Irish reunification must happen regardless of what Northern Ireland wants

[Enros]

Britain recently voted to leave the European Union. Something similar happened in Ireland once. In 1918 69% of Irish people voted to leave the UK and become an independent country. After sending death squads to kill several hundred random Irish civilians, the British decided that the tiny area of four counties in the North that supported British rule would be taken from Ireland. For good measure, they also violently forced 2 counties that voted in favour of independence to be separated from Ireland. It's a lot like the situations in the Ukraine and Cyprus actually.

I strongly believe that Ireland must be reunited regardless of what the people of Northern Ireland want. Unionists are British settlers who don't have the right to secede from Ireland.

Britain has twice committed genocide against Ireland. The first was when the native Irish population of Northern Ireland was exterminated or expelled and replaced with British settlers. Those settlers will never vote for reunification, but I believe they must be forced. The second was the Irish famine. Poland lost 25% of its population in 6 years of the largest war and genocide in human history. 90 years before that, Ireland lost 25% of its population in 6 years of being part of the richest country in the world. If it wasn't for Ireland's brave IRA heroes defeating the British in 1921, this sort of thing would have happened again.

Here are some questions you must ask yourself if you are a British unionist:

• You think it's wrong for British settlers in Northern Ireland to be forced to join the south. Why aren't you equally outraged that native Irish people are forced to be part of the UK?
• You strongly oppose the idea that Russian settlers in the Baltic nations have the right to secede and join Russia. Why do you support that exact thing when it happens in Ireland?
• You strongly disagree with Russian colonialism in the Ukraine and Greek/Turkish colonialism in Cyprus. Why don't you oppose similar British actions in Northern Ireland?

[Himster]

Pretty much, yup.
But the British have an industrialized military complex with offensive capabilities, the Irish really do not. No matter what, that implicit threat trumps literally any moral, or rational argument possible.
If there is to be a truly long lasting agreement (a united and free Ireland) it will have to be decided by the British.

[Greyblades]

No it musnt.

• They arent oppressed anymore and can move over the border if they dont like being here
• No I dont.
• No I dont.

Next.

[Enros]

No it musnt.

You voted to leave to the EU, but you love interfering in other country's sovereignty.

Do you know Britain interferes with Irish sovereignty? Ireland has been wanting to join Schengen for a while now, but can't because Britain is threatening to build a berlin wall across the country if that happens. Ireland is being oppressed right now.

[Greyblades]

Ireland has no control overthe border policy of the UK, the same as ireland's policy is not controlled by the UK, the only entity keeping Ireland out of schingen is itself.

You have a ridiculous definition of oppressed.

[Enros]

EDIT: I copied and pasted some pro-British Empire propaganda into this post and changed it to praise the IRA instead. As Greyblades hasn't replied, I'm removing it again.

[Kyriakos]

Britain recently voted to leave the European Union. Something similar happened in Ireland once. In 1918 69% of Irish people voted to leave the UK and become an independent country. After sending death squads to kill several hundred random Irish civilians, the British decided that the tiny area of four counties in the North that supported British rule would be taken from Ireland. For good measure, they also violently forced 2 counties that voted in favour of independence to be separated from Ireland. It's a lot like the situations in the Ukraine and Cyprus actually.

I strongly believe that Ireland must be reunited regardless of what the people of Northern Ireland want. Unionists are British settlers who don't have the right to secede from Ireland.

Britain has twice committed genocide against Ireland. The first was when the native Irish population of Northern Ireland was exterminated or expelled and replaced with British settlers. Those settlers will never vote for reunification, but I believe they must be forced. The second was the Irish famine. Poland lost 25% of its population in 6 years of the largest war and genocide in human history. 90 years before that, Ireland lost 25% of its population in 6 years of being part of the richest country in the world. If it wasn't for Ireland's brave IRA heroes defeating the British in 1921, this sort of thing would have happened again.

