Discussion on a United or re-partitioned Ireland

[Wolfman]

You're wrong in your first assertion, in that what you see doesn't or hasn't applied in reality. As in the mainstream.

The second point seems to coincide with the supposed 'opposing' view, and if/when it happens, we won't have much choice in the short-to-medium term I reckon, though at least you acknowledge it's possible?
:shock:

[DannyInvincible]

James Brokenshire wrote a piece in the Sunday Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/28/soldiers-failed-troubles-inquiry/) complaining that an apparent "imbalance" has led to a "disproportionate" focus on criminal inquiries involving former British soldiers who served in the north of Ireland. (He wrote his piece on the forty-fifth anniversary of Bloody Sunday, no less. Was this futile ignoramus even aware of the date's significance? Probably not!)

His assertions are demonstrable nonsense considering only a handful of soldiers have ever prosecuted for the British army's hundreds of civilian killings in the north. Brokensire said, "I am clear the current system is not working and we are in danger of seeing the past rewritten." On this matter - a crucial one that would lay the groundwork for allowing northern society to move on from its conflicted past - he seems to be making the same noises Villiers made in the same role a year ago when she insultingly denounced those who seek truth and justice as promulgating a "pernicious counter narrative". Dealing properly and transparently with legacy issues isn't just a matter of political necessity; there is also a legal obligation (http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/news-analysis/brokenshire-must-do-more-than-go-to-gaa-match-to-give-victims-a-level-playing-field-35412524.html) on the British government to act on inquests relating to the conflict.

As Brian Walker points out (http://sluggerotoole.com/2017/02/01/what-on-earth-is-james-brokenshire-up-to-does-he-even-realise-hes-attacking-the-judiciary/), this all shows Brokenshire, and, by extension, the Tories, for whom he is doing the bidding, to be way out-of-step with what's going on and what needs to be done in the north of Ireland.


The explanation that he is courting DUP support in potentially tight Brexit votes is plausible but unlikely. The Conservatives have those votes in the bag unless he does something startling over the legacy or other matters. He didn’t need to offer them anything more.

More likely is that as Mrs May’s former understudy at the Home Office he is still more affected by a read-across to Northern Ireland of English Conservative anger about “our boys” being prosecuted officiously over Iraq than about our legacy on its merits. Coupling the two theatres of Iraq and Northern Ireland does no service to the cause of justice for soldiers who served in either.

Despite all his access to people and information it shows what a bubble he lives in and what his real priorities are. Theresa May herself has form in criticising the judiciary.

So, probably the most inept single intervention of 18 here-today gone-tomorrow secretaries of state in 44 years.

The Tories show time and time again that they have little to no concern for the interests of the Irish people. A timely reminder that it's long past time to break the connection once and for all.

[CraftyToePoke]

This hot on the heels of his claiming the lake for Queen & country, is a bit out of date certainly, as though he arrived in the job from a time machine somehow, out of date I mean. Its depressing to hear British refer in these base terms to the issues facing society in NI. The Tories / Brexit English seem determined to regress on every front presently.

[Charlie Darwin]

James Brokenshire wrote a piece in the Sunday Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/28/soldiers-failed-troubles-inquiry/) complaining that an apparent "imbalance" has led to a "disproportionate" focus on criminal inquiries involving former British soldiers who served in the north of Ireland. (He wrote his piece on the forty-fifth anniversary of Bloody Sunday, no less. Was this futile ignoramus even aware of the date's significance? Probably not!)

His assertions are demonstrable nonsense considering only a handful of soldiers have ever prosecuted for the British army's hundreds of civilian killings in the north. Brokensire said, "I am clear the current system is not working and we are in danger of seeing the past rewritten."
The right are becoming emboldened across the board by events of the past couple of years. The pendulum is swinging back and we'll see more of these attempts to rewrite history. Or unrewrite history as I suppose he'd put it.

[DannyInvincible]

Brokenshire's claim that investigations into "Troubles" killings are unduly focused on those committed by the British army has been debunked by the BBC using available figures: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-38844453


Figures obtained by the BBC challenge claims that investigations into Troubles killings are unduly focused on those committed by the Army.

http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/660/cpsprodpb/109F2/production/_93928086_legacyinvestigations_revised_edit.jpg

The DUP says up to 90% of the PSNI legacy investigation branch's caseload is focused on killings by the Army.

The PM, secretary of state and other unionist and Conservative politicians also say there is an imbalance.

But PSNI figures show investigations into killings by the Army account for about 30% of its legacy workload.

The police legacy branch will re-investigate 1,118 deaths not previously reviewed or completed by the now defunct Historical Enquiries Team (HET).

Of those killings, 530 were carried out by republicans, 271 by loyalists and 354 by the security forces.

It is not known who was responsible for the other 33 killings.

[CraftyToePoke]

Fintan O'Toole on the DUP contribution to a UI - http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/fintan-o-toole-dup-has-done-the-most-for-a-united-ireland-1.2956656


Fintan O’Toole: DUP has done the most for a united Ireland

Unionist party’s idiocy and sleazy behaviour threatens Northern Ireland’s foundations

Northern Ireland's First Minister Arlene Foster releases a video message, in which she says that 'Sinn Féins actions are not principled, they are political' following Martin McGuinness's resignation.



Whatever else can be said about the Democratic Unionist Party, it can surely be absolved of some of the most serious charges routinely laid against it.
The DUP is not hostile to the legitimate aspirations of Irish nationalists and it is not wedded to sectarian stereotypes.
In fact, it has an extraordinarily positive record in both areas. The fact that this record is entirely accidental is no reason to be churlish.
In the first instance, the DUP has achieved more progress towards a united Ireland than any Irish political party, North or South, since partition in 1921.
Before it embarked on its Brexit spree, Northern Ireland was becoming a surprisingly stable political entity.
For the first time in its history, the Catholic minority had been largely integrated into its political structures.
The Belfast Agreement had created a settlement that protected unionism, in the medium term at least, from demographic change.
In December 2012, when census results showed that for the first time the Protestant population in Northern Ireland had fallen below 50 per cent, this might have been an epochal moment. But it wasn’t really.
The institutions were largely working and, for all the rhetoric, there was little appetite on either side of the Border for a radical alteration of the constitutional arrangements.

Community of minorities
Those census figures showed something else: that Northern Ireland had become, as Steven McCaffery of The Detail put it, “a community of minorities”.
It had evolved to have not the two strands of historical lore, but at least three.
The census found that 38 per cent regard themselves as British, 25 per cent as Irish and 20 per cent as Northern Irish.
It also found that while 41 per cent identified themselves as Protestant and 40 per cent as Catholic, a striking 17 per cent declined to categorise themselves as either.

This diversity was the greatest long-term protection that unionists could have.
It guaranteed that there could be no majoritarian tribal victory for either side.
The real Northern Ireland was a place of multiple identities and any future political settlement would have to reflect this complexity.
And then the DUP went to the big Brexit roulette and put all its chips on red, white and blue.
The only way to acquit the party on the charge of idiocy is to find it guilty of an enormous bluff.
It thought it could indulge itself in some ultra-British flag-waving but with no real-world consequences.
It would back Brexit and be secretly delighted when it lost.
The gambit was especially reckless for a party for whom the union is its whole raison d’être.
The English nationalists who drove Brexit don’t really care about the union – under the rhetorical covers, they will ditch Northern Ireland and Scotland if need be.
They were playing with loose change. The DUP was playing with the deeds to its house.
It has thus done more to advance a united Ireland than the Provisional IRA managed in 30 years of mayhem.
In the short term, there is likely to be a border for the movement of people that separates the island of Ireland as a whole from the island of Britain as a whole.
However loyally British you may be, you will have to show her majesty’s passport when you land in Stranraer from Larne or in London from Belfast – but not when you drive from Newry to Dundalk.
In the longer term, the Northern Irish identity to which 20 per cent of the population adheres and from which unionism could draw its greatest comfort will be profoundly undermined because it was predicated on Northern Ireland being in the European Union.

