Irish Reunification [Archive]

Geist

12-15-2006, 11:35 AM

People who go to the bother of posting that they would or wouldn't support this should go to the bother of posting why as well. Why do you support unification, or partition, or seperatism etc.? For me it's simply nationalism and functionality.

My reason is because the history of the Northern state after partition suggests to me that the Unionist community is not capable of ruling over the Catholic community without bias. I certainly believe that at this stage Unionists have some claim to living in the North regardless of how they got here, and the base mythological Celtic style nationalism is not an issue for me. We often forget why the IRA had such a resurgence in the 70's, and people seem to skim over the period between 1921-1969 in Northern Irish politics. Those are the years that inform my believe in Irish reunification. I hope that answers the question somewhat.

Jonathan

12-15-2006, 11:52 AM

I'm thinking about changing my sig:

Looking back at my time on the internet I feel like John Bruton in did 1995 when he was Taoiseach, "...sick of answering questions about the fucking peace process!". Seriously, Northern Ireland is a topic that I devot sweet, feck-all time to IRL but it seems to take up most of my time on the internet.:deadhorse: :p

Thomas777

12-15-2006, 11:57 AM

Loyalist weirdness: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LALhr5dZDDg

I don't know a lot about the dynamics in NI, but I will say that the entire mythos/aesthetic surrounding Loyalism is profoundly fucking weird in my Yankee, Midwestern opinion. The whole "gangsta" element of the Loyalist paramilitaries is sort of lost on me...I had always assumed these cats were a bunch of Protestant fundamentalists and the like who were primarily motivated by their faith and what not.

Ahmadinebobina

12-15-2006, 11:58 AM

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Dizzee Rimbaud again.

As above, but with the exception that while that period is particularly valid in influencing contemporary opinion and rightly so, there is no getting away from the simple nationalist 'ethics' of all the centuries that preceded these decades and called for a united nation for culture, solidarity, political fairness et al and in some ways above all, pride. The reason certain people of the 'older' centuries were such greats aside from the political or battlefields was how they managed to put down in the concisest of terms what we want, why we want and why we all ought to want it. (The usual suspects: Collins and Pearse but Richard Mulcahy for me anyway was the one who said it all best)
In many ways, I feel we have a duty not to ourselves but to the Irish of the North to always work at doing something for them after basically sitting as spectators while they were repeatedly sold out. It's one thing, as usual, for us to sit happily in the Republic as citizens of Ireland privy to all that comes with it and ignore the issues of those who are Irish people in ''Britain'' and suffering all that came/comes with such ruling. IMO that's why most people don't really care, sure they'll sing a rebel song in the pub but when it comes to it they think from their perspective about what they'd like (as we all do) rather than from the perspective of 'lost' brethren who should be accounted for even if their wish was to be an independent region rather than the reunion we all desire.

Voted yes, but if it came to I'd support an Independent region even though it's not what *I* want at all. :(

Ahmadinebobina

12-15-2006, 11:59 AM

Jonathan

12-15-2006, 12:14 PM

:rofl:
It's a step up from leprauchans? ;)
Is it though?
I don't mind going on about leprechauns in so far as it relates to topics about culture, beliefs, traditions etc all the stuff that I'm interested in. I wish I'd have more discussions about bloody leprechauns or traditions and culture and nationalism.
But I get sick to death posting about feckin' loyalism and republicanism. Don't get me wrong, I'd like to think that I'm dedicated to the cause, but I'm sure posters like Will Scarlet, 007, Haklyut, Masty etc probably think my whole life revolves around it! Which is a pity becasue they're gents for the most part and I'm sure we share common ground on most issues, but it's only this northern business that gets discussed! Oh well, back to the grind...

Jonathan

12-15-2006, 12:16 PM

I had always assumed these cats were a bunch of Protestant fundamentalists and the like who were primarily motivated by their faith and what not.
No, not their faith but the mutual distrust that exists between both sects. The Protestants did a good job pissing off the Catholics since the creation of Northern Ireland and they seem convinced that the Catholics would do the same to them if they ended up in a UI (which is kinda disproven by the lifestyle of most protestants who already live in the south).

Geist

12-15-2006, 12:17 PM

Thomas777

12-15-2006, 12:18 PM

No, not their faith but the mutual distrust that exists between both sects. The Protestants did a good job pissing off the Catholics since the creation of Northern Ireland and they seem convinced that the Catholics would do the same to them if they ended up in a UI (which is kinda disproven by the lifestyle of most protestants who already live in the south).

In your estimation, is the conflict in NI primarily an ethnic conflict (i.e. Ulster Scots and Anglos vs. indigenous Irish)?

Zrinski

12-15-2006, 12:19 PM

I have always supported the Reunification of Ireland. If I were an Irishman living in Ireland in the past, I would've joined IRA without hesitation. Now, it is harder to be involved in such pursuits.

Exactly my opinion. I also must say that as it seems now the reunification of Ireland is something inevitable and I completely support that. http://thephora.net/forum/images/icons/icon14.gif

Geist

12-15-2006, 12:19 PM

Is it though?
I don't mind going on about leprechauns in so far as it relates to topics about culture, beliefs, traditions etc all the stuff that I'm interested in. I wish I'd have more discussions about bloody leprechauns or traditions and culture and nationalism.
But I get sick to death posting about feckin' loyalism and republicanism. Don't get me wrong, I'd like to think that I'm dedicated to the cause, but I'm sure posters like Will Scarlet, 007, Haklyut, Masty etc probably think my whole life revolves around it! Which is a pity becasue they're gents for the most part and I'm sure we share common ground on most issues, but it's only this northern business that gets discussed! Oh well, back to the grind...

Its because for all of them except Masty Northen Ireland is a concept so its easier to discuss. The realities of what life in the Republic of Ireland is like gets lost in the abstraction.

Thomas777

12-15-2006, 12:20 PM

Chavs with British flags. Its a status thing for scumbags on both sides. They use the cause as a front for their criminal tendencies.

Interesting.

What do you think motivates guys like Michael Stone? Does he believe that Ulster Protestants will be dispossesed and/or ethnically cleansed if NI comes under the dominion of the Republic, or does he just hate "taigs"?

Geist

12-15-2006, 12:22 PM

In many ways, I feel we have a duty not to ourselves but to the Irish of the North to always work at doing something for them after basically sitting as spectators while they were repeatedly sold out. It's one thing, as usual, for us to sit happily in the Republic as citizens of Ireland privy to all that comes with it and ignore the issues of those who are Irish people in ''Britain'' and suffering all that came/comes with such ruling.

I guess its because for many of us a united Ireland seems inevitable eventually so there's little point in an active engagement with it. Plus the second the IRA set off a bomb the ability to support their actions was skewed morally.

Geist

12-15-2006, 12:23 PM

Interesting.

What do you think motivates guys like Michael Stone? Does he believe that Ulster Protestants will be dispossessed and/or ethnically cleansed if NI comes under the dominion of the Republic, or does he just hate "taigs"?

A mixture of both. Its a fear of the other basically. They worry what will happen to them in a United Ireland. The idea of being ethnically cleansed is absurd in a modern, political mature modern Republic. I think most would dispossess themselves if it happened and move on.

Jonathan

12-15-2006, 12:23 PM

In your estimation, is the conflict in NI primarily an ethnic conflict (i.e. Ulster Scots and Anglos vs. indigenous Irish)?
LOL! You had to bring up the "Ulster-Scots" and "Anglos" bit didn't you!:rofl:

I'm actually discussing the nature of those identities in another thread at the moment. I'll provide the link once I've made this post.

The problem with describing it as "ethnic" is that there has been too much shifting of identities over the years.
But your not 100 miles off the mark. The Nationalists identify themselves as "Irish" while the Unionists don't (but have problems deciding what they "are" rather than what they "are not"). Usally we settle on the word "community". So it's usually called an "Ethno-Communal conflict" in the latest literature down here.

Thomas777

12-15-2006, 12:25 PM

Plus the second the IRA set off a bomb the ability to support their actions was skewed morally.

I don't have a dog in this fight, but generally speaking, if people are being oppressed by a hostile regime and denied political representation and self-determination, its perfectly legitimate to respond with military means.

I don't buy this notion that its A-OK for great powers to carpet bomb civillian centers with "shock and awe" but its morally reprehensible for guerrillas to set off a bomb on a public thoroughfare.

VAMPIR

12-15-2006, 12:26 PM

Of course I support Irish reunification.

Zrinski

12-15-2006, 12:26 PM

It's definitely an option.

http://www.ulsternation.org.uk/

This very much reminds me on the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Trust me the least you need is a third party complicating things.

