statue farce

[Jim]

Wheres this?

[Wasp]

Ballymena, Coleraine, Dungiven, Ballycastle, Cushendall etc etc

[Jim]

So people are putting up flags that are Green white and "gold"?

How the christ are you able to tell the difference between orange and gold on a flag when they look the same.




I think your reading a bit too much into it.

[Wasp]

I think you can tell the difference between yellow and orange.

[Jim]

Theyre the same fucking colour on print. You're taking it too seriously.

[earl]

setanta said:

A United Ireland under the flag that symbolises peace between green and orange.

Earls post sounds just like home rule to me and we've evolved way past that.

I've seen those flags too WASP, so you're not going mad. Many republicans put up the Offaly county colours, shown here

www.answers.com/topic/gaa-county-colours

Instead of the proper flag with orange on it. I see many Irish-Americans use the incorrect flag (they're probably the worst for it).

How is it home rule Setanta? What I've proposed is that instead of a UI being defined as 36 counties just under the jurisdiction of a single government tier based in Dublin, a UI could work on a similar model as that of Scotlands and Englands union, where both are separate countries joined to make a single state. There would be an all-Ireland government, comprised of TD's from both jurisdictions, and devolved governments looking after each side, as is happening now. An important barrier to a UI is addressing the fears of Unionists. There are ways of having a UI without totally destroying everything Unionists hold dear. Keeping NI as an entity, within a new UI structure would go a long way. And to you, that flag may represent peace, but if Unionists look on the tri-colour exactly how most of us look on the Union Jack, then I'd fully understand how they feel. The orange on it represents them as much as the St. Patricks cross on the jack represents us.
Under my proposal, we could possibly still keep the tri-colour to represent the southern state in the federation/union, while a new set of symbols and flags are created with everyones input to represent the entire island. Everyone's a winner. What I'm proposing isn't new, it's just a take on the old provincial federal idea that was flying around years ago. I've just taken that idea, based in on the state of play on the ground, taken out the completely ridiculous ideas of federating every province, changed the language of the plan to one more natural to Unionists (Federation, Union, what's the difference??) and have tried to accommodate the Unionist identity as much as possible (even in a UI situation, Unionists aren't going to turn into republicans over night, if ever!).

[Wasp]

setanta said:

I'm just waiting for the assertion, that I first saw on Love Ulster, that the Irish Tricolour is acatually the Vatican Flag with Green added on.
Is that what you mean WASP?

What???

[Wasp]

Setanta sounds like ourselves alone.

[earl]

setanta said:

because it
It's not a United Ireland. It's still North and South and both with links to a foreign monarchy. Two seperate flags, two governments.
Eire Nua, the federal plan was dropped by everyone (except RSF) as unworkable decades ago.
The border region is the most deproved area in Ireland and it's because there's two juristictions. The border needs to go for Ireland to be United. They're can't be any more us and them for unity to succed. Just "Us" menaing all of who are Of Ireland.

This is where I completely disagree. Is the U.S. not united because there are distinct political regions within the state boundaries? Is the UK not a united entity, because it is comprised of constituent and distinct political entities? Your view of a UI is only one form of what a UI could look like. It's not the only form and it's not the correct form if you look at the reality of the situation. It's a pipe-dream. The Eire nua idea also, wasn't fully based on reality. Why federalise all the provinces? Why the need to swallow up NI without a trace? We've been harping on about making sure that the Irish identity is on par with the British identity in NI in the current situation. Do you think that the Unionists would go for a UI where all ties with Britain are severed clean? How does that look in regards respecting their traditions? How can we guarantee Unionists that their traditions will be respected as much as possible if the very definition of a UI is at odds with many aspects of their culture in which they hold dear? Why do we want to make NI more greener now, but in the eventuality of the tables turning, we'd refuse the same rights to those of a British identity, born and bred on this island? That's not a UI that I'd welcome.

Now don't get me wrong. I was a die-hard republican back in my youth. The thought of acknowledging an indigenous British presence on this island does not appeal to me. I'd like nothing more than for every Unionist to suddenly go, 'You know what, you guys are right. We are actually Irish. Throw over a tri-colour so I can start waving it like a mad-man!' But my ideal situation is based on fantasy, not reality. Any UI solution which will work needs to acknowledge 'the British problem' (it's been called the Irish problem for over 30 years. I figured for parity of esteem, I'd change it!). If there isn't a certain British dimension to the solution, it will never work. The thing is, this isn't such a big deal in practice nowadays. With everyone being EU members with the same basic set of laws, this issue is purely symbolic. On a practical level, it'd be easy to achieve.
A UI can exist without NI completely disappearing. There's no reason why a model similar to Canada couldn't be adopted here. Now I don't mean Lizzy being made the constitutional monarch of the whole of Ireland, but there's no reason why she can't remain the constitutional monarch of NI, while also allowing NI to vote for the President of Ireland. In essence, NI would have two figureheads, both legally and internationally recognised. Those of us with a purely nationalist view of ourselves can ignore the whole monarchy thingy, just like those in Quebec, but it's there officially for anyone who wants it. Let's examine Canada's system:

Canadian federalism is one of the three pillars of the constitutional order, along with responsible government and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It means that Canada has two distinct jurisdictions of political authority: the central Canadian Parliament and ten provincial legislative assemblies. Each level is sovereign with respect to certain areas of legislative authority, while a few subjects are shared (agriculture and immigration)

This can easily be applied to our own situation. Implementing this would ensure Unionists that they'd have a certain amount of autonomy within a UI structure.

