irish cabinet ministers shipping guns to the right wing side of the IRA split.

Co-operation can be contagious. Mozambique joined the Commonwealth despite not having been a British colony.

Maybe Irish companies do not need those huge populations of english speaking customers in fast developing markets.

Much of the comments about future situations seems to ignore the fact that although the percentage difference in Roman Catholic/Protestant population is constant about 46/54 the numerical difference is gradually increasing and even assuming all Roman Catholics vote for non Unionist parties there is little likelihood of a Nationalist/Republican voting majority in the forseeable future.
It would be preferable if we used our time now determining what needs be done to bring about a new Northern Ireland that forges ahead and puts the past behind us quickly. It is time people faced the demographic and post 9-11 political realities and and focused on the need to live toghether and respect the rights of our fellow citizens to enjoy civil and religious liberty and equality.
There are many people who should have the decency to admit the part they played in this last sad chapter in our history and take immediate steps to alleviate the pain and suffering of victims' families for a start.
An expression of remorse and regret would go a long way to facilitating closure in many cases.
A genuine change of direction by Sinn Fein/IRA would create a climate that could quickly facilitate political change, especially if their expressed statements were immediately backed up by action
T.Ruth

Didn't make the 12th parades as I had planned, but there's never enough time to do everything, perhaps next summer. Freaking sun-tanned from being in Cork city? I'm starting to think there's some Irish government office paying off you guys to tell foreigners about the "awful" weather on the island. Sunny, bright weather everytime I come. What's up with that? I might as well stay home. Anyway,other than being delighted at the recent news, it reminded me of years ago when the West Germans I once worked with used to laugh at me when I suggested that someday Germany would be united. I'm getting that same feeling about the IRL.

Paul,
I did misunderstand you (not a first for me) and agree fully on unionism needing to better plead its case .

I've gone on (ad nauseum to many on this forum I'm sure) about how unionism is doomed to failure if it continues with this "simply British" ideology.

If there is no room for being Irish and proud in the union, remember it used to be the Irish Unionist Party, then it will die. It may take decades but in my opinion, it will be doomed.

The "problem" for unionism of course is that, a natural side-effect of promoting some sort of Irishness is that it encourages the call of Lundy and, even worse, some may "go native" and reduce the slim majority.

On the Irish side, it could be similar. To show their bona fides the Irish in NI start working the system as best they can and, who knows, enough of them might just like it and feel part of it to stabilise the union indefinitely.

It's like the great standoff one experiences when at the bar with a bunch of Cavanmen.

For us in the Republic, it's reasonably simple. We just try make this place such a good and open place to live that others travel here from all over the world to live and people in NI of all religions want to join.

If they decide they don't want to join, we still end up having a great place to live.

That some people are even prepared to think a United Ireland outside the Commonwealth even remotely feasible is one of many reasons it probably won't come about...

Maybe you could tell me what the Commonwealth does for you and your life IJP or anyone in NI for that matter rather than getting on your high horse.

I can understand the OO which has 75,000 members or a desire even to keep the Northern Ireland football team, which is important to a lot of people.

All I'm asking for is an explanation as to how the Commonwealth would benefit us all and why it has such a hold on people like you? Is that too much to ask?

By the way, Ireland's membership of the Commonwealth was terminated when it became a Republic, it didn't leave. The British weren't too bothered either but the rule changed for teacher's pet India though.

Look Ahern may or may not give a toss about Irish unity, who cares ? He knows, we know, that it won't happen in the next hundred years or more, he has to say that to keep SF's constructive ambiguity delusions on the rails. Are ordinary earth-dwelling unionists really that nuts that they believe any of this childish crap ? The reason Dublin is so pleased at how this is going is precisely BECAUSE it postpones into perpeteutiy the possibility that they'll have to assume direct responsibility for the north. West Brits ? Groupies I tells ya !

I'm a protestant, i can be persuaded, so persuade me please, the previous posts don't.

I'm a protestant, i can be persuaded, so persuade me please, the previous posts don't.

Wheres Billy Pilgrim when you need him...

Wheres Billy Pilgrim when you need him...

Sounds to me like an awful lot of thinking will have to be done by the unionists now, you see the IRA move has played so well with the worlds media, do any of the unionists actually ever listen to the BBC world service and its round up of international coverage especially in the all important USA? Its doubles and back slaps all round for Gerry and Martin, and theres even a little gleam of post-IRA nostalgia growing in the US media "rebels who fought the one of the most formidable armies in the world " was a quote on a world service vox-pop from LA. If the unionists continue to throw their rattles from the pram they are shown up, or if they enter negotiations then its seen to be a loss of face from they're "NEVER NEVER" stance..Either way mark my words I have it on good authority,that theres now going to be a LOT of pressure applied to the DUP by the Brits and the Yanks...many of the senior civil servants are quite relishing putting the thumbscrews on them politically (since they are so personally obnoxious,one thing the provo's never lacked was a serious and consistent effort to be pally with the Brit civil servants, whereas the DUP were almost always noticeably rude-ask any of the Brit support team at Leeds Castle )...You see the USA and Britain WANT this sorted BIG TIME, and the egotists and bombasts of the DUP will soon melt when confronted by the sheer heat of the power of US/Brit "gloves off" tactics which will now ensue.
Now, the provies are the good boys in the class, and according to my sources theres the little matter of some quite smelly canards concerning leading DUP'ers and other Unionist obstructionists which may well be used to apply pressure....the Brits and most importantly the USA have all the cards. and a very full file on Paisley's confederates,at least two minor functionaries of the aforesaid are said to be in the pay of the Brits anyway.This dynamite, it is confidently expected is sufficient powerful to blow a whole in this apparent wall of resolute obduracy, it should take about 6 months for face saving purposes.

George

"Work together for the benefit of all in any way we can and see how we feel about each other then"

Copyrightthis asap -its priceless,unanswerable logic, sense, commonsense --it should be a required "mission statement" for the politicans

Levitas
" LOT of pressure applied to the DUP by the Brits and the Yanks"

What pressure? What will they actually do? how many votes do the yanks and brits have? give us a few instances of the actions which will produce pressure.

The real pressure the DUPERS are under is from their voters- the one and only thing politicans want is to be re-elected. Any "pressure" on the DUPERS will simply allow them to make political capital from the pressure (this government wants us to share power with a murder gang and its representatives)-the last thing the DUPERS want is the protestant to swing back to the OUP..

Their are few nasty fiscal changes to be sorted out water charges,student fees to name two. All the local politicans prefer to have these imposed in their absence and can play the "not our fault card" later . Nobody is in any real hurry-for all the talk.
( incidentally if you want to embarass an MLA ask him/her how he/she would fund the services

Levitas

"a very full file on Paisley's confederates,at least two minor functionaries of the aforesaid are said to be in the pay of the Brits anyway"

Tell us more, brother, tell us more. What you got for us ?

Barnshee,
i agree with your post last post, i've been a long time reader and i never post but remembering back i think you said something along the lines of "the political class probably deserved what the got for the last 30 years, but the protestant working class certainly did not". correct me if i'm wrong! The statement from the IRA will no doubt please the politicians but what about the people that actually matter? be it protestant or catholic!

Barnshee,
I'm sorry, i think it was aquifer that actually said that, but your post still makes sense,

I can't speak for other Unionists, but my greatest personal objection to a United Ireland can be summed up in two words -- Sinn Fein.
The Republic has become increasingly prosperous, secular and outward-looking, all big pluses in my book.
SF on the other hand, represent the most narrow, backward-looking, intolerant strain of Republicanism, at times almost a mirror image of the Orange Order. Their policies are extreme Socialist/Marxist and appear to include EU withdrawal, wholesale destruction of capitalist principles and a general undoing of every benefit the Republic has managed in the last 50 years.
Their policies in the North and increasingly in the South are to foment tension and agitation at every turn, whilst proclaiming a laughable commitment to 'building unity.'
The fact that the electorate are actually voting in increasing numbers for these people is a complete mystery to myself and doubtless many other Unionists. One thing it certainly does not do is give us any incentive to even consider leaving the UK.

George

I guess the Commonwealth is to British people what the Irish language is to most Irish people - in practice it doesn't bring much, but symbolically it's extremely important.

My point is that, in the event of a single all-Ireland State, re-entry into the Commonwealth would be but one of many (often more significant) frankly pretty fundamental steps required to reflect the British identity on this island.

The fact that Nationalists would even consider quibbling over the Commonwealth (something which you admit is fairly irrelevant, so why not just go with it? in fact, since it's so meaningless, why not just re-enter now as a sign of good faith?) illustrates a complete lack of reality concerning what an all-Ireland State would really mean and really require.

It's always easy to demand 'compromise' so long as you're not the ones doing the compromising!

GLC,
I agree to a certain extent (althought i wouldn't say as strongly). My problem is not with republicans but the people who lead the republican movement, I mean most normal, sane people will admit that there have been lies told but what sort of peace process do we have if people that have been involved in murder and criminality cant even admit to it. I'm not trying to single one particular movement out I'm posing the question to both sides.

IJP,
sorry but that doesn't cut the mustard with me.

Hundreds of thousands of Irish people are actively involved in the Irish language just as tens of thousands of people are involved in the OO.

Their involvement in the language or the OO clearly brings things for them which is why they remain involved, year in year out, and have set up a whole infrastructure to continue their involvement.

How many people in NI are actively involved in the Commonwealth and what infrastructure has been set up?

What has the Commonwealth ever done for you or NI or what have you ever done for the Commonwealth? Give me something concrete. What has it given you? How does it impact on your life and sense of self?

Ask the same question about the OO, people will say their childhood memories of the 11th Night, marches, sense of belonging etc. Or about the NI football team, Spain 1982, that goal etc.

These I can understand but the Commonwealth?

IJP,
just to make one thing clear, it doesn't bother me one iota if Ireland joins the Commonwealth (I also think this is the majority view) as I think it will have zero impact on my life or the life of my compatriots.

I just want to know why I would have indulge in this charade.

George,
I can be persuaded, persuade me into becomimg part of an Ireland of equals, I can understand why these things don't effect your life, but how can you expect people who see themselves as British to be led into a United Ireland without any issues they have being addressed, it just wont happen George, What do you suggest?

Robbo,
what do I suggest? Off the top of my head.

The Orange Order gets full state funding, as much proportionately as the GAA, and can march anywhere it wants with full support of the Irish state in return for dropping its oath of allegiance to the head of a now foreign state and replacing it with an oath of allegiance to the new Irish state.

Any attacks on the organisation, its members or its property will be seen as acts of subversion and will be dealt with by hefty prison sentences.

An island-wide solidarity tax of 1% on the base income tax rate will be introduced with immediate effect to help fund a future comprehensive regeneration scheme in Northern Ireland.

The rights of the Ulster Protestant minority will be enshrined in the Irish constitution, thus making any attacks on their culture an attack on the state itself.

Ireland will rejoin the Commonwealth.

July 12th will become a national holiday on the whole island when everyone will be encouraged to be British for a day.

The Irish state will push the British government to ensure that they and their future generations can keep their British citizenship in perpetuity.

Compulsory Irish and any Irish language requirements will not apply to British passport holders living on the island of Ireland.

Flag and anthems to be agreed in dual plebiscites.

