RIC Commemoration

[WolfeTone]

we can only conclude the majority of people do not want a united Ireland now,

With respect, that is some conclusion to arrive at from one poll. Here is another recent poll

45% back UI versus 46% against in NI

but they might be persuaded otherwise if circumstances change.

Perhaps, if regular polling data pitted a UI neck and neck with a DI (divided Ireland) on a regular basis in NI, it may be the circumstances needed of persuading the Southern electorate to change?

All speculation of course. I stand by my point that faced with the direct question in an actual referendum, the underlying sentiment of wanting a UI will overwhelmingly prevail over the vague, notional aspirations of a UI in 10yrs time, 20yrs time, just before tea-time, or whenever, and such sentiment will quickly evaporate.

The dynamics and sentiment of the question at hand will automatically change upon official announcement of a referendum. If a referendum were to be held in, say, 2023, then arriving at a polling station still wanting a UI in 10yrs or 20yrs is pretty puerile position when you are being asked to make a decision, with real consequence, there and then.

 

[Purple]

It’ll be all about the reality of the proposed outcome.

If it involved this country moving back into some sort of Union with the UK and inevitably leaving the EU, then I would vote no.

if it involved the British Monarch becoming our head of State I’d vote no.

If it involved the people of this country shouldering the burden of financing the massive “don’t kill each other” bribe the British now pay to NI I’ve vote no.

If it involved a power sharing type arrangement with the Unionists rather than a straight election I’d vote no.

If it meant that we ended up with Unionist terrirists in our Parliament along with the Nationalist ones we already have I’d vote no.


If NI developed a real economy, reduced its state sector to the same relative size as outs, reduced its bigotry, homophobia and racism to the same relative levels as we have in this country, and we were certain that they’d not start a terrorist campaign here then I’d be happy to see them become part of this country as it is currently structured.

They could keep their own soccer league if they wanted and SF/IRA could keep their protection rackets up there to make up for what they’ll lose in cross border smuggling. They’d have to stop the punishment beatings of drug dealers who aren’t paying them their cut though.

 

[WolfeTone]

It’ll be all about the reality of the proposed outcome.

Indeed. And unlike the Brexiteers next door we could actually seek to develop a national consensus of what a UI would entail before we vote on it. It may not convince Unionism but it would be a start in bringing to an end the acrimony arising out of the peddling of numerous narratives if at a minimum a broad consensus could be agreed.

 

[ATC110]

It’ll be all about the reality of the proposed outcome.

If it involved this country moving back into some sort of Union with the UK and inevitably leaving the EU, then I would vote no.

if it involved the British Monarch becoming our head of State I’d vote no.

If it involved the people of this country shouldering the burden of financing the massive “don’t kill each other” bribe the British now pay to NI I’ve vote no.

If it involved a power sharing type arrangement with the Unionists rather than a straight election I’d vote no.

If it meant that we ended up with Unionist terrirists in our Parliament along with the Nationalist ones we already have I’d vote no.


If NI developed a real economy, reduced its state sector to the same relative size as outs, reduced its bigotry, homophobia and racism to the same relative levels as we have in this country, and we were certain that they’d not start a terrorist campaign here then I’d be happy to see them become part of this country as it is currently structured.

They could keep their own soccer league if they wanted and SF/IRA could keep their protection rackets up there to make up for what they’ll lose in cross border smuggling. They’d have to stop the punishment beatings of drug dealers who aren’t paying them their cut though.

I wish this was the tone of public debate rather than the usual anodyne guff which I'm subjected to in any panel discussions

 

[cremeegg]

If NI developed a real economy, reduced its state sector to the same relative size as outs, reduced its bigotry, homophobia and racism to the same relative levels as we have in this country, and we were certain that they’d not start a terrorist campaign here then I’d be happy to see them become part of this country as it is currently structured.

Perhaps a United Ireland willingly entered into by the people of NI, including the consent of unionists might help to deliver the above.

It's nice to share.

 

[Peanuts20]

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.

As an idealogical concept then I agree. However if you were to ask people, would you vote for a UI but it will mean your income tax will have to rise to pay for it, we'll have to send Gardai to the Shankhill Road, quite possible loyalist terrorism will spill over into the South and the likes of Sammy Wilson will be in the Dail, then I wonder how many would change their view?. It would still probably be passed but I think it would be close. To be honest, I can't name a single person in my family (and we would have an FF background) who actually give 2 hoots about a UI. Its an irrelavance to our immigrant population as well.

