UI anthem

[Republic]

With regards to the flag copying Australias Flag. No matter who wins the Aussie General Election in November there will be a Republican as Prime Minister. The Liberal that is taking over from Howard is a Republican. Aussie Labour are well placed to win and if that happens then there'll be a referendum, that will pass this time and Australia will become a Republic and the Flag will change soon enough.........there's no plans to take them out of the Commonwealth in the sort or medium term though. I worked for Aussie Labour when I was there and I'm friends with one of their main campaign managers, who's from Dublin.

So you keep saying!!!! In any case, Australia has little relevance to us! ;D

Jim I do see your points I just don't agree that a 32 County Republic of Ireland should have formal connection with Britian outside of the EU and UN.

Why not?

You keep saying that we have to respect Unionist Princibles and embrace them. Well I don't think that 5 6ths of Irelands population would agree to change their anthem and flag for Unionism or even contemplate it UNTIL Unionism shows Republicanism and Nationalism the respect it demands of us.

Our respect and manners as a people should be dependent upon the actions of other people. We should show unionism respect respect because it is the right thing to do if you are interested in creating a stable society and a united Ireland with solid foundations.

Neither community shows much respect for the other as far as I can see. So who moves first?
Thankfully I have faith in FF to ignore SFs divisive tactics and to treat unionists with respect in the unlikely event of a UI ever occurring.

Every year in Kilmainham there is a National Day of Rememberence for Irish Soldiers killed in wars INCLUDING every single one of them that died in British Imperial Wars, from WW1 to Waterloo and before. There is memorials all over the Republic for them and the upmost respect is shown for those soldiers. There is memorials to Carson and Guinness and Wellington and other Unionists and our representatives commerate them.
Because it's part of the HISTORY of Ireland.

And rightfully so. They were as Irish as we are. Would you agree?

Flip the coin. Would any Unionist Rep commerate Wolfe Tone, Robert Emmett, Bulmer Hobson, Michael Davitt, Thomas Davis, even that Unionist Dragoon Danial O Connoll...the leaders of 16 etc? No bleedin way.

That is their problem. If they want to act that way, it doesnt mean we should.

All we get is "fuck you they're terrorists"! Let one of them go to The Croppies Acre and lay a wreath or visit Glasnevin Cemetary and hear James Connolly.
Let them recognise that the United Irishmen onwards were out to better the lot of the people on this island. All the people on this island and not just the chosen few, who were so chosen on the basis of their religion.

You keep saying we have to be better than them and rise above it.
I say we have to treat them as equals and demand the same respect of them that they demand of us.

Treat them as equals?
What does that mean?
-Perhaps by showing the same respect for their culture as we would like for ours?
-Or else by treating them the same way they have treated nationalists?

there is no point repeating their mistakes.
FFS are SF stupid?

Unionist Leaders seem to be sticking their fingers in their ears and shouting LALALALALA, when ever a United Ireland is mentioned.

So what? They have no desire for one. You would do the same if they kept asking for the ROI to become part of the UK.

They have to come together as one, articulate their points as one and this time engage in the process as one.

No they dont. A UI is far from certain. They do not have to discuss a UI until the day after a successful border poll. Not a second before then.

Ulike the Boundary Commission, which they refused to engage with because they already knew that they were getting 6 counties even though it went against the will of the people of Tyrone, Fermanagh, West Derry and, South Armagh. There will be no back door deal on Unity, it will be decided by the people.

The unionists refused to engage with the boundary commission?? I think you will find James Craig was far more active and involved with the boundary commission than his southern counterparts.
The southern govt was painfully ignorant about the commissions work and were only too happy to leave the border unchanged when the commissions recommendations were leaked to the press.

I think another commission would be likely in the event of a unionist decline in NI. Repartition seems far more likely than full unification IMO.

The rights to celebrate their traditions and to have British Citizenship are already guarenteed.

But not formally recognised as part of the state?