Here are some questions you must ask yourself if you are a British unionist:

• You think it's wrong for British settlers in Northern Ireland to be forced to join the south. Why aren't you equally outraged that native Irish people are forced to be part of the UK?
• You strongly oppose the idea that Russian settlers in the Baltic nations have the right to secede and join Russia. Why do you support that exact thing when it happens in Ireland?
• You strongly disagree with Russian colonialism in the Ukraine and Greek/Turkish colonialism in Cyprus. Why don't you oppose similar British actions in Northern Ireland?

Greek colonialism in Cyprus? You think there were people who in any significant number moved to Cyprus from mainland Greece? (let alone to "colonise").

Re Ireland, i think it would be very difficult to re-unite without a referendum mandate to do so.

[Mangalore]

...
Here are some questions you must ask yourself if you are a British unionist:

• You think it's wrong for British settlers in Northern Ireland to be forced to join the south. Why aren't you equally outraged that native Irish people are forced to be part of the UK?
• You strongly oppose the idea that Russian settlers in the Baltic nations have the right to secede and join Russia. Why do you support that exact thing when it happens in Ireland?
• You strongly disagree with Russian colonialism in the Ukraine and Greek/Turkish colonialism in Cyprus. Why don't you oppose similar British actions in Northern Ireland?

I'm not a unionist but you are cherrypicking history:

• There has been a referenda on the matter (and there is talk about having another in case of Brexit being triggered)
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northe...ferendum,_1973
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Friday_Agreement
  So the majority of inhabitants of Northern Ireland did not want to rejoin Ireland in 1973 but there was also large agreement on the settlement by the Good Friday Agreement in 1998 both in Northern Ireland as well as Ireland
  
• International law recognizes countries, not people. The secession of Ireland is actually the departure of that in terms of how the UN operates but the UK agreed to it so it happened. As the sovereignity of nations in the UN is to be safeguarded so are their borders. Still, there can be referenda but that's why in internationally recognized processes the entire country has to vote on that or there has to be a long transitional phase where the international community negotiates this reorganization of a state.
  
• The colonization issue is not a good argument. The Republic of Ireland has settled its border with the UK in the past decades repeatedly
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Irish_Treaty
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republ...ment_agreement
  It's the same as germany having ceded all claims on territories east of the Oder in 1990 to facilitate the Reunification treaty.

[Enros]

Greek colonialism in Cyprus? You think there were people who in any significant number moved to Cyprus from mainland Greece? (let alone to "colonise").

Greeks did some evil things in Cyprus. It's not all Turkey's fault.

Don't Northern Irish already have the right to Irish citizenship? Don't Britain and Ireland already have freedom of movement? What would be gained by another conflict?

There wouldn't be another conflict. The Troubles were triggered by the oppression of native Irish people by the British, taking away their right to vote, right to a fair trial, right to peacefully protest, right to use government services etc. That would not happen to unionists in a reunified Ireland.

I'm not a unionist but you are cherrypicking history:

• There has been a referenda on the matter (and there is talk about having another in case of Brexit being triggered)
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northe...ferendum,_1973
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Friday_Agreement
  So the majority of inhabitants of Northern Ireland did not want to rejoin Ireland in 1973 but there was also large agreement on the settlement by the Good Friday Agreement in 1998 both in Northern Ireland as well as Ireland

Catholics had only won the right to vote in 1972. They continued to be imprisoned without trial until 1975. In 1972 a Catholic civil rights march was gunned down by British paratroopers. So they boycotted the 1973 referendum.

I argue that it doesn't matter what the majority in Northern Ireland. If a majority in all of Ireland want reunification then it must happen.

• The colonization issue is not a good argument. The Republic of Ireland has settled its border with the UK in the past decades repeatedly
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Irish_Treaty
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republ...ment_agreement
  It's the same as germany having ceded all claims on territories east of the Oder in 1990 to facilitate the Reunification treaty.

