United Ireland

[EireEmerald]

Alright a couple things from my side. One I agree that the British of the time had a vested interest in ing over and allowing as many Irish to die as possible, two ask around you will find I am staunchly Republican(this as a disclaimer to later things), three if you want to support your argument, using sources from Republican groups, Young Ireland, or other anti-British groups is a bad way to do it. That being said, the folks of today were not involved in the Famine, they did not fight with Cromwell, they did not create the Penal Laws. Asking people many generations removed to apologise or otherwise make amends for something long since over is not only stupid but makes the one asking look weak and undermines the very position you want to support. I realise that there are people walking around today, maybe even some on this forum, that were involved in some way with the Troubles. I was too. I already forgave them and I had a vested interest in it. You should too. The way forward for the North is not through rebellion, armed or otherwise, it is through integration with one another. If we can put all this hate, violence, and "Your grandda punched my grandda in the mouth 50 years ago" behind us we can make progress.

^^ At Super Pope: Do realise that anytime anyone brings up Irish history, United Ireland, or any other form of Republicanism, non Republican folks get very defensive. The words unite and Ireland in the same paragraph are often enough to bring rabid anti-Irish, or Nationalist Brits out in force to club down anyone who agrees even slightly.

Of course. A united Ireland can only be achieved through peaceful means. That is the only way i would want it anyway. Not one more drop of blood, on either side. I believe( and it is my own personal belief) that eventually unionists will come to an agreement with their fellow Irish men, and a united Ireland will eventually come about, that would be a beautiful day indeed. My only worry is a second troubles but I think that by the time a united Ireland comes about they will have less extreem views.

Because it is always brought up by Irish kids, or worse, Irish-Americans who no bugger all about the troubles who all go on "Britain should get out of their land, man"

You are so bloody one-sided. I am NOT anti-British. Nationalistic British people start spewing this rubbish out whenever a " United - Ireland " Topic starts. Assuming it is in some way nationalistic and pro "IRA". II don't even need to justify that I am not anti- British, I am half British, most of my friends are British and I have a keen interest in British as well as Irish history, particularily in the area of foreign relations.

Once again, you are not providing sources, A source as clearly biased as that one you keep quoting about the almighty. is not good enough. Where did this stuff in the darker text come from? I want to see actual figures for how much food was sent into and out of Ireland during the famine. If you were debating with ferrets or farnan they would have murdered your unfounded arguments

Sorry, this one gives both sides of the argument. I read most of it and it seems interesting, tell me what you think.

http://www.umbc.edu/history/CHE/Inst...al-issues.html

Here you scupper your own argument. Belgium and the Netherlands were industrial countries. Ireland was agrarian. The impact of famine was far more immediate. Less than half of Belgium's population lived on the land at the time (Hobsbawm, The Age of Capital). What was the percentage for Ireland?

That is a very good point, one which I didn't consider. I studied Belgium last year and it's tensions as well as industrial progress from coal.

[Muagan_ra]

I'm from Derry, and while it's wonderful to see so many foreigners throwing in their two-cents, the semantics of the immorality of violence and quoting figures and statistics about how many Unionists there are seems quite absurd to me.

Point number one about Ireland is that it is still not Independant. The Irish Republic is not Ireland, it's as artificial as the North - so long as Ireland is divided, so long as a foreign Monarch and Government lays illegitimate claim to any part of it, Ireland is still little more than a hope and a dream in political terms.

Many people of the Unionist persuassion pontificate on how Northern Ireland is democratic, that Irish reunification would be un-democratic. They say "but a small majority of us want to be British!", and I suppose that's true; however...

Ireland was split in two in an obscene act of anti-democracy with the Anglo-Irish Treaty. Not only was all of Ireland overwhelming Nationalist, but Ulster was infact democratically nationalist - only three north-eastern counties where Unionist (Derry, Antrim and Down) and the City of Derry and half of Belfast where nationalist. Given this, there was never any legitimate reason for the Partition of Ireland, the rural unionist population of three out of thirty-two counties had absolutely no moral right to inflict that on the country.

And they still don't.

But in case you don't buy this, let me ask you: Is Imperialism wrong?