[Shades40]

To hell with youse all, the >>sun burst<< should be the flag of Ireland and the tri colour the military flag.

[Republic]

What? And you're a teacher?
Craig boycotted the proceedings and refused to accept the idea of any change of territory so the British nominated J.R. Fisher, a businessman as the token Unionist representative

During the course of the negotiations David Lloyd George won Michael Collins and Arthur Griffith round to accepting this idea by suggesting that the transfers of territory (Tyrone, Fermanagh, South Armagh, South Down and Derry City, areas of nationalist majority) would be so large as to render the northern state unviable.


So like I said, if the Treaty had of been adhered to with regards to the Boundary Commission the NI Statelet would have been about 3 Counties but Unionism had already been guarented 6 in the back rooms.
This will not be allowed to happen again

I will address the rest of your post when I have time but I want to address this point now.

'Craig boycotted the proceedings and refused to accept the idea of any change of territory so the British nominated J.R. Fisher, a businessman as the token Unionist representative'

Correct. But if you read up on the Commission, you will be aware Fisher went to great lengths to keep Craig informed of the commisions investigation, at every step of the process.
This was in stark contrast to Eoin MacNeills failure to keep Cosgrave informed of any developments during the process.
With the result that the Irish Govt was caught completely by surprise when the findings were leaked to the Morning Post.

So while Craig may have boycotted the commission in public, he certainly dealt with it much better than his southern counterparts did.

My original assertion was correct- ''I think you will find James Craig was far more active and involved with the boundary commission than his southern counterparts.
The southern govt was painfully ignorant about the commissions work and were only too happy to leave the border unchanged when the commissions recommendations were leaked to the press.''

Dont take his boycott at face value. In fact dont take any politicians at face value.

It displays naivety to think that Craig did not take any interest in the boundary commission- a body that had the power to reduce the territory of his state.

Whatever you think of him, he wasn't stupid.


''During the course of the negotiations David Lloyd George won Michael Collins and Arthur Griffith round to accepting this idea by suggesting that the transfers of territory (Tyrone, Fermanagh, South Armagh, South Down and Derry City, areas of nationalist majority) would be so large as to render the northern state unviable.''

Speaking of being naive, here is a great example. Lloyd George outwitted everyone in the treaty negotiations.
He was a master negotiator with international experience. The Irish delegates were simply outclassed through no real fault of their own.

He suggested, yet never committed to the redrawing of the boundary.
There is no need to link the treaty to me, Im well aware of its content.
Without even viewing article 12, I can tell you that it never said that those territories would definitely be returned.
You are forgetting the point about economic conditions- it acted as a get-out clause.

Lloyd George is still fooling you after 80 years- he never committed to any specific transfer. The transfer that was recommended was rejected by the Irish govt.

So like I said, if the Treaty had of been adhered to with regards to the Boundary Commission the NI Statelet would have been about 3 Counties but Unionism had already been guarented 6 in the back rooms.
This will not be allowed to happen again

The treaty was adhered to- the Boundary Commission presented its findings which were roundly rejected by the Irish govt.
You can make a case that the Govt Of Ireland Act 1920 should not have given NI so much territory, but under the terms of the later Treaty, it is false to say that the commission failed to carry out its work.

Re the back rooms- Llyod George told unionists one thing, nationalists another.
He played them both for fools.

Stop taking things at face value- Im glad you wont be a teacher anyway ;D ;D

[Republic]

Everyone was caught completly be suprise by Fisher leaking details! Carson knew there'd be no change so Fisher and him were probably only discussing it over a few Brandys laughing at MacNeill trying to secure the Treaty Guarenteed rights of the people who wanted to be part of the Free State.

Like evil baddies in a movie?
Craig was not caught by surprise.

Craig wasn't active or involved with the Commission! You just said yourself that Fisher was and Craig knew what was going on from Fisher but didn't get involved!

You know what I meant. Indirectly involved maight be a better phrase. the point was that his boycott was not real.