Jonathan

12-15-2006, 12:26 PM

I'm actually discussing the nature of those identities in another thread at the moment. I'll provide the link once I've made this post.
Pages 5 to 9 and on-going Tom.

http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=13884&page=5

Thomas777

12-15-2006, 12:28 PM

A mixture of both. Its a fear of the other basically. They worry what will happen to them in a United Ireland. The idea of being ethnically cleansed is absurd in a modern, political mature modern Republic. I think most would dispossess themselves if it happened and move on.

Thanks for your replies (all of you).

This will probably be panned as an ignorant, Yankee observation, but considering that Tony Blair is currently singing the praises of a future Muslim PM, and Downing Street is doing everything in its power to destroy the UK as an ethno-state, isn't it a bit misguided for Loyalists to be obsessing over the Catholics and the Ulster question?

Jonathan

12-15-2006, 12:29 PM

I don't have a dog in this fight, but generally speaking, if people are being oppressed by a hostile regime and denied political representation and self-determination, its perfectly legitimate to respond with military means.
But not if the people being oppressed don't want to themselves (which would be the case in Northern Ireland). Only a small minority of Republicans concent to violence at the moment.

Jimbo Gomez

12-15-2006, 12:30 PM

That land was, is and always will be Catholic. Those proddy bastards who refuse to leave can have a fork in the eye as a proper incentive.

Geist

12-15-2006, 12:42 PM

I don't buy this notion that its A-OK for great powers to carpet bomb civillian centers with "shock and awe" but its morally reprehensible for guerrillas to set off a bomb on a public thoroughfare.

Although in theory it is easy to believe this you are often faced with the consequences of such bombings which included the deaths of many civilians. A good example for me is talking to Bip who lives near Warrington where an IRA bomb killed two people in 1993. I understand the IRA wanted to disrupt financial centres so as to force the government into giving up on the North, but this to me is not an act of war, but of cowardice. IRA attacks on British soldiers, or bases do not pose the same dilemma. My personal opinion is that I have no problem with the IRA defending Catholic areas, but fail to understand what bombing pubs in London was meant to achieve except allowing the media to vilify you, and justly so. I do recognise the absurdity of British condemnation of such acts sometimes whilst they systematically bomb the fuck out of countries like Iraq. As Basil reminded me there is terrorism and state terrorism.

Geist

12-15-2006, 12:44 PM

Thanks for your replies (all of you).

This will probably be panned as an ignorant, Yankee observation, but considering that Tony Blair is currently singing the praises of a future Muslim PM, and Downing Street is doing everything in its power to destroy the UK as an ethno-state, isn't it a bit misguided for Loyalists to be obsessing over the Catholics and the Ulster question?

They seem to be moving toward a kind of devolved state with Britishness as a cultural identifier rather than belonging to the Kingdom itself. I would agree its a strange thing to see some parts of the UK seeking ways out and then Northern Ireland fighting to stay in.

Thomas777

12-15-2006, 12:48 PM

Although in theory it is easy to believe this you are often faced with the consequences of such bombings which included the deaths of many civilians. A good example for me is talking to Bip who lives near Warrington where an IRA bomb killed two people in 1993. I understand the IRA wanted to disrupt financial centres so as to force the government into giving up on the North, but this to me is not an act of war, but of cowardice. IRA attacks on British soldiers, or bases do not pose the same dilemma. My personal opinion is that I have no problem with the IRA defending Catholic areas, but fail to understand what bombing pubs in London was meant to achieve except allowing the media to vilify you, and justly so. I do recognise the absurdity of British condemnation of such acts sometimes whilst they systematically bomb the fuck out of countries like Iraq. As Basil reminded me there is terrorism and state terrorism.

The IRA bombed London pubs because those sorts of tactics had a 100% success rate in the 20th century. The Algerians got their way by attacking Paris, Irgun and the Stern Gang got their way by attacking British civillians in Palestine, and Mandela and the ANC got their way by blowing up railway cars.

Terrorism works...despite ludicrous claims by the Western powers that they "don't negotiate with terrorists". Apparently, they do, and that is why Gerry Adams marches in NYC parades and Nelson Mandela gets his ass slavishly kissed by US Presidents and British PMs.

Geist

12-15-2006, 12:52 PM

The IRA bombed London pubs because those sorts of tactics had a 100% success rate in the 20th century. The Algerians got their way by attacking Paris, Irgun and the Stern Gang got their way by attacking British civillians in Palestine, and Mandela and the ANC got their way by blowing up railway cars.

Terrorism works...despite ludicrous claims by the Western powers that they "don't negotiate with terrorists". Apparently, they do, and that is why Gerry Adams marches in NYC parades and Nelson Mandela gets his ass slavishly kissed by US Presidents and British PMs.

Oh I'm not denying that the tactics worked to get themselves to the discussion table, but it had the psychological impact of instilling an intense fear in the Unionist community. The Republic of Ireland is testament to the fact that terrorism works, Collins after all was apparently the inventor of urban guerilla warfare. I just find it hard to condone the tactics on a personal level from a moral perspective. It might be pure emotionalism however.

Jonathan

12-15-2006, 12:56 PM

The Republic of Ireland is testament to the fact that terrorism works, Collins after all was apparently the inventor of urban guerilla warfare.
*ehem* Collins had a mandate :bbbat:

Jimbo Gomez

12-15-2006, 01:00 PM

In threads like this one, I miss the presence of Lenny.

Geist

12-15-2006, 01:03 PM

*ehem* Collins had a mandate :bbbat:

I'd still consider his tactics those of a terrorists. I don't think I brought up anything to do with mandates, but point taken.

http://www.mojairlandia.pl/polityka/img/ira_collins.jpg

:dance2:

Ahmadinebobina

12-15-2006, 01:45 PM

That land was, is and always will be Catholic. Those proddy bastards who refuse to leave can have a fork in the eye as a proper incentive.

The religious issue is irrelevant to most and rightly so. It's really not a religious conflict, it seems to just be hijacked occassionally by religious people with ulterior motives. Religion places the ethno-political dividers down alright but it's really more of a who's who in Ulster than an actual bone of contention unless you consider being anti-Catholic or anti-Protestant rather than Pro-your own religion a religious stance.

Jonathan

12-15-2006, 02:07 PM

The religious issue is irrelevant to most and rightly so. It's really not a religious conflict, it seems to just be hijacked occassionally by religious people with ulterior motives. Religion places the ethno-political dividers down alright but it's really more of a who's who in Ulster than an actual bone of contention unless you consider being anti-Catholic or anti-Protestant rather than Pro-your own religion a religious stance.

Related Trivia - Nowadays Republicans and Loyalists have started identifying each other by surnames. I couldn't believe this until it acutally happened to me myself. The [second] last time I was in Belfast I ended up in some dodgie lookin area (I don't know the name of it, I don't even know where I was at the time), in the middle of the night, all on my ownieo (long story, don't ask) when I ran into some "hoods". We were all "on the one road" though (read: Nationalists) and they could tell this from my [southern] accent. But they consistantly asked me my surname (I think it was 3 times over the course of the conversation) and they each told me their surnames as if this proved that we were all on the same side.

I find that confusing becasue, as I've mentioned in other threads, Gerry Adams (SF) obviously isn't of Gaelic paternal lineage while Ken Maguinness (UUP) obviously is yet they are both from the "wrong" communities if we're to go by this simple surname system.

Geist

12-15-2006, 02:23 PM

Related Trivia - Nowadays Republicans and Loyalists have started identifying each other by surnames. I couldn't believe this until it acutally happened to me myself. The [second] last time I was in Belfast I ended up in some dodgie lookin area (I don't know the name of it, I don't even know where I was at the time), in the middle of the night, all on my ownieo (long story, don't ask) when I ran into some "hoods". We were all "on the one road" though (read: Nationalists) and they could tell this from my [southern] accent. But they consistantly asked me my surname (I think it was 3 times over the course of the conversation) and they each told me their surnames as if this proved that we were all on the same side.
.

Apparently this is as old as the hills up there. The paramilitary patrols were based on checking drivers licenses, and working out what community you were from by your name. Its a fairly good indicator if you're into that sort of thing. From what I gather half the Unionists are called Billy, and the Nationalists all have Gaelic names :rofl: You really should relay how someone from the South managed to get lost in Belfast alone!

Jonathan

12-15-2006, 02:28 PM

From what I gather half the Unionists are called Billy, and the Nationalists all have Gaelic names :rofl:
Oh yeah, with first names it makes plenty of sense, but with surnames it's a bit arbitrary.