If you don't think it is, forgive me for saying, but there is something deeply flawed in your sense of right and wrong. For all our disagreements, the rest of us should broadly see that (for instance) Iraq occupying Kuwait was wrong, that the USSR invading Afghanistan was wrong, that China occupying Tibet is wrong, and that all of the above are breaches of common international law as well as being completely indefensible.

Why is it that when Britain does the same, it's suddenly defensible?

[pwf224]

I think that is where the thread originally started out, but as usual it gets sidetracked by centuries old bickering. For the past few hundred years the Irish and English have given the same arguments, and both have merit to some degree.

I support the unification of Ireland into a single state, not under the republic of Ireland absorbing Northern Ireland, but a separate state entirely new. I also don't want to keep arguing about who killed more people or who did what to what country when. In reality, most people in both countries have moved beyond that and are quite friendly and cooperative. I don't see this happening anytime soon though, at least in this decade.

[EireEmerald]

I'm from Derry, and while it's wonderful to see so many foreigners throwing in their two-cents, the semantics of the immorality of violence and quoting figures and statistics about how many Unionists there are seems quite absurd to me.

Point number one about Ireland is that it is still not Independant. The Irish Republic is not Ireland, it's as artificial as the North - so long as Ireland is divided, so long as a foreign Monarch and Government lays illegitimate claim to any part of it, Ireland is still little more than a hope and a dream in political terms.

Many people of the Unionist persuassion pontificate on how Northern Ireland is democratic, that Irish reunification would be un-democratic. They say "but a small majority of us want to be British!", and I suppose that's true; however...

Ireland was split in two in an obscene act of anti-democracy with the Anglo-Irish Treaty. Not only was all of Ireland overwhelming Nationalist, but Ulster was infact democratically nationalist - only three north-eastern counties where Unionist (Derry, Antrim and Down) and the City of Derry and half of Belfast where nationalist. Given this, there was never any legitimate reason for the Partition of Ireland, the rural unionist population of three out of thirty-two counties had absolutely no moral right to inflict that on the country.

And they still don't.

But in case you don't buy this, let me ask you: Is Imperialism wrong?

If you don't think it is, forgive me for saying, but there is something deeply flawed in your sense of right and wrong. For all our disagreements, the rest of us should broadly see that (for instance) Iraq occupying Kuwait was wrong, that the USSR invading Afghanistan was wrong, that China occupying Tibet is wrong, and that all of the above are breaches of common international law as well as being completely indefensible.

Why is it that when Britain does the same, it's suddenly defensible?

hypocracy maybe? I don't know.

I think that is where the thread originally started out, but as usual it gets sidetracked by centuries old bickering. For the past few hundred years the Irish and English have given the same arguments, and both have merit to some degree.

I support the unification of Ireland into a single state, not under the republic of Ireland absorbing Northern Ireland, but a separate state entirely new. I also don't want to keep arguing about who killed more people or who did what to what country when. In reality, most people in both countries have moved beyond that and are quite friendly and cooperative. I don't see this happening anytime soon though, at least in this decade.

That is what I have been saying. And a United Ireland was never not going to be a merging of the both, it was never going to just be a republic with its counties back. The republic's national anthem will be changed when Ireland is united. Green stands for nationalists, catholics, white represents peace and orange represents the loyalist protestants in Ireland who although are in the minority in Ireland are just as Irish.

[Muagan_ra]

I agree. There has been a long thread of Irish Republicanism, apart from the "Free Staters" (I say 'Free Staters' in a general sense, there are exceptions - Michael Collins for one) who eventually prevailed in the civil war, of an Ireland wholly different from Britain. Not simply in terms of the aesthetics of who rules over who, but in how the nation itself is structured and what its constitution would be.

It's a socialist leaning democratic vision that my father (as part of the most recent rebellious generation) often talks about, a federalised Irish Republic; self rule for the four provinces, with a central government in the Dail which would preside over external and national issues, help in collaboration between the Provincial assemblies, and act as a final arbiter whenever necessary.

But that's all a hope and a dream for now, the "peace process" up here as delayed it indefinately, not to mention setting the stage for another civil war. Maybe next time a good peace can be achieved.

[Ardruire Iacób]

Ireland was split in two in an obscene act of anti-democracy with the Anglo-Irish Treaty.

