Can you expand on that please? I'm not sure what you mean.
RIC Commemoration
- Thread starter cremeegg
- Start date
Duke of Marmalade
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,448
I think McDowell may be overstating the control of West Belfast Provos over SF. That such a group exists we know for sure from the PSNI and they are now a political force. But Mary Lou's swift condemnation of Stanley would not I think have the approval of that shadowy group. They do believe that they are a continuation of the GOIRA and would greatly welcome any such comparison.
Ah, that is to go into the realm of future speculation of course. None of us holds a crystal ball so I can only offer a personal perspective. Any prospect of a UI will require a number of stars and planets to align in harmony, namely the political, social and economic order of the day.
You might have to bear with me a little bit here.
I should say I do not believe SF have a snowballs chance in hell of ever delivering a UI. Even if they were to enter government here, even with a majority which I think is a long way off, if ever, a UI would still be some body of work away.
But where they can, and do play their part, is keeping the ideal of UI alive in the conscious of the public. Ironically however, it is not currently of their doing that the idea of border poll and UI has emerged in general discourse, but rather Brexit.
A UI has always been a feature of a SF Ard Fheis. During the conflict it was dominant. But in the decade preceding Brexit, although prominent, a certain amount of lip-service was being paid to it as SF were positioning themselves more to tackle the social, economic issues of the day - to become an 'ordinary' party so to speak.
Then Brexit happened and soon enough issues around the border (real or perceived) raised their head and a whole generation of people in Ireland and Britain got to learn, to greater or lessor extents, of the various narratives surrounding partition.
And it is my view that SFs narrative of resistance is an easier narrative to sell to younger generation than the anti-SF narrative which still clings to the GOIRA v PIRA narrative.
So although I cannot forsee SF delivering a UI, SF in government north and south will send alarm bells ringing in some quarters. People like McDowell try to depict a hostile takeover of State organs and institutions. I don't agree, but greater collaboration north and south working to align economies, welfare systems, education, health services, transport etc becomes a real possibility imo. Albeit over lengthy periods of time.
The idea would be to turn the economic and political axis from Belfast and London to Belfast and Dublin.
This would be anathema to Unionism, look at problems they are having with the idea of EU customs applying to NI.
But in the absence of any real support from London (and as long as there is no sight of a re-emergence of IRA or any hostile acts, then London will drift further out of the equation) then Unionists best option to prevent a SF UI is to build alliances with SFs biggest opponent’s in South, FF and FG.
FF and FG, also wanting a UI (apparently ) do not want it on SF terms for fear it would be antagonistic. However, if FF/FG remain 26 county they will lose more and more ground to SF.
In what form would any Unionist/FF and/or FG alliances emerge I couldn't say, but if SF growth continues politics will increasingly align to 32 county considerations for them, conversely, to prevent SF pushing for its UI. If SF do make that breakthrough to government, as the dominant partner in coalition, relevance of having two large 26 county parties will come under scrutiny.
Of course all of that is pure spectaculation. There are plenty of people trying to dampen SF growth and may well yet succeed. They may well get into power as an economic crash emerges setting them back 20yrs. Or any number of factors could emerge against their favour. The outcome of a Scottish Independence referendum may also drive other outcomes.
My overriding sense is, and I'm talking 10-25yrs here, that the trajectory of our political system is heading not for an independent Irish Republic, but somewhere closer to where it all began - some form of a United Ireland Parliament within an equal Union with Britain.
Brian Feeney, former SDLP Councillor and columnist with the Irish News, pretty much slices and dices Fosters claims of collusion as an exercise of whataboutery. He reminds us that the Smithwicks Tribunal findings in 2013 dealt with the issues she raised. That, most probably individual Gardaí did supply information to IRA, but there is no evidence that Irish government were engaged in any subversive support for the IRA.
Unlike the British government.
In all, the Unionist reaction to denying the Finucane inquiry is an orchestrated response to deflect and to play to their own constituency.
