Do you support Irish unification with Northern Ireland? Watch

Poll: Would you support democratic Irish unification with Northern Ireland?
Yes (58)
44.96%
No (52)
40.31%
Dont know (5)
3.88%
Dont care (14)
10.85%
funkumf
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#21
Report 9 years ago
#21
(Original post by Batteries Not Included)
I fail to see any legitimate reasoning in this post as to why Britain should give up Northern Ireland, or how Northern Ireland would benefit from that process, other than serving the interests of a few nationalists who desire a change of passport.
Thats because you are beyond reproach.

I could spend the morning typing up a four hundred page manifesto on the topic with quotes from preeminent academics, highly regarded lawyers and respected politicians. I'd even add some pictures to help ensure you understand it and something tells me you'd still make the same racist jibes about passports and bombs. You have a polarised view on the subject and fail to grasp the basics of the discussion.

How about you go and read the Beano or something?


(Original post by Batteries Not Included)
Source?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2001/au...rthernireland1
0
reply
funkumf
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#22
Report 9 years ago
#22
(Original post by chicchick)
British occupation. Lol. The only reason NI is still part of the UK is because when independence was given to the Republic, the counties of NI wanted to remain part of the UK. The IRA are terrorists (nothing more, nothing less) whose will does not represent the majority of their population.
Perhaps you should try reading my posts before commenting on them? I have already asserted that I don't condone the actions of the IRA.

http://www.debspecs.com/Low_Vision_Aids_C63.cfm
0
reply
funkumf
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#23
Report 9 years ago
#23
(Original post by Batteries Not Included)
Yet, you continue to spout fallacious red herrings.
With the amount of knowledge you have on this topic, you couldn't spot a red herring if it smacked you in the face with a passport.
0
reply
Batteries Not Included
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#24
Report 9 years ago
#24
(Original post by funkumf)
Thats because you are beyond reproach.

I could spend the morning typing up a four hundred page manifesto on the topic with quotes from preeminent academics, highly regarded lawyers and respected politicians. I'd even add some pictures to help ensure you understand it and something tells me you'd still make the same racist jibes about passports and bombs. You have a polarised view on the subject and fail to grasp the basics of the discussion.
Translation: You are incapable of providing a cohesive, tangible argument which doesn't amount to spewing anachronistic, bias historical claims.

(Original post by funkumf)
How about you go and read the Beano or something?
Ah, resorting to juvenile, playground insults. Could you lower yourself any further?

Yes, 41% from a poll in 2001 published by the Guardian is an "overwhelming majority". :rolleyes:
0
reply
funkumf
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#25
Report 9 years ago
#25
(Original post by Batteries Not Included)
Translation: You are incapable of providing a cohesive, tangible argument which doesn't amount to spewing anachronistic, bias historical claims.
1. I don't think you understand the meaning of the word 'anachronistic' and this alone should prohibit you from using it in the wrong context.

2. All my historical 'claims' are facts and can be backed up as such. This is more than I can say about your passport / bombing rhetoric.

(Original post by Batteries Not Included)
Ah, resorting to juvenile, playground insults. Could you lower yourself any further?
Yes I could lower myself further. I could refer to an entire race as "IRA nuts" but I'm not as despicable or misinformed as yourself.

(Original post by Batteries Not Included)
Yes, 41% from a poll in 2001 published by the Guardian is an "overwhelming majority". :rolleyes:
You would have criticised any source I referenced. You are beyond reproach and this is illustrated in your failure to offer an intelligent rebuttal to any of the points I have articulated.
0
reply
Psyk
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#26
Report 9 years ago
#26
If it's democratic, I'd have no issue with it. I'd just hope it doesn't spark off more violence.
0
reply
shake-a-sheep
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#27
Report 9 years ago
#27
(Original post by Treben)
This thread is pointless, your result will just depend on how many Catholics or Protestants answer.
Your comment is ridiculous as the split is not confined to being catholic=nationalist/ protestant=unionist...

there are many many catholic unionists and many protestant nationalists. #

The more relevant point to make would have been that nationalists remain a minority in Northern Ireland and so unification is not a concievable option.
0
reply
pinkpenguin
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#28
Report 9 years ago
#28
(Original post by chicchick)
British occupation. Lol. The only reason NI is still part of the UK is because when independence was given to the Republic, the counties of NI wanted to remain part of the UK. The IRA are terrorists (nothing more, nothing less) whose will does not represent the majority of their population.
I beg to differ here.

Michael Collins signed the Anglo-Irish treaty to end war and violence. Irish people were dying at the hands of the British and he took the compromise to leave the 6 counties for further review. Total Irish independence was never on the table, the British were just being coercive and intimidating. It was purely a bigger country picking on a smaller one. You know David Lloyd-George was very much for Home Rule pre WWI? Ever considered the industrial status of the 6 counties and how it would have been beneficial to Britain?