Self-destructive
The EU underpinned the willingness of much of the population to settle down within the current borders for the foreseeable future.
It is breathtakingly self-destructive for unionism to withdraw that certainty.
And that’s even before we consider how those who regarded themselves as British will feel when they go to London looking for English nationalists to make up the €7,533 million in direct investment from the EU into Northern Ireland since 1988 and the 87 per cent of farm incomes that come from EU subsidies.
One can but wish them the best of British luck.

As for sectarian stereotypes, it should be acknowledged that the DUP in its period in government has done more to demolish them than we puny pluralists have ever managed.
The stereotype was that Catholics were dodgy and sleazy while Protestants were straight and upright. The DUP selflessly took upon itself the task of reversing these cliches.
In the Iris Robinson affair, in the handling of Nama’s Project Eagle property deal and in the cash-for-ash scandal, it has ensured that nobody can ever again trot out the notion that Catholics bend rules while Protestants respect them without being blown over by gusts of laughter.
There used to be talk that Fianna Fáil would establish a northern branch – who knew that it would be the DUP?
Ordinarily, a party with such epic achievements would deserve to be rewarded with a continuation in power. But in the case of the DUP, it is hard to imagine what more it could achieve in these areas. Its work is done.

[Gather round]

O'Toole's article is little more than an extended sneer, lazily researched and misunderstanding how and why Brexit happened as it did. Variously,

a) Unionists or even NI as a whole had very little numerical effect in an all-Britain contest. Unionists are 1% of the population, the winning margin was 4%. Even had it been narrower- or even more so, had Remain won- the Leave camp would just have kept gurning for another Referendum. The DUP backing Remain likely wouldn't have made any difference- even before you consider that a historically anti-EU party doing so would have looked pretty silly

b) so actually it's Farage and co that have done most to increase the likelihood of a UI from next to nothing. That he's done more than every Shinner combined for 40 years doesn't suggest much confidence in the latter completing the process

c) we may well have passport checks at Aldergrove and Belfast Ferryport. Could be interesting (I use the latter regularly and security checks are basically non-existent). But there'll still be a large Unionist constituency, and it may well still be led politically by the DUP (as recent opinion polling suggests) even if they sacrifice a couple of disgraced leaders

[Gather round]

Impressive graphic posted by DI there. Did you notice that

d) the figures don't add up (530 + 271 + 354 +33 = 1188, not 1118)

e) according to CAIN, British Security forces were responsible for 363 Troubles killings (so the PSNI is investigating 97% of them)

I don't know where Brokenshire is getting his data (quite likely out of his backside), but the simple stat that you'll see in the wider Brit media also refers 90%. The proportion of killings attributable to various paramilitaries (again from CAIN)

PS I'm pretty sure the Telegraph hacks and NIO advisers well understand the significance of last weekend, even if JB and many readers don't

[backstothewall]

PS I'm pretty sure the Telegraph hacks and NIO advisers well understand the significance of last weekend, even if JB and many readers don't

Call me cynical but my reading of it is that there will be an amnesty after the election for British Army, RUC, IRA and loyalisto alike. Brokenshire is sabre rattling about british soldiers now so it can be presented to Unionism and (more importantly) the British public as being done to protect their boys (even if they are mostly pensioners).

[DannyInvincible]

Call me cynical but my reading of it is that there will be an amnesty after the election for British Army, RUC, IRA and loyalisto alike. Brokenshire is sabre rattling about british soldiers now so it can be presented to Unionism and (more importantly) the British public as being done to protect their boys (even if they are mostly pensioners).

Interesting theory. I'm a supporter of an all-inclusive amnesty (albeit with accountability and acknowledgement of wrongdoing or pain inflicted through a process of restorative justice) as a sort of "carrot" (to use a very cynical term) in order to encourage the revelation of truth (from all quarters) and the development of greater reconciliation. The amnesty idea isn't something that is universally popular, even within nationalism/republicanism or my own family necessarily, but, as I've said before, I think transparency is the only way to generate real long-term trust and one's principles have to be applied across the board. Otherwise, one is guilty of hypocrisy.

For what it's worth, Charlie Flanagan said the Irish government would not support amnesties a few days ago: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-38793891


The Irish government has said it would not support any proposal to introduce "amnesties from prosecution" when dealing with Troubles legacy cases.

It follows criticism of inquiries by Northern Ireland Secretary James Brokenshire, who said they focused "disproportionately" on state forces.

But the Irish foreign minister said all unlawful killings must be investigated.

Charlie Flanagan said Dublin would not look favourably on any proposed amnesty for either "state or non-state actors".

A number of former soldiers are currently facing prosecution over killings carried out during the 30-year conflict.

On the other hand, FF's Éamon Ó Cuív is a prominent member of the southern establishment who does support the notion of amnesties and made that clear upon last year's Bloody Sunday anniversary: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jan/30/bloody-sunday-anniversary-sparks-call-for-troubles-amnesty


The grandson of Éamon de Valera, one of the key politicians in the founding of the Irish Republic, has called for an end to the prosecution of an ex-soldier accused of killing civilians in the Bloody Sunday massacre in 1972.

Éamon Ó Cuív, a Fianna Fáil TD and former Irish government minister, said he supported an amnesty for all those involved in the Northern Ireland conflict from 1969 to the 1998 Good Friday agreement, and this had to include the paratroopers involved in one of the most infamous atrocities of the Troubles.

“Whether it is ex-IRA volunteers, loyalists, the old RUC, the Ulster Defence Regiment or British soldiers, there should be an amnesty for all,” Ó Cuív told the Guardian

[Gather round]

Call me cynical but my reading of it is that there will be an amnesty after the election for British Army, RUC, IRA and loyalisto alike. Brokenshire is sabre rattling about british soldiers now so it can be presented to Unionism and (more importantly) the British public as being done to protect their boys (even if they are mostly pensioners)

Aye. I agree with journo Newton Emerson who sees it as a wider issue affecting Brit forces globally, partic in Afghan and Iraq recently.

An effective amnesty is obviously more likely now than in 1997 or 2007 (defendants and witnesses to any investigations will have died in many cases), but I can understand why FG want to kick any formal welcome for it into the long grass.

[DannyInvincible]

Impressive graphic posted by DI there. Did you notice that

d) the figures don't add up (530 + 271 + 354 +33 = 1188, not 1118)

I didn't notice that, but I imagine it was a typo (fairly minor) which doesn't change the proportions significantly. The general point still stands.


e) according to CAIN, British Security forces were responsible for 363 Troubles killings (so the PSNI is investigating 97% of them)

I don't know where Brokenshire is getting his data (quite likely out of his backside), but the simple stat that you'll see in the wider Brit media also refers 90%. The proportion of killings attributable to various paramilitaries (again from CAIN)

Tying to give the impression - as the DUP have been doing - that 90 per cent of "Troubles" killings being investigated are killings committed by British state forces is a far cry from the truth, which is that investigators are looking into over 90 per cent of the portion of killings committed by British state forces along with the hundreds of killings by other combatants and that it is all being done in a proportionate manner.

It is also worth remembering that the state colluded with loyalist paramilitaries, meaning the latter carried out plenty of the former's dirty work.

Just on the topic of statistics relating to the conflict, Liam Ó Ruairc wrote a very interesting piece on how such statistics have been presented in order to give a certain impression: http://thepensivequill.am/2011/11/statistics-of-conflict-and-conflict-of.html


...