It appears to be the case that there are some people out there who feel that Commonwealth membership would make a united ireland more achievable. I believe they suffer from severe naiveity because the wider unionist community are not that stupid - no doubt they would expose this gesture for what it really is - a mere token and nothing more. Thus, Commonwealth membership, if taken up for this sort of reason, would be greeted with angry and justified accusations of duplicity.

Thats why we all need to do a George on this one, and ask amongst ourselves what benefits we would derive from this international organisation, apart from the few medals we may achieve at the Games. If the truth be known, there are feck all benefits because the Irish Republic, like many other former British colonies, doesn't need to be within the Commonwealth in order to nurture excellent relations with the UK. The United States provides a perfect example of this - a country which has a better relationship with Britain than some of these Commonwealth countries put together!

Most importantly of all - the Commonwealth question should be put before the Irish people in a consultative referendum, before there is to be any serious move to kick-start the application process for Commonwealth re-entry. If the Irish government cares one iota about democracy then it will follow this route. If a future Irish government trys to pull a fast one, and kick-starts this sort of illusory gesture of friendship with the UK without a single reference to the Irish people - then it will risk antagonise vast sections of Irish society - something which they'd live to regret come election time.

Clarification: Solidarity tax would be introduced in the Irish Republic with immediate effect as a sign of goodwill and future intent. Anthem not anthems

INMO the two biggest arguments for a change in the status of NI are

1/ That the 'British' identity itself is in the process of radical change. The sort of 'Britishness' which attracts the unionists vanished sometime during the last few decades. We're all in the EU now and that will continue to become a more important part of all our identity.

2/ The economic arguments now are in favor of unity. We're moving in that direction in any case in all sorts of unexpected ways from UTV becoming an all-Ireland company to Paisley's discovery during the foot-and-mouth that even Protestant cows are Irish. It's going to happen.

UTV does not limit itself to Ireland:

its a Both-Islands company!

All very comendable George, but your point on protestant culture doesn't bode well does it? your thoughts on income tax sound excellent, flags and anthems should be sorted out now as far i'm corncerned, an anthem that we can all enjoy and sing along to would do this this country the world of good but do you really think thats enough for the people who class themselves as British?

"it's a Both-Islands company"

Fair point. I do believe that we are almost at the stage where early Irish unity becomes inevitable but the form of that unity has yet to be determined. It won't be what any of us are expecting and I'd like to see Brussels move far more into the picture.

Nationalists don't trust London and unionists don't trust Dublin, or indeed anybody including themselves. We will need a neutral figure, a European Mitchell for the political bit in a few more years. Surely Scandanavia could provide us with one?

Lib2016,
I don't want to be confrontational but can you explain how the identity of approx 1 million people is/has been eroded over the last half century, I suspect that none of us really understand each others culture, correct me if i'm wrong!

robbo,
why doesn't it bode well? You want to be persuaded so I have to persuade you that Ulster Protestants and their culture would be an intricate part of the new state. No better way than enshrining their rights in the constitution.

What do you want me to say, "trust me, it will be all okay"?

You seem to think it's a question of showing that there is a place for Britishness in this new state and that it will be accepted. That is easily done in my view. It may take time but it is achievable.

However, you also seem to think that it doesnt matter what the people of this island do to convince Ulster Protestants that their welfare and culture, as well as our own, will flourish best in an all-island state, because anyone who classes themselves as British could never live in an Irish state.

In other words, you are foreigners to me and my compatriots and always will be, no matter what we do or say.

The natural progression of this is that if there ever was a majority in favour of unification you would fight it as a foreign annexation.

Yet you expect hundreds of thousands of Irish people to happily live in what they consider a British one.

This is a recipe for disaster in my view because it implies superiority of one state over another.

The British state can accommodate a minority Irish culture but a 21st century all-island Irish state couldn't possibly accommodate a minority British culture. That is patent nonsense in my view.

Both are equally possible. Maybe you could now return the favour and tell me what reasons the Irish Unionist Party gave for opting out of being in the same jurisdiction as the rest of us all those years ago and, most importantly, which of those reasons are still applicable today in 2005, when you look at the Irish Republic.

What problems have we addressed and what issues are still outstanding?

The nature of 'Britishness' has changed so much in the last half century that I find it difficult to know where to begin. Heard about getting rid of sizable bits of the Empire, joining the 'Common Market', Home Rule for Scotland and Wales, have you?

The changes in 'Irishness' are just as deep. Electing a female Civil Rights lawyer as President was a small but important sign of the change in the attitude towards a particularly reactionary branch of the Catholic Church. Taking leading roles in crucial negotiations for the EU in the GATT talks at the end of the eighties helped our international credibility. Even qualifying in the 'footie' helped but obviously being able to buy and sell the wee North is crucial.

The declining unionist population, now well short of one million, has visibly lost heart. Compare the antics at Garnerville to the UWC strike. Or even more to the point - compare the threats of unionist politicans now to the threats of unionist politicans then.

"Nationalists don't trust London and unionists don't trust Dublin"

Nationalist probably trust London more than we do.

"The changes in 'Irishness' are just as deep. Electing a female Civil Rights lawyer as President was a small but important sign of the change in the attitude towards a particularly reactionary branch of the Catholic Church."

Your well on the ball, lib2016 - I made a similar comment to that in Ireland's Greatest Woman thread a short time ago.

Sorry, that link has proved to be faulty.

Here we go again - Ireland's Greatest Woman

Nathan

Your 4.07PM is probably correct.

Which confirms my initial point.

If the broad population of Ireland can't or won't deal with the British aspect of their identity, unity with their British fellow-islanders remains a pipe-dream.

Because frankly a prosperous 26-county Irish Republic ain't that bad, is it?!

Nathan

Nothing, and I truly mean nothing will be as we expect it to be. The changes that have hit the South are already happening here. The election of Paisley was er- a slight disappointment for some of us but the next generation will see things very differently.

We are spending time on this board worrying about the past when 10% of the Irish population is likely to be Chinese in Easter 2016. A change I welcome but one which should be managed.

IJP,
The people of this island can and would deal with it because a prosperous 32-County Republic would be better.

When the height is won, then there is ease.

George,
I'll give you an example, Ardoyne, now I might not agree with the OO marching through Ardoyne but I also cannot accept that a few bands and a couple of lodges could provoke that kind of reaction, I mean there was pre prepared petrol bombs, golf balls with nails through them thrown at the marchers, now you cannot expect me to accept that this is accepting the protestant culture (we could go into this in much greater depth as i'm sure you know).

George, I'm a working class man, I want whats best for my family and while I admire your love of your country "trust me" just doesnt work for me, George I would love nothing else for everyone on the Island of Ireland to get on and live in peace but how would approx 1 million protestants who class themselves as British be expected just to change nationality, how would that work?

As the for the last part of your post post, your putting words in my mouth George, if you read further up the posts I have said that i have no problem with republicans its just the leadership, I just dont trust them, and as far as i'm concerned trust is what we need on this Island.

I've already stated that I can be persuaded, I mean i want whats best for my family, but I haven't been persuaded by any of the points so far.

Lib2016,
What has the election of a female civil rights lawyer got to do with people having a British identity?

I've said before, i don't want to be confrontational but I see no decline In the unionist population, also why do you think people have lost heart, why? is it because they dont see themselves as British anymore, I mean if that was the case there would be a united Ireland tommorow.

I agree with you that threats from unionist politicans get us nowhere but I haven't heard any threats coming from them latley, If i'm wrong please tell me.

Lib2016 you say:

"the 'British' identity itself is in the process of radical change. The sort of 'Britishness' which attracts the unionists vanished sometime during the last few decades." ...

And you add in clarification:

"The nature of 'Britishness' has changed so much in the last half century that I find it difficult to know where to begin. Heard about getting rid of sizable bits of the Empire, joining the 'Common Market', Home Rule for Scotland and Wales, have you?"

Lib: To suggest this is the vision of Britain that still attracts unionists you are either very out of touch with the values of your average unionist person, or just deliberately being cheeky :)

In case you don't meet too many unionists, I can assure you they hold fairly standard attitudes on these issues and are not mourning the loss of the Empire, or regretting the entry into the EU. Devolution to Scotland and Wales - if anything - makes NI fit better into the UK than before as the NI devolved arrangements that unionists are negotiating for can be viewed as falling into a UK-wide framework rather than being an exception to them. The "unionists in crisis" stuff is really not how it feels. There is a lot of work to do, improvements to make, and, yes, warts to remove, but a lot of progress has been achieved.

Well said slug, put far better than I could.

robbo

Northern Ireland was set up because of the threats of Unionist politicans. Both 'Irishness' and 'Britishness' have changed completely in character and its time for them to look at the world again.

What sort of 'Britishness' do you think you have? The unionist leader is a man whom most British people detest and revile and whose 'Britishness' they deny. Even he has made it perfectly clear that any loyalty he has is purely to a 'Protestant Crown' which is itself an idea most British people would laugh at.

The world has moved on and the unionist population is declining faster than the nationalist one. It's a fact and I can't change it nor would I if I could.

It's good of you to discuss this politely. It's alright to disagree and unecessary for any of us to be confrontational. Sorry if I come across that way.

"The "unionists in crisis" stuff is really not how it feels. There is a lot of work to do, improvements to make, and, yes, warts to remove, but a lot of progress has been achieved".

I feel that if the Unionist politicians woke up and joined the rest of us in the 21st century, then we would be looking a much stronger movement, the inability to look beyond the old stereotypes as to who their potential electorate could be, is losing thousands of vote and stronger support for the British link.

George,

Robbo has mentioned one section of the society that would take a monumental amount of convincing before they would join the all-Ireland state.

How would you approach the other group I was talking about last night, middle-class people who whilst not the type to wave the flag on the 12th, would resent the enormous amount of disruption that a United Ireland might bring to their lives? Most of them are doing very well at the minute, thank .Why should they sacrifice this comfortable and settled life they have at the minute( even more so if they're working in the public sector) for the uncertainty of 32 county Republic?

Paul

Even several years ago the Equality Commission as well as DUP politicans, most especially Gregory Campbell were warning that the Protestant middleclass was being replaced by a Catholic middleclass as the Protestant middleclass sought education elsewhere and were not coming back. That doesn't concern me too much - the middleclass are becoming increasingly international and they'll do alright.

It's the loyalist people who are losing jobs in the security and manufacturing industries and who are losing out (to Catholic women for some reason) in the Civil Service who do worry me. Somehow we have managed to build a society in which an ambitious loyalist is more than likely to see his future in the drugs trade.

The loyalists need education and a realistic worldview and all they are getting are the conspiracy theories and paranoia of the DUP. It's not sustainable and it's certainly not right.

Lib2016,
I understand what your saying, I don't like Paisley that much myself, what you have to understand though is that the unionist people have the exact same feelings for Gerry Adams and Martin Mc (not going to attempt to spell it), regarding the unionist population, could you please provide a link that justifies what

Lib2016,
I understand what your saying, I don't like Paisley that much myself, what you have to understand though is that the unionist people have the exact same feelings for Gerry Adams and Martin Mc (not going to attempt to spell it), regarding the unionist population, could you please provide a link that justifies what your saying.

Lib2016, I wasn't saying that you were being confrontational, I just didn't want to sound as if I was.

Regards.

George

Sadly I see scant evidence of any ability to deal with the fundamental British identity of this island on this thread.

