What status of Northern Ireland do you support?

[Ricardo Vega]

I don't know if this is done before, but I'll create this poll just out of curiosity since I've thought about this recently. Please note that I'm not doing this to start a flame war amongst both Unionists and Republicans here at The Phora, or anyone else for that matter.

[harjit]

Whether it should stay part of the U.K., join the Republic of Ireland, or become an independent country, depends on which option brings the most peace and prosperity. Nothing else should matter.

[Charlie Robespierre]

The split between north and south should be healed -- ideally in the context of the British terror state being dissolved. The proper arrangements should be an independent Ireland, an independent Scotland, an independent Wales and an independent England in a relationship to each that is broadly akin to the relationship between the independent Scandinavian nations.

The British union is a mercantile concept that distorts and disfigures the relationships between the nations and should be abandoned.

[Hakluyt]

The split between north and south should be healed -- ideally in the context of the British terror state being dissolved. The proper arrangements should be an independent Ireland, an independent Scotland, an independent Wales and an independent England in a relationship to each that is broadly akin to the relationship between the independent Scandinavian nations.

The British union is a mercantile concept that distorts and disfigures the relationships between the nations and should be abandoned.
The North has an organic connection to Great Britain. It has much more to do with basic human reference points like language, religion, and ethnicity than it does with commerce. If material gain was the main interest of the people of Northern Ireland, support for annexation into the Republic would have risen during the boom of the late 90s/early 00s, while in reality it fell.

The will of the majority is clear. Let's take a look at the Northern Ireland Life and Times Survey (http://www.ark.ac.uk/nilt/2008/) for 2008. Results show that support for annexation has actually been declining steadily over the last 20-30 years. Today 44% of Catholics wish to remain part of the UK while only 39% support annexation. Fewer than half of Catholics (48%) now consider themselves 'Nationalists', while 70% of Protestants continue to identify as 'Unionists'. Note well that 0% of Protestants consider themselves 'Nationalist' and a mere 4% support annexation. Similarly, only 5% of the non-religious identify as Nationalist and just 11% support annexation. Conclusion: the Nationalist cause has failed to become ecumenical, continuing to represent a sectional interest, while the Unionist position - whether explicit or in its unnamed essentials - increasingly represents a consensus between religious communities.

Birth rates in the North are now roughly equal, although the ambivalence of the majority of Catholics toward annexation suggests that even a demographic majority for that group won't help the Nationalist cause. Further, we can observe a decline in 'Nationalist' identity over the past generation and, remarkably, an increase in 'Unionist' identity. From the second 'Political Attitudes' table, the two generations, Catholics and Protestants together, are measured thusly:

.............18-24.....25-34

Unionist.....34%.......29%
Nationalist..14%.......21%
Neither.......51%......50%

Second conclusion: the Unionist cause is more firmly rooted in history and draws on reference points that continue to arouse the passions, while the Nationalist cause is rooted in a more naked type of 20th century revanchist nationalism that is losing its appeal. What is most telling is the extent to which Nationalists in the Republic of Ireland have begun to accept this reality. The future lies in mutual recognition between civilised peoples, and a gradual recovery from the manufactured 'struggle' that has plagued the Catholic community for so long.

[Ken]

http://rlv.zcache.com/26_6_1_with_explanation_bumper_sticker-p128609420090294916trl0_400.jpg

[Charlie Robespierre]

The North has an organic connection to Great Britain. It has much more to do with basic human reference points like language, religion, and ethnicity than it does with commerce. If material gain was the main interest of the people of Northern Ireland, support for annexation into the Republic would have risen during the boom of the late 90s/early 00s, while in reality it fell.The North has an organic connection to Great Britain. It has much more to do with basic human reference points like language, religion, and ethnicity than it does with commerce. If material gain was the main interest of the people of Northern Ireland, support for annexation into the Republic would have risen during the boom of the late 90s/early 00s, while in reality it fell..There are “organic connections” of a variety of nations throughout the globe. This does not authorise spurious proto-bolshevik constructs. Britain respresents the distribution of liberal values across the globe, the values of plunder and the imposition cultural imperialism. “Britain” is no more anchored to any (holistic) reality than was the Soviet Union. Britain is a world ideological menance in addition to being a physical threat to sovereign nations.
The will of the majority is clear. Let's take a look at the Northern Ireland Life and Times Survey (http://www.ark.ac.uk/nilt/2008/) for 2008. Results show that support for annexation has actually been declining steadily over the last 20-30 years. Today 44% of Catholics wish to remain part of the UK while only 39% support annexation. Fewer than half of Catholics (48%) now consider themselves 'Nationalists', while 70% of Protestants continue to identify as 'Unionists'. Note well that 0% of Protestants consider themselves 'Nationalist' and a mere 4% support annexation. Similarly, only 5% of the non-religious identify as Nationalist and just 11% support annexation. Conclusion: the Nationalist cause has failed to become ecumenical, continuing to represent a sectional interest, while the Unionist position - whether explicit or in its unnamed essentials - increasingly represents a consensus between religious communities.I don’t place much stock in the (nonetheless ambigious!) “opinion polls” of dreary liberal tabloids that trumpet multiculturalism, diversity and other globalist themes mostly headed by transnational oligarchs ennobled by royal geriatrics and clutched upon as the gospel truth by their parochial transatlantic Orange apologists that have never left their insulated locality.

What is stalling unity is the failure of the nationalist community to generate a an authentic economically and socially conservative vehicle that would appeal to Irish Protestant sensibilities. There's a dichotomoy there between the neo-socialist (them/Irish Catholic) and the conservative (us/Irish Protestant) that must be resolved. There's the faultline that's tough to crack. Economic difficulties has prevented the south's Fianna Fail from generating such an alternative as of yet. If such a project was restarted, defections would inevitably reach a critical mass regardless of the shifting opinions of a public as they blink before the nice gentleman and his clipboard. No Protestant will vote PSF and few SDLP simply because their ideological texture is rooted in Cuba for the former and the 1970's for the latter.