Harsh and cold reality for nationalists in the North is that deep down, most people in the South don't care tuppence about a UI and its not a factor in deciding who they vote for. It might be a concept or idea we like, especially after a few pints and blasting out "four green fields" but if the price of it was massive tax rises to pay for it and Gardai being sent North to risk their lives against loyalist terrorists, would we really vote for it?? I grew up watching HTV and BBC Wales and probably have a greater affinty with Wales then I do with our Northie friends.
People did not vote SF in the last election down here because they wanted UI, they voted because they were fed up with FF/FG, saw Labour as a pointless crony of FF/FG and therefore saw SF as the only true opposition. However SF are not a true one island party, they tell different stories and policies to different people depending on what side of the border they are on.
People did not vote SF in the last election down here because they wanted UI, they voted because they were fed up with FF/FG, saw Labour as a pointless crony of FF/FG and therefore saw SF as the only true opposition. However SF are not a true one island party, they tell different stories and policies to different people depending on what side of the border they are on.
The harsh reality is that a sizable proportion of the Nationalists in NI would not vote for a united Ireland as they are better off with the Welfare and massive "We'll pay you not to kill each other" funding they get from everyone.
I spend a lot of time ion Derry some years back and my view is that there'll be a United Ireland when people stop caring about a United Ireland. Ironically the Shinners in power would make it far less likely that there would be a united Ireland. They are triumphalist and would rub the Unionists the wrong way and their crazy populist pseudo-socialist economic policies would wreck the country economically. I would certainly encourage my children to immigrate if they were running the country.
I admire Wolfe Tone and Purple's dedication on his topic.
I would agree that Micheal Martin's condemning Stanley for his comment on Warrenpoint but not Kilmichael is hypocritical. FF loves to think that the violence and killing that put it in power was justified but the violence and killing that may yet put SF in power was not.
I would certainly recognise a hierarchy of victims. There is no equivalence between armed men killed while engaged in military type activities at one end of the spectrum and unarmed people who never chose to become involved in the conflict on the other. Having said that I can see that the grief of the bereaved makes no such distinction.
While Ireland certainly needs to keep on good terms with its nearest and much larger neighbour, and should try to accommodate the aspirations of its sizeable British minority, I think the root cause of the problems is British occupation which originated with the plantation of Ulster.
Resolving problems peacefully is always preferable to resolving them violently, yet British soldiers killed in Ireland will never have much sympathy from me.
I would agree that Micheal Martin's condemning Stanley for his comment on Warrenpoint but not Kilmichael is hypocritical. FF loves to think that the violence and killing that put it in power was justified but the violence and killing that may yet put SF in power was not.
I would certainly recognise a hierarchy of victims. There is no equivalence between armed men killed while engaged in military type activities at one end of the spectrum and unarmed people who never chose to become involved in the conflict on the other. Having said that I can see that the grief of the bereaved makes no such distinction.
While Ireland certainly needs to keep on good terms with its nearest and much larger neighbour, and should try to accommodate the aspirations of its sizeable British minority, I think the root cause of the problems is British occupation which originated with the plantation of Ulster.
Resolving problems peacefully is always preferable to resolving them violently, yet British soldiers killed in Ireland will never have much sympathy from me.
Last edited:
As a factor for voting in general elections I agree.
But if it was the only question in a referendum, I would imagine the overwhelming response would be in favour of a UI.
The Sunday Times ran a poll earlier in the year, 80% wanted a united Ireland eventually, but only half of those wanted it within the next 10 years. Most surprisingly: "of those Irish voters who supported Sinn Féin in 2016, 54 percent want unity within the next ten years."
I suspect most people like the idea, but don't like the prospect of what it would cost.
Of course, "what it would cost" would be up for much debate.
The problem with such polls is that the sentiment being gauged would be considerably different to the actual sentiment expressed in a poll.
For instance, I may consider that a UI may be preferable 10-20yrs down the road, but faced with an actual option to vote in a referendum tomorrow, I would certainly not pass on the opportunity to vote Yes to a UI.