We're talking about justice. I don't see any injustice aggressive colonialist countries like Germany losing their territory. They deserve that. But there is a huge injustice in a historically victimized country like Ireland losing territory to the largest and most deadly Empire in world history. The British should be the ones losing territory, they are the aggressive colonists in this situation.

[Prodromos]

Don't Northern Irish already have the right to Irish citizenship? Don't Britain and Ireland already have freedom of movement? What would be gained by another conflict?

[Kyriakos]

^England still has lands owned to its military in Cyrpus, and the cypriots actually fought a decade old war with the british who tried to prevent them exactly unifying with Greece. So your sentences sound a bit off, moreso in the context of Ireland-England

Anyway, the population in Cyprus was always Massively more greek, not in any similar situation as is in NI. Colonists from mainland Greece didn't go to Cyprus, cause that would be rather bizarre both due to distance and mentality, whereas the turkish army invaded and brought tens of thousands of colonists. Last but not least: the occupied part is not UN recognised anyway, and it is dirt poor. If anything, the colonists aren't liked by the native turkish people there either.

[Himster]

Greeks did some evil things in Cyprus. It's not all Turkey's fault.

What the hell?
It's like you're trying to paint the imperialist power as the victim in this scenario, the only on topic comparison would be the British colonial aggression in Northern Ireland, how the are they the victims? Come on, you're shooting yourself in the foot.

Kyriakos
Anyway, the population in Cyprus was always Massively more greek, not in any similar situation as is in NI.

It is exactly the same as Ireland. Foreign invaders (Brits/Turks) colonize a section of land, kick-out/massacre natives. When democracy becomes necessary for their PR: they invent a new borer in order to skew the artificial numbers and invent an area where their colonists make up the majority (rather than an actual majority vote): Northern Ireland and Northern Cyprus. Of course if you ask a a thief (or descendant of said thief) if they'd like to keep what they've stolen: they'll vote to keep it. Enros probably just got the comparison backwards.

[Diocle]

The solution comes with politics, using force is idiotic, criminal and meaningless because the UK is stronger.

Here are some questions you must ask yourself if you are a British unionist:

• You think it's wrong for British settlers in Northern Ireland to be forced to join the south. Why aren't you equally outraged that native Irish people are forced to be part of the UK?
• You strongly oppose the idea that Russian settlers in the Baltic nations have the right to secede and join Russia. Why do you support that exact thing when it happens in Ireland?
• You strongly disagree with Russian colonialism in the Ukraine and Greek/Turkish colonialism in Cyprus. Why don't you oppose similar British actions in Northern Ireland?

Even though I'm not a British unionist, these are my answers:

• This is from Wiki:

  The Cromwellian conquest completed the British colonisation of Ireland, which was merged into the Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland in 1653–59. It destroyed the native Irish Catholic land-owning classes and replaced them with colonists with a British identity. The bitterness caused by the Cromwellian settlement was a powerful source of Irish nationalism from the 17th century onwards. After the Stuart Restoration in 1660, Charles II of England restored about a third of the confiscated land to the former landlords in the Act of Settlement 1662, but not all, as he needed political support from former parliamentarians in England. A generation later, during the Glorious Revolution, many of the Irish Catholic landed class tried to reverse the remaining Cromwellian settlement in the Williamite War in Ireland (1689–91), where they fought en masse for the Jacobites. They were defeated once again, and many lost land that had been regranted after 1662. As a result, Irish and English Catholics did not become full political citizens of the British state again until 1829 and were legally barred from buying valuable interests in land until the Papists Act 1778.

  Cromwell and the Orangists used force, they didn't ask to the local population what they wanted and they forced Irish people to join their kingdom, this is not only wrong but in my opinion is a crime, but now, on 2016 Anno Domini, do you want really doing the same?

• I strongly support the idea that Russian settlers in the Baltic have the right to secede to join Russia, indeed I hope they do it as fast as they can!
• I strongly support what Russians are doing in Ukraine because UKRAINE IS RUSSIA and I strongly support the Greek people in Cyprus because CYPRUS IS GREEK.