[Hakluyt]

There are “organic connections” of a variety of nations throughout the globe. This does not authorise spurious proto-bolshevik constructs. Britain respresents the distribution of liberal values across the globe, the values of plunder and the imposition cultural imperialism. “Britain” is no more anchored to any (holistic) reality than was the Soviet Union. Britain is a world ideological menance in addition to being a physical threat to sovereign nations.
Indecipherable jabber. Northern Ireland is a ... "bolshevik construct"? I'm sure this makes sense to someone, somewhere.

Northern Ireland is one of history's great exercises in popular sovereignty. Faced with a government that had no higher ambition but to end its responsibilities on the island and turn over an unwilling people to another government, Ulster rallied and promulgated one of the world's unique documents in the Ulster Covenant, signed by 471,414 men and women.

I don’t place much stock in the (nonetheless ambigious!) “opinion polls” of dreary liberal tabloids that trumpet multiculturalism, diversity and other globalist themes mostly headed by transnational oligarchs ennobled by royal geriatrics and clutched upon as the gospel truth by their parochial transatlantic Orange apologists that have never left their insulated locality.
Life and Times is conducted by the University of Belfast and the University of Ulster. It had nothing to do with 'tabloids.'

Surveys never provide a perfect image of public opinion, but they are one of the better ways to measure it. To deny the trends found in the data would be to willingly embrace ignorance. Raise issues with the methodology if you find them.

What is stalling unity is the failure of the nationalist community to generate a an authentic economically and socially conservative vehicle that would appeal to Irish Protestant sensibilities. There's a dichotomoy there between the neo-socialist (them/Irish Catholic) and the conservative (us/Irish Protestant) that must be resolved. There's the faultline that's tough to crack. Economic difficulties has prevented the south's Fianna Fail from generating such an alternative as of yet. If such a project was restarted, defections would inevitably reach a critical mass regardless of the shifting opinions of a public as they blink before the nice gentleman and his clipboard. No Protestant will vote PSF and few SDLP simply because their ideological texture is rooted in Cuba for the former and the 1970's for the latter.
As an outside observer, the Republic of Ireland appears as a bastion of conservatism and moral society in contrast to the United Kingdom. One would think this appeal already exists by inertia and has made converts wherever they are available to make.

But perspective holds the day: Nationalism's failure is not that an insufficient number of Protestants have been won to the cause, it's that absolutely no Protestants have been won to the cause. Those who support annexation are utterly negligible. Nationalism is a non-movement in NI; it's a sectional expression of hostility toward the will of the people. Nothing more.

[Errigal]

I think the more recent history of the UK and Ireland is a better guide to the mood of Unionists in the North. The Tony Blair years were especially hard for supporters of the Union. Princess Tony's reign made people ask what it is exactly Northern Ireland was in union with.

Not to mention the post-Good Friday climate in general.

[Charlie Robespierre]

Indecipherable jabber. Northern Ireland is a ... "bolshevik construct"? I'm sure this makes sense to someone, somewhere.
The truth is tough to swallow sometimes. :o It is Britain that is a synthetic political construct, consolidated by a conglomerate of bankers and imperial financiers, England is an authentic, more ethnically proper nation.

"Northern Ireland” is an arbitrary value, an example of British legal acrobatics.
Northern Ireland is one of history's great exercises in popular sovereignty. Faced with a government that had no higher ambition but to end its responsibilities on the island and turn over an unwilling people to another government, Ulster rallied and promulgated one of the world's unique documents in the Ulster Covenant, signed by 471,414 men and women.“Northern Ireland” is an invention of the wholly terrorist tendencies of the British state which bolstered a sectarian tyranny that was an affront to all legitimate democratic values in a process known popularly as “gerrymandering”. From birth the stolen six has never known democracy.
Life and Times is conducted by the University of Belfast and the University of Ulster. It had nothing to do with 'tabloids.'

Surveys never provide a perfect image of public opinion, but they are one of the better ways to measure it. To deny the trends found in the data would be to willingly embrace ignorance. Raise issues with the methodology if you find them.Academia within the stolen six is composed of highly politicised pro-British partisans, deeply indebted to the unionist power structure. They have a profound conflict of interest in regards to regime issues. I don’t toss around opinion polls to prove even stuff unrelated to this nor have I any desire to wade through methodological minutiae.
As an outside observer, the Republic of Ireland appears as a bastion of conservatism and moral society in contrast to the United Kingdom. One would think this appeal already exists by inertia and has made converts wherever they are available to make.

But perspective holds the day: Nationalism's failure is not that an insufficient number of Protestants have been won to the cause, it's that absolutely no Protestants have been won to the cause. Those who support annexation are utterly negligible. Nationalism is a non-movement in NI; it's a sectional expression of hostility toward the will of the people. Nothing more.With the collapse of Church power, liberalism dominates Irish discourse in Ireland and has done since the early 90's.

As it is Irish pro-life groups cooperate and conduct marches and events both north and south. Protestant influence upon republicanism has historically been immense, indeed they where the original architects of republicanism. Given proper ideological realignment as I’ve outlined, so it can be again. To reiterate it is the ideological divide that fundamentally polarises the two communities from which all other divides arise. Irish northern protestants professed identity is a negation. They’ve no spiritual affiliation with the neighbouring multicultural liberal state except in its utility to preserve their political fiefdom. Their only cultural links is to the faction in Scotland that still remain inexplicably loyal to the terror state. (Another split "British" jurisdiction "rescued" by the recession) Other than the artificial and transnational identity “British” Irish northern protestants cannot even arrive at an agreed identity.

[Petr]

Protestant influence upon republicanism has historically been immense, indeed they where the original architects of republicanism.
It might have indeed been persons of Irish Protestant origin that created secular Irish nationalism - as an ideology separated from RC identity.