You really should relay how someone from the South managed to get lost in Belfast alone!
I wouldn't mind but I started out and there were about a dozen of us!

Ahmadinebobina

12-15-2006, 03:05 PM

Tell us the story, Shane :D

Lily

12-15-2006, 03:47 PM

I support it, for pretty much the same reasons as most members have mentioned. Geist is doing a good job as my Irish history teacher...:dance2:

TruthSeeker

12-15-2006, 03:50 PM

That's the flag/symbol of Leinster which is my own province, but as Shane has noted does not represent Ireland.

Here's a nice picture of the Irish flag:

http://www.blogickal.com/images/Irish%20Flag.jpg

http://www.irish-nationalism.net/forum/

Jonathan

12-15-2006, 04:31 PM

http://www.irish-nationalism.net/forum/
It's been discussed there too.

shanemac

12-15-2006, 04:46 PM

Related Trivia - Nowadays Republicans and Loyalists have started identifying each other by surnames. I couldn't believe this until it acutally happened to me myself.

Maybe I'm showing my age a bit, but when I was a lad in Co. Wicklow people kind of knew who was who from the surname. I think I read that Wicklow's got the highest proportional number of protestants in the republic, so that might not be so common in other counties.

Not that people had anything against the proddies, but there was always .... an unspoken kind of divide. Maybe that's dying out these days... hopefully anyway. :)

TruthSeeker

12-15-2006, 07:54 PM

It's been discussed there too.

One reason why I do not approve of the current Irish flag is because it also represents the Protestant side, e.g. the orange stripe of the flag. The flag that I posted in my first post in this thread, before this thread took 5 pills of steroids and GREW, is the flag that I feel would best represent a unified Ireland, with a few changes added to it of course that would set it apart from the flag of Leinster.

EDIT: The new flag of Ireland should have Irish Gaelic words refering to a motto of sorts. What that motto would be is best left to the Irish people.

Ahmadinebobina

12-15-2006, 08:58 PM

I don't think we'll ever manage to be at a point where flag changing is high up on the agenda.

Hakluyt

12-15-2006, 09:29 PM

Exactly my opinion. I also must say that as it seems now the reunification of Ireland is something inevitable and I completely support that. http://thephora.net/forum/images/icons/icon14.gif
What exactly do you base this on? As everyone with a little familiarity knows, while only 40% and 25% identify respectively as Unionist/Nationalist, 60% want to remain part of the UK and only 20% want to join the Republic. Even accounting for differences in birthrates between Catholics and Protestants (most Catholics support the Union in the first place, btw) this "inevitable" process would at least 4 or 5 generations.

This very much reminds me on the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Trust me the least you need is a third party complicating things.
:D Would you also compare Home Rule in Ireland to Home Rule in Africa?

Hakluyt

12-15-2006, 09:57 PM

People who go to the bother of posting that they would or wouldn't support this should go to the bother of posting why as well. Why do you support unification, or partition, or seperatism etc.? For me it's simply nationalism and functionality.
1) Ethnic and religious differences, whatever the material force behind their presence in the island, deserve to be recognised and necessitate some degree of political autonomy. That both groups previously identified as a common 'nation' (debateable, to begin with) in the 19th/20th centuries doesn't negate these. The fundamental question is one of popular sovereignty; regardless of historical justice, your personal desires, or the desires of the people of the Republic, the majority in Northern Ireland want things a certain way, and mature minds in both camps should learn to acknowledge this reality.

Re: Northern Irish viewing themselves as part of the Irish nation: in many ways, 19th century civic nationalism in the French model is insufficient to address real human passions and political aspirations. Most peoples have moved beyond it or are starting to move beyond it. The legacies of 19th century statism/nationalism have only succeeded in areas where local identities have been destroyed or have had their cultural salience diminished - f.e Germany and France. Examples to the contrary would be the United Kingdom and Yugoslavia (the former not a creation of Romantic nationalism, but with an identity forged during that period, the latter a direct outgrowth of 19th century statism.)

2) Ireland is a Republic, Northern Ireland is a Constitutional Monarchy. I am a monarchist for reasons that have nothing to do with history or ethnic affiliations, and believe the latter to be a superior form of government. Republicanism is a degenerate and massified form of government. Integration into the ROI and the abolition of the Crown executive in Northern Ireland would require destroying the existing constitution and objectively be a step in the wrong direction, even if I had no familiarity with the regional history.

3) I am biased against the Nationalists due to their unfair representation in media and popular culture. Irish Nationalism constitutes an aggressive and irredentist programme, but is almost never depicted as such - instead, the unionists/supporters of the status quo are demonised as historical oppressors. This stems from the popular mythology of the unique evil of the British Empire and its legacy - one enforced by the English-speaking world in the first place; thus its perception of Ireland conforms. In this sense, the comparison some have made between the the IRA & NI and the PLO & Israel is quite apt.

Plainly stated, the ROI is on the wrong side of history in left/right terms, modern/traditional terms, and on the wrong side of my personal and ethnic loyalties.

Heavens to Betsy

12-15-2006, 10:42 PM

I suppose I'm more in favour of reunification than occupation, try as I might I can't work myself up to caring though. Which is probably some grievous act of unpatriotic on my part.

I'd go spare if anyone tried to change the flag though.

shanemac

12-15-2006, 11:04 PM

I've often thought that since the 2 communities of NI cannot seem to live together, perhaps they should be separated.

For example if the republic gained 2 of the counties of NI.... maybe Derry and Fermanagh for example, and all who identified as nationalist (likely almost all of the gaelic/catholic community) had to move to the republic, leaving the remaining 4 counties of Ireland as an ethnically distinct state free to do whatever they wanted.

There is no way of pleasing all sides on this issue... but this might be a good compromise. How would people feel about this?

Zrinski

12-16-2006, 01:40 AM

What exactly do you base this on? As everyone with a little familiarity knows, while only 40% and 25% identify respectively as Unionist/Nationalist, 60% want to remain part of the UK and only 20% want to join the Republic. Even accounting for differences in birthrates between Catholics and Protestants (most Catholics support the Union in the first place, btw) this "inevitable" process would at least 4 or 5 generations.

First I don't know where do you get those numbers, if they are from some kind of polls I would like to remind you they have no strengh nor legality as they are no more worthy than any other poll asking from what toilet paper they use to their color preference.

Republicans are stronger and stronger each day in Northern Ireland and as you say yourself the Catholics have higher birthrates. This all brings us to the conclusion - it is inevitable. No matter that you don't want to see it happen and are thus blind to the truth.

:D Would you also compare Home Rule in Ireland to Home Rule in Africa?

No but I would compare British protectorate over the region to the EU protectorate over Bosnia and Herzegovina. There are more similarities between the two entities then you would like to think.

Slavic Enforcer

12-16-2006, 01:48 AM

Yes, I support Irish Reunification.

Hakluyt

12-16-2006, 02:15 AM

First I don't know where do you get those numbers, if they are from some kind of polls I would like to remind you they have no strengh nor legality as they are no more worthy than any other poll asking from what toilet paper they use to their color preference.
As I said, if you had any familiarity with the situation, you wouldn't dispute this. There are dozens of polls which put the numbers at 60/20, give or take 5%. It is also a common sense estimate based on population - almost all Protestants wish to remain part of the United Kingdom (and even fewer want to become part of the Republic), while only about half of Catholics want to join the Republic. Use Google.

Republicans are stronger and stronger each day in Northern Ireland and as you say yourself the Catholics have higher birthrates.
Very marginally, and they are falling while the Protestant rates are stable. My estimation was rhetorical and probably a great overstatement.

Jonathan

12-16-2006, 02:17 PM

One reason why I do not approve of the current Irish flag is because it also represents the Protestant side, e.g. the orange stripe of the flag.
Religion =/= Nationality.:deadhorse:
See the link I provided for Thomas777:)

The flag that I posted in my first post in this thread, before this thread took 5 pills of steroids and GREW, is the flag that I feel would best represent a unified Ireland, with a few changes added to it of course that would set it apart from the flag of Leinster.
Well, I'd have to ask what kind of changes?
The funny thing is that the Flag of Leinster was introduced by the Tudors.

EDIT: The new flag of Ireland should have Irish Gaelic words refering to a motto of sorts.
That's be far too cmplicated for a National Flag. I think they should be kept simple. I'm quite fond of the Tricolour...my only problem is that it's too much like the flag of Co. Offaly!

What that motto would be is best left to the Irish people.
If there had to be a motto for Ireland it'd probably be something like what Basil has at the bottom of his sig.