What I see is people mocking Unionists for being British as if it is some no-longer-relevant relic. A long way from the vision outlined in the Agreement of respecting the British identity of many people on this island. But I sincerely hope I've picked that one up wrongly from what has been written.

Whatever, it is a long way from what I am suggesting is the truth that has to be recognized prior to any stable, prosperous 32-county Republic - that not only are Unionists British, and not only is Britishness relevant, but in fact that British identity is a fundamental part of everyone's identity on this island.

Robbo - "Martin Mc (not going to attempt to spell it)" Spell what - Guinness? Christ - the level of contribution to this site hits a new low.

IJP,
Do you think there will ever be a time when there will be a stable and prosperous 32-county-republic? I'm interested to hear another persons point of view!

Not just IJP, anybody?

IJP

The prosperous stability you are searching for isn't available in any country in the real world. Britain will continue to evolve and struggle with multiculturalism and its own identity as will we. The vast majority of people on this island don't have or want a British identity and you lost the right to continue trying to impose one on them quite some time ago.

Bored,
I'm sorry if i offended you! I wasn't trying to be offensive, i'm sorry if my questions bore you but I do want to know other points of view, I have mine, you obviously have yours! would you please try and answer the question I just asked, I mean anybody can be rude.

Lib2016,
What is this British identity, a few posts ago you said unionists were losing their British identity, now you claim that its being imposed on you.

(any link to the unionist population in decline)

George
Do you think that we are stupid? That the advantages to a United Ireland are there, plain for all to see, but we just don't have vision or the mental agility to see them. So if you repeat it often enough the penny will eventually drop.

We aren't stupid, and we don't want a United Ireland. Perhaps in time we will (though I doubt it), but we will not be converted through intimidation, pressure or clever talk.

What we do want, is to get on with our lives. To live in peace and harmony with everybody on the island, to bring up our children, to build a better economy, and to live by normal democratic standards including a respect for law and order. Is that too much to ask for?

I believe that there will be many from both sides of the community that will be of a similar opinion.

Robbo

Both main communities on this island, nationalist and unionist are declining, the unionist one faster than the nationalist one but that could change.

Whatever happens there are going to be huge changes in society and the things we are worrying about now may never happen - though we'll probably have awhole other set of problems.

The South has already started seeing huge changes and I believe the same thing is starting to happen here.

I believe (and I could be wrong) that the Westminster layer of government will be hugely affected by homerule for the Celtic fringe, which includes us. The DUP will have no voice in London and we will all move gradually towards talking to Brussels through Dublin because we have good economic reasons for doing so. Brussels is where the real power is.

....and now G'night! Thanks for the craic.

Bored,
I would like to explain my M'c comment.

A few years ago i can remember watching a program where Martin Mc and Ken Mc were chatting, Martin Mc was in a discussion and proceeded to tell the viewing public that he couldn't get a job because his surname was spelt in a different way than Ken Mc, now god forbid me from being politicaly incorrect but I didn't want to offend anyone.

Posted by Slug :

"In case you don't meet too many unionists, I can assure you they hold fairly standard attitudes on these issues and are not mourning the loss of the Empire, or regretting the entry into the EU. Devolution to Scotland and Wales - if anything - makes NI fit better into the UK than before as the NI devolved arrangements that unionists are negotiating for can be viewed as falling into a UK-wide framework rather than being an exception to them."

Obviously you've never paid A Tangled Web a visit LOL!!!

Bill

I came back online to apologise (sort of) for laughing at people's sense of being British. It's only a few years ago (less than ten!) that we were laughing at people for hanging onto the 'Holy Catholic Ireland dancing at the crossroads' version of being Irish.

The unionist idea of being British is due for a similar overhaul but nationalists have little room to mock them for that.

G'night all!

Bill - LOL.

IJP, Robbo, Moderate Unionist,

What I am saying is that there seems to be an inbuilt idea within unionism that a unitary Irish state couldn't ever deliver for the needs of, and protect, all the people of Northern Ireland but that the UK can.

This is despite the evidence of the last 85 years, which points to the exact opposite.

We can look at this in 4 ways:

1. Only the UK can deliver for the needs of the people of NI
2. Only a unitary Irish state can deliver
3. Both can deliver
4. Neither can deliver

My concern is that the overwhelming majority of unionism believes only view 1, while there is a growing number thinking view 4.

For all of us to get to a situation of being truly equal in each other's eyes, we have to get to view three because views 1 and 2 imply one state is naturally superior to the other.

If views 1 and 2 remain the majority view in both camps, then eventually the hatred will erupt into violence again.

Hello

Not often I'm on here. But I see the debate on whether or not there will be a united Ireland. I am of southern origin, Protestant, parents from Dublin, living in the north since I was 3 months old, went to school up here, but most weekends back in Dub. I am married to a Belfast girl who came from a unionist background (Tiger's Bay) but I and my family would be fairly strongly nationalist, except one of my sisters who doesn't give a s*** about any politics! I have worked, in the north, in strongly nationalist and strongly unionist areas (West Belfast, East Belfast, Carrickfergus, Newry, and know many people very well in all those places).
Anyway, that's all just intended to give a background to my views, rather than to "pigeonhole" me - which would be hard!
I think a United Ireland is eventually inevitable. But it needs a lot of work not just by both the Prods and the Catholics "up north" but also everyone "down south". Southerners, the vast majority of who claim to be of nationalist perspective, and who become misty eyed at talk of national unity, have mostly a collective amnesia when it comes to actual measures to bring unity about. I WANT a United Ireland, so I'm not being critical of nationalism as a concept. But the toe-gazing has to stop. Think about this: how many southerners do we know who say hey want unity, but witter on about not wanting them'uns up there - let them keep their oul troubles, an' suer who'd want Paisley in the Dail? Life's too short for all that. Be honest now, those of you from the 26 counties: you've heard that said in the bar, haven't you?
The question of whether unionists can be persuaded to accept it, or outvoted (in which case they have to accept it), is just one question. If Rev. Ian and Nigel Dodds went on RET's Six-One next week and said "Please, Mr Ahern, take us in, we're tired of being British", tell me this: how many people - really - in the 26 counties would actually go out and vote, wholeheartedly for it? Maybe a majority, all right, but I would think much smaller a one than many think. With the South having moved on light years from the priest-ridden-turf-bog scenario painted by the likes of Trimble and others of his ilk, many people "down south" really can't be arsed.

Am I wrong? Have I been hearing things, or misinterpreting what my friends in Dublin say, ever since Bono was playing in McGonagles?

Big J

Hello

Not often I'm on here. But I see the debate on whether or not there will be a united Ireland. I am of southern origin, Protestant, parents from Dublin, living in the north since I was 3 months old, went to school up here, but most weekends back in Dub. I am married to a Belfast girl who came from a unionist background (Tiger's Bay) but I and my family would be fairly strongly nationalist, except one of my sisters who doesn't give a s*** about any politics! I have worked, in the north, in strongly nationalist and strongly unionist areas (West Belfast, East Belfast, Carrickfergus, Newry, and know many people very well in all those places).
Anyway, that's all just intended to give a background to my views, rather than to "pigeonhole" me - which would be hard!
I think a United Ireland is eventually inevitable. But it needs a lot of work not just by both the Prods and the Catholics "up north" but also everyone "down south". Southerners, the vast majority of who claim to be of nationalist perspective, and who become misty eyed at talk of national unity, have mostly a collective amnesia when it comes to actual measures to bring unity about. I WANT a United Ireland, so I'm not being critical of nationalism as a concept. But the toe-gazing has to stop. Think about this: how many southerners do we know who say hey want unity, but witter on about not wanting them'uns up there - let them keep their oul troubles, an' suer who'd want Paisley in the Dail? Life's too short for all that. Be honest now, those of you from the 26 counties: you've heard that said in the bar, haven't you?
The question of whether unionists can be persuaded to accept it, or outvoted (in which case they have to accept it), is just one question. If Rev. Ian and Nigel Dodds went on RET's Six-One next week and said "Please, Mr Ahern, take us in, we're tired of being British", tell me this: how many people - really - in the 26 counties would actually go out and vote, wholeheartedly for it? Maybe a majority, all right, but I would think much smaller a one than many think. With the South having moved on light years from the priest-ridden-turf-bog scenario painted by the likes of Trimble and others of his ilk, many people "down south" really can't be arsed.

Am I wrong? Have I been hearing things, or misinterpreting what my friends in Dublin say, ever since Bono was playing in McGonagles?

Big J

Hello

Not often I'm on here. But I see the debate on whether or not there will be a united Ireland. I am of southern origin, Protestant, parents from Dublin, living in the north since I was 3 months old, went to school up here, but most weekends back in Dub. I am married to a Belfast girl who came from a unionist background (Tiger's Bay) but I and my family would be fairly strongly nationalist, except one of my sisters who doesn't give a s*** about any politics! I have worked, in the north, in strongly nationalist and strongly unionist areas (West Belfast, East Belfast, Carrickfergus, Newry, and know many people very well in all those places).
Anyway, that's all just intended to give a background to my views, rather than to "pigeonhole" me - which would be hard!
I think a United Ireland is eventually inevitable. But it needs a lot of work not just by both the Prods and the Catholics "up north" but also everyone "down south". Southerners, the vast majority of who claim to be of nationalist perspective, and who become misty eyed at talk of national unity, have mostly a collective amnesia when it comes to actual measures to bring unity about. I WANT a United Ireland, so I'm not being critical of nationalism as a concept. But the toe-gazing has to stop. Think about this: how many southerners do we know who say hey want unity, but witter on about not wanting them'uns up there - let them keep their oul troubles, an' suer who'd want Paisley in the Dail? Life's too short for all that. Be honest now, those of you from the 26 counties: you've heard that said in the bar, haven't you?
The question of whether unionists can be persuaded to accept it, or outvoted (in which case they have to accept it), is just one question. If Rev. Ian and Nigel Dodds went on RET's Six-One next week and said "Please, Mr Ahern, take us in, we're tired of being British", tell me this: how many people - really - in the 26 counties would actually go out and vote, wholeheartedly for it? Maybe a majority, all right, but I would think much smaller a one than many think. With the South having moved on light years from the priest-ridden-turf-bog scenario painted by the likes of Trimble and others of his ilk, many people "down south" really can't be arsed.

Am I wrong? Have I been hearing things, or misinterpreting what my friends in Dublin say, ever since Bono was playing in McGonagles?

Big J

Hello

Not often I'm on here. But I see the debate on whether or not there will be a united Ireland. I am of southern origin, Protestant, parents from Dublin, living in the north since I was 3 months old, went to school up here, but most weekends back in Dub. I am married to a Belfast girl who came from a unionist background (Tiger's Bay) but I and my family would be fairly strongly nationalist, except one of my sisters who doesn't give a s*** about any politics! I have worked, in the north, in strongly nationalist and strongly unionist areas (West Belfast, East Belfast, Carrickfergus, Newry, and know many people very well in all those places).
Anyway, that's all just intended to give a background to my views, rather than to "pigeonhole" me - which would be hard!
I think a United Ireland is eventually inevitable. But it needs a lot of work not just by both the Prods and the Catholics "up north" but also everyone "down south". Southerners, the vast majority of who claim to be of nationalist perspective, and who become misty eyed at talk of national unity, have mostly a collective amnesia when it comes to actual measures to bring unity about. I WANT a United Ireland, so I'm not being critical of nationalism as a concept. But the toe-gazing has to stop. Think about this: how many southerners do we know who say hey want unity, but witter on about not wanting them'uns up there - let them keep their oul troubles, an' suer who'd want Paisley in the Dail? Life's too short for all that. Be honest now, those of you from the 26 counties: you've heard that said in the bar, haven't you?
The question of whether unionists can be persuaded to accept it, or outvoted (in which case they have to accept it), is just one question. If Rev. Ian and Nigel Dodds went on RET's Six-One next week and said "Please, Mr Ahern, take us in, we're tired of being British", tell me this: how many people - really - in the 26 counties would actually go out and vote, wholeheartedly for it? Maybe a majority, all right, but I would think much smaller a one than many think. With the South having moved on light years from the priest-ridden-turf-bog scenario painted by the likes of Trimble and others of his ilk, many people "down south" really can't be arsed.

