A recent post on the blog asserted that Ireland was not a nation.
While I ignored the comment, not considering worth the dignity of an argument, I have since decided to just put it out there to provide the opportunity to debate the matter, regardless how daft I consider the statement. At least one person on this blog site disagrees that it is.
Growing up in a Catholic/nationalist community in the north, I never really considered my nationality to be anything other than Irish. Dublin was our capital city, my father brought us on holidays every year, he loved to drive around Ireland especially around the Ring of Kerry, but mainly we went to Bundoran where I remember the amusements and the beach more than anything. I loved it there as a child.
It was always around the Twelfth when there was an annual exodus from the north to get away from the sectarian marches and violence which accompanied them. It isn’t until you are an adult and mix with “the other side” that you hear the Free State being referred to as a foreign country. This inevitably led to divisions, in tech, in the workplace where prods and taigs would stick together in separate groups for protection.
That was normal.
Now I am much older and would not tolerate such childish behaviour, which surprised me when it was raised on this blog as a current opinion within unionism. So rightly or wrongly, I have decided to consider it objectively (if I can, though I doubt it).
As always, when seeking knowledge, I turned to Google and entered “what is a nation,” to which I was informed it was a noun and meant “a large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular state or territory.”
More or less what I had in mind when I thought of what a nation was. Ireland has a proud history, inhabited for 10000 years, our Celtic then Gaelic ancestry before our kind friends across the water decided to share with the world their ingenuity for warfare and empire building.
Our people through centuries of oppression shed blood together in a common cause of Irish freedom. Unfortunately that was not fulfilled for all of the people of our nation, which was then divided creating two separate states.
However, by my limited understanding, a nation is not necessarily bound by political jurisdiction; enslaving a nation does not do away with that nation, in fact only by killing everyone of that nation could you do so. It all seems to come back to opinion, as to whether you see partition as a legitimate action. Which I do not.
Ireland as a nation, the whole island of Ireland, the Emerald Isle, of which St Patrick is patron saint, whose All-Ireland championship is our shared national sport and not an international event. As per Google’s definition, our people, united by common descent, by shared history, by shared culture, by shared language and inhabiting a single island is the nation I am proud to be a part of.
I will die before I let anyone take that away from me.
Just some quick questions
Until the British (namely us) came to Ireland was Ireland ever a single unified nation or a series of disparate small kingdoms?
What happened to the original Irish people the ones who were kicked off their land by Celtic Invaders?
Since when has any unionist believed that we have one National game?
Since when do I have any shared language or culture with you?
It all seems to come back to opinion, as to whether you see partition as a legitimate action
(Yes it was )
It shows a chronic failure of Irish Nationalism that it cannot convince Unionists that their future is in a united Ireland?
Hi Neill,
It show a chronic failure of unionism that it cannot convince nationalists that their future is in a United Kingdom?
Do you think that it’s only Nationalists or Republicans who have to do the convincing?
Maybe the following article would be worth a read Neill. It makes the claim that a united Ireland would be ‘good for our wealth’. If true, could that help convince you that a future in a united Ireland may be a better future than you can currently envisage?
http://www.anphoblacht.com/contents/25593
I suppose it would’ve helped if I’d provide the link to the article.
patrick
We discussed that study here previously.
It may be accurate or it may not be (it is full of hypotheticals) but it was commissioned and paid for by people with links to Sinn Fein so it is no surprise the result came out as they would have hoped.
If a study on the benefits of parades was commissioned by the Orange Order we might well view the results with some scepticism.
There are no more hypotheticals than in any financial forecasting report gio.
It is based on continuation of the current degree of political stability and no drastic change in currency fluctuations which I find perfectly reasonable
Perhaps you could point out to us one unreasonable hypothetical in this report gio before dismissing it.
It also considers only the current administration costs of having two separate public sectors on one small island and has identified the savings to the public sector that would be realised from unification to which all of the costings and a wealth of evidential material has been provided and as yet the findings have not been refuted regardless of their source which to which I find perfectly acceptable as Canada are leading the way globally in such analytical reports.
This would also be only one half of any real appraisal however, as it does not cover any capital investment programs, how to use the harmonization of tax to bring in new corporate inward investments, how to maximise revenue from tourism which would require 1000s of new hotels to be built right throughout the island as Dublin simply could not facilitate them all to reach Irelands full potential as a global tourist attraction, potentially doubling our tourism intake from 9 million per annum currently to 18 million and beyond. Ireland already has insufficient hotels for the demand and is losing money from this already. Belfast would benefit and the land at the Maze as I have said before is prime lad that could not only provide decades of construction and development but with the listed buildings a global tourist attraction in waiting which could bring in billions to this nations economy.
These will be required to counter the job losses from the merger of the two public sectors of which the north has too many more people than needed or can be afforded and the south still trying to bring pay back in line after years of unregulated and unaffordable growth thanks to Fianna Fail and the banks allowing the property markets to basically crash in return for quick profits.
What I think you should focus on gio, is Westminster is demanding the public sector be reduced in line with the UK which means the job losses are coming anyway.
As yet, there is no economic strategy for countering this in the north so dismissing the only economic report available to help address this is typical of why the north is simply economically unviable.
Hi Gio,
You have your doubts about the integrity of those professors who compiled the report then?
Just out of curiosity can you tell me who it was that commissioned and paid for the report?
Thanks.
Friends of SF USA
http://sluggerotoole.com/2015/11/21/when-is-an-independent-study-on-irish-unification-not-independent/
What I would be more interested in, is what Sinn Feins reaction to this report would be.
It does not conform to their socialist policies and is more or less driving along the same lines as current economic policy in ireland overseen by the ECB and is based on Keynesian economics which will be necessary for the unification of two disparate economies.
As I said before, it looks only at administration and is only one part of the overall economic strategy that would be required.
Thanks Neill. So it was a non profit social welfare organisation of whom a man with links to SF is an agent of. Is that right?
Anyway rather than discredit the contents of the report on the basis of who commissioned it I think it’d be better to deal with the contents itself. I’d be surprised if the researchers and professors involved in compiling it had so little integrity that they’d come to a conclusion not supported by their research but who knows.
Anyway I think the debate surrounding the economic benefits of a united Ireland will pick up pace in the coming months and years and I welcome that. I wonder if it would convince any unionists to vote for a united Ireland if it could be shown that it would be economically viable?
“Anyway I think the debate surrounding the economic benefits of a united Ireland will pick up pace in the coming months and years and I welcome that. I wonder if it would convince any unionists to vote for a united Ireland if it could be shown that it would be economically viable?”
Or more likely, the economic unviability of a 6 county state when the continuing subvention reductions England is enforcing make an impact. Stormont is currently 2 billion in debt hiding that impact in the short term with no economic strategy on how to pay for the state going forward other than begging from Westminster or the ROI.
patrick
I would not want to cast any doubt on their integrity at all. But it is always good to know from where any study or poll is funded.
Was it peer reviewed? Have other studies confirmed or contradicted their results?
“I would not want to cast any doubt on their integrity at all.”
You think what you said was not intended to cast doubt??
“it was commissioned and paid for by people with links to Sinn Fein so it is no surprise the result came out as they would have hoped.”
really???
Hi Gio,
according to the article I initially posted the report was peer reviewed. I do agree though that it is good to know where any study or poll is funded. I just got the sense that you were implying it simply couldn’t be trusted because it was commissioned by some people with links to SF and if that was the case then it’d mean that you questioned the integrity of the professionals who researched and compiled the report. I’m sorry for picking you up wrong.