Jonathan

12-16-2006, 02:23 PM

What exactly do you base this on?
If I was raising claims of inevitability I'd base it on "common sense" or what people in Northern Ireland call "Bread and Butter issues" - Economics, Environmental issues etc. The North South Ministerial Council which deals with these kind of issues is a step in that direction (I brought it up in the other thread in a reply to Basil, you might have seen it). As it is at the moment, Northern Ireland only survives because Britain pumps so much money into it and as we all know, it todays world "money" matters.

Jonathan

12-16-2006, 02:34 PM

Thanks.

1) Ethnic and religious differences, whatever the material force behind their presence in the island, deserve to be recognised and necessitate some degree of political autonomy.
This leads us down the road of "degrees". Should Presbyterians in Co. Cavan, Episcopalians in Co. Wicklow, and Catholics in Co. Galway have different "degrees of autonomy" too?

That both groups previously identified as a common 'nation' (debateable, to begin with)
The other thread is already there.

...the majority in Northern Ireland want...
^Partitionist mindset.

Re: Northern Irish viewing themselves as part of the Irish nation: in many ways, 19th century civic nationalism in the French model is insufficient to address real human passions and political aspirations.
I see what you're on about. We don't call it "19th century civic nationalism in the French model" around here. We call that "Republicanism" a la Wolfe Tone.

More important to me is what I'd call "cultural Nationlism" a la Hyde.

2) Ireland is a Republic, Northern Ireland is a Constitutional Monarchy. I am a monarchist for reasons that have nothing to do with history or ethnic affiliations, and believe the latter to be a superior form of government.
Out of curiosity, would you support a United Ireland under an Irish monarchy?

Integration into the ROI and the abolition of the Crown executive in Northern Ireland would require destroying the existing constitution and objectively be a step in the wrong direction
As I'm sure you know, the Crown has very little to do with NI.

shanemac

12-16-2006, 03:30 PM

2) Ireland is a Republic, Northern Ireland is a Constitutional Monarchy. I am a monarchist for reasons that have nothing to do with history or ethnic affiliations, and believe the latter to be a superior form of government.

You're a monarchist... you support a system of government where some guy becomes your ruler by virtue of the fact that he was born.

Might I suggest to you that your opinion is ridiculous.

Hakluyt

12-16-2006, 03:33 PM

This leads us down the road of "degrees". Should Presbyterians in Co. Cavan, Episcopalians in Co. Wicklow, and Catholics in Co. Galway have different "degrees of autonomy" too?
I would need to be more familiar with their communal structures and identity (how far apart they live and feel from eachother), but certainly two Protestant sects are going to be closer together by degree than either with Catholicism; it's also my impression that most of the Ulster-Scot Anglicans are of Scottish/Ulter-Scot extraction ethnically and not English, or only in part.

^Partitionist mindset.
You call it partitionist, the rest of the world calls it diplomatic. You cannot negate the intentions of a group of people whom, for whatever reason, have bound together and decided to move in their own direction.

But I suppose I should stop short of contrasting the rest of the world with your undiplomatic approach. You, as an Irishman, are far from the only one with this psychological hurdle to overcome: the English Canadians have it, the French Belgians have it, the southern Italians have it, certainly the Russians have it, the Turks and Iraqis viz the Kurds... there's no need to go on. It's a common ailment.

I see what you're on about. We don't call it "19th century civic nationalism in the French model" around here. We call that "Republicanism" a la Wolfe Tone.

More important to me is what I'd call "cultural Nationlism" a la Hyde.
That is its genesis. Certainly every nation that embraced it had its own reasons for doing so.

Out of curiosity, would you support a United Ireland under an Irish monarchy?
That wouldn't do it but it would introduce some interesting dynamics. Better than the present situation,

As I'm sure you know, the Crown has very little to do with NI.
They have only lived under one as a people from time immemorial.

Hakluyt

12-16-2006, 03:43 PM

You're a monarchist... you support a system of government where some guy becomes your ruler by virtue of the fact that he was born.

Might I suggest to you that your opinion is ridiculous.
Might I suggest to you that you either have a modern aversion to such a traditional figure, or don't understand the structure of constitutional monarchy? Some of the most stable nations in the world have evolved out of constitutional monarchies, not coincidentally: Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the UK, the Scandinavian countries (minus Finland), Japan, Belgium, the Netherlands etc. In most of these countries there exist Monarchist leagues with tens of thousands of members each that are perfectly mainstream organisations who campaign for a greater role for the monarch.

shanemac

12-16-2006, 04:19 PM

Constitutional monarchy is different from just plain old "monarchy", by virtue of the fact that the monarch in a constitutional monarchy sits back, goes to a few parades and basically has fuck all to do with the running of the state.

England is really no more of a monarchy than France is. Apart from making a boring speech at Christmas time, attending a few parades through the year, and writing some non-committal letters from time to time the queen sits in the background, away from the spotlight and let's the cheques keep rolling in.

The Queen of England is the head of state... a completely ceremonial function. Anyone could perform the same function as the queen. As Blackadder the Butler said to Prince George "there are bits of lemon peel floating down the Thames that would make better Regents than you ... The fact is, you *are* Regent"

brigadier Biggles

12-16-2006, 04:56 PM

That land was, is and always will be Catholic. Those proddy bastards who refuse to leave can have a fork in the eye as a proper incentive.

Well England was catholic too some of my ancestors from the 15th century the Mary 1st reign were BURNT AT THE STAKE for being protestant.

TruthSeeker

12-16-2006, 08:00 PM

Well, I'd have to ask what kind of changes?
The funny thing is that the Flag of Leinster was introduced by the Tudors.

So what if it was introduced by the Family of Tudor? It's a better looking flag than the current one.

That's be far too complicated for a National Flag. I think they should be kept simple. I'm quite fond of the Tricolour...my only problem is that it's too much like the flag of Co. Offaly!

My problem exactly.

Geist

12-16-2006, 08:02 PM

I'm actually not a fan of the tricolour. It just seems a little unbecoming of a countries flag. I really think the Harp should be on there somewhere.

brigadier Biggles

12-16-2006, 11:59 PM

Thats how i feel about the English flag !, youd think a nation with hundreds of years history would have something a bit more interesting than 2 red lines.

Zrinski

12-17-2006, 12:53 AM

As I said, if you had any familiarity with the situation, you wouldn't dispute this. There are dozens of polls which put the numbers at 60/20, give or take 5%. It is also a common sense estimate based on population - almost all Protestants wish to remain part of the United Kingdom (and even fewer want to become part of the Republic), while only about half of Catholics want to join the Republic. Use Google.

I think what you don't understand that those are polls, if we take a look into electoral voting body then the percentage of those who vote for nationalist and pro-reunification with Ireland parties is much higher.

Very marginally, and they are falling while the Protestant rates are stable. My estimation was rhetorical and probably a great overstatement.

Marginally? I would disagree with you. The statistics is clear on this. Catholics are on constant rise and the protestants are now for some time falling down. As I said I believe re-unification is inevitable and only matter of time.

Jonathan

12-17-2006, 10:46 AM

I would need to be more familiar with their communal structures and identity (how far apart they live and feel from eachother)
You seem to think that you're familiar enough with the NI situation to make a decision on it. How familiar is familiar?

but certainly two Protestant sects are going to be closer together by degree than either with Catholicism
That's fair enough, but it still doesn't answer any questions about how "different" a group needs to be before it should need a new state.

it's also my impression that most of the Ulster-Scot Anglicans are of Scottish/Ulter-Scot extraction ethnically and not English, or only in part.
What do you base that on? Crude surname examples would suggest otherwise btw.

You call it partitionist, the rest of the world calls it diplomatic. You cannot negate the intentions of a group of people whom, for whatever reason, have bound together and decided to move in their own direction.
Why would you treat that group differently to a group like the Protestant Unionist community in west Cork though? The only reason that you do is becasue there is a boarder for one and not for the other. It's as if you're only starting where it suits you.

... there's no need to go on. It's a common ailment.
...seems like a cop-out for an answer though.

That is its genesis. Certainly every nation that embraced it had its own reasons for doing so.
That doesn't really answer anything.

They have only lived under one as a people from time immemorial.
So? That doesn't change the fact that the Queen has little to do with NI.

P.S. My original comment about the monarchy wasn't for you. It was for others who might be reading your post and think that the Queen had something to do in NI.

stannis

12-17-2006, 08:09 PM

The poll question responses were rather biased, but I voted yes, someday I should like to see the peaceful unification of Ireland.