(In a similar way, Christian Arab thinkers played a big part in creating modern Arab nationalism, as separated from Islamic identity.)


LmPbC1rYYOA


That unreconstructed American-Irish Romanist firebreather, Father Leonard Feeney, opined:

And so, instead of the purely Protestant device of active persecution, a more subtle, Masonic scheme — designed especially for controlling Catholic majorities — was henceforth employed. The scheme was to keep the Catholics divided against each other, so that they would never act with their full, united strength. And the principle of division was to be nationality.
...

A prime example of this program in action is the way, with Masonic encouragement and Irish thick-headedness, Saint Patrick’s Day was turned from a religious celebration into a national one. The outsiders invited to take part in it became not the non-Irish Catholics, but the non-Catholic Irish. An Italian had no place in South Boston on Saint Patrick’s Day, but any Yankee heretic who would put on a green tie and become Irish for a day was welcomed to the festivities.
http://www.aryanunion.org/point/54-may.html


Petr

[Errigal]

...
"Northern Ireland” is an arbitrary value, an example of British legal acrobatics.
....

True, Northern Ireland was a quickly lashed together entity that represents political expediency and nothing more.

[007]

They’ve no spiritual affiliation with the neighbouring multicultural liberal state

Which neighbouring multicultural liberal state are you talking about? Ireland or Britain?

The EU is going to swallow your beloved Ireland whole and you're still babbling nonsense about Britain.

[Errigal]

Which neighbouring multicultural liberal state are you talking about? Ireland or Britain?

The EU is going to swallow your beloved Ireland whole and you're still babbling nonsense about Britain.

The Americans and EU are going to swallow the UK and you're still babbling about the Irish.

[007]

The Americans and EU are going to swallow the UK and you're still babbling about the Irish.

The EU will swallow Britain if it can.

I mock the Irish because they deserve it, like Mick here ranting about the "terrorist state" while his people vote away their "fiercely guarded" independence. You are buffoons.

However, I didn't notice that this thread was in the Ireland sub-forum when I first posted in it. I normally leave you bozos alone in your own place. So cheerio, I'll unsubscribe from this thread.

[Errigal]

The EU will swallow Britain if it can.

I mock the Irish because they deserve it, like Mick here ranting about the "terrorist state" while his people vote away their "fiercely guarded" independence. You are buffoons.

However, I didn't notice that this thread was in the Ireland sub-forum when I first posted in it. I normally leave you bozos alone in your own place. So cheerio, I'll unsubscribe from this thread.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOb7T1pqj08&NR=1

[Rabs String Vest]

Ulster is British, and will remain so as long as the majority of Ulster people wish it to be. All these arguments from "plastic paddys" amount to jack-shit.:deadhorse:

[Niccolo and Donkey]

Ulster is British, and will remain so as long as the majority of Ulster people wish it to be. All these arguments from "plastic paddys" amount to jack-shit.:deadhorse:

That's interesting, considering that 3 of the 9 counties forming Ulster are located in the Irish Republic.

[Hakluyt]

The truth is tough to swallow sometimes. It is Britain that is a synthetic political construct, consolidated by a conglomerate of bankers and imperial financiers, England is an authentic, more ethnically proper nation.

"Northern Ireland” is an arbitrary value, an example of British legal acrobatics.
The United Kingdom is unique among the states of the world; there's really no comparison to be made anywhere, let alone to the Soviet Union. That's silly pub talk.

Our problem here is that some people think pub talk constitutes a real conversation. That's the Irish political discourse for you.

The United Kingdom is not, has never been, and was never intended to be a nation-state. That's a disingenuous argument. It's a kingdom constituted by several nations. They are, nevertheless, bound by many fraternal connections, among them those I mentioned: language, religion, and ethnicity. Add to this the totality of their shared history: shared loyalties, shared military experiences, the intermingling of families between them, the spread of a common literature, common political forms and rhetorical traditions, and we have a tightly-knit kingdom indeed that is anything but a 'synthetic' construct.

“Northern Ireland” is an invention of the wholly terrorist tendencies of the British state which bolstered a sectarian tyranny that was an affront to all legitimate democratic values in a process known popularly as “gerrymandering”. From birth the stolen six has never known democracy.
There's nothing inherently undemocratic about 'gerrymandering'. It is often done to allow the expression of one group's democratic will where it would be stifled by the competing interests of another. That's called 'autonomy'. Let's keep in mind that when we talk about 'gerrymandering' in the Irish context, we're not simply talking about the redistribution of electoral districts within a pre-existing state, as happened many times in the eastern United States or in the rotten boroughs of England, but allowing for the joining of whole counties into another state entirely. Properly, that should be called the cession of land or partial annexation.

In the final analysis, it wouldn't have happened at all if not for the expressed will of the people of Northern Ireland, best manifested in the Ulster Covenant, still perhaps the greatest democratic episode in modern British history. If less credence had been given to self-determination, Ireland would today be a single state.

Academia within the stolen six is composed of highly politicised pro-British partisans, deeply indebted to the unionist power structure. They have a profound conflict of interest in regards to regime issues. I don’t toss around opinion polls to prove even stuff unrelated to this nor have I any desire to wade through methodological minutiae.
I'm not surprised another republican dinosaur chooses to ignore the facts on the ground. It's difficult to keep up the nationalist LARP if you actually pay attention to current events and the attitudes of the people themselves; it becomes just as absurd as a room of Monday Clubbers or the Oxford Imperial Federation Society talking about reunifying Ireland with Great Britain. And the two are precisely equal as concerns international law.

[Hakluyt]

That's interesting, considering that 3 of the 9 counties forming Ulster are located in the Irish Republic.
The combined population of Donnegal, Cavan, and Monaghan is 266,733. If they were included in NI today they would only bring support for union down to the 60% range (assuming they're entirely opposed), and annexation up to about 30% (assuming they're entirely supportive).

It was much more of a danger that they'd tip the balance in the first half of the 20th century. Not so much now.

