a united Ireland?

unworkable, but in principle yes

the end.


the shortest political thread ever on the BB forum. i tip my hat.

Despite Mary's sudden appearance as agent provocateur, this is a debate I would really like to have here.

As folks who know me will know, I hold very strong views on this issue. I don't get credibility points for it, but it's why I went to BB's gigs in Belfast and Derry. And why I'll be over again for David Rovics' gig in Derry shortly.

I don't live there, so what do I know? Two weeks in Belfast? A week in Derry? Not much if you live there. But I've seen a pig (armoured landrover) rolling down a North Belfast street where one of our friends lives. My friend in North Belfast took it in his stride, and waved bye-bye to the army of occupation.

Well, I would say "Not in my name" to the occupation of the North.

I know there are people here from the North of Ireland who don't share my views. Debate is cool. Let's go.

Hi Pete.

Well, I'm a unionist, what can I say?

In many ways there is no debate to be had, the question has been settled.The Irish people have held referenda on both sides of the border at the time of the GFA (good Friday agreement).These referenda asked if people would agree that Northern Ireland remain part of the UK as long as a majority in Northern Ireland wished it so.
The overwhelming majority (over 70% in Northern Ireland over 90%in the republic of Ireland) voted to accept this compromise.

So where does that leave us?

We still have people who want to be part of the UK and people who want a united Ireland, but in theory we agree that change can only be effected through democratic means.

So, all those who want a united Ireland have to start persuading people like me to change my mind (trust me, the census figures indicate no nationalist majority for a long long time).
Now, I don't want to be persuaded, I'm happy with the status quo.

Over to you.

I used to think that there was something progressive about Irish republicanism.
I read War and an Irish town by Eamonn McCann, 25 years ago, and always thought partition was the problem.
Today, I think going on about a united Ireland is a bit of a waste of time.
Unionists clearly don't want it. And people in the Republic are more interested in getting rich.
I would say, using the term 'occupation of the north' is now out of date.
(Also the way of saying 'the North of Ireland' has always sounded odd to me).

I've never seen this statistic publicly published. I frankly do not believe that 90% of the population of the Republic would accept the North as part of the UK. I can believe 70% in the North. In fact it's ludicrous. What's the source?

The referendum, held yesterday on both sides of the border, returned a resounding "yes" vote with 71% of voters from Northern Ireland and 94% of those in the Irish Republic showing their support for the Good Friday peace agreement.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/s...000/2504387.stm

Pete.

The results are clear and unambigous, and with over seventy percent turnout across the island.
People may aspire to a united Ireland, but the overwhelming majority in the Irish republic have ceded the right to decide over to the people of Northern Ireland.

Well, I appreciate you live in Ireland and I don't, so in some ways I'm a smug Brit looking from afar from London. However I do visit Ireland whenever I can. I would actually move there, but my job as a schoolteacher requires me to learn Irish to work there. Well, in the Republic, anyway . And that's hard work for a geezer who's nearly 50.

So I accept your right to dismiss my views. But I fail to see how the GFA means that 90% of the population of the Republic agrees to an independent North. I could take a straw poll anywhere in the Republic, I know, and I know what the response would be.

A few points.

I don't live in Ireland, I live in France (but I still have my vote for the next fifteen years, so my opinions do count in their own way).

I am in no way dismissive of your views, I think anyone from the UK or ireland is perfectly entitled to have a view and express it as they see fit.In fact, I welcome as many views as possible, I'm a democrat.

You seem to be misunderstanding what the GFA means, which is not an independant Northern Ireland, rather Northern Ireland as an integral part of the Uk until such time as the majority decides otherwise, and in the meantime we have various arrangements to accomodate those who feel part of the Irish nation.

Peace means compromise since this is a conflict that no one can win, we needed to find a solution were everybody can claim it as a victory of sorts.
It's not perfect, but it is a damn sight better than the alternative.

The struggle for a united Ireland shall continue, since it is a valid aspiration, but the Union remains for the moment, and people like me shall obviously do what we can to ensure this remains the case.

OK, that's a nice post mate. I don't think I have misunderstood the GFA, but I think Paisley et al misunderstand everything.

If everyone in Ireland had a vote on whether the North and the Republic should be reunited, there is only one way it could go.