As to your second question my answer is I simply don’t know. We often hear that the 6 counties remaining as part of the united kingdom makes economic sense. Are there any studies or reports that would support that contention I wonder. The reality is that nowadays we have far too many people living in austere times. Really tough times. I think it’s at least worth asking the question or initiating the debate as to the merits of uniting the country. Can we do better together? It may be that the price of the union is continued austerity and if so this would leave people with the decision of whether or not that is a price they are prepared to pay.
If you want a united Ireland then yes Patrick. You are the ones who have to change the status quo.
“If you want a united Ireland then yes Patrick. You are the ones who have to change the status quo.”
It is changing neill, haven’t you noticed?
Changing because you have one or two cross border bodies. I suggest that it is Republicans who have backed away from their goal of a united Ireland.
“Until the British (namely us) came to Ireland was Ireland ever a single unified nation or a series of disparate small kingdoms?”
Rory O’Connor was the High King of Ireland Neill, all of Ireland. I honesty think that argument is pathetic and weak when put forward by Unionists, it comes across as desperate because it doesn’t give anyone the right to take away anyone’s nationality (or land) and it certainly wont dampen Irish nationalisms aim of Irish Unity. By your own logic Neill, then England wasn’t a true country before William the Conqueror killed the last true English King, King Harold, in 1066 because England was a series of Kingdoms at one point. In fact, again using your logic Neill, I could easily make the argument England is French or Norman and not English from 1066 onwards because it was ruled by the Normans. Indeed even Richard the Lionheart was French and couldn’t speak a word of English. I don’t even think he visited England and yet he was the King of England and has a statue at Westminster to this day…..
“What happened to the original Irish people the ones who were kicked off their land by Celtic Invaders?”
Celtic invaders? No, it was Scottish/English planters who were the invaders, Neill….
“Since when has any unionist believed that we have one National game?”
The majority of Unionists today descend from the planters Neill, so I’m not surprised they don’t believe in a national game but Ireland, all 32 counties, does have one and its Gaelic football. Unionists believe and disbelieve in a lot of things. For centuries they didn’t believe Catholics deserved equal and civil rights (Penal Laws), they believed this right up to the 1970’s (violence against Civil Rights marches) and some still don’t (objecting to equality today). On the other hand some people, like Ian Paisley, believed the “Ulster Folk” (planters who were originally really Scottish, English and a tiny amount of French…) were the descendants of one of the Lost Tribes of Israel! Some loyalists literally, LITERALLY, believe that sectarian serial killer Billy Wright was a Prophet from God…..even though Billy himself said his actions (sectarian murder) would ensure his damnation in Hell….
“Since when do I have any shared language or culture with you?”
Well Linda Ervine would seriously disagree with you there but if you are saying your language/culture (Ulster Scots) is alien here then that’s up to you Neill. The vast majority of nationalists believe in inviting Protestants/Unionists to engage in Irish culture and to share it with us. The likes of the Orange Order take the opposite approach to theirs….
“It all seems to come back to opinion, as to whether you see partition as a legitimate action
(Yes it was )”
Denying democracy to the vast majority of people in Ireland was legitimate Neill? Threatening mass murder (genocide) like the British Prime Minister did if the Irish leaders didn’t sign the Treaty was legitimate? Edward Carson, a terrorist who brought the gun into Irish politics in the first place in 1912, his actions in denying democracy (Home Rule) to the vast majority was legitimate? Your certainly a hypocrite Neill but you can never call yourself a democrat….
“It shows a chronic failure of Irish Nationalism that it cannot convince Unionists that their future is in a united Ireland?”
Again Neill, since when was it the job of Irish Nationalists to convince Unionists of a United Ireland? If that were the case then Unionists have the job of convincing Nationalists of staying in the Union and history clearly shows what life was like for Catholics/Nationalists in the Union, so its definitely a no no. Irish Nationalism isn’t failing at anything Neill, election after election since the 1980’s has seen it growing while Unionism shrinks. As I pointed out to you before go look at the seats held by Unionists at council, assembly and Westminster level in the 1970’s compared to today and that trend is going to continue into the foreseeable future.
Rory O’Connor was the High King of Ireland Neill, all of Ireland. I honesty think that argument is pathetic and weak when put forward by Unionists, it comes across as desperate because it doesn’t give anyone the right to take away anyone’s nationality (or land) and it certainly wont dampen Irish nationalisms aim of Irish Unity. By your own logic Neill, then England wasn’t a true country before William the Conqueror killed the last true English King, King Harold, in 1066 because England was a series of Kingdoms at one point. In fact, again using your logic Neill, I could easily make the argument England is French or Norman and not English from 1066 onwards because it was ruled by the Normans. Indeed even Richard the Lionheart was French and couldn’t speak a word of English. I don’t even think he visited England and yet he was the King of England and has a statue at Westminster to this day…..
Your knowledge of English history is sadly wanting well before William the Conqueror came to England it was a unified country. The Normans conquered the native Saxons and in due course became the new English.
Well Linda Ervine would seriously disagree with you there but if you are saying your language/culture (Ulster Scots) is alien here then that’s up to you Neill. The vast majority of nationalists believe in inviting Protestants/Unionists to engage in Irish culture and to share it with us. The likes of the Orange Order take the opposite approach to theirs
Linda Ervine is not representative of the Unionist community by any stretch of imagination contrary to what the local media may say.
The majority of Unionists today descend from the planters Neill, so I’m not surprised they don’t believe in a national game but Ireland, all 32 counties, does have one and its Gaelic football. Unionists believe and disbelieve in a lot of things. For centuries they didn’t believe Catholics deserved equal and civil rights (Penal Laws), they believed this right up to the 1970’s (violence against Civil Rights marches) and some still don’t (objecting to equality today). On the other hand some people, like Ian Paisley, believed the “Ulster Folk” (planters who were originally really Scottish, English and a tiny amount of French…) were the descendants of one of the Lost Tribes of Israel! Some loyalists literally, LITERALLY, believe that sectarian serial killer Billy Wright was a Prophet from God…..even though Billy himself said his actions (sectarian murder) would ensure his damnation in Hell….
Still planters after 400 years I like your style
Again Neill, since when was it the job of Irish Nationalists to convince Unionists of a United Ireland? If that were the case then Unionists have the job of convincing Nationalists of staying in the Union and history clearly shows what life was like for Catholics/Nationalists in the Union, so its definitely a no no. Irish Nationalism isn’t failing at anything Neill, election after election since the 1980’s has seen it growing while Unionism shrinks. As I pointed out to you before go look at the seats held by Unionists at council, assembly and Westminster level in the 1970’s compared to today and that trend is going to continue into the foreseeable future.
If that I the case how come a united Ireland isn’t closer then?
“If that I the case how come a united Ireland isn’t closer then?”
That’s a fair point neill, if it were possible to convince unionists that a united Ireland would be in all of our best interests, it would happen much faster.
But the only possible way to convince unionists would be through a proper debate, both states being fully involved and the best minds in both of these islands lending their support to the assessment of whether the economics add up. I believe they would and we would be much better off together, but it is very easy for separatists opposed to this ideal, to stop such dialog even beginning and denying the people the opportunity of self determination and to choose what is best for all of our people.
At the same time, analysis would be compared against remaining in the union, and likewise, it would be equally impossible to convince nationalists that they would be better off within the union, with the added baggage of misrule and discrimination on top.
Seems like we either bury our heads in the sand and do it the slow way, or take our futures into our own hands and discuss these issues and reach agreement while unionism is at its strongest. It is really in unionist hands as to which way this plays out, but the outcome is inevitable – only the timeframe is unknown. I don’t think anyone in either state would disagree.
The problem you have Jessica and Jude is your argument for a united Ireland is full of economic holes which SF has yet to answer in any substantial way.
but the outcome is inevitable – only the timeframe is unknown. I don’t think anyone in either state would disagree.
Because you say so? Nothing is inevitable contrary to what you believe.