Liz Curtis notes that republican violence "dominates the coverage" and the tendency of media of "blaming the IRA" for violence. (Liz Curtis, Ireland: The Propaganda War, London: Pluto Press, 1998, pp.106-107) This is reflected in the coverage of the casualties. The media most often reproduces the following breakdown:

Killings by Military and Paramilitary Groups 1969-2001
Republicans: 2060 (58.6 percent)
Loyalists: 1016 (29.2 percent)
British Forces: 363 (10 percent)
Others – Unknown: 89 (2.2 percent)
Total: 3528
(CAIN – Sutton Index of Deaths. Appendix : Statistical Summary)

The way casualties are presented above will put Republicans at the top of the hierarchy of killings and Crown forces at the bottom. This is also reflected in most academic writing. (For example: Richard English, Armed Struggle: A History of the IRA, London: Macmillan, 2003, pp.378-381) But this not the only way of looking at statistics. There are grounds to challenge the above representation. One of the problems with it is that those who have statistically suffered the most from the conflict – the Nationalist population - are totally invisible and while Republicans certainly played a major part in the conflict, they were not the only component and violence used by the state and loyalists – responsible for the majority of casualties of the largest category of deaths - is largely minimised. Republicans can point to an alternative way of looking at these statistics. Of the 3747 people killed as a result of the conflict between 1966 and 2006, the book Lost Lives breaks them down into the following categories:

Security Forces : 1039 (27.7%)
Republican Activists : 395 (10.5%)
Loyalist Activists: 167 (4.4%)
Catholic Civilians: 1259 (33.6%)
Protestant Civilians: 727 (19.4%)
Others-Unknown : 160 (4.2%)
(David McKittrick, Seamus Kelters, Brian Feeney and Chris Thornton, Lost Lives: The stories of the men, women and children who died as a result of the Northern Ireland troubles, Edinburgh: Mainstream Publishing Company, Revised and updated edition, 2007, p.1555)

It should be noted that approximately twenty per cent of Protestant Civilians killed were murdered by Loyalists because they were mistaken for Catholics. These casualties figures demonstrate that the two largest categories of fatalities were ‘Catholic Civilians’ killed by the security forces and loyalists, and members of the security forces killed by republicans. The largest category of deaths was innocent Catholic civilians. Statistically they were those most at risk of death in the conflict. To put these deaths in context, Catholics represent one third of the population of the north but suffered nearly three fifths of the civilian casualties. "Catholic civilians have evidently suffered both absolutely and relatively more than Protestant civilians." ((Brendan O'Leary and John McGarry, The Politics of Antagonism: Understanding Northern Ireland, London: The Athlone Press, Second Edition, 1996, p.34) The number of Catholics killed per 1000 of population was 2.48 and Protestants 1.46.Catholics were at approximately 50 per cent greater risk of being killed, both relatively and absolutely.

While it should be noted that "neither community in Northern Ireland has a monopoly of suffering in the present conflict, amongst both Catholics and Protestants, hundreds have been killed and thousands injured, lives have been ruined and homes wrecked." It should be emphasized that:

In relative terms it is undoubtedly the Catholics who have suffered the most, for it is against them that the main weight of repression has been directed. Most of the vast number of people imprisoned over the years for so-called 'terrorist' (i.e. political) offences have been Catholics and most of the victims of sectarian assassinations have also been Catholics." (Bob Rowthorn and Naomi Wayne, Northern Ireland: the Political Economy of Conflict, Cambridge: Polity Press, 1988 pp.6-7)

...

(Quote is continued below in next post...)

[DannyInvincible]

(Quote is continued below in this post as I didn't have enough room in one post...)


...

A study carried out by the University of Ulster on the 3593 conflict-related deaths between 1969 and 1998 estimated that 1543 of the dead were Catholics, including 355 Republican activists. In terms of agencies responsible of those 1543 deaths:

Killed by Republicans: 381 (24.7%)
Killed by Loyalists: 735 (47.6%)
Killed by Security Forces : 316 (20.5%)
Others-Unknown: 111 (7.2%)
(Source: Marie Therese Fay, Mike Morrissey and Marie Smyth, Mapping Troubles-Related Deaths in Northern Ireland 1969-1998, INCORE (University of Ulster & The United Nations University), Second edition with amendments reprinted 1998, Table 1.1 Deaths by Religion by Organisation Responsible)

These statistics show that there were two campaigns of violence in the North, the republican war against the British state, and the security forces and loyalist paramilitaries counter-insurgency campaign not just against Republicans but against the Catholic population as a whole. Civilian deaths constitute the largest category of victims of state killings - over 50 per cent. Almost all such victims were unarmed; the vast majority - 86 per cent - were Catholic. The next largest category is republican paramilitaries, accounting for 37 per cent of state killings. Remarkably few loyalist paramilitaries were victims of state killings - only 4 per cent of the total. If it is presumed as a shorthand calculation that republican activists were likely to have been Catholic while loyalist activists were likely to have been Protestant, it follows that the Catholic or nationalist community experienced the overwhelming bulk of killing by state forces; 88 percent of victims of state killings were from the nationalist community.

Deaths resulting from collusion between state forces and loyalist paramilitary groups are not included in the above figures. "To do so would be to add at least the same number of deaths again." Collusion has been a factor in loyalist killings since early in the conflict, but reached a peak in the early 1990s. As Arthur Fegan and Raymond Murray documented, between March 1990 and September 1994, loyalists killed 185 people. Of these deaths, 168 (91 percent) were sectarian or political in nature, and in 103 cases (56 percent of all the loyalist killings in the period) there is evidence of some form of collusion. (Figures from: Bill Rolston, Unfinished Business: State Killings and the Quest for Truth, Belfast: Beyond The Pale, 2000)

While the security forces waged war on the republicans, the loyalist paramilitaries were left relatively unhindered. The security forces did not respond to loyalist attacks with the same determination as they responded to republicans. As John Newsinger notes: "The fact is that the British and loyalist campaigns were symmetrical. There is no doubt that the loyalist paramilitaries’ murderous war against the Catholic minority was regarded as reinforcing rather than undermining the security forces’ war against the Provisional IRA." (John Newsinger, British Counterinsurgency: From Palestine to Northern Ireland, Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2002, 178) Loyalist actions helped wear the Catholic working class down. Loyalists were in effect the substitute for state deaths squads. (ie. Jeffrey Sluka, ‘For God and Ulster’: The Culture of Terror and Loyalist Death Squads in Northern Ireland, in Jeffrey Sluka (ed), Death Squad: The Anthropology of State Terror, Philadelphia, 2000) On top of that the borderline between "security forces" and "paramilitaries" could be blurred. An investigation for example showed that members of the UDR were one and a half times more likely to be convicted of scheduled offences than the adult civilians who they were supposed to be protecting. (Brendan O'Leary and John McGarry, The Politics of Antagonism: Understanding Northern Ireland, London: The Athlone Press, Second Edition, 1996, pp. 268-269).

Roy Greenslade, a former editor of The Daily Mirror working today for The Guardian has noted the media’s tendency to create a "hierarchy of deaths" in which those killed by Republicans receive the most coverage while those killed by Loyalists the least. Those forming the largest single category of fatalities are thus actually the most invisible in the media. (Roy Greenslade, A Hierarchy of Death, The Guardian 19 April 2007) The "hierarchy of deaths" is most visible when looking how the media covered the deaths of children during the conflict. Children have also been killed during previous phases of the republican struggle. For example, of more than 250 civilians killed during Easter Week 1916, 28 children aged between two and 16 were killed by gunfire. (Genevieve Carbery, Call to remember 28 children who died in Rising, The Irish Times, 17 August 2011). Between 1969 and 1998, 23 children under five years of age, 24 between 6 and 11, and 210 aged between 12 and 17 were killed as a result of political violence. Security forces and Loyalists are responsible for the majority of the killings (67 and 74) and Republicans for 90 (some of them soldiers not yet 18 years of age). (Marie-Louise McCrory, More than 250 children killed during Troubles, The Irish News, 16 August 2010) Yet this has not been reflected in media coverage. There are ‘deserving’ and ‘undeserving’ victims. While some victims had a name and a face, others were just an anonymous statistic.