 

[WolfeTone]

However if you were to ask people, would you vote for a UI but it will mean your income tax will have to rise to pay for it, we'll have to send Gardai to the Shankhill Road, quite possible loyalist terrorism will spill over into the South and the likes of Sammy Wilson will be in the Dail, then I wonder how many would change their view?.

Well, why ask those questions?

There is as much certainty that income taxes will have to rise as they will be reduced.
Why would Gardaí have to be sent to Shankill Rd, surely existing PSNI could be amalgamated into a new All Ireland policing force?
Why would loyalist terrorism spill over into the South? A UI will only come about by consent of people of NI. What would terrorists be fighting for if their own people had just voted for a UI?
In any case, voting against a UI on the basis of perceived threat of terrorism is just giving in to them. Why combat the IRA for so long only to give into UVF?

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

A UI will only come about by consent of people of NI. What would terrorists be fighting for if their own people had just voted for a UI?

Exit polls indicate that the recent Border Poll has returned a 50.1% vote in favour of a UI. The same exit polls show that in Protestant heartlands like the Shankill Road there was near 100% rejection of a UI

 

[WolfeTone]

Clearly the implied sentiment here is that the independent Principality of Shankill will have to remain in UK?

Alternatively, the 50% + 1, is not considered a 'real' or sufficient majority - thus a unilateral changing of the rules? It might have some standing if before the vote unionism agreed that a 50%+1 vote in favour of remaining in UK would be an insufficient declaration of the people also.
Unlikely I would imagine?

Despite all pretences of living by democratic principles the true nature of the Unionist mindset - an inherent refusal to accept their Catholic Nationalist Irish neighbours as equals - will be exposed to the world.

The only thing to do with any threat of violence, or actual violence, that seeks to undermine democratic outcomes, is to stand up against it.

I don't think that will be needed however. There may be an initial reactionary shock to such a result, but such a result in NI is unlikely to occur without a significant body of unionism already assured and confident that a new UI incorporates and places value of their identity as being British.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

I was just pointing out dear Theo that the putative Loyalist terrorists would be representing a substantial section of their "own people" who had not voted for a UI.
I agree that the threat of violence must be stood up to. That's why the pan nationalist warning about violence in the event of a hard border on the island should have been rejected by the EU, but hey that is a different rabbit hole.

 

[WolfeTone]

I was just pointing out dear Theo that the putative Loyalist terrorists would be representing a substantial section of their community who had not voted for a UI.

I think maybe we are all missing a trick or two here?

Namely, the formal announcement, or prospect of, NI Secretary legislating for such a referendum to take place.
If, there is an underlying threat of violence to the prospect of a UI, I suspect such a development, long before a single vote is cast, to be a sufficient trigger for any prospective violence.

 

[Peanuts20]

Well, why ask those questions?

There is as much certainty that income taxes will have to rise as they will be reduced.
Why would Gardaí have to be sent to Shankill Rd, surely existing PSNI could be amalgamated into a new All Ireland policing force?
Why would loyalist terrorism spill over into the South? A UI will only come about by consent of people of NI. What would terrorists be fighting for if their own people had just voted for a UI?
In any case, voting against a UI on the basis of perceived threat of terrorism is just giving in to them. Why combat the IRA for so long only to give into UVF?

Sinn Fein/IRA never listened to the will of the people in Northern Ireland where the vast majority of the people up there consider themselves British. So why were terrorists fighting for a UI when their own people clearly showed they were not in favour of it?. As for letting the PSNI police their own traditional part of the island, surely that would go against the ethos of a UI. ?

As for income taxes, NI is a banana state, funded and bankrolled by the British Govt, remove those subsidies and we have to pay for it in a UI. Perhaps it is worth looking at the "soli" tax in Germany as an example of what could happen. After German unification it was created to fund the costs of unifications and added up to 5.5% on income tax for Germans and is only being abolished for the majority of taxpayers next year

 

[WolfeTone]

@Peanuts20 with respect, we are potentially opening the rabbit hole of 800 years of 'whataboutery!'
I have no inclination to digress to such a decripit basket of fruit, doing so would be just another sad and pathetic effort at trying to resolve the unresolvable.

I will say one thing however, considering all of Irelands rebellious past, and our automatic reflex to honour and endorse those efforts over last 100, 200, 400yrs plus, not one, not ONE can claim to say they had, on record, the support of a majority of the Irish people to embark on violent insurrection.

