statue farce

[earl]

cheers for your input lads. How in this scenario, in your opinion, could things be made more acceptable?

[Wasp]

Earl just on added note you said 'The President would represent the entire population of Ireland, while the queen would represent those from a British tradition.'

Would this include those from a British tradition in the whole of Ireland or just N.Ireland? For me it would have to be the whole of Ireland.

[earl]

wasp said:

Earl just on added note you said 'The President would represent the entire population of Ireland, while the queen would represent those from a British tradition.'

Would this include those from a British tradition in the whole of Ireland or just N.Ireland? For me it would have to be the whole of Ireland.

There's no reason why not if we remain open minded about it. Technically, we'd be building a new country up from scratch. If a few down here wish to go along with that, I can't see the harm. It won't affect me, who I am, the economy or anything important. If it means something to someone else, then let them go for it (I can hear Setanta smashing his keyboard from here!).

[Wasp]

Fair play to you Earl and TBH I was getting ready to dig my heals in. The Irish president means nothing to me but I accept that she/he would mean plenty to others and therefore would show the same respect that I would expect to do with Her Majesty.

I must say Earl on this you have really surprized me. Ever think of taking up some kind of role in reaching out to Unionists?

[Jim]

wasp said:

Earl just on added note you said 'The President would represent the entire population of Ireland, while the queen would represent those from a British tradition.'

Would this include those from a British tradition in the whole of Ireland or just N.Ireland? For me it would have to be the whole of Ireland.

Neither; anyone with a British passport.

[earl]

wasp said:

Ever think of taking up some kind of role in reaching out to Unionists?

That'd be too much like work! I am just testing the waters here to see if there would ever be a chance of a peaceful UI in the event of a referendum for it being successful in NI. I'm heartened to see that there might be, but the sacrifices to be made on both sides would be enormous. Would either side be truly willing to make them if it ever came to the time? Very hard to tell. I've just been feeling lately that the 'traditional' view of a UI will probably never work.

[earl]

setanta said:

Nah this is more amusing then annoying.

Just out of curiosity, why would you find it amusing? Surely SF should be asking those questions to Unionists as to what they might want in such a situation. There's no harm in asking for someone's opinion, especially if you're trying to sell them on something. Does SF's out reach program listen to Unionists, or does it tell them what they think Unionists want to hear?
What's your views on it? You've already stated that it wouldn't be a UI, yet the model is based on those used successfully by other countries, where large differences between peoples in differing regions exist. You can't say Canada isn't one country.

What would be your pitch to the Unionist community for a UI? Would you even ask them what they might want? What is your ideal outcome, based on reality?

[earl]

Point 1.
The model proposed IS a UI. It would have one central government, one set of tax bands, one foreign policy, one currency. To the outside world, it would operate very much how the current UK government works in representing it's constituent countries.
The devolved governments internally are for internal use and make reunification far simpler from an administrative perspective as all the departments are already in place and operational necessary to govern a region.

Point 2
And under the proposal, NI would be united with the 26 under one central government. The local administration of NI would still be handled by Stormont, as a devolved government. The central government would handle all high level diplomatic relationships and would create the important policies required in running a country (i.e. tax rates, major laws, etc.) There would be some autonomy available to both sides of the island for minor differences in policy, similar to England and Scotland.

Point 3.
So what you're saying is we should totally ignore them?? Ah yes, I've seen how totally ignoring disgruntled minorities has worked out well in the past. Whilst it would seem that it's SF policy to ape failed past British policies, that's not how I was brought up. I was brought up believing that the situation northern nationalists found themselves was morally and democratically wrong. To do the same to a would-be minority of Unionists would be hypocritical and against everything I stand for. We will learn from the mistakes that British governments have made down through the years, we will not repeat them.

Point 4.
I'm a Republican. To me, monarchy is wrong. No-one is above me, I am an equal to my fellow citizen. I don't agree with the act of settlement, but even if they did let a Catholic become king/queen, I'd still think it was wrong anyway! As stated, the queen would remain as figurehead to the people who see her as part of their culture. She would not be imposed on people like you or I. This has all to do with an acceptance of someone elses traditions. Unionists aren't going to 'turn' overnight, and there needs to be something in place to allow them to have their cultural link. Northern nationalists would know how important it is to maintain cultural links, so to expect Unionists to give up theirs is hypocritical. This clause is not an acceptance of monarchy by the people of Ireland who are not so inclined, it is purely for the benefit of those on this island who are so inclined. It would mean nothing to people like me or you, but could mean the world to someone else.

Point 5.
You're a tarot card reader now! Fair play. We all need our hobbies. So, other than telling you that FF will be strong and organised north of the border by the time this referendum comes a-knocking (which is??), did your cards tell you anything else like racing results or who's going to win the eurovision?
By the time we ever get to that stage, attitudes will have changed. To what, I can't be sure, but Ireland is getting more comfortable with itself every day, and people are getting used to certain aspects of our history that we are not entirely comfortable with. By the time this referendum comes around, who knows what people might think.