The federal nature of Canadian constitution was a reaction to the colonial diversities in the Maritimes and the Province of Canada, in particular the strong distinction between the French-speaking inhabitants of Lower Canada (Québec) and the English-speaking inhabitants of Upper Canada (Ontario). Federalism was considered essential to the co-existence of the French and English communities.

again, parallels can easily be made here with our own situation. Replace French and English with Irish and British and you can see the resemblance. Using this, we would have a UI representing all inhabitants on the island, while our separate identities can still be acknowledged and respected.

And would you count Canada as a single country? Do you think it's internal border areas are being neglected? Lets start thinking outside the box. There are other systems of government successfully working in the world that, with a bit of tweaking, could be put to use here. I don't see why a UI can't be achieved, respecting everyones traditions and at the detriment of no-one, once there's some compromise involved.

[earl]

setanta said:

I could go into a long response but instead I'll do this.

WASP, Harry,tp, wilderness, would you all accept a United Ireland under the conditions earl has described?

That question is deliberately loaded. I could tell you now that their answer would be 'no', as the definition of a Unionist and their beliefs is at odds to accepting a UI. The question you should have asked was, in the event of a majority vote within NI for a UI, would you accept a proposal similar to this?

[Harry]

What i would say to Earl is that it feels like a genuine approach to Unionists and a attempt at trying to find a permanent solution. I couldn't say yes or no to it but i would be more than happy to negotiate with him on it. Your view of what a UI is or will be, i will never ever entertain and would rather fight and die than accept anything of the sort

[earl]

I'll just summarize the proposal into bullet points that are easier to read:

* two distinct jurisdictions of political authority: A central government, picked from members from both states and two devolved governments looking after the day to day running of each part of the island.

* Each part of the island has a certain amount of autonomy on a set list of issues (we'd have to see what these issues might be).

* NI to have the queen remain as figurehead but to also have the President of Ireland as figurehead, where all indigenous peoples of this island can vote for. The President would represent the entire population of Ireland, while the queen would represent those from a British tradition.

* Structures such as that of council of the islands to remain in place to allow close co-operation with Britain on matters of mutual concern and to help keep intact as many links as possible to the Unionist people with Britain, but without interfering with our sovereignty.

* New flags and symbols to represent to island as a whole (inc. national anthem). Separate flags and symbols for each part of the island a possibility (like state flags in the U.S. or the flag situation in Britain).

* New constitution to be drawn up by all.

[Wasp]

setanta said:

WASP, Harry,tp, wilderness,in the event of a majority vote within NI for a UI, would you accept a proposal similar to Earls and play a full and active part in it's implementation as Citizens?

First of all I believe Earl is being absolutely genuine and being completely unselfish in what he is saying. That has to be welcomed and I for one under such circumstances would at least show Earl the respect to discuss it and take it from there. What he has done is prove that although he has never lived up here he has a greater understanding of Unionists than all sinn fein politicians put together.

If it was a UI under what sinn fein aspire to then I would fully support the Unionist people taking to the streets which is exactly what they would do if that was going to happen.

I am not saying I agree with Earl but he has shown the maturity and wisdom which is very much needed and missing from republican politics.

[Jim]

earl said:

I'll just summarize the proposal into bullet points that are easier to read:

* two distinct jurisdictions of political authority: A central government, picked from members from both states and two devolved governments looking after the day to day running of each part of the island.

* Each part of the island has a certain amount of autonomy on a set list of issues (we'd have to see what these issues might be).

* NI to have the queen remain as figurehead but to also have the President of Ireland as figurehead, where all indigenous peoples of this island can vote for. The President would represent the entire population of Ireland, while the queen would represent those from a British tradition.

* Structures such as that of council of the islands to remain in place to allow close co-operation with Britain on matters of mutual concern and to help keep intact as many links as possible to the Unionist people with Britain, but without interfering with our sovereignty.

* New flags and symbols to represent to island as a whole (inc. national anthem). Separate flags and symbols for each part of the island a possibility (like state flags in the U.S. or the flag situation in Britain).

* New constitution to be drawn up by all.

"The United Republic of Ireland" ?

[earl]

jim said:

earl said:

I'll just summarize the proposal into bullet points that are easier to read:

* two distinct jurisdictions of political authority: A central government, picked from members from both states and two devolved governments looking after the day to day running of each part of the island.

* Each part of the island has a certain amount of autonomy on a set list of issues (we'd have to see what these issues might be).

* NI to have the queen remain as figurehead but to also have the President of Ireland as figurehead, where all indigenous peoples of this island can vote for. The President would represent the entire population of Ireland, while the queen would represent those from a British tradition.

* Structures such as that of council of the islands to remain in place to allow close co-operation with Britain on matters of mutual concern and to help keep intact as many links as possible to the Unionist people with Britain, but without interfering with our sovereignty.

* New flags and symbols to represent to island as a whole (inc. national anthem). Separate flags and symbols for each part of the island a possibility (like state flags in the U.S. or the flag situation in Britain).

* New constitution to be drawn up by all.

"The United Republic of Ireland" ?

Ireland would do mate! NI could keep it's name, and the ROI could still be used for the 26.