[cerberus]

This is all very academic - with the economic clouds getting darker by the moment how do you expect Southern Ireland to be able to afford Northern Ireland ?

This is all wishful thinking but in practical terms unification won't be happening for sometime - first of all people's have to be reconciled within the North and then North / South and let's be honest there is a lot of hard work and horse trading to be done.
Trust , goodwill and honesty , bridges still being built.

For several reasons I can't see anything in the Poll which will satisfy everyone right now - as it stands if common sense and commonality are given a chance the next generation may end this bloody mess - if the lunatics at the extremes can all take a prepaid holiday to Rockall and forget to come back.

[Delmac]

Annexation with Ireland or remaining within the UK both seem likely ultimately to lead to NI ending up as a province within an Atlanto-European superstate. The Commonwealth is pretty much a joke now and - as Errigal has pointed out many times - the Queen is in breach of her coronation oath.

The least-worst option for NI therefore appears, to me, to be independence outwith the UK, Ireland and the Commonwealth.

[Charlie Robespierre]

The United Kingdom is unique among the states of the world; there's really no comparison to be made anywhere, let alone to the Soviet Union. That's silly pub talk.

Our problem here is that some people think pub talk constitutes a real conversation. That's the Irish political discourse for you.Those Canadian pubs sure sound like unique places!

Truth is I’m uncommonly forthright because congestion on such a vital issue is very hard to clear. Misdirection abounds and I prefer clarity to counter being tortured by torrents of material that more properly belongs in a sterile brochure they flog to tourists. The United Kingdom is not, has never been, and was never intended to be a nation-state. That's a disingenuous argument. It's a kingdom constituted by several nations. They are, nevertheless, bound by many fraternal connections, among them those I mentioned: language, religion, and ethnicity. Add to this the totality of their shared history: shared loyalties, shared military experiences, the intermingling of families between them, the spread of a common literature, common political forms and rhetorical traditions, and we have a tightly-knit kingdom indeed that is anything but a 'synthetic' construct.It certainly is unique among the states of the world. A transnational state that encloses distinct nations such as the Soviet Union did and has a biblical amount of blood on its hands financed from the City of London (or whatever financial pole the terror state is financed from today) credit extravaganza. The parallels are broad, imperfect, granted, but certainly pertinent and very relevant. "British" as a value is more an ideological mental malaise or a legal contraption that aspires to bind a multiethnic melting pot than a sincere nationality rooted in blood and soil. Both had global aspirations, both operate from values they regard as universal and whom seek to circulate those values through military domination and ideological subversion. Allowances can be made for past aggression as “growing pains” for a state, granted, but a state that continues to perpetuate war and assault the sovereignty of nations and scatter its ideological toxin across the globe is a terrorist state plain and simple.
There's nothing inherently undemocratic about 'gerrymandering'..Well it was a creative innovation that wasn't lacking with "democracy" as it was practiced in the North that's for sure.

:jam:It is often done to allow the expression of one group's democratic will where it would be stifled by the competing interests of another. That's called 'autonomy'. Let's keep in mind that when we talk about 'gerrymandering' in the Irish context, we're not simply talking about the redistribution of electoral districts within a pre-existing state, as happened many times in the eastern United States or in the rotten boroughs of England, but allowing for the joining of whole counties into another state entirely. Properly, that should be called the cession of land or partial annexation. One country, four provinces. Two regimés, the result of the carve up by the terror state. Even unionist politicans speak of the six as a region. The arbitrary construction of the stolen six is an affront to democracy therefore any "imaginative" mechanism to bolster that construction is tyranny by any definition other than the unique definition as promulgated by pirate states and their collection of legal eagles. Truth is the stolen six regime would not be sustainable if it had actually implemented a democratic system.
In the final analysis, it wouldn't have happened at all if not for the expressed will of the people of Northern Ireland, best manifested in the Ulster Covenant, still perhaps the greatest democratic episode in modern British history. If less credence had been given to self-determination, Ireland would today be a single state.This would've depended upon the attitude of the terror state. If they ceased their occupation in Ireland and their support for loyalist death squads, incorrigibles would've eventually migrated to venues more conducive to their sensibilities. Places such as the North of England and Scotland and so on. For the rest I think a Protestant influence upon a Catholic state that was somewhat excessive in its religious zeal would have had exerted a long term theraputic influence.
I'm not surprised another republican dinosaur chooses to ignore the facts on the ground. It's difficult to keep up the nationalist LARP if you actually pay attention to current events and the attitudes of the people themselves; it becomes just as absurd as a room of Monday Clubbers or the Oxford Imperial Federation Society talking about reunifying Ireland with Great Britain. And the two are precisely equal as concerns international law.Facts on the ground? As in Canadia? You’re a Canadian that has never left your region of Canada and has barely arrived in adulthood waving these “Orange polls” like Moses and his tablet whilst popping a vein, cheered on by one or two mentally mutilated non-Irish victims of the terror state, straining to answer a question that I never even asked!

I’ve dealt with construction workers from the north and accountants that operate in Belfast. I’ve dealt with hoteliers, retailers, doctors from the province for about 9 years now. I’ve good relations with them and a lot of them are Prods. In my analysis, which is forthright only to provide insight, I draw a distinction between the state and the people. Condemn the former, consideration for the latter.

[Hakluyt]

Those Canadian pubs sure sound like unique places!

Truth is I’m uncommonly forthright because congestion on such a vital issue is very hard to clear. Misdirection abounds and I prefer clarity to counter being tortured by torrents of material that more properly belongs in a sterile brochure they flog to tourists.
I'll be the last to object to forthrightness where it produces a rational stream of argument. That is usually the best kind of discussion. When we end up at the pub level, though, it's time for you to take a little while to process your thoughts and make a sober decision as to whether they're worth sharing or not. At this rate, you're going to need to hire a live-in editor to keep you at a minimum of intelligibility.