It was nowhere near as anti-democratic as the "military executive" set up by the IRA to challenge the Free State. At least people were elected to the Free State government.

[Ciabhán]

It was nowhere near as anti-democratic as the "military executive" set up by the IRA to challenge the Free State. At least people were elected to the Free State government.

While very true I doubt the 'military executive' government would have lasted. We are a people that prize individuality and self direction dictatorships rub the wrong way and would never last. Democracy is the worst form of government under which to fight a war of attrition and I believe they were aware of this going in.

[EireEmerald]

It was nowhere near as anti-democratic as the "military executive" set up by the IRA to challenge the Free State. At least people were elected to the Free State government.

My great grand father was an anti- treaty IRA soldier. I really don't know what I would have picked back then.

[Ardruire Iacób]

Democracy is the worst form of government under which to fight a war of attrition and I believe they were aware of this going in.

Strange, it was the democratic state which triumphed over the terrorists...

My great grand father was an anti- treaty IRA soldier. I really don't know what I would have picked back then.

My great-grandfather was in the pro-Treaty IRA. I would have agreed with him and fought for the Treaty democratically accepted through a general election, and not for an undemocratic organisation fighting an unwinnable battle against the wishes of the majority.

[Xen]

Even if there was a 99% of queen's and lords british bastards living in NI it's still IRLEAND, their land for godsake, get out!!!

You Polish you what do you care.

[Helm]

We could equally well claim Ireland to be geographically a part of the British isles so Ireland should really rejoin as a nation in the UK.

[Ardruire Iacób]

We could equally well claim Ireland to be geographically a part of the British isles so Ireland should really rejoin as a nation in the UK.

We are part of The Isles, but what the hell does that have to do with us being in the UK? On that argument, the UK should be part of any future United States of Europe.

[Helm]

I'm not saying it should rejoin the UK, but we would probably let it in if it wanted to be. Britain wouldn't join with the French and Germans as one country though, they wouldn't want to join with us either. That I would personally mind a United States of Europe, why not?

[smithy17]

We are part of The Isles, but what the hell does that have to do with us being in the UK? On that argument, the UK should be part of any future United States of Europe.

I think he is saying it in reference to the arguements that the North should joint the South because they are both geographically in Ireland.

[Ciabhán]

Strange, it was the democratic state which triumphed over the terrorists...

The difference being that the state has all the resources and can apply more pressure, overwhelming power can cancel out a lot of drawbacks. The 'rebel' force needs the advantages of fanatical support of cause, strong leadership with the power to make rapid decisions(not a top heavy bureaucratic government), and flexibility(notoriously absent in a democracy). If we must suffer government I agree that democratic ones are the best we have at this time, in peace. However in a war it has been seen time and again, mostly in long drawn out guerilla conflicts, a waning of support for the fight. As folks see brothers and sons, neighbours, cousins, etc die in a conflict they tend to withdraw support from the government waging the war. The leadership of the anti-treaty IRA knew this. Who knows what would have happened but I cannot imagine a long standing military dictatorship in Ireland. Rebellion is a big threat in a dictatorship and we are well known for our rebellious natures.

As an aside I had family on both the pro and anti-treaty side.

[EireEmerald]

It was not to maintain peace in Northern Ireland, that is a lode of rubbish.They were trying to protect one of their last Imperial investments and justify long standing government supported oppression.

[Ciabhán]

It was not to maintain peace in Northern Ireland, that is a lode of rubbish.They were trying to protect one of their last Imperial investments and justify long standing government supported oppression.

Lol that sounds mysteriously almost exactly like a post I made earlier.

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...44#post4192644

[EireEmerald]

Lol that sounds mysteriously almost exactly like a post I made earlier.

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...44#post4192644

that was kind of scary... were not related are we?!?!?

[SepulchreUK]

We should reform as the British Isles, rename Anglesey, Prydain. Build a glorious new capital city on it. Destroy London as a failed experiment in multi-culturalism and promote gingerness as a thing of national beauty. Bob's Your uncle, Fanny's your aunt harmony is assured

[The Super Pope]

It was not to maintain peace in Northern Ireland, that is a lode of rubbish.They were trying to protect one of their last Imperial investments and justify long standing government supported oppression.

What, "last imperial investments". Right, this is the post Versailles British Empire


Notice anything about the size?