QuotePretty much. Not that you'd know.
But they didn't ask.
Was that what you told the immigration control in New York and Sydney?Originally Posted by ArdeeBhoy
Pretty much. Not that you'd know.
But they didn't ask.
Last edited by ArdeeBhoy; 03/04/2013 at 1:27 PM.
Er, No.
Currently it's all down to the financial implications.
Very complicated reasons at the time, to do with the interpretation of whether the border could only be shifted northwards, to benefit the Free State (its view), or whether changes to the border could go in both directions, with the Free State benefitting anyway (the British view). A draft of the Boundary Commission report was leaked to the press showing part of Donegal going to the North; that caused conniptions in Cosgrave's government.
This gives some flavour of the political manoeuvrings behind the scenes.
http://www.difp.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=688
Edit
Re Gerrymandering, Unionist politicians were returned in constituencies with far fewer voters than Nationalists. That's a blatant Gerrymander. But the Unionist government in NI wasn't just opposed to nationalist representation. A look at the Stormont papers shows pretty quickly that it was also anti-Labour - in fact, anti anything that wasn't Tory and propertied.
Last edited by Eminence Grise; 03/04/2013 at 1:33 PM.
Hello, hello? What's going on? What's all this shouting, we'll have no trouble here!
- E Tattsyrup.
Very complicated? Hardly. How difficult is it to draw the right line around Strabane?
Which examples had you in mind?Re Gerrymandering, Unionist politicians were returned in constituencies with far fewer voters than Nationalists. That's a blatant Gerrymander
Last edited by Gather round; 03/04/2013 at 1:59 PM.
If greater accommodation had been a runner, accommodating majority-nationalist enclaves, such as west Belfast or areas of Moyle, might have required a higher degree of intricacy.
Ultimately, it seems the Free State was unwilling to sacrifice land it perceived to rightfully be its own, or at least was afraid to relinquish certain areas of territory then under its jurisdiction given the threat of potential public outrage after notes of the Boundary Commission's negotiations were leaked to an unimpressed southern public before the Commission agreed on a final settlement.Wouldn't you expect the new Free State to have negotiated with at least some confidence?
The two aspirations are mutually exclusive, no? Redrawing the border wouldn't equate to abolishing it. In fact, quite the opposite; the political integrity of any new border would surely be bolstered by greater democratic legitimacy. Anyhow, I can't speak for dishonest hypocrites, nor they for I.So, the current situation is that your politicians and wider opinion can't be bothered to argue for smaller changes to the border, yet pretend to be committed in principle to abolishing it entirely. That's a little harmful because it's hypocritical and dishonest, no?
Or are you accusing me of hypocrisy too?
Last edited by DannyInvincible; 03/04/2013 at 1:50 PM.
No, the last line refers to the usual paranoia.
We're much more relaxed;they can have the FAI for all I care. Trouble is their alternative is no better, maybe worse...
Nearly as hard as following your righteous path here! (And a few others from my side of the border too!)
Ah, these should do: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00nm4gy and http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/events/crights/pdfs/csj179.pdf.
Both from the 1960s. Is that alright?
Hello, hello? What's going on? What's all this shouting, we'll have no trouble here!
- E Tattsyrup.
I'm being pedantic here, but that isn't an example of what you said, which was, "Unionist politicians were returned in constituencies with far fewer voters than Nationalists."
The only constituency, or ward, with a Nationalist majority vote returned more Catholic politicians.
I'd guess that was Gather Round's reason for the question.
No, but the other link is.
Yes, I accept that Ballycastle or Ballymurphy would be more difficult than Derry or Newry to include in the Irish Republic. But in the first case, the population is quite small. Tough on the Glens, but them's the breaks.
As for west Belfast, they could have something similar to that motorway corridor that used to link west Berlin? I imagine we could find some US Oirish sponsor for it.