It certainly is unique among the states of the world. A transnational state that encloses distinct nations such as the Soviet Union did
LOL, this is your best foot forward on the argument?

Have you ever heard of something called the 'Russian Empire'? It lasted for a few centuries and enclosed several distinct nations. By all accounts it was decidedly not a Communist enterprise.

and has a biblical amount of blood on its hands financed from the City of London (or whatever financial pole the terror state is financed from today) credit extravaganza. The parallels are broad, imperfect, granted, but certainly pertinent and very relevant.

..

Both had global aspirations, both operate from values they regard as universal and whom seek to circulate those values through military domination and ideological subversion. Allowances can be made for past aggression as “growing pains” for a state, granted, but a state that continues to perpetuate war and assault the sovereignty of nations and scatter its ideological toxin across the globe is a terrorist state plain and simple.
*Yawn*

Here we sample a bit of bona fide, unfiltered paddy logic. Britain is a Bolshevik state because she ... conquered other states, and - get this - actually resorted to killing people along the way.

Britain is equally measured in her Bolshevism by promulgating universal theories of sovereignty and natural rights in her prime as she is for violating them in her current state of geopolitical subservience. Neat.

"British" as a value is more an ideological mental malaise or a legal contraption that aspires to bind a multiethnic melting pot than a sincere nationality rooted in blood and soil.
The concept of a 'British' nationality was never intended to replace pre-existing identities within the kingdom, and it hasn't come close. This is a grade school reading of history. Let me bring you up at least to the junior high school level: the usage of the term 'Britain' to describe a modern political entity dates from the rule of the Scottish King James c. 1604. The word stuck and subsequently became the term of choice to describe the union. From this point on the kingdom was anything but a 'melting pot' - actually the Anglifying pressures that reached a peak in the years after the Scottish reformation gradually subsided - and Scotland flourished culturally. Englishmen continued to describe themselves as such, especially those in the upper class, where one would expect to find a conformist tendency if the ruling class had ever an attempt to promote one. Basic conclusion: unlike successful composite states such as France, Britain had little interest in stifling diversity within the kingdom.

One country, four provinces. Two regimés, the result of the carve up by the terror state. Even unionist politicans speak of the six as a region. The arbitrary construction of the stolen six is an affront to democracy therefore any "imaginative" mechanism to bolster that construction is tyranny by any definition other than the unique definition as promulgated by pirate states and their collection of legal eagles. Truth is the stolen six regime would not be sustainable if it had actually implemented a democratic system.
Christ knows how this is supposed to constitute a response to the section of my post you quoted.

Let me repeat: 'gerrymandering' refers to redistribution of electoral districts within a pre-existing state. Northern Ireland was a new creation, where parts integral to Ulster were ceded to the future Home Rule state to ensure long-term viability for the partition. It was a remarkably honest procedure where stated goals matched the actions carried out. It was 'tyranny' against nothing but designs for Ulster against her expressed will.

This would've depended upon the attitude of the terror state. If they ceased their occupation in Ireland and their support for loyalist death squads, incorrigibles would've eventually migrated to venues more conducive to their sensibilities. Places such as the North of England and Scotland and so on. For the rest I think a Protestant influence upon a Catholic state that was somewhat excessive in its religious zeal would have had exerted a long term theraputic influence.
You insult the memory of hundreds of thousands of men and women who put themselves in opposition to their own government to secure their future and their patrimony. If London had really been conducting affairs in NI by military fiat, the hat would have dropped on the other side of the question: the troublemakers would have been reduced and the home rule would have gone ahead as planned.

[cerberus]

Delos
I support Unification. No longer should the Irish people be apart, they need to consider themselves as Irish, not Catholics and Protestants.

The issues surrounding reunification and the future of Ireland and its people North and South have absolutely nothing to do with religion.

[Errigal]

....

Let me repeat: 'gerrymandering' refers to redistribution of electoral districts within a pre-existing state. Northern Ireland was a new creation, where parts integral to Ulster were ceded to the future Home Rule state to ensure long-term viability for the partition. It was a remarkably honest procedure where stated goals matched the actions carried out. It was 'tyranny' against nothing but designs for Ulster against her expressed will.

The creation of Northern Ireland was very clearly gerrymandering ie. carving off an electoral region that discards districts that would endanger a certain majority. Three of Ulster's counties were dropped rather than endanger that Protestant-Unionist lock on government.

You insult the memory of hundreds of thousands of men and women who put themselves in opposition to their own government to secure their future and their patrimony. If London had really been conducting affairs in NI by military fiat, the hat would have dropped on the other side of the question: the troublemakers would have been reduced and the home rule would have gone ahead as planned.

You make it sound somehow grand and noble. It was considered a lashed together embarrassment by most sensible people at the time. It was a hastily thrown together entity meant to take the UVF off the board in the coming civil war.

[Hakluyt]

The creation of Northern Ireland was very clearly gerrymandering ie. carving off an electoral region that discards districts that would endanger a certain majority. Three of Ulster's counties were dropped rather than endanger that Protestant-Unionist lock on government.
I think that was implied in everything we've been talking about thus far. What I'm doing is making a distinction between gerrymandering to create a more desirable electoral outcome within a state (e.g. re-dividing Catholic neighbourhoods in Boston between WASP districts to dilute their vote c. 1850s) and ceding pieces of land to another state entirely. Whether or not they're done for similar reasons, the latter is well within the realm of statecraft designed to achieve self-determination.

You make it sound somehow grand and noble. It was considered a lashed together embarrassment by most sensible people at the time. It was a hastily thrown together entity meant to take the UVF off the board in the coming civil war.
Whether 'sensible' people felt that way, it was lauded by some of the most eminent statesmen and literary figures of the time, Carson, Bonar Law, Kipling, etc. It often takes an outsider to understand the true implications of events thrown into relief. Viewed in 2009, the speed and intensity with which Ulster mobilized against the machinations of her government should be an inspiration to everyone who hopes to see a democratic resolution to our current problems.

