Part of Ireland is British, part of Britain is Irish, neither of these are bad things.

Sectarianism, oppression, bombings, killings, criminality, corruption, these are bad things.

Neither of these lists *actually* have anything to do with each other or their respective identities.

Part of the population of the island of Ireland has a British identity. Part of the population of NI has a specificaly Irish-Not-British Identity.

There are heroes, villains, plain loonies and decent people on both sides.

Ireland as a whole will never be "free" of Britain, there's too much cultural overlap and exchange, too many people wandering back and forth . Also half of Britain has an Irish granny and half of Ireland has family links that have conveniently forgoton about. This is not a bad thing.

Uniting the island into one country will not solve the problems of NI, only reverse them. If you support this plan then you are not fighting for principles, you fighting only for yourself and are no better than the principles and actions you say you oppose.

Maybe if people understand all that it might be possible to start sorting things out. But while people regard the people they face as something to be removed there'll be nothing to do but fight.

"...would any nationalist or republican want constitutional change without the consent of the vast majority of unionists?"

Same old nonsense about a non-existent unionist veto! Is unionism quite so barren of ideas that we have to put up with this tired repetition of something which wasn't very interesting the first few hundred times?

Is the idea of democracy really so difficult for unionists to understand? Fifty per cent plus one and we're free - got it now?

Ling

Ireland as a whole will never be "free" of Britain, there's too much cultural overlap and exchange, too many people wandering back and forth

In that sense we will never be free of America or Europe either. That doesn't mean we have to have their elected representatives running our government.

The relationship between these islands has been damaged by British support for sectarianism. Normality will emerge when our relationship with Britain is one freely entered into between friendly neighbours.

Lib's picked up an important point re the gearing of any consent to change status. And there's a whole territory of interesting debate for any who wish to open that up further!

However, it seems Ringland may be destined to wait another ten years before he gets a nationalist to answer his honestly put question about whether their concept of Irish nationhood accommodates his British identity.

Well I think Lib is taking nonsense there, no offence Lib. Nationalists won't get their magic 50%+1, so if they want a UI they will need the support of unionists.
And don't forget those south of the border as we will have a say in the matter too. Unionist support ( or lack of ) may swing a lot of southern votes either way.

To Lib2016,
I recognise what you are saying and the democracy definition - no argument there - however the question posed was "What is Nationalism doing to entice Unionism" or something to that effect - and while Nationalists over on this thread's counterpart are waxing lyrical about how Unionists have no interest in co-existance and are much more worried about keeping themselves in the ascendancy and the Catholics down than they are in an actual Union with Britain, etc, etc, ad nauseum - the same posters I guess, are less enthusiastic about tackling the same question posed to them in reverse - yourself included it would seem. Hopefully however this thread will produce some interesting replies for Unionists about how after violence has failed and other than through sheer force of voting numbers, Nationalists intend to bring about a viable, inclusive and ultimately harmonious United Ireland - it isn't all down to Unionist attitutes you know, I can't speak for anyone else but I would be open to persuasion for the right argument - just so long as you Catholics out there remember your place. (sorry - bad joke!)

Being from the south and from Ulster, I'd love to see a United Ireland. But even if it came down to th 50+1% to get it, I'm not so sure that I'd be comfortable with that. I'd much prefer to see a large majority of Unionists supporting the idea.
To begin working towards This end goal attitudes on both sides will have to change. For a start, Unionists would have to be comfortable with the idea that they are Irish. Just like the Scottish are British, Unionists are Irish and British. I don't see why these have to be mutually exclusive. On the Nationalist side, they will have to get comfortable with the fact that a lot of their culture and heritage is not exclusivly theirs, it belongs to anyone (who wants it) born on this island. The sooner culture and religion are taken out of these arguements, we're left with just differing political views. The same as any other place in the world. At this point we can work out where the future of this island lies.

Mick

I don't believe Trevor's question is so difficult to answer. It's just that some people don't like the answer they get.

In essence, one cannot have two masters. One's loyalty is to one or the other.

The points arising are:-

1. Unionists speak of 'having to persuade unionists to vote UI' because Nationalists will never reach 50%+1 alone. Quite possibly true, but this rather misses the point that Nationalists do not have to persude ALL unionists or even a Majority of unionists. Indeed, if we use the very rough figures of currently 40% Nat/ 60% unionists - nationalist ireland would only have to convince 1 in 6 unionists to switch to bring the numbers to 50%/50% - and as the numbers approach each other, that block of 'necessary converts' gets smaller and smaller. e.g.if the numbers were 45%/55% then 1 in 11 unioinists, just 9% of them, would have to switch.

It's quite possible that 80%, even 90% of unionists would vote for the UK, and lose anyway. And if they did, Nationalist Ireland would have very right to insist on UI right then. It's about time that fact was faced. Nationalist will never bother their heads appealing to Paisleyites. The Alderdices, Hermons and Ringlands of this world may or may not be a different story.

If Nationalists do make 'overtures' to unionism, it won't be to big house unionism, it'll be to carefully selected groups within the bloc.

2. The Unionists in a reunited Ireland who gave their loyalty to the new state would be our countrymen without question, and to be defended to the death.

Those who maintained their loyalty to britian but in peaceful ways should in my views be treated with the greatest respect and if possible delicacy as friendly foreign nationals (i.e. UK nationals) , with special rights arising from their birth in Ireland. THey should be encouraged to join the body politic, and efforts to connect them with their british compatriates, and to connect britain and ireland in peace frienship and co-operation should continue apace. I have no desire to even countenance taking someones nationality from them. They too should be defended by all means at our disposal.

Those who protested violently in such circumstances are 'dead-enders'. Frankly they should simply be dealt with through the courts.

I'm afraid I will not countenance a unionist veto. Accepting the population of Northern Ireland as the legitimate group for the purposes of self-determination was a compromise from principal as it is. Further compromises simply in order to facilitate bigotry are unacceptable.

democratic,

Well, if I'm not free I can at least be reasonable. ;-)

Your points about republicans having been defensive rather than trying to attract post-unionist support is fair enough. There's a rapidly increasing part of the unionist community which is simply not represented by the DUP.

Don't forget that both governments and the 'great and good' have been hellbent on putting pressure on Sinn Fein up until very recently. Now the shoe is on the other foot. Unionism and the DUP in particular will have to move or be left behind as they were on decommissioning.

Sinn Fein, and the SDLP to a lesser extent, are going to move into real 32-county politics. Which means of course that anyone who opposes them politically is also going to have to move in the same direction!

Similarly the North/South bodies will draw us into one economy as a natural part of progress.

The DUP will be part of this but frankly I don't expect them to be able to keep up, and post-unionism will move on to become republican in the name of defeating republicanism. Whether that means they move into the SDLP, rebuild Alliance, or play a wild card I have no idea.

If post-unionism wants it to then we'll probably see some kind of GFA solution for the medium term at least, with devolution, powersharing etc in a UI.

Being a firm believer in attraction rather than the hard sell I think that things will work themselves out on the ground. It won't be dramatic but it will work all the better for that.

lib2016: Fifty per cent plus one and we're free - got it now?

Does it work the other way round too? "Fifty percent plus one and we're free"

Reader

Yes. That's why it's still called the United Kingdom of Great Britian and Northern Ireland.

I'm not sure what's causing the understanding problem...

lib2016: Fifty per cent plus one and we're free - got it now?

Does it work the other way round too? "Fifty percent plus one and we're free"

This 'we' and 'they' business doesn't help anyone. All this helps is to push people to the extremes of both sides. 'we' are everyone from every parish and estate. 'we' will never be free if fear exists. 'we' fear because 'we' don't understand and are ignorant of each other. 'we' don't understand how to talk to one another. If 'we' can't talk to each other, 'we' will never have a future 'we' can agree on.

It seems to me that the standard nationalist response to Unionists is clear:

(1) sectarianism has to end
(2) a republican Irish government will serve your interests better.

So a united Ireland would both demand something from Unionists and provide something to them.

The naked sectarianism of some of Unionism would have to end: the triumphalism of the Orange Order (though not the Orange Order itself), the link with the British royalty, the sectarian supremacy that played out in Unionist institutions. It wouldn't just be unionists of course that would have to end sectarianism, but they are the greater offenders for both structural and historical reasons.

The advantage is that Ireland is smaller and richer than Britain and would be much more responsive to their needs. It is also becoming less and less beholden to the Catholic church all the time, and the accession of Unionists would wipe that away for good in a way that has not occurred for Protestantism in NI and will not occur in the future. Unionists won't be sacrificed to the whims of British public opinion and won't be forced to fight in overseas quagmires. They will be full citizens in the EU and will retain cultural links with Britain.