“The problem you have Jessica and Jude is your argument for a united Ireland is full of economic holes which SF has yet to answer in any substantial way.”
You think it is up to Sinn Fein to come up with all the financial solutions neill?
I don’t agree with that for a start as I am not even a socialist.
From a business owner perspective I am certain that unification would result in a more prosperous Ireland that could double its tourism intake within 10 years and boost the economy of the whole Island at the same time, with decades of development work in construction which can be spread throughout Ireland and not focussed solely on Dublin.
I would also press for faster development of renewable energy sources in Ireland reducing our reliance on the EU interconnections and exceeding the EU targets, not lagging behind them which would provide cheaper energy for our people and our businesses which along with harmonised taxes would encourage more high paid corporate investment and bring more employment to the north.
I the truth not that unionists do not want to know about the benefits of unification for purely selfish reasons?
Neill, sometimes you protest too much. If you seriously believed that irish unification was out of equation and that the ‘union is safe’ why bother beating on about it? Maybe you have too much time on your hands? Maybe you are concerned for the mental well being of your republican neighbours? Or something else?
Equally if you believe unification is going to happen why do you and your contributors keep banging on about it?
I just like reminding you!
“It shows a chronic failure of Irish Nationalism that it cannot convince Unionists that their future is in a united Ireland?”
Why should any nationalist be put through the futile and monotonous ordeal of trying to convince unionists of anything?
Unionism is separatism, it doesn’t want to share, what you need is somewhere you can all live as one big happy unit, away from civilisation where you can march up and down the roads singing billy boy songs all day long with no-one to annoy. I don’t understand it, but I get that is what you want.
But you divided a wonderful country to make a pigs ear out of the protestant parliament for the protestant people you turned our teddy bears head into.
Let me tell you, it is a good job there is an Irish sea between here and Britain, because if the people of Britain had to tolerate the Irish unionist culture on their own doorstep, you would have been shipped off to one of their remote colonies long ago.
“Since when do I have any shared language or culture with you?”
When I said shared, I meant through all of Ireland, the whole island of Ireland, unionism didn’t even come to mind, you can take it or leave it as far as I am concerned.
Neill, I would suggest you spend some time in England, not because you love it, but because it might be educational.
You will find, like many others have done, that no matter how loyal to that country you may feel, or however anti-Irish you may be, people there will enlighten you that you are not one of them – Protestant or not – you’re a Paddy!
“Until the British (namely us) came to Ireland was Ireland ever a single unified nation or a series of disparate small kingdoms?”
Actually neill, no.
I meant the English soldiers who came over to conquer Ireland with their advanced military machine.
Britain is the other island consisting of England, Scotland and wales. You aren’t actually British neill, you are Irish. That is your only inalienable right which no-one can take from you.
You may be a British subject but that is as safe as the word of the English who signed the GFA. In other words, the Britishness you hold allegiance to is not guaranteed and is as secure as said agreement. It can be removed by the stroke of a pen.
Don’t worry though, you will be Irish until the day you die and will always be welcome in ulster’s green shores.
Britain is the other island consisting of England, Scotland and wales. You aren’t actually British neill, you are Irish. That is your only inalienable right which no-one can take from you.
Really because you said so imagine if I said you were British how would you react?
“Really because you said so imagine if I said you were British how would you react?”
Neill, if Ireland was a united and independent country I would be happy if Ireland left the EU and joined with a new British republic or federal nation outside the EU, and of it meant that we would be entitled to be both British or Irish I would be fine with it.
Would you?
What is a nation? Well I know what a nation is NOT, northern Ireland. Ireland is not yet a fully sovereign nation, not while a large chunk is ruled from a foreign country but some day it will be.
Well stated, jessica, but i’m sure any unionist worth his salt would take all your definitions and transfer them to this misbegotten colony in the north of Ireland – without the least sense of irony. As an aside, when Arlene was being inducted into the Hillbilly Hall of Fame; when she received the call to join that pantheon of statesmen who have led the tribe of Israel since time immemorial – well 6000 years anyway, they did a nice interview with girls from her old school. Girls were bright, attractive, well coiffed and well spoken – well, almost. All the girls came, I presume, from the heart of Fermanagh but not one spoke with a Fermanagh accent. Is not that strange? I would say if the interviews had been in an Irish school then all the girls would have spoken in a local accent.
Fios, – Don’t get too high on your purebred horse.
If you were watching the RTE report of the weekend’s result of the Young Scientist of the Year you would have seen six girls (of similar age to the Fermanagh cailini), from a Dublin school.
Five of the six were of mixed origin, with at least two of them half-Romanian. I mention these two because immigrants from that nation seem to come in for most of the opprobrium in N Ireland!
You are talking at cross purposes,sherdy. The point I’m making is how come these girls from Fermanagh don’t talk with a Fermanagh accent. A simple question and straightforward.
They are, after all, white, British and Protestant. All these attributes are acceptable and understandable. But why no Fermanagh accents?
were does articles 1.n.2 being signed away sit with you.
Jessica , my sentiments exactly. I think the valour and determination of every generation of Irishmen to be free and able to mould their own nation by themselves is admired and respected throughout the free world. The courage and steadfast resolution and bravery of every man who died on hunger strike from Thomas Ashe through to Micheal Devine has inspired poets and authors…given solace and encouragement to others in their struggles and epitomises that desire within every human being to be free. I have a sneaking suspicion that this grim determination is recognized within Unionism ,they know within their hearts that we will never give up …..but what they must understand is ….If you want to live on the island of Ireland ,you will have to work with us …..not against us…..together we can make this a new Ireland ,a harmonious and caring Ireland working together for the sake of our children….for it’s they who matter ultimately .
As the son of a Roscommon mother and a Tyrone father – both proud members of the Irish nation (who met in Bundoran, funnily enough) – the idea that my parents are foreigners to one another would seem wholly counter-intuitive to me. It would be simply absurd.
Of course, national identity transcends political boundaries and is not confined by them. It’s a feeling that does not require state or legal approval, although if a unionist were ever in doubt as to the existence of an all-island Irish nation, he or she can see that this nation enjoys express acknowledgement in the Good Friday Agreement on the basis that Irish nationality has island-wide application. If he or she still don’t believe you, well, then the intolerance may well be impenetrable.
There is no such thing as an all Island Ireland nation there is an aspiration to one to suggest as such is entirely wrong.
A nation is a community of people – not necessarily confined by jurisdictional boundaries – with shared characteristics or experiences and a conscious sense of unity. You’re confusing “nation” with “nation-state”. The latter is an official governing body through which a particular nation might channel its identity.
If it’s official recognition of the all-island status of the Irish nation you’re after, Irish nationality law has effect over all 32 counties of Ireland.
If there’s no such thing as an all-island Irish nation, as far as you’re concerned, what are its boundaries?
Nations don’t have boundaries: only nation-states.
Indeed, neill appeared to be arguing that the Irish nation did possess a boundary, in his mind at least. He seemed to suggest that the Irish nation did not extend over the entire island of Ireland – that it only had currency over part of it – unless I’ve misread him. I was simply seeking clarification as to where he thought these boundaries lay, because I think he’ll find it a rather difficult task, which should therefore expose to him the error in his thinking. To be clear though, I wholeheartedly disagree with his position. As you indicate, he’s confusing the concept of the nation-state with the idea of nation. Of course, the Irish nation also lives and breathes beyond Irish shores and within the diaspora, but the island of Ireland is its cradle.
Quite. And Jessica is making a similar mistake.
“Quite. And Jessica is making a similar mistake.”
What mistake was that MT.
In fact, if anyone could just name me one nation that does not have a geographic area at its roots and perhaps it will help me to grasp where you are coming from.
I found this online, what would I do without Google.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stateless_nation
Does this really apply to Ireland though?