Point 6.
Not a chance. I'd have to assume though that by that stage, Unionist politicians would have changed their mindset by then. By that stage, it could be several generations removed from the current batch (if ever). You'd have to assume that by that stage, there would have been a certain amount of success with the north-south institutions and those who were not in politics (or possibly even alive) during the troubles would have a different view of NI/ROI relations. This would allow them to articulate logically, rather than reactionary and passionately in ignorance.

Point 7.
One simple sentence, 'Do the right thing'.

Unionism is not a political belief in theory or in practice that I would want to follow or ape (no offence to our unionist friends, I'm sure the feeling is mutual!)
Just because past Unionist governments failed in many respects to reciprocate a level of respect that they demand of others, it doesn't mean we have to do the same. Pettiness and eye for an historical eye is not how a UI will be built up. Our constitution currently demands that we respect our fellow man, so this would also go for any would-be fellow-men also. The faults of Unionism will not also be the faults of republicanism.

Point 8.
Your point 3 tells unionists that you will ignore them. This point states that if they get physical through being ignored, expect the worst as there's no-one out there to help you. This is a threat.

The proposal ensures that Unionists would have a voice in the new make-up of things. They may not like the situation, but they will at least have many options in being part of it and involved to try and stave off any sense of alienation. There would be structures in place to look after and recognise aspects of their culture. A UI means everyone feeling that they belong, having a voice and having the means to contribute.

Point 9.
There would be the same tax system, currency and central government in charge of both sides of the border. The border would cease to be an international border, and would become an internal one. This is a completely different circumstance.

Point 10
I don't believe that this is enough for Unionists to be totally comfortable with the situation. If other efforts could be made, that wouldn't interfere with our sovereignty, then they should be looked at and considered.

Just say that the vote came in tomorrow in a UI referendum, and it was a 'yes', how do you envisage a UI coming about exactly?

[Republic]

Earl, your posts articulate my own thoughts perfectly! I have referred to my own idea of a UI previously, I wish you had been around to back me up in those debates. Your ideas are spot on and you've put a lot of effort into thinking everything through. That is a UI I could vote for.

[Jim]

I'm in favour of the same (or similar) type of UI wanted by Setanta, but it doesnt mean I'm not willing to try another model, I would be.

Earl from what I gather you seem to understand northern unionists more than you understand northern nationalists/republicans. Many of us arent willing to change the Tricolour because the Union Jack hasnt been changed, doesnt seem very fair. When the state was created nationalists wherent consulted, they wherent asked anything, they didnt even get a choice, it was completely imposed against them in complete favour of unionists, we all know the story of what happened so I'll not get into that, but the argument from some nationalists will be "why pander to them when we didnt get that treatment", if the pandering is done to unionists then it leaves nationalists once again with no say in the matter, we will have a united Ireland but it wont have much use, will it? it'll still have the same problems and a unionist controlled state trying to make life as difficult as possible.

Learning from the mistakes unionists made with nationalists, it wouldnt be smart to make those same mistakes or we will have more trouble and no one wants to go back to that.

[earl]

republic said:

Earl, your posts articulate my own thoughts perfectly! I have referred to my own idea of a UI previously, I wish you had been around to back me up in those debates. Your ideas are spot on and you've put a lot of effort into thinking everything through. That is a UI I could vote for.

Cheers mate.

[earl]

jim said:

I'm in favour of the same (or similar) type of UI wanted by Setanta, but it doesnt mean I'm not willing to try another model, I would be.

Earl from what I gather you seem to understand northern unionists more than you understand northern nationalists/republicans. Many of us arent willing to change the Tricolour because the Union Jack hasnt been changed, doesnt seem very fair. When the state was created nationalists wherent consulted, they wherent asked anything, they didnt even get a choice, it was completely imposed against them in complete favour of unionists, we all know the story of what happened so I'll not get into that, but the argument from some nationalists will be "why pander to them when we didnt get that treatment", if the pandering is done to unionists then it leaves nationalists once again with no say in the matter, we will have a united Ireland but it wont have much use, will it? it'll still have the same problems and a unionist controlled state trying to make life as difficult as possible.

Learning from the mistakes unionists made with nationalists, it wouldnt be smart to make those same mistakes or we will have more trouble and no one wants to go back to that.

we have to learn from the mistakes of the past. NI was created without the consideration of the large minority in mind. They were ignored. And we've seen that NI has suffered from stability issues ever since. If we created a new Ireland, then the concerns of the Unionist population must be listened to and come under consideration. How can anyone love a flag that doesn't represent them? How can anyone sing an anthem that they had no part in? You Jim of all people should know what feeling alienated in the country of your birth feels like. So if the shoe was on the foot, you could hardly expect any Unionist to be thrilled with the idea that NI was to become a mere extension of the current Irish state, with all it's flags and symbols in tow. As far as I'm concerned, the current separation of this island is a transitory thing, and all the flags and symbols within are only temporary.
This isn't 'pandering'. It's accepting a reality. This island isn't a green and Gaelic utopia. There is an indigenous ethnic minority that relates itself to the British culture. Nothing we say or do will ever change that, no-more than you could be persuaded against your Irish heritage. Making sure that the majority of Unionists participate constructively towards the creation of a new Ireland is the only way a UI will work, else we'll end up back in the same state as 1921 with the roles reversed.