[War lord]

Literally every Nation on earth came into existence by turfing the previous inhabitants out or absorbing them completely. Nationalist arguments (be they Irish, Spanish, Greek, Serbia, Russian or other) claiming "ownership" of a certain land don't withstand even the most cursory of logical arguments, they're shallow justifications for violence and sectarianism. There's not going to be any change in the status of Northern Ireland until such a change is the will of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland, and we're still some years away from that. It's something that's going to eventually come about naturally. Any attempt to force the matter would only undo the progress that has been made.

And I find the argument that Ulster Protestants are "British settlers who don't have the right to secede from Ireland.", endlessly amusing. The Ulster plantation began in 1606, that's one year before the foundation of the Virginia colony. At what point is a family no longer a colonist?

[removeduser_487563287433]

Britain recently voted to leave the European Union. Something similar happened in Ireland once. In 1918 69% of Irish people voted to leave the UK and become an independent country.

In... what vote? Are you just combining the votes of Sinn Fein and the Irish Parliamentary Party in the 1918 General Election?

After sending death squads to kill several hundred random Irish civilians,

At this point, I would bring up that the last major thread in which Enros wanted to talk about British "death squads", and was pressured to produce evidence from them existing, Enros was exposed engaging in Wikipedia vandalism, actively changing the articles on the Troubles and other matters to fit his agenda. At that time he promised to quit the forum after his thread ended in the forum widely mocking him over this tactic.

While I am glad Enros did not leave and has made many quality threads and posts since that time, it's very concerning to bring up this sort of line again, and I hope he clarifies this point.

the British decided that the tiny area of four counties in the North that supported British rule would be taken from Ireland. For good measure, they also violently forced 2 counties that voted in favour of independence to be separated from Ireland. It's a lot like the situations in the Ukraine and Cyprus actually.

Except, of course, it is not. Unlike Ukraine and Cyprus, this is not the case of other sovereign states invading and setting up unrecognised states within their borders. As Enros was told and eventually conceded in the last thread prior to World War I the British Government was against partition, favouring instead the entirety of Ireland to be governed as a dominion from Dublin. I have reposted my old breakdown:

Okay, well, this is a massively warped version of history, especially the suggestion that Ireland was made independent prior to the partition. This is what actually happened:

In 1914 the Liberal Government of the UK passed the Home Rule Act. This Act determined that the whole of Ireland would have autonomous powers devolved to it. However, with the outbreak of World War I the Act was postponed and eventually abandoned due to the continuation of the war and events in Ireland such as the Easter Rising and Irish nationalists being discovered to be colluding with the Central Powers. Prior to the outbreak of war protestants in Ulster opposed to the Home Rule Act formed the Ulster Volunteers Force. Well organised, supported and armed, they formed a serious threat to the UK Government and at one point civil war was feared when British forces sent to Ulster to quell this unrest resigned, as the UVF were broadly viewed as patriots.

This threat ended with the outbreak of the war. The UVF were integrated into the British Army, and almost entirely annihilated in the Battle of the Somme and the German Spring offensive.

This changed the political landscape after the war. Politically it was no longer possible for the British Government to force Ulster, who now had nationwide support, into the Home Rule Act as originally envisioned as they had essentially sacrificed an entire generation of men for the UK. This led to the 1920 Home Rule Act that partitioned Ireland into the modern North/South divisions, both as self-governing units but with provisions included for unification under common institutions. The right to remain a part of the UK was left to Northern Ireland, which was immediately exercised.

The Irish War of Independence broke out (not sure what OP is referring to when he says voted for independence) and Home Rule was never enacted in the South. The war resulted in the 1922 Anglo-Irish treaty that established the Irish Free State.

I feel this is a much more honest presentation of the facts that resulted in the partition of Ireland into the UK North and the Republic of Ireland South.

So what are the differences and similarities between the partition of Crimea and Ireland? Well...