That seems like the standard nationalist response. I also think that it would do a lot to end the rampant violence and criminality, since Ireland has a much more direct stake in it than Britain and would be forced to compromise more with the unionists, since they would have more political power.

9countyprov.

Circumstances will force us to talk but I don't accept that ignoring our differences is the way forward.

IMHO the DUP is a much more 'Irish' institution than 'big house unionism' ever was and republicans will be forced to change their positions also.

lib2016

At the moment, people seem more inclined to point out the differences than pointing out what we all have in common. Everyone has to start somewhere. For God knows how long, we've been telling each other we're not the same, I'm Irish, you're British, I'm green, you're orange and so on. Sure we can't ignore the differences that do exist but to put these to the fore is only creating barriers. What's the first thing that alcoholics anon do when they first get together? They start with the common ground that has them all there. Hi my name is ....., and I'm an alcoholic. They are all alcholics for different reasons. They don't start with those because it's harder for everyone to relate to. This is proobably a p!ss poor example, but I hope the general meaning is clear.

lib2016

At the moment, people seem more inclined to point out the differences than pointing out what we all have in common. Everyone has to start somewhere. For God knows how long, we've been telling each other we're not the same, I'm Irish, you're British, I'm green, you're orange and so on. Sure we can't ignore the differences that do exist but to put these to the fore is only creating barriers. What's the first thing that alcoholics anon do when they first get together? They start with the common ground that has them all there. Hi my name is ....., and I'm an alcoholic. They are all alcholics for different reasons. They don't start with those because it's harder for everyone to relate to. This is proobably a p!ss poor example, but I hope the general meaning is clear.

I think it's simplistic to say Ireland is richer than Britain. Certainly a united Ireland could not afford the level of government spending currently available in Northern Ireland.

Even were a United Ireland suddenly politically acceptable to all Unionists, the upheaval and potential economic dislocation would be considerable. Economic benefits would be uncertain and long-term.

The process will be very gradual. No need for Unionists to worry. Nationalists naturally prefer to engage with the British government as they are more open to persuasion.

Its probably sensible for nationalists to try and run NI as much as they can- then unionists will certainly engage with them.

I reckon the British government would happily chuck a few billion pounds at the Irish post-unification to get shot of Northern Ireland at long last.

Unity by 2016- I can't see it...

Thanks for the response Lib2016 and those others who are responding to the challenge of this thread - I think everyone here needs to be challenged both as a community mindset and as a host to minority peoples - be they Catholics or ethnic minorities in Northern Ireland or indeed as Protestants in a theoretical united Ireland - this thread and its counterpart should uncover some things for everyone to think about in a positive vein - hopefully the point-scoring will stay to a minimum and not drown any embryonic decent debate.

"Quite possibly true, but this rather misses the point that Nationalists do not have to persude ALL unionists or even a Majority of unionists"

Quaint and in some ways hilarious the very idea -that ANY unionist would vote for a UI once again illustrates the lack of understanding about the depth of unionist opposipion to UI and its ( not to put to fine a point on it ) hatred of those who attempted to impose.

Funnily enough the republican movment in its enthusiam and support for minorities (Basques, Palstinians, Catalans anyone) somehow develops a blind spot when a similar minority (the Iris Prod) manages to carve out more or lestt what the Republicans are supporting for the aforementioned Basques etc etc.

The other myth is the 50% +1 UI. The prods already lost that by way more than 50%+1 way back. They did not buy it then -they will not buy it in the future.

We have already seen what a SMALL percentage of the population can do to damage a state. Consider the damage a large proportion of dissent could do. The damage by republicans was in GNP/UK terms small. Consider it in GNP/ROI terms and you will see that any process which produced that level, never mind higher levels of damage, would beggar the state.

Any advance towards UI will be approached from a long distance and sloooooly (how do Porcupines make love -carefully)

Trevor Ringland seems to be looking at all this through rose-tinted glasses.

For example, working cross-border bodies is a huge issue. What we have now, which isn't functioning at the moment, is what unionism would accept on cross-border cooperation, not what this island needs to function as best it can.

We got the lowest common denominator, not the driver of growth and builder of bridges we need and Ringland wants.

He says that in 1998 "the people on the island of Ireland voted in support of unity of the people over and above the concept of unity of two parts of the island".

That is wishful thinking. The people voted for unity by consent, the 50% +1 as Lib2016 called it, as dangerous as that might be.

He poses the question as to whether republicans are "going to engage constructively to make Northern Ireland work for the benefit of all, as a means of promoting a United Ireland in preference to remaining part of the United Kingdom? Or not?"

They will if they believe that working it is a means to promoting a united Ireland just as he and other unionists will only work the institutions if they believe it can help ensure the maintenance of the union and not weaken it.

How that circle is squared is beyond me. It comes down to the two masters, two loyalties problem.

As for mistakes the Irish Republic has made, and the "over one million unionists who are not going away" (there aren't over 1 million), all he can come up with is that "the only method used to persuade the unionists of the benefits of a united Ireland was the bomb and the bullet".

Looking at what the Republic is doing in 2005 to try and deliver a life for its citizens, I would suggest Trevor look more closely at the Irish Republic.

It has convinced the 4 million plus people who live in it of the merits of the Irish Republic as a form of governance and commands their total loyalty.

He asks: “What definition of Irish are you using and does it include me?”

I ask: What definition of Irish is he using and does it include us in the south - the majority Irish population on this island?

He says his definition of Britishness included them (the Irish living in NI I assume) but all the evidence I have seen shows the exact opposite. How does it include them? You need more than a red X on a flag.

If it includes the Irish in NI why do virtually every one of them vote for parties that want to leave the UK? That to me says it doesn't include them. Maybe it includes his Irishness but not the Irishness of the minority.

"A shared future is the only way forward and through the consent principle we have created a basis for constitutional stability or a means by which the constitutional position could change."

The consent principle is not unionist consent it is the consent of the people of NI.

"Realistically, would any nationalist or republican want constitutional change without the consent of the vast majority of unionists? I am not sure there are many in the Republic of Ireland who would."

If unionists accepted the democratic wishes of the people of this island when that time came and decided to work the new state with as much energy as they have opposed it up to today then I'm sure the majority in the Irish Republic and NI nationalists would look forward to constitutional change.

If by that comment he means unionists will bomb and shoot us to prevent unification if the majority in NI wish it then obviously the answer is no.

Ringland could ask himself why he seems to think it is eminently possible for the Irish of NI to live in the UK without having given their consent but it is not possible for the unionists of NI to live in a united Ireland without their consent?

Unfortunately, as expected, Barnshee has essentially answered the question - if Nationalists win playing by 'the rules' agreed by all the parties, then Unionists will attempt to shoot and bomb their way out of the democaratic will; it appears essentially to him, only the votes and feelings of 'his kind' count.

As I've said elsewhere, I fear civil war is inevitable in the future. If i were barnshee, I wouldn't be so awfully sure that I'd win it.

And he may want to note that partition was imposed by the entire GB armed forces in the 1920's, not just a rugged little band of orangemen - it would not have survived without those forces. They won't be there next time in a 50%+1 scenario...

As I said already, some people need to have good long think about the dead-end they are gaily skipping down.

This just in

Irish no longer necessary to join Gardaí

07/09/2005 - 15:39:38

The Government today announced changes in the recruitment procedures of trainee gardaí.

The Irish language will become an option rather than a compulsory requirement. Candidates wishing to enter the force must have a Leaving Certificate qualification or its equivalent in two languages. One of these two languages must be Irish or English.

The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Michael McDowell said the changes were being made to open recruitment to ethnic communities wishing to join the force.

Non-nationals wishing to join the Gardaí will have to be legally resident in Ireland for five years before joining, while EU nationals will now be eligible to join.

I'm sorry, but 50%+1 does not equal democracy. The essential democratic principle is that the obligation on the citizen to accept majority rule creates a co-relative obligation on the state to respect the existence of the minority, or to put it another way a right of the minority to be respected by the majority.

Thought experiment - 50%+1 Irishmen vote to ban Sinn Fein. Democracy?

It's unacceptable to suggest that the unionists could be forced to accept a change of citizenship they voted against, just as it would be unacceptable to force holders of ROI passports in the UK to take British citizenship, which is why any referendum must require a twin majority. It would be akin to Blair getting a 50%+1 majority and announcing he had a mandate to outlaw all other political parties. Yes, they could theoretically leave, but do you really want ethnic cleansing?

And - being practical - do you really want to wish an unreconciled gaggle of Paisleyites on a united Ireland? I think there is much point to the argument that without unionist acquiescence many voters in the south wouldn't support unity.