Incidentally, I hope describing yourself as a unionist and a democrat doesn't mean you'te in the DUP

Only kidding. Cheers.

Seriously, I have never voted for either of the two main unionist parties in my life.But I am seriously considering voting for Ian Paisleys DUP in the next election.

So how come an avowed leftwinger like me is thinking of giving my vote to the UKs anwser to the GOP?

Now that's a whole other discussion in itself.

Wow.

I actually have to go out shortly 'cause it's my youngest son's birthday, so may not be able to reply straight away.

But I would be genuinely fascinated to know how an avowed leftwinger could vote for the DUP. I'm not taking the piss, I know how complex Irish politics are, but I'm missing a bit of the puzzle here.

Incidentally it was my grandad who first got me involved in Irish politics. He was a devout protestant, and totally in favour of Irish independence.

Wolfe Tone was a protestant. So were Robert Emmett and Roger Casement, I think.The history of Irish republicanism would be very different were it not for protestant republicans.

Pete.

First of all, there are little to no lef/ right divisions within irish politics.The island of ireland is a pretty conservative place, regardless of the border.
There are of course faux left wing parties like Sinn Fein, but I'll never vote for a party that has spent so long trying to wipe me and my family from existance.
Not to mention the fact that the closer they get to power, the more they fall on their knees and start blowing the big American corporations, just like everyone else.
The only party whose politics I have much respect for are the green party, but they don't even stand in my ward.

OK, so that's why I don't vote for other parties.

So why would I consider Ian Paisleys DUP?

Well, it's partly in reaction to the fact that the Nationalist population has embraced Sinn Fein.Sinn Fein are extremists IMO, and the only party who can add a counterbalance to their influence is the DUP.Even then, I would have said up to two years ago that I could never vote for them, but I see a genuine change in their approach.
They now accept he principle of powersharing with our nationalist neighbours, and since becoming the largest party have really softened their stance.
Plus, the fact is that they do pretty incredible constituency work for anyone who has a problem, regardless of religion or politics.
People keep tellng me that I have to accept Sinn fein who have hands on killers as candidates, but then are disgusted that I would vote for someone who made offensive speeches decades ago.
I think it's a double standard.
I'm supposed to accept the IRA have changed, but Ian Paisley is somehow unforgiveable?

Obviously, this being Northern Ireland, things are more complicated than I have time to go into here, but that's an overview.

Oh dear, you've lost me here mate. Do you really believe this? If so, I'm sad, but I understand why you would vote for Paisley.

Pete.

Do I really believe it?

I spent that last thirty odd years living it, what's not to believe?

How can anyone who claims left wing views, prosecute a war whose primary victims are working class, and which has had the effect of increasing and strengthening divisions between the working class protestant and catholics?

Incidentally – and I can only give my views as a ‘tourist’ - I’ve been travelling to Ireland since 1979, and will keep going back forever. And I’m English.

I also appreciate that my use of the phrase “The North” as opposed to “Northern Ireland” is a political statement which identifies me with the republican cause. Sorry, but it’s where I stand.

The tension, when the border is crossed, from the Republic to the North, is palpable. It’s unmissable to the outsider. I’ll be in Derry again in a few weeks’ time, and I know what it will feel like. Then in November I’ll be in Galway, Dublin and Wexford, and that will be kind of different…

I don't prosecute any war, TAFKABO. The IRA have unequivocably laid down their arms.

I also appreciate that my use of the phrase “The North” as opposed to “Northern Ireland” is a political statement which identifies me with the republican cause. Sorry, but it’s where I stand.

Ohferfuxsake, get over yerself.



The tension, when the border is crossed, from the Republic to the North, is palpable. It’s unmissable to the outsider. I’ll be in Derry again in a few weeks’ time, and I know what it will feel like. Then in November I’ll be in Galway, Dublin and Wexford, and that will be kind of different…

Different places have different atmospheres, that not unusual.

I don't prosecute any war, TAFKABO.

I never suggested you did.

The IRA have unequivocably laid down their arms.

And the people they killed are still dead.

Which applies to the dead on both sides.

Dissident.

