Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    We should have a United Ireland. Only with Britain encapsulating Eire. :borat:
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LALA LAND)
    Firstly as any nationalist would say i believe i have a right to self-determination, freedom and independence. but in relation to the issue in question:
    The history of british oppression towards my community.
    The majority of people on the Island of Ireland are in favour.
    In a United Ireland my vote would count for something and that of unionists, who within the british system only represent 2% of the population and cannot hope to have any significant say in the direction of their own affairs.
    GFA set up all ireland institutions that proved to work
    Im against british foreign policy
    Im against the monarchy

    its late couldnt b assed listin nemore
    So that means they should be able to rule over the people who actually live in the region? What if the majority of the people in Great Britain wanted to turn Scotland into a dumping ground? Just because most people on the island want one thing, it doesn't necessarily mean they should get it.

    Not that I particularly care either way as it's something that doesn't affect me, but here's one reason I'd be in favour of a united Ireland

    (Original post by Fusilero)
    So the map of Ireland looks nicer.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AirRaven)
    I'm pro-Dissembling the Union full stop if the people in each constituent country decide it's what they want.
    But why limit that right to the arbitrary borders of the constituent countries? What if the majority of Londoners wanted London to become an independent city state? Why don't they have that right? After all that covers more people than Northern Ireland.

    Of course this argument is useless in regards to NI because it can swing both ways. You could argue why should one relatively small part of the UK have the right to split from it? But you could argue why should one part of the island of Ireland have the right to be part of another country?

    By the way I'm aware this post is essentially the complete opposite of my previous post. I'm neutral in this debate so I'm looking at all the arguments.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Psyk)
    But why limit that right to the arbitrary borders of the constituent countries? What if the majority of Londoners wanted London to become an independent city state? Why don't they have that right? After all that covers more people than Northern Ireland.

    Of course this argument is useless in regards to NI because it can swing both ways. You could argue why should one relatively small part of the UK have the right to split from it? But you could argue why should one part of the island of Ireland have the right to be part of another country?

    By the way I'm aware this post is essentially the complete opposite of my previous post. I'm neutral in this debate so I'm looking at all the arguments.
    Technically the region of Ulster wants to be part of a united Ireland. Where do you draw the border? Only to suit one group of people? At the expense of another group who have their own grievances?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Because our teddy bear is missing its head.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by indigoblue)
    Technically the region of Ulster wants to be part of a united Ireland. Where do you draw the border? Only to suit one group of people? At the expense of another group who have their own grievances?
    As I said, the argument works both ways so it's actually pretty useless.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I fully support a United Ireland. At least I support the annexation of Fermanagh, Derry, Tyrone and Armagh into the Republic. That would be completely democratic.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I don't want it at all :eyeball:
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Craig_D)
    I'm against this on the basis that I will need to buy a new world map :hmmm:

    I lack the imagination to just pretend that the two parts are the same colour.
    just colour them in yourself, it a big ask staying in the lines i know
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by roryq)
    what Republicans say is that whether or not the British should control part of Ireland should be decided by the people of Ireland, Ireland is 32 counties not just 6, if yoou take into account the whole of Ireland then you will find an overwhlming majority in favour of a united Ireland...
    This exposes exactly why secession is incompatible with democracy.

    (Original post by Hylean)
    Utter ********. The country was split for purely selfish and undemocratic reasons.
    I rather think it was split to avoid the inevitable bloodbath that would have ensued had Ireland attempted to unite as an independent country and indeed to respect the status of loyal citizens in Ireland.

    The Act of Partition should never have been allowed to happen, it went against the mandate of the British Government to uphold democracy, ie. majority rule and the majority of a whole Ireland in 1921 wanted a United Ireland under Irish rule.
    That is entirely irrelevant. The only democratic voice that the UK Government should have listened to was that of the UK: all of Great Britain and Ireland.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AirRaven)
    They're entirely entitled to choose for themselves.

    The English deserve no say in what the Northern Irish decide to do with themselves- the same extending to the Scottish and Welsh.
    Why? And why aren't the Cornish given this 'right'? Or the Yorkshiremen? Or me, as a Strathclydean?

