statue farce

[Republic]

setanta said:

There'd be two referenda, under the terms of the GFA, 1 in the 6 counties and 1 in the 26 counties.

One in Northern Ireland and one in the Republic of Ireland?

In the scenario we spoke about Nationalists have outvoted Unionists to United with the Republic of Ireland.

Yes but it doesn't neccessarily follow that nationalists will be 5/6 of the population.
Eg, a referendum gets 65% support in the ROI and 55% in NI. That would leave 35 and 45 not in favour of a UI.
A UI would not mean that 5/6th are nationalists.
That is an assumption.

Then there'd be a referendum in the 26 counties to decide exactly HOW that'd happen.
Since all parties in the RoI are 100% loyal to Ireland and no where else, they'd be deemed Nationalist, of various shades.
Add them to the Nationlists in the North and we have 5 sixths of the population of Ireland as a whole

Your maths are a little off as you are working on the assumption that a UI referendum would get 100% approval in the south. You are adding northern nationalists to the population of the ROI.

You would get a more accurate figure if you added the figures only of those who voted yes. 5/6ths is an assumption. It may well turn out to be true, but it is still presumptious at this stage.

Its not a major point so don't get too hung up on it.

[Wasp]

setanta said:

they'd be merging with all of the other people in the Republic of Ireland into one huge bloc numbering 5 sixths of the population.

Setanta Jim has said that northern nationalists need to be consulted the same as Unionists so if they do not agree with some of the proposals put forward by the southern gov etc then how much political clout will they have?

[Jim]

What Setanta means is that ultimately we want the same goal as southern nationalists, a united Ireland. We arent going to turn down a united Ireland because of some pandering to unionists, but we will kick up a storm about it once we have achieved our (basic) goal, if that pandering is to our deteriment.

Thats when things start to differ North and South, its natural, its what borders do, they seperate, so political ideals start to differ over long periods of time. Us northerners are a lot more keen on a united Ireland because its us under British rule, while southern nationalists like earl or republic would like to go about it much slower, they've thought it out more because its not them under British rule. We've never experienced truely governing ourselves so our demands will be a lot harder to deal with than any southern demand.

[Harry]

Nothing but a bunch of hypocrits the whole damn lot of us. I would rather we fought than accept a UI. In all honesty i would. Yet i call SF and the IRA terrorists but i would assume the role if the roles were reversed. We have a SF man trying to tell us about respecting the wishes of the majority and democracy!!! Jesus man pull the other one, do you know what that sounds like to Unionists who have had their country blown to bits for years by the IRA and then had it justified by SF!!!

Ordinary Irishmen were alienated by the IRA. The IRA ensured that a wedge was driven between the people of the north and south. Sure you like to blame the british for everything but i can tell you that the IRA destroyed any chance of of Ireland being united and being fully accepted by all who live on both sides of the border. Take you average Joe from somewhere in the ROI, ho did he feel when he saw dead bodies lying in a street somewhere in Belfast all in the interest of Irish Unity. Did it make him feel proud of being Irish or make him ashamed or annoyed that others were using his identity as a means to inflict torture and suffering on those who had no wish to share his identity???

How did average Joe feel in England when he saw dead men lying in pubs or bookmakers after being slaughtered by British Loyalists?? Did he feel more proud of being British or was he too sick to the stomach that others would use his identity as a tool to justify murder???

Truth is both Loyalists and Republicans have alienated the majority of the majority. Its cheap of Republicans to assume that Unionists should go through what they endured and its cheap that we didn't do the right things when we had the chance but now expect the right things to be done for us.

I can't accept a UI because to me it will mean that the IRA got their way. Again i'd rather die in British Ulster than live in a united Ireland. What has your idea of a UI got to offer the likes of me Setanta??

[Republic]

Harry I know the very idea is alien to you and I am not going to pretend I can change your mind one iota.
But can you appreciate the difference between what myself and earl would favour, with the SF ideal?

Jim I would think that most southerners wouldn't want to tolerate any northern nationalists start kicking up a fuss in a UI. If you get a UI, great, you're part of our state now. Accept the wishes of the majority of your state and stop acting like you (not you personally) deserve special treatment. If the majority support a different idea of a UI, then you have to accept it as being the wishes of the majority of your nation.

If you're part of an independent UI, then you've already succeeded in your goals.

southern nationalists like earl or republic would like to go about it much slower, they've thought it out more because its not them under British rule.

Without being offensive, I think that is all the more reason that ''outsiders'' should be listenened to. We do not carry the baggage and bitterness that clouds our judgement.