Yes, of course it does, but I have to say that those killed by the IRA are the dead of both sides, since the IRA killed more catholics than any other group.
If you wanted to point out that those Loyalist paramilitaries ae also murdering bastards, then you wont find me in disagreement.

What about pointing out Ian Paisley's collusion in and support of Loyalist paramilitarism in the 70s? If you can't understand people getting into bed with Sinn Fein, how can you now put your own support behind the DUP?

Ian Paisley will always be a divisive and dangerous bigot.

What about pointing out Ian Paisley's collusion in and support of Loyalist paramilitarism in the 70s? If you can't understand people getting into bed with Sinn Fein, how can you now put your own support behind the DUP?


Ian Paisleys DUP flirted with paramilitaris back in the seventies, yes, this is true.
But I think there is a world of difference between what happened back in the seventies and the fact that Sinn Fein ARE the same people as the IRA all through the seventies right up until the present day.


Ian Paisley will always be a divisive and dangerous bigot.

See, this is the kind of absolutism I find bewildering.Why do people find it easy to think that those who killed have changed, but those who made speeches are incapable of change, despite what has happened in the time since Paisley and his party became the biggest party in Northern Ireland?

TAFKABO, I would like to know when you say you are a unionist, what that means exactly today, and what it might not.
For example is it the same as loyalist?
And if a person is a unionist today, does that mean they will identify with unionism going back 40 and 50 years?
I have often wanted to know if there is much reflection in the unionist/loyalist community about the Northen
Ireland that exsisted in the 1950s and early 60s before the troubles broke out.
When NI was a forgotten backwater of the UK, and run from Stormont.
It's fair to say it was a nasty little place, politically and socially, is it not?

If you hear someone from your community talking about 1968: the civil rights marches and what was going on, and they are still insisting that the catholics were just out to make trouble, and needed to be stopped, what do you say? (Or if you can't speak out, what do you think?)

I would also ask anyone who still identifies with republicanism, why?
Isn't it more important to try to normalize relations between communities that are so close geographicly, but have no meaningful interaction?
The idea that the border is the problem is (in my opinion) history. Get over it.
Although drawing it in the fist place was a terrible thing to do, because, as James Connolly said:
''It will lead to a carnival of reaction, North and South.''

TAFKABO, I would like to know when you say you are a unionist, what that means exactly today, and what it might not.

It means I come from the Unionist community and that I belive in the maintenance of the Union.
It may well mean something completely different for other people, but I try to concentrate on my own beliefs,and allow others to do the same.


For example is it the same as loyalist?

Loyalists are by definition unionists, but Unionists are not necessarily Loyalists.I am a unionist, that's all.


And if a person is a unionist today, does that mean they will identify with unionism going back 40 and 50 years?

I don't understand the question.

I have often wanted to know if there is much reflection in the unionist/loyalist community about the Northen
Ireland that exsisted in the 1950s and early 60s before the troubles broke out.
When NI was a forgotten backwater of the UK, and run from Stormont.
It's fair to say it was a nasty little place, politically and socially, is it not?


It's fair to say that things were different back then, everywhere, not just in Northern Ireland.

I humbly suggest,for instance, that things were much worse in parts of America for black people, but I don't still define every white person from the southern states by what happened back then.
It wasn't easy being a catholic in Northern Ireland, but neither was it easy being a poor protestant, who suffered from the same laws, since no law was based upon religion.
There was no apardheid, catholics did not have to sit at the back of the bus.
Catholics suffered discrimination in jobs and housing, there will never be justification or excuses for that type of behaviour.
But, in the places where they were the majority, they visited the exact same discrimination upon protestants (I'm thinking of Newry and Mourne)

If you hear someone from your community talking about 1968: the civil rights marches and what was going on, and they are still insisting that the catholics were just out to make trouble, and needed to be stopped, what do you say? (Or if you can't speak out, what do you think?)

I can honestly say that in all my life I have never heard someone say this.People tend to think there were legitimate grievances, but the movement was hijacked by extremists, causing those protestants and unionists within the civil rights movement to leave.

*edited for spelling and grammar*

Dunno what anyone thinks the alternative to drawing the border would have been? the problems were apparent to all those responsible at the time and yet it must still have looked like the best compromise - they had to do something right?