(Off to offend the people on the Unionists-not-interested-in-Nationalists-thread)

All this discussion is to a degree futile against a background where disrespect for law and order has led to a position where large sections of northern and southern Ireland are under paramilitary terrorist control. Discussion of a United Ireland is merely academic as the demographic reality is that Northern Ireland will not cease to be part of the UK in this century,As population increases to the expected 1.8 million over twentyfive years the nominally Protestant population will always have an electoral numerical advantageeven if all Catholics voted for a United Ireland.
What we need is for Unionists to be joined in a responsibiliy and power sharing Assembly by a Nationalist/Republican community which has the confidence to leave aside the bomb and the bullet and stop the whingeing about all sorts of irrelevant issues and proceed on a democratic and peaceful road to a better future for us all. The distinction to be made in NI is between those who are committed to democracy and support for law and order and those who are not. Seeing everything through sectarian spectacles is not helping-Crime is Crime Murder is Murder-intimidation and exploitation of the weakest and most vulnerable in our society is a problem for us all.Oppression of the poor is reprehensible no matter what their religion.
We need to develop a vision of the agreed future we want and then determine what steps are necessary to bring it about.A LOT MORE DISCUSSION ALONG THESE LINES IS NECESSARY-the Terence O'neill question to Loyalists,Unionists.Nationalists and Republicans is as relevant today as it was then-"What sort of Northern Ireland do you want."

Alex

There are two elements to consent. Unionists voting against a united Ireland is one thing. Unionists refusing to accept the result if they lose is quite another.

Are there unionists here who are willing to say that they will reject such a vote for a united Ireland?

For the want of a paragraph the discussion was lost.

I'm not on drugs, promise!

Alex

The analogies don't hold up.

1. The essential democratic principal is that 50%+1 get their way, subject only to the human rights of the minority. Of course, we could have had better than that if the Unionists (and the many hundreds of thousands that voted for them) had allowed for it when they had a position of strength, but they went for the lowest the could get away with. You make your bed...

2. the right to express a political opinion is a basic human right enshrined in international law. The right to prevent a democratically mandated international boundary change is not. End of.

3. No-one suggested changing unionist citizenship - they can perfectly well stay british citizens- they'd simply be living in a different jurisdiction. It worked for all the other colonies.

4. Would I rather deal with Paisley and his litter in a UI, than within NI. You're damn right. We'd be much better protected from the nasty old man.

Peacefull British Citizens would have nothing to fear. I'm glad. Unrepentant bigotted demagogues would have lots to fear. I'm glad.

Alex, I think you 'cod' yourself If you think that 'southerners' will let that "man of sin" dictate their political preferences.

Alex,
"I'm sorry, but 50%+1 does not equal democracy."

But this formula was agreed by over 2/3rds of the electorate of Northern Ireland and over 95% of the electorate of the Irish Republic.

Is that not a big enough democratic mandate from the people of this island for you? How big does it have to be for unionism to accept it?

Is this your way of saying you now don't accept the vote for the Good Friday Agreement as being legitimate?

Also, you seem to forget that this compromise on consent, which is what it was, was only needed because unionism created Northern Ireland by partitioning this island on the 50+1 principle in the first place.

Have you another compromise that we can all agree on to remove the unfairness and undemocratic nature of the initial partition?

One that will get the support of over 2/3rds of the NI population and 95% of the Irish Republic?

I'd like to hear it.

@Beach Tree - Errr....the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights sez that you have the right to a nationality and not to be deprived of it.

I think that if I was presented with a vote on whether or not the UK would absorb a territory full of people, some of whom have guns, without their consent I would think long and hard before voting Yes. The Unionists have shown repeatedly that they can't be trusted to behave in a civilised fashion.

And, speaking purely from self-interest, I certainly don't want the bastards over here. Christ, Adair's family have turned half Bolton into Baghdad all on their own.

@George: I couldn't tell you how big a mandate unionism would accept. I suggest you ask a unionist. I'm a NIhilist - I don't care whose it is as long as the waste, violence, criminality and stupidity stops. I have no problem with the GFA, on any score.

The compromise I suggest? Render the risible symbols of tribalism irrelevant through functional integration, demilitarisation and practical cooperation. It worked for the French and Germans. No-one now gives a bugger who has a stronger historical claim to Alsace.

Consent of a majority of both communities in Northern Ireland seemed to be the definition of consent that was acceptable to nationalists in the GFA.
That aside when do people think there will be a prospect of a democratic vote where the greater majority in NI will vote to join the RofI?
Will there be as in the GFA model a need for the people of the RofI to vote to accept us-I think not-they do not wish to contemplate the concomitant responsibilities involved and who could blame them.
If we want to live in a future vibrant prosperous, multicultural,educated,democratic society we must accept responsibility for ourselves and create that Northern Ireland for ourselves.No one is going to help us -we are on our own and need to act quickly if we are to move out of nineteenth century thought processes and create a better future for all our children.

"Indeed, if we use the very rough figures of currently 40% Nat/ 60% unionists - nationalist ireland would only have to convince 1 in 6 unionists to switch to bring the numbers to 50%/50% - and as the numbers approach each other, that block of 'necessary converts' gets smaller and smaller. e.g.if the numbers were 45%/55% then 1 in 11 unioinists, just 9% of them, would have to switch."

All theoretically true, but it ignores that very bsaic question- " What are you going to do to persuade Unionists?" All nationalism has done is talk at us, not to us.
Unionists have regularly got caned on this blog by people like George when we point out the things that were done to distance the Free state from Britain and the perfectly reasonable suggestion that some of these things need to be reversed as a symbolic sweetener.

We've been patronised as british dupes; we've been offered bribes in the supposed economic benefits of the Celtic Tiger; oh, and we've been shot and bombed a bit to put manners on us by the less patient of our would-be fellow countrymen. How many unionists have become nationalists as a result? Not one. Voting for Dr Joe or the late Gerry as the lesser of 2 evils does not a nationalist make.

And if you predicate all of your argument on the facile and insulting assumption that you're going to outbreed us soon anyway. Well you're not, but it's hardly a demonstration of good faith to say " Deal with us now from a position of strength beacause we won't need to be generous in 10/20/1000 years". It's just an ultimatum. And of course it proves the point of those opponents of the GFA who argue that it was never intended as a settlement, but a stepping stone. You've got to acpet the probable outcome that there won't ever be consent, and thus no United ireland, and work with us in NI. Until then we've no incentive to deal. Who really believes Unionism will say -"Oh we lost that election by one vote- we've now got to abandon our cultural, social and historical traditions and become good irishmen". Get real.

T.Ruth,
"Will there be as in the GFA model a need for the people of the RofI to vote to accept us-I think not-they do not wish to contemplate the concomitant responsibilities involved and who could blame them."

Taking NI into the Irish Republic would require a constitutional change and therefore a referendum south of the border.

If the Irish people thought it would mean peace they would vote yes. If unionists started to bomb and shoot after losing the vote in NI then I would assume there wouldn't be a vote until the subversives had been crushed by the combined might of the British and Irish states.

Darth,
-"Oh we lost that election by one vote- we've now got to abandon our cultural, social and historical traditions and become good irishmen". Get real."

You wouldn't have to abandon all your social, cultural and historical traditions but you would have to pledge allegiance to and work for your new state.

Either that or become a subversive and face the consequences.

Amongst all the in depth debate on what I believe to be an excellent contribution from Trevor Ringland, can I humbly ask a single question:

Are nationalists/republicans interested more in a single Irish state, or a truly United Ireland?

You get the first with 50% + 1, you don't get the latter for generations with 50% + 1.

George,

You say, become a subversive and face the consequences, but there don't seem to be any consequences to being a subversive as long as you have a mandate.

darthrumsfeld

Your long post seems to be only a restatement of the claim that unionists have a veto. They don't.

Electorates are not a constant and things will change over time. It is a fact that new theories are not welcomed overnight but instead are accepted by a new generation of scientists over a 10/15 year period.

The GFA is only 7 years old and I realise that we're still dealing with a generation of unionists who still believe that the Orange State has a future. It hasn't for any number of reasons.

You may feel that we need to persuade you but you can rest assured that it's the least of my ambitions. You've voluntarily ruled yourself out of the debate about the future by clinging to the past and if you can't see it I can't help you.

Unionists are not going away and will never under present constitutional arrangements become an electoral minority in NI.
Our future will be worked out here in Northern Ireland and the sooner that is recognised as a reality the sooner we can develop a vision of the future that is acceptable to all of those who genuinely value the democratic process.