Thinking that a nation is a piece of land rather than a community of people.
“Thinking that a nation is a piece of land rather than a community of people.”
I know it isn’t a piece of land and never said that it was.
I said every nation is linked to a geographic area and that the Irish nation is linked to the island of Ireland, all of it and not just 26 counties as suggested by neill.
So why do you keep saying Ireland is a nation?
“So why do you keep saying Ireland is a nation?”
Because MT, the nation I belong to, and have for all of my life, is the nation defined by the island of Ireland, and while that may have changed for others, it has not and will not change in my eyes.
I was under the impression that was the very nation that nationalism aspired to, but perhaps there has been too much complacency in this regard and the efforts of the state to dilute it is paying off.
So it’s defined by the island of Ireland: surely that’s not the same as saying it *is* Ireland?
Daniel, why does everything you say make so much sense to me.
You are a fountain of wisdom. 🙂
Ah, I don’t know about that! But thank you, Jessica.
Well I would venture that he agree with your arguments as they are for a start,
By “nationality” you mean, of course, citizenship of the 26 counties.
If you wish to call it that, but it possesses all-island import or status on account of the all-island effect of Irish nationality law. Irish nationality is formal or official recognition of one’s Irish national identity.
It’s legal citizenship of the 26 counties, given on an all-island (and thus partly extra-territorial) basis.
Although the term nationality is used by states often as a synonym for citizenship, nationality is of course a non-legal and much less rigid concept.
I don’t think we’re in disagreement.
In this context I was using “nationality” as if it were synonymous with “citizenship”, but I appreciate and acknowledge the distinction you make. As our discussion aptly demonstrates, “nationality” can be used in distinct contexts to refer to very different concepts such as citizenship, ethnicity or national identity.
We are in agreement.
“Although the term nationality is used by states often as a synonym for citizenship, nationality is of course a non-legal and much less rigid concept.”
I think Daniel has gone as far as we can go with this MT.
The Irish nationality is defined by the island of Ireland, all 32 counties.
The community in which I live and evolve my life around considers our nation to be the same 32 county Irish nation.
It is quite clear that not everyone on this blog feels the same way. To some, Irish nationality is linked to our hollywood stars and sports personalities and is considered to be as fluid as choosing what to watch on television.
I do not share this opinion as I have experienced the same expression of national identity as I share, in all parts of this island, never moreso when the troubles were at their worst. There were always those who would prefer to cast the north adrift, but the majority of the people I have met were always supportive and that is the Irish nation that remains in my heart and will to my dying day.
Where celebrities come into it I do now know, but to each their own.
I understand the British separatists in Ireland such as yourself MT would oppose this and lean more towards British nationalism.
I have no problem with this either, but the 32 county Irish nation is real and will remain the only on I will ever give my allegiance to.
Irish nationality is defined in whatever way each individual who considers himself to possess such nationality wishes to define it.
That makes no sense, MT. Supposing someone defined their nationality as a small brown hen, for example.Or a supernova.Or a member of an inferior race…
“That makes no sense”
About as much sense as making sure a catholic majority does not become a nationalist majority.
That seems highly unlikely, but if somebody did genuinely believe that was what Irish nationality was, then that is his or her choice.
But a nation, by definition, must comprise of a community of people with shared characteristics, traits or experiences who are aware of their resulting sense of unity, no?
Individuals are entitled to define themselves as they wish or see fit, certainly, but one individual defining him or herself as being part of a “one-person nation” isn’t possible by definition is it?
Or are you saying that the concept of a “one-person nation” can exist?
“But a nation, by definition, must comprise of a community of people with shared characteristics, traits or experiences who are aware of their resulting sense of unity, no?
Individuals are entitled to define themselves as they wish or see fit, certainly, but one individual defining him or herself as being part of a “one-person nation” isn’t possible by definition is it?
Or are you saying that the concept of a “one-person nation” can exist?”
I think we’re all at cross purposes. My point was that each individual has his own understanding of how to define nationality. One person may say Irish nationility is possessed only by those born in Ireland. Another may say, “If you feel Irish, you are Irish,” etc. If Jude thinks it’s a brown hen then in my view that’s stupid but, for him, that’s what it means. It was a facile contribution that didn’t merit a response I guess.
The wider point was that there is no objective standard or definition of the limits or extent of a nationality. It is subjective in that sense. And this contrasts with citizenship, which is precisely defined and can objectively be tested.
The concept of citizenship itself is a social construct that is inherently contestable. It cannot speak for itself and is only “objective” insofar as a particular state that assigns a specific brand of citizenship is, in the first place, recognised as existing and assumed legitimate by other relevant or concerned observers deeming it in satisfaction of particular agreed criteria. Such citizenship only attains “objective” value or status though the consent or consensus of this body of observers.
Otherwise, the notion of citizenship is as subjective as the concept of nationality. For example, a Transdniestrian passport (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transnistrian_passport) would be of no use whatsoever to a Transdniestrian “citizen” arriving at border control in most – nay, pretty much all – countries around the world.
I’m not sure Jude’s response was a facile one. Rather, he was taking your assertion that “nationality is defined in whatever way each individual who considers himself to possess [a particular] nationality wishes to define it” to its logical conclusion and pointing out the absurdity to which that would lead; it would mean an individual could, for example, declare him or herself to be of an otherwise-unrecognised “supernovan” nation.
But surely that couldn’t be, could it? The concept of a “one-person nation” remains an oxymoron, surely? Is there any definition of “nation” that would allow for a single person to define themselves as such? People can profess to possess and subsequently assert an identity, but that identity only attains national status once certain definitional conditions are met; the traits or experiences which characterise that individual’s identity must be shared with a collective or communal set of others who also identify themselves as being of the same nation.
Well, the Republic of Ireland is recognised as existing and assumed legitimate by other relevant or concerned observers. Therefore you agree that in the case of Irish citizenship (so-called), there is an objective test and we can say whether or not somebody has Irish citizenship (i.e. citizenship of the 26-county atate).
As for somebody who thought Irish nationality required one to be a horse (or whatever facile example Jude gave) that would indeed be absurd and unlikely to be taken seriously by anyone. But, assuming such an absurd notion was genuinely held, for that person it would be the definition of Irish nationality.
Moving on to more sensible ground, the point remains that, unlike citizenship, different people can and do define nationality differently.
As I tried to point out earlier, MT, – surely there are limits to how that definition can be framed?
NI doubt there comes a point when you, I and other sane and rational people will dismiss somebody else’s definition as silly, absurd, irrelevant, etc.
You and I might think a definition that “if you feel Irish, you are Irish” is a bit silly, but for those who believe this, it’s their definitIon. Likewise Jessica believes only those born on the island can have Irish nationality: you or I may disagree.
It’s all opinion. Unlike citizenship, which is factual.
“Likewise Jessica believes only those born on the island can have Irish nationality: you or I may disagree.”
That is not what I said at all MT. Irish nationality is open to all who live in Ireland long enough to be naturalised I believe the term is, who are born of Irish parents or grandparents etc… or who simply throw enough money to the political party in power.
That is simply administration, none of those individuals or even groups define the Irish nation.
Yes, the Irish nation consists of all of the people who are considered Irish, but it also has a home nation which defines that nation.
And those who are born and live in that home nation have an inalienable right to be part of the Irish nation. Can the Irish diaspora claim an inalienable right to the Irish nation?
The point I was getting to, was that inalienable right goes beyond jurisdictional legislation and is permanently linked to the entire island of Ireland.
It does not mean you have to do anything special MT, it just means the right to be Irish is available to you even though you were born in the 6 counties and that is factual and the key point I attempting to make but obviously did a rubbish job of it.
Whatever. The detail of your definition doesn’t matter. The point remains that it’s your definiion and differs from others’.