The media however often points that civilians and non-combatants constitute the largest category of victims of the conflict, but without specifying this important fact :

Civilian Victims from Political Violence, 1969-1998:
Civilian Deaths as Percentage of Deaths by this Agency:
Security Forces : 54.4 per cent
Republicans: 35.6 per cent
Loyalists: 87.2 per cent
(Calculated on the basis of Marie Therese Fay, Mike Morrissey and Marie Smyth, Mapping Troubles-Related Deaths in Northern Ireland 1969-1998, INCORE (University of Ulster & The United Nations University), Second edition with amendments reprinted 1998, Table 1.2 Political Status of Victims by Organisations Responsible for Deaths)

The war in the North is often reduced by the media to "terrorism". In the case of terrorism, there is no agreed definition in international law, nor is there consensus among scholars; and moreover the term is politically contested. There have been numerous diplomatic efforts aimed at producing an agreed definition of terrorism. The formula which many governments and international organizations have decided to adopt describes terrorism as politically motivated violence that intentionally targets civilians and non-combatants. This approach has been adopted in various United Nations Security Council Resolutions dealing with terrorism and was endorsed by the UN Secretary General in March 2005. (Peter R.Neumann, Old and New Terrorism: Late Modernity, Globalization and the Transformation of Political Violence, Cambridge: Polity Press, 2009, pp.6-7) On the basis of this definition and the statistics above, one would be unable to label unequivocally Republicans as terrorists –they have actually been the most discriminate party to the conflict - but on the other hand the security forces would qualify as terrorists since a majority of their casualties are civilians.

On top of that during the conflict there has been an extensive list of violation of human rights by the state. There have been allegations of:
- Shoot to kill
- Collusion between state forces and loyalist paramilitaries
- The use of unnecessary force on the streets
- Abuse of stop and search powers amounting to harassment of communities and individuals
- Abuse of powers of arrest and detention for purposes of intelligence gathering
- Prolonged use of detention before release without charge
- Mistreatment of people while being interrogated in custody
- Intimidation of lawyers by the state.

In addition, there have been criticisms of the following:
- Abolition of trial by jury
- Partial abolition of the right to silence
- Inadequate means of legal redress either through the inquest system or through complaints bodies.
The ratios of arrests to charges, and of charges to convictions have been relatively low, suggesting the large-scale deprivation of many innocent citizens of their liberties.

Many of the allegations have been upheld by international bodies and organisations such as:
- The European Commission and the European Court of Human Rights
- Amnesty International
- United Nations Human Rights Committee
- European Committee for the Prevention of Torture

The state's reaction to these violations has generally been one of cover up and failure to punish the culprits.

There is thus a counter-narrative to the official and media account of the human costs of the conflict. Representations – such as ‘victims’ and ‘terrorists’- are constructed and can be deconstructed. It is possible to provide a solid counter-narrative to those who try to blame republicans for the bulk of the conflict.

[Gather round]

(Quote is continued below in this post as I didn't have enough room in one post...)

There isn't really a contradiction between 'Nationalist paramilitaries did the majority of the killing' and 'Nationalist civilians were killed in the greatest number'. Both are true and part of a bigger picture. Which has been covered in hundreds of books and thousands of articles from a wide range of positions during and since the Troubles, so complaining about media bias is a bit lazy.

Rather than have an academic debate about terrorists and freedom fighters, O'Ruairc and his fellow 'scholars' could just call them paramilitaries. It's both accurate and as neutral as you're likely to get.

[Wolfman]

Yawn. More whataboutery.

[TheOneWhoKnocks]

Still posting demonstrable nonsense that the majority of Northern Irish people want a united Ireland is he?

[BonnieShels]

Interesting statement in Brussels today from our Gracious leader. Keep it up. FG no longer Free Staters... [Headline news on Guardian]



Irish leader calls for united Ireland provision in Brexit deal

Ireland wants a special provision in any Brexit deal to allow Northern Ireland to rejoin the EU should the province be reunited with the Republic.

The taoiseach, Enda Kenny, said in Brussels that the deal between the EU and the UK should include language” that would allow the north to easily return to the bloc.

Kenny said the provisions that allowed East Germany to join West Germany and the EU “in a seamless fashion” after the fall of the Berlin wall offered a precedent.

Kenny said it was important that the terms of the Good Friday agreement, including what might happen if the island of Ireland was united, was part of any deal.


Brexit talks could get 'gory, bitter and twisted', says former ambassador
Read more
“In other words, that in such future time, whenever that might be, were it [reunification] to occur, that the north of Ireland would have ease of access to join as a member of the European Union again … We want that language inserted into the negotiated treaty, the negotiated outcome, whenever that might occur,” he said.

Speaking at a press conference after a meeting with the European commission president, Jean Claude Juncker, and the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator, Michel Barnier, Kenny also said the believed that the triggering of article 50 would be “delayed a little”.

It has been widely assumed that Theresa May planned to start the talks at the European council meeting on 9 and 10 March. Kenny said: “We had expected the prime minister was going to move article 50 on a particular date; I think that might be delayed a little.”

Kenny brushed off questions about his own future, saying he was focusing on the political issues caused by the Brexit vote. He is rumoured to be considering stepping down next month after severe criticism of his handling of a crisis in the Irish police force.

Juncker offered Kenny his support, saying: “I will continue to work closely as possible with Enda in the next coming weeks and months and if something would happen which would lead me to be very very sad, relations would continue.”

Juncker said discussions between Kenny and Barnier had focused on all the issues that arose for Ireland from Brexit, including how it would be possible to avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland.

Juncker said: “We don’t want to have hard borders between Northern Ireland and the Republic, we don’t want to have the Good Friday agreement to put under risk, and we want land borders to be open as possible.”

Kenny said he had agreed with May that there would be no return to a hard border, but he said a concrete plan for keeping to the pledge could not yet be provided due to the lack of clarity on the UK’s aims with regard to membership of the customs union.


The stories you need to read, in one handy email
Read more
He said: “We had a discussion particularly about the border and the peace process. I made the point that when the old style of the border existed you had sectarian violence.

Advertisement

“We agreed with the British government and the British government agree with us: there should not be a return to the hard border of the past and indeed there won’t be. This is a political challenge as distinct from any technological issue.

“Obviously Michel Barnier and his taskforce can’t deliberate on an outcome until [article] 50 is triggered and until we know with clarity what it is the British government is talking about in terms of future relationships with the EU, because that will have an impact on trade with Ireland.”

Kenny said Ireland and the EU needed to know what May’s hopes were “in terms of customs union membership or associate membership”. And while emphasising the good standing of relations between Ireland and the UK, Kenny added: “We sit on the European negotiating side of the table when this actually starts.”

At the end of the press conference the two men were asked which one of them would resign first. Kenny shrugged off the question, saying he was focusing on the issues at hand.

Juncker, who is rumoured to have considered quitting over a lack of support among member states for his vision of the EU’s future, said: “I will not resign, I will bring my mandate to an end, that is 3 November 2019, but you knew that anyway.”



https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb/23/irish-leader-enda-kenny-calls-for-united-ireland-provision-in-brexit-deal

[culloty82]

Interesting statement in Brussels today from our Gracious leader. Keep it up. FG no longer Free Staters... [Headline news on Guardian]

In fairness, the GDR precedent just covers NI's EU potential for a few decades down the line, no suggestion of any dramatic change in the near future.

[BonnieShels]

That's what I took from it.

