Was talking to a friend of mine who is very involved in schoolboy football in Dublin. He was saying to me that he was talking to the manager of a schoolboy club in Belfast (Nationalist area) after they played them in a friendly and their manager told him that a few of their lads have turned down playing with the Republic, because the standard of coaching up there is far better for their underage teams. Their manager was saying that their ultimate goal is to play with us, but think it's a bit concerning that we are being left behind by not just the continentals, but also the British isles. My friend was saying that from his experience, our underage teams don't meet that often and that some of his own players don't even enjoy or get anything out of these meet ups.
I'm not so convinced. Whilst he may view Irish nationalism to be hypocritical, he does also believe that unionists ought possess a veto over the provision in the GFA that allows for a border plebiscite or over any result from said plebiscite that wouldn't work in unionism's favour. I think that's duplicitous and dangerously deceptive. If the current thinking amongst most unionists is that they will reject any democratic vote of the north's electorate in favour of a united Ireland despite having willingly signed up to such a procedure, and a shifting of the goalposts was to be forced by unionist malcontents throwing their toys out of the pram in such an eventuality, it means that the nationalist/republican community are essentially being hoodwinked/strung along at present. Either unionists support and adhere to the terms of the GFA or they don't. If they have no intention of respecting them, some honesty would be appreciated. The border and population/electorate within the new territory of NI was determined to unionist satisfaction at the expense of the wishes of a significant nationalist minority in the early 1920s. In effect, a democratic majority was manufactured for the benefit of unionism. It's seriously bad form to now talk of hypothetically rejecting a motion passed by an electorate of a territory their own brethren determined and sustained up until now, purportedly without issue.Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin
Britain was still the dominant power at the negotiating table, even if suffering from exhaustion. If the Free State (also militarily exhausted perhaps but certainly lacking an industrial war machine) or an Irish army had the military capacity to force Britain to concede the entire six counties, it would have done so.
It appears they were, but that didn't suit the apparent all-or-nothing agenda of the Free State and its expectant public.Yes, a united Ireland wasn't on the table in 1925. But some changes were, implicitly at least- weren't the Unionists prepared to offer something in return for the Finn Valley?
My understanding is based on the fact that the Free State government felt embarrassed by the Morning Post leak and subsequently bottled the whole thing altogether as a result. Why feel embarrassed if not for public expectation? According to government memos at the time, the leak resulted in a "political crisis" of "extreme gravity" in the Free State along with the resignation of Eoin MacNeill as Irish Free State Boundary Commissioner. See: http://www.difp.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=672 and http://www.difp.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=679I think you overstate public opinion's expectations. Giving up a few villages populated largely by Unionists wouldn't have been that bad. given that a) there'd presumably have been some mainly Nationalist villages arriving in exchange, and b) the dust had barely settled on the first group joining the Free State in the first place.
I agree; poor form.Fair enough, but wouldn't you agree that after all they'd been through in the previous few years, just giving up looks a bit lame?
Sinn Féin started their campaign recently: http://unitingireland.ie/Well, that's the nub isn't it? Even if you deny my claim that every government and most opinion in the South since 1925 have done basically nothing to change the border, it's undeniable that Nationalists in NI just haven't tried to convince Unionists. As I've asked repeatedly before, when is this effort actually going to start?
The SDLP may well have plans to do the same. Are you expecting me to launch a personal Foot.ie campaign too?
I think it does, because it would be a guarded, conditional acceptance rather than explicit support. To simply say I hypothetically supported a re-drawing of the border might give the impression I would support it unconditionally, and that would be a misrepresentation.If you hypothetically support redrawing the border, does it really matter what euphemism is used?
How does that make you feel as a compatriot?
I did say I was thinking wishfully, for the sake of argument.They might well have compromised on a smaller geographical area with correspondingly bigger Unionist majority. Such an area wouldn't necessarily have been unsustainable, again it's wishful thinking just to assume this as self-evident.
Loaded question - my motherland is found on the western side of the Irish Sea - but touché.Have you considered rejoining the motherland?
Why is that? I can see how such might compromise the long-term nationalist/republican strategy and aspiration for a united Ireland, but what do unionists have to lose exactly?
As stated above, it might compromise the long-term nationalist/republican strategy and aspiration for a solitary all-island state. Them's politics...
Last edited by DannyInvincible; 09/04/2013 at 4:15 PM.
My experience of most Unionists, inc. GR, is that despite what he's said here, they're not the 'redrawing' type.
Though I accept that like his supposed shift in views , there may be more mainstream appeal in that community. But not to the 'For God and 'Ulster' types'...
Can't see any of their politicians going for it, mind.