Hang on, weren't you suggesting above that the Free State government agreed the 1925 deal because they felt cowed by the British and Unionists? That's at least pretty different from- potentially the exact opposite of- throwing a strop to placate their own unrealistic public. Although as they'd just fought two wars in four years, I suppose it's understandable that they were willing to kick into the long grass.Ultimately, it seems the Free State was unwilling to sacrifice land it perceived to rightfully be its own, or at least was afraid to relinquish certain areas of territory then under its jurisdiction given the threat of potential public outrage after notes of the Boundary Commission's negotiations were leaked to an unimpressed southern public before the Commission agreed on a final settlement
No, the two aspirations cover the same principle- that there should be a mutually agreed border between the British and Irish states. The practical argument is whether it should runThe two aspirations are mutually exclusive, no? Redrawing the border wouldn't equate to abolishing it. In fact, quite the opposite; the political integrity of any new border would surely be bolstered by greater democratic legitimacy
a) across Fermanagh and Leitrim farmland, as now
b) somewhere beyond the suburban estates of Ballynahinch, Portadown and Limavady, or
c) offshore from Holyhead, Blackpool and the Mull of Kintyre.
Of the three, some variant of b) would presumably disadvantage the fewest people and thus have the greatest democratic legitimacy?
Not if you clarify that a border within Ireland is best in principle and that we're merely negotiating the practical details.Anyhow, I can't speak for dishonest hypocrites, nor they for I. Or are you accusing me of hypocrisy too?
Last edited by Gather round; 03/04/2013 at 2:54 PM.
Harsh that. I've deliberately trodden quite a straightforward path on this one
No dig at Sweet Strabane intended there btw. I was watching a profile of one of its favorite sons, country 'n' showband broadcasting star uncle Hugo Duncan on the TV the other day, Hey Boy.
Yes, they confirm the links I posted above to both gerrymandering on Derry Corporation, and wider discrimination in employment and housing summarised by academic John Whyte.Ah, these should do: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00nm4gy and http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/events/crights/pdfs/csj179.pdf.
Both from the 1960s. Is that alright?
I assumed that EG meant that the North and South wards in Derry were very different in population despite returning the same number of members to the Corporation.
Last edited by Gather round; 03/04/2013 at 3:25 PM.
I wouldn't have though most people on here would be in favour of a border on the island.
Of course, feel free to correct me of I'm wrong anybody
Folding my way into the big money!!!
Let's vote for c). In a notional Rotund world.
But it's going to be immaterial for the next 30 years.
That said, the Brits would drop it like a stone if they could.
OK Funny Boy, let's try again.
It doesn't matter that Irish nationalists are a majority in Ireland (even if you disagree with me that their claimed support for a united Ireland is largely dishonest, and thus hypocritical).
Alongside that majority, there is a large minority of unionists concentrated in Northern Ireland. If you accept that minority also has a right to self-determination, then logicallya border within the island is rational in principle, the argument in practice is where it should run. Otherwise, you get what I mentioned as tyranny of the majority, with Nationalists claiming that the entire island is the only proper electoral/ political unit, and the minority should just lump it.
NI is divided into 18 constituencies for elections to both Westminster and Stormont. In 2010's general election, 11 of them had non-Nationalist majorities. All of these in a continuous area broadly east of the River Bann. Most of the seven others are either west of the Bann or beside the border, apart from West Belfast which is surrounded by the bigger Unionist-majority area. Now imagine that the border was redrawn to include only the 12 north-eastern counties in a new NI. That area would have a notional 72-28% non-Nationalist majority, with a total poplation larger than various independent European countries, eg Montenegro, Malta and Luxembourg.
Redrawing the border within Ireland is theoretically quite straightforward. Getting the 50-55% Nationalist majority within NI which would be needed to trigger a theoretical united Ireland isn't, given factors not least century-long apathy in the South, complete failure of any attempt to entice Unionists, and economic stagnation which looks likely to last a generation or more.
Your drinking buddy John Delaney won't like that.
They didn't for 50 years from 1922; they aren't doing so now. The link being a willingness to leave it devolved at arm's length.That said, the Brits would drop it like a stone if they could
Even if you can convince that ideally they'd like to pull the plug, Dublin's unwillingness to step in is a major reason why they wouldn't.
Last edited by Gather round; 03/04/2013 at 3:57 PM.
It should...