It was an FG Taoiseach talking about a potential United Ireland... that's the bit I like.

Also, the GDR precedent is rather interesting. East Germany didn't reunite with West Germany.
The Lander ( Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Brandenburg, Saxony-Anhalt, Thuringia, and Saxony) individually joined with West Germany. This got around the technicality of the DDR needing to be up to spec etc for joining the EC. Not an issue for us but shows that the EU can be flexible when they want to be.

[backstothewall]

That's what I took from it.

It was an FG Taoiseach talking about a potential United Ireland... that's the bit I like.

Also, the GDR precedent is rather interesting. East Germany didn't reunite with West Germany.
The Lander ( Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Brandenburg, Saxony-Anhalt, Thuringia, and Saxony) individually joined with West Germany. This got around the technicality of the DDR needing to be up to spec etc for joining the EC. Not an issue for us but shows that the EU can be flexible when they want to be.

Interesting.

As a nordie I'm quite willing for NI to continue, provided Antim, Down, Derry, Tyrone, Armagh And Fermanagh all join with the Republic.

And people say we're stubborn up here...

[BonnieShels]

Interesting.

As a nordie I'm quite willing for NI to continue, provided Antim, Down, Derry, Tyrone, Armagh And Fermanagh all join with the Republic.

And people say we're stubborn up here...

As a Mexican I agree with this sentiment.

[culloty82]

In light of the Stormont results, can a referendum now be expected within 10-15 years? The discussion may just be beginning in the Republic, but the economic, social and political implications will need rigorous analysis before a nationalist majority occurs.

[BonnieShels]

In light of the Stormont results, can a referendum now be expected within 10-15 years? The discussion may just be beginning in the Republic, but the economic, social and political implications will need rigorous analysis before a nationalist majority occurs.

I honestly think too much stall is put in the economics of this. It's a pure emotive issue that even if it cost a 100bn a year would have Free Staters clambering to vote for it. What party would campaign against it in any circumstance? (outside the unionists)

The "Nationalist" majority will occur before the analysis.

A referendum will be held much sooner given the upheaval across the water. The ship is sinking. Who wants to go down with it?

A referendum can only be called if the secretary of State feels there is a chance of it succeeding. And if defeated another one can't be held for 7 years. No one wants it until it can succeed, And we're not there yet.

[Wolfman]

Another poll...
(http://www.thejournal.ie/northern-ireland-3272747-Mar2017/)

[DannyInvincible]

One of the oddest sections of column-space I've encountered in a while; Melanie Philips believes we're not even a real nation: http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/british-writer-under-fire-after-claiming-ireland-has-tenuous-claim-to-nationhood-35508997.html


A UK columnist has come under fire after suggesting that Ireland is not a real country.

In her comment piece for today's UK Times, Melanie Philips talks about moves by Republicans in Northern Ireland and nationalists in Scotland to seek independence from the UK.

Under the headline 'Britain is the authentic nation in this battle' she describes Scotland and Northern Ireland as "the most troublesome bits of the United Kingdom".

However, it is her comments about Ireland that have sparked the biggest reaction online.

Ms Philips writes that Unionists in Northern Ireland are "not British".

She continues: "They're the bit that got tacked on to Great Britain to make the UK.

"Does that mean Westminster should tear up the Good Friday agreement and bid farewell to Northern Ireland. No, because it has an obligation to the Unionists; and because the claim to unite Ireland is tenuous since Ireland itself has a tenuous claim to nationhood, having seceded from Britain as the Irish Free State in 1922."

The column has caused a big reaction online with many taking to Twitter to lambaste the writer.

Irish ambassador to the UK Daniel Mulhall wrote: "As Ambassador I cannot ignore @MelanieLatest's outlandish claim @thetimes that Irish nationhood is 'tenuous'. 100 years of independence.

"Irish nationhood based on strong sense of identity, distinctive culture & shared values and interests. Nothing 'tenuous'."

If she believes northern unionists aren't British and believes there to be no such thing as a real or authentic Irish nation, what nationality does she actually believe unionists to be? :confused:

[DeLorean]

Here's the full article - http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/britain-is-the-authentic-nation-in-this-battle-vnf0c8nhx?t=ie


Britain is the authentic nation in this battle

Melanie Phillips

Nationalist claims of Scots and Northern Irish don’t outweigh the ancient unity of the British Isles

The most troublesome bits of the United Kingdom are once again showing signs of disuniting. In Scotland, the SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon is demanding a second independence referendum on the grounds that, contrary to the English, the Scots voted to remain in the EU by 62 per cent to 38 per cent. In Northern Ireland, a surge by Sinn Fein to within one seat of the Democratic Unionists after a divisive assembly election has revived the spectre of a united Ireland, now given further rhetorical push by the jubilant nationalists on the grounds that the province also voted to remain.

It is a curiosity that the SNP and Sinn Fein want to leave the UK in order to remain in Europe. In other words, they want to reclaim powers from Westminster in order to surrender them to Brussels.
Of course they don’t see it like that. The EU, which concentrates power in Brussels while reducing nations to the status of provinces, is conversely regarded by weak nations and provinces as a way of boosting their status and income.

Scottish nationalism and Irish republicanism are cultural phenomena rooted in romanticism and myth and hatred of the other in the form of the English or the Protestants.
Nevertheless, the genie of national identity is now out of the bottle. Trans-nationalism, or the drive to erode the autonomy of nations, has been stopped in its tracks by British voters. This raises some complicated questions.


Brexit expresses the desire for independent self-government by a sovereign state based on the history, institutions and cultural ties that constitute a nation. Great Britain, though, is a confederation of three ancient nations: England, Wales and Scotland. The UK is a super-confederation of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

If national aspirations are now validated for the UK, what about the national aspirations of its constituent parts? Do all national identities have equal status? What happens when one is in direct competition with another? Scotland says it is a nation. Republicans in Northern Ireland say Britain dismembered their nation which they want to unify again. Are these claims to national identity valid? If so, where does that leave the UK?

The historians Linda Colley and Benedict Anderson famously declared the nation to be no more than an artificial construct or “imagined community.” In this post-modern formulation, the nation could therefore arbitrarily be either declared or dissolved. The nation is not, however, artificial or imagined. It is solidly rooted in a group of people united by different things at different times: geography, language, law, religion, ethnicity, history, institutions, culture.

The UK is an extraordinarily complex web of identities: civic, ethnic, cultural, national. As the historian Jonathan Clark wrote in his book Our Shadowed Present: “Britain was not invented; it developed.”

The pattern of this development has been “the resilience of a diverse and plural system of identities”. Englishness, however, came to stand proxy for all the communities of the British Isles. Even Edmund Burke, although a loyal Irishman, wrote of himself as an Englishman rather than describing himself as British.


The Scots developed over time the characteristics of a nation: a distinct language, religion, legal system and so on. The UK was formed in 1707 by the union of two distinct kingdoms, England and Scotland.

Kingship matters because monarchs unify tribes into a nation. Wales was subsumed into the English legal system by Henry VIII and so lost its separate identity except for residual ties to the Welsh language.

Northern Ireland is different again. The Unionists hate this being said but they are not British. They’re the bit that got tacked on to Great Britain to make the UK.

Does that mean Westminster should tear up the Good Friday agreement and bid farewell to Northern Ireland? No, because it has an obligation to the Unionists; and because the claim to unite Ireland is tenuous since Ireland itself has a tenuous claim to nationhood, having seceded from Britain as the Irish Free State only in 1922.

Britain, by contrast, is an authentic unitary nation. It didn’t begin with the union with Scotland but as the British Isles, an island nation defending itself (or not) against invaders from across the seas. Throughout its history, it was beset by attempts at secession by tribes across Hadrian’s Wall and across the Irish Sea.