This is silly ........
I take ME at face value ....

More fool you then ;D

That wasn't naive it was included in the Treaty! Lloyd George had told them that those territories WOULD be transfered, based on the GE and the Town and County Councils, to the Free State and THEN the NI statelet would be untainable. That isn't being out manouvered that's being back stabbed.

Back stabbed, I dont know.
Misled, probably.
Nowhere in the treaty did it guarantee the return of those territories.It guaranteed the establishment of a boundary commission which would determine the area to be redrawn.
The Irish delegation were misled, but they were not promised anything.
There is literally hundreds of books on this subject.
You even linked to the treaty itself. Go to the link and I guarantee it will not mention anything about a definite return of those territories.
The delegation took a risk in leaving the decision to the commission, and they were encouraged to do so by George, but it was a risk that failed.

The 1919 General Election said that that the people there wanted to be part of the Free State when they outvoted Unionists in all those territories.

I dont dispute that at all.

It didn't factor.

It was THE factor in boundary commissions reluctance to redraw much of the border.
Economics was the reason for a 6 county state. A 4 county state was thought to be unworkable.
Economics allowed the commission to say that it was unrealistic to withdraw the border.
Rightly or wrongly, economics was the key factor, or more accurately, excuse.
It explicitly mentions economics in article 12.

No it didn't because it was clear from the 1919 GE and the County and Town Councils of those areas that SWORE ALLIGENCE TO Dail Eireann and not Stormont that the people there wanted to be part of the Free State.

I dont dispute that those people wanted to be part of the free state.
But they would only be part of the free state IF the commission decided it was viable. This is clearly set out in article 12. The commission decided to make very little changes, as it was entitled to do under article 12.
Morally, the territory should have changed hands, and you could argue on that basis, but to argue that point on a legal or constitutional basis is wrong, as the terms of the treaty were adhered to.

Which brings me back around the roundabout to the point I was making at the start when I mentioned the Boundary Commission.
It didn't do it's job because of back room deals.

I wouldnt be so sure of that. You seem to be forgetting that the free state had a say in the decision too.
The deal was territory would only change if it was economically viable. The commission decided it wasn't economically viable.

That's not going to happen again although I suspect that is what the present day Unionist Leadership are hoping for.

Repartition would be the best option IMO but it will not happen at the moment anyway.

The proper solution in 1921 would have been for those large nationalist areas to be returned.
Then the maximum number of nationalists would have been happy, unionists would have had an almost solely unionist state and much of the civil strife would have been avoided.

[Jim]

A lot of australians arent interested in the Queen and the monarchy, and dont like having the flag of another country on theirs, theres not a chance people on this island in a united Ireland would accept a flag with a union jack on it, I wouldnt. Canadians dont put a union jack on their flag, its original.

The EU is getting more federalist by the year by the time a united Ireland happens I believe the EU will be starting to transform into one entity already, sovreignty doesnt mean much anymore in Europe and its something I'm supportive of. It still doesnt make a united Ireland unrealistic, it makes it more realistic than ever and more beneficial for the island as an area than ever thought of before. A big reason I dont want to be part of Britain is because of their Europhobia.

Republic, Fianna Fail are even less likely to cave into unionist demands for a new flag, they've a much bigger and stronger position to say "no" from and a lot more support. I believe it should be a big focus of unionist politics to be discussing a united Ireland, why would they want to be caught out on suprise? Its going to happen, its literally a matter of time, do unionists again want to be behind the times with no leadership and no way to turn? That creates panic. They dont have to discuss it, but they should for their own sakes, the same way Republicans have been discussing the long term future of Northern Ireland, thats why we're always clear on what to do next, its why Sinn Fein have literally turned the tables and are sitting in the office of the first minister when they had to contend with people still loyal to the SDLP for many years.