[Jim]

republic said:

Jim I would think that most southerners wouldn't want to tolerate any northern nationalists start kicking up a fuss in a UI. If you get a UI, great, you're part of our state now. Accept the wishes of the majority of your state and stop acting like you (not you personally) deserve special treatment. If the majority support a different idea of a UI, then you have to accept it as being the wishes of the majority of your nation.

If you're part of an independent UI, then you've already succeeded in your goals.

southern nationalists like earl or republic would like to go about it much slower, they've thought it out more because its not them under British rule.

Without being offensive, I think that is all the more reason that ''outsiders'' should be listenened to. We do not carry the baggage and bitterness that clouds our judgement.

Weither or not southern nationalists would tolerate it is irrelevant, to even say they have to tolerate us is to make out that you would be in some way superior, and thats not the case. Northern nationalists will have requests just as southern nationalists will and just as unionists will. Its rich telling someone to accept the wishes of the majority of the state and not to demand "special" treatment when we would be moving into a new state, new government that has no experience with us, our idea of a united Ireland is not simply to go and beg to Fianna fail, we have no loyalty to Fianna Fail, theyve never had to deal with us and will get a shock when they do if thats the attitude to go by.

Like I said before, a united Ireland is only the basic goal, what route that takes us is where we differ on opinion, and with Harry saying he would rather die than go into a UI, a lot of questions will have to be asked on how we go about how we create a new state, the Republic of Ireland as it exists today will be no more.

[earl]

jim said:

Like I said before, a united Ireland is only the basic goal, what route that takes us is where we differ on opinion, and with Harry saying he would rather die than go into a UI, a lot of questions will have to be asked on how we go about how we create a new state, the Republic of Ireland as it exists today will be no more.

That's part of my point in all this I suppose, in that the ROI of today would no longer exist. There are many republicans whose idea of a UI is the 6 counties tacked onto the 26 and it's business as usual. The easy way to handle loyalists with a view like Harry's is to threaten them that they'd be fcuked if they tried anything in this new post 9-11 world, but that wouldn't be helping, that would be making things worse. People like Harry need to be assured that their place in the new society would be safe. They need to be assured that their traditions and identity are safe. They need to know that the Ireland wanted by the IRA is not the Ireland the majority on this island wants. I've only ever met 2 people who wanted a socialist Ireland and one of those people was Setanta! There will be no 32 county socialist republic. The IRA will not win in the event of a UI either.
I agree with Harry when he says that the IRA have helped to distance the chances of a UI occurring. I know Harry supports certain Loyalist actions in the defence of his community, and likewise, I supported the actions of the IRA when they first came back on the scene as they were necessary to protect the nationalist community from mobs, b-specials and the RUC. But as soon as they went from defence to offence, they became counter-productive. When they went from defending communities to blowing up old men, children and dog handlers, they hardened the unionist resolve to never be a part of a UI. They made the same mistake as the Unionist government made initially after the creation of NI by trying to scare people into submission and acceptance. Only the opposite was achieved.
So how do we show people like Harry that they will be accepted and respected as to who they are? We have to start showing it now. The Irish government has been making all the right moves in this respect of late, but it will be the people on the ground that will have to do the hard work.
now don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that we pander to them. There's a big difference to pandering and showing a level of respect. Unionists pretty much have to do the same to try and convince nationalists that their future lies in the UK, so it's not a matter for just one side.
This is why I believe that SF will not be able to deliver a UI. They have too much baggage, and they seem to have lost the run of themselves lately. Jumping on things like mugs and hidden statues is simply ridiculous. They should be picking the right fights, where there is a degree of bias to one side, and not jump on everything that's related to a union jack. Like that Limivady issue. I don't care what political stance an historic figure had, if you went abroad, did well for yourself, and became leader of another country, you probably deserve to have a statue erected in your hometown in your honour! We've got statues of founders of the U.S. navy, the Argentinian navy, senators, politicians and other folk who have done well abroad all over the place, so I don't see SF's point. I agree with making council chambers as neutral an environment as possible. Certain considerations and compromise are needed, and respect shown. I don't agree with shoving nationalist symbols in for the sake of it either, i.e. erecting a statue beside this Massey bloke of a nationalist just for the sake of it. Granted, if there was an historic local nationalist figure who did good, then there's no problem. I think Unionists can help themselves in this respect by giving the Irish language issue some consideration. I think it would even up the playing field. Irish culture is more based on language and literature than statues and flags, so doing this would be a huge sign of respect, which would have to be reciprocated in kind by allowing more leeway in this whole symbols issue. If we can put up with royal crowns and British symbols hanging off many of our important government and cultural buildings down here, then I'm sure that it could happen in NI if the situation and attitudes normalise some more.