Basil Fawlty

12-17-2006, 08:48 PM

You call it partitionist, the rest of the world calls it diplomatic. You cannot negate the intentions of a group of people whom, for whatever reason, have bound together and decided to move in their own direction.This is exactly what the British did when they resisted the Irish independence movement and partitioned the country!

btw, I largely agree with you about the monarchy. I think if I were British I would probably be a monarchist.

Geist

12-18-2006, 11:56 AM

Thats how i feel about the English flag !, youd think a nation with hundreds of years history would have something a bit more interesting than 2 red lines.

Indeed, and the worst part is either you or Denmark simply inverted the colours of your flags at one point to save time :rofl:

Hakluyt

12-18-2006, 07:05 PM

That's fair enough, but it still doesn't answer any questions about how "different" a group needs to be before it should need a new state.
Questions you didn't ask. The simplest answer would follow that it is really up to the people themselves: if they want governance on a certain level, they will work toward that end. This isn't necessarily an ideal process in the human scope of things, and it might not always suit our political aspirations or idealised visions of our respective nations, but it's imperative that we acknowledge it to maintain peace and diplomacy.

What do you base that on? Crude surname examples would suggest otherwise btw.
Intermarriage and the regional origin of the settlers (there used to be a lot more Episcopalians in Scotland in centuries past than there are now) but I'm no expert. It's not crucial to my argument anyway. If they are entirely distinct ethnically, I haven't seen much suggesting they are a) self-conscious to the degree they desire political autonomy or b) geographically situated/integral. I could be wrong.

Why would you treat that group differently to a group like the Protestant Unionist community in west Cork though? The only reason that you do is becasue there is a boarder for one and not for the other. It's as if you're only starting where it suits you.
It has nothing to do with me. Ideally there would be self-governance wherever there is a desire for it, but you have to take geography into account and the surrounding demographics. If it's possible for them to have self-government on such a small scale, I don't see why they shouldn't, but self-consciousness on the city/town level seems to be something of the past (unfortunately, I'd say).

...seems like a cop-out for an answer though.
Excuse me, a cop-out to what question? I was suggesting that your views on the 'partitionist mindset' are coloured by your territorial aggression, held in common with other peoples around the world.

That doesn't really answer anything.
What would you like me to answer Jonathan? Your responses are getting a bit vague.

I'm acknowledging that every nation which adopted the French bourgeois model had its individual reasons for doing so, and left its own legacy that understandably has some historical/sentimental dimensions. But it's still a model that I reject, and makes up one of the reasons I'm explaining to you for the position I take.

So? That doesn't change the fact that the Queen has little to do with NI.
First of all, yes she does, but that wasn't my claim to begin with. I referred to the Crown as a symbol, political concept, and executive. Whether or not Elizabeth II had anything to do with NI is irrelevant to this - and if you don't see the abstract concept of the Crown having much to do with NI, you sir are a bit off.

P.S. My original comment about the monarchy wasn't for you. It was for others who might be reading your post and think that the Queen had something to do in NI.
Yeah, what a silly mistake on my part.

Hakluyt

12-18-2006, 07:08 PM

This is exactly what the British did when they resisted the Irish independence movement and partitioned the country!

btw, I largely agree with you about the monarchy. I think if I were British I would probably be a monarchist.
Facilitating the independence of one group is not a denial of self-determination for the bigger group. It's a very silly statement in the face of Home Rule to begin with. Certainly the aspirations of the minority within the partitioned territory have been denied, but such is the fate of all minorities. I personally think it'd be a good idea to gerrymander away one or two of the mostly-Catholic counties or possibly divide them further - that may be some kind of solution.

Hakluyt

12-18-2006, 07:14 PM

I think what you don't understand that those are polls, if we take a look into electoral voting body then the percentage of those who vote for nationalist and pro-reunification with Ireland parties is much higher.
You have a point Zrinski, but at the same time not everyone who votes for a party does so for exactly the same reasons. Opinion polls, of a diverse nature with varying types of questions and administered by different organisations, are a better way to gauge the true sentiment of the people. But nonetheless, you're right, if the people vote for Sinn Feinn they will reap what they sow. However you're wrong that more are likely to vote than will respond to polls - in the last election, SF's best result ever, they only received 23% of the vote, 2 or 3% lower than the % which normally identifies as 'nationalist'.

Marginally? I would disagree with you. The statistics is clear on this. Catholics are on constant rise and the protestants are now for some time falling down. As I said I believe re-unification is inevitable and only matter of time.
Sources please. This would run counter to the usual findings.

Jonathan

12-18-2006, 08:01 PM

Questions you didn't ask.
I felt that the question about "degrees" was clear enough actually.

The simplest answer would follow that it is really up to the people themselves
Why? Generally nations recognise themselves as such but are also recognised by other nations as such ("Imagined communities" once again).

It has nothing to do with me.
Well it is "your" opinion on groups bound together.

Ideally there would be self-governance wherever there is a desire for it, but you have to take geography into account and the surrounding demographics.
Geography and surrounding demographic? That's all a bit vague for giving definitive answers.

Excuse me, a cop-out to what question?
The whole issue. To just accuse someone that their views are totally biases etc.

I was suggesting that your views on the 'partitionist mindset' are coloured by your territorial aggression, held in common with other peoples around the world.
I'd maintain that the "partitionist mindset" is a serious problem for this whole issue though. The fact that there is a boarder leads many people to strat off with the idea of the boarder and deal with the populations on both sides as being different (this is why Unionists often talk of the right to self-determination of the people of Northern Ireland irrespective of nation etc and often leave out the same right for Unionists who might live in Donegal or Cork as if they should be treated with the Nationalists in the south) were as others, such as myself, tend to see it interms of population groups on the island irrespective of the boarder. I feel that it's quite legitimate to look on the people as people of a certain persuasion rather than citizens of a particular state. You can attribute that to "territorial aggression" or whatever else you like, but it doesn't negate the problem of the "partitionist mindset".

What would you like me to answer Jonathan?
You stated that many groups adopted Nationalism for different reasons (perhaps hinting that the ancestors of the current Unionists didn't view themselves as being Irish) but you didn't offer any suggestion as to what reason the Ulster Presbyterians adopted this kind of Nationalism. It's as if you'll entertain any possibility but wont state outright which one you believe yourself.

I'm acknowledging that every nation which adopted the French bourgeois model had its individual reasons for doing so, and left its own legacy that understandably has some historical/sentimental dimensions. But it's still a model that I reject, and makes up one of the reasons I'm explaining to you for the position I take.
But I've already stated that the "French bourgeois model" is what we generally describe as Republicanism as opposed to cultural nationalism which was still evident among many of the Ulster-Protestants (Mary McConnell and Ernest Blythe being two examples that I've mentioned on the Phora before).

I referred to the Crown as a symbol, political concept, and executive.
And how significant do you really think she is "as a symbol, political concept, and executive" to the Unionists/Loyalists?
What led you to this conclusion?

I would put it to you that the Unionists/Loyalists have very little time for the Monarchy when it doesn't suit them (as they have demostrated in history).

And after that, how important is she "as a symbol, political concept, and executive" to you?
And why is that?

Jonathan

12-18-2006, 08:02 PM

Facilitating the independence of one group is not a denial of self-determination for the bigger group.
You're talking about "groups" here Haklyut. Are you still a Nationalist?

Hakluyt

12-18-2006, 08:28 PM

I felt that the question about "degrees" was clear enough actually.
That was a specific quesiton to which I offered a specific answer, not an abstract one.

Why? Generally nations recognise themselves as such but are also recognised by other nations as such ("Imagined communities" once again).
Because identity should be given value outside the context of the state.

Geography and surrounding demographic? That's all a bit vague for giving definitive answers.
I followed up on this point where I described the difficulty of local self-governance: for a group to be independent on this small scale usually requires territorial integrity with others of the same identity.

I'd maintain that the "partitionist mindset" is a serious problem for this whole issue though. The fact that there is a boarder leads many people to strat off with the idea of the boarder and deal with the populations on both sides as being different (this is why Unionists often talk of the right to self-determination of the people of Northern Ireland irrespective of nation etc and often leave out the same right for Unionists who might live in Donegal or Cork as if they should be treated with the Nationalists in the south) were as others, such as myself, tend to see it interms of population groups on the island irrespective of the boarder. I feel that it's quite legitimate to look on the people as people of a certain persuasion rather than citizens of a particular state. You can attribute that to "territorial aggression" or whatever else you like, but it doesn't negate the problem of the "partitionist mindset".
I quite agree with this in the socio-cultural context, but we are dealing with political realities i.e. "reunification". This inevitably requires some commentary on the political entity, regardless of its congruance with the identities/communities, which are of greater importance outside this consideration.