“But, assuming such an absurd notion was genuinely held, for that person it would be the definition of Irish nationality.”
And you would recognise that they exist as a “one-person nation”, in accordance with their assertion? Or would you think, like most others, that they don’t satisfy the vast majority of people’s definition as to what constitutes a nation and thus dismiss their claim as being rooted in fanciful eccentricity?
As I’ve already said, I would think it absurd and pay no attention to such a definition.
Or one might say citizenship is objective and nationality is subjective.
Billy, we had sixty years of articles 1&2 and it didn’t do us much good.
And I know you meant arts 2& 3, billy
Now hang on a minute Jessica .Let’s not get carried away here. I dare say that ever since Jude invited me to contribute to his blog (Dear help him!!) I have written about 300 storypieces on whatever has popped into my head on that particular day and I dare say I’ve covered every topic imaginable. Even when confronted by the the likes of the madcap stories of Oor Wullie and all the other Shakespearian “rude mechanicals” that Norneverland throws up on a regular basis to write about, I still like to keep it all in perspective …. and I’ve a notion I’ve talked about this some time in the past ….So let’s not go slitting your wrists over your identity being stolen.That’s what these “fleggers” get hung on, after all, and we all know where that kind of thing leads.
You’re right in what you say about.. “a nation is not necessarily bound by political jurisdiction”.. You might add that a person is not bound by their origin story either.The fact of your upbringing as a Nationalist and a Catholic is really only an accident of place and birth and the fact that Ireland is currently in a a”state of chassis” these few hundred years is really only an episode in a much longer story of the land and the movement of peoples.At the moment, we are currently enriching our national bloodstock from countries all over Europe and further afield.That’s a massive change this century. Many new Irishmen and women are carrying other stories from other homelands to tweak our own story and add new colours to it. Come to that , the Celts were only another episode too in the vast span of things like the Vikings and possibly many Spaniards from the Armada…a movement of peoples and cultures that possibly came and went leaving their artworks, musics and influences behind…. from their european origins , so I could imagine that there will be further changes ahead within the next four or five hundred years. In that respect our Planted Scotsmen and women are only another few stitches in the cloth so far.
There’s also always room to make changes in your own life too ….and changes to your mind and lifestyle throughout your own life . Many emigrate to other lands from here too.Many change religions and take on new identities. nothing in life is set in stone.
I was brought up in a nationalist and Catholic household myself, but it is not what I allow to define me totally. There are many other influences besides my parents, family and friends. I have no problem being an Irishman, mind, because it is exactly what I am and where I was born. I’m not an Englishman , a Welshman or A Scot. I was born in Ireland and that’s it .It happens to be the northern bit of Ireland but on a tiny island like ours , you might as well be talking about the north- eastern pasture of a large farm.
I don’t believe in a god of any kind,either , of course , so my children will happily (or otherwise !) have me cremated(hopefully when I’m good and dead!) ,as instructed… and hopefully have a mighty hooley with much music, poetry and many toasts ,in my honour, without need of a clergyman, a witchdoctor, soothsayer or any other recourse. I’ll know nothing about any of it in any case. It’s not what is important to myself or my children and it isn’t what defines us. I don’t think it defines many others either but many of them don’t make much fuss about it and just go through society’s niceties to keep the peace.
paddy
Praise the Lord (or whoever) for the voice of reason.
Are you related to Woodrow Wyatt by any chance?
No relation at all gio! Ha ha…wait’ll you read Jim’s response!
lol
“I don’t believe in a god of any kind,either , of course , so my children will happily (or otherwise !) have me cremated(hopefully when I’m good and dead!) ,as instructed… and hopefully have a mighty hooley with much music, poetry and many toasts ,in my honour, without need of a clergyman, a witchdoctor, soothsayer or any other recourse. I’ll know nothing about any of it in any case. It’s not what is important to myself or my children and it isn’t what defines us. I don’t think it defines many others either but many of them don’t make much fuss about it and just go through society’s niceties to keep the peace.”
If you know nothing about it in any case, (religion I presume) why do you feel you can denigrate it?
I have read your comments on religion ad nauseam.
And while I enjoy your opinions and writings, I am just a little tired of your view on religion.
At time it’s degrading and insulting to those of us who believe in religion.
Please try to stick to the topic of the post, and leave religion out of it. Unless it’s about religion of course.
Thank you.
I’m afraid not Jim. I will be saying exactly what I want about my own life and of course you can respond in kind and denigrate me as much as is your prerogative…. and you too can believe in anything that spins your gears.To say that religion has nothing to do with our situation is disingenuous too.It has been brought up constantly in the context of Norneverland and it is usually in the sense of two competing sides here.There is a third option and that is people like myself who tread a different path entirely and frankly …there are many more of us than people might care to believe.
PS …The thing that I will know nothing about will be the moment after my death…as I will be dead…
“To say that religion has nothing to do with our situation is disingenuous too”
God or the belief in God has done mankind no harm whatsoever, religion and the abuse of the control it inspires has done plenty of harm but the ethos of God is the single positive uniting factor mankind has that permeates every race, every nation and every people on this planet.
It was not learned from any book but from the human spirit and will be undone by no man.
jessica
It is a bit tricky to separate the belief in God from religion.
As soon as any social group establishes a power structure (in the case of religion with God at the top and priests below him/her) then it becomes open to abuse as power always does.
This is not God’s fault as he does not exist,probably, it is the nature of men and women.
Does your ‘probably’, gio, refer to God’s non-existence or to the nature of men and women??
“It is a bit tricky to separate the belief in God from religion.”
Nor was I trying to gio.
I may not be a good Catholic but I do believe in God.
Abuse within social groups happens yes, but over many things, religion being only one of them.
Criticising the bad things done by man is one thing, but why make fun of someone’s faith in God?
It is like criticising good manners, charities, and kindness.
Jude
I was referring to the existence of God, but you are right it was a bit ambiguous.
I should of course have said ‘defintely’!
Let’s get a few things straight about this “god” business, Jim and Jessica, before we get bound down in it. I have, as Jim says ,talked about god and religion in relation to various things over the months but it was not my intention to start up up a song and dance about it here . I mentioned god in relation to my statement that it is possible for anyone to change their mind about something…to change their opinions …to change their nationality…their name or even their political or religious belief -system. Most of us get our belief systems early in life from our family and our initial schooling. That’s why I said it is possible for someone who has been brought up as a nationalist or unionist , catholic or protestant ..to have a sea-change of belief during their life. They might become buddhists!
I have no problem with anyone believing anything they wish to believe.After all there are dozens , possibly hundreds or thousands of religions in the world and each belief is” right” for its adherents. I made the point that I don’t believe . Well , that should be perfectly fine with everyone. It just doesn’t make any sense to me to believe and even true believers of a god would find it difficult to make a logical argument for “faith”, in that “faith” defies explanation and basically means that an explanation is of no consequence. That’s fine…It just doesn’t suit me at all and never would.
That’s not to say that I care whether or not a person believes in a “soul” or a “spirit”. It’s what they wish to believe but from my perspective these things are functions of our working brain and I’m very happy with that. These things are interpreted in a variety of ways in differnt cultures . It is also why I say that when I die I will not know what follows. How could I know when my brain which is my gateway to the world around me , ceases to live? It would be like asking a “mummy” in a museum who has been dug out of his tomb in the desert after 3000 years, having been buried with his slaves and chattels in readyness for an afterlife …”What do you think of eternity , so far?”
No , I have no problem with any of it and i have no worries about an “after- death” situation either.I don’t believe I have a “spirit” or a “soul”. I try to enjoy every day of my life as it is , not as I’d want it to be, or want it to continue to be in some great forever. Like i say …it’s not a putdown , it’s a realisation that everyone deals with impending death and their own fears of it in a variety of ways which suits each and every individual human being. It should not mean that we can’t all live together by an agreed set of civic rules for our own temporal protection and succour.Belief is a very personal thing and is not necessarily the whole picture.