• Approximately one hundred years, in which two World Wars, the Fall of the British Empire, successful peace agreements between the states of the UK and the ROI, the spread of democracy and the spread of international institutions and law have taken place.
• The fact that the partition of Ireland occurred in a single sovereign state - the United Kingdom, whereas Crimea is an example of one sovereign state annexing the territory of a second sovereign state
• The OP's sole similarity appears to be that the majority of both NI and Crimea appear to support both actions respectively.

Really, a terrible, ugly, and idiotic nationalistic post that presents some of the worst attitudes that have given British-Irish relations so much tragedy in the past hundred years. It is good to live in a time where views like the OP's have been reduced to an increasingly impotent minority.

The only thing I would add here is that the North only exercised its right to leave the Irish state after the 1918 General Election where Sinn Fein declared independence unilaterally, without consulting the Unionists who had won a majority in the North.

I strongly believe that Ireland must be reunited regardless of what the people of Northern Ireland want. Unionists are British settlers who don't have the right to secede from Ireland.

This is a horrifyingly anti-democratic, borderline-racist sentiment.

Britain has twice committed genocide against Ireland. The first was when the native Irish population of Northern Ireland was exterminated or expelled and replaced with British settlers. Those settlers will never vote for reunification, but I believe they must be forced. The second was the Irish famine. Poland lost 25% of its population in 6 years of the largest war and genocide in human history. 90 years before that, Ireland lost 25% of its population in 6 years of being part of the richest country in the world. If it wasn't for Ireland's brave IRA heroes defeating the British in 1921, this sort of thing would have happened again.

I don't personally believe historical events can be a reason to disenfranchise voters today.

Here are some questions you must ask yourself if you are a British unionist:

• You think it's wrong for British settlers in Northern Ireland to be forced to join the south. Why aren't you equally outraged that native Irish people are forced to be part of the UK?
• You strongly oppose the idea that Russian settlers in the Baltic nations have the right to secede and join Russia. Why do you support that exact thing when it happens in Ireland?
• You strongly disagree with Russian colonialism in the Ukraine and Greek/Turkish colonialism in Cyprus. Why don't you oppose similar British actions in Northern Ireland?

The first is answered that I don't believe democracy should be subverted to provide reparations for historical events. The second is answered that this is a false assumption - I do believe the North has the right to join Ireland should there be the democratic mandate to do so. Indeed there have been referenda in Northern Ireland providing for this. Thirdly Cyprus and Ukraine are both examples of other sovereign states setting up unrecognised states within an existing states' borders - as above, not the case with Northern Ireland. Both the cases of Turkey and Cyprus are modern, whereas the Plantation of Ireland occurred 500 years ago.

In summary, Enros as always provides a hopeless biased version of events in order to justify what is essentially the disenfranchisement of Northern Irish voters. This comes at a time where Ireland and the UK have been rebuilding their relationship with huge success for about twenty years now. The voices like Enros's voice that essentially argue for a return of The Troubles are mercifully diminishing.

This is a time to be confident in democratic institutions in Ireland. The Church is overthrown in the South, peace reigns in the North.

[Enros]

Well, at least he has moved from falsely claiming that Partition was something deliberately engineered by Britain, to making the opinion statement that democratic principals are something that can be selectively applied. Which is, you know, what despots say.

Noone who believes in democracy can believe in the partition of Ireland. Ireland was a single jurisdiction until British imperialists gerrymandered it so they would win votes in on part of it. Gerrymandering must be undone wherever it is found.

The only valid vote on Northern Ireland's status must be an all-Ireland vote. If a majority in the whole of Ireland want the end of partition then it must happen regardless of what the North wants. It's a simple fact of democracy that that some people have to live with situations they don't want. London and some other parts of Britain voted to remain in the EU for example, yet you aren't saying it's undemocratic to force them to leave when the rest of the country does. By the same principle, it's not undemocratic to force the Northern Irish to go along with the will of the rest of Ireland. Their constituency isn't a valid one.