You stated that many groups adopted Nationalism for different reasons (perhaps hinting that the ancestors of the current Unionists didn't view themselves as being Irish) but you didn't offer any suggestion as to what reason the Ulster Presbyterians adopted this kind of Nationalism. It's as if you'll entertain any possibility but wont state outright which one you believe yourself.
My point was that civic nationalism doesn't reflect real ethnic identities. My view is that whether or not the Presbyterians identified with the Irish nation at some point, it is not an identification I lend much weight to. Civic nationalism is bourgeois and transitory.

But I've already stated that the "French bourgeois model" is what we generally describe as Republicanism as opposed to cultural nationalism which was still evident among many of the Ulster-Protestants (Mary McConnell and Ernest Blythe being two examples that I've mentioned on the Phora before).
Do you have a reason to believe I'm ignoring this?

And how significant do you really think she is "as a symbol, political concept, and executive" to the Unionists/Loyalists?
What led you to this conclusion?

I would put it to you that the Unionists/Loyalists have very little time for the Monarchy when it doesn't suit them (as they have demostrated in history).

And after that, how important is she "as a symbol, political concept, and executive" to you?
And why is that?
Okay I guess I didn't get my point across very well. The Crown is an institution, a symbol of a people's sovereignty. Where they choose to invest their crown and therefore entrust their sovereignty is not necessarily permanent - the Crown itself exists independently of any particular monarch. Within the United Kingdom and the realms over which Elizabeth reigns there are some dozen crowns, to which she has been entrusted: the Crown of Canada, the Crown of Australia, the Crown of Northern Ireland etc.

My point, however, was not to speak to any particular sentimental attachment (although I do believe that exists), but an objective preference for constitutional monarchy on my part.

Hakluyt

12-18-2006, 08:32 PM

You're talking about "groups" here Haklyut. Are you still a Nationalist?
In the same sense I might colloquially use the terms 'right' or 'left', but I fundamentally reject the presumptions of Hegelian or Revolutionary-derived nationalism. I think an understanding of sovereignty is better found in holistic analysis of the Self and the community. I also reject the democratic values and the statism to which capital-N Nationalism is generally attached.

Basil Fawlty

12-18-2006, 10:05 PM

Facilitating the independence of one group is not a denial of self-determination for the bigger group.Yes it is, becasue the vast majority of the island expressed a will which was over-ridden by the British for their own strategic interest and not out of any consideration for the northern Protestants.
It's a very silly statement in the face of Home Rule to begin with. :confused: What is?
Certainly the aspirations of the minority within the partitioned territory have been denied, but such is the fate of all minorities. Here we go again, the British partitioned the country against the expressed will of the great majority. All this talk about majorities and minorities is meaningless for it is only British strategic interest that matters here, certainly not any principle.
I personally think it'd be a good idea to gerrymander away one or two of the mostly-Catholic counties or possibly divide them further - that may be some kind of solution.I think it would be even better for the British to leave Ireland once and for all - 800 years is a long time to be an unwelcome presence.

Hakluyt

12-19-2006, 12:09 AM

What is?
You made two short statements. Guess which one it is.

Here we go again, the British partitioned the country against the expressed will of the great majority. All this talk about majorities and minorities is meaningless for it is only British strategic interest that matters here, certainly not any principle.
This is the same ridiculous line of reasoning that Jonathan uses, and not coincidentally, irredentists all around the world. I've already addressed it in this thread. Your imagined majority had/has no more right to Northern Ireland than Russia's majority has a right to Chechnya.

Whether partition was carried out purely to suit Britain's interests or not is irrelevant to what I'm saying anyway. Read over my post again.

Jonathan

12-19-2006, 11:24 AM

I wont be around to read any reply that you might offer to this post (see the thread in the Snior Administrative Council), but I'll reply all the same, considering you went to the bother of replying to me in the first place.

That was a specific quesiton to which I offered a specific answer, not an abstract one.
Your answer about the "degrees" was they you would need more information. I asked you how much information. You ignored that request. So as I see it, you didn't answer any question about "degrees" ("differences"). You dodged it by claiming that you'd need more info.

Because identity should be given value outside the context of the state.
I didn't mean the state. I meant from other nations.

I followed up on this point where I described the difficulty of local self-governance: for a group to be independent on this small scale usually requires territorial integrity with others of the same identity.
So your answer to my questions was actually:
Self-governance, although difficult to establish/maintain, should go to those who want it, so long as they have territotial integrity with others of the same identity.

That's a fair enough answer, but it would bring us back the the question of what constitutes the "group". I'd draw the line at the "nation". You bring it down further (or dispute the integrity of the nation).

I quite agree with this in the socio-cultural context, but we are dealing with political realities i.e. "reunification". This inevitably requires some commentary on the political entity, regardless of its congruance with the identities/communities, which are of greater importance outside this consideration.
I don't think we'll be singing off the same hymsheet on this any time soon. You can take it from the point of view of states. I'll take it from the point of view of people, irrespective of states.

My point was that civic nationalism doesn't reflect real ethnic identities. My view is that whether or not the Presbyterians identified with the Irish nation at some point, it is not an identification I lend much weight to. Civic nationalism is bourgeois and transitory.
And my point, as if been trying to explain, is that the Presbyterian identification was not only based on the Civic National model.

Do you have a reason to believe I'm ignoring this?
You have yet to affirm whether or not you believe that the ancestors of the Unionists ever believe that they were Irish in anything more than a "Civic National sense". Of course it's too late now but that's life.

My point, however, was not to speak to any particular sentimental attachment (although I do believe that exists), but an objective preference for constitutional monarchy on my part.
But I just can't see why you have that preference. That's why I had to ask you if you felt that it was important (as a symbol or otherwise). You haven't really explained that to me here either. I suppose I'll never know why you prefer constitutional monarchies. I wont loose any sleep over it.

You can reply for the sake of others (or yourself) but I wont be around to read it. It's been OK all the same discussing it with you Haklyut.:)

Basil Fawlty

12-19-2006, 01:25 PM

You made two short statements. Guess which one it is.No, I'm not playing games.
This is the same ridiculous line of reasoning that Jonathan uses, and not coincidentally, irredentists all around the world. Declaring it ridiculous doesn't make it so.
I've already addressed it in this thread. Your imagined majority had/has no more right to Northern Ireland than Russia's majority has a right to Chechnya.The large majority SF vote in 1918 is not imagined, its a recorded historical fact.
Whether partition was carried out purely to suit Britain's interests or not is irrelevant to what I'm saying anyway. Read over my post again.Its entirely relevant becasue you were trying to invoke the imagined rights of the Protestants to remain part of the UK, as if there were some democratic principle involved in partition. There was nonesuch as the contradiction in that claim has been established. Partition was a British strategic interest pure and simple.
But we can go the rounds another 800 years if necessary (although in light of the fairly imminent dissolution of the UK that probably won't be necessary though :)), but Britain's presence in Ireland has always been and always will be unwelcome.

Hakluyt

12-19-2006, 06:25 PM

Sorry to see you go Jonathan, I've learned a lot from your posts and threads over the years and very much hope to see you back.

I'll reply to this one as I would normally in case anyone else wants to pick up the points.

Your answer about the "degrees" was they you would need more information. I asked you how much information. You ignored that request. So as I see it, you didn't answer any question about "degrees" ("differences"). You dodged it by claiming that you'd need more info.
I answered that I would need more information to pass judgement in this particular example. That does not preclude me from making general assertions about it.

I didn't mean the state. I meant from other nations.
The kind of recognition you were talking about suggested to me an international law-type approach to recognising communities, which would necessarily be a state action. If not this would need to be clarified.

So your answer to my questions was actually:
Self-governance, although difficult to establish/maintain, should go to those who want it, so long as they have territotial integrity with others of the same identity.

That's a fair enough answer, but it would bring us back the the question of what constitutes the "group". I'd draw the line at the "nation". You bring it down further (or dispute the integrity of the nation).
I think ideally there would be such autonomy regardless of territorial integrity, but the lack of it doesn't inspire any confidence, especially in the self-consciousness of the people to begin with.

I think the nation is an artificial common denominator determined by larger and more successful groups. The value of an ethnic group is not determined by its political successes.

I don't think we'll be singing off the same hymsheet on this any time soon. You can take it from the point of view of states. I'll take it from the point of view of people, irrespective of states.
Such a perspective, while silly for ignoring reality, only serves my position anyway, as it negates the claims of the artificiality of NI, normally used as a lever to claim the whole of Ulster. Viewed exclusively as a dichotomy between peoples and not one between powers and interests, there is no question that we are dealing with a group that deserves autonomy, in whatever political manifestation.