The referendum, required favourably in both jurisdictions, would only set the principle of a UI in motion. Without agreement up North, it wont happen. Even with agreement in both jurisdictions, the actual establishment of a UI may take 10-20years of foundation work thereafter before any formal passing of the torch, so to speak.
Polling accuracy has taken a hit in recent times with a growing number of people taking on populous views that they are not prepared to admit to, but certainly nowhere near the level to support your view that the overwhelming majority would vote for a united Ireland now. If a poll with zero consequences says 60% of Irish voters don't want it within the next 10 years, I can't see too many of those people changing their minds to actually vote for it if it promised real consequences in the short term, let alone an overwhelming majority.
I think 80% is pretty indicative of the underlying overwhelming level of support. That such a support is then conditioned on vague time frame is a luxury not ordinarily afforded in an actual referendum
Exactly my point. I would rather not go down the rabbit-hole of trying to interpret any number of one-off polls from any number of sources without consequences mean.
But in the event that a referendum was called, say for 2022, then those whose ideal desire for a UI (80%) but not for 10yrs+ or more, will have to face up to making an actual decision, rather than conditioning their preference with some vague notional time in the future that will not be a choice on the referendum paper anyway.
My gut instinct that having to make the choice of Yes or No, considerably more will sacrifice the condition of 10yrs+ for the immediate answer of Yes. But, that is just speculation of course, there is only one real way to find out.
How the question is worded is very important. A "Would you like to see a United Ireland?" question will get a high response in the affirmative.
A "Would you like to see a United Ireland with the British Queen as head of State at a €10-€20 billion a year cost on what is currently this country?" question would get considerably less support.
A united Ireland would not involve us subsuming Northern Ireland. It would be a new country with a constitutional tie to Britain and some sort of power sharing system in which Unionist politicians would hold a guaranteed share of the seats in our Parliament and, most likely, we'd have QEII or Kink Charles as our head of State. We'd probably have to kick the US Ambassador out of the Viceregal Lodge as well so that would be one positive.
Personally I'm not a fan of the idea of Orange Marches on O'Connell Street (that would have to be changed as well, maybe Paisley Street?) and our Taoiseach (that would be Prime Minister) tugging the forelock to his or Her Majesty like they do in Canada and Australia.
Broadly speaking the Russians had the right idea when it comes to Monarchy.
Well, it's really an indication that most people like the idea of a united Ireland, but the majority don't want the reality.
Yep, just speculation and I'd be of the opposite opinion and would certainly vote against it.
Duke of Marmalade
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,448
I wonder what the response rate would be to "would you like to see a United World eventually".
Good one. But not without merit insofar as defining what a "United Ireland" would look like, and what it would actually mean, probably being on top of the agenda for discussion before any vote taken.
As @Purple points out, the political structure of the island would need to be defined and I would certainly think that we are closer to a Home Rule type scenario rather than an explicit independent Irish Republic.
That would a bit unfair if they couldn't march considering the first Grand Lodge of Ireland met on Dawson St in 1798. Unless of course, its a northside/southside thing you were refering to?
Are you deliberately misrepresented the poll or misunderstanding the results?
80% want it at some time in the future, 60% of all respondents do not want it now or any time in the next 10 years.
I think, with respect, it is yourself that has misrepresented or misunderstood the results of the ST poll that you referred. Just for the avoidance of doubt, here is what you posted
It is patently clear, there is no fluffy "like the idea" of a UI...80% want a UI but the timing of it when it should occur being the only discrepancy. But hey, I think perhaps any amount of data, from any amount of sources, can be interpreted in many a different way. I would have to see the actual poll itself.
Your assertion that the vast majority want it does not accurately tell the story of the poll results. The main finding is that the majority do not want it now or any time within the next 10 years.
Now, it also says that 80% support the idea eventually, the majority of them at lease 10 or 20 years from now, what it doesn't clarify is what those people expect to change in the interim that would bring about the circumstances where they would be in favour of the idea.
Without knowing what those people expect to change in the meantime, and how realistic those expectations are, we can only conclude the majority of people do not want a united Ireland now, but they might be persuaded otherwise if circumstances change.