To qualify SF and IRA support as being dependent on the will of the "vast majority of the people up there" is to miss, by some considerable margin, the very nuance upon which they derive their own legitimacy.


I respectfully admire your penchant to measure all things through taxation. Of course the emerging Irish Free State and subsequent 26 county Republic was a prime example of economic freedom and growth with minimal tax impositions?
No, Ireland was a social and economic backwater for 60yrs or more after our 'independence', but we prevailed.
I guess there are some things stronger than taxation rates.

 

[Peanuts20]

@Peanuts20 with respect, we are potentially opening the rabbit hole of 800 years of 'whataboutery!'
I have no inclination to digress to such a decripit basket of fruit, doing so would be just another sad and pathetic effort at trying to resolve the unresolvable.

I will say one thing however, considering all of Irelands rebellious past, and our automatic reflex to honour and endorse those efforts over last 100, 200, 400yrs plus, not one, not ONE can claim to say they had, on record, the support of a majority of the Irish people to embark on violent insurrection.

To qualify SF and IRA support as being dependent on the will of the "vast majority of the people up there" is to miss, by some considerable margin, the very nuance upon which they derive their own legitimacy.


I respectfully admire your penchant to measure all things through taxation. Of course the emerging Irish Free State and subsequent 26 county Republic was a prime example of economic freedom and growth with minimal tax impositions?
No, Ireland was a social and economic backwater for 60yrs or more after our 'independence', but we prevailed.
I guess there are some things stronger than taxation rates.

With respect back. I'm glad we are agreed on some things, one is trying to resolve the unresolveable. Secondly the acknowledgement that the Shinners nuances upon which they deriver their own legitmacy are warped. Likewise I do not measure all things through taxation but it is naive to ignore it as an issue.

It is that level of naivity that I find fascinating on any debate around a UI, especially on the Republican side. There seems to be this belief that at some stage, the Unionists will see the error of their thinking and will realise that deep down, they really just want to belt out the Soldiers song and fly the tricolour. There is naivity on the other side as well, especially if they think that the English actually give a damm about NI.

I like Northern Ireland, been up there enough times for work and pleasure in the last 20 years. I'm just not convinced the economic, socio-political, and security price for a UI is worth paying. And there we will have to agree to disagree.

 

[WolfeTone]

Secondly the acknowledgement that the Shinners nuances upon which they deriver their own legitmacy are warped.

Well it would be wrong of me to leave that there in case it gave the impression that we are agreed on that. The Shinners legitimacy of the Provo campaign is no more warped than the legitimacy afforded to rebels of 1916, "In the name of God and of the dead generations from which she receives her old tradition of nationhood, Ireland, through us, summons her children to her flag and strikes for freedom".

Seriously? It may have resonated once upon a time, but surely we recognise this stuff as nothing more fanciful romantic rethoric that has no place in a modern 21st democratic society?
The 2016 commemorations, including those of the thousands of primary schools throughout the country, reciting and reinforcing the rethoric, suggests otherwise.

Likewise I do not measure all things through taxation but it is naive to ignore it as an issue.

Absolutely, but the naivety I would suggest is the automatic assumption that taxes will rise, that we will have to pay etc... There is no such certainty, and in fact if a UI is ever agreed, it is as every bit likely that it will benefit our economy rather than cost our economy.

 

[Purple]

Well it would be wrong of me to leave that there in case it gave the impression that we are agreed on that. The Shinners legitimacy of the Provo campaign is no more warped than the legitimacy afforded to rebels of 1916, "In the name of God and of the dead generations from which she receives her old tradition of nationhood, Ireland, through us, summons her children to her flag and strikes for freedom".

Seriously? It may have resonated once upon a time, but surely we recognise this stuff as nothing more fanciful romantic rethoric that has no place in a modern 21st democratic society?
The 2016 commemorations, including those of the thousands of primary schools throughout the country, reciting and reinforcing the rethoric, suggests otherwise.

Why do you continue to engage in this historical whataboutery? Take it that the 1916 rebellion had no democratic mandate and that the British had broad support in their suppression of the rebellion. Their inept mishandling of the aftermath meant that the War of Independence that followed had broader support but for the sake of argument lets say that had no broad support either and was criminal. So what? That was 100 years ago and none of the people involved are in elected office or running a political party now.
If you think that the SF/IRA campaign of the 70's, 80's and 90's was legitimate then any Unionist campaign blowing up children in Dublin or Cork or Galway would have to be legitimate in your eyes.