These lines from Kipling's Ulster (1912) could as well have been written to describe today's Britain, or nearly any country within the Atlanto-European orbit.

The Faith in which we stand,
The laws we made and guard,
Our honour, lives, and land
Are given for reward
To Murder done by night,
To Treason taught by day,
To folly, sloth, and spite,
And we are thrust away.

The blood our fathers spilt,
Our love, our toils, our pains,
Are counted us for guilt,
And only bind our chains.
Before an Empire’s eyes
The traitor claims his price.
What need of further lies?
We are the sacrifice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulster_Covenant#Kipling.27s_.22Ulster_1912.22

[Hakluyt]

I support Unification. No longer should the Irish people be apart, they need to consider themselves as Irish, not Catholics and Protestants.
This forgetting that the great majority consider themselves either 'British', 'Northern Irish', or 'Ulster'. About 1/5th describe themselves as simply 'Irish'.

[cerberus]

Delos
How I see the Northern Ireland issue is that while a large part is whether they want to be ruled by England or Ireland, the religion of the individual desires expressed as a group play a large part in how they view their governments and what they stand for.

I would disagree religion was an issue hundreds of years ago as it was across Europe but in terms of politics and issues today it is little more than a traded insult and a crude ignorant method of "identifying" the other party - of herding them and branding them with an identity upon which scorn is poured.

In terms of resolution it is meaningless to reasonable and educated people.

[Errigal]

....

Whether 'sensible' people felt that way, it was lauded by some of the most eminent statesmen and literary figures of the time, Carson, Bonar Law, Kipling, etc. It often takes an outsider to understand the true implications of events thrown into relief. Viewed in 2009, the speed and intensity with which Ulster mobilized against the machinations of her government should be an inspiration to everyone who hopes to see a democratic resolution to our current problems.

These lines from Kipling's Ulster (1912) could as well have been written to describe today's Britain, or nearly any country within the Atlanto-European orbit.

.....


What was lauded by these men, the Ulster Covenant of 1912 or the creation of Northern Ireland in 1920? I think is the Covenant.

[Felix the Cat]

In terms of resolution it is meaningless to reasonable and educated people.What proportion of NI society could be described this way?

[cerberus]

Impossible to say off the top of my head.
QUB did quite a bit of work on attitudes and views and convictions held by NI people back in the late 1970's early 80's and they found that people who had a good education , came from what might be described as middle classes and above , had a good income - they didn't subscribe to the "traditional" situation of "them and us".

Integrated education had gone a long way towards taking these barriers away and changing mindsets and not before time.
In the larger towns and cities eg Belfast and Derry you will find that communities which are largely one side or the other , areas divided by "peace lines" are more entrenched and inward looking - division has become a way of life it is ingrained and is part of the fabric of respective communities.
Whilst community spirit exists it comes at a price - mistrust , hatred etc exist and given what has been going on for 300 years odd it is understandable - civil wars do not simply go away over night.

Studies have been done since the GFA and the PP but I honestly have not seen the results.
My own experience is that education wise providing experience of other cultures and traditions is the way to beat the ignorance of generations , people are people - they are not a religious or political entity.

[Errigal]

Impossible to say off the top of my head.
QUB did quite a bit of work on attitudes and views and convictions held by NI people back in the late 1970's early 80's and they found that people who had a good education , came from what might be described as middle classes and above , had a good income - they didn't subscribe to the "traditional" situation of "them and us".

Integrated education had gone a long way towards taking these barriers away and changing mindsets and not before time.
In the larger towns and cities eg Belfast and Derry you will find that communities which are largely one side or the other , areas divided by "peace lines" are more entrenched and inward looking - division has become a way of life it is ingrained and is part of the fabric of respective communities.
Whilst community spirit exists it comes at a price - mistrust , hatred etc exist and given what has been going on for 300 years odd it is understandable - civil wars do not simply go away over night.

Studies have been done since the GFA and the PP but I honestly have not seen the results.
My own experience is that education wise providing experience of other cultures and traditions is the way to beat the ignorance of generations , people are people - they are not a religious or political entity.

In terms of resolution it is meaningless to reasonable and educated people.

I'm very much of two minds about this issue: the relationship between class, education and tribalism in Ulster I mean. On the one hand I agree it's a good thing for the better educated and more prosperous of both communities to generally get along with one another as they do but on the other hand I think elite collusion against the base has caused a lot of the troubles we see now. What I mean is more prosperous and better educated people should not wash their hands of their own people even while they speak in favour of more openness. Doing so leaves an alienated rump in both camps. People in leadership positions or with access to the media shouldn't just gloss over the concerns of less articulate or less politically connected from their side. The biggest problem in the West in general is this sort of elite collusion amongst the deracinated and ahistorical of the current political class.

On the other hand a person should not jump up and act as an apologist for every fool with a lambeg drum who wants to throw stones at Catholic schoolgirls. Basil Brooke's famous speech from the early 1930s about "jobs for good Protestant lads and lassies" clearly falls on the wrong side of things both morally and strategically.

[Hakluyt]

What was lauded by these men, the Ulster Covenant of 1912 or the creation of Northern Ireland in 1920? I think is the Covenant.
The exchange with Mick was specifically about the Covenant. Partition was probably an inevitable result of it, however messy it was.

[Errigal]

The exchange with Mick was specifically about the Covenant. Partition was probably an inevitable result of it, however messy it was.

I was quoting from your response to an earlier post of mine.

Partition was the result of not being able to climb down from the bravado of the Covenant. The Unionists should have, and likely could have, climbed down from that position but they didn't. In retrospect the wording of the Covenant itself limited their options far too much. It was a real failure of the leadership to allow things to escalate like that.

[Hakluyt]

I was quoting from your response to an earlier post of mine.