It was pretty small, admittedly, but my own primary school was integrated (not out of any amalgamation of other local schools, mind). It was initially built to serve the rural Protestant land-owning community south-west of Derry city around Mullenan and along the nearby border with Donegal's Laggan district (St. Johnston, Carrigans), but gradually saw greater numbers of Catholics attend. We received separate religious education with a Catholic ethos from an external teacher in the school's dinner hall.
Edit: My error; it actually possessed controlled primary school status and was founded by the Honourable the Irish Society. For some reason, that title always amused me with the double "the". However, the school was integrated in the sense that both attending Catholics and Protestants were accommodated.
Last edited by DannyInvincible; 09/04/2013 at 12:04 PM.
Seven. Seven times.
DID YOU NOTICE A SIGN OUTSIDE MY HOUSE...?
Who is Foot.Ie sending to Thatcher's funeral as representative state dept member?
No Somos muchos pero estamos locos.
We're boycotting it as the powers that be refused to hold it in Termonbarry.
Who do they think they are.
DID YOU NOTICE A SIGN OUTSIDE MY HOUSE...?
I propose Ardee Bhoy and Gather Round, jointly.
I second this motion from the Honourable Gentlemen for Stuttgart West.
DID YOU NOTICE A SIGN OUTSIDE MY HOUSE...?
I heard AB was planning on attending anyway. Just to make sure she's definitely dead.
Just like the way they smash the Pope's head in when he dies to make sure.I heard AB was planning on attending anyway. Just to make sure she's definitely dead.
DID YOU NOTICE A SIGN OUTSIDE MY HOUSE...?
The Icelandic way was to use a sledgehammer to smash the head in of a hated fallen enemy.
Sometimes the sledge just bounced off the skull.
Gather Round, obviously this is completely hypothetical as the ship has long since sailed, but what do you think modern day Unionists would make of Grattan's proposal being operational in the present day? i.e. A completely independent Ireland, in equal partnership with Britain, yet united only under the one Crown.
This was obviously a proposal coming from the Protestant ascendancy of Ireland in the late 18th century, before the 'Union' of 1801. Fascinating to read up on politics of the time where the links between Catholic-Republican and Protestant-Royalist as we assume them today were all a bit muddled.
The dude abides....
Flattered that I am, always detested that vile woman, unlike GR who claimed to be a 'big' fan when we first met.I heard AB was planning on attending anyway. Just to make sure she's definitely dead.
His views have clearly blurred in the intervening period, but for him it would be all about the buffet anyway...
That is a vile calumny, Bhoy. Although I will admit to getting a slap from a school chum in May 1979, after suggesting that maybe a Tory government wouldn't be so bad. I wised up soon enough.
I like it. Is there a download, and are you gigging?
Depends whether the South plays ball and welcomes the new territories. If not, if it would have to be a West of the Banntustan.Now I ask ya... what would this new proto-nationalism be called which clearly could be a cause to be espoused? Neo-nationalism?
Are you for real? I;ve said repeatedly above that Unionism should consider transferring Nationalist-majority areas of its territory to the Republic, ie offering more in one internet thread than most Irish Nationalist hacks have managed between them in 90 years.
At risk of repeating myself, a big problem here is that you fail to grasp what the GFA is. Not something that's set in stone for evermore, but a compromise deal that may be replaced when it no longer suits all the parties. Or, if you prefer, a contract which can end when one or both parties give the required notice.
That current thinking is that there's no chance of a united Ireland in the foreseeable future because a) Nationalists show little sign of getting the necessary 55% electoral support for it, and b) even the lesser figure of SF/SDLP support is unlikely to be totally commited to unity, if recent opinion surveys are to be believed.If the current thinking amongst most unionists is that they will reject any democratic vote of the north's electorate in favour of a united Ireland despite having willingly signed up to such a procedure, and a shifting of the goalposts was to be forced by unionist malcontents throwing their toys out of the pram in such an eventuality, it means that the nationalist/republican community are essentially being hoodwinked/strung along at present
I'm merely trying to push the argument along and anticipate what might happen in say 10 or 20 years time.
They're respecting them now, because overall they feel the pros outweigh the cons. Broadly, there's less violence and Nationalists' tick-tock argument looks a bit silly at the moment.Either unionists support and adhere to the terms of the GFA or they don't. If they have no intention of respecting them, some honesty would be appreciated
They might give notice to withdraw from them in future, as I suggest. Hardly dishonest, at least not in comparison with an Irish Nationalist establishment that's fibbed about its real aims since Noah was a nipper.
It isn't bad form just because it upsets you. You must realise how the political system works in this country: basically, Parliament can't bind its successors. Unionists in 2023 or 2033 aren't obliged to accept with what Grandad agreed in 1998.The border and population/electorate within the new territory of NI was determined to unionist satisfaction at the expense of the wishes of a significant nationalist minority in the early 1920s. In effect, a democratic majority was manufactured for the benefit of unionism. It's seriously bad form to now talk of hypothetically rejecting a motion passed by an electorate of a territory their own brethren determined and sustained up until now, purportedly without issue
Except most Unionist and many Nationalist politicians show no interest in redrawing the border...