T.Ruth
"Our future will be worked out here in Northern Ireland..."

It has to be. But that doesn't mean NI will remain in the UK. Wherever NI lies you will still need to work out your differences to build a workable future together. The border is irrelevant to that IMO.

I had always assumed Lib 2016 was a Liberal-now I realise he forsees what he regards as Liberation coming along in ten or eleven years time.It is this kind of backward thinking that hinders progressive pragmatic thought.Lets assume we need to develop a strategic plan for the next decade that ignores whether our future is orange or green-or do we wait until Ireland is liberated whatever that means before tackling the social and economic crises that affect us equally.

The Beach Tree:Yes. That's why it's still called the United Kingdom of Great Britian and Northern Ireland.


I'm not sure what's causing the understanding problem...

I was actually trying to bring attention to lib2016's use of the word "free", by pointing out that, if it can be used in that way, then it works both ways. Do you and lib2016 suppose that Unionists and Nationalists can't simultaneously be free in the same State? I hope not!

The misunderstanding you referred to is presumably because I didn't make that clear enough, sorry.
But what you have picked up on is the symmetry of the Principle of Consent. Fair play - if only you actually believed in it yourself:
If I get my 50%+1, there is still parity of esteem, still mandatory power sharing, still legally enforced balanced recruitment into the police, and lib2016 gets another referendum a few years down the line.
But if lib2016 gets his 50%+1, which of the above are guaranteed to me?

And so we return to the original title of the topic...

Alan,
I know where you are coming from.

But there were consequences south of the border where mass executions, mass internment, military courts and all kinds of censorship were used to crush organisations which attempted to destroy the Irish Republic.

This comment may lead to the "but you are appeasers of NI terrorists" line from unionists to throw up the whataboutery smokescreen but it doesn't change the treatment subversives in the Irish Republic receive and can look forward to receiving.

You can get 14 years in the slammer simply on the word of a senior police officer here you know.

He's a subversive, lock him up and throw away the key would be the way of things in the post 50% + 1 world. No due process.

Either that or mass executions of those who take up arms against it as in the Irish Civil War.

It may lead to decades of bitterness as the Civil War did down south (the remnants are still there) but the new Irish state would survive and eventually prosper.

OK, I'm a dimwitted Yank, but the answer to the question is:

because they are mutually exclusive options.

Reader'

You think the idea "we only have to be right once" is new? ;-)

It occurs to me very often, particularly when I'm trying to console myself for yet another missed opportunity by republicans.

What you're really saying is that no-one ever invites the British back, which is a very different thing.

Eek George:

"Either that or become a subversive and face the consequences".

I'm sure you didn't mean that to come across the way it did! :-)

Mick,
as I am against the death penalty even for Saddam, there wouldn't be many "consequences" from me.

Just trying to give Darth a taste of the type of language "unionist insurgents" who, in the highly unlikely 50+1 event, decided to take up arms against the GFA unity clause being triggered, would face from the establishment, including the media.

The shitty shoe would be on the other foot, the left one so to speak :-)

Sorry for the delay, been off watching some football...

Alex

"Beach Tree - Errr....the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights sez that you have the right to a nationality and not to be deprived of it. "

Indeed. And I never suggested depriving anyone of their nationality. You would still be British. You just wouldn't be living in the UK anymore. Because the only thing losing its "britishness" would be the land itself, and soil doesn't have human rights, by dint of being soil, not human.

This is a point that Unionists often fail to grasp - indeed it's arguably the centre of the problem.

ULSTER is not a British citizen. Ulster is mainly topsoil, and topsoil doesn't have nationality. A large proportion of the PEOPLE in Ulster are british nationals, and no-one is suggesting changing that. your point therefore falls.

T.Ruth

"Consent of a majority of both communities in Northern Ireland seemed to be the definition of consent that was acceptable to nationalists in the GFA"

Then you completely misread the GFA, because the constitutional status remains an 'excepted matter' outside the jurisdiction of the Assembly. Only those matters dealt with by the Assembly are subject to the 'parallel consent' requirement.

It's in the command paper. It's in the Northern Ireland Act 1998. If you think different, you're wrong. Go back and read it again.

Note also that Northern Ireland's continued existance within the UK would not survive a vote by parallel consent. Therfore, there is no way that unionists can demand parallel consent in such a situation, and no way will it be granted.

Darth

"And of course it proves the point of those opponents of the GFA who argue that it was never intended as a settlement, but a stepping stone. "

Well, if you thought it was a final settlement, you fooled yourself, because Nationalists were always perfectly clear what was in the Agreement, and the legislation.

"How many unionists have become nationalists as a result? Not one. "

ahem, Billy Leonard, ahem, he said facetiously.

If one was completely vicious one might say that the majority of the unionist population would not accept powersharing even with the SDLP in the early 70's as proved by the fall of Sunningdale.

A few decades of bombs later, and almost a majority will accept powersharing with Sinn Fein under certain conditions. Indeed, the notion has helped tear unionism to shreds. For we who would consider ourselves constitutional nationalists, there is a grim irony that this has now been forced on your community.

Realist

"Amongst all the in depth debate on what I believe to be an excellent contribution from Trevor Ringland, can I humbly ask a single question:

Are nationalists/republicans interested more in a single Irish state, or a truly United Ireland?"

I want both, but I'll accept the former. I don't belive Unionists are interested in either, frankly. So I'll take what I can get.

Personally, I won't wait for ever for unionism to get the bile out of its system - it's had 85 years, and that's long enough.

Put simply - I wish my community to be ruled from Dublin with the rest of my country where we can place our input together as free Irish men and women. I'd like unionists to join us, but frankly, the way they've behaved other the years, I'm getting less and less bothered whether or not they do. Nationalists supported the SDLP en masse for thirty years, and unionists turned their noses up time and timne again out of little more than sectarianism, and the vast majority of the unionist community voted those bigots in.

Fine, then. Face the consequences. I see no further need to reason with the unreasonable.

Reader

Do you and lib2016 suppose that Unionists and Nationalists can't simultaneously be free in the same State? I hope not!

Well, we've tried having both 'free' in the paranoid statelet the unionist politicains dreamt up, and no, we weren't.

So as I see it we have -

Northern Ireland : unionists free, nationalists definately not.

Or United Ireland, Nationalists free, unionists open to question (as it hasn't been tried yet).

At best, under UI we all win. At worst, only one of us can and I'm not going to accept losing to please you. I intend to be free at whatever cost. What unionists do is their affair. The recent actions of the UVF and some of the recent posts here show what many of them intend. If so, with a heavy but a certain heart, I say so be it.

I hope they'll either recreate a much better NI, (and they'd better be quick about it) - or start assessing and moulding a new agreed Ireland.

If I get my 50%+1, there is still parity of esteem, still mandatory power sharing, still legally enforced balanced recruitment into the police, and lib2016 gets another referendum a few years down the line.
But if lib2016 gets his 50%+1, which of the above are guaranteed to me?

I don't see parity of esteem yet, and what little progress has been made has been made between nationalists and the British Government. When unionism as a whole understands the term they can come back to us and test our generosity.

I don't see any power sharing either. I see direct rule, and the majority of unionists through their proxy, the DUP, attempting to dictate which fenians will be tolerated in government.

Balanced recruitment to the police. My god, basic fairness as an almight concession! Highlights how completely ****ed up Unionist thinking is, that basic fairness is tolerated only through gritted teeth, and chipped at at every opportunity.

But OK, yeah, I'll promise you that.

We have to 'win' our 'referendum' in your territorial terms - so yes, if you can win a referendum in OUR terms come that day, yes, you can. I.e. a vote of the whole island. Of course, if as a community you got of your high horse and negotiated a better deal...

Mick Fealty

"Eek George:

"Either that or become a subversive and face the consequences".

I'm sure you didn't mean that to come across the way it did! :-)"

While I'm against the death penalty ab initio, why 'Eek?'

I don't remember too many Eeks! when 'nationalists' or 'republicans' were treated exactly like that.

Not too many unionists eeked at beating up civil rights campaigners, systematic Internment, shoot to kill, letting hunger strikers die, wrongful imprisonments in England or collusion, to name but a few. They denied them all, or actively rejoiced in it!

So why the Eek, Mick?

Are unionists above the treatment that was meted out to nationalists? If It's good enough for the croppies, why Eek now?

Have you considered the possible bias in your own position there, Mick?

Beach,

A large proportion of the PEOPLE in Ulster are british nationals, and no-one is suggesting changing that.

Exactly how will that work in a United Ireland?

The Beach Tree

I never suggested depriving anyone of their nationality. You would still be British. You just wouldn't be living in the UK anymore.