Am I wrong? Have I been hearing things, or misinterpreting what my friends in Dublin say, ever since Bono was playing in McGonagles?

Big J

I am quite ignorant about the unionist community so excuse me. Could you please tell me, are there any of you who would possibly vote for a united Ireland, if it guaraunteed your rights would be respected and you would be treated as equals?

Big J,
alternative night on a Thursday in McGonagles. Wonderful. Had just managed to get in there as an underage chap and they close it down.

There is a large degree of truth in what you say but it call comes back to trust and respect for each other.

Unionists may laugh at this but many southerners would actually love assurances that they don't have any intentions of ever going to war with them, even if one day they are democratically voted into a united Ireland against their will.

If Paisley, for example, came out and categorically said unionism would accept the decision and work it to the best of his not insubstantial ability (even approaching 80) if it came to pass in return for nationalists fully working the reformed Northern Irish system for as long as it exists, which could be forever, then we'd be in a whole new era.

Dreamer that I am I would like to see a day when the people of NI can make a decision on their future constitutional status, a bit like a grade A student ponders Law or Medicine.

I just worry the pupil will instead be slapped with an ASBO by the authorites for his unruly behaviour or the local vigilantes will dosh out one hell of a beating from which he never recovers.

robbo,you say you neede convincing, here goes...

you have made some interesting points in your previous posts, and its people like you who will make a 32 county republic work for people of your tradition. but in my view you shouldn't think of yourself as a diffirent tradition or community, this is a real northern ireland way of thinking. You are from whatever town you are from and thats it, but your ancestry is maybe british. This is the way people think in the republic. When people in the north start thinking like this it will be a great day.

Whether he likes it or not ian paisley is as irish as gerry adams but he is for some reason unwilling to accept this. If you are born in ireland you are irish, you can call yourself british all you like but when you visit england people will refer to you as "the irish chap" does this offend you??

I am from the same tradition as you, my family are mostly potestant and i went to a mostly protestant school in my home town, religion was never a big thing for me but i never once felt that my nationality was diffirent to that of my fellow irish citizens. All the propaganda bleeted by unionist politicians is pure nonsesnse. Trimble and paisley have constantly made untrue remarks about the republic. The irish state was founded by irish people who were protetants, the republic is as much a catholic state as a protestant one. Proof of this is in dublin where both of the citys major chrurches are still protestant, these are cathedrals, the national cathedral of ireland and christchurch, cathedral of dublin. The catholic church still has no proper cathedral in dublin. If you visit st patricks cathedral (church of ireland) you will see a tricolour flying inside, a flag which represents irish people of all traditions.

There is no division in society in the republic. Many people of our tradition live here in the republic and we find unionism rediculous and laughable, and the fact that people actually vote for it and buy into that kind of nonsense. I find that i have less and less in common with the northern church goer than anybody here at home. Unionists had fears when the republic came about that they would be miss treated this never happened and church numbers are up for the church of ireland here. you didnt see donegal unionists starting a war or leaving for northern ireland when the republic came about did you!

You can still be british and live in ireland. there are many british who have come hear to work in this thriving economy and secular society so there is certainly place for the "west brit".

This country is fully democratic and all its people have always had a vote- unlike the north!
unionist parties have the right to sit in dail eireann along with the sdlp and soon probably sinn fein. In a 32 county republic northern parties would make 20% of the national vote compaired to the uk where you have only 2% representation, and that is when you dont have direct rule!!! what a sick joke the north is!

We currently have the situation where somebody very far away accross the water is making decisions for you, not very good ones because hes not from your town, he doesnt have to live with his decisions because he and his family dont live where you do. And for all the above reasons he doesnt really care about northern ireland, in fact polls show 3 out of 4 brittons dont care. We have two currencies, two welfare systems, water systems, electrical networks gas networks. and the list goes on .... Why why why????????

The economy in the republic is booming, the six counties could be a part of this. One currency would eliminate problems caused by the border and other problems caused by two different systems on the one island. Most business men in the north are finding they are emotional unionists but business nationalists. No boarder means the reopenening of the rail lines that existed before the boarder killed them such as the sligo leitrim and northern counties railway.
The derry to belfast railway is in a very bad state and the only other line the north has goes to dublin, an element of hate for unionist parties, so tell me where do you see irelands railways in 10 years time. Remeber how unionist leadership gave us the M1 in the wrong direction well i dont hold much hope for the railways of the north, meanwhile down here the network is expanding! Transport needs to be on an all ireland basis, remind me again, how may flights that leave belfast actually go somewhere other than the uk!

Still not enough reasons, the prospect of real prooven government that works, the possibilty of deciding more for yourself than the colour of the tarmac outside your house, being completely neutral in affairs such as iraq. And most of all, we both know, as long as the six counties remains in the uk there will never be peace, in a six county satelet where a growing number 42% at present vote in favour of constitutional change there will never be peace. in a 32 county republic where evryones rights are protected there most definately will be peace, it happened before and it will happen again.

Obviously Sf scares you just as it- and the Dup scares me, but whats wrong with voting Sdlp. If you voted for the peace process and the GFA you should vote sdlp to continue the GFA in a 32 county republic.

So there you have it, if you need some more reasons i can think of many more, its obvoious to me that you have never been to the republic and its time you made a visit. A vote for unity will be a vote for unity of the people of the north as well as the unity of ireland.

The existance of northern ireland has always hindered the growth and developement of our country and constantly held us back if you want examples- no problem

Now remind me, what are the benifits of being in the uk robbo?

the convincer
Remember Bandon
Remember the Irish Industrial schools
Remember Noel Browne
Remember the Border campaign
Remember 1983 referundum
Remember 1992 injunction
Remember they haven't gone away you know

Only playing devils avocate of course. I know that the Irish Republic is moving forward rapidly but has the Republican movement or are we just in another phase.

So what are the benefits of being in the UK?
For many people life is not bad, for others we need peace and stability to address their issues.

Mister

For me - no.

It's a fair question and there may be some who do not want a uniited ireland because of a "protestant rights" concern. Others, like me are not interested because that's not our indentity, unless the Republic wanted to rejoin the Union. Even then I would not want Ireland to be a single module in that Union. It would either be NI and what is now the Republic being the demarcation, or the nine counties of Ulster as a unit(my preference)

"We have two currencies, two welfare systems, water systems, electrical networks gas networks. and the list goes on .... Why why why????????". Because the spliters in the south wanted to run things for themselves.

"I am quite ignorant about the unionist community so excuse me. Could you please tell me, are there any of you who would possibly vote for a united Ireland, if it guaraunteed your rights would be respected and you would be treated as equals?". You mean like they've had in the UK for centuries? Equal rights for Protestants in the Republic is a relativly new thing. It's only in the last 30 years that the "special position" of the Catholic church has been removed from the constitution, divorce and contraception have been legalised and homosexuality has been de-criminalised. The Republic has come a long way in 30 years, but it HAD to, to catch up with the rest of the British Isles.

"Others, like me are not interested because that's not our indentity, unless the Republic wanted to rejoin the Union." And there's the rub, if Irish nationalists wanted unity, they could have it in the morning by re-joining the UK, but just like 80 years ago, they put running their own affairs in one part of the island ahead of unity (as is their right). The Welsh (and especially) the Scots have proved that you can have successsful self governence and autonomy within the UK. This in turn has led to a reduction in the number of people suppoting independence for Wales and Scotland.

In 50 years it won't matter a jot where they old national borders were drawn, and the power of the nation state will have disappeared to the federal Europe. Is it any wonder that the most anti-European party in this country is SF/IRA (who have opposed every move towards a European unity). So people want to live in the 19th century, but it shouldn't stop the rest of us moving on.

"In 50 years it won't matter a jot where they old national borders were drawn"

I think in our own peculiar case it will happen a lot quicker than that. Unlike 30 years ago for many Unionists, the Republic is no longer the bogeyman it was for our fathers and grandfathers. My perfect solution(as a Unionist) is that if the situation settles within NI, we'll see within a very short-time, a government and system working for all the people,irrespective of their background. Technically the state would still be British, but for the vast majority of residents that would less important than the fact that we're living in peace with each other.

Unionists would I hope, tentatively at first, start to rediscover the parts of our Irish identity that the Provos and our own extremists have tried to take away from us. And further on from this point,I reckon many within Unionism would start to question whether the link with London and her Britannic majesty is best serving the long term interests of our community.

But it's not something that will happen overnight and certainly not whilst Sinn fein remains as any kind of political force within the island. The greatest threat to not only long term political unity, but also the unity of people within N.Ireland and the island as a whole, lies with the fear and hatred that the vast majority of Unionists feel for Sinn fein. The fear that they will not rest until every trace of Britishness is wiped off the island and the hatred for the crimes that many in their leadership have committed and which their apologists still make excuses for. Personally I think it's unrealistic that SF will ever be in a position to carry out some of their more extreme "Irishification" policies, but obviously it's what people believe to be true rather than what the real facts which are important, especially here.

Apologies,I've rambled on too long here. In summary, whether I'm being ruled ultimately by Dublin or London the fact remains that every bone of me is British. But work on peace and unity first within NI and who knows what will happen 20,30,40 years down the line.

Hope all this that makes sense.

George

There is no question that an all-Ireland State could fully reflect the British identity I speak of and be very successful. It's just we seem to prove, time after time, that Nationalists prefer a Nationalist Ireland rather than a truly inclusive one (as illustrated by, with apologies to Maca, responses to my 'Commonwealth of Ireland' proposal).

Mister

I cannot answer for any 'Unionist community' because I don't think one exists. NI Protestants (deliberate definition) do not form a cohesive group. To many, Protestant identity is paramount. To others, a broadly British ('white cliffs of Dover') is important. Many do see the world from an all-Ireland context, others want nothing whatsoever to do with the Republic.

Given the proposal you offer (guarantee of rights etc), most Protestants I know would vote for it in preference to the status quo. But unfortunately your proposal is not what Nationalists are offering - that is the crux of the problem.

KiethM

In 50 years it won't matter a jot where they old national borders were drawn, and the power of the nation state will have disappeared to the federal Europe.

I don't think that is inevitable or even likely. Pushing the federalist agenda is provoking the reaction that could undo the whole European project. If the EU survives it will be as a union of nation states. We will still have to solve our own problems.

IJP,
We in the south make up over 80% of "nationalists" on this island and that percentage is growing. If the population keeps at its current growth rate, it will be 85% by 2020.