Repartition is even less likely, in the event of repartition, what are going to have? Belfast, where the biggest section (west belfast) is heavily republican, and Down, which is the real unionist stronghold. Armagh, Derry, Fermanagh and Tyrone will be well out of the picture. This would collapse completely, repartition still leaves the second biggest city in Ireland out of the picture, still subservant to the big British cities of London, Manchester and Edinburgh, amongst others.


I cant actually think of another flag to use, other than the four provinces flag and its a bit complicated. We could steal Libya's flag (all green) and tell them to get a new one.

[Republic]

The EU is getting more federalist by the year by the time a united Ireland happens I believe the EU will be starting to transform into one entity already, sovreignty doesnt mean much anymore in Europe and its something I'm supportive of. It still doesnt make a united Ireland unrealistic, it makes it more realistic than ever and more beneficial for the island as an area than ever thought of before. A big reason I dont want to be part of Britain is because of their Europhobia.

Now this would be an interesting thread^^^^ Irelands role in a federalist EU

Repartition is even less likely, in the event of repartition, what are going to have? Belfast, where the biggest section (west belfast) is heavily republican, and Down, which is the real unionist stronghold. Armagh, Derry, Fermanagh and Tyrone will be well out of the picture. This would collapse completely, repartition still leaves the second biggest city in Ireland out of the picture, still subservant to the big British cities of London, Manchester and Edinburgh, amongst others.

I can see the logic behind it, but if unionists kicked up enough fuss about repartition, it could happen. It mightnt be fair or logical but I would not be surprised either.

I cant actually think of another flag to use, other than the four provinces flag and its a bit complicated. We could steal Libya's flag (all green) and tell them to get a new one.

;D ;D ;D

[Republic]

Thats the point I was referring to- it was sufficiently vague as to allow the commission to avoid changing the border.
It was the get out clause.

Technically they stuck to the words of the treaty- one cannot say that the treaty was broken.

The problem was not back room deals, or anything else, the problem (when it came to the boundary issue) was the treaty itself.

I dont think unionists have any interest in discussing anything to do with a UI TBH.

If I could swing this topic another direction-
Setanta and Jim do you see a UI as inevitable? And what time scale would you see such an event happening?

[Republic]

Technically they also broke this deal by NOT recognising that the town and countie councils swore alligence to the Dail. I can't remember reading anything about economics being the Commissions reason for not transfering these territories, but if you can point me in this direction I'd be grateful.

The commission's findings were disregarded and were never considered as a realistic option.
The decision was at their discretion, economics was the excuse, as stated in article 12.

It's only inevitable if we work for it and prove the economic and social benifits of it. Which we are doing especially in the border regions which are suffering socially and economically because of the border................ for instance them lads coming accross the border and buying petrol here can cost this state 50million per year in Koyoto Penelties on carbon emissions because their motorists were factored into UK Carbon emission figures and not ours! Unemployment is much higher in the border region and so on and so forth.
I think have a seminar on this soon. Want to come?

But do you propose to persuade unionists of the benefits? A minority would have to be persuaded that they are better off without the UK.

How do you overcome the simple reality that unionists have a decent sized majority and will have for the forseeable future?

I also think you would have a fairly big task convincing the southern voters that a UI is in their interests.

As regards unemployment, I would say it is not because of the border, I would say it is due to govt incompetence and under investment in isolated areas.

Take the BMW region. Border Midlands Western.
All classed as 'deprived' areas or under-developed.
The West and the midlands are not in the state they are in because of the border, its because of stupidity in central govt.
Which leads me to think that the border counties may also be suffering due to govt stupidity, and not the border. Now it may contribute to the problem, but I could guarantee you that the west and the midlands suffer just as much, if not more than the border counties.

I am from the midlands/western region, I see it all the time. I was in Cavan and Monaghan working about 10 days ago- believe me they are in a much better state than the west.