And the polarised voting patterns suggest the electors in the North aren't overly interested either.
Fair enough, but without such a transfer ever occurring, you wouldn't accept the democratic mandate of the north's electorate if it were to vote for unity? Why should republicans bother engaging with constitutional politics and the democratic process if unionists aren't ultimately prepared to do so either?
Not really much of a deal/contract, that. A deception to temporarily placate, if anything.At risk of repeating myself, a big problem here is that you fail to grasp what the GFA is. Not something that's set in stone for evermore, but a compromise deal that may be replaced when it no longer suits all the parties. Or, if you prefer, a contract which can end when one or both parties give the required notice.
Can unionists feel betrayed though? Such fibbing and deceiving by the nationalist establishment of their own has only served to sustain partition surely.They might give notice to withdraw from them in future, as I suggest. Hardly dishonest, at least not in comparison with an Irish Nationalist establishment that's fibbed about its real aims since Noah was a nipper.
Indeed, but, as I said, modern-day unionists broadly wish to sustain the terms and conditions of partition. It would be a little rich to suddenly reject the framework they and their forebears have fostered for decades at the expense of the interests of the nationalist minority just because it might no longer suit them. It would be having their cake and eating it.It isn't bad form just because it upsets you. You must realise how the political system works in this country: basically, Parliament can't bind its successors. Unionists in 2023 or 2033 aren't obliged to accept with what Grandad agreed in 1998.
Very good last post, Danny.
Hmm, except it's no slander. You were a fan when we first met...
Or a very good liar.
I doubt you could be any more lacklustre than Gerry, Alasdair and co. But you misunderstand: I was hoping for some evidence that the Nationalist parties are actually, belatedly trying to convince Unionists, not just a glossy PR leaflet.
Hardly. The whole basis for any change to the border is that all parties would have to compromise. Pretty much the opposite of unconditional, enthusiastic support.To simply say I hypothetically supported a re-drawing of the border might give the impression I would support it unconditionally, and that would be a misrepresentation
Disappointed, of course. It became starkly obvious quite recently, when Naomi Long MP was describing a Unionist mob picketing her house and trying to attack her office. She suggested that nowhere in England would that have been tolerated for weeks on end.How does [British Government indifference] make you feel as a compatriot?
I can't really see how. Such a change presumably benefits Nationalists in Strabane and Newry; it doesn't leave those in Carrickfergus or Bangor any further away in practice from a united Ireland than they were previously, or lessen the ability of Irish Nationalist parties to lobby on their behalf.As stated above, [Strabane or Newry joining the Republic] might compromise the long-term nationalist/republican strategy and aspiration for a solitary all-island state. Them's politics...
In principle, I've never personally ruled out accepting a united Ireland in future if the Unionist-majority area becomes too small to self-sustain. If, say, it became like the Pieds-Noirs in Algeria who were largely confined to one city at the end. But we're a long way down a 'what if yer granny had testicles' blind alley there.without such a transfer ever occurring, you wouldn't accept the democratic mandate of the north's electorate if it were to vote for unity?
In the more realistic meantime, I'm arguing for a workable compromise before things get that stark.
Everyone should respect both the above and the rule of law. What I'm suggesting doesn't contradict any of them.Why should republicans bother engaging with constitutional politics and the democratic process if unionists aren't ultimately prepared to do so either?
There's no deception. Contracts are often short-term. In international politics as in every other area of law.Not really much of a deal/contract, that. A deception to temporarily placate, if anything
I haven't mentioned any betrayal. Unionists did a deal 15 years ago; they may wish to do another in 15 years time. Aye, the circumstances and extent of partition might well be different if the Free State ad Republic had ever challenged it.Can unionists feel betrayed though? Such fibbing and deceiving by the nationalist establishment of their own has only served to sustain partition surely
I'm suggesting that in future I expect more Unionist readiness to redraw the border. That is, a change to those terms and conditions. Some Nationalists would benefit, others would be no worse off than they are now. It would be a reasoned reaction to changing circumstances. Of course I accept that the 'Never Never' crowd joining in to support such a change would be seen as hypocritical; but I've er, never been one of themmodern-day unionists broadly wish to sustain the terms and conditions of partition. It would be a little rich to suddenly reject the framework they and their forebears have fostered for decades at the expense of the interests of the nationalist minority just because it might no longer suit them. It would be having their cake and eating it
I agree it's interesting- and topical, because basically it's what the SNP are arguing for Scotland
Last edited by Gather round; 10/04/2013 at 12:13 PM.
Posting Permissions
Quote
Bookmarks