Mary-Lou "United Ireland is within touching distance"

[Sister Sara]

suddenly the percentages in favour are up to the mid 40's and it starts to get very close

Last time I checked, mid 40's didnt win a referendum.

I get the point though, and it is valid.

Unionism would be hesitant on a referendum on the off-chance, albeit remote, that the result went against staying in the union. All this does however is emphasis the need to have a referendum to let the people have their say.

DUP, still the largest unionist party, are fundamentally opposed to ever having a referendum.

 

[Peanuts20]

In many respects, SF can't lose, a mid 40's result could have them legitamately saying, "not yet but soon" and a look at the demographics could have then saying, next time in 10 years and we'll be there.

The only risk for SF is if the non-aligned and some of their own supporters break the other way for economic reasons. There are a lot of new people living in the North who won't wrap themselves in a Union Jack or sing about the 4 green fields, and they could be the deciding factor

 

[Leo]

The only risk for SF is if the non-aligned and some of their own supporters break the other way for economic reasons.

That and support for unification in Ireland dropping at the same time, 64% in favour in 2022, down to 62% in 2024. Where does another 10 years see that go?

 

[Peanuts20]

That and support for unification in Ireland dropping at the same time, 64% in favour in 2022, down to 62% in 2024. Where does another 10 years see that go?

Yep. the New Irish are not singing Wolfe Tone ballads, the younger generation are more worried about being able to buy a house. I do think it would pass in the south but it would not be over-whelming

 

[Sister Sara]

Its not really about SF though, they are just the one's most vocal about it.

Our constitution reaffirms the firm of the Irish people to unite all the people who share the territory of the island of Ireland.

Articles 2&3 were endorsed 90%+, I think.

They are aspirational of course but I would suggest that a referendum on Irish unity when put to the people, those aspirations will come to the fore over any tax and economic concerns. Such concerns can easily be refuted anyway as the arguements for a partitioned island are wholly weaker than those for a United Ireland.

 

[Purple]

They are aspirational of course but I would suggest that a referendum on Irish unity when put to the people, those aspirations will come to the fore over any tax and economic concerns. Such concerns can easily be refuted anyway as the arguements for a partitioned island are wholly weaker than those for a United Ireland.

The education system in Northern Ireland is a shambles, they’ve twice as many State employees per capita as us, they don’t have a functioning economy and they rely on massive transfers financial from Britain. So no, there’s no economic argument for a united Ireland in the medium term.
Then there’s the issues of Unionist, like you aforementioned DUP extremists and their paramilitary brethren, setting off bombs in Dublin etc.
Next there’s the question of what a United Ireland looks like. Our flag will be gone, our National Anthem will be gone, we’ll probably have to be in the commonwealth and we may well have to accept the UK monarch as our head of state.
Then there’s the religious fundamentalism on both sides in the North, the homophobia, the Xenophobia and the general higher levels of bigotry in Northern Ireland. Are we okay with that?
A united Ireland isn’t the North joining our country, it’s us and them forming a new country that acknowledges our shared heritage and history with Britain. The version of Irishness that we’ve made up over the last 200 years will have to be jettisoned and a new one that actually reflects our history, including the bits we don’t like, will have to be embraced.
Are we willing to accept that?
I don’t know if I am.

 

[Sister Sara]

The education system in Northern Ireland is a shambles, they’ve twice as many State employees per capita as us, they don’t have a functioning economy and they rely on massive transfers financial from Britain. So no, there’s no economic argument for a united Ireland in the medium term.

You just made the economic arguement for a UI.

Then there’s the issues of Unionist, like you aforementioned DUP extremists and their paramilitary brethren, setting off bombs in Dublin etc.

Many Unionists have long accepted that the British State is not as loyal to them as they are to the Britian. In the event of end of partition, it won't be coming back....a realisation, and political pragmatism will eventually endure.
The threat of bombs....we can never give in to the terrorists.

Our flag will be gone,

Make a new one.

our National Anthem will be gone

Make a new one.

we’ll probably have to be in the commonwealth and we may well have to accept the UK monarch as our head of state.

Interesting. This would be akin to the Home Rule era. The era where Irish Nationalism through exclusively peaceful and democratic means achieved a restoration of parliament for Ireland. This would have ensured the union with Britian, who in its time of need, tenfold Irish people signed up to fight for the British Crown than ever took up arms for the IRA.

It was the usurpation of that democratic and legitimately achieved right from threats of violence by Unionists that led to the chaos of the 20th century - Curragh Mutiny, Ulster Covenant, Ulster Volunteers, Irish Volunteers, Bachelors Walk, 1916, 1919-21, Partition, Civil War (1923), Civil War (1969-1995).