I am truly not taking the piss, but these two terms are completely synonymous to me. My ignorance coming though again. Please explain the difference.

Pete.

Again, I can only speak for myself.Unionism is pretty self explanatory, it means one believes in the union.Loyalism on the other hand can mean a number of things.In Northern Ireland itself, the term is used to denote those who tend to be more militant in word and deed, as well as people whose identity is entwined with a strong sense of loyalty to the crown.
Another definition tends to be people from a poor working class background, who live on council estates.I grew up in a loyalist estate, surrounded by people who would have no hesitation to call themselves loyalists, but I never liked the term, having always been anti royalty.

I appreciate the reply, TAFKABO, but I'm not sure I quite understand it.

Actually Wikipedia (which I appreciate is not foolproof) gives me "A Loyalist in modern Northern Ireland is another name for a Unionist who feels strongly about the political union between Great Britain and Northern Ireland." Which is sort-of what I thought.

Anyway, cheers.

Edited to say on re-reading the quote it does not contradict what you said. Loyalist = radical Unionist. OK, I never knew, but I've got it now.

My understanding is that it was a bit more than flirting. Direct funding, surely? So how is he so different from Gerry Adams? If you pay for the guns and the violence, surely you've got the blood on your hands.


Nothing Ian Paisley has said has convinced me that he's changed.

My understanding is that it was a bit more than flirting. Direct funding, surely? So how is he so different from Gerry Adams? If you pay for the guns and the violence, surely you've got the blood on your hands.


Nope.Sorry, there isn't a shred of evidence to suggest such a thing, nor is there any historian or even republican commentator who suggest such a thing.

Nothing Ian Paisley has said has convinced me that he's changed.

Were you aware on that on the death of the last pope Ian Paisley publicly offered his condolences to all the Catholic people who were in mourning for the loss of their spiritual leader?

Did you know that when a young catholic boy was killed a couple of months ago, Ian Paisley visited the family to offer his support and join them in prayer?
On the day of the funeral he stood up in the houses of parliament to condemn the killers and ask that people remember the young lad who had been killed.

Unfortunately the media tend to focus on the negative, and ignore the truth when it becomes too complex.

I'm sure I've got books at home that suggest exactly that - I'll have to wait till I can get some sources to respond properly.

I find it hard to suddenly change my feelings about someone who has preached hatred and division all his life because he's kissed a few babies, as it were. It's like Thatcher. There's very little she could do at this late stage to redeem herself.

This is a fascinating thread - thank you all for this, and for the civilized tone of the debate. Americans get fed a very different view of all this (Joanie can back me up!) so I appreciate very much a "birds-eye" view of the story.

Carry on.

I'd like to spend more time on this but can't. The key difference between the Sinn Fein and Ian Paisley in terms of the broad questions of peace in Northern Ireland, is that Sinn Fein support the full implementation of that agreement that received 71% support in NI and 94% in the Republic, while Ian Paisley does not.

While Sinn Fein have made efforts to sit down and hold dialogue with those who they previously fought with, the DUP have repeatedly tried to stop any progress towards either the cross border bodies envisaged in the agreement, or the multi-party government.

To be honest, the former Loyalist PUP has been more willing than the DUP to negotiate.

I agree.

i don't know - his website doesn't seem to have caught up with his current spate of catholic loving...

http://www.ianpaisley.org/main.asp

Without being patronising, it is great to have TAFKABO’s input on this. It’s a good and important debate, so let’s keep it coming, amicably.

In the US you will never hear anything but the Republican side of the argument and that is frankly where I line up too, but this is a good debate.

This bit’s just a laugh:

I am tempted to change my signature to the overture that the wonderful Black 47 use to open their gigs (spoken by Paisley) – “If the foundations be destroyed, what more can the righteous do?” He gets a credit on their new album, too, as guest musician. Gigs in East Belfast will not be forthcoming.

I've always enjoyed TAF's contributions to this and other topics. I may not always agree with him, but I certainly respect his perspective and his considered way of expressing it.

Edited as I didn't read pete's post properly!

I'd like to spend more time on this but can't. The key difference between the Sinn Fein and Ian Paisley in terms of the broad questions of peace in Northern Ireland, is that Sinn Fein support the full implementation of that agreement that received 71% support in NI and 94% in the Republic, while Ian Paisley does not.