    Judging by the Loyalist faction's history, I'd say that a United Ireland would probably be beneficial. The UK could happily disown the Loyalists under Irish jurisdiction who want to remain part of the Union, and the absurd "Keep Ulster Protestant" sentiment would become a moot point.

    Ireland passes laws to protect equality, people integrate. So long as the peace is kept, it should defuse the situation considerably better than the hideous standoff we have now.
    I hate to break it to you, but if anything the Ulster Loyalists are even bigger nutters than the Irish Republicans and riot at the drop of a hat. If there was a united Ireland tomorrow, there'd simply be no question of keeping the peace. The forces of the Irish state would be slaughtered alongside, no doubt, plenty of Catholic civilians.

    It would be just like the 1920s stand-off resurrected.

    (Original post by rockrunride)
    I fully support a United Ireland. At least I support the annexation of Fermanagh, Derry, Tyrone and Armagh into the Republic. That would be completely democratic.
    Are you then saying that counties are a basic unit of government in the UK? Does, say, Lincolnshire have the right to become part of Denmark if its citizens so desire?

    Indeed, as a result of local government reform, the six traditional counties don't even exist in the eyes of the state any more. It has been this way since 1972, I believe.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    Are you then saying that counties are a basic unit of government in the UK? Does, say, Lincolnshire have the right to become part of Denmark if its citizens so desire?

    Indeed, as a result of local government reform, the six traditional counties don't even exist in the eyes of the state any more. It has been this way since 1972, I believe.
    Well since the partition of Ireland was carried out upon this pseudo-democratic basis, it would make sense to reverse it the same way.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    In terms of whether or not a United Ireland is right or wrong is irrelevant here. Northern Ireland isn't really at peace - more a lack of major conflict.

    I am against a United Ireland because if it came true tomorrow then it would knock us back four decades. People seem to forget just how militant some of the loyalists were during the Troubles and just how idiotic the UDA / UVF / LVF became. A United Ireland would turn Belfast into a bloodbath and there would be no "war", just indiscriminate killings of Catholics. That's how these people operate; if you have ever read / know about loyalist militantism you will know they lumped the entire catholic population as enemies.

    For example, when the IRA pulled off the Shankill bomb the UDA retaliated by going into a pub and spraying the place with bullets. I'm in no way a sympathiser but at least the IRA would try to target their victims rather than the scumbags of the UDA who would shoot anyone to make the headlines.

    I recall reading about a Johnny Adair organised murder. They ordered a pizza for delivery as they knew an IRA man was a delivery driver. When the wrong driver turned up - a 17 year old I think - they said, "**** it, he'll do" and they killed him. This is what we have to look forward to if a United Ireland comes to pass.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    This exposes exactly why secession is incompatible with democracy.

    I rather think it was split to avoid the inevitable bloodbath that would have ensued had Ireland attempted to unite as an independent country and indeed to respect the status of loyal citizens in Ireland.

    That is entirely irrelevant. The only democratic voice that the UK Government should have listened to was that of the UK: all of Great Britain and Ireland.
    Ahhhh, Lib. I was wondering when you would appear. You always make interesting points.

    As I've mentioned elsewhere, maybe in the IRA thread, can't remember, that inevitable bloodbath you Unionist sympathisers claim would've occurred did occur. The Irish had a Civil war, we got The Troubles, which went on to affect more than just the Irish. Can you really say the partition really staved off the bloodbath?! Personally, I think it would've been better without the partition because at least then the victory would've decided it and the country would've remained a single unit.

    As for the democratic bit, the country voted the Liberals in and they supported a United Ireland under Irish Home Rule, so by that definition, democracy still favoured the United Ireland. You argue that Cornwall shouldn't be allowed to break away from the UK, so why were Down, Antrim, Fermanagh, Tyrone, Armagh and Derry allowed to break away from Ireland, especially when many of those counties did not and do not want to be part of Northern Ireland? You can't have it both ways, Lib. You can't support the separation of Ireland and Northern Ireland but use Cornwall or other areas to support Northern Ireland staying part of the UK now.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rockrunride)
    Well since the partition of Ireland was carried out upon this pseudo-democratic basis, it would make sense to reverse it the same way.
    Well, the remit of the Boundary Commission set up by the British Government (which the Government of Northern Ireland refused to co-operate with) was charged under the Anglo-Irish Treaty to amend the existing borders between Northern and Southern Ireland (as they were then) 'in accordance with the wishes of the inhabitants, so far as may be compatible with economic and geographic conditions'.