If we're not living in the U.K. anymore, how are the attachments and the sense of identification with mainland citizens that many unionists have suppose to continue in the event of a united ireland? If we're not ruled by the same government as the rest of the british people then what are we? Are we condemned to be foreigners within a land that won't accept us because of our beliefs?

I dont believe that A UI will happen without (or within) the context of a larger movement that sees Ireland become closer to Britain. In your opinion, would Irish nationalists and Republicans be prepared to accept a UI if meant giving Britain a say in their affairs if it was part of a unification treaty?

I cant speak for other unionists but thats the only way I could envisage a UI happening.

[In insominiac mode] TBT:

It is hardly a position. If this were a formal discussion and I were Chair, at this stage I would seek to bring people back to the original question. Not because the material produced here isn't high quality, or even off topic. It is, and it's (mostly) highly relevant.

But it is always worth performing a sanity check to see if the main point (in this case, a question which is rarely asked in the public domain) has been addressed.

In truth, after 47 replies (unless I'm terribly mistaken), no one has yet attempted to provide Ringland with an answer. Indeed, the question hasn't even been criticised as poorly conceived, or irrelevant. It's just been ignored.

The 'Eek' in question was highly tongue-in-cheek. I know George to be one of the most erudite, sympathetic and knowledgeable commenters on Slugger. But given the absence of a direct answer to the question, his post contained some fairly obvious, and for me, surprising inferences.

And of course it proves the point of those opponents of the GFA who argue that it was never intended as a settlement, but a stepping stone. "

'Well, if you thought it was a final settlement, you fooled yourself, because Nationalists were always perfectly clear what was in the Agreement, and the legislation.'

I didn't- that's why I opposed it. But your candour is refreshing and aan indictment of Trimble

"How many unionists have become nationalists as a result? Not one. "

'ahem, Billy Leonard, ahem, he said facetiously'
Er Billy forsook the ould cause that gave us our freedom religion and laws long before the GFA,possibly when he got married he and forsook the stoops when he saw the way the electoral wind was blowing

George -you got me. I'm a subversive

Darth

I didn't- that's why I opposed it. But your candour is refreshing and aan indictment of Trimble

Well, since I don't give a tinker's curse about Trimble I couldn't care less whether or not it was an indictment of him. If your community bought the GFA as a final settlement, more fool them. It was so bleeding obvious that nobody should have been taken in by anything Trimble or anyone else said.

You got a free copy to your door, mate. It was not expecting too much of you to read it, rather than let someone else 'interpret it' for you.

Where's the Protestant tradition of reading your own scriptures when you need it...

Alan McDonald

" 'A large proportion of the PEOPLE in Ulster are british nationals, and no-one is suggesting changing that.'

Exactly how will that work in a United Ireland?

The same way it currently works for all British citizens in the Republic of Ireland. There's thousands of them you know.

Mark Baxter

I never suggested depriving anyone of their nationality. You would still be British. You just wouldn't be living in the UK anymore.

If we're not living in the U.K. anymore, how are the attachments and the sense of identification with mainland citizens that many unionists have suppose to continue in the event of a united ireland?

Like any other british national living abroad, but with special protections by dint of your birth on the island. Is your culture and heritage that weak? The Irish national culture survived a lot worse.

If we're not ruled by the same government as the rest of the british people then what are we?

British Nationals living in a different EU state. Lots do it already.

Are we condemned to be foreigners within a land that won't accept us because of our beliefs?

Well, it was good enough for nationalists in Northern Ireland all those years, wasn't it, and you still expect our community to put up with it indefinately, and yet god forbid the shoes on the other foot.

Mark, frankly your position is basically hypocitical.

For what it's worth, we're perfectly happy to accept your nationality. We just won't accept your overlordship. If that upsets you, tough.

You can be an irish national, a british national, or both. but you can't and you won't hold our country to ransom. Not least because when the boot was on the other foot, your community acted abominably, (e.g. enacting laws to ban us flying the flag of our own nation at one point.)

In your opinion, would Irish nationalists and Republicans be prepared to accept a UI if meant giving Britain a say in their affairs if it was part of a unification treaty?

If Britian had a role as 'guarantor' of the unionist/british minority, and there were official bodies to oversee both co-operation and discussion of such things, then yes, sure.

If you mean allowing britian to take over Ireland again, pull the other one.

Mick Fealty

Personally I think that Trevor's analysis is so rose tinted, and so forgiving of his own community, that it render's his question senseless.

Frankly, Mick, we took Unionists into account by negotiating the GFA in the first place. And Nationalist Ireland overwhelmingly endorsed it at the ballot box. They still do, voting overwhelmingly for pror-GFA, pro power sharing parties.

Unionist Ireland barely accepted it if they accepted it at all in 1998, through gritted teeth, tried to castrate it from the start in practice, and eventually, again at the ballot box, essentially renaged on it by voting overwhelmingly for the DUP.

It's essentially the third time in thirty years they've done it, and frankly, Nationalists now know for certain that
a) pleasent people like Trevor simply are not representative of the Unionist body politic.
b) the Unionist population seem to be unable to accept powersharing in any real sense
c) that large portions of that community are only interested in democracy while it'son their side.
d) that loyalist violence isn't and never was reactive, unless it was reactive simply to the existance of nationalists.

As a bloc, they are beyond reason or help in my view, and Trevor does himself a disservice by providing a liberal fig leaf for their reactionary intransigence.

So I'm no more going to wait for Unionism as a bloc to wake up and wise up than I'm going to wait for the rapture.

As Nationalists we must approach the Trevors of this world and show them the problem they have, address that mini-bloc's concerns and accept, with heavy heart, that a large number of unionists will never accept UI no matter what democratic validity it has, that they will actively cause violence and disorder were it to happen, and that therefore they will have to be faced down by whatever means necessary.

As I've said before, I believe civil war inevitable. I don't want it, but I accept it's coming.

Alan, I know where you are coming from.

But there were consequences south of the border where mass executions, mass internment, military courts and all kinds of censorship were used to crush organisations which attempted to destroy the Irish Republic.

This comment may lead to the "but you are appeasers of NI terrorists" line from unionists to throw up the whataboutery smokescreen but it doesn't change the treatment subversives in the Irish Republic receive and can look forward to receiving.

You can get 14 years in the slammer simply on the word of a senior police officer here you know.

He's a subversive, lock him up and throw away the key would be the way of things in the post 50% + 1 world. No due process.

Either that or mass executions of those who take up arms against it as in the Irish Civil War.

It may lead to decades of bitterness as the Civil War did down south (the remnants are still there) but the new Irish state would survive and eventually prosper.

I really hope, for your sake, that was meant as sarcasm. I'm sure - in fact I know - that there were people who were willing to defend any amount of abuse "in the fight against the IRA" on the grounds that it was in the interests of the State. Now, I'm sure you disagreed with that logic then - quite rightly. If it was wrong to mistreat IRA suspects in the pursuit of what the British state perceived (incorrectly) to be its interests, it's also wrong for the hypothetical future Irish state to mistreat Orangemen in the pursuit of its interests - you can't have it both ways. Human rights are accorded to - well - humans, not members of political groupings.

I'm alarmed by the glee with which you contemplate, well, mass executions without due process (you actually said that, remember?) 50%+1 and we can lift those subversive bastards into Castlereagh Barracks and crank up the white noise! Up the Republican FRU!

But don't worry. We may just have mass-executed your family, but the new Irish state will survive and ultimately prosper. The torture is for your own good. You too will love Big Brother.

Alex

I'm sure we'd both be horrified by the possibilites that were suggested. But the reality is that the British did it, it would do it again if it had to, and in the right circumstances, the irish would do it too.

Way of the world and all that.

TBT:

Re Trevor's question then. I take it that the answer is no?

Mick

I think this thread is VERY interesting, as it proves, as you suggest, that people are very unwilling to answer the tough questions about themselves (not a uniquely Nationalist trait by any means).

They'll come up with any excuse, too... (normally along the lines of 'oh well it's an irrelevant question, because themmuns is wrong, so they are')

George

It might be quite possible for a United Ireland to come about without majority 'Unionist' support.

But would it be desirable?

Mick

He asks several questions. Which one do you mean?

IJP

It might be quite possible for a United Ireland to come about without majority 'Unionist' support.

But would it be desirable?

If the alternative is remaining within the UK despite having the majority in NI, simply to placeate violent unionism, then the answer is yes.

I'll take the united state and deal with the violence thereafter.

Simple enough?

Indeed, but I thought the point of this discussion was to avoid that as an end-state.