At this point, I would bring up that the last major thread in which Enros wanted to talk about British "death squads", and was pressured to produce evidence from them existing, Enros was exposed engaging in Wikipedia vandalism, actively changing the articles on the Troubles and other matters to fit his agenda. At that time he promised to quit the forum after his thread ended in the forum widely mocking him over this tactic.

The British army commit mass murder of Irish civilians from 1916 to 1921 and again from 1969 to 1998. In Northern Ireland the MRF literally commit drive-by shootings against Catholic civilians in order to stir up hatred.

Except, of course, it is not. Unlike Ukraine and Cyprus, this is not the case of other sovereign states invading and setting up unrecognised states within their borders. As Enros was told and eventually conceded in the last thread prior to World War I the British Government was against partition, favouring instead the entirety of Ireland to be governed as a dominion from Dublin. I have reposted my old breakdown:

Much fewer people would have died had the North been forced into a united Ireland in 1922. The Troubles wouldn't have happened. The British were opponents of democracy wherever they went in the world in the 1920s. In the 3 decades leading up to 1900 they had starved over 29 million Indians and they were the inspiration for Hitler's brief Empire and managed to do much worse things than he did. Germans were evicted from what is now Poland who had lived in that area for centuries.

This is a horrifyingly anti-democratic, borderline-racist sentiment.

It isn't. It's simply standing up to colonialist powers. I oppose the right to secession of Ottoman settlers in the Balkans, who have also been there since the 1600s. If they voted to secede from Bulgaria or wherever, I don't believe they should be allowed. The same goes for the more recent Russian arrivals in Eastern Europe.

Your support for the existence of Northern Ireland is horrifyingly anti-democratic, borderline-racist sentiment. You haven't answered as to why you are so opposed to Northern British settlers being forced to live in Ireland by a democratic vote, when you aren't opposed to native Irish Catholics being forced to live in the UK by imperialist conquering and gerrymandering.

The fact that something happened in the 1920s and was done by the British Empire is automatically a reason to oppose it without hearing any further details. Nothing of that description was ever a good thing.

I don't personally believe historical events can be a reason to disenfranchise voters today.

I'm not the one who wants to disenfranchise anyone. The supporters of Ireland's gerrymandered political boundary are disenfranchising the entire south of the country. I want to do undo gerrymandering.

The first is answered that I don't believe democracy should be subverted to provide reparations for historical events. The second is answered that this is a false assumption - I do believe the North has the right to join Ireland should there be the democratic mandate to do so. Indeed there have been referenda in Northern Ireland providing for this. Thirdly Cyprus and Ukraine are both examples of other sovereign states setting up unrecognized states within an existing states' borders - as above, not the case with Northern Ireland. Both the cases of Turkey and Cyprus are modern, whereas the Plantation of Ireland occurred 500 years ago.

This is not a historical event. 60% of the Irish population were alive when they didn't have the right to a fair trial in 1975. Almost as many were alive when the British army massacred peaceful activists protesting against voter suppression by a racist state that was bent on ethnically cleansing them from their historical homeland in 1972. Why do you think the British treated the Irish and second class citizens in Northern Ireland? Because they wanted them to leave for the Republic of Ireland. When will Northern Ireland's native Irish population be compensated for this? Oh, that's right, never. This is why the reunification of Ireland is a social justice issue.

You keep talking about British political thought in the early 20th century. None of that is relevant. Britain at the time was the world's largest perpetrator of racism and genocide and believed other any non-British group had only the right to live in servitude until the British could find a way of exterminating them and replacing them with British settlers. Hitler wanted to exterminate Eastern Europeans and replace them with German settlers. Britain actually managed to do that in such places as Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the USA, South Africa, Northern Ireland, and most recently, the British Indian Ocean Territory. Why do you believe that the British are the victims of anti-democratic, borderline racist sentiment by its Irish victims? That's impossible.

The voices like Enros's voice...are mercifully diminishing.