“to change their nationality”
I accept all of that Harry, I personally don’t see any point in bringing God into any discussion it isn’t directly relevant to and religion is the most divisive of mans cults.
Back to topic, I guess I just don’t understand how we can just choose to change our nationality or how nationality is personal choice not related to a territory. I imagine the US would take exception if I woke up one morning, decided I wanted to be American and applied for a passport.
jessica
We should always use humour to skewer the powerful and in western society organised religion is a powerful force.
Where religious groups are a minority at risk of persecution we need to be cautious but that is not the case here.
The central tenets of Christianity are nonsensical and do not stand up to scrutiny but if you or anyone else want to believe in them that is up to you.
When those beliefs affect the rest of society we are all entitled to have a say.
That’s fine “paddykool”, but try not to be so condescending in the way you express your views on religion.
Thank you.
Thank you Jim.Why be so sensitive about your deeply felt beliefs though? Surely it follows that my opposite opinion is hardly relevant when your faith is concerned. It is yours …for your enrichment and you should shuck off any perceived slight by the strength of your strong belief in it.
As for changing nationality, Jessica…Many do exactly that when they move another country and take up citizenship there. One of my sisters is an American citizen for example.She has lived there half her life.Another sister has lived for forty six years in England and her daughter is English.Another sister’s children were both born English.In terms of the modern world it is all very fluid…
“As for changing nationality, Jessica…Many do exactly that when they move another country and take up citizenship there. One of my sisters is an American citizen for example.She has lived there half her life.Another sister has lived for forty six years in England and her daughter is English.Another sister’s children were both born English.In terms of the modern world it is all very fluid…”
But Harry, that is neither fluid nor is it purely by choice, as with members of my own family.
They did not simply decide to change nationality, they lived it and earned it.
One of your sisters has lived in the US half her life, the other is forty six years in England.
How can anyone deny nationality is geographically linked when the very example you gave is just that and over a prolonged period.
Britain and Ireland have a special relationship and now with membership of the EU and the time spent on the Internet, I think people take permanent movement for granted and have lost touch with nationhood which is sad.
Not everyone can just up sticks and move to the US to become an American citizen and be part of their nation nor are they welcome to. Just ask the Mexicans
I am very proud of my nation and I think it is sad that so many do not in this so called modern world.
Jessica…my point is that it is possible for change within a person’s lifetime.That’s all…Change….so what I am saying essentially is that if it is possible to take on a citizenship in another nation …as it is….it should be equally possible to make a leap of change and re-think any aspect of your life. None of us are glued firmly to our origins so any of us could take on a new religion or none or a new set of political ideas (I’ve known many who did this)…even though they may have thought differently in the days of their youth.It is also possible(in theory) for a lightbulb to go off in a person’s head and see the value of the idea of Ireland being a united country again in the right circumstances (If a rational argument stacks up and is actually listened to )….even after spending a lifetime at poo pooing the very idea. It is surely possible to change your mind.it’s a fact that, generally, people become more conservative creatures as they age and gain more responsibilities and possessions, so change of a sort ,is always there anyway. If I didn’t think like that , I’d believe that it wasn’t a possibility to somehow eventually sway political change in a future time .
“Jessica…my point is that it is possible for change within a person’s lifetime.”
So if Northern Ireland took on a new anthem and new flag would be no longer part ot the Irish nation and now part of a new northern Irish nation?
Personally, I disagree. I have lived all my life believing in the Irish nation to be the people of Ireland. I have more affinity with the people in the republic than the unionist population in the north, to be told I am now part of a new northern Ireland nation and no longer a part of an all island nation sickens me.
Perhaps gio is right and my generation would be better of dead
jessica
Would we all not be better off dead?
Heaven, mansion in the sky, eternal sunshine etc etc…
“So if Northern Ireland took on a new anthem and new flag would be no longer part ot the Irish nation and now part of a new northern Irish nation?”
… I’m not sure I implied anything like that at all ,Jessica. Frankly i wouldn’t vote for an anthem for Norneverland as I don’t really believe it is anything other than a temporary division of Ireland .
i’d be more interested in a wholly new anthem for the entire Irish island which had a bit more pizazz to it.As for flags, maybe we can design a brand new one for the entire nation , obviously including everyone. None of this will happen right away but we are in a holding zone at present and i’m very interested in how a whole new generation of our current new immigrants are going to use their new votes.Which parties will they find attractive in the future?. We are already seeing changes in this new Irish character on the streets of our towns, what with new languages being spoken in our shops and supermarkets and new cultures entering our schools..
“I’m not sure I implied anything like that at all ,Jessica. Frankly i wouldn’t vote for an anthem for Norneverland as I don’t really believe it is anything other than a temporary division of Ireland .”
Sorry Harry, I wasn’t suggesting you did.
I hope you’re right though.
I didn’t vote for dropping articles 2 and 3 but they were.
If Ireland isn’t a nation then nor is England, Scotland or Wales and I would love to see any Unionist try to tell a proud English/Welsh/Scottish man that their country isn’t really a nation all because of a piece of old dusty paper at Westminster. True, you cant get an English passport but I doubt very much English nationality all comes down to a few pages in a small booklet that you hand over when you go through an airport.
Nationality is strongly cultural, its almost always a strong cultural bond between peoples who share a common identity, a common language (but not always), a common religion (again, not always) etc. The Irish Diaspora is a great example of this. 100,000,000 people worldwide claim Irish heritage and feel a strong attachment or cultural bond to Ireland. St Patricks Day is a great example of this being displayed worldwide. The Irish diaspora are even mentioned in the Irish constitution. I regard all Irish people, full or of partial ancestry, regardless of where they live on this planet or were born as part of the Irish nation and should be entitled to Irish citizenship if they can prove Irish heritage.
Northern Ireland definitely is not a nation. It has no or little cultural bond amongst its people, its strongly divisive when it comes to identity, to religion and to a lesser extent language. Most speak English but the Irish language is largely seen as the language of only one community and not the other. Northern Ireland doesn’t even have its own legal and agreed flag nor national anthem (its default anthem is borrowed from the UK’s). Even in sports its people are divided, with most in one community supporting the NI teams and the other choosing to support another team (again, due to the cultural bond of identity that one community has with the ROI team). Northern Ireland is so divided that mistrust is a massive issue amongst communities, parliamentary democracy cant function and even walls need to go up to divide communities to keep the peace. Does that sound like a Nation? or even a country?….
Ireland may be partitioned but so was Poland. In fact Poland was partitioned 3 times amongst multiple countries in the 1700’s but its people still remained Polish, its people still remained and that was the Polish nation. Adolf Hitler invaded Poland and said he wanted the “destruction of the Polish nation”. He never implemented his plan in full but his intention wasn’t only about annexing Polish territory, it was to destroy the people itself by exporting them by the millions to locations like Siberia and elsewhere. It was clear Hitler saw the PEOPLE, not the territory, as the Polish nation.
There are minority German communities in parts of Italy, Poland, France and Switzerland today and they still speak German and are still part of the German nation due to their cultural ties. Its no different with the Irish people, we may have a foreign government in one 6th of our country but that doesn’t weaken our Irishness, in fact in many ways it strengthens it.
Maith thú Jessica. Tá iomlán na fírinne agat.
Nations are peoples, not geographical features. Ireland is an island.
“Nations are peoples, not geographical features. Ireland is an island.”
No one is disputing that Ireland is an island MT.
But since our Island is populated with people who share common heritage throughout the island, a common language whether Irish or English, and a shared history together for many centuries, how on earth are we not a nation of people?