What I've outlined regarding rights for NI Protestants and unionists is basically what I believe would be on offer to unionism from the Irish Republic - the overwhelming majority of "nationalism".

Can we deliver unionism from Sinn Fein's Irishification dream? In a word, yes. Why? Because it is as alien to us as it is to you.

In fact, I actually believe Conor Cruise O'Brien on this one, we are the only ones who can and the sooner unionism, and we ourselves (if you pardon the pun) for that matter, realise this the better.

The maintenance of the NI status quo, direct rule, a stagnant economy where a superfluous public sector job for life is considered a worthy attainment for a young person, a huge subversive underclass, whole communities in the hands of gunmen etc. will eventually destroy the place and by then it may be too late to pick up the pieces.

The trigger will probably be when the comfort zone for the middle-class apparatchiks and their offspring is no longer comfortable enough for them and they start leaving in their droves. That process has already begun.

George

We in the south make up over 80% of "nationalists" on this island

That's just my point - they don't.

I don't think there are that many 'Nationalists' left in the Republic, and it is all the better for it.

Many would quite like an inclusive, democratic, liberal 32-county Irish Republic (which sounds pretty good to me too). But they don't want a 32-county Nationalist Republic any more than Ian Paisley does. Therein lies the crux.

I have long said that Nationalists are the biggest block to an all-Ireland Republic, and I have seen a marked inability from them to move on from this outdated concept.

Nationalism and Liberal Democracy are mutually exclusive. So when are those who are passionate about a 32-county Republic going to leave the former behind?

Gin-clear, razor-sharp, insightful and incisive as ever George. That said (and I don't mean the following somewhat antiquated phrase to imply any form of insult) but don't you think there's an element of 'pearls before swine' here ? I mean, nobody has provided even a modicum of rational response to your perfectly apposite query about the Commonwealth.

IJP,
that is why I put it in quotation marks. Call us Irish then or whatever word you are happy with.

Whatever label is used, we are the people who make up the overwhelming majoriy of people you will be dealing with in the eventuality of a united Ireland so my point stands as do my figures.

We don't have a nationalist Republic that excludes people, and we aren't striving for one.

That is obvious to anyone who lives here today and by the fact that SF have 5 of 166 Dail seats.

I repeat, we don't want SF Irishification any more than Paisley does and as I said, we are probably the only ones who can permanently deliver unionism from this sword of damocles.

What is your view on the Cruiser's position, which is why he had to leave the UKUP?

And do you agree that a dark future still lies ahead for NI because this entity will never be able to deliver economically or socially?

Henry 94 "If the EU survives it will be as a union of nation states.". I'm sure the nation state will still exist, but the real power will be centralised in the EU. Already our lawmakers are constrained by what is agreed in Bruusels, Luxembourg, The Hague and Strasbourg. Our economic independence is all but gone (not that we ever really had any real independence in this sector) and our borders are open to all EU citizens. More poweer is being taken from the nation state in every referendum, so in 50 years time, the national governments will be the equivilent of today's county councils.

The problem of "Irishness" or "Irishification" has being ongoing for around 100 years. To gain support for independece from the rest of the British Isles, the National League, the original Sinn Féin and others needed to define something unique and different about this island and its people. They managed to convince a majority in the south, and by doing so created a self fullfilling prophecy, by promising that an Irish Republic would be different from the UK. They created the differences and this definition of exclusive "Irishness" but consequently copperfastened the border in a way that Carson and Craig could never have dreamt of.

The people who are the most likely to convince Unionists of the merits of a "united Ireland" are those that are most despised by SF/IRA and the other 19th Century nation staters. People like Michael McDowell and previously John Bruton could and even might persuade Unionists that their way of life was not under threat and that they could play a role in a new country but they have bigger and more urgent fish to fry.

I've always supported the idea of having a border poll in NI, as part a new agreement. It's only when republicans see the size of the mountain that they have to climb, will they understand that they have no chance of getting anywhere without convincing Unionists (unlikely) or embracing a united Europe (more likely).

Bored,
why I'm nearly blushing here :-).
I am trying not to be a dog (or pig in this case) with a bone on the Commonwealth issue as I have put my query as cleary and reasonably as I think I can.

If I can't get a satisfactory answer then I'll just have to satisfy myself that those I posed the question to are perhaps now asking themselves the same question for the first time.

George

"What is your view on the Cruiser's position, which is why he had to leave the UKUP?"

this completly passed me by. Can you expand a bit. I've tried to google it but without sucess.

Bertie,
Basically, Conor Cruise O'Brien suggested that unionism should seriously consider "suing" for unity now and cut a deal with the people of the Irish Republic directly rather than wait for a situation in the future where the British hang unionism out to dry and it is forced into a unitary Irish state on much more unfavourable terms with SF as the largest party in NI and a serious force south of the border too.

I believe another main concern, apart from the welfare of unionists, was the prevention of SF getting the reigns of power on this island, which he saw as an absolute disaster for us all, and, in the interests of us all, he argued that the rest of us should ally together sooner rather than later to prevent it from ever coming to pass.

It was a step too far for the UKUP and I believe he left to protect his friend Bob McCartney as the knives were out for bringing this "southern cuckoo" (my term) into that particular unionist nest.

OMG!

Thanks for that George. I don't know how I missed it at the time.

I would be very interested to know what you think of it Bertie.

Before you answer, if you do, ask yourself who you would like to take the gloves off and really tackle the IRA if they had the full support of 4 million southerners and well over a million northerners, McDowell or Hain? Which one is up to the task and which one wants the job?

I would wager that military courts, would be set up by McDowell within 24 hours of any unity deal. I can hear him now: "Let's go to war."

George

My first preference to tackle the IRA is that nanny woman of the TV who helps parents set boundaries and makes use of the naughty step, showing them that if they back down the toddlers will bank that and demand more!

I will try and answer your question, but be warned it will not give you any insights into "unionist" thinking as it is a very individual take on it. I am a strange person.

I am a unionist. I am never going to want a united ireland unless the rest of you (you are in the Rep if I remember rightly?) want to come back in.

That is just a matter of identity/preference. There is no great principle to it.

I am also wedded to the principle of consent, and that is based on a principle, regardless of my identity/preference. I would rather have a united Ireland by true consent (not from fear that it is the only way to pacify the IRA) than what we have now, in terms of cross border bodies that the majority did not want but voted for because they were threatened into voting for it for "peace". I am not an advocate of this Union. I am not an "ist" of the present "ism". That probably makes me very atypical. Not being bombed, frightened, pushed etc. into a united Ireland is actually more important to me than, if we are i.e. means are more important than ends(although I would be distraught, but that wouldn't matter).

I tend to be more fired up by the rules than the outcome as the rules are where the morality lies, if the rules are right, the result can only offend my preference.

Paul Bew, an amiable man, but not over burdened by intellectual rigour, once said to me re the fight against republicanism, "if you play by the rules, you lose". (He was not by the way advocating breaking the law, just in case this is misinterpreted). My reply was "what if it is the rules themselves that you are playing for".

So much as I love CCOB, my problem with it is that I am more interested in establishing better rules than cutting a deal for the least worst result, which is how I interpret your explanation.

CCOB's wife I think is a lovely lady. She is a nationalist. Unlike Connor, she wants a united Ireland. I was talking to her about one under the crown and no she wasn't having any of it which was fine. At the same time she was totally opposed to the agreement for all the reasons I was, prisoner releases etc. and the pressure for the majority to agree to stuff they didn't actually want to get "peace". For me she and I could have fought side by side for the rules and then when it came to perhaps a border poll, we would be on opposite sides, battling away like fury for the result we wanted.

So McDowell would make a better fist at dealing with them than Hain, (I have a punnet of rotting strawberries in my fridge that would also) but to bring that about I would have had to give in to what the IRA wanted.

I hope that makes sence. You now just have to ask the rest of the unionist population.

I will arise and go now,
And start a blog called
"a punnet of rotting strawberries"

Thanks, Bertie, for that great image; and apologies to Mr. Yeats.

Cheers Alan

I was about to throw it out, but I am wondering if I could get a campaign going to have it named as Sec of State?

"The loyalists need education and a realistic worldview and all they are getting are the conspiracy theories and paranoia of the DUP. It's not sustainable and it's certainly not right."

Posted by: lib2016 at July 30, 2005 08:08 PM

Their right to be British was effectively attacked, and there is still an active secret criminal irish separatist conspiracy. SFPIRA helped to create the DUP, just as Ian Paisley and Unionist reactionaries helped to create PIRA.

Is the last bit talking about the PIRA campaign?

Small wonder the prods like sticking with the Brits, who still do honourable stuff like stopping ethnic cleansing in the Balkans and paying back the Yanks for saving us all (yes all) from fascism and communism. Even the Falklands war resulted in a gang of thugs in dress uniform being kicked out of government in Argentina. Being British provides an interesting view of the world.

Jigging at the crossroads a la Dev, while millions may die, doesn't quite cut it for them.

That is not to say that the British don't want shot of the loyalists, of course, its just that the Brits would not have them shot.

Makes a lot of sense to me Bertie, in the comprehension sense, that is.

Although I seriously wonder if such a unitary state would be what the IRA wants and that by cutting the deal now, rather than later, unionism would be stopping the IRA getting what many believe it really wants, which is power over the people of this island. Can be argued both ways, I suppose.

The only point I would make about the rules is that, like the battle against Foot and Mouth, they are best done on an all-island basis.

And as things stand at the moment and for as far into the future as I can imagine, that punnet of rotting strawberries in your fridge has a better chance of being elected Taoiseach than the Irish people voting themselves into a union with Great Britain.

That just leaves the other option, which is our northern brethren voting to join us. Also unlikely but a lot less unlikely and a hell of a lot more achievable than the first option.

We have to do something in the meantime which I suppose brings me back to where I was at the beginning, a view with which even someone with as pronounced unionist attitudes as Barnshee agrees.

Work together for the benefit of all in any way we can and see how we feel about each other then.

Robbo

"the political class probably deserved what they got for the last 30 years, but the protestant working class certainly did not"

You thought that might have been one of mine. I don't recognise it. Very few people deserved the last 30 years at all. What an obscene waste.

George

The devil is in the detail. I am very protective of the border (good fences make for good neighbours) and more so because me and mine have been bombed and shot to force me to give it up or force others to take it away from me.

But even if that stopped I would still be protective of it. On the other hand, in principle I don't have objections to co-operation as long as its not forced on us. Then no matter how much practical sense it might make I would oppose it (the rules again).

I have to say that although I do not have an "Irish" identity at all now. I used to - a bit - as my mother saw herself as Irish. Totally British, totally unionist and totally Irish. We used to be sent to school each St Patrick's day, covered in shamrock and when I first moved to London, she had been worrying about how she should best send me over some! When abroad she would have called herself "Irish" if asked. The IRA has weaned me off this.

I would still have a 9 county Ulster identity and I regret that it was partitioned. I am planning to annex it and have just formed a new political party, with the punnet of rotting strawberries as deputy leader. (but I think it is conspiring with the remains of a bottle of orange juice to affect a coup).

In general I am more likely to make friends with someone if I am under no pressure to.