Roads, hospitals, employment, health, general infrastructure, facilities, migration- the west and midlands region is much worse off than the border counties.
I could go on and on all day but I won't bore you. ;D

Re the seminar- I think i'll give it a miss Whats it about anyway

[Shades40]

You ever seen the border area between Cyprus and Turkey? complete waste land and totally impoverished this would be a familiar scene where two not so friendly countries meet.

[Republic]

shades40 said:

You ever seen the border area between Cyprus and Turkey? complete waste land and totally impoverished this would be a familiar scene where two not so friendly countries meet.

I dont get this^^
Are you saying our border is the same or what?

[Jim]

I'm not into economics's so I find it hard to argue or debate about them, so am not going too.

Republic asked if I see a UI as inevitable, yes I do. Since the troubles a new catholic working class has emerged from working class roots, their parents, grandparents being working class, and they continue to vote for the SDLP in their new homes in Malone and Stranmillis.

Its not a matter of If, its a matter of When, anyone that thinks its a matter of IF are letting on to themselves in my opinion. The lack of leadership in unionism and there are more splits due, just make it easier for us republicans to achieve our goal.

This doesnt mean unionists are automatically irish citizens and their british citizenship will be removed. Ireland still allows people from Britain to become Irish citizens, so it'll work both ways. I'll still be a dual-citizen, Harry will still be a dual-citizen, Wasp will still be a dual-citizen, if abroad we can go to either embassy and recieve the same help and it'll take many years for northern ireland to integrate to ireland completely. I think it would be smart of unionists and their leaders right now to discuss whats happening and what they are going to do when a united Ireland happens.

Are they going to fight it? Are they going to accept it? Are they going to isolate themselves as much as possible? Are they going to close off the border? Are they going to look to the British government for help? Are they going to get help? How many of them will accept a united Ireland?

[Republic]

Setanta, all that is well and good. But will the numbers ever add up?
Can you honestly see 7% of unionists changing their minds and why?

Economics do not matter to them as far as I can see. I wouldnt become British tomorrow if I thought it would earn me a few extra grand every year, and neither would you.

So why would a unionist do the same?

Genuine Question.

[Republic]

Same Q to you Jim, why do you think its inevitable?
Especially when the numbers do not add up, how will it come about?
Do you see a nationalist majority coming about?

[Jim]

No but there are many people in the south looking at the situation in terms of economics. The governments look at economics to see whether the time is right for a united Ireland, and a lot of middle class nationalists will look at economics to tell when the time is right, the business owners. No one is changing nationality, people have chosen to be Irish or British regardless of the border, the border doesnt make me any less Irish than you or Setenta and it doesnt make Harry or Wasp any less British than Tony Blair!

The numbers don't need to add up right now Republic, we're in the early days of an agreement and a new government and for the minute its enough, its essential, I dont think today is the right time for a united Ireland, no one is ready for it including republicans, there needs to be a lot of work in the north to bring down secterianism as much as possible, and time to work out what a united Ireland will be, what say will the largest parties in the north have on the formation of that united Ireland, what will NIs role be, what will the EUs role be, what will the UKs role be, will it be federalist? who is likely to win an election with a million new voters? will people still vote on tribal lines? will SF still hold their place as top dog? will Fianna Fail move in before a united Ireland to ensure they get a piece of the vote?

I think thats the biggest indicator of all, when Fianna Fail take full part in northern elections, standing for councils, and local government, when they do ground work, when they open constituency offices, thats when a united Ireland is likely to happen. Fianna Fail arent stupid nor are they time-wasters, they'll not waste their time unless they know its going to happen soon.

There are a lot of mild unionists out there that would accept a united Ireland because they know that the south isnt ran by the big bad devil looking to destroy god-fearing ulster, people who cant be bothered with people like Blueman and his backward ideas. I do see a nationalist majority coming about and its a matter of time.

[He_Who_Walks_in_The_Wilderness]

La la la la (sorry there is no smiley with its fingers in its ears) Your like it or lump vision of a united ireland is really compelling setanta.