They are not. My opinion is the overwhelming majority among young liberal Irish people who claim to care about social justice. It's older Irish people who don't care about Northern Ireland. There is nothing socially just about the continued existence of Northern Ireland. It is the base expression of Britain's opposition to democracy and its belief that it its people are the master race and have the right to enslave and exterminate other peoples. The British attempted to ethnically cleanse Irish people from the North in the 1970s and continued murdering them for decades after.

This is a time to be confident in democratic institutions in Ireland. The Church is overthrown in the South, peace reigns in the North.

Drawing political boundaries in order to achieve a result that the majority doesn't want isn't democracy. It's gerrymandering. I argue that gerrymandering forced on Ireland by the world's largest perpetrator of genocide under the thread of "immediate and terrible war" should be undone, and if that serves as compensation for the victims of British murder and ethnic cleansing in more recent decades, and punishment for the genocidal British state, then good.

[Twido]

They are not. My opinion is the overwhelming majority among young liberal Irish people who claim to care about social justice. It's older Irish people who don't care about Northern Ireland. There is nothing socially just about the continued existence of Northern Ireland. It is the base expression of Britain's opposition to democracy and its belief that it its people are the master race and have the right to enslave and exterminate other peoples. The British attempted to ethnically cleanse Irish people from the North in the 1970s and continued murdering them for decades after.

I fear that you might be right, voices such as yours are not diminishing. It is not the question of reunification that I find worrying; that is for the people of Northern Ireland to decide. What I find so disturbing is the completely none objective and partisan view of history that you take in order to justify your opinions. When I read your post I'm not even sure if you are serious and genuinely believe what you are saying or if you are just trying to provoke the easily baited into a mud slinging match.

[Enros]

I fear that you might be right, voices such as yours are not diminishing. It is not the question of reunification that I find worrying; that is for the people of Northern Ireland to decide. What I find so disturbing is the completely none objective and partisan view of history that you take in order to justify your opinions. When I read your post I'm not even sure if you are serious and genuinely believe what you are saying or if you are just trying to provoke the easily baited into a mud slinging match.

Let's look at the Wikipedia article about second class citizens: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-class_citizen
however, cases such as the American South under segregation, aborigines in Australia prior to 1967, apartheid in South Africa, women in Saudi Arabia under Saudi law, Dalits in India and Nepal, and Roman Catholics in Northern Ireland during the parliamentary era are all examples of groups that have been historically described as having second-class citizenry.

The purpose of the discrimination was to force the native Irish to move south of the border in an act of ethnic cleansing so Northern Ireland would only be populated by British colonists. This isn't history. 60% of the current population were born before discrimination against the native Irish was abolished.

And when they protested: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Sunday_(1972)
British soldiers shot 26 unarmed civilians during a peaceful protest march against internment.

What about the British Army's performance? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Reaction_Force
The unit was involved in the murder of Irish Catholic civilians in false-flag attacks in order to inflame the conflict in Northern Ireland. They also colluded with loyalist paramilitaries, to the extent that a former member described it as a "legalised death squad".^[2]

Please point out which part of this post is non-objective or partisan? I have never even met a British person who didn't acknowledge these basic facts about the conflict in Northern Ireland.

[Twido]

Please point out which part of this post is non-objective or partisan? I have never even met a British person who didn't acknowledge these basic facts about the conflict in Northern Ireland.

This is my point. You have linked many Wikipedia articles and if you follow up the references, they are nearly all media articles. Now there is nothing wrong with doing that to get one point of view but they are not reliable and tell the story from a certain point of view. To complete the picture one should examine all points of view while understanding that these may themselves be biased.

I do have some sympathy because getting to the truth on such a political topic may well prove impossible without significant time and possibly expense, but that does not mean that you should not at least try if the subject interests you.

[removeduser_487563287433]

The British army commit mass murder of Irish civilians from 1916 to 1921 and again from 1969 to 1998. In Northern Ireland the MRF literally commit drive-by shootings against Catholic civilians in order to stir up hatred.