And my point, as if been trying to explain, is that the Presbyterian identification was not only based on the Civic National model.
I haven't seen any such explanation or attempt thereof in this thread or the other one, sorry. If anyone else can show me a common folkish nationalism between the Ulster Scots and the rest of the island I would be very impressed (I don't rule out the possibility, honest).

But I just can't see why you have that preference. That's why I had to ask you if you felt that it was important (as a symbol or otherwise). You haven't really explained that to me here either. I suppose I'll never know why you prefer constitutional monarchies. I wont loose any sleep over it.
I just took it for granted that you acknowledged it. Maybe I'll make another post about it.

Hakluyt

12-19-2006, 06:57 PM

The large majority SF vote in 1918 is not imagined, its a recorded historical fact.
We could hold a similar vote across Russia tomorrow and know the results well in advance, or Canada, or Belgium, et al. Ulster voted for the Unionists in 1918.

If one looks only at the nine counties of the historic province of Ulster, the total vote was (with two Cavan constituencies uncontested):

Unionists 234376 49.8%
Sinn Fein 110032 23.4%

For the six counties which formed the future Northern Ireland, the total vote was:

Unionists 225082 56.2%
Sinn Fein 76100 19.0%
http://www.ark.ac.uk/elections/h1918.htm

Its entirely relevant becasue you were trying to invoke the imagined rights of the Protestants to remain part of the UK, as if there were some democratic principle involved in partition. There was nonesuch as the contradiction in that claim has been established. Partition was a British strategic interest pure and simple.
But we can go the rounds another 800 years if necessary (although in light of the fairly imminent dissolution of the UK that probably won't be necessary though ), but Britain's presence in Ireland has always been and always will be unwelcome.You are being deliberately obtuse. In my view, the democratic question, if that's what we are to call self-determination (a rather naive reductionism but we can work with it) is a contemporary one, not a historical one; I think anyone could have gleaned that from my post where I described the imperative of recognition 'for whatever reason' the people have expressed their will.

shanemac

12-19-2006, 11:00 PM

Where's he going (Shane)?

Basil Fawlty

12-20-2006, 09:01 AM

We could hold a similar vote across Russia tomorrow and know the results well in advance, or Canada, or Belgium, et al. Ulster voted for the Unionists in 1918.Ulster was not a country, so why arbitrarily focus on the results for that province?
We ought to note from those results that the new statelet had to be heavily gerrymandered in order to produce a signifcant majority for purposes of British partition plans.
Those results have to be balanced by the fact that the vote was split in some constituencies between SF and the Nationalists. Overall we are still talking about a massive SF vote nationwide, c. 70%.
You are being deliberately obtuse. In my view, the democratic question, if that's what we are to call self-determination (a rather naive reductionism but we can work with it) is a contemporary one, not a historical one; I think anyone could have gleaned that from my post where I described the imperative of recognition 'for whatever reason' the people have expressed their will.The people did express their will: Brits out! You can't avoid this whatever way you want to spin it.

Hakluyt

12-20-2006, 11:11 AM

Ulster was not a country, so why arbitrarily focus on the results for that province?
Well, first and foremost because it's the topic of the thread. For myself in particular, as an ethno-nationalist and regionalist I don't believe states to be the sole determinant of sovereignty. Sovereignty is something that exists abstractly and independently of any political force. That a state, government, movement or individual chooses not to recognise the sovereignty of a particular group does not negate its existence. I focus on Ulster because it's home to an identifiable group that has, in the past and now, expressed its will for self-determination. This is objective criteria.

It's always amusing to see the nationalists take this strongarm approach to the north. Britain could have treated you likewise (or, rather, as you'd like to treat the north), intervened in the Civil War, and crushed your little insurrection if it so choosed. Votes and violent rising are but two ways to express the same desire, after all. Instead it decided to acknowledge the will of the people represented by the Dail (home rule had been a popular position domestically for decades) and accede to their demands for autonomy. Imagine that.

You are the worst of hypocrites and ignore your own lessons of history.

Those results have to be balanced by the fact that the vote was split in some constituencies between SF and the Nationalists.
That's false as the statistics I linked to plainly show: in the nine counties, there was a combined Nationalist vote of 38.5% to a combined Unionist vote of 58.9%; in the six counties, a combined Nationalist vote of 30.1% to a combined vote of 69.8%. It was no split.

The people did express their will: Brits out! You can't avoid this whatever way you want to spin it.
I guess I'm talking to a broken record/Green spam bot, hmm?

There is no spin. I stated plainly that my core assessment doesn't depend on any historical perspective. This core condemns the nationalists for their undiplomatic, regressive and irredentist attitude contra self-determination and ethno-pluralism. As such you have natural friends in the Serbs and Croats, who on this forum both naturally seem to show sympathy for your silly tin-pot struggle.

shanemac

12-20-2006, 08:59 PM

your silly tin-pot struggle.

You're baiting.

Also, if this is a "silly tin-pot struggle", why do you spend so much time writing about it?

Hakluyt

12-20-2006, 09:05 PM

You're baiting.

Also, if this is a "silly tin-pot struggle", why do you spend so much time writing about it?
1) I dont, 2) silliness on the part of a protagonist doesn't make its actions irrelevant or inconsequential, 3) if it's baiting its very very light baiting, and Basil deserves it anyway

dannymu

12-21-2006, 04:54 PM

No, I support the British Occupation of Northern Ireland.
Though if the Northern Irish vote for reunification in a referendum then I have no problem with it. Now if the IRA or any other Irish organisation resorts to violence to achieve reunification then I will fully support the British and Ulster Unionists in the military action against those paramilitary and terrorist groups who want reunification.

Geist

12-21-2006, 04:58 PM

Though if the Northern Irish vote for reunification in a referendum then I have no problem with it. Now if the IRA or any other Irish organisation resorts to violence to achieve reunification then I will fully support the British and Ulster Unionists in the military action against those paramilitary and terrorist groups who want reunification.

Would you support the IRA in military action due to violence perpetrated by Unionist organisations against the nationalist/Catholic community?

dannymu

12-21-2006, 05:01 PM

Would you support the IRA in military action due to violence perpetrated by Unionist organisations against the nationalist/Catholic community?
I'm sure the PSNI would deal with the Unionists who were causing trouble before the IRA got involved.

Geist

12-21-2006, 05:03 PM

I'm sure the PSNI would deal with the Unionists who were causing trouble before the IRA got involved.

Then you hold an exceptionally naive view of the volatile nature of Northern Irish politics.

stannis

12-21-2006, 07:40 PM

Exactly. Loyalist murderers and the RUC were known to collaborate on a regular basis. Of course, they don't learn that in the UK because that would hurt their pathetic self-image of 'imperial protector' of Northern Ireland.

dannymu

12-21-2006, 07:45 PM

Exactly. Loyalist murderers and the RUC were known to collaborate on a regular basis.
Exactly. Were known. Were. This has changed.

Of course, they don't learn that in the UK because that would hurt their pathetic self-image of 'imperial protector' of Northern Ireland.
I bet you have never been taught in Britain otherwise you wouldn't be saying that sort of crap.

There is a lot of stuff on my Politics textbook about this and about the mistreatment of Northern Irish Catholics at the hands of the Protestant majority. The same with my History textbook.

stannis

12-21-2006, 07:48 PM

Exactly. Were known. Were. This has changed.

So has IRA violence. So that means you have to stop being against them, right? Er, no. And nor do I have to stop opposing the Loyalist because their murderous violence doesn't happen any more. Which it does, by the way; Loyalists crime lords rule their own communities with at least as much brutality as Republican groups.

There is a lot of stuff on my Politics textbook about this and about the mistreatment of Northern Irish Catholics at the hands of the Protestant majority. The same with my History textbook.

Ah, so you learned about collusion then?

Basil Fawlty

12-21-2006, 08:07 PM

Exactly. Were known. Were. This has changed.How do you know?

dannymu

12-21-2006, 08:21 PM

How do you know?
He said "Loyalist murderers and the RUC were known to collaborate on a regular basis. "

Basil Fawlty

12-21-2006, 08:23 PM

He said "Loyalist murderers and the RUC were known to collaborate on a regular basis. "You said "This has changed." - How do you know?

Masty

12-22-2006, 03:54 PM

Then you hold an exceptionally naive view of the volatile nature of Northern Irish politics.

What exactly gives you the impression that yer in a position to lecher fellow posters who stand-up against irish republican tyranny?