    In reality, I don't think anything of the sort took place. The amount of land which actually changed hands, despite initial predictions, was virtually insignificant. It was realpolitiking through and through - the Commission was essentially there to keep the peace and hold the stand-off, not for any other high-minded ideological purposes.

    Essentially I feel I'm of the same mind as the Commission and the British Government were in back in the 20s: don't rock the big Irish boat unless you really have to.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Most of NI don't want a United Ireland. The Irish government doesn't press for a United Ireland.

    The troubles would start again. NI should remain British.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    well if french people invaded england and attempted ethnic cleansing to get rid of english people and attempted to take over the land and allow it to be ruled by the french government ,but after the english defending their country from the invaders the french said that they would only take over the south of england ... the english people would rightly be annoyed ,and think what right do the french have over the south of england and that england should belong to the english.


    Did the English government attempt ethnic cleansing in Ireland?

    Yes...

    * The massacres at Drogheda and Wexford in 1649 rank among the worst in British history

    * Non-combatants were killed, and priests tortured, as examples to terrify the Irish nation

    * The slaughters were followed by forced expulsions on a mass scale
    Cromwell's forces ordered Irish Catholics to move to live west of the Shannon river only. The alternative to this forced mass population transfer was clear. The Irish were told "To Hell or to Connaught!" It was the greatest act of ethnic cleansing in the British Isles since the Norman Conquest. By the end of 1656 four fifths of the Irish land was in Protestant hands. When Catholics fought back, in guerrilla groups numbering some 30,000 Cromwell's generals forcibly evicted civilians who were thought to be helping the resisters and systematically burned the area's crops and killed all livestock. Famine followed, exacerbated by bubonic plague. Three years on, a fifth of the population had died.


    To Hell, Connaught, or Barbados

    Though little has been discussed about them, thousands of Irish men, women, and children, were captured or arrested and shipped to the Caribbean as slaves. Because they did not factor into Oliver Cromwell's new plan of government, these people were gathered and shipped off, with no dignity, to work as slaves in the island plantations of the Caribbean. Their influence is left in those places, in the street names, the towns names, and in any local phone book. But, their stories have not been told.

    (Photo is of Montserrat which is known as the 'Emerald Isle' of the Caribbean.)
    Testimony of an Irish Slave Girl
    ~ Historical Fiction ~
    Testimony of an Irish Slave Girl
    Testimony of an Irish Slave Girl

    by: Kate McCafferty

    Amazon Price: (as of 07/25/2009)Buy Now

    Kate McCafferty's period fiction reflects life as an irish slave in the Carribean and the relationships between irish slaves and black slaves. She spoke about writing this book in a news article at the University at Albany.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bansheeee*)
    well if french people invaded england and attempted ethnic cleansing to get rid of english people and attempted to take over the land and allow it to be ruled by the french government ,but after the english defending their country from the invaders the french said that they would only take over the south of england ... the english people would rightly be annoyed ,and think what right do the french have over the south of england and that england should belong to the english.


    Did the English government attempt ethnic cleansing in Ireland?

    Yes...

    * The massacres at Drogheda and Wexford in 1649 rank among the worst in British history

    * Non-combatants were killed, and priests tortured, as examples to terrify the Irish nation

    * The slaughters were followed by forced expulsions on a mass scale
    Cromwell's forces ordered Irish Catholics to move to live west of the Shannon river only. The alternative to this forced mass population transfer was clear. The Irish were told "To Hell or to Connaught!" It was the greatest act of ethnic cleansing in the British Isles since the Norman Conquest. By the end of 1656 four fifths of the Irish land was in Protestant hands. When Catholics fought back, in guerrilla groups numbering some 30,000 Cromwell's generals forcibly evicted civilians who were thought to be helping the resisters and systematically burned the area's crops and killed all livestock. Famine followed, exacerbated by bubonic plague. Three years on, a fifth of the population had died.