Partition was the result of not being able to climb down from the bravado of the Covenant. The Unionists should have, and likely could have, climbed down from that position but they didn't. In retrospect the wording of the Covenant itself limited their options far too much. It was a real failure of the leadership to allow things to escalate like that.
The bit you quoted came from post 23, which was a response to Mick. I mentioned that partition wouldn't have happened without democratic expressions such as the Ulster Covenant, to which he responded that it wouldn't have amounted to anything if Britain had ceased their support for "death squads", whatever that's supposed to mean.

Why should the unionists have compromised? Their goal was a very simple one: to live in the state they so chose, and not to be forced by their own government into another. There's little more that could be so basic as regards self-determination. They stood up for their interests, won the day, and we should celebrate that.

[Errigal]

The bit you quoted came from post 23, which was a response to Mick. ....

No it was from post #27:

http://www.thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=805270&postcount=27


Why should the unionists have compromised? Their goal was a very simple one: to live in the state they so chose, and not to be forced by their own government into another. There's little more that could be so basic as regards self-determination. They stood up for their interests, won the day, and we should celebrate that.

You talk as though Unionists were an ethnic group or nationality whose homeland is the six of nine counties of Ulster. Of course Unionists were nothing of the kind; they were Irishmen of a certain political persuasion who lived all over the island and were only concentrated in the northeast. So the self-determination of the six county Unionists left their like-minded countrymen to fend for themselves. Even Ulster Unionists in the other three counties were left to make their own way, although they had signed the same document in 1912 to "hereby pledge ourselves in solemn Covenant, throughout this our time of threatened calamity, to stand by one another". Not very impressive behaviour is it?

Add to this the Unionists had more than 4yrs between the passing of the 3rd Home Rule Bill and the the fresh round of negotiations after the war's end. And what was the fate horrific fate in store for the Unionists who compromised? Living in an Ireland with the same status in the Empire as Canada.

I really don't see much to celebrate.

[Charlie Robespierre]

I'll be the last to object to forthrightness where it produces a rational stream of argument. That is usually the best kind of discussion. When we end up at the pub level, though, it's time for you to take a little while to process your thoughts and make a sober decision as to whether they're worth sharing or not. At this rate, you're going to need to hire a live-in editor to keep you at a minimum of intelligibility.The "best kind of discussion" presumably means exchanging sweet-nothings on the terror state or do you mean conversing in Ulster Scotch? My original comments that gave rise to your strangled attempt at humour still applies. Even today they are still actively collaborating in overturning the sovereignity of independent nations. My original comment cannot possibly be in dispute.
LOL, this is your best foot forward on the argument?

Have you ever heard of something called the 'Russian Empire'? It lasted for a few centuries and enclosed several distinct nations. By all accounts it was decidedly not a Communist enterprise.I am a nationalist. And I oppose the domination of one nation upon another wherever it takes place. This should not be a scandalous position.
*Yawn*

Here we sample a bit of bona fide, unfiltered paddy logic. Britain is a Bolshevik state because she ... conquered other states, and - get this - actually resorted to killing people along the way.

Britain is equally measured in her Bolshevism by promulgating universal theories of sovereignty and natural rights in her prime as she is for violating them in her current state of geopolitical subservience. Neat.
Yes I am opposed to imposing values through conquest and mass murder. Paddy logic, I guess -- although more Hakluyt heresy methinks.

I lay down such positions not to aggravate but to articulate an antidote to the explosive international, ideological tensions that dog us here in the nuclear age. Even leaving aside her dagger thrust into Ireland, Britain remains one of the major aggressor states on the international stage.
The concept of a 'British' nationality was never intended to replace pre-existing identities within the kingdom, and it hasn't come close. This is a grade school reading of history. Let me bring you up at least to the junior high school level: the usage of the term 'Britain' to describe a modern political entity dates from the rule of the Scottish King James c. 1604. The word stuck and subsequently became the term of choice to describe the union. From this point on the kingdom was anything but a 'melting pot' - actually the Anglifying pressures that reached a peak in the years after the Scottish reformation gradually subsided - and Scotland flourished culturally. Englishmen continued to describe themselves as such, especially those in the upper class, where one would expect to find a conformist tendency if the ruling class had ever an attempt to promote one. Basic conclusion: unlike successful composite states such as France, Britain had little interest in stifling diversity within the kingdom.Thank you for reciting for me "grade school" level the line the terror state obliges its slaves to consume. In reality Scottish culture was mutulated and the English withdrew. But more than that Scottish blood and blood from the terror states other occupied territories was shed whilst engaged in a savage quest to conquer the globe in order enrich a collection of City plutocrats. These historical events maybe attributed to "growing pains" for a civilisation but today the practice of transnational states subjugating nations should cease.
Christ knows how this is supposed to constitute a response to the section of my post you quoted.

Let me repeat: 'gerrymandering' refers to redistribution of electoral districts within a pre-existing state. Northern Ireland was a new creation, where parts integral to Ulster were ceded to the future Home Rule state to ensure long-term viability for the partition. It was a remarkably honest procedure where stated goals matched the actions carried out. It was 'tyranny' against nothing but designs for Ulster against her expressed will.They fixed the boundaries so that Fermanagh, Tyrone and Derry City which had nationalist majority populations was placed under unionist control. Of course if they didn't do this the "new creation" would've flopped.You insult the memory of hundreds of thousands of men and women who put themselves in opposition to their own government to secure their future and their patrimony. If London had really been conducting affairs in NI by military fiat, the hat would have dropped on the other side of the question: the troublemakers would have been reduced and the home rule would have gone ahead as planned.I insult noone really. It is the terror state that insults Irishmen everywhere, those that refer to themselves as unionist and nationalist alike.

[Shylock]

For the record, I support and desire reunification of the North with the Republic. However, the North should have a status similar to what Hong Kong has with China - "Two Systems, One Country".