Every nation has differences of opinion, in particular social and political differences , there are often many religions, but how does that prevent us from being a nation of people together?
We are still one nation
Nobody said that those Irish who consider themselves to be part of an Irish nation aren’t a nation.
The problem is that you are saying that Ireland, the place, is a nation.
Nations aren’t places: they are communities of people.
“Nobody said that those Irish who consider themselves to be part of an Irish nation aren’t a nation.
The problem is that you are saying that Ireland, the place, is a nation. Nations aren’t places: they are communities of people.”
Ireland the place defines a nation, the Irish nation.
To be part of the Irish nation you need to have been born in and lived in the island of Ireland, and yes any part of it.
Some seem to feel that the Irish nation extends beyond Ireland to those who consider themselves Irish such as my own family in Australia. I disagree and see them as being part of the Australian nation with Irish roots which they would accept also having been there so long and their children who were born there see themselves as Australian not Irish, though are proud of their Irish roots.
Then there are nations built upon agreements between nations creating new nations such as that of Britain.
This was then extended throughout its colonies including Ireland to which I am considered a British subject and part of the British nation whether I like it or not. I am afraid, likewise MT, you are also subject to being a part of the Irish nation due to where you were born and raised whether you like it or not also.
We wind ourselves up over the smallest things im afraid. Both very emotional over territory and definition of nationhood, we have so much in common wouldn’t you say?
“To be part of the Irish nation, you need to have been born in and lived in the island of Ireland”
That’s great but it doesn’t alter the fact that nations are communities of people not geographic spaces.
I think it would be helpful to redefine what a nation is, instead of relying on definitions arrived at by 19th Century nationalists, which were designed as much to exclude “the other,” as to include. Clearly using Jessica’s definition, albeit derived from Google, there are large numbers of people, particularly in the south, who are of Norman-French origin and, therefore, do not share a common descent, history, language or culture with those who were there before, but, nevertheless consider themselves to be part of the Irish nation. Conversely, there are large numbers of people descended from 17th Century Scottish migrants, who might once have shared a common language and culture, but for mainly religious reasons are not considered, or do not consider themselves, part of the Irish nation.
“I think it would be helpful to redefine what a nation is”
Ok, I will give it a go.
A large group of people living together within a geographic territory, who share common traits. These can be living, working and socialising together over generations, abiding by the same laws and customs, communicating using the same languages, speaking with the same accents and displaying the same behaviour etc…
When such a group of people can be clearly identified by those from outside that geographic location, they have usually given that location a name and those people when asked where they are from, will give that agreed name.
When that happens, those people have defined and nurtured a nation into being and that nation will exist for as long as those people exist and live together within the geographic location they gave birth to.
To be part of that nation, you need to have lived within that nation long enough to have had the way of life of that nation engrained onto your person.
Usually there is a sense of national pride among the people of that nation such as the achievements of people from our nation in sporting events for example.
Ireland is such a nation, as is Scotland, England and Wales.
When such nations agree to come together to form a new nation by agreement such as great Britain which is Scotland, England and Wales, a new nation is created that is still tied to a geographic location.
Britain identifies a nation, not only by its people, but by geographic location. Anyone in the world can point to an atlas and show clearly the location of Britain and no part of Ireland is within the geographic location around that nation.
But as well as having a geographic national territory, Britain also has a united Kingdom, to which it extends citizenship throughout its colonies, associated states, protectorates etc, within the Commonwealth.
No person who was born and lived all of their lives within any part of Ireland has an inalienable right to be part of the British nation, though they are British subjects until citizenship of the United Kingdom is withdrawn.
Every person who was born and lived all of their lives within any part of Ireland has an inalienable right to be part of the Irish nation which cannot be taken from them.
Indeed, neill appeared to be arguing that the Irish nation did possess a boundary, in his mind at least. He seemed to suggest that the Irish nation did not extend over the entire island of Ireland – that it only had currency over part of it – unless I’ve misread him. I was simply seeking clarification as to where he thought these boundaries lay, because I think he’ll find it a rather difficult task, which should therefore expose to him the error in his thinking. To be clear though, I wholeheartedly disagree with his position. As you indicate, he’s confusing the concept of the nation-state with the idea of nation. Of course, the Irish nation also lives and breathes beyond Irish shores and within the diaspora, but the island of Ireland is its cradle.
Sorry the Irish Nation extends to the 26 counties. Northern Ireland isn’t part of that jurisdiction in fact. You can be Irish all you want as enshrined by the GFA however the GFA does not state that Northern Ireland is Irish but British by the will of the people of Northern Ireland.
“Sorry the Irish Nation extends to the 26 counties. Northern Ireland isn’t part of that jurisdiction in fact. You can be Irish all you want as enshrined by the GFA however the GFA does not state that Northern Ireland is Irish but British by the will of the people of Northern Ireland.”
So it does have a boundary and the Irish nation stops at the border.
Next you will be asking for a northern Ireland anthem and flag.
I’ve redacted your final sentence, Jessica – not nice…
Yes
Neill; is your position that the Irish nation would cease to exist if the southern state (the political entity you seem to think defines and confines the Irish nation) was abolished? If so, where would the nation go once the state was abolished? How would you then describe those millions of people who once made up the Irish nation?
The Irish nation existed before the southern state ever came into existence. The southern state is just one possible political expression of the Irish nation. It’s an entity that provides the nation with official recognition and through which members of the nation can channel their identity if they wish, although that doesn’t necessarily have to be the case, for whatever reason. There are members of the Irish nation – “dissident” republicans, for example – who reject or are expressly hostile to the southern state as an entity and its political institutions. They view the state (along with the northern statelet) as partitionist and illegitimate.
You do realise that Britishness and Irishness aren’t mutually exclusive?
But the Irish nation isn’t a jurisdiction. It’s a living, fluid community or body of people; it’s not a state or a republic. The nation-state through which it channels its identity might have a boundary, but the island of Ireland is the cradle of the Irish nation. The sense of nationhood has currency and manifests itself through people’s thoughts, actions and sense of collective self all over the island, both north and south. That has no bearing on or relevance to the constitutional status of any state or statelet on the island. If the southern state was abolished tomorrow, are you telling me the Irish nation would suddenly cease to exist? Where do you think it would go? What would happen to it?
Just because the Irish nation is an all-island nation doesn’t mean there aren’t or can’t be other nations present on the island too. You need not think I’m being exclusionary of those non-native-cum-quasi-native communities that have made Ireland their home now for centuries. There is a minority regional British nation in the north-east of the island and, perhaps, an even smaller Ulster-Scots one in the north too. Do they define themselves as a nation? Of course, they’re welcome to embrace Irishness too, if they wish.
I get the impression that Jessica blew a fuse with Neill….but no matter…you see it is perfectly feasible to be totally and completely Irish even while under British jurisdiction. I actually does not matter whether or not Neill does not want to be Irish …he actually isif he is born here anyway. It is a fact of life.After that being British holds as much cache as being a Jehovah Witness…….Lt is just an addition which is changeable…
“I get the impression that Jessica blew a fuse with Neill….but no matter…you see it is perfectly feasible to be totally and completely Irish even while under British jurisdiction. I actually does not matter whether or not Neill does not want to be Irish …he actually isif he is born here anyway. It is a fact of life.After that being British holds as much cache as being a Jehovah Witness…….Lt is just an addition which is changeable…”
It is something I hold dear to my heart Harry.
I have no doubt whatsoever of my identity and it is not me who has lost any vigour in defending that identity.
I would point out that you have just contradicted yourself however.
“I actually does not matter whether or not Neill does not want to be Irish …he actually isif he is born here anyway”
If national identity or that which defines a nation is fluid and has no territorial boundary as you have asserted to, then how can you now claim that neill is Irish whether or not he wants to be?