Well to be honest I would have tought that the key difference was that Sinn Fein have a private army, with high ranking members of that army also being high ranking members of Sinn Fein.

While Sinn Fein have made efforts to sit down and hold dialogue with those who they previously fought with, the DUP have repeatedly tried to stop any progress towards either the cross border bodies envisaged in the agreement, or the multi-party government.

Well, in case it had escaped your notice, we live in a democracy.The DUP don't like the idea of cross border bodies, but you talk as if they have committed some unpardonable crime for that.They campaigned on a platform of being against cross border bodies, and won the election, fair and square, therefore they are entitled to oppose cross border bodies.
Another thing to remember is that the DUP never signed up to the GFA, so whether you like it or not, you can't complain that they don't adhere to it.
On the other hand Sinn fein did sign up to the GFA, but they have been studiously lacking or reluctant in seeing that specific aspects of the GFA are respected.By this I mean that they are pretty far from being committed to soley peaceful and democratic means.IRA decommissioning was supposed to have been completed within two years of the referendum, but it took a hell of a lot longer to get that goal achieved,and even then only because Unionists refused to play ball any further until it was completed.
Not that long ago the IRA murdered a catholic man in a Belfast bar, a Belfast bar full of Sinn Fein members, supporters and even potential election candidates.Guess what?
All of these so called respectable party members saw nothing and refused to co operate with the police investigation into the brutal slaying.
Only yesterday a former election worker for Sinn Fein was jailed for extortion on behalf of the IRA.

So, Ian Paisley refuses to sit down with anyone who is not playing by the same normal democratic rules as anyone else.
It is his belief, and that of his party, that if we are to create a normal stable society, it must be on the basis of law and order, we cannot turn a blind eye to political parties directly connected to paramilitaries who are still breaking the law.
I can find the links if people want to see them, but his party is clear and unambiguous on the fact that there needs to be a powerhsaring agreement between protestant and catholics, and this includes Sinn Fein.But it has to be on a basis that the war is over and the criminality has stopped.
This is an honourable position in my view.


To be honest, the former Loyalist PUP has been more willing than the DUP to negotiate.

And in this they share a similarity with Sinn Fein.But I would caution against being fooled by people who use the language of peace but still engage in violence.

(I speak as an ex member of the PUP who left because the party was too close to the violent UVF)

i don't know - his website doesn't seem to have caught up with his current spate of catholic loving...

As far as Ian Paisleys religious beliefs, I see them as no more extreme than any other persons religious beliefs.
What's the difference between him believing that catholicism is incompatible with christianity and fundamentalist catholics believeing that I, as a non believer, am going to burn in hell?

The point being, his political party did not campaign on the beliefs of his church, nor did they make any veiled reference to religion in their campaign material.
They campaigned and were voted into office on politics alone.
Since achieving the position of de facto first minister, Paisley has been at pains to ensure he represents all the people of Northern Ireland.

Since this topic is supposed to be about a united Ireland, let me remind people that in recent years,when the Irish president thought it would be a good idea to take communion in a protestant church, as a sign of reconcilliation, she was lambasted by the catholic church for doing so.
Not only that, a few months ago a catholic church invited protestants to come and share communion with them, again there was uproar from the catholic church hierarchy when it found out what had happpened.It issued a decree that protestants were not able to take communion with catholics.

So, if you want to criticise one side for finding the beliefs of the other unnaceptable, please be fair and evenhanded in your criticism.

I was just waiting to get to the end of the thread before posting this same thing. I spent time in Northern Ireland for the first time about a month ago, as well as going to Dublin for the first time in 12 years, and was trying to get an understanding of it all. But the topic is so sensitive that I didn't think I could ask certain, blunt questions of strangers. So while I got some feel for things, this is very interesting.

TAFKABO,

I have lived in the Republic, and have a lot of Republican friends, I myself would like to see the end of the monarchy, and the change from a Constitutional Monarchy to a fully democratic Republic in this county, I would also like to see the devolution and even the dismantling of the Union, which was founded on bribes and corrupt land deals and other shinannigans - so my question to you is this; in a country where more and more people are declaring themselves either antri-monarchist or out-and-out republicans, how does the Unionist/Loyalist movement see it's future?