    To Hell, Connaught, or Barbados

    Though little has been discussed about them, thousands of Irish men, women, and children, were captured or arrested and shipped to the Caribbean as slaves. Because they did not factor into Oliver Cromwell's new plan of government, these people were gathered and shipped off, with no dignity, to work as slaves in the island plantations of the Caribbean. Their influence is left in those places, in the street names, the towns names, and in any local phone book. But, their stories have not been told.

    (Photo is of Montserrat which is known as the 'Emerald Isle' of the Caribbean.)
    Testimony of an Irish Slave Girl
    ~ Historical Fiction ~
    Testimony of an Irish Slave Girl
    Testimony of an Irish Slave Girl

    by: Kate McCafferty

    Amazon Price: (as of 07/25/2009)Buy Now

    Kate McCafferty's period fiction reflects life as an irish slave in the Carribean and the relationships between irish slaves and black slaves. She spoke about writing this book in a news article at the University at Albany.
    I really don't see how that connects to life in N.Ireland today in the slightest.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hylean)
    Ahhhh, Lib. I was wondering when you would appear. You always make interesting points.
    Thanks. I do try.

    As I've mentioned elsewhere, maybe in the IRA thread, can't remember, that inevitable bloodbath you Unionist sympathisers claim would've occurred did occur. The Irish had a Civil war, we got The Troubles, which went on to affect more than just the Irish. Can you really say the partition really staved off the bloodbath?! Personally, I think it would've been better without the partition because at least then the victory would've decided it and the country would've remained a single unit.
    From the 1920s perspective, I'd say definitely. With hindsight, things become less clear. Not to play down the Civil War, but it wasn't as bad as it could have been by a long shot. From what I can find in terms of numbers, the Anti-Treaty forces numbered somewhere in the vague region of 15,000. Keep in mind that the Ulster Volunteers that were assembled before the WWI numbered 100,000 - with people being eventually turned away.

    Like I say though, hindsight also matters. In reality, the Troubles weren't as predictable as the Civil War, and could probably have been averted if the Northern Ireland Parliament behaved a bit better to their minority population, as the British Government had guaranteed (as such, the oversight of the latter is at fault too - although admittedly the Parliament was suspended eventually)

    As for the democratic bit, the country voted the Liberals in and they supported a United Ireland under Irish Home Rule, so by that definition, democracy still favoured the United Ireland.
    Things get a bit trickier there. The Liberals were still Unionists, albeit Home Rule Unionists, as they are today. I can certainly see your point, but I can also see a difference between a party that actually supports separation and one that is willing to entertain it if it is the will of a certain area.

    Save for the conflict caused and threatened, do you think Southern Ireland would be independent?

    You argue that Cornwall shouldn't be allowed to break away from the UK, so why were Down, Antrim, Fermanagh, Tyrone, Armagh and Derry allowed to break away from Ireland, especially when many of those counties did not and do not want to be part of Northern Ireland? You can't have it both ways, Lib. You can't support the separation of Ireland and Northern Ireland but use Cornwall or other areas to support Northern Ireland staying part of the UK now.
    I can have it both ways!

    When partition happened, it was essentially local government reform carried out the British Parliament. It was not crafting the borders of states - although I suppose the possibility of Irish independence was certainly part of the considerations. In theory at least, it was no different to the separation of Ayrshire!
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    The Irish government doesn't press for a United Ireland.
    I'm never really sure about the Irish Government's position. The main political parties are still overtly 'Republican' and All-Ireland nationalist in ethos.

    The old suggestion, however, was that Northern Ireland would bankrupt the Republic. A secondary point, which still stands, is that the Republic simply wouldn't have the will - and perhaps not even the manpower or military experience - to effectively keep the peace in Ulster.

    As you say, they don't make a big deal out of it - but I think it would be hard for them to deny their lengthy traditions out of considerations of practicality. I imagine those who care to think about it just hope that the issue never ends up on their desk to be dealt with.
 
 
 
  • 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.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources
  • 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.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.