The "Well we've no idea if it is politically possible or economically sustainable but sure lets do it anyway" support for a United Ireland is childish and naive in the extreme.

 

[Purple]

Perhaps a United Ireland willingly entered into by the people of NI, including the consent of unionists might help to deliver the above.

It's nice to share.

And maybe that Lottery ticket I bought will win me a few million Euro.

 

[WolfeTone]

That was 100 years ago

So why still commemorate it then? If it had no mandate, why does our political class still regurgitate the 'gallantry' of secret private armies, with no mandate, to bring a city to ruin, in which hundreds of innocent civilians were killed including 2yr old children.

Why is our President, as recently as 2016, still honouring indiscriminate bombers of public bridges like Clarke, by perversely naming bridges after him? All in front of the applauding sheep.

Surely, if one thing GFA has settled, is that our constitutional issues are to progressed through exclusively democratic and peaceful means?
We cannot undo what has happened, and we acknowledge the ideals of 1916, but when is anyone of our political establishment going to stop glorifying their actions - by any measurement of our standards today they would be condemned for their actions and labelled as terrorists.

The "Well we've no idea if it is politically possible or economically sustainable but sure lets do it anyway" support for a United Ireland is childish and naive in the extreme.

If that is what I suggested I'd agree. But I did not. I suggested a debate on the actual economic costs and benefits needs to be had.
This assumption that Ireland will be landed with a €20bn a year bill, similar to what UK pays to sustain NI, when in a UI NI may no longer even exist is naivety to the fore.
That Gardai will have to sent, that loyalist terrorists will automatically enact violent acts is the nonsense that needs to be challenged.
A UI, what it is, is unknown. But whatever shape and form is proposed, if ever, will require the support of majority of peoples.
If we are geared toward resolving constitutional issues through peaceful and democratic means it might be an idea to stop pretending armed revolts by secret armies is criminal on the one hand, but gallant on the other, depending purely on political expediency to suit a particular narrative.

 

[Purple]

by any measurement of our standards today they would be condemned for their actions and labelled as terrorists.

And isn't that the critical point; it didn't happen now. It happened 100 years ago. The PIRA's campaign happened within the current political framework. Any future Unionist terrorist campaign would happen within that framework.

This assumption that Ireland will be landed with a €20bn a year bill, similar to what UK pays to sustain NI, when in a UI NI may no longer even exist is naivety to the fore.

Why? Do you think they will somehow develop a proper economy overnight? It took us 30 years, starting with the shift n investment from infrastructure (public housing in the 40's and 50's) to human capital; our education system. The Nordies still have a 1950's education system with what are frighteningly bad outcomes, particularly in the working class Unionist population. Why do you think it won't take decades to bring them up to our standards? The real economic gap between Northern Ireland and this country is as big as it was between West and East Germany in 1990. The educational gap is probably bigger.

It is interesting that you haven't offered your opinion on the moral equivalence between the PIRA and the IRA of the War of Independence but rather questioned other peoples relativism or lack thereof. Is it fair to say that you think the PIRA's actions were broadly legitimate and justified and that you support the affirmation they receive from their former (or not so former) political wing?

 

[WolfeTone]

And isn't that the critical point; it didn't happen now. It happened 100 years ago. The PIRA's campaign happened within the current political framework.

I know it happened a 100yrs ago. Im asking, why does our political establishment continue to commemorate events that it would, by its own standards today, condemn as terrorism?

Why? Do you think they will somehow develop a proper economy overnight?

Do you think, if after two referenda (north and south) that supported a UI, that it would happen overnight?
The only thing that would happen is the principle of a UI would be set and that from that point on, preparations to be made for as smooth, economically viable transition as possible. This is in Britains interest as much as it is ours, it is in the EU's interest ("Irelands peace, is Europe's peace" - Macron), and Irish America would undoubtedly weigh-in behind a smooth transition of developing sound economic infrastructure before any formal changing of the guard so to speak.
The Irish peace story is the success story of the ages, it is in everyones interest, far and wide, to ensure that any decision obtained through exclusively peaceful and democratic means for a United Ireland is supported not just by goodwill, but through real financial backing and capital investment. One way to ensure that the younger generations do not fall into the hands of paramilitaries intent on destroying the democratic process is to offer them hope, in education, employment and prosperity.

A United Ireland would be the greatest economic boost to hit this country in its entire history.