The prime minister’s speech to the Scottish Conservatives last week was said to have attacked the SNP for wanting to do to Britain precisely what Mrs May was doing to Europe: seceding on the grounds of independence. The comparison, however, is spurious.

Britain is a nation with the right to rule itself. It is the EU which is the artificial construct, the imagined community that falsely claims for itself the hollow appurtenances of a nation. The EU therefore has no prior claim on its constituent nations which are under no obligation to remain. By contrast, the United Kingdom is a nation which is governed in accordance with its name. Scotland has no right to rip it asunder if it wants to secede from the Union (which in any event is highly doubtful).

Faced with the contemporary resurgence of regional or tribal uprisings, it’s the ancient British Isles that must hold itself together to take its place once again as a sovereign nation in the wider world.

[Stuttgart88]

Melanie Phillips is a right wing nutjob.

"The EU, which concentrates power in Brussels while reducing nations to the status of provinces". Yet at the same time the UK Government White Paper on Brexit admits that UK parliament is sovereign and always has been, it just didn't always "feel that way".

"Scottish nationalism and Irish republicanism are cultural phenomena rooted in romanticism and myth and hatred of the other in the form of the English or the Protestants."

Nothing to do with Catholics getting burnt out of their houses, denied access to jobs, housing and education and getting shot at during demonstrations.

[osarusan]

She's also pretty much a professional troll these days and a great example of how the internet and the ability to link and share content has changed how media organisations try and attract consumers/clickers.

[Wolfman]

She's the next RDE, in waiting and a Zionist nut. Ironic as remember her as a Guardian columnist!

[BonnieShels]

So is Britain a unitary state or a confederation?

I already castigated a friend from sharing this on fb. And how in a nation so long dealing with RDE and K Myers that we should know better. A horror show of an article. There's nothing wrong with trolling if done intelligently and with knowledge. She has neither.

That been siad, when will Unionists/Brits/Home Countiers ever learn that the cause of the union isn't helped by belittling those who they feel should bow down and accept their serfdom.

[DannyInvincible]

Here's the full article - http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/britain-is-the-authentic-nation-in-this-battle-vnf0c8nhx?t=ie

Thanks for that.

She appears to confuse statehood and nationhood/nationality.

On the non-applicability of use of the loaded, incendiary, "anachronistic and frankly revanchist" (http://ansionnachfionn.com/2015/12/29/majority-of-irish-dna-may-have-originated-in-the-middle-east-and-eastern-europe/) term "British Isles" when referring to Ireland - which the Irish government advises against (https://web.archive.org/web/20140923150930/http://www.oireachtas-debates.gov.ie/D/0606/D.0606.200509280360.html) and which the British government correspondingly avoids (https://web.archive.org/web/20050305223723/http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/2003/12/13/story496138962.asp) - I wrote (https://danieldcollins.wordpress.com/2016/01/12/the-fuss-over-inviting-the-ireland-football-team-to-belfast-a-problem-of-trust-and-respect/) the following a while back:


Ireland is not a British isle politically, nor is it part of Britain (also referred to as Great Britain, of course) geographically. Neither is it a possession of Britain. Incidentally, the use of the prefix “Great” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Britain#Derivation_of_.22Great.22) before “Britain” distinguishes Great Britain, otherwise known in Latin as Britannia major, not from Ireland – as is sometimes incorrectly assumed – but from Britannia minor, which translates as “Lesser Britain” and approximates to the modern-day Celtic region of Brittany in north-west France.

Furthermore, Ireland’s predominant lingua-cultural history is Goidelic, or Gaelic; Ireland has never been culturally Brittonic, from where the name of Britain is derived on account of Common Brittonic (which later evolved into the various Brittonic languages) having been widely spoken there by the people who inhabited it, the Britons. The Goidelic and Brittonic lingual branches are indeed both Celtic in origin, but they are understood to have evolved separately and simultaneously on either side of the Irish Sea, in Ireland and Britain respectively, from a common Insular Celtic predecessor.

The contemporary incarnation of the term “British”, latterly misappropriated by the non-Brittonic English crown, only ever came to be applied (inappropriately) over Ireland in the late sixteenth century (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Isles_naming_dispute#cite_note-34) by the crown (and by force) in tandem with, or in attempted justification of, the latter’s politico-military conquests (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tudor_conquest_of_Ireland) and activities (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cromwellian_conquest_of_Ireland); exploits that impacted severely upon the Irish people, landowners and native aristocracy. The term’s connotations are thus unavoidably political. Indeed, Welsh nationalist Gwynfor Evans once described Britishness as “a political synonym for Englishness which extends English culture over the Scots, the Welsh, and the Irish”.

[Wolfman]

I see no-one picked up on the result of that poll above...

[DannyInvincible]

I see no-one picked up on the result of that poll above...

Ah, I'm not sure how much significance you can take from the results of polls where the samples are self-selecting as opposed to those that are conducted with random samples or using a cross-section that is as proportionate as possible to existing and relevant societal demographics.

[DannyInvincible]

Belfast's Siobhan Fenton (https://twitter.com/siobhanfenton), writing in the UK's Independent, believes unity is now an inevitably: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/northern-ireland-stormont-crisis-sinn-fein-dup-united-ireland-credible-inevitable-a7615756.html


Growing up in Belfast at the tail end of the Troubles, the so called “Irish question” always seemed a hypothetical one. The Good Friday Agreement was seen as answering the question of whether the island of Ireland could be reunited once and for all, establishing as it did that Northern Ireland would only rejoin the South if a majority of citizens voted in a referendum or plebiscite for the option. With nationalists being demographically subordinate in Stormont, the simple mathematics meant it would never happen.

Reunification was a position which I always considered somewhat fanciful; a naive sentiment which was expressed in republican pockets in Belfast and Derry, meriting few serious contingency plans.

But Ireland now looks set to join the roster of political shocks and upsets we have seen rippling across the world. Here's a sentence I never thought I’d utter: for the first time in my lifetime, a united Ireland is now credible – and perhaps inevitable.

Last week, a shock election saw unionists lose their majority in the Northern Irish parliament for the first time. Sinn Fein, once a hardline republican party considered the political wing of the terrorist Irish Republican Army, is now just one seat short of being Stormont’s largest party, with 27 seats to the Democratic Unionist Party’s 28 seats.

In the Republic of Ireland, a recent poll found 65 per cent of people would back a united Ireland in a referendum. Across the South, student unions have passed or proposed motions backing reunification. In a sign that the issue is not just a flash in the pan, or the exaggerated opinions of a few vocal activists, the Irish Taoiseach Enda Kenny has announced that the UK’s Brexit plans must include a contingency plan for a united Ireland.

So how did we get to this point? A perfect storm has been brewing for years, with decades of anti-Tory sentiment (and more recently anti-Brexit angst) and unionist incompetence all making reunification more attractive. This Conservative Government, under both Theresa May and David Cameron, has turned a blind eye to politics in Northern Ireland. This was epitomised in the Brexit campaign, during which Northern Ireland was scarcely mentioned despite being the only part of the UK which shares a land border with another EU country. The Leave campaign also appeared to have no knowledge of or interest in what would happen to the border between North and South of Ireland should the referendum result go their way.

...

[Gather round]

I've met Melanie Phillips a few times through work. Quite mild-mannered, unlike her Question Time/ Moral Maze persona. As Osarusan says, she's largely a media troll nowadays.

I see Siobhan Fenton doesn't offer much actual evidence for the inevitable UI. She could have usefully quoted the poll below or at least looked forward to a similar exercise post-Brexit.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-34725746

PS I've noticed the term British Isles being used more often in recent years, including by people hardly sympathetic to Ulster Unionism or right-wing Conservative politics.