You need to focus a bit better than you did last time. Claiming that the British Army ran "death squads to randomly kill several hundred Irish civilians" is not the same as the conflicts that occurred a hundred years ago during the Irish War of Independence, and certainly cannot be generalised in comparison to the entire duration of the Troubles in the latter half of the last century.

As for the MRF you utterly failed to provide evidence of this in your last thread. As far as we got is that the British authorities have not investigated because there is no evidence to investigate. If you have new sources, go ahead - but you'll forgive me if I reject any Wikipedia articles that you share.

Much fewer people would have died had the North been forced into a united Ireland in 1922. The Troubles wouldn't have happened.

A paragraph of worthless speculation, that again is an attempt to justify the repugnant disenfranchisement of peoples' democratic rights.

It isn't. It's simply standing up to colonialist powers. I oppose the right to secession of Ottoman settlers in the Balkans, who have also been there since the 1600s. If they voted to secede from Bulgaria or wherever, I don't believe they should be allowed. The same goes for the more recent Russian arrivals in Eastern Europe.

This is again the argument we should disenfranchise modern voters because of historical events, which is repugnant and all intelligent people on both sides reject.

Your support for the existence of Northern Ireland is horrifyingly anti-democratic, borderline-racist sentiment.

No it isn't. It's based on the democratic mandate that was granted to the Good Friday Agreement between the Governments of the UK and Ireland. An agreement that has been hailed by both sides as a huge achievement and has granted the most stable and enduring period of peace in a century.

You haven't answered as to why you are so opposed to Northern British settlers being forced to live in Ireland by a democratic vote, when you aren't opposed to native Irish Catholics being forced to live in the UK by imperialist conquering and gerrymandering.

I have answered this. Historical events are not important factors. for making sound decisions today.

The fact that something happened in the 1920s and was done by the British Empire is automatically a reason to oppose it without hearing any further details. Nothing of that description was ever a good thing.

Yes, I know. You're racist towards British people. I just wish you didn't waste both our time by pretending otherwise in this thread.

I'm not the one who wants to disenfranchise anyone.

Your thread title is literally that people should be forced into doing things regardless of what they want. God, you're such a push over in these threads mate.

This is not a historical event. 60% of the Irish population were alive when they didn't have the right to a fair trial in 1975. Almost as many were alive when the British army massacred peaceful activists protesting against voter suppression by a racist state that was bent on ethnically cleansing them from their historical homeland in 1972. Why do you think the British treated the Irish and second class citizens in Northern Ireland? Because they wanted them to leave for the Republic of Ireland. When will Northern Ireland's native Irish population be compensated for this? Oh, that's right, never. This is why the reunification of Ireland is a social justice issue.

All of the Northern Irish population, more or less, regardless of their religion, are Irish. Don't be racist by telling people who they can and cannot be. In the last thread you were repeatedly made to acknowledge the British Government actively attempted to protect Catholics from corrupt Protestant Government officials in Northern Ireland, eventually dissolving the whole NI Parliament to achieve this.

You keep talking about British political thought in the early 20th century. None of that is relevant. Britain at the time was the world's largest perpetrator of racism and genocide and believed other any non-British group had only the right to live in servitude until the British could find a way of exterminating them and replacing them with British settlers. Hitler wanted to exterminate Eastern Europeans and replace them with German settlers. Britain actually managed to do that in such places as Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the USA, South Africa, Northern Ireland, and most recently, the British Indian Ocean Territory. Why do you believe that the British are the victims of anti-democratic, borderline racist sentiment by its Irish victims? That's impossible.

Modern Northern Irish would be the victims under your policy. It's unacceptable, to both sides of this issue. You are an extremist.

My opinion is the overwhelming majority among young liberal Irish people who claim to care about social justice.

Yeah bollocks to that mate. Source that. No Wikipedia pages you've vandalised please.