As I said, I am quite clear in my mind where I stand and I would prefer Irish unity including the traditionally unionist community into a new all island nation-state, but if we allow a dilution of that national aspiration, the same one the rebels in 1916 fought for, then I want no part of any new partitioned nation that arise and I will despise it and all it stands for.
In 1916 we were all Irish, it was not nationality which partitioned the island, but control of the industrial wealth and a religious intolerance.
Are we further away from achieving that aspiration in 2016?
I stand by that …“It actually does not matter whether or not Neill does not want to be Irish …he actually is if he is born here anyway”
What else can he be if he is born in Ireland ?…No matter which street or county in Ireland he was born, it’s still a street in Ireland, so he ,or anyone else can’t really escape that simple fact.
Maybe it’s what kind of an Irishman he is that is in question …or which part of the island he lives on ….or what jurisdiction it currently lives under. There are so many different kinds of irishmen with so many different ideas and Neill’s do not jive with your own or mine possibly , but he is still an Irishman and as has already been pointed out elsewhere, he’ll be made very aware of that simple fact anywhere else in the world he cares to travel to .He might feel that he is a “British” Irishman, of course.He is certainly not a “British Welshman”.
A “national identity” is something else again and I would say that it is a multi-faceted state of being these days, comprising as it does a myriad of beliefs , aspirations, tribes and differences. Simply put, all Irishmen are not the same …and come to that , they are not even equal….so what is a “national identity” in such a splintered modern world? .
Harry, I do not dispute that neill can be part of the Irish nation and also a sub nation within that.
But MT and neill believe that the Irish nation does not extend over the 6 counties which I refute and which you have muddled views on, whereas I do not.
The Irish nation was defined by all of the people on the Island of Ireland over generations and nowhere else on this planet can you be born and live to be part of the Irish nation. Citizenship is membership of a state and can be bought, nationality is earned within the territory of that nation only and yes is open to all, but only by virtue of birth rite within that territory is it inalienable.
Jessica – I was under the impression that FG – or was it FF? – had changed the birth thing. You hadda have parents that’d lived here for two years first, or sumpin like that. To keep the immigrant riff-raff out, dontchaknow…
“But MT and neill believe that the Irish nation does not extend over the 6 counties”
Eh? When did I say this?
It extends over the whole world.
“Jessica – I was under the impression that FG – or was it FF? – had changed the birth thing. You hadda have parents that’d lived here for two years first, or sumpin like that. To keep the immigrant riff-raff out, dontchaknow…”
That was to bring Ireland in line with the EU in terms of citizenship which I have no issue with and there is no time limit, if you are born in Ireland with parents who are not Irish citizens you are no longer automatically entitled to Irish citizenship period.
It also gives precedent I believe to a situation where a child born in the north at some point in the future will be unable to claim irish citizenshp without the birth certificate of a parent within 26 counties or the 6 counties prior to 1998. Though Daniel has stated that while the constitution has rebuffed the territorial claim, the legislation for nation remain 32 counties which I was not aware off and may counter this possibility.
My idea of nationhood is more in line with what the rebels of 1916 were striving for independence for, the nation that was defined by the people on this island. a sovereign nation which Ireland is not at present.
While I have no issue whatsoever with separate minority identities such as that of the unionist minority of Ireland, in fact such minorities should compliment and enhance the national feelings, the definitions you are espousing is that of the one world nation and not one I have any affinity with.
“Harry, I do not dispute that neill can be part of the Irish nation and also a sub nation within that.
But MT and neill believe that the Irish nation does not extend over the 6 counties which I refute and which you have muddled views on, whereas I do not.”
I’m not sure anyone said any of this Jessica and I’ve already said that it doesn’t matter what someone believes when faced with a factual reality .No matter what neill , for example wants to believe, Ireland and “Irishness” does not stop on a borderline. There is no “sub nation” within the nation either . There may be groups of people with political differences and some of them currently live in some numbers in the north -east of the island which is currently under uK jurisdiction until we can alter that little fact , but if they are born on the island of Ireland , they will forever be Irish, no matter their current political aspirations . That could and probably will change over time and we will have a completely new kind of political Ireland unlike anything that has gone before.
There is nothing muddled at all about my thinking on this one but you will still try and shoe-horn everyone into your specific idea of “nationalism ” when what will eventually work will need to be a little bit more imagina tive than that old game if we really want this proposed New Ireland to be fully inclusive to all the new aspirations that it will doubtless involve.Space will need to also be made for unionism and their fears too , of course if they are to be partners in this new game..
“It also gives precedent I believe to a situation where a child born in the north at some point in the future will be unable to claim irish citizenshp without the birth certificate of a parent within 26 counties or the 6 counties prior to 1998. Though Daniel has stated that while the constitution has rebuffed the territorial claim, the legislation for nation remain 32 counties which I was not aware off and may counter this possibility.”
Irish nationality law provides that anyone born anywhere on the island of Ireland is entitled to formal Irish nationality (so long as they satisfy any other relevant legal stipulations). It has had island-wide effect since the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1956 was passed. The Good Friday Agreement acknowledged the legitimacy of this effect from a unionist and British perspective. Formerly, it had been viewed from that perspective as “irredentist” and was a matter of diplomatic tension.
At present, here are the criteria that may be satisfied in order to be officially recognised as an Irish national under Irish law.
A person born on the island of Ireland:
i) is automatically an Irish national if he or she is not entitled to the citizenship/nationality of any other country; or
ii) is entitled to be an Irish national if at least one of his or her parents is:
a) an Irish national (or someone entitled to be an Irish national);
b) a British national/citizen;
c) a resident of the island of Ireland who is entitled to reside in either jurisdiction without any time limit on that residence; or
d) a legal resident of the island of Ireland for three out of the four years preceding the child’s birth (although time spent as a student or as an asylum seeker does not count for this purpose).
Hence, I don’t envisage the potential future scenario you outline arising.
A person who is entitled to become an Irish national under Irish law becomes such if:
i) he or she does any act that only Irish nationals are entitled to do; or
ii) any act that only Irish nationals are entitled to do is done on his of her behalf by a person entitled to do so (a parent or guardian, for example).
Applying for a passport would be such an act. There is no presumption that someone is not an Irish national just because they may not have yet performed such an act. Also, once that act is performed, the person’s Irish nationality is officially deemed to have applied from birth. Essentially, the application is a rubber-stamping.
That is reassuring, thank you for that Daniel
That is really excellent, Daniel . We had an ongoing debate about this very subject a few months back but no one had any exact information at hand. Let us know your exact source for future easy refernce .ta
Paddykool; Certainly. All is outlined here: http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/moving_country/irish_citizenship/irish_citizenship_through_birth_or_descent.html
That is a government-managed citizens’ information site.
A document which consolidates the relevant 1956 Act with subsequent updates can be read here: http://www.inis.gov.ie/en/INIS/ConsolidationINCA.pdf/Files/ConsolidationINCA.pdf
Page 5 is relevant to the discussion at hand.
Section 6 of the 1956 Act can be read here: http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1956/act/26/section/6/enacted/en/html#sec6
The update to that section made as a result of the Good Friday Agreement and related changes to the constitution can be read here in section 3 of a 2001 Act: http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2001/act/15/section/3/enacted/en/html#sec3
That 2001 Act was backdated so as to be deemed enacted from 1999 in order to conform with the constitutional amendment: https://web.archive.org/web/20110607110425/http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/S/0161/S.0161.199912080005.html
This was the 2004 update that saw limitations introduced to the existing legislation in order to make Irish nationality law consistent with the law of other EU states and to halt what was dubbed “birth tourism”: http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2004/act/38/enacted/en/print#sec4