[BonnieShels]

I've met Melanie Phillips a few times through work. Quite mild-mannered, unlike her Question Time/ Moral Maze persona. As Osarusan says, she's largely a media troll nowadays.

I see Siobhan Fenton doesn't offer much actual evidence for the inevitable UI. She could have usefully quoted the poll below or at least looked forward to a similar exercise post-Brexit.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-34725746

PS I've noticed the term British Isles being used more often in recent years, including by people hardly sympathetic to Ulster Unionism or right-wing Conservative politics.

There is no evidence for an inevitable UI.

Fenton's piece is an opinion piece. She "feels" that it is more likely now than ever before.

Re that November 2015 opinion poll, it leads with a strange question and I dismissed it out of hand as a result.

The only question worth asking is "Do you want a United Ireland?", not something with qualifiers appended to it to make its uit some sort of narrative like "Ireland Thinks" from a few days ago.

Would you not take on board the spurious journal.ie poll from a few days ago?

A clear majority want reunification. Every party in the South has some positive policy on it. Stop living in cloud cuckoo land telling us that in fact we don't want it!


AS an aside:

Even the GFA mentions this majority within Article 1:


The two Governments:
(i) recognise the legitimacy of whatever choice is freely exercised by a majority of the people
of Northern Ireland with regard to its status, whether they prefer to continue to support the
Union with Great Britain or a sovereign united Ireland;

(ii) recognise that it is for the people of the island of Ireland alone, by agreement between the
two parts respectively and without external impediment, to exercise their right of self-determination
on the basis of consent, freely and concurrently given, North and South, to
bring about a united Ireland, if that is their wish, accepting that this right must be achieved
and exercised with and subject to the agreement and consent of a majority of the people of
Northern Ireland;

(iii) acknowledge that while a substantial section of the people in Northern Ireland share the
legitimate wish of a majority of the people of the island of Ireland for a united Ireland, the
present wish of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland, freely exercised and legitimate, is
to maintain the Union and accordingly, that Northern Ireland’s status as part of the United
Kingdom reflects and relies upon that wish; and that it would be wrong to make any change in
the status of Northern Ireland save with the consent of a majority of its people;

(iv) affirm that, if in the future, the people of the island of Ireland exercise their right of self-determination
on the basis set out in sections (i) and (ii) above to bring about a united Ireland,
it will be a binding obligation on both Governments to introduce and support in their respective
Parliaments legislation to give effect to that wish;

(v) affirm that whatever choice is freely exercised by a majority of the people of Northern
Ireland, the power of the sovereign government with jurisdiction there shall be exercised with
rigorous impartiality on behalf of all the people in the diversity of their identities and traditions
and shall be founded on the principles of full respect for, and equality of, civil, political, social
and cultural rights, of freedom from discrimination for all citizens, and of parity of esteem and
of just and equal treatment for the identity, ethos and aspirations of both communities;

(vi) recognise the birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves and be
accepted as Irish or British, or both, as they may so choose, and accordingly confirm that their
right to hold both British and Irish citizenship is accepted by both Governments and would not
be affected by any future change in the status of Northern Ireland.

[Wolfman]

A poll from two years ago, pre-Brexit? About as much use as a chocolate teapot. Or perhaps big Arlene...

On the basis of advice to his constituents over the last six months, presumably I.Paisley Junior would disagree!

As for the 'British Isles', a generic term made up by the Brits for use in the English language, so what?

[Gather round]

Bonita- all I'm telling you is what every Government in the South (backed by public opinion) has done for 90 years. If you prefer to read too much into a few simplistic polls while dismissing the more detailed ones, go ahead.

Wolfie- had you read/ understood to the end of my last post, you'd have seen me suggest an update to the November 2015 poll.

Do better.

[DannyInvincible]

I've met Melanie Phillips a few times through work. Quite mild-mannered, unlike her Question Time/ Moral Maze persona. As Osarusan says, she's largely a media troll nowadays.

I see Siobhan Fenton doesn't offer much actual evidence for the inevitable UI. She could have usefully quoted the poll below or at least looked forward to a similar exercise post-Brexit.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-34725746

Brexit is a game-changer. Surveys conducted in November of 2015 - prior to the Brexit referendum - aren't worth a huge deal in the present context (if they could be entirely relied upon anyway) insofar as they don't take account of what is, or will be, a massive material change for people economically, politically, socially and psychologically.

I envisage Tory policies and cuts, which (will) lead directly to further neglect of and hardship for people in the north of Ireland, also influencing a change in mindset amongst the northern population in favour of a preferable alternative - Irish unity perhaps - and I think you have acknowledged this yourself. The Tories are in the process of dismantling the NHS, for example; that's usually the main card that those content with remaining in union with Britain cling on to. Tory policies and cuts are bound to increasingly alienate even unionists.

Support for unity is on the rise in the north, as reported in this Irish Times piece from last September, and that's even before Article 50 has been triggered or Brexit has been put into effect: http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/sharp-rise-in-support-for-united-ireland-survey-reveals-1.2784882


There has been a significant statistical increase in support for a united Ireland among people in the North, according to a new survey conducted by Ipsos Mori.

The face-to-face survey of more than 1,000 people carried out across Northern Ireland on behalf of BBC political programme The View, between August 16th and September 2nd, indicates a five-point increase in support for a United Ireland (22 per cent), from 17 per cent in 2013 . This is regarded as a significant change.

More than four out of 10 people with a Catholic background (43 per cent) would back a United Ireland, up from 35 per cent in 2013, an increase regarded as statistically significant.

Sinn Féin's recent electoral surge (combined with the fact that the SDLP maintained their ground) must surely also be indicative of the reality that a growing number of nationalists are less content with present arrangements.

Anecdotally, Brexit has also angered and alienated many of my (northern nationalist) friends who might have been previously-indifferent to the unity question. Since the referendum, they've been more open to the idea of Irish unity with some saying they would now prefer it to the 'status quo'. I think this change is reflective of a broader turning tide. Unity is at least been taken seriously as an option now; previously, many content nationalists just saw it as a romantic pipe-dream rather than as a serious proposition.


PS I've noticed the term British Isles being used more often in recent years, including by people hardly sympathetic to Ulster Unionism or right-wing Conservative politics.

I thought its general use was waning, but perhaps I'm mistaken. Any specific examples of people who aren't sympathetic to unionism or Conservatism using it? Who are you referring to exactly?

[BonnieShels]

Bonita- all I'm telling you is what every Government in the South (backed by public opinion) has done for 90 years. If you prefer to read too much into a few simplistic polls while dismissing the more detailed ones, go ahead.

Wolfie- had you read/ understood to the end of my last post, you'd have seen me suggest an update to the November 2015 poll.

Do better.

I'm ignoring all polls though, because they fail to ever ask a simple question and invariably contains some sort of extraneous qualifier that suits the person who commissioned the poll. Until a poll is commissioned asking "Do you want a united Ireland?" and nothing else and is of a standard that can be trusted then there is little point in discussing them.

[Wolfman]

Bonita- all I'm telling you is what every Government in the South (backed by public opinion) has done for 90 years. If you prefer to read too much into a few simplistic polls while dismissing the more detailed ones, go ahead.
You mean Dublin? And even you must have noticed times have changed?


Wolfie- had you read/ understood to the end of my last post, you'd have seen me suggest an update to the November 2015 poll.

Do better.

Plus you're contradicting yourself;On the one hand you suggest polls are 'simplistic', on the other that we should take notice of a notional update to one from 16 months ago, pre-Brexit.
Hmm.

As you said yourself, Do better.

[Wolfman]

Ah, I'm not sure how much significance you can take from the results of polls where the samples are self-selecting as opposed to those that are conducted with random samples or using a cross-section that is as proportionate as possible to existing and relevant societal demographics.