I've said before (here, I think) that there is such a thing as a democratic horizon, which is the point where significant numbers of people begin to change their votes for reasons other than tribe/class/geography. The condition of success in Northern Ireland is that we get swing voters across the divide - if that happens we'll know it's over.

Or to put it another way, it's a choice between answering the question at the top of the thread (as well as the one at the top of the twin thread) and...well, the Republic of George, with the military courts, all kinds of censorship, no due process and mass executions. Maca couldn't be more right - the communities will have to solve their problems whether they solve them in Eire or the UK. Otherwise it's just a different badge on the beret.

Pardon my repetition.

I've said before (here, I think) that there is such a thing as a democratic horizon, which is the point where significant numbers of people begin to change their votes for reasons other than tribe/class/geography. The condition of success in Northern Ireland is that we get swing voters across the divide - if that happens we'll know it's over.

And it's never going to happen - indeed the centre gets more squeezed all the time.

We may as well wait in hope of the soviet invasion.

Maca couldn't be more right - the communities will have to solve their problems whether they solve them in Eire or the UK. Otherwise it's just a different badge on the beret.

And in Ahoghill I think we see the decision that Unionism has made. They've chosen berets.

Pardon my repetition.

I've said before (here, I think) that there is such a thing as a democratic horizon, which is the point where significant numbers of people begin to change their votes for reasons other than tribe/class/geography. The condition of success in Northern Ireland is that we get swing voters across the divide - if that happens we'll know it's over.

And it's never going to happen - indeed the centre gets more squeezed all the time.

We may as well wait in hope of the soviet invasion.

Maca couldn't be more right - the communities will have to solve their problems whether they solve them in Eire or the UK. Otherwise it's just a different badge on the beret.

And in Ahoghill I think we see the decision that Unionism has made. They've chosen berets.

Sorry, I had assumed it was more prominent in the original letter than it actually was:

"What definition of Irish are you using and does it include me?" He goes on to suggest that his idea of Britishness includes Northern Irish in the mix.

Mick

But, Mick, I'm not Northern Irish. I'm not British. I'm Irish. So it doesn't include me at all.

I don't have a Northern Irish identity, and I don't want one. I feel much more Kinship with the Irish Ulstermen of Cootehill in Cavan than with my supposed countrymen on the Shankill.

As for Trevor. You don't have to be catholic to be Irish. you don't have to Gaelic. you don't have to have Gaelic ancestry. you don't have to speak Irish. You don't have to like GAA. You don't have to like fiddle-de-de. You don't have to think the tricoloyrs pretty, or know the words of the anthem. Frankly you can even be a monarchist in the broad sense.

But you have to have some degree of loyalty to Ireland and the Irish nation. Because as I see it, Trevor is (wilfully) mixing up two different things.

One is being irish as a kind of broad descriptive adjective. Like Irish coffee, or Irish stew.

The other is being a member of the Irish nation, and being an irish citizen.

Frankly a third generation American with a pint of Murphy's can claim the first.

But it won't do for nationalists, and it's all Trevor can offer.

I'm happy for Trevor to be amember of that nation,. But I'll be damned if he'll deny it to me, in echange for some vague tribal affiliation under British sovereignty.

Thanks.

Mick

I get the feeling my answer disappointed you. Am I wrong?

Not at all. I'm only unhappy when threads go spiralling off tangent, or worse. Your answer is honest and candid. As chair of this meeting, I can't ask for more. :-)

Mick

Fair enough.

The Beach Tree

"As I've said before, I believe civil war inevitable. I don't want it, but I accept it's coming."

Christ, I do hope you're wrong on that one!

But as regards the rest of your 10:04 AM post, it's so good that I intend copy/pasting it, resetting it and framing the result.

Naturally I'll check with Fanny first to see if the spelling and grammar need tidying up ;-)

Denny Boy

Why thank you, kind sir.

Alex,
I don't take glee in the lack of due process or in the idea that military courts could return to this island to fight "unionist insurgents".

I am merely pointing out that when unionists talk about how violence could and probably would be used to stop a united Ireland, and by that I assume they mean wantonly bombing and shooting Irish people to frighten them into submission, they have to accept they will likely receive the same treatment as others in this state received when they tried the same thing.

I take no joy in this but unionists need to be told that they are being delusional if they think there is some kind of honourable war to be fought if the British and Irish states both agree that there is a democratic mandate for unification.

They will be treated and portrayed as terrorists.

The unpalatable reality is that it is not for unionists to decide whether there is a mandate and the British and Irish governments will take the gloves off to crush any insurgency in my view.

IJP,
whether it's desirable or not is neither here nor there. We live in the real world and have to deal with undesirable problems.

My view is that if the majority of NI vote for unification and with it the inherent risks to life and limb that that decision to the vulnerable people of that region entails then the people of the Irish Republic will support them in that decision.

The state will face the consequences because it will have no other choice not because it wants to.

Not facing up to the consequences of a yes vote would be far worse in the long term and could and probably would lead to violent consequences south of the border anyway.

The nettle will be grasped. And tightly.

"The unpalatable reality is that it is not for unionists to decide whether there is a mandate and the British and Irish governments will take the gloves off to crush any insurgency in my view."

What, like the way the OIRA, PIRA, INLA, UVF, LVF, UDA have been crushed over the years?

And no matter how feverently one believes that Irish unification is inevitable and unquestionably the right thing to happen, that's not going to affect the fact that the demographics don't agree, and believing as hard as you can isn't going to change that.

Plus, if you really want it to happen that badly then saying how the unionists better put up and shut up when it "eventually" happens isn't going to get anyone on board who isn't already there, and don't think you won't need them there.

Ling

THe gloves were certainly taken off against the PIRA as I remember. Indeed, they weren't put back on until they stopped shooting.

Don't see too many OIRA or INLA campaigns at the moment - do you?

AS for the UVF, UDA and LVF, no real attempt was made to crush them, yet. Your point falls on pretty much all counts.

As for demographics, well, we'll see. I don't belive UI is inevitable;

But if 50%+1 support it in a border poll, then, yes, it is.

@Ling, no, this doesn't seem likely to persuade anyone...

@George, don't you have any qualms about compelling Irishmen from the Republic to pay and die in an opposed unification?

My view is that if the majority of NI vote for unification and with it the inherent risks to life and limb that that decision to the vulnerable people of that region entails then the people of the Irish Republic will support them in that decision.

The state will face the consequences because it will have no other choice not because it wants to.

Not facing up to the consequences of a yes vote would be far worse in the long term and could and probably would lead to violent consequences south of the border anyway.

[My, one might almost mistake that for a threat!]
The nettle will be grasped. And tightly. We've got our 50%+1 at last and the gardai had damn well better come and get us - whether they like it or not? There's something unpleasant about roping in someone else to go and get killed for your own political aims.

And frankly, suggesting that *my* government should help crush the unionists in partnership with the Irish army (at the cost in our lives and our money) is a spectacular achievement in chutzpah worthy of considerable respect.

@Ling, no, this doesn't seem likely to persuade anyone...

@George, don't you have any qualms about compelling Irishmen from the Republic to pay and die in an opposed unification?

My view is that if the majority of NI vote for unification and with it the inherent risks to life and limb that that decision to the vulnerable people of that region entails then the people of the Irish Republic will support them in that decision.

The state will face the consequences because it will have no other choice not because it wants to.

Not facing up to the consequences of a yes vote would be far worse in the long term and could and probably would lead to violent consequences south of the border anyway.

[My, one might almost mistake that for a threat!]
The nettle will be grasped. And tightly. We've got our 50%+1 at last and the gardai had damn well better come and get us - whether they like it or not? There's something unpleasant about roping in someone else to go and get killed for your own political aims.

And frankly, suggesting that *my* government should help crush the unionists in partnership with the Irish army (at the cost in our lives and our money) is a spectacular achievement in chutzpah worthy of considerable respect.

Alex

As for what 'your' army and government would have to do - they created the monster, you're damn right they can help slay it if necessary.

"THe gloves were certainly taken off against the PIRA as I remember. Indeed, they weren't put back on until they stopped shooting.

Don't see too many OIRA or INLA campaigns at the moment - do you?"

My point wasn't that they didn't try, it was that they didn't succeed, the OIRA weren't crushed, they gave up. However many years on and overall the ability of illegal paramilitary organizations to exist and cause trouble with in a state seems pretty depressingly impressive I'd say.

We're talking about the Catholics being cleared out of a few estates, something which has happened far too often before. Indeed within living memory they have been largely driven out of whole towns like Lisburn and Banbridge in the early 1920's.

It's bad and it should be condemned but let's not pretend that it's civil war. The UDA and the UVF are not the RUC and the B Specials and they don't have the level of support they had in 1969.