What about how Henry VIII threw a bunch of Protestants over to NI in order to fight the Catholic Church?

What about the gerrymandering of council lines, the violence towards Catholic communities and the actions of the UDF/UVF? What about the violence of the British army?

Personally, I would much prefer to see a united Ireland. However, I respect that practicalities stand in the way. I would much prefer peace in the short term. Perhaps future generations would be able to make a reasoned decision as to the position of NI. The fact is, the current citizens of the 6 counties are, understandably, still living in the shadow of the terrible violence of the last 50 years. The goal for the short term should be retaining the cease fire on both sides
0
reply
impervious
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#29
Report 9 years ago
#29
(Original post by Batteries Not Included)
I fail to see any legitimate reasoning in this post as to why Britain should give up Northern Ireland, or how Northern Ireland would benefit from that process, other than serving the interests of a few nationalists who desire a change of passport.
Just for the record people born in the North of Ireland have dual nationality.
0
reply
shake-a-sheep
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#30
Report 9 years ago
#30
(Original post by chicchick)
British occupation. Lol. The only reason NI is still part of the UK is because when independence was given to the Republic, the counties of NI wanted to remain part of the UK. The IRA are terrorists (nothing more, nothing less) whose will does not represent the majority of their population.
perhaps before you comment you should also do a little reading too... the reason that the republic of Ireland and northern Ireland are separated has nothing to do with the people of NI wanting it... If that was the case, the IRA would have disbanded long ago.... Why don't you try googling the war of independence or Collins & Bowland....
0
reply
numb3rb0y
Badges: 3
#31
Report 9 years ago
#31
(Original post by shake-a-sheep)
perhaps before you comment you should also do a little reading too... the reason that the republic of Ireland and northern Ireland are separated has nothing to do with the people of NI wanting it... If that was the case, the IRA would have disbanded long ago.... Why don't you try googling the war of independence or Collins & Bowland....
We're all aware of the internal termoil, but you can't deny that there was a referendum and a majority of the voters in each of the northern counties chose to remain in the UK. I'm no fan of tyrannies of the majority, but I don't see what could've been done better in this instance.
0
reply
Tinkerbee
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#32
Report 9 years ago
#32
No. Because its fairly peaceful in NI atm, but it is a fragile peace. Even if it was a democratic reunification, I can't see how it would cause anything but trouble.
0
reply
pinkpenguin
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#33
Report 9 years ago
#33
(Original post by numb3rb0y)
We're all aware of the internal termoil, but you can't deny that there was a referendum and a majority of the voters in each of the northern counties chose to remain in the UK. I'm no fan of tyrannies of the majority, but I don't see what could've been done better in this instance.
The referendum was boycotted by nationalist communities due to the tyranny of the majority implication.

Hardly any nationalists voted.

I don't deny the overall result would have been the same, however that referendum cannot be used as statistical evidence in this case.

Fact is, you have two opposing communities, both of which need to be catered for. Simple 'there are more of us, so there!' arguments do not hold up on their own, in the same way 'we were here first' doesn't. It's gotta be about compromise, and that cannot be reached by a Yes/No vote.
0
reply
Blátönn
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#34
Report 9 years ago
#34
(Original post by Rawss)
If so, why?

Why not?

Do you care?

Would you be willing to accept a democratic will for the unification of Northern Ireland with the Republic of Ireland?
Yes, I do - the less association I have with the Irish the better.
0
reply
numb3rb0y
Badges: 3
#35
Report 9 years ago
#35
(Original post by pinkpenguin)
The referendum was boycotted by nationalist communities due to the tyranny of the majority implication.

Hardly any nationalists voted.

I don't deny the overall result would have been the same, however that referendum cannot be used as statistical evidence in this case.

Fact is, you have two opposing communities, both of which need to be catered for. Simple 'there are more of us, so there!' arguments do not hold up on their own, in the same way 'we were here first' doesn't. It's gotta be about compromise, and that cannot be reached by a Yes/No vote.
I agree, but I'm not sure how compromise could be reached in this instance, except by the method used. The intermiediary stage between a unified independent Ireland and a unified British Ireland seems to me to be some parts of Ireland independent and some parts British. Again, I don't think the current solution is necessarily right, I just can't see a better solution. Either way you're going to anger a significant faction of the community.
0
reply
pinkpenguin
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#36
Report 9 years ago
#36
(Original post by numb3rb0y)
I agree, but I'm not sure how compromise could be reached in this instance, except by the method used. The intermiediary stage between a unified independent Ireland and a unified British Ireland seems to me to be some parts of Ireland independent and some parts British. Again, I don't think the current solution is necessarily right, I just can't see a better solution. Either way you're going to anger a significant faction of the community.
That's why I propose waiting is the way forward. This generation still lives under the shadow of the Troubles. It's going to take the next few generations to decide which way it goes.