 

[Purple]

You just made the economic arguement for a UI.

Only from Northern Ireland’s perspective and only if we provide the massive subsidy that Britain currently provides.

Many Unionists have long accepted that the British State is not as loyal to them as they are to the Britian.

And many don’t.

In the event of end of partition, it won't be coming back....a realisation, and political pragmatism will eventually endure.

That’s just wishful thinking.

The threat of bombs....we can never give in to the terrorists.

And yet you refer to the Provisional IRAs terrorist campaign as a Civil War.

Make a new one.
Make a new one.

I’m okay with that. I like the flag but our Anthem is rubbish.

Interesting. This would be akin to the Home Rule era. The era where Irish Nationalism through exclusively peaceful and democratic means achieved a restoration of parliament for Ireland.

I think you need to do a bit of reading. John Redmond and others were certainly of that view but plenty weren’t.

This would have ensured the union with Britian, who in its time of need, tenfold Irish people signed up to fight for the British Crown than ever took up arms for the IRA.

Yep, lots of people in this country were Unionists. We even had a large Protestant minority but we ethnically cleansed most of them after independence.

It was the usurpation of that democratic and legitimately achieved right from threats of violence by Unionists that led to the chaos of the 20th century - Curragh Mutiny, Ulster Covenant, Ulster Volunteers, Irish Volunteers, Bachelors Walk, 1916, 1919-21, Partition, Civil War (1923), Civil War (1969-1995).

That’s a very one eyed view of our history. I again suggest that you do some reading. The revisionist views of the child killers who run Sinn Fein don’t serve the interests of anyone who really wants a united Ireland just as their soulmates in the DUP and UVF don’t either.

 

[Sister Sara]

Only from Northern Ireland’s perspective and only if we provide the massive subsidy that Britain currently provides.

It's Britain's continued subsidy of NI that is the problem with inflated public services. The subsidy is borne out of sustaining partition, sustaining the Empire.

No NI, no need for a subsidy.
I say that appreciating within the pages of this platform there are many, many complex attributes to forming a UI.

And yet you refer to the Provisional IRAs terrorist campaign as a Civil War.

The period '69 to '95 was, with the benefit of hindsight, nothing less than a civil war. To define it, the institutions of British law & authority had lost the confidence of the minority population (Irish nationalists). The people rose up - peacefully protesting, and they got their answer in spades - beatings, shootings, pogroms, internment, mass murder, cover-ups, collusion etc - that was the answer of British State to the injustices of Orange State.
In turn, the PIRA emerged, and a prolonged and futile (again with benefit of hindsight) conflict ensued.

By any yardstick of Irish history, the conflict in NI was a Civil War as it predominately engaged the two communities against each other. That is just my opinion.

I think you need to do a bit of reading. John Redmond and others were certainly of that view but plenty weren’t.

Yeh, but JR was the leader of Irish Nationalism? The 'plenty weren't', were who exactly? The IRB?

Yep, lots of people in this country were Unionists. We even had a large Protestant minority but we ethnically cleansed most of them after independence.

Not sure where you are going with this?

My point was that Irish people, ten-fold (regardless of religion), gave service to the British Crown in Europe in her time of need than ever fought with IRA.

I suppose the salient point is had Britain honoured its owns laws, as achieved democratically and peacefully and passed through its own parliament, then Britain and Ireland could have had the long-standing good relations we have now some 100+yrs ago with the catastrophe of the 20th century.

If only, the British gov did not succumb to threats of Unionist violence, then perhaps our gallant heros of 1916 would not have reacted in kind with actual violence? Thus, enthrenching the militant view for future generations?

I appreciate its all speculative, but it think it emphasises the primacy of democratic rule.

 

[Sister Sara]

That’s a very one eyed view of our history. I again suggest that you do some reading. The revisionist views of the child killers who run Sinn Fein don’t serve the interests of anyone who really wants a united Ireland just as their soulmates in the DUP and UVF don’t either.

I beg your pardon, I have not offered a 'one-eyed view', rather a view based on facts.

What any of the above questions has to do with SF is beyond me? SF was fledgling party in 1914 of no notable support. What is more in 1914, they supported a dual-monarchy between Britain and Ireland.

Are you denying that a Home Rule parliament Act for Ireland was passed in the British parliament?
Are you denying that Ulster Unionists threatened, by any means necessary including violence, to usurp British law?
Are you denying that 200,000 + Irish citizens, of all persuasions, answered Britains call for WW1?