The truth is that the biggest fear unionists would have is that they be allowed their 'no-go areas' for a few months so that they can experience the joys of UDA/UVF rule.

Alex,
qualms don't come into it. I'm Irish, I live in Ireland and I am telling you what I think will happen if the Gods contrived to put us in the dreaded 50%+1 situation with a unionist community thinking it can win by fighting a "war" against impending unification.

It is the most undesirable situation but what if it happens and the British accept the mandate and state they are leaving which leads to a unionist insurgency to create Protestant homeland or such like? (If they don't accept the mandate that's another discussion.)

The British can just walk away and do nothing which leaves us to face the insurgents on our own or they can stay a while and work with the Irish security forces to crush it. I wouldn't blame them if they upped and left.

Either way, once the killing starts, in other words a civil war, then the gloves will come off. They did the last time and they will again. Any qualms I have will be washed away be the torrent of woe.

There will be no "normalisation" policy hatched in Dublin or London, no killing unionism with kindness when the blood starts flowing.

Maybe there will be mass killings by Protestants and Catholics north of the border, who knows.

Whatever happens, it certainly won't be an honourable war and British unionists and Irish nationalists won't fight a fair fight.

It will be a fight for the very survival of the Irish/unionist state and unlike 1921 it will end with a permanent winner.

By any means necessary. Gloom and doom from me today but that's how I see it.

If there is a fight it won't be pretty and the more unionism fights the uglier it will get.

There will be no talk about fair from either side, just talk of victory. Fair will come when the victor is known.

Who will win? I don't know.
Is it desirable? No.
Is it possible? Yes.

Ling,
please see my post from September 7, 2005 06:12 PM which addresses your whatabout the IPLO etc. which I knew would be thrown up at some stage.

Editor's comment:

I have to admit I don't always pay close attention to what gets said the comments zone, but there's a slightly surreal 'war of the worlds' feel about this thread. (Great book btw, but at the heel of the hunt, a complete work of fiction).

In the meantime, I'd like to know what some of you guys have been smoking. ;-)

I'm not sure I get the point of it all but as you all seem quite happy with it, please carry on.

We regularly get unionist posters on this site threatening all sorts of violence if democracy doesn't deliver the results that they like. It seems only fair to debate with them, especially if we are trying to show that violence is not a practical course for them to take.

I would feel the same if republican dissidents threatened republican violence on this site as they do elsewhere.

It's not a good idea for parts of either community to think that violence might be the best way forward.

Lib,

Maybe we do, although I've not seen them here on this thread. In fact, finding unionists on the site is becoming a rarity (outside our resident hard core regulars). The resulting deficit does a disservice both to Unionism, and to Nationalist opponents.

In effect, it leaves some our nationalist posters with nothing but stereotypes from media stories to scrap with - with increasingly bizarre results.

So can I ask:

- Is it to do with the kinds of stories we're blogging?

- Have people just got fed up with the slagging that Slugger perhaps too often descends into?

- Or is the debating aspect of this site just gone past its sell by date?

If we lost it, I'd miss the company of many individuals. And some great stories - spirit level's one from yesterday about spending the night in Sir Bob's hammock and being awakened by the sheep comes easily to mind.

But it's increasingly hard to argue that there is much in the way of 'the meeting of minds' that we saw in Slugger's earlier days - mostly a case of minds meeting in disagreement than otherwise.

Your thoughts?

Earlier in the week I posted, on another thread, an opinion that Irish Nationalism had decided to abandon any thought of persuading unionists and are now embarked on a strategy of cantonisation. The objective is to isolate unionist communities whilst nationalists in the north connect to the greater nationalist population across the island. Unionist communities would be largely ignored and left to dwindle away over generations. This explains the ongoing campaign to demonise all unionists at every opportunity. There is absolutely no concern that young nationalists will grow up with a deep hatred for unionists, potentially without ever having met one.

Posts on this thread from the beach tree, lib and others add weight to the theory.

I can understand their rational based on an assumption that their own knowledge of unionists is relatively skewed to an extreme. Lets face it, if your perception of the general unionist population is a mix of Johnny Adair and William McCrae, then such a strategy may be preferable over persuasion.

However, I think that they are wrong and ill informed. There are many from the unionist community who are very open to persuasion and indeed have always seen themselves as distinctly Irish within the United Kingdom. Systems of administration, either from Dublin or London, are less important to them than the desire for a wholesome society in which to bring up their families. A society that is united and where all people are respected irrespective of race, creed etc.

It has been pointed out in this thread that republicans only have to persuade 1 in 6 from the unionist community, which I believe is possible if the correct approach is taken.

That is my belief and unfortunately Lib, Beach tree and the RM in general has chosen not to test that possibility. They have taken another course, that of isolation and demonisation. They therefore have accepted that the alternative approach be destroyed.

This new approach may indeed result in a form of unitary state. It will obviously not result in a UI as understood by Tone, (unity of protestant, catholic, dissenter and all that). Still, at least those aformention bloggers openly admit that they are happy enough to accept that, and even willing to embark on a bloody civil war to suppress those protestants who would dare to oppose THEIR new state.

Their honesty is refreshing and informative. Some of us actually had thought that there was an opening for reconciliation, mutual respect, etc that would lead to a united people across the island and even potentially a single state by agreement. I guess that I am a bit better informed now, although disappointed.

I wonder what the founding fathers of republicanism would think of this new republican vision.

I agree, it's all quite insane, but given the subject you have to ask what is sane..

@George, will you please review your comments on this thread? I don't know what others may think, but to me they sound positively orgasmic at the mention of war and massacre and State violence. Some of this stuff would have been laughed at in Germany in August 1914 as over bellicose.

@lib2016, regarding the biggest fear unionists have being UDA/UVF rule - you're right, but are they clever enough to realise it?

@Ling - precisely. If the IRA could survive and prosper for all these years, why couldn't they? The existing (dis)loyalist terrorists are frankly crap compared to the IRA real thing, but in the nightmare scenario they would probably pick up recruits from the army, and the IRA never found it that hard to buy weapons. Anyone who thinks getting rid of terrorists is quick or easy is a fool - and an Irish Republican who thinks that is missing out on the basic lesson of their own history. Tiocfhaidh ar La! The Long War! Whether or not the day came or is still to come is a matter of opinion, but you can't deny the war was, as advertised, long.

@Beach - it's certainly strange to encounter Republicans complaining that we might not be biased to the unionists enough...

"...finding unionists on the site is becoming a rarity (outside our resident hard core regulars)"

If that's the case then it's a great great shame, it's the whole reason I read Slugger. I'm here to read multiple viewpoints (that aren't exclusively rabid) and you just don't really get that elsewhere.

It gives hope that there's a willingness for opposing sides to put themselves and their views forwards and engage with the other sides, it saps hope if that's not sustainable...

Mick Fealty

If you belive unionists are a rarity on this site, you've been avoiding the football threads today.

Indeed, the nationalist voices on this site have only recently returned after a period of being seriously in the minority. Just look at the output of your bloggers, Mick. Compare the Pete Bakers and the like to natuionalist equivelents.

I don't believe to be honest there ever was a meeting of minds. there was an agreement to be polite - 'naice' - if you will. That agreement, appears to be over. Whether that is the deathknell of the site is your decision.

Depends which you value most, Mick. Optimism or honesty.

DK

I personally want no such war. I am perfectly happy to accept the consent principle and work NI for the benefit of all its inhabitants. Even violent republicans are in the process of dumping arms, and taking up politics.

But sirs, you claim most unionists do not fit the sterotype - well,

the majority of voting unionists are now voting for the Mad Mullah and his party,

The Orange Order is now openly co-operating with paramilitaries to symbolically reinact gunrunning

,

Powersharing is dead as a doornail

,

Protestant kids as young as five are rioting at the touch of a mobile phone

,

Ahoghill is being ethnically cleansed while the PSNI stand by and do nothing

It seems to me that community continues to support the GFA, with powersharing etc, and one community does not.

It seems to me that one community can stomach having themunns in their village, and one cannot.

It seems that one community is trying to put violence behind it. and one is not.

I'd say that may have more to do with why young nationalists are growing up with deep dislike and distrsut of unionism and unionists. If Unionism keeps treating the other community in this way, then that hatred is, I fear, inevitable. I don't want it, but it'll exist.

Nationalist Ireland has tried for centuries to convince Unionists. Unionism is not interested in being convinced, or even listening. It is only interested in victory and domination, from what I can see.

Systems of administration, either from Dublin or London, are less important to them than the desire for a wholesome society in which to bring up their families. A society that is united and where all people are respected irrespective of race, creed etc.