Personally, I'd love a united Ireland. I just feel that's the way it should be. I would, however, certainly give that up for the sake of peace, as Michael Collins did in the 20s. The stability of the country should come first, and I'm glad to see that parties like Sinn Fein are now holding this position
0
reply
Rawss
Badges: 0
#37
Report Thread starter 9 years ago
#37
(Original post by numb3rb0y)
We're all aware of the internal termoil, but you can't deny that there was a referendum and a majority of the voters in each of the northern counties chose to remain in the UK. I'm no fan of tyrannies of the majority, but I don't see what could've been done better in this instance.
Wrong. The majority of people voted for a peace process, which what the GFA was before anything else. First things first and everything. There is still provision in the Irish Constitution to work for unification in the future.

I'd like to get some facts on the table if I may. Northern Ireland as a state was initially created by undemocratic means. From an Irish point of view at the time, it was only seen as a short to medium term compromise. The subsequent fiasco of the Boundary Commission and the introduction of a sectarian police force, along with systematic governance practices that kept Catholics out of civil service jobs and out of the best accommodation (even state-supplied), not to mention RUC intimidation, meant that for a large part of the 20th Century, Catholic families in Northern Ireland were treated as second class citizens at best. This is your context by enlarge for the civil rights marches and the Troubles.

Today, Nationalist/Unionist or Catholic/Protestant populations in Northern Ireland are closer to 50/50 than many would think or want to believe. Quite soon, Unionists will become the minority in their own state, which was creatly mainly on the pretense of protecting them and preserving their economic and political dominance - and not on the basis of democracy and equality.

What Northern Ireland has to go through today more than anything else, however, is a process of 'normalisation' - i.e. people have to get used to governance practices and democratic systems that are exempt from sectarian behaviour. This could take several decades yet. But I firmly believe that there is a strong will in Ireland, Northern Ireland and the UK for eventual Irish unification through democratic and transparent means.
0
reply
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#38
Report 9 years ago
#38
If the title is correct, I would happily see Southern Ireland unify with Northern Ireland, and thus the United Kingdom. That whole 1920s nonsense was just utter silliness.

(Original post by Treben)
This thread is pointless, your result will just depend on how many Catholics or Protestants answer.
Some of us actually use logic for these things, rather than ingrained ethno-nationalistic prejudices.

(Original post by Treben)
Actually the territory originally belonged to the Irish and was stolen from them, it was just a very long time ago.
Territory doesn't 'belong' to people. Either way, the Irish would have been fair game for it - after all, they weren't adverse to a bit of imperialism in their time. Or have we forgotten how the ethnic Scots came over and made northern Britain their own?
0
reply
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#39
Report 9 years ago
#39
(Original post by Rawss)
I'd like to get some facts on the table if I may. Northern Ireland as a state was initially created by undemocratic means.
Northern Ireland is not a state. As a devolved part of a country it was created as democratically as anything at the time was: by a vote in the sovereign Parliament of the United Kingdom, which gave rise to the Government of Ireland Act.

From an Irish point of view at the time, it was only seen as a short to medium term compromise.
It was indeed a compromise. Unionists wanted the whole island to be part of the UK, nationalists wanted none of it to be. I doubt many Unionists held out much hope of Irish reunification as part of Britain after the creation of the Free State, so I doubt they saw it as much of a compromise at that stage.

Today, Nationalist/Unionist or Catholic/Protestant populations in Northern Ireland are closer to 50/50 than many would think or want to believe. Quite soon, Unionists will become the minority in their own state
Again, this is ethno-nationalist nonsense, and is entirely unworthy of serious and mature constitutional debate.
0
reply
Rawss
Badges: 0
#40
Report Thread starter 9 years ago
#40
(Original post by L i b)
If the title is correct, I would happily see Southern Ireland unify with Northern Ireland, and thus the United Kingdom. That whole 1920s nonsense was just utter silliness.
I know of no country named Southern Ireland. Care to elaborate?

Some of us actually use logic for these things, rather than ingrained ethno-nationalistic prejudices.
Seeing as you have mentioned logic, how do you envisage Ireland unifying with Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom?

Territory doesn't 'belong' to people. Either way, the Irish would have been fair game for it - after all, they weren't adverse to a bit of imperialism in their time. Or have we forgotten how the ethnic Scots came over and made northern Britain their own?
You mention Ireland and imperialism. I can't remember the people of Ireland (and by this I mean people who for many years were not allowed vote because of economic and religious prejudices at the hands of the British) voting democratically to be ruled by the British Empire. I am indeed talking about democracy here, not impealist fantasies.

(Original post by L i b)
Again, this is ethno-nationalist nonsense, and is entirely unworthy of serious and mature constitutional debate.
Ethno-nationalist nonsense? Ah you must be from the post-colonial nonsense brigade. Nice to meet you.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (551)
37.82%
No - but I will (114)
7.82%
No - I don't want to (102)
7%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (690)
47.36%

Watched Threads

View All