Kind of what like happened in the North for 65 years then?Alongside that majority, there is a large minority of unionists concentrated in Northern Ireland. If you accept that minority also has a right to self-determination, then logically a border within the island is rational in principle, the argument in practice is where it should run. Otherwise, you get what I mentioned as tyranny of the majority, with Nationalists claiming that the entire island is the only proper electoral/ political unit, and the minority should just lump it.
Unlike lots of other nations, the border was entirely notional, hypocritical and entirely gerrymandered for the convenience of a unionist 'state'.
Surely 6 is enough?18 constituencies for elections to both Westminster and Stormont. In 2010's general election, 11 of them had non-Nationalist majorities. All of these in a continuous area broadly east of the River Bann. Most of the seven others are either west of the Bann or beside the border, apart from West Belfast which is surrounded by the bigger Unionist-majority area. Now imagine that the border was redrawn to include only the 12 north-eastern counties in a new NI. That area would have a notional 72-28% non-Nationalist majority, with a total poplation larger than various independent European countries, eg Montenegro, Malta and Luxembourg.
Unsure of the difference, allowing for population flow, of those geographical constituencies and those prior to partition, but doubtless Gerry Mandered put in an appearance in a good few...
We'd willingly swap.
As for the rest, now it's purely down to finance. If Britain could drop/sell/swap they would.
Lots of Eng.people want to offload Scotland, which at least has something going for it. The North hasn't.
It doesn't, and you can't offer a single sensible argument why it should.
Aye, broadly similar in principle, rather worse in practice because nearly twice as many people would find themselves on the wrong side of the border.Kind of what like happened in the North for 65 years then?
All borders are notional, because in the natural course of things you'll always get minority communities of varying size on the other side of the line, even if the actual divide is a river, mountain range or other geographical feature.Unlike lots of other nations, the border was entirely notional, hypocritical and entirely gerrymandered for the convenience of a unionist 'state'
You clearly don't understand what gerrymander means, so I'll not labour the point.
Are you suggesting that any border within Ireland was/ is hypocritical, or just the route confirmed in 1925 and applying since?
Well spotted. I should of course have said 12 constituenciesSurely 6 is enough?
Not in the way you'd think. Variously,Unsure of the difference, allowing for population flow, of those geographical constituencies and those prior to partition, but doubtless Gerry Mandered put in an appearance in a good few...
* most of the NI constituencies are roughly similar in population size
* similarly most of them are comfortably Nationalist or non-Nationalist overall, the notable exceptions being Belfast North and South
* the recent planned review to reduce seats across Britain, and equate their sizes, would have seen the loss of one current Unionist seat in Belfast, and one Nationalist in Tyrone (the review was scuppered by Nick Clegg to annoy Cameron)
* so, with the 28% vote share Nationalists might reasonably expect to win three of the current 12 seats in a smaller NI. They actually have two, including Belfast South where the non-Nationalist vote is split.
In reality, Dublin and London's attitudes to the status of NI haven't changed much since 1925, so your reliance of the current recession as an explanation of little movement on partition isn't very convincing.As for the rest, now it's purely down to finance. If Britain could drop/sell/swap they would.
Lots of Eng.people want to offload Scotland, which at least has something going for it. The North hasn't.
Indeed - the path of the righteous, as I said! It's funny how so much of what has been written here echoes so much of what was written 90 years ago. Strip away the rhetoric and pointscoring and what's left are not unreasonable arguments on both sides.Harsh that. I've deliberately trodden quite a straightforward path on this one
No dig at Sweet Strabane intended there btw. I was watching a profile of one of its favorite sons, country 'n' showband broadcasting star uncle Hugo Duncan on the TV the other day, Hey Boy.
You do know, though, that you're now solely responsible for me having Pretty Little Girl from Omagh buzzing round my head.
Hello, hello? What's going on? What's all this shouting, we'll have no trouble here!
- E Tattsyrup.
Took me a moment to get that; thanks for pointing it out. I meant "Unionist politicians were returned in constituencies with far fewer voters than Nationalist constituencies" - ie that the Unionist wards had more seats per head of population than the Nationalist wards.
Hello, hello? What's going on? What's all this shouting, we'll have no trouble here!
- E Tattsyrup.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks