Eligibility Rules, Okay

[ArdeeBhoy]

It doesn't

It does. And besides a maintenance of the status quo, don't see any original reasoning why it didn't or shouldn't.
Besides ceding originally to the wishes of a belligerent minority.

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.

Since when did colonialism take into account the views of different factions, except perhaps in modern times.
Certainly not nearly a century ago.

You clearly don't understand what gerrymander means, so I'll not labour the point.

Except I do. You just don't agree with me.

Are you suggesting that any border within Ireland was/ is hypocritical, or just the route confirmed in 1925 and applying since?

Pretty much, when compared with other colonial territories before or since.
Hence, even the existence of the FAI and other associated debates!

* 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.

Agreed, but the notional reduced North is highly unlikely to happen (as mainstream Unionists/Nationalists wouldn't agree) and doubtless people would move if it did, to be on their 'right' preferred side.

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.

It is, because Britain can't afford the North now (& doesn't really want) it. That said, neither can Dublin which is in an even more precarious financial state.

[DannyInvincible]

(And a few others from my side of the border too!)

Who would those righteous contributors be?

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.

Not quite. The position of ultimate bargaining power in which unionists, with British backing, found themselves limited the Free State in what it could realistically demand from any negotiations. Whatever about the governing morality of the scenario, the Free State was, frankly, in no position politically, economically or militarily to be demanding anything from a global empire/superpower. Ideally, the Free State would have accepted the entire six counties - if rhetoric and later constitutional aspirations are to be taken at face value - but such an offer obviously wasn't on the table. Submission to what unionists/Britain were prepared to offer was the only viable alternative, if anything at all was to be achieved from the negotiations. Naturally, relinquishing Free State territory could never have satisfied an expectant and idealistic Irish public who believed wholeheartedly in their nation's moral claim to a territory perceived as rightfully their own and of their northern countrymen.

My understanding is that the Free State government was embarrassed by the public revelation that it was considering relinquishing Free State territory in return for territory from the northern side of the border. However, faced with potentially outraging the southern electorate, primarily as a practical consequence of the reality of their inferior bargaining position rather than any lack of idealistic or theoretical will to subsume NI (or as much of it as possible) into what was then the Free State, they fudged the whole thing altogether, lest it would make matters worse for them. Redrawing the boundary was a pragmatically-difficult balancing act between unionist/British power and the demands of the Free State electorate that the Free State government clearly found impossible to manage.

No, the two aspirations cover the same principle- that there should be a mutually agreed border between the British and Irish states.

I don't see this to be the case. One maintains a mutually-agreed border, be that temporarily or permanently, whilst the other seeks to abolish that border completely, either through coercion or consent. Neither is necessarily dependent upon or related to the other.*

I believe in a united Ireland and I'd like to think unionists could also be democratically convinced of its merits rather than forcing them into a new all-island state against their will. That would be a preference; we are where we are, whatever about the notion of "the sins of their fathers" - contemporarily irrelevant, as far as I'm concerned - and all that sort of thought. So, I don't necessarily agree that there should be a border; ideally, there wouldn't be one.

However, for the meantime, if a redrawing of the border was on the cards, I may well consider it seriously and support it if it appeased a greater number of people currently living in the north and I felt it didn't significantly diminish the chances of uniting the island. Would I accept any hypothetical relinquishing of east Donegal's Laggan district, however? I might well have to, begrudgingly, if I'm to be morally consistent. Does that mean I support a mutually-agreed border? I don't think so; "support", "espouse" or "advocate" would all give the wrong impression. My position is the reconciliation of my nationalist/republican ideals with a pragmatic and necessary acceptance or tolerance - even if reluctant - of an undesired reality for the simple reason that, in tandem with the paramount nature of my aforementioned principles on a personal level, respecting the rights of others is also something I hold in high regard. This naturally demands a willingness to entertain the notion of compromise. Is that hypocritical? Are such thoughts incompatible? Is this dishonest of me in some way? I don't necessarily see how. It's simply a case of recognising a reality and not wanting to trample over other people and their beliefs/aspirations with my personal views.

The practical argument is whether it should run

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?

Presumably.

Not if you clarify that a border within Ireland is best in principle and that we're merely negotiating the practical details.

See above.

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.

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.

Let me think wishfully again for a moment.

Let's say Britain back then had followed through on the sentiment of indifference expressed pretty succinctly in latter years by Peter Brooke when he asserted that his country had no "selfish strategic or economic interest" in the north of Ireland and scarpered to escape the hassle... How would unionists have reacted once it became obvious that the threat of violence wasn't going to command continued British backing? Faced with the impracticality of the northern statelet going it alone, would they have had any other option but to consider Irish unity as being viable and worthwhile? (Assuming Dublin was genuinely interested in unity also.) Under what circumstances might a unionist ever support a united Ireland, if any?

*Edit: Just realising I might have misinterpreted you. By "mutually-agreed border" I thought you were referring to a maintenance of partition, but, of course, option (c) from your choices listed above could be a mutually-agreed border that would see partition abolished. When I've referred to the/a "border" above, it's most likely I had the notion of partition in mind. So, to clarify, I think the two aspirations are distinct in that one maintains a partitioned island - although that could be on a provisional basis - whilst the other seeks to rid the island of its territorial divide.

[third policeman]

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.

I shouldn't really rise to this kind of nonesense, but isn't there a slight contradiction in this argument? If minorities have an absolute right to self-determination then the Nationalist minority in the self-defined territory of Northern Ireland must have a similar right. And the unionist minority within any nationalist enclave that might break-away from NI would logicallly have exactly the same absolute right. We are heading here towards the Higgs Boson particle of self-determination where every citizen of Ireland has the right to proclaim their allegiance to whichever state they prefer.

It's interesting that no-one is suggesting that if, in the event of a yes vote in the Scottish referendum, there is a Unionist majority in say the Borders or Perthshire that Scotland should be partitioned?

[Charlie Darwin]

I shouldn't really rise to this kind of nonesense, but isn't there a slight contradiction in this argument? If minorities have an absolute right to self-determination then the Nationalist minority in the self-defined territory of Northern Ireland must have a similar right. And the unionist minority within any nationalist enclave that might break-away from NI would logicallly have exactly the same absolute right. We are heading here towards the Higgs Boson particle of self-determination where every citizen of Ireland has the right to proclaim their allegiance to whichever state they prefer.

You're being a bit silly now. Nobody was suggesting self-determination be taken to its absolute logical conclusion. Any self-sustaining state would need to have a critical mass of people and the territory to govern independently - the Unionist minority in Ireland probably would fit the bill, but any enclave within that would be too small.

[DannyInvincible]

You're being a bit silly now. Nobody was suggesting self-determination be taken to its absolute logical conclusion. Any self-sustaining state would need to have a critical mass of people and the territory to govern independently - the Unionist minority in Ireland probably would fit the bill, but any enclave within that would be too small.

Still an interesting thought; where ought the line be drawn? Evidently, where the line was drawn upon partition wasn't optimal as it eventually led to decades of sectarian conflict. Are you suggesting alternatives were not available or weren't worth considering because the unionist minority said so?

[Newryrep]

It's interesting that no-one is suggesting that if, in the event of a yes vote in the Scottish referendum, there is a Unionist majority in say the Borders or Perthshire that Scotland should be partitioned?

In the style of a pantomime . 'Oh yes there is', John Taylor for one laughable but he was beiong serious

[third policeman]

In the style of a pantomime . 'Oh yes there is', John Taylor for one laughable but he was beiong serious

I guess he'd have to, which shows you can be consistent and mad.

[third policeman]

Like The Falklands with a permanent population of less than 2,000 people? GR was not suggesting that sustainability was a relevant condition, but was justifying partition purely on the basis of self-determination. Of course NI was based on a rather cynical calculation about sustainability or viability. How much territory could be carved out without jeopardizing Unionist hegemony. Interestingly the Nationalist majority west of the Bann would not be an enclave but a contiguous part of ROI. I am not actually a militant nationalist by any stretch of the imagination, but just object to the spurious self-determination claptrap being trotted out by people who use it very very selectively.

[DannyInvincible]

Agree with the general sentiment of your post, but what's the direct relevance of the Falklands? There is no minority community in the Falklands who aspire to see the islands subsumed by Argentina. Only three people voted against the Falklands remaining as a British overseas territory in the referendum there last month. Whatever about the islanders being the descendants of a British planted community, the islands are undeniably their home; they were born there, they've grown up there, they've lived all their lives there and I think Argentina ought to consider their wishes, irrespective of the merits of the Argentinian territorial claim. As the old saying goes, you can't punish sons for the "sins" of their fathers. They might as well be considered natives now.

[Charlie Darwin]

Still an interesting thought; where ought the line be drawn? Evidently, where the line was drawn upon partition wasn't optimal as it eventually led to decades of sectarian conflict. Are you suggesting alternatives were not available or weren't worth considering because the unionist minority said so?

I didn't really say anything. The border that was settled on was clearly sub-optimal, but as GR pointed out, the governments south of the border weren't prepared to pursue a redraw unless it was completely on their own terms. In that sense, I suppose there were no alternatives.

Like The Falklands with a permanent population of less than 2,000 people? GR was not suggesting that sustainability was a relevant condition, but was justifying partition purely on the basis of self-determination. Of course NI was based on a rather cynical calculation about sustainability or viability. How much territory could be carved out without jeopardizing Unionist hegemony. Interestingly the Nationalist majority west of the Bann would not be an enclave but a contiguous part of ROI. I am not actually a militant nationalist by any stretch of the imagination, but just object to the spurious self-determination claptrap being trotted out by people who use it very very selectively.

I'm not going to speak on behalf of GR any more than I already have, but from what I've read he's just saying that Irish nationalism's commitment to a united Ireland on the grounds of self-determination is somewhat dichotomous. Which it is. He used the word hypocritical, I wouldn't be so hasty

Again, without wishing to speak for him, there's nothing in his posts to suggest he believes self-determination should be brought to its absolute logical conclusion.

Agree with the general sentiment of your post, but what's the direct relevance of the Falklands? There is no minority community in the Falklands who aspire to see the islands subsumed by Argentina. Only three people voted against the Falklands remaining as a British overseas territory in the referendum there last month. Whatever about the islanders being the descendants of a British planted community, the islands are undeniably their home; they were born there, they've grown up there, they've lived all their lives there and I think Argentina ought to consider their wishes, irrespective of the merits of the Argentinian territorial claim. As the old saying goes, you can't punish sons for the "sins" of their fathers. They might as well be considered natives now.

The Falklands isn't a good example. It's a military base with permanent residents, many of whom were born there. It's proof that if you ship a few thousand British people to an island, give them jobs and loads of free money, they'll gladly call you daddy in exchange for more of the same.

[ArdeeBhoy]

Tbf to GR, having known him for many years, he is a diehard unionist. Especially when it comes to the North's football team.
So you're really ever only going to get ever one outlook in that respect.

That said, he does dismiss most religious 'maniacs', including those on his 'own' side...

[Gather round]

the Free State was, frankly, in no position politically, economically or militarily to be demanding anything from a global empire/superpower

Even though it had just fought a largely successful war of independence against an already exhausted Britain?

Ideally, the Free State would have accepted the entire six counties - if rhetoric and later constitutional aspirations are to be taken at face value - but such an offer obviously wasn't on the table. Submission to what unionists/Britain were prepared to offer was the only viable alternative, if anything at all was to be achieved from the negotiations. Naturally, relinquishing Free State territory could never have satisfied an expectant and idealistic Irish public who believed wholeheartedly in their nation's moral claim to a territory perceived as rightfully their own and of their northern countrymen

First, the rhetoric can't be taken at face value, but that's a criticism not of William Cosgrave, but of Liam and the other successors. Sins of the Son, to invert your own reference above?

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?

I 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.

My understanding is that the Free State government was embarrassed by the public revelation that it was considering relinquishing Free State territory in return for territory from the northern side of the border

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?

I believe in a united Ireland and I'd like to think unionists could also be democratically convinced of its merits rather than forcing them into a new all-island state against their will

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?

Would I accept any hypothetical relinquishing of east Donegal's Laggan district, however? I might well have to, begrudgingly, if I'm to be morally consistent. Does that mean I support a mutually-agreed border? I don't think so; "support", "espouse" or "advocate" would all give the wrong impression

If you hypothetically support redrawing the border, does it really matter what euphemism is used?

[Gather round]

My position is the reconciliation of my nationalist/republican ideals with a pragmatic and necessary acceptance or tolerance - even if reluctant - of an undesired reality for the simple reason that, in tandem with the paramount nature of my aforementioned principles on a personal level, respecting the rights of others is also something I hold in high regard

Correct me if wrong, but isn't your first principle that there should be a united Ireland, with self-determination generally, including for Ulster unionists, very much second to that? Which is basically a foundation myth, and not even a practical attempt to maximise the number of Irish nationalists within the Irish state. Nationalist parties in places like East Belfast or North Down get less than 5% of the vote: they'd likely do better than that targetting candidates in Glasgow, Manchester, Birmingham or London.

This naturally demands a willingness to entertain the notion of compromise. Is that hypocritical?

No, the hypocrisy is insisting on a united Ireland while doing nothing to take small steps toward it. Whereas you've accepted the need to take those steps above

Let's say Britain back then had followed through on the sentiment of indifference expressed pretty succinctly in latter years by Peter Brooke when he asserted that his country had no "selfish strategic or economic interest" in the north of Ireland and scarpered to escape the hassle...

You say succinct, I say statement of the obvious. Northern Ireland is a low population region of a country whose economy is hugely centralised and dependent on financial services in the City of London. Brooke could have similarly dismissed most of Scotland, Wales and even England. And in foreseeable future wars, submarine bases off the Giant's Causeway probably won't be relevant.

Put another way, British government indifference has been established and obvious for decades. NI's status remains largely unchanged because arms-length indifference is easier than the inevitable hassle that would precede and follow a united Ireland.

How would unionists have reacted once it became obvious that the threat of violence wasn't going to command continued British backing? Faced with the impracticality of the northern statelet going it alone, would they have had any other option but to consider Irish unity as being viable and worthwhile?

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.

(Assuming Dublin was genuinely interested in unity also)

Assuming you were being serious above, Dublin would surely still have been cowed by Unionist military and militias, even if the London government washed its hands of them. So in this hypothetical situation, other alternatives to a united Ireland would have been feasible. You're still struggling to move on from that foundation myth

Under what circumstances might a unionist ever support a united Ireland, if any?

Have you considered rejoining the motherland?

[Gather round]

I shouldn't really rise to this kind of nonesense, but isn't there a slight contradiction in this argument?

Morning Constable, good to have you on-thread even if it doesn't meet your exacting intellectual standards

Read recent posts a bit more carefully and you'll see that not only did I not claim that self-determination was absolute, but specifically addressed the issue of Nationalist enclaves (Glens of Antrim, West Belfast). The first is too small and sparsely populated, so would lose out; the second would pose a real problem. I address it, you ignore. Do better.

GR was not suggesting that sustainability was a relevant condition, but was justifying partition purely on the basis of self-determination. Of course NI was based on a rather cynical calculation about sustainability or viability. How much territory could be carved out without jeopardizing Unionist hegemony. Interestingly the Nationalist majority west of the Bann would not be an enclave but a contiguous part of ROI. I am not actually a militant nationalist by any stretch of the imagination, but just object to the spurious self-determination claptrap being trotted out by people who use it very very selectively

Do you actually bother to read anything anyone else says? Again, I specifically addressed 'sustainability' above. NI didn't and doesn't need to be sustainable as an independent country, because it's never been one. It does need to have a suburban and rural hinterland, as I said, to allow enough space for housing, employment, agriculture and the like.

I suggested most of the West of the Bann area could be your side of a redrawn border, exceptions being East Derry and North Armagh.

I accept your Nationalism isn't militant. But it is unimaginative, lazy and dismissive.