I think we can conclude from all this is that on both sides, there is no culture of listening to the other, as everyone is too busy trying to shout over each other demanding what they want. If we actually listened to each other and thought it through, many aspects of each others culture could be used to negotiate a compromised solution that would satisfy the majority of people.

[Harry]

earl said:

jim said:

Like I said before, a united Ireland is only the basic goal, what route that takes us is where we differ on opinion, and with Harry saying he would rather die than go into a UI, a lot of questions will have to be asked on how we go about how we create a new state, the Republic of Ireland as it exists today will be no more.

That's part of my point in all this I suppose, in that the ROI of today would no longer exist. There are many republicans whose idea of a UI is the 6 counties tacked onto the 26 and it's business as usual. The easy way to handle loyalists with a view like Harry's is to threaten them that they'd be fcuked if they tried anything in this new post 9-11 world, but that wouldn't be helping, that would be making things worse. People like Harry need to be assured that their place in the new society would be safe. They need to be assured that their traditions and identity are safe. They need to know that the Ireland wanted by the IRA is not the Ireland the majority on this island wants. I've only ever met 2 people who wanted a socialist Ireland and one of those people was Setanta! There will be no 32 county socialist republic. The IRA will not win in the event of a UI either.
I agree with Harry when he says that the IRA have helped to distance the chances of a UI occurring. I know Harry supports certain Loyalist actions in the defence of his community, and likewise, I supported the actions of the IRA when they first came back on the scene as they were necessary to protect the nationalist community from mobs, b-specials and the RUC. But as soon as they went from defence to offence, they became counter-productive. When they went from defending communities to blowing up old men, children and dog handlers, they hardened the unionist resolve to never be a part of a UI. They made the same mistake as the Unionist government made initially after the creation of NI by trying to scare people into submission and acceptance. Only the opposite was achieved.
So how do we show people like Harry that they will be accepted and respected as to who they are? We have to start showing it now. The Irish government has been making all the right moves in this respect of late, but it will be the people on the ground that will have to do the hard work.
now don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that we pander to them. There's a big difference to pandering and showing a level of respect. Unionists pretty much have to do the same to try and convince nationalists that their future lies in the UK, so it's not a matter for just one side.
This is why I believe that SF will not be able to deliver a UI. They have too much baggage, and they seem to have lost the run of themselves lately. Jumping on things like mugs and hidden statues is simply ridiculous. They should be picking the right fights, where there is a degree of bias to one side, and not jump on everything that's related to a union jack. Like that Limivady issue. I don't care what political stance an historic figure had, if you went abroad, did well for yourself, and became leader of another country, you probably deserve to have a statue erected in your hometown in your honour! We've got statues of founders of the U.S. navy, the Argentinian navy, senators, politicians and other folk who have done well abroad all over the place, so I don't see SF's point. I agree with making council chambers as neutral an environment as possible. Certain considerations and compromise are needed, and respect shown. I don't agree with shoving nationalist symbols in for the sake of it either, i.e. erecting a statue beside this Massey bloke of a nationalist just for the sake of it. Granted, if there was an historic local nationalist figure who did good, then there's no problem. I think Unionists can help themselves in this respect by giving the Irish language issue some consideration. I think it would even up the playing field. Irish culture is more based on language and literature than statues and flags, so doing this would be a huge sign of respect, which would have to be reciprocated in kind by allowing more leeway in this whole symbols issue. If we can put up with royal crowns and British symbols hanging off many of our important government and cultural buildings down here, then I'm sure that it could happen in NI if the situation and attitudes normalise some more.

I think we can conclude from all this is that on both sides, there is no culture of listening to the other, as everyone is too busy trying to shout over each other demanding what they want. If we actually listened to each other and thought it through, many aspects of each others culture could be used to negotiate a compromised solution that would satisfy the majority of people.

Good post mate. I'm not saying i'm going to turn into some demon if a UI came about but i would most likely support any actions that hurt the aspirations of those who took away my country. No matter what, violence isn't and never has been the answer. As i've said before i could entertain and negotiate terms with Earl based on the grounding he is standing on. Its not about cleansing Ireland of the British but about accepting how Britishness is woven into many aspects of Irish life and society. I don't see ROI as an enemy now, i did once and that is because of the IRA actions. Once anyone from ROI was my enemy and i realize through this site that only a minority in the ROI sought a UI through the IRA, the rest would of brought it about peacefully.

Simply saying that our Britishness is guaranteed through the GFA means nothing to me. Pushing dates forward and clinging to the thought that soon you will have a majority and a UI will be yours is very naive and could be potentially disastrous.

[Wasp]

There is also a strong possibility that people in the republic will be happy to let things be if Stormont is a success. Why change something that in there eyes is working with the very real prospect of violence in the event of a U.I.

[Jim]

When it comes to the IRA it was damned if you do, damned if you dont. Earl, unionist resolve was always going to be hardened even if the IRA one day stopped and didnt come back, or even if they didnt exist. They've always had a hardened resolve to a united Ireland and always will, so just putting the blame down to the IRA because its the easy thing to do isnt right, it would be like me saying that the biggest reason I dont want a union with Britain is because of loyalist death squads, its not even close to that reason, they barely come into the equasion. A united Ireland means the death of the IRA, with maybe a few arses running around wanting more that even some of the most hardened republicans wouldnt support.

If I was a unionist I would be more offended at having to be pandered than anything else, as if they're giving me a pat on the head and telling me its alright like you would to a 5 year old after they scrape their knees. Pandering solves nowt, actual relations and proper dialogue solves a lot, a few token moves wont do anything in the long run.

Its not helping that unionist leaders boycott anything thats remotely to do with Irishness, its more likely to bring abou a united Irelan because it shows nationalists that we will never have a real place in NI and its not worth holding up, that the DUP and UUP are only doing this because their big brothers in Westminster say so.

Not once have I ever said anything about cleansing Britishness from Ireland. I don't want British administration in Ireland from England, but I've never said anything about removing anything British in terms of population, its not going to happen, Sandy row will still have union jacks in a united Ireland.

We've done a lot of talking about how a UI might look, so, Wasp, Harry, take for granted we had a vote north and south for a united Ireland, the United Kingdom has accepted this and welcomed the newly formed state into the international community and we have been granted access to the United Nations (meaning, its a real state and its not going anywhere). A fella comes to your door doing a survey on what unionists want in this new state, what your ideas for this new state is as a shared future, what would you tell him? How would you want things to run, would you want Stormont to stay up? Would you want a new flag, anthem, distinct to NI? Would you want a new flag that represents the entire island? Would you still want your own football team? Would you want a dual head of state for anyone that has a British passport? Would you want access to a British passport? What would you want to call this new state? Would you be accepting of it considering its democracy implemented on this island for the first time ever? What about foreign policy? Would you want neutrality to stand? Would you want more integration with Europe? Would you want to favour trading with Britain over America?

[Wasp]

Jim as a Unionist I am speaking for most if not all of them. The ira are the main reason by a long shot why relations between north and south were so bad, the reason why little or no progress was done and it is the ira that ruined any chance of a U.I or anything close to it for all nationalists/republicans by there continuation of an unjustified campaign for three odd decades.

Of course there are reasons why Unionists don't want a U.I, that is obvious but for much of it the ira are entirely to blame due to their campaign of violence against the vast majority of people and politicans on bothsides. It is laughable to hear any sinn fein member talking about majority consent considering they didn't worry about majority consent before.

[Jim]

Thats because Sinn Fein members believe majority consent doesnt stop at the border, its an island wide issue

I'm not gonna argue about the IRA I only wanted to make my point, I accept your view on it, but can you answer my questions?

[Republic]

jim said:

If I was a unionist I would be more offended at having to be pandered than anything else, as if they're giving me a pat on the head and telling me its alright like you would to a 5 year old after they scrape their knees. Pandering solves nowt, actual relations and proper dialogue solves a lot, a few token moves wont do anything in the long run.

I think the unionists have made it clear that they see earls ideas as a genuine attempt to be inclusive, and not as pandering.

This mindset - that any ''concessions'' or recognition of the other side is pandering - is the real barrier to progress.

[Republic]

setanta said:

5)Unionists Parties aren't preparing for these referenda and have no plan todeal with them and are currently divided which is why I think they'll have very little input into the text. It's up to the DUP/UUP to change their policy on this and at least have a plan in case it happens.

They may have a plan which you do not know about it.
There is no way they would ever publicly admit to having such a plan as republicans like yourself would start crowing that a UI is inevitable and would rub it in unionists faces.

6)I'll add to put Republics mind to rest (feckin head-wreaker )even if there is a 65/45 majority in favour of the referenda in the RoI, it in no way means that those 45% are Unionists.
Historically opposition to Unification was based on economics. A position no longer tenable because of our overflowing government coffers.

I didnt say they were unionists at all. I just said that such a result would mean that you could not claim that nationalists were 5/6 of the population.

My opposition to unification is based not on economics, but on a fear that unionists would not be respected in a UI.
I want no part of a UI which does not acknowledge (properly and generously) our British elements.
An Ireland which cannot do that is an insecure Ireland.
And we have no reason to be insecure anymore.

[He_Who_Walks_in_The_Wilderness]

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.

Quite a few 'republicans' have done quite well out of the border, how much is old slab murphy worth these days few million atleast