I've spoken to a few catholics living north and south of the border who all appreciate that the Unionists feel themselves to be pretty besieged and vulnerable... hence the malignant seige menality as expressed by characters such as Paisley.

It'd go a lot better for everyone if the Republicans sould find a way not to scare the unionists so much IMHO, though I'm sure they'd still find plenty to to get worked up about.

I can assure you I find Catholic Fundamentalism as scary as Protestant Fundamentalism.

But I really don't believe for a second that Paisley's political beliefs (and the DUP is manifestly Paisley's own party) can be said to be divorced from his religious beliefs.

I'm sorry - but I just don't buy it. Religion is a cancer in Irish and Northern Irish politics.

I would like to hear the argument FOR a 32 county Republic today. Why it matters so much, etc.
Also, would the 26 counties just absorb the 6? Or would it be more of a union of two entities which could still
have different institutions?
I think The Garda Siochana (southern police) would have a hard time policing East Belfast.

I have lived in the Republic, and have a lot of Republican friends, I myself would like to see the end of the monarchy, and the change from a Constitutional Monarchy to a fully democratic Republic in this county, I would also like to see the devolution and even the dismantling of the Union, which was founded on bribes and corrupt land deals and other shinannigans - so my question to you is this; in a country where more and more people are declaring themselves either antri-monarchist or out-and-out republicans, how does the Unionist/Loyalist movement see it's future?


Well, I'm probably the last person to ask, since I am, as I mentioned, an anti monarchist myself.
Though you might be surprised by just how many unionists would be happy with a British republic.
But, even though we can have these discussions about what if?, let's be honest, it's unlikely to happen for another few decades at least, and if change keeps happening in Northern Ireland at the rate is has been happening this last decade, well we can't really predict what the context or dynamic will be like.

Instead,what we should be looking at is the way the EU developes, since I see it as much more likely EU changes will make the border in Ireland an irrelevance, creating a win win situation for us all.

(yes, I'm trying to be positive here)

I would like to hear the argument FOR a 32 county Republic today. Why it matters so much, etc.
Also, would the 26 counties just absorb the 6? Or would it be more of a union of two entities which could still
have different institutions?

Me too.
I was hoping Little Al would join the discussion, since he is an Irish republican from the Irish republic.

But I really don't believe for a second that Paisley's political beliefs (and the DUP is manifestly Paisley's own party) can be said to be divorced from his religious beliefs.


Again, this is a whole discussion in it's own right.I agree with the premise, but would extend it to most political parties in Northern Ireland.

As would I

Well the point about the DUP not signing up to the Good Friday Agreement, I think, makes my point all the more salient. The DUP don't really have a committment to the peace process. It's a process that's predicated on the notion that all sides, not just republicans and nationalists, accept both the principle of majority concent and representation of all groups in Northern Ireland.

It has not been easy for the Sinn Fein leadership to bring the IRA along with the peace process. At every stage, the DUP, and quite often the UUP before it, dragged its heals. The point is that Sinn Fein no longer has a private army. They have ceased all military and enforcement activity. The peace process has therefore been a huge success. If Sinn Fein had not been careful to bring the IRA with them, then groups like RIRA and Continuity IRA would have been much larger, as in the 1960s and 70s with the provos and the stickies.

Ultimately, if everyone had stuck to the same honourable position as Ian Paisley, there would never have been peace.

Now, as you point out, we live in a democracy. DUP can stop the people of Northern Ireland from having its Government and Assembly if they want to and they don't have to take part in the cross-border institutions. However, I wasn't saing that the DUP should be liquidated or something because of that. I was saying that I don't think they're a very positive party for peace, which I stand by. I think that they have grown because a lot of unionists are scared about a future that may well be as a part of a united Ireland 20 or 30 years down the line.

TAFKABO, you say you were a member of the PUP.
Were they not always close to the UVF?
Is this entry in Wikipedia wrong?
And as for the UVF, Lenny Murphy was one of their members.
And if I remember right from a photo in a book on the Shankill Butchers, his gravestone has the UVF badge on it.

edited to spell your name right TAFKABO.