Geist

12-22-2006, 04:00 PM

What exactly gives you the impression that yer in a position to lecher fellow posters who stand-up against irish republican tyranny?

The ability to type in the English language.

Masty

12-22-2006, 04:05 PM

You said "This has changed." - How do you know?

Who cares? The link between the i.r.a. and the gardai has also been proven, and there has also been evidence of joint p.s.n.i./i.r.a. collusion too. Like I said, who gives a fuck? It was a dirty conflict, underhand tactics were used by both sides, but Ulster is still British soil. Who won, by-the-way?

Masty

12-22-2006, 04:08 PM

The ability to type in the English language.

Good for you, keep it up.

Geist

12-22-2006, 04:13 PM

What exactly gives you the impression that yer in a position to lecher fellow posters who stand-up against irish republican tyranny?

On a serious note I was merely pointing out that he has a naive view of N. Ireland politics. I think your ideology is repugnant, but it is based in the realities of the conflict. You would be willing, and have been willing to use force etc. whereas that poster believes that all trouble in the North can be sorted via the PSNI.

Surely you agree that is naive?

Basil Fawlty

12-22-2006, 04:21 PM

Who cares? The link between the i.r.a. and the gardai has also been provenRubbish! The cops here are the most ardent west-brits of all.
Who won, by-the-way?Who won what?

Masty

12-22-2006, 04:31 PM

Rubbish! The cops here are the most ardent west-brits of all.
Who won what?

Rubbish is it? If you believe that to be the case then yer holding a more blinkered view of things than I do.

Basil Fawlty

12-22-2006, 04:58 PM

Rubbish is it? If you believe that to be the case then yer holding a more blinkered view of things than I do.Don't let me stop you from presenting the evidence to back up your claim. :D

dannymu

12-22-2006, 06:10 PM

On a serious note I was merely pointing out that he has a naive view of N. Ireland politics.
Why? Is it because you are Irish and therefore hate the British and Unionists?

but Ulster is still British soil. Who won, by-the-way?
Britain won! And the terrorists of IRA were defeated! :D

Geist

12-22-2006, 06:56 PM

Why? Is it because you are Irish and therefore hate the British and Unionists?

Nope. As a lot of posters on here from Britian know I get along with them quite well, and have a fairly big interest in English history. I have a huge respect for British culture much as you do from your posts. I am basing this on growing up in Ireland, and what I know of the North. It is something which comes up quite a lot as you can imagine. I also know a lot of people up there, and based on all this I think your view is naive.

Britain won! And the terrorists of IRA were defeated! :D

Its a complicated issue, and this is the kind of seperationist politics that people are trying to overcome.

stannis

12-22-2006, 07:42 PM

What exactly gives you the impression that yer in a position to lecher fellow posters who stand-up against irish republican tyranny?

Ha ha... yeah, only the IRA can by 'tyrannical'. Welcome to the world of Loyalist delusion.

Captain Aceman Superstar

12-28-2006, 03:39 PM

I support Irish reunification 100%, let the Union Jack fly over Ireland from coast to coast once again.

Geist

12-28-2006, 04:46 PM

I support Irish reunification 100%, let the Union Jack fly over Ireland from coast to coast once again.

How goes it George? Aren't you the guy who hates the Irish because you dad was beaten up by an Irish postman or some shit. By far the most hilarious reason for anti-Irish sentiment currently floating around the internet.

Ahmadinebobina

12-29-2006, 01:03 AM

...Stribog?

Scaary Kitty

01-09-2007, 08:26 PM

Why is there no option for NI becoming a seperate state? It's a drain on the UK, and it wouldn't be fair to subject the citizens to the crappy healthcare and education systems the Republic has to offer.

Ixtab

01-09-2007, 10:09 PM

I support the British occupation of Northern Ireland.

Basil Fawlty

01-09-2007, 10:13 PM

I support the British occupation of Northern Ireland.Trolling again.
A real unionist would never put it like that.

Arthur Daley

01-09-2007, 10:15 PM

I support the British occupation of Northern Ireland.
They should evacuate all their occupied territories..

powderjudge

02-06-2007, 05:33 PM

I think the idea of discussing something as complex as the northern ireland issue on the phora is simply batshit loco.

Given that most irish people, north and south, who are all deeply immersed in the so called "peace process" that those words are never far out of their aural range, still can't decide how its fixed baffles me as to why Johnny Foreigners think they can do a better job.

"The reunification of Ireland" as a sentance is Dumb. At no point in ireland's hsitory was the whole island a united, seperate and independant state. The closest ever was during the 1640's with the Confederacy of Kilkenny (wiki it), when at the height of their military strength dominated most of the country except the major cities and protestant strongholds.

After that you've got the Free State circa 1922. Both roughly equal in size and both swearing alliegence to a foreign monarch.

In both cases the area of NE ulster was left out and for good reason.

No body likes presbyterians... they're annoying.

ZOGsoldier

02-08-2007, 02:29 AM

Ulster should be a part of the Republic because it is IRISH. Not just geographically but culturally as well. The symbol of Ulster Proteswtants is the "Red Hand" which a symbol from Irish/Ghaelic mythology that predates the planters. The only thing that seperates North and South is Religion. Ulster was created to garauntee a permanent Protestant majority.

Hakluyt

02-08-2007, 05:22 PM

The only thing that seperates North and South is Religion.
ethnicity, political philosophy, allegiance, family history...

ZOGsoldier

02-08-2007, 05:26 PM

Ethnicity: The're both celtic
political philosophy: They both favor a religiously conservative democracy
allegiance: Many Ulster Prots see the Brits as untrustworthy, weak outsiders
family history: what are you talking about?

Hakluyt

02-08-2007, 07:47 PM

Ethnicity: The're both celtic
That's not an ethnicity. The Ulster-Scots are a distinct ethnic group easily distinguished from the 'Irish.'

political philosophy: They both favor a religiously conservative democracy
One favours a republican system and one favours a parliamentary monarchy. That distinction may be difficult for Americans to understand. Protestant conservatism and Catholic conservatism also differ in a number of significant ways.

allegiance: Many Ulster Prots see the Brits as untrustworthy, weak outsiders
Rightly so, as Westminster has a history of flagrant disregard for the interests and will of Northern Ireland, but this does not negate their sentiment toward the Crown. In the final analysis however, their allegiance is with the Ulster nation and a wider British identity (which most Brits thesmelves have abandoned).

family history: what are you talking about?
Many Ulster-Scots trace their family history in Ireland to the 17th plantation settlements. Many have dozens of continuous generations with no intermingling between the north and the south. Family history is often emphasised in a religious context as well.

Basil Fawlty

02-08-2007, 09:33 PM

That's not an ethnicity. The Ulster-Scots are a distinct ethnic group easily distinguished from the 'Irish.'Easily? Sometimes, but then sometimes not.
One favours a republican system and one favours a parliamentary monarchy.This is a comparatively recent development. The Dissenters (non-Anglican Prtestants) founded Irish Republicanism. It was scare-mongering and divide and rule tactics of the British who brought about the present peculiar reversal.
Many Ulster-Scots trace their family history in Ireland to the 17th plantation settlements. Many have dozens of continuous generations with no intermingling between the north and the south. And many have southern connections.
Family history is often emphasised in a religious context as well.When you take in the Soupers, and prior conversions of convenience, this picture becomes very murky and not as clear cut as you seem to portray it.

Hakluyt

02-08-2007, 09:58 PM

Easily? Sometimes, but then sometimes not.
Lines between ethnic groups, especially so close historically, are always blurred to some extent; but this does not call into question their existence.

This is a comparatively recent development. The Dissenters (non-Anglican Prtestants) founded Irish Republicanism. It was scare-mongering and divide and rule tactics of the British who brought about the present peculiar reversal.
Well, it's never too late to adopt sensible politics.

Putting republicanism forward as a historical constant is problematic, however. By contrast, republican ideals in Northern Ireland, certainly a common set of views amongst Protestants though never the mainstream, were only introduced after the French Revolution. (Cromwell may be cited as a proto-republican, perhaps, but I don't think we are going to see the Cromwellian legacy advanced as a particularly strong influence in Ireland thereafter.) This leaves us with the period of ~1790-1890 as the period of flirtation with republicanism in Northern Ireland. Not counting the rest of Irish and Scottish history which has been clearly aligned toward monarchy, the late 19th, 20th, and now 21st centuries comprise a longer period of time in which Northern Ireland has been overwhelmingly in favour of monarchical government.

When you take in the Soupers, and prior conversions of convenience, this picture becomes very murky and not as clear cut as you seem to portray it.
I think the qualifier of 'many' was fine.