[Wasp]

Setanta your post stinks of sheer hypocrisy, your comments on democracy and majority decision making must be a new found thing with sinn fein, because before they supported and carried out bombings and shootings to try and force the majority to submit to them. If the OO were to make demands such as sinn fein have, due to the hurt and anger republicans have towards the OO then what kind of reaction would sinn fein give them? And not forgetting the OO was not a terrorist organisation that carried out thousands of gun and bomb attacks like the ira did.

The fact is the ira and sinn fein done more damage to the promoting of anything Irish, a willingness to engage in discussing a U.I and the possibility of a U.I than everyone put together with there continiued campaign og sectarian hate filled violence. Don't blame Unionists for that, blame the ira.

As far as your comments on Her Majesty you are forgetting Ireland was ruled under a system that denied basic rights all to often to the people, a system which to this very day has much influence in modern Ireland, a system that is headed by the Pope who can ONLY be a R.C atholic, a system that has doctrines to this day which show there hatred for Protestants and a system that is one of the major stumbling blocks to a U.I.

I don't agree with all of Earl's points about what happened up here, I don't agree with his assertion which sounds like Unionists to this day are still the problem in some of his points (and only some) etc. But I will say this he has made a hell of an effort in trying to reach out and accomodate and he has done far more than all sinn feins political reps put together have done.

[Jim]

earl said:

jim said:

I'm in favour of the same (or similar) type of UI wanted by Setanta, but it doesnt mean I'm not willing to try another model, I would be.

Earl from what I gather you seem to understand northern unionists more than you understand northern nationalists/republicans. Many of us arent willing to change the Tricolour because the Union Jack hasnt been changed, doesnt seem very fair. When the state was created nationalists wherent consulted, they wherent asked anything, they didnt even get a choice, it was completely imposed against them in complete favour of unionists, we all know the story of what happened so I'll not get into that, but the argument from some nationalists will be "why pander to them when we didnt get that treatment", if the pandering is done to unionists then it leaves nationalists once again with no say in the matter, we will have a united Ireland but it wont have much use, will it? it'll still have the same problems and a unionist controlled state trying to make life as difficult as possible.

Learning from the mistakes unionists made with nationalists, it wouldnt be smart to make those same mistakes or we will have more trouble and no one wants to go back to that.

we have to learn from the mistakes of the past. NI was created without the consideration of the large minority in mind. They were ignored. And we've seen that NI has suffered from stability issues ever since. If we created a new Ireland, then the concerns of the Unionist population must be listened to and come under consideration. How can anyone love a flag that doesn't represent them? How can anyone sing an anthem that they had no part in? You Jim of all people should know what feeling alienated in the country of your birth feels like. So if the shoe was on the foot, you could hardly expect any Unionist to be thrilled with the idea that NI was to become a mere extension of the current Irish state, with all it's flags and symbols in tow. As far as I'm concerned, the current separation of this island is a transitory thing, and all the flags and symbols within are only temporary.
This isn't 'pandering'. It's accepting a reality. This island isn't a green and Gaelic utopia. There is an indigenous ethnic minority that relates itself to the British culture. Nothing we say or do will ever change that, no-more than you could be persuaded against your Irish heritage. Making sure that the majority of Unionists participate constructively towards the creation of a new Ireland is the only way a UI will work, else we'll end up back in the same state as 1921 with the roles reversed.

I didn't imply any opposite, I gave how northern nationalists would feel about your proposals. Like I said, I'll take a model that works. If this works then thats that. No one mentioned gaelic utopias, lets just remember northern nationalists when we are at this, we deserve as much consultation as unionists do, remember we call ourselves Irish but we have never been part of the Irish state so our opinion will be vastly different to a southern opinion.

[Wasp]

Jim I understand what you are saying but surely northern nationalists aspirations is to be united with the rest of Ireland. So if the rest of Ireland go for what Earl has suggested why would northern nationalsits be opposed to it or need as much consultation as Unionists.

If the roles were reversed and we were heading from a U.I to a seperate N.Ireland under British rule I would expect northern nationalists to have far more consultation than Unionists as being united with the rest of the UK would be Unionist aspirations and not that of nationalists.

I would be more than happy for alot of things going for nationalists, even if it meant no consultation with Unionists because I would be basically getting what I want and that is to be united with the UK.