The facts on the street suggest otherwise. unionists have had 80 years to demonstrate this. they have always chosen, without exception the Union over any desire for society to be content. The votes don't lie. They turned on O'Neill, on Faulkner on Trimble.

It's not surprising a growing number of nationalists reluctantly accept the corrolorary of that -and chose the irish nation-state over a shared society up here.

There are many from the unionist community who are very open to persuasion and indeed have always seen themselves as distinctly Irish within the United Kingdom

Where are they? Why are they silent? Why do they vote for the Mullah? The likesof Trevor Ringland, a decent skin in any tongue, are parodied and isolated for suggesting far less than that. I'm sorry, but I don't believe you. I think it's a delusion.

It has been pointed out in this thread that republicans only have to persuade 1 in 6 from the unionist community, which I believe is possible if the correct approach is taken.

That is my belief and unfortunately Lib, Beach tree and the RM in general has chosen not to test that possibility

We tested it for decades. The facts didn't match the theory.

I wonder what the founding fathers of republicanism would think of this new republican vision.

They'd be deeply disappointed in the sectarianism their co-religionists descended to, and reluctantly I suspect they'd accept the reality that many of them are irreconcilables.

Mick
"finding unionists on the site is becoming a rarity (outside our resident hard core regulars)"

I'm not sure I agree there. I get in to an argument every day here, and 90%* of the time it's with a unionist so there must still be a few of them around :)

*i've found that number decreasing slightly over time, which either indicates a decrease in the number of unionists on the site as you suggest or perhaps my own changing attitudes. I suspect the latter. :)

DK
"There are many from the unionist community who are very open to persuasion and indeed have always seen themselves as distinctly Irish within the United Kingdom. Systems of administration, either from Dublin or London, are less important to them than the desire for a wholesome society in which to bring up their families. A society that is united and where all people are respected irrespective of race, creed etc."

Many? How many? Why is the DUP are majourity unionist party then? Even moderate unionists are not "open to persuasion", or so I understand from talking to them.

"finding unionists on the site is becoming a rarity"

I blame the growing number of blogs, myself. There's getting to be just too many of them. We've lost some of the best nationalist posters too, remember. When Chris and Henry were on top form I wouldn't have dared to speak up, or felt that I needed to.

There's also the very real fact that nationalists are backing the actions of the authorities in many ways, while unionists have made themselves 'outsiders'.

There was always going to be a change of style when unionists realised that they are now 'protesters' in reality!

@Beach: Which would suggest that trying to unify Ireland from underneath 'em would indeed be a bloody mess. It's my contention, from an entirely arrogant and self-interested mainland British perspective, that political unionism is the problem in Northern Ireland and that the leaders of this community cannot be trusted.

In fact, unionism is nothing I want to be part of a union with. The UDA/UVF/LVF are a bunch of fascistic drug dealers led by DUP religious fanatics who would be locked up in seconds if they were anything other than Christian. They are about as British as polar bears. The establishment unionists are their brothers who stayed on at school - same mentality, but more polite. The problem is, though, that for exactly the same reasons I don't want them they will turn ugly (turn uglier?) in the event of unity without bipartisan consent.

Dk,
thoughtful post. I fear you are right when you speak of cantonisation. Both sides are at it and it shows no signs of abating.

On persuasion, how can we persuade unionists when we are having a hard time persuading ourselves?

South of the border there is no romanticism in the idea of Irish unity anymore (don't know if there ever was).

It's not a potential national dream, it's a potential national nightmare.

After all that has happened, you'll have to look long and hard to find someone who believes unionists would make the Irish Republic a better place. For many you can add northern nationalists for that matter.

You'll have to look even longer and harder to find a unionist who believes that maybe, just maybe, a unitary Irish Republic would be a better place.

For southerners (most), Northern Ireland is at best a boil that may get so big it may have to be lanced at some stage, at worst a malignant tumour that one day will kill us all.

In the meantime, we all sit and hope that all-purpose GFA cream keeps the inflammation down.

Sure, in theory we'd love the Republic of Tone with Catholic, Protestant and Dissenter but unionism doesn't even want it in theory and never will.

If what we have and are now as a nation, which was earned by decades of hard slog and sacrifice, isn't even good enough for the symbolic act of our leader's hand to be touched by the leader of unionism, what hope have we of ever being considered brethren. None.

How can you interest someone in unionism in this situation? They have no interest in us and the thought that we actually might have something of interest to them, abhors many of them.

Look how annoyed many get at southerners actually thinking we might have something that interests them.

Alex,
I am not making it up when I say I get no joy in what I write. That is how people talk in times of "war". It is always glorified and hideous acts of barbarity are justified as being in the greater good.

I am against it but am trying to show what I think will happen, how it will be justified and how it will be portrayed. Take it as you wish.

TBT: It wouldn't be the deathknell of the site, just the comments zone.

Realism is good. Disagreement is good. There's a serious scrap going on between people of various opposed factions over relative poverty, GNP/GDP.

When I say meeting of minds, I simply mean that people apply themselves to disagreeing over the same thing, whether it be: the border; employment; immigration; or the role of the public sector in the Economy.

But to be blunt, going off on a jazz riff that only relates tangently to what your opponent has said is highly entertaining, but it's not debate, never mind a meeting of minds.

That, strictly, is what I mean about a meeting of minds. And specifically not the wishy washy liberal other thing you're evidently thinking of.

To Beach Tree.
You paint a very depressing picture in your posts - too full of generalisations regarding a community you obviously do not inhabit for me but however. I asked a question at the beginning of this thread to which I believe I have got an answer - despite you denying people like myself and DK exist I asked what was being done to convince people like me to come around to Nationalist ways of thought - the answer - nothing - we tried it - didn't work before - won't work now - seems to be the thinking. Is there then truth in the new marginalisation/demonisation plan being spoken of? In short is the new plan then to wait for a majority (which won't happen by 2016) then batter any prods who step out of line and just wait for them to die off as a community - frightening thinking - but I admire and appreciate the honesty in the posts on this thread I must say.
Would the Republican fore-fathers be as disappointed in the people touting these sort of tactics of acheiving their goal as much as they would be disappointed in their "co-religionists" general sectarianism as you suggest? - I wonder.

BT

"But sirs, you claim most unionists do not fit the sterotype - well"

For one thing, I did not say "most" unionists. I did say many.

Most protestants do not vote DUP. A large section, myself included don't vote at all. I may vote again if I ever see a politician with the vision I demand.

Within that non voting section, you will find many who are open to persuasion and very resistant to coercion. You ask where they are. I am one of them as are most of the educated protestants that I know. I am not silent, nor is Ringland. I am voicing an opinion right now!

"We tested it for decades. The facts didn't match the theory."

When exactly did you try the persuasion thing? My memory growing up was of bombings, killings, riots, hatred. I must have been on holiday that week!

Don't come back with what the SDLP did or some other "nice guy". The whole backdrop to our lives has been hatred and violence or the threat of it. If we, the protestant community have a paranoid and insular mindset, then you helped forge it and you are certainly doing little to change it. We each have to take some responsibility to how people perceive us. Your stereotyping and rants against unionists can only push people back into corners. What's the point? You can still elect to hold those views but is there any value in having a go? It may not damage your cause, (assuming you aren't interested in persuasion), but I don't see how it benefits it.

Interestingly, you didn't take issue with my theory that persuasion is not on the RM agenda. It demonisation and isolation!

Good 4:49 George.

Alex:
RE: "The UDA/UVF/LVF are a bunch of fascistic drug dealers led by DUP religious fanatics who would be locked up in seconds if they were anything other than Christian"
Jesus, do you actually believe this rubbish or are you on a wind-up!
I wouldn't even waste my time arguing if you were
serious.

Mick Fealty

It wouldn't be the deathknell of the site, just the comments zone.

What would be the point of the site without the comment zone? Am I missing something?

Mick

But to be blunt, going off on a jazz riff that only relates tangently to what your opponent has said is highly entertaining, but it's not debate, never mind a meeting of minds.

How have I committed the offence charge - the logic of the thread is quite obvious - Ringland asks what are Nationalists offering unionists - reply, not much because unionists have no intention of listening - question 2 so where does that leave us - reply 2 - imho, heading to the abyss.

To paraphrase Sam L Jackson, if you don't like difficult answers, don't ask difficult questions.

And personnaly I'm more a progressive rock man, myself, not jazz ;-)

Democratic

Is there then truth in the new marginalisation/demonisation plan being spoken of?

There's no plan, its the deeply regrettable natural evolution of the problem. THe only place the plan seems to be spoken of is among unionists!

In short is the new plan then to wai