Clearly you've never been engaged in conducting opinion polls!
Though most claim they do, the majority don't as certain demographic/minority groups are difficult to reach or don't give honest answers, beyond perhaps exit polls. Plus there's too many leading/ambiguous questions.
Hence the general unreliability of opinion polls over a good part of the last decade.

[Gather round]

I thought [British Isles] general use was waning, but perhaps I'm mistaken. Any specific examples of people who aren't sympathetic to unionism or Conservatism using it? Who are you referring to exactly?

I should have prefaced it as anecdotage, as it's a mix of personal conversations (one guy often mentions BI and the 'North of Ireland' in the same conversation :laugh:) and passing references in the more 'progressive' media over here (BBC, Guardian, Independent). It may be a reflection of what's in the less progressive media, of course.

[Wolfman]

Don't bother, more guff.

[DannyInvincible]

Clearly you've never been engaged in conducting opinion polls!
Though most claim they do, the majority don't as certain demographic/minority groups are difficult to reach or don't give honest answers, beyond perhaps exit polls. Plus there's too many leading/ambiguous questions.
Hence the general unreliability of opinion polls over a good part of the last decade.

Ha, what you say may well be true - I'm not necessarily disputing it (as all types of surveys and opinion polls can certainly prove unreliable) - but self-selecting samples are inevitably going to skew impressions/results even more so than surveys that at least attempt some sort of balance/control, surely?

[Wolfman]

In theory yes, but the problem is the latter are becoming harder and harder to achieve.

In terms of relative efficiency the Journal one is probably as 'useful' as the BBC one, in identifying broad trends or profound fluctuations to 'the norm', nothing else.
Know someone who works with political 'big data' and they bored me senseless with all this stuff.

[backstothewall]

I've never had a problem with the use of the phrase "British Isles". For me it doesn't imply ownership any more than Canada being in North America implies ownership by the USA, or than them being in the Malay Archipelago implies that Malaysia owns Indonesia or the Philippines.

If some daft journalist writing for a Murdoch rag in England has a chip on her shoulder that's her problem. For me it's a convenient geographical term to describes these islands. It isn't worth foregoing the utility of that to make a political point that is lost on the rest of the world anyway.

[DannyInvincible]

Martina Devlin is urging people to get their thinking caps on for a united Ireland.

'Bring in the deal-makers, it's time to knuckle down... the case for Irish reunification is overwhelming': http://www.independent.ie/business/brexit/martina-devlin-bring-in-the-dealmakers-its-time-to-knuckle-down-the-case-for-irish-reunification-is-overwhelming-35504764.html


Bring on the deal-makers. Time to knuckle down to business. To set Stormont functioning again? That, too, but there are more pressing matters to address than a provincial parliament in Belfast - another strand of discussion needs to be opened.

The end of partition: that's what is crying out to be negotiated. Theresa May is due to trigger Article 50 within weeks, bouncing a reluctant Northern Ireland out of the EU. That timetable means serious horse-trading has to start now, shaping Ireland's future in a post-Brexit world.

The Border has to go. The case for Irish reunification is overwhelming - over time, the two parts of this island will be more prosperous together than apart. Politicians from Ireland, north and south, from Britain and the EU need to sit around a table and agree a financial plan and outline for how a post-Brexit united Ireland would function.

...

A united Ireland is the clearest way to minimise the fallout from Brexit, provided it can be handled sensitively and a carefully plotted, long-term approach taken. The economic case is compelling. But within the new framework there must be solid guarantees for the Unionist culture. Above all, the Republic needs to be genuinely welcoming and embrace inclusivity for Unionists.

Last week's Northern election result does not show a more polarised society. It is evidence of an outward rather than inward-looking population, angled towards Europe rather than Britain. The majority voted for parties in favour of remaining in the EU. The DUP, which lost significant ground, is out of step with an electorate which understands its economy will be shredded by Brexit.

Various political parties from Dublin and Belfast have engaged in dialogue with British representatives about soft borders, free movement of people and e-customs. But those are sticking-plaster solutions. There is no upside for Northern Ireland from Brexit. As for the Republic, it will be negatively affected if its nearest neighbour is forced out of the EU because it would hamper north-south trade and the all-island economy.

A united Ireland would be stronger in the long run. However, challenges lie ahead, especially during the transition period.

Discussion needs to begin on how to stimulate economic growth, provide services, run education programmes and foster social cohesion. Also how to finance reunification.

An economic stimulus package needs to be put in place and Britain would have a responsibility to contribute. But, however expensive, there would be an end in sight. The EU would have financial obligations, too. Perhaps Irish-American well-wishers might also put their hands in their pockets. The financial support package would need to cover at least one decade and possibly two, with a variety of targets including reorientating the entire business culture in the North.

The region was once Ireland's industrial powerhouse but has been reduced to reliance on British subvention - some £10bn (€11.5bn) a year. Investment is essential to boost the weak Northern private sector where entrepreneurs are thin on the ground. But there is a lower cost base north of the Border, so the lack of an entrepreneurial culture is fixable via supports to investors and by offering training and financial supports to start-ups in a transitioning economy.

Germany should be able to offer advice, having taken on its own reunification project.

Northern Unionists and Nationalists will need reassurance that their incomes will be protected in an all-Ireland economy within Europe - rather than exposed to risk in a Brexit-Britain which doesn't value the sons (or daughters) of Ulster.

Unionists must be persuaded, too, about the benefits of an enhanced ethnic status in the Republic.

Sustained outreach will have to take place, guaranteeing that their voices will be heard and respected, as will their traditions.

A key message to advance is that the Republic has changed, and the Catholic Church's role in Irish society has diminished greatly. Steps, finally, to separate Church and State must take place.

Unionists and Northern Nationalists alike may be nervous at the loss of benefits emanating from Britain, especially the health service. Again, these anxieties can be addressed. Britain's health service is no longer the shining example it was once. One positive message to put forward is that social welfare is higher in the Republic, and Northern benefits would have to rise in tandem after reunification. That carries further financial implications but it may be an inducement.

...

The DUP is arguing from a weak position in seeking to retain a Border which poses severe economic problems. Meanwhile, there are moderate Unionists who could be convinced about the benefits from reunification. Some of them realise the British have no interest in Northern Ireland and, after all, why be loyal to a government which feels no loyalty in return?

Much work needs to take place before plebiscites north and south can be called. Rather than foist imperfect solutions on the unwilling, let's make haste slowly and get this right. Wouldn't it be something if Nationalist and Unionist labels became historic footnotes?

[DannyInvincible]

I've never had a problem with the use of the phrase "British Isles". For me it doesn't imply ownership any more than Canada being in North America implies ownership by the USA, or than them being in the Malay Archipelago implies that Malaysia owns Indonesia or the Philippines.

If some daft journalist writing for a Murdoch rag in England has a chip on her shoulder that's her problem. For me it's a convenient geographical term to describes these islands. It isn't worth foregoing the utility of that to make a political point that is lost on the rest of the world anyway.

Do you regard Ireland as British though?

If you do, how come? If not (and I'd assume you don't), then isn't it the case that you're just going along with or conforming to the use of a misnomer in order to appease or not inconvenience the imperious, the mistaken and the misled?

It's not even necessarily that it offends or insults (although it has the potential to be used in such a manner too); it's more so that I just don't consider it remotely factual.

[DannyInvincible]

A fascinating map showing how Europe might look if every secessionist, separatist or independence movement on the continent succeeded or had succeeded:

http://68.media.tumblr.com/15d5b515e0bfae8ece280648741f542b/tumblr_oma309jIE41rasnq9o1_1280.jpg

I note it has Ireland's capital down as Athlone, a reference to the old Éire Nua policy (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Éire_Nua) adopted by Sinn Féin during the 1970s and early 1980s. This remains a policy of some "dissident" republican groups.