[Basil Fawlty]

Why should the unionists have compromised? Their goal was a very simple one: to live in the state they so chose, and not to be forced by their own government into another. There's little more that could be so basic as regards self-determination. They stood up for their interests, won the day, and we should celebrate that.(excuse the thread necomancy but this can't be let stand and MKCS mentioned it already but perhaps that escaped your notice.)
You talk about self-determination but this can't be right. Three of the six counties had nationalist majorities. In fact you are really just engaging in Orange supremacism under the guise of appeals to self-determination.

[cerberus]

In real terms given the economic situation which presently exists a reunification of Ireland is very unlikely.

[Basil Fawlty]

In real terms given the economic situation which presently exists a reunification of Ireland is very unlikely.Yes, at the moment the south probably wouldn't be able to take on a basket case statelet.

[Hakluyt]

(excuse the thread necomancy but this can't be let stand and MKCS mentioned it already but perhaps that escaped your notice.)
You talk about self-determination but this can't be right. Three of the six counties had nationalist majorities. In fact you are really just engaging in Orange supremacism under the guise of appeals to self-determination.
Like most things in the art of the possible, self-deetermination isn't infinitely reducible. It's applied where it makes sense and where the outcome will find the best compromise between power and justice.

We have this conversation all the time in Canada. If Quebec were to separate, many of the English-dominated parts of the province would want to stay in Canada, but then parts of the regions they dominate would want to be part of Quebec, and so forth. In cases like these some people are always going to end up on the side of the border they don't want to be on.

[Basil Fawlty]

Like most things in the art of the possible, self-deetermination isn't infinitely reducible. It's applied where it makes sense and where the outcome will find the best compromise between power and justice.Gobbldeygook. Are you planning on a career in politics by any chance?
We have this conversation all the time in Canada. If Quebec were to separate, many of the English-dominated parts of the province would want to stay in Canada, but then parts of the regions they dominate would want to be part of Quebec, and so forth. In cases like these some people are always going to end up on the side of the border they don't want to be on.You're evading the issue. You claimed the creation of the six-county statelet was to facilitate self-determination of the Planters. You might have had a point if that had been a three county entity but given that it involved the negation of the self-determination of the majority population in the other three of the six, that claim cannot stand.

[Hakluyt]

Gobbldeygook. Are you planning on a career in politics by any chance?
No idea or principle should ever be applied infinitely. That's not how human society works.

You're evading the issue. You claimed the creation of the six-county statelet was to facilitate self-determination of the Planters. You might have had a point if that had been a three county entity but given that it involved the negation of the self-determination of the majority population in the other three of the six, that claim cannot stand.
You know, if you really want to govern those people, you probably shouldn't describe them with an obviously hostile term like 'Planters'. This is part of why they want their own country in the first place.

The population in the other three counties is smaller and there was always a significant Unionist population. Northern Ireland was able to keep those counties because the nationalist population wasn't large enough to threaten the political balance. It's true that the nationalists in those counties didn't get self-determination, but there is probably no example in history of a perfect outcome from partition. This doesn't mean the creation of NI wasn't an exercise in self-determination, it just means it wasn't a perfect one.

[Monty]

We have this conversation all the time in Canada. If Quebec were to separate, many of the English-dominated parts of the province would want to stay in Canada, but then parts of the regions they dominate would want to be part of Quebec, and so forth. In cases like these some people are always going to end up on the side of the border they don't want to be on.

BTW, this is why right-wing secession movements won't work in the USA. There is no area without significant numbers of white liberals and minorities to allow one state or region to break free.

How would the South break away, since it has a huge population of Blacks and a bloc of Jews down in Florida?
Would the Pacific Northwest split, since most of the whites of the SWPL variety?

[Basil Fawlty]

No idea or principle should ever be applied infinitely. That's not how human society works.So self-determination is only applicable when it's your favoured group.
You know, if you really want to govern those people, you probably shouldn't describe them with an obviously hostile term like 'Planters'. This is part of why they want their own country in the first place.No, they want to preserve their colonial mentality and up to quite recently they spent much of their energy keeping the "Taigs" down. They need to abandon the Planter mentality.
Btw, I don't want to "govern those people", I would like them to take their place in the republic many of their ancestors helped found.
The population in the other three counties is smaller and there was always a significant Unionist population. Northern Ireland was able to keep those counties because the nationalist population wasn't large enough to threaten the political balance. It's true that the nationalists in those counties didn't get self-determination, but there is probably no example in history of a perfect outcome from partition.I don't think you have much idea how and why the border was drawn the way it was. This doesn't mean the creation of NI wasn't an exercise in self-determination, it just means it wasn't a perfect one.That's a bit of an understatement. In fact it was not an exercise in self-determination as we have already established, unless this is a principle that only applies to one's favoured group, but then it's not a principle anymore.
It was a political slum as someone once described it. It's longevity would probably have been better guaranteed if they had included only those counties in which there was a Planter majority.

[Hakluyt]

So self-determination is only applicable when it's your favoured group.
To some extent that's true. That's not what I meant though. I mean that principles cannot possibly apply in all situations. Human society is too complicated for that. Real pragmatic politics means we should be ready to let principles rest if they don't match the reality on the ground, or if they threaten chaos.

No, they want to preserve their colonial mentality and up to quite recently they spent much of their energy keeping the "Taigs" down. They need to abandon the Planter mentality.
They want a state to better represent their history and culture, and because people like you deny their legitimacy, they are all the more resolved as to its necessity.

That's a bit of an understatement. In fact it was not an exercise in self-determination as we have already established, unless this is a principle that only applies to one's favoured group, but then it's not a principle anymore.
It was a political slum as someone once described it. It's longevity would probably have been better guaranteed if they had included only those counties in which there was a Planter majority.
Self-determination isn't an abstract process put into effect by bureaucrats, it's a popular expression by a people. It can co-exist with other events. In this case, the partition itself is not the sum of Northern Irish self-determination, it was the flawed, imperfect political reaction to what was a total social phenomenon. Westminster could have driven the nationalists into the sea or boiled them alive and it wouldn't have changed that reality.