It's interesting that no-one is suggesting that if, in the event of a yes vote in the Scottish referendum, there is a Unionist majority in say the Borders or Perthshire that Scotland should be partitioned?

It's easily explained. The SNP can't contradict their foundation myth, the Unionist camp are confident they're going to win the referendum, there isn't a large, localised minority as in Northern Ireland.

Still an interesting thought; where ought the line be drawn? Evidently, where the line was drawn upon partition wasn't optimal as it eventually led to decades of sectarian conflict. Are you suggesting alternatives were not available or weren't worth considering because the unionist minority said so?

I suggested an optimal line which you seemed to be agreeing had more democratic legitimacy than a couple of other alternatives offered?

The 1925 line was unreasonable because it contradicted how people voted locally, not primarily because violence followed. Wars often begin for reasons other than disputed borders, indeed if the border was almost universally agreed beforehand.

I'm not going to speak on behalf of GR any more than I already have, but from what I've read he's just saying that Irish nationalism's commitment to a united Ireland on the grounds of self-determination is somewhat dichotomous. Which it is. He used the word hypocritical, I wouldn't be so hasty

You've summed up by broad point quite fairly. Describing the attitude to border redraw as hypocritical is hardly hasty or ill-thought when it's been evident for about 90 years

The Falklands isn't a good example. It's a military base with permanent residents, many of whom were born there. It's proof that if you ship a few thousand British people to an island, give them jobs and loads of free money, they'll gladly call you daddy in exchange for more of the same

True, but despite the small size you shouldn't discount that (as they see it) they're honoring their family traditions, as well as enjoying a big welfare check from London.

Or put another way, the principle in the Falklands is not 'possession as 99% of the law' but 'possession is what 99% of the population have wanted for 99 years and more'.

Tbf to GR, having known him for many years, he is a diehard unionist. Especially when it comes to the North's football team. So you're really ever only going to get ever one outlook in that respect

So diehard that I've suggested above transferring large areas of Northern Ireland to the Republic, you mean? But thanks for the compliment.

[paul_oshea]

Transfer a county ever decade. that sounds like a good idea. Particularly economically.

[ArdeeBhoy]

Except no serious Nationalist or Unionist will redraw the border GR, no matter how unequitable it is. It's an 'all or nothing' scenario. And given I know your real views, a bit disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

[Gather round]

Except no serious Nationalist or Unionist will redraw the border GR, no matter how unequitable it is. It's an 'all or nothing' scenario

Mine is a serious suggestion, based on principle and workable in practice. Of course you're right, serious elected Unionists like Peter 'Clontibret' Robinson, Nelson 'Flat Earth' McCausland and Sammy 'What climate change' Wilson don't agree with it any more than you do. So there'll be no significant change.

The scenario is quite clearly Nothing or Nothing. Most opinion in the South and much among Nationalists in NI accepts partition as it is.

And given I know your real views, a bit disingenuous to suggest otherwise

I'm not hiding my real view, it's in this post. Re-partition would be fairer and practical, but it won't happen because you (plural) don't want it to.

[ArdeeBhoy]

No, it's not yer real view. Or you've suddenly radically changed your opinion for, erm, wider 'benefit'.


And regardless of what we think, this simply isn't going to happen. Nationalists will say it's totally impractical and Unionists, unworkable.
Most opinion is more tied into economic circumstances currently anyway.

[Gather round]

No, it's not yer real view. Or you've suddenly radically changed your opinion for, erm, wider 'benefit'.

Thanks for letting me know (or not) what I think, AB.

And regardless of what we think, this simply isn't going to happen. Nationalists will say it's totally impractical

I'll ask it again. Why would it be impractical to transfer Derry, Newry and Strabane- all towns right next to or very close to the existing border, with 90% Nationalist voting electorates? And wouldn't any impracticability be magnified greatly in achieving the united Ireland that most of you seem to treat as an article of faith?

[ArdeeBhoy]

Except you've already told me differently on at least 100 previous occasions. Have you suddenly become more 'liberal' ?


Because I suspect they definitely wouldn't want it. Unless it was the whole county...
Are you really that out of touch with nationalist opinion...