Sorry, i write as a Tyrone native who has lived in London for the last 15yrs, i have been schooled in British and not Irish history (that i read myself), i was a Scout who was made stand and salute the Union jack every wk (closed my eyes) and marched with said scout group during St.Georges day parades,when i work i am propping up the British economy and get paid with notes that have pictures of Elizabeth Regina upon them, the flags i see on public buildings are Union flags, every time i fill a form with my address it states that i live in the UK, the papers i read and shows i watch depict Ireland as a foreign country and are designed to promote an identity of Britishness, i can only vote for British parties at election time,2 of my 3 closest friends are English Protestants, i have had 2 long-term relationships both to English women, one catholic and one protestant, have travelled extensively within England and appreciate its fine brewing tradition(!) and through all of this i still hold a proud Irish identity.
Can someone please tell me how a northern protestant suddenly finding themselves in a secular 32-county republic could suddenly feel that their identity is being stripped from them?
Because to me it sounds ridiculous

I will presume you mean unionist not protestant, because otherwise I don't understand the question.

Part of my identity is loyalty to my country, ie. the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I would feel no loyalty to a 32 county Ireland

The identity i refer to is 'British' which the majority of northern Protestants and unionists find affinity with.
I live in Britain and still feel Irish. Could you not live in 'Ireland' and still feel British?
Unionist is a political persuasion and not an identity. I would class myself as a socialist, it doesn't take that belief away from me that i live in a non-socialist state or that i don't live in Sweden or Cuba.
I hope this clears up that i refer to British identity.

KeithM
The people who are the most likely to convince Unionists of the merits of a "united Ireland" are those that are most despised by SF/IRA and the other 19th Century nation staters. People like Michael McDowell and previously John Bruton.

This comment of yours made me sit up, particularly when considered along side bertie's statements.

Not being bombed, frightened, pushed etc. into a united Ireland is actually more important to me than, if we are i.e. means are more important than ends(although I would be distraught, but that wouldn't matter).

bertie
You are not actually alone in your point of view. It is very similar to mine as explained to George in my 09:40 post.

George
Why do I not want to be in a United Ireland? because the IRA spent the last 35 years trying to bomb me into one. As Bertie Ahern stated the other day, they have put a United Ireland back for decades, perhaps for ever.

Remember the Alamo

Moderate Unionist,
I never asked you or anyone else why you did not want to be in a united Ireland for the very reason that it would elicit the stock reply you gave, which, believe it or not, I've heard before and fully digested.

You probably never heard of Doogism but it is a little known method of reaching compromise and agreement, first thought up by Fine Gael's Jim Dooge.

During his time in Europe, if a proposal of his for some funding or other came back with a no, he would ask "what parts do you say yes to" and then redraft and resubmit. The Europeans had never seen anything like it.

I would ask you, for the sake of discussion, to do a Dooge and forget what you say no to when it comes to dealing with the people of the Irish Republic, who, by the way, never gave SF any political mandate and even now only give them 5 out of 166 Dail seats.

95% of southerners didn't vote SF in the last general election and before the ceasefire it was 99%.

You may want to blame the Irish but
it's the part of this island run by the British state which has spawned the loyalist and republican monster and you do me and my 4.1 million compatriots a disservice by lumping us all in the militant republican boat.

But that is neither here nor there, I just wanted to point it out as you seem to be using the IRA as an excuse for the barge pole method of argumentation you are using.

So if you could be so kind as to put it away for a moment and let your imagination fly.

What in the current Irish Republic do you say yes to?

What is missing that you would certainly need to have to say yes to?

If these questions are too absurd for a dye-in-the wool moderate unionist like yourself, I fully understand and will instead ask you to answer some more partionist-friendly ones.

What can the Irish population say yes to in the current Northern Ireland? Their your compatriots after all, you of all people should know their needs.

What needs to be in place in a future Northern Ireland for them to give an unqualified yes to that state?

George

And do you agree that a dark future still lies ahead for NI because this entity will never be able to deliver economically or socially?

That old chestnut!

You could have said that about RoI up until the 1980s, but no one suggested abolishing it. Instead they changed some fundamentals (they got rid of Nationalism for a start!) and delivered.

Same applies to NI. And I fear no end of IRA statements or even devolved institutions will make any difference - only the abolition of sectarianism (and different Nationalisms) and introduction of proper economic and social reality will.

Towards a New Ireland
Cumann Rodaí Mhic Corlaí
Fri 5th August 7pm
Members of the New Ireland Group (people with an Ulster Protestant background who have an all-Ireland vision) will take with members of Coiste na n-Iarchimí about the vision they all have for a new Ireland. It will be followed by a question and answer session from the floor.

Should be interesting...

Very amusing comments from Bertie, he is supposed to be a committed republican yet when asked if he actually wants a united Ireland he hmms and haas!

Is he really a republican or is he just too scared to be more hardline?!

'The people who are the most likely to convince Unionists of the merits of a "united Ireland" are those that are most despised by SF/IRA and the other 19th Century nation staters. People like Michael McDowell and previously John Bruton. '

The most intelligent post on this thread by a mile. I'm a persuadable Unionist but Nationalists need to understand that the greatest threat to Irish unity comes from the bright green extremists who are barely able to contain their 'one settler one bullet' rhetoric and their proto-chav foot soldiers who are turning parts of Belfast and Derry into anti-social hell-holes.

I remember reading a book, 'All our tomorrows' about a Soviet invasion of Britain. The boys in Red appeared in Belfast to be greated by the ecstatic Provisional revolutionaries. They expected medals and got shoved against the wall with the rest of the paddies. I don't know what my point is but it was a good read.

"Hundreds of thousands of Irish people are actively involved in the Irish language just as tens of thousands of people are involved in the OO." -George

Now really George-even the good people of Dingle don't really swallow that one. Unless of course you mean by "active involvement" the thousands struggling with their leaving cert irish, to be jettisoned immediately thereafter, or the road sign makers inventing such linguistic gems as "lana tram" or "lana bus" to paint on the streets of Dublin.

You're normally quite good on marshalling statsitcs- your hyperbole here shows the bankruptcy of your point, and your argument. As I posted on another thread ( and you signally failed to answer the point)- until Cork is ready for orangemen, ireland isn't ready for unifiacation.

Your squirming at something so anodyne as Commonwealth membership shows you haven't even begun to calculate the price we'd make you pay for integrating us into your state.

George

You are becoming a serious threat to the union . Getting people to agree with you,appointing personable people as president (not the present one the previous) God knows where this sort of thing could lead there might actually be meaningful N/S co-operation. (dont`t worry SF?PIRA will spoil it again circa 2010/2012 when the "progress" stalls)

Thoughts on the OO. It wasn't founded in 1690 to defend the Reformation or the proto-democracy of the parliament of the time. It was founded in 1795 in response to the Relief Act of 1793 (which gave catholics the vote though not the right to sit in parliament). It's purpose is discrimination, not celebration and it's an embarrassment to any prod with a brain.

George, I know you mean well but when you give this bunch of shits the same regard as the restoration of a language which is part of the heritage of all of us it feels like I'm being kinda patronised. You can, if you really want to, still attend a wee-free service given with full Big Ian fervour on North Uist given in Gallic. I'm told that a speaker of Munster Irish can hold a converstaion with a speaker of North Uist Gallic without reversion to English, even though these dialects are at the extremes of the spectrum.

An interesting stat, if that's your thing, is that most adult learners of Irish in the North are prods. Maybe everyone else had enough at school.

We've been stuck for far too long between two exceptionalist extremes - two sets of bigots defining themselves by what they're not, not what they are.

Regarding Irish identity - make me one with everything, as the Dalai Lama said to the hot dog vendor.

hyperlink

Your squirming at something so anodyne as Commonwealth membership shows you haven't even begun to calculate the price we'd make you pay for integrating us into your state.

David Brew and IJP is 'agreeing on something other than Arsenal' shocker...

Although I wouldn't be anything like so vitriolic with regard to George's postings, which are always well thought out. It is quite correct to point out the reality that Nationalist Ireland has to face though (and that does not for one second mean there aren't a few uncomfortable realities for Unionism to face up to too).

Your 4.07PM is probably correct.

Which confirms my initial point.

If the broad population of Ireland can't or won't deal with the British aspect of their identity, unity with their British fellow-islanders remains a pipe-dream.

I'm surprised with you Ian - very surprised because I never thought you'd venture down a nationalistic road whereby you start dictating to other people what they are. If you don’t mind me saying so, this sort of behaviour is nothing short of cultural imperialism - a trait common to both british and irish nationalists. So please, I would greatly appreciate if you would take our word for it when we, as southerners, proclaim our Irishness. Granted, some of us may happen to be anglophilic i.e.) actually feel comfortable with aspects of British culture, but we are who we say we are nonetheless – we’re Irish full stop. When it’s the other way round and Unionists tell me they are simply British, I believe they mean what they say because at the end of the day no-one has given me the right to tell other people what they are.

With regard to the second part of your sentence, your right of course - unity isn't a plausible option because the Irish state would have to re-form a stale sense of NI Britishness - an identity which has long since been marginalised within Britain itself.

Part and parcel of all this is the fact that the royals are an indivisible part of NI British identity - an issue which will always be problematic for us southerners because we get this instinctive sense of revulsion with the very thought of monarchy. Thats why we don't want the Irish state to be uploaded with that sort of narrowed vision of Britishness, as it is akin to saying that this is the be-all and end-all when considering what it means to belong in these islands. Being part of the archipelago, for what it's worth, may mean a million things to as many different people - it shouldn't revolve around the trappings of british monarchy to such an exaggerated extent - unless, that is, you live in Northern Ireland and your a bog-standard unionist.

In a nutshell then, I (like most southerners, I'd imagine) don't want the Irish state contaminated by the monarchy in the same way that the British state is at present, so yes I am content, for now, with the present Irish Republic outside the Commonwealth. If we went down the monarchy road for the sake of compromise then we’d be simply pandering to the demands of Redmondite nationalists and NI loyalists alike when its in the national interest to suit ourselves, and our republican way of life.

Equal rights for Protestants in the Republic is a relativly new thing. It's only in the last 30 years that the "special position" of the Catholic church has been removed from the constitution, divorce and contraception have been legalised and homosexuality has been de-criminalised.

Its too simplistic to blame the Irish state or the RC church entirely for this state of affairs - the COI were a conservative lot as well. They had ample opportunity to advocate full separation of Church and State for instance, but refrained from giving any support to the Separate Church and State campaign of the 60's/70's. Too self-obsessed with the privileged position they themselves held within the Irish establishment, I suppose, to lend any help or support to those liberal minded Protestants and Catholic who were active (no thanks to the COI) in the struggle to enhance the secular character of the State.

Mister
Perhaps in the early sixties Unionists might have been persuaded to buy into a federal solution.
Now I have no respect for a southern government which claims me as a citizen of the island but totally discriminates against me on a minute by minute basis.Where is the consideration for the Unionist people of Northern Ireland? Where is the equality agenda for Unionist rights and culture?
How do you expect Unionists to respond to the attempts by the IRA and Sinn Fein to ethnically cleanse Northern Ireland of those who seek to remain within the United Kingdom? The answer is still,"No Surrender." The persecution of the Unionist people will strenghten their resolve to resist the IRA/Sinn Fein with all the democratic power it can muster.Those hoping for a United Ireland would be well advised not to hold their breath in anticipation.
T.Ruth

T.Ruth

'Now I have no respect for a southern government which claims me as a citizen of the island but totally discriminates against me on a minute by minute basis'

Whats going on lad? The gobshite Bertie hasn't been giving you pester calls 30 times a day calling you a useless so and so has he? I'm behind you on this, just hang up the phone and call both the PSNI and Garda. Don't even stay on that line for a second, it'll only encourage the wee elf.

and more seriously..

'Where is the consideration for the Unionist people of Northern Ireland'

I've been trying to get a little more out of 'unionists' on this to little avail. It seems that if i ask you to give your identity, its not British, Protestant, Irish, Northern Irish or Atheist but Unionist.

When did people start defining their core identity as the political persuasion they follow?

Should i drop my Irish identity and label myself as Socialist? Thats the problem with defining yourself as a political persuasion, i just keep thinking that Britain and the rest of the west are not taking into account my identity, its really infuriating,i mean how can i give them my respect when they so flippantly dismiss my identity? See we could all be very angry, hurt and confused if we identify ourselves on nothing more than a political issue..

"Whats going on lad? The gobshite Bertie hasn't been giving you pester calls 30 times a day"

I nearly responded to this!

BTW My idenity is British - United Kingdom British that is not Great British

Ah, finally an answer! i didn't realise there were so many sub-sects to Britishness but each to their own and you've defined yourself as 'United Kingdom British'. I have to confess i find this description as a litle contrived. Why not just say you're 'British' with pro-union views? I mean at the airport when asked for your nationality or on a form do you say 'UKBritish'?
If you maved to Canada, would you be a British-Canadian or a United Kingdom British -Canadian?

In earlier posts i stated that i live in London and am surrounded by Britishness and hundreds of other nationalities and cultures, all very welcome, and still feel safe in my Irishness.
Do you really think that living in a secular United Ireland would somehow erode your essential Britishness?

Although i've never described myself as 'United Ireland Irish' ,i am Irish with UI views but this ideal is not a reality and i don't live in Ireland. If you were in my shoes, wholly undesirable as they mey seem (!), would you be thinking that you're not really Irish with these realities abound?

The fundamental point is the seperation of a nationality from a political persuasion. Your political persuasion may be or may not be the winning argument, it may lose but no-one can take your nationality away from you. Hence, in a UI, you'd be no less British than you are now

My mother maved to Canada, but my father followed her, so that's where my sister was born.

Toronto, actually, then they moved to Chicago, and eventually to New York City. My father was always glad that he moved to the USA, became a citizen, and always called himself an American! To avoid talking about Northern Ireland during the Troubles, my mother said she was from Scotland.

I've been to all 3 cities. New York is amazing with great people, Chicago looks a lot like NY but its broad shoulders had too many chips on them and Toronto was a little bland. I much preferred Vancouver and Montreal in Canada but ita great country. I love the energy of the states but my politics are best suited to Canada. Glad it worked out for your parents. Its funny how some countries like USA inspired people to adopt its nationality when compared to Ireland...

Identity is multifaceted

When I talk to myself I do just call myself British.

The reason I specified United Kingdom British not Great British is that I am not English, Scotish or Welsh and I get the impression that nationalists think that that is Britishness and that that is what we want to be.

If I went to Canada I would not be Canadian at all.

I would personnally agree that what ever the IRA and Tony Blair do I will still be British because it is in me and does not need external validation. I also want NI to stay British territory. (Actually I want the 9 counties of Ulster to be British territory again) and yes again I agree that this is political, but that is itself an identity.

My Tyrone accent has often been mistaken for Scottish and American and bizarrely Australian on a few occassions. Its a cloak that you're mother employed well

'When I talk to myself '

Is this the pro-union part of your identity communicating with you UK British aspect of it? ;)

'The reason I specified United Kingdom British not Great British is that I am not English, Scotish or Welsh and I get the impression that nationalists think that that is Britishness and that that is what we want to be'

Mate, i've already said you've got the right to call yourself British as you would do in a UI. BTW, is it UK British so as not to state Irish- British?

'If I went to Canada I would not be Canadian at all.'

British loyalists left the States after the American revolution and fled to Canada. All Canadians now...of British descent.

'(Actually I want the 9 counties of Ulster to be British territory again)'

If the principle of consent to join with the other provinces is still kept, i'm right behind you on that!

'yes again I agree that this is political, but that is itself an identity.'

The crux of our problem. Governments, whether the Irish or British body, can protect and safeguard your rights regarding your Nationality/Race/Religion/Gender and Sexual Orientation but not your political persuasion. No Govt, a political body can guarantee you that the political aspect of your identity can be safeguarded from attack or political defeat, doing this would be tyrannical on others of your nationality who didn't share your politics.
Most of your identity is catered for, i wouldn't advise having political persuasion as a central aspect of your identity, the winds could change and you'd become as miserable as a Hamptons Trotskyite.... but you'd still be British and so still have something to cheer about!

"Is this the pro-union part of your identity communicating with you UK British aspect of it? ;)"

Oh there are a lot more sides to me than that - there are a lot of us in here!

"BTW, is it UK British so as not to state Irish- British?"

not sure I understand but UK British because UK is the country that that is the basis of the identity and Ireland is not a subset of that country - that might not answer your question but as I said not sure I understood it.

"British loyalists left the States after the American revolution and fled to Canada. All Canadians now...of British descent."

yeah but if I went I'd not consider myself Canadian

"'(Actually I want the 9 counties of Ulster to be British territory again)'

If the principle of consent to join with the other provinces is still kept, i'm right behind you on that!"

I've no objections to the other three provinces joining the Union as well (are you sure this is what you meant to endorse?). At one time it would have been a positive desire. If there was to be a united British Isles, I would still like Ulster to have a separate identity. I wonder what would have happened if Ulster had remained intact in the Union after partition. I agree with the Unionist leaders at the time who wanted this because they actually wanted there not to be such a Protestant majority.

"The crux of our problem. Governments, whether the Irish or British body, can protect and safeguard your rights regarding your Nationality/Race/Religion/Gender and Sexual Orientation but not your political persuasion"

I don't think I want it to. I beleive passionately in individual rights but I am unconvinced about group rights. In principle, I don't see the difference between extracting the micheal because I am an Anglical and doing the same because I am a unionist and to me both should be allowed. God's ego is not a fragile as mine, no matter how some of His other followers try to protect it. Similarly I don't see that it is OK to discriminate against me in employment because I am an Anglican or as a unionist (unless it is for a job in the Presbyterian church or the SDLP. Although when the Labour Party would not allow people in NI to join, citing that they advised people in NI to join the SDLP. I wanted to get a gang of us out and out unionists to go en mass to join up at a local SDLP association, and either get rejected or take over the assocaition and declare it pro-Union. I couldn't get anyone else to do it - some people are no fun!)

The principle of consent would have to be two ways! I can't see the people of Connaught re-joining the UK but i'd put a wager on Ulster folk voting to join the rest of the Republic.

The point i'm making tonight is that a UI could safeguard your identity. If the unionist aspect of your identity was politically defeated, you'd still have a unionist aspect to your identity. So in finishing, a UI is not an attack on your identity. At least no more than the similar attack that the refusal of the Corr sisters to sleep with me has on my identity. They are wishes, not rights.

I must say goodnight to you. Work in the morning, fill up the British coffers so it can keep NI afloat, i ought to be tarred and feathered ;)

"Actually I want the 9 counties of Ulster to be British territory again".

Well Bertie, I live in Donegal. You abondoned us and felt free to let us stay in the Free State. That was betrayel to your Ulster comrades. We had every right to become part of NI. Tell us now why we should move into NI now after you all betrayed us.

Davidbrew,
I am in Canada, where they talk of English and French, no British, so I don't have access to my Irish language armoury but i do know that there are six adult irish classes in ucc and all are oversubscribed.

I don't know how many signed the petitition for Irish to be made an EU language but that might have got us well towards the figure. Add on the people watching Irish language and the 60,000 native speakers and we are home.

I asked you before, how many southern oo members are there today. No agenda, I would love to know without having to hear the history.

For all those who think the world cares about our spot I asked in Montreal today which was the terminal for flights to Ireland and got the answer: "There is a sign in the concourse which will tell you where the flights to Asia go sir."

Mister

To reiterate :-
"I wonder what would have happened if Ulster had remained intact in the Union after partition. I agree with the Unionist leaders at the time who wanted this because they actually wanted there not to be such a Protestant majority."

It wasn't me! I am half Donegal myself. Considering how fertile my Donegal forefathers were we are probably blood relations.

"Tell us now why we should move into NI now after you all betrayed us."

My desire is not your obligation.

Nathan

I would vehemently disagree that what I wrote was 'cultural imperialism', but you are right to pick up that my view on these things is not the standard 'we all select our own culture'. Because that is in fact politically correct nonsense.

You do not in fact select your culture, merely the label you choose to apply to it. Your culture - in the broadest sense, including economic identity and so on - is something you grow up with and something ingrained in you from your formative years. The politically correct nonsense has only led to a situation where we use 'culture' to batter the other side over the head or to access public funds for pointless projects on the basis of 'equality'. It's time the nonsense was overturned.

The people of Ireland generally are 'British' in the sense that their forefathers played a fundamental part in the history of the British State (and even Empire), in the sense that they watch Coronation Street and Premiership football, in the sense that they drink tea and have roast dinners, in the sense that they function within a liberal market-economy system. These are all broadly 'British' cultural traits not shared, for example, in Continental Europe - not in that they necessarily come from 'Great Britain', but in that they unify Ireland and Great Britain as a single cultural and social unit to some extent. That is the way it is, it is not 'cultural imperialism' to point it out - although it is 'cultural nationalism' (again an outdated concept) to deny it. Likewise the people of all of Ireland are unified by certain cultural, social and economic traits (e.g. the banks), so everyone on this island is 'Irish'. Again they may choose to deny that label, but they cannot deny the reality.

Until people get used to these realities (and political correctness stops allowing people to deny them), and stop seeing anything labelled 'British' or 'Irish' as automatically 'the enemy', and indeed stop dealing in 'labels', we will not get anywhere.

The truth is sometimes uncomfortable!

Scots Irish. That's what the yanks call us. Or Anglo Scots Irish if your Mum's english. Or Anglo Scots Irish Cymreag, if you've got a Welsh aunty. Or Northern European? We've all got a bit of Viking in us. Or European - how many genes did the Romans leave behind? Or African? - we're all descended from African people after all? EMEA?

cymraeg

I'm a Brit of Irish, Italian and English descent. Have lived in the States (against my will) since a child. I am a practising RC. I sympathise very much with people of the south and Catholics of the north yet consider myself very British. I suppose nationality (or tribal affiliation) is mostly emotional so that makes it the number one driving force in most peoples political identity. If I were living in NI I wouldn't have a problem going for a United Ireland except for one thing. Yes we all hear how civil liberties, religious freedom, blah, blah blah are going to be respected etc, etc. But the same can be said of most western nations so thats not a big draw. What about protecting rights from outside forces - i.e. Nazism, Argentine juntas? You get my point, the Irish republic has a spotty record when it comes to this sort of thing. In the back of their minds I think many Brits feel that the gov't of the Republic of Ireland is not the sort of gov't that will put the protection of all citizens of all the nations of the British Isles high on its priority list - even if that means fighting a common enemy to defend Irish & British values and citizens equally - YES iT COULD HAPPEN AND WHERE DO YOU STAND?. Perhaps one reason many Brits in the North (sorry for the label) feel a United Ireland should join the Commonwealth is because they feel it is a litmus test for the RoI putting their money where their mouth is. I would not want to be a citizen of an RoI that doesn't give two farts for the rights of its neighbors. Nations that sit on the sidelines when democracies are being pummeled by totalitarian states do not good protectors make.

Nations that sit on the sidelines when democracies are being pummeled by totalitarian states do not good protectors make.

Can't resist the bait....

there are those who would say that the biggest spot of on all the spotted record was when the state 'stood idly by' while Catholics in Belfast and elsewhere in the north were pummelled by the forces of a totalitarian state for demanding Civil Rights in the late 60's.

But like your post, it is all a matter of perspective.

"Can't resist the bait...."

Well, I can. The UK gov't is much like the RoI gov't -imperfect. It has attempted to make some sort of amends regards this shameful past. But lets look forward - I say again: YES IT COULD HAPPEN AND WHERE DO YOU STAND?

Leaving aside the fact that they failed to address him as Taoiseach ...

Why would they?

Would they address, say, the Italian prime minister with the Italian name for prime minister?

cladycowboy: Do you really think that living in a secular United Ireland would somehow erode your essential Britishness?

Well, we could make everyone happy with the whole of Ireland within a United Kingdom then. After all - "Do you really think that living in a secular United Kingdom would somehow erode your essential Irishness?"

The people of Ireland generally are 'British' in the sense that their forefathers played a fundamental part in the history of the British State (and even Empire), in the sense that they watch Coronation Street and Premiership football, in the sense that they drink tea and have roast dinners, in the sense that they function within a liberal market-economy system.

Granted, there is plenty of material from the past and present from which to build a British cultural identity if we so choose. But the same could be said for our transoceanic identity as well – since we could equally make the statement that Ireland is an American country for having McDonalds or Starbucks Coffee or Intel, full stop. Or as we say in our Americanised way, period. But we don’t – our nationality is still Irish and all the undeniable British and American cultural dominance in Irish life is not going to change that position one inch.

Don't get me wrong, there are anomalies to the simply Irish rule - fringe outlets such as the Reform Movement for instance, actively subscribe to the hyphenated ‘British-Irish’ identity. So in this sense, identities need not be a motley collection of hats. The old Anglo-Irish identity existed for the best part of two centuries so I have no objections when people(mainly Castle Catholics in the Irish Republic) want to cherish that newly found West British identity of theirs. Each to their own is my motto – since I think this British and Irish and 'British-Irish' labelling business is little more than fiction conjured up inside our own heads anyway i.e. a mere social construction.

Talking about social constructions, a moments thought to spare about being Irish, is enough to tell me that it is not a matter of birth, religion, and politics - which might disqualify Theobald Wolfe Tone, Eamon deValera, or Nicky Campbell - but our willingness to say it is so. Being Irish has something to do with the stand-up-and-be-counted thing that makes us correct those who like to think of us as British i.e. "I am what I remember myself to be", to borrow John Locke’s words. You've called this 'cultural nationalism', but I don't see it this way - for I recognise that there is little cultural difference btw the component parts of the archipelago - since they all draw heavily on each other and I've already pointed out the pervasive Americanisation of culture. This is the reality as you point out, yet it does us no good whatsoever, because at the end of the day there isn't a snowballs chance in hell that we'd ever knock on the door of the UK and ask for re-admission to Westminster - for that day is long gone. So, by all means recognise the archipelago as the cultural and social unit if you so wish - but don't think for one nanosecond that this will translate into an all-islands political union because all the rational thought in the world won't make it happen. Not to worry though - most of us are content with the present Irish state, irrespective of its faults, whether past or present.

I AM WHAT I'M NOT

I got my new vocation
Following Plantation
I'm simply British now
And I'm ready for a row

I'm as Green as grass
And I'm very fond of Mass
I'm on the brew in Derry
And I want them on the Ferry.

I'm a poor old 'Trevor'
And I can't be very clever
For I'm always in the middle
Of this hateful, squalid riddle

Well, I can. The UK gov't is much like the RoI gov't -imperfect. It has attempted to make some sort of amends regards this shameful past.
agreed - btw I was referring to the Stormont government not the British government.

But lets look forward - I say again: YES IT COULD HAPPEN AND WHERE DO YOU STAND?

Not sure exactly what apocalyptic future you are looking to - since the Vikings gave up we've really been self-sufficient when it comes to warfare and mayhem - but regardless of what the British people or indeed the Irish people think would happen in that situation, behind the scenes every assitance would be given to Britain, not out of goodness but out of necessity. As usual it would be all cloaked in the neutrality fudge. I don't think you quite understand how close co-operation is between the two is, not just at governmental level, but also official level.

I'm not sure what apocalyptic future either - but it is possible and when (not if) Brits and Irish alike get past the bitterness and realize that they are truly similar peas in a single pod (as far as the rest of the world is concerned) then maybe. Unification means lots of things to different people and electricity, motorways and train schedules aren't really the big issues. But your statement "not out of goodness but out of necessity" doesn't really reassure - I hope it is not representative. Personally I feel that as long as the bitter nuts on both sides (Paisley, McG & co) are unable to TRULY forgive (not necessarily forget) then reunification will not work. This means that reunification is not likely to be politically possible until those bitter, sinful old men they are in their graves.

Not sure exactly what apocalyptic future you are looking to - since the Vikings gave up we've really been self-sufficient when it comes to warfare and mayhem - but regardless of what the British people or indeed the Irish people think would happen in that situation, behind the scenes every assitance would be given to Britain, not out of goodness but out of necessity. As usual it would be all cloaked in the neutrality fudge

...and if you want a demonstration of that look at WW2 and how many German pilots were repatriated compared to British pilots or, indeed, how many Irish served in the British Army.

Nathan

I guess the crux, always awkward for Liberals, goes back to the old line 'you cannot tolerate intolerance'.

Likewise, you cannot actually allow people to claim they are what they're not and dress this up as 'being free to select culture'.

That leads to situations where people define, for example, 'Irishness' as being something to do with Gaelicness, certain ideals concerning freedom and such like, and indeed 'anti-Britishness'. But that is a false claim. I am 'Irish', but would disagree on all three. So that 'freedom of cultural choice' in fact leads to a situation where one version of 'Irishness' (or 'Britishness' or 'Ulster-Scotsness' or whatever) becomes dominant, and other people are left unable to lay any claim to it. And such a situation is clearly intolerable.

We can start by noting straight out that Gerry Adams does NOT represent 'the Irish people' and Ian Paisley does NOT represent 'the Ulster people'. Their claims on those identities are wrong, full stop.

I got directed here from the BBC website and I must say this thread has taught me more about the issues on the island of Ireland than five years of newspapers.

Without wishing to fan the flames, I thought I'd offer the perspective of an Englishman with no Irish roots whatsover. If NI was to become part of the ROI it would probably create as much fuss over here as if Gibraltar was ceded to the Spanish. The news would have it as their lead story for about a week and then return to pressing stories such as The wallpaper in the House of Commons and surfing dogs. The most pressing concern over here would be where we would get our cheap non-year specific car numberplates from in the future.

A few years ago I was working in an office and a colleague was travelling to Belfast to see a potential supplier, and asked me if he needed his passport. I'm sure it matters very much on the island of Ireland, but I think you'd be surprised how little it seems to matter to most people over here.

Oh and something I forgot, I was talking to a colleague here about the IRA declaration and she asked me what the name of "that Irish politician" was. I said Gerry Adams, and she said "no, the other one, the vicar".

OMG!!!

I realise this discuassion has ended....but I for one DO NOT WANT my COUNTRY joined in a united Ireland to the UK province north of the Irish border.

It would cost too damn much for the ROI and makes absolutely no sense as we are all part of the EU.

The DUP have the right idea....partnership only in economic relations...but NEVER political integration...NEVER!!!!

Just come across this blog. Fascinating. I note, though, that it is all in English. Jolly good of the pro Irish `Irish is our language' to use it. Indeed, keep on using it if you want to see a united Ireland. The Good Friday Agreement acceded to Sinn Fein's requiest to promote Irish thus ensuring that Unionists will resist cultural imperialism by the Irish and, when in the years ahead, a vote might be in point and it is clear that it is not Catholicism that is being imposed but an alien culture (to the English) Unionism will be able to resist - and with the support of the English.

Sports the key, everyone would vote for UI if there was a Premiership place for an Irish club , the Commonwealth games and the Open golf on the table

Sports the key, everyone would vote for UI if there was a Premiership place for an Irish club , the Commonwealth games and the Open golf on the table

Sports the key, everyone would vote for UI if there was a Premiership place for an Irish club , the Commonwealth games and the Open golf on the table

Sports the key, everyone would vote for UI if there was a Premiership place for an Irish club , the Commonwealth games and the Open golf on the table

Tony,

'The Good Friday Agreement acceded to Sinn Fein's requiest to promote Irish thus ensuring that Unionists will resist cultural imperialism by the Irish and, when in the years ahead, a vote might be in point and it is clear that it is not Catholicism that is being imposed but an alien culture (to the English)'

Gather around Tony and his like. Irish is to be promoted and not enforced. No-one will be forced to speak it. Seems to me you find this sort of promotion offensive, would you not feel some kinship with the Gaelic-speaking Irish who had English 'promoted' upon them?

Irish speaking is indeed an alien culture to the English but as its not being promoted in England you've nothing to fear Tony. Its there for anyone in Ireland who wants to use or learn it. Tony, you and your English neighbours will be safe from this cultural imperialism. One day you may even get a whiff of irony, a cairde, my friend.

PHILIP:

I think you're on to something there old man.

Cladycowboy:

Pls ignore Tony - he is no more representative of the British side than Ringo is of the Irish side.

Philip,
the majority of Dubliners don't want a Premiership club, which is where it would have to be, because it would be a nightmare having thousands of drunken English football fans every second weekend.

Much more fun travelling over there to get drunk, and that's the truth.

On the Commonwealth Games, we really don't care not out of any anti-Britishness but because when we had our membership terminated by the British over 5 decades ago, the world kept turning and nobody has been able to tell us why we should go back.

Nobody is capable of offering a coherent argument as to why Ireland should join the Commonwealth even five decades on. You think they would have come up with something by now.

The unionists here get in a huff if you ask, and start going on about how you don't understand them. But apparently that's my fault so back on with the hair shirt....

Golf, you may be on to something for the upper echelons..

What hope for re unification of our land when diarmuid and the free staters like him use any excuse to prevent it

sup yo! well im a nothern nationalist, please note NATIONALIST. Despite SF's latest statements, whoops ive made a little faus pas, sorry, the IRA's latest statement im still not gonna vote for them. I come from a small village in the north of antrim, some interesting set-ups that the news crews somehow knew about!

neways, my 'unionist' friends always said to me when we had this discussion. 'well its inevitable isnt it?' i could never understand why they said that, thus my answer was a resounding 'NO?'

But now im convinced, if we gradually develope all-ireland bodies for our mutual benifit the eventually it will just happen.

right?

"Alan/OC

My answer to your question is, Yes, the Agreement ends with the Yes vote on unification by the citizens of NI.

The second part of this is wrong. The Agreement requires two referendums, in NI and RoI, for unification.

Posted by: fair_deal at July 29, 2005 04:34 PM"

fair-deal refers to the Agreement * shock *

The very agreement his party says is dead