One hundred years from now (2117), Ireland will be a completely different place. For one thing it will be one country again with four provincial assemblies under one central government. The British will have cut their losses and departed and Ireland will be once again a nation among the nations of the world. It will be a democratic republic based on a provincial style of government with representatives from each province taking part in the central government along the lines of Switzerland. The economy will be thriving, the population will have exceeded 10 million and the chief industries will be tourism, horticulture and technology. Most people on the island will be living in communes or cooperatives based on democratic principles. Stormont will be a museum and ArtGallery. There will be no talk of cash for ash but care for the environment will be the first item on the agenda.
Irish unity will have come about without the use of violence and without any violent resistance. It will have come about as a result of the determination and sacrifices that many women and men have made over more than one hundred years. It will result from the work that has been done and is being done by those who want to build peace and reconciliation with the unionist community on this island. It will have been achieved especially by those realistic business people who realised that it would be folly to continue with two economies on such a small island. It has been assisted by all those who have worked and taken risks to bring about a lasting peace.
Those who today work to build justice, reconciliation and the new democratic structures on this island that reversed the disastrous effects of partition are making their contribution to the new Ireland. These people have worked very hard, without much co-operation from the establishment politicians in the south, to undo the dreadful damage done to the whole country economically, socially and morally by the partition of this small island in 1920. It was that partition which led to the outbreak of violence in the 1970s –a conflict which continued until the ceasefires in 1994. The peacemakers and peace-builders certainly had to work without the help or support of the Dublin media -RTE, Irish Times/Independent News and Media and most of the local papers to undo the damaging effects of partition. In fact they had to endure constant opposition and vilification. Social media has helped to play a major role in bringing about the change. Also the example and determination of our neighbours in Scotland and the fact that England is no longer willing to pay the 20 billion subsidy each year.
I repeat that the south (Dublin government) was not very helpful during these early years in the work of bringing about an end to partition and the reunification of the Irish nation. There has been much violent resistance to this project over the years but in the end the will and desire for Irish unity was stronger and so it was achieved. The vast majority of the citizens are satisfied with the outcome. It is clearly to the economic and cultural benefit of all those living on this island including the unionist population who now have a much greater say in the running of their own affairs than ever before. They have gradually come to realise that their best interests are served in a unified Ireland. The New Ireland is now a democratic republic which, according to the Constitution of Eire Nua, respects the rights of all citizens.
It is important to dream and to hope as we begin a new secular year.
Yours is a hopeful vision. In my mind I see Europe, in 2117, long overrun by the populous nations of Asia and Africa, whose expansion will be been driven by mankind’s innate need of Lebensraum. I hope you are right and I am wrong.
Meanwhile, I wish you and my fellow readers here a very happy and prosperous new year.
We begin 2017 with a Catholic plurality in the North of Ireland. For the first time in the history of the artificial gerrymandered state, Protestants are a minority. The state’s raision d’etre to provide a “Protestant state for a Protestant people” is finished.
As a general Catholic plurality leads to an electoral majority in around 6 years time we can rest assured that momentum to right the wrong of partition is gaining momentum as more and more people begin to realise the economic social and political benefits of Unity as opposed to a failed economic basket case operating outside of Europe.
The main challenge this year is to stand up to Unionist bigotry and reverse a trend of increasing apathy amount the Nationalist electorate. Perhaps DUP corruption and a pro EU election pact including SF and SDLP will have that effect? Nothing to loose. At best there would be a Nationalist FM. On a good day the DUP would not have numbers to pass Petitions of Concern by themselves. Worst case the gap between SF and DUP closes.
“We begin 2017 with a Catholic plurality in the North of Ireland.”
How do you know?
“For the first time in the history of the artificial gerrymandered state, Protestants are a minority. The state’s raision d’etre to provide a “Protestant state for a Protestant people” is finished.”
1. NI is neither artificial nor gerrymandered. Clearly you don’t understand the meaning of gerrymandering.
2. Protestants have been a minority since at least 2011, so it’s clearly untrue to say 2017 is the first time they are a minority.
“As a general Catholic plurality leads to an electoral majority in around 6 years time we can rest assured that momentum to right the wrong of partition is gaining momentum as more and more people begin to realise the economic social and political benefits of Unity as opposed to a failed economic basket case operating outside of Europe.”
Partition wasn’t a wrong, and how do you know ‘more and more people’ are beginning to realise the ‘benefits’ of ‘unity?
“The main challenge this year is to stand up to Unionist bigotry and reverse a trend of increasing apathy amount the Nationalist electorate. Perhaps DUP corruption and a pro EU election pact including SF and SDLP will have that effect? Nothing to loose. At best there would be a Nationalist FM. On a good day the DUP would not have numbers to pass Petitions of Concern by themselves. Worst case the gap between SF and DUP closes.”
Why is the main challenge standing up to unionist bigotry but not nationalist bigotry?
I actually agree with you here MT.
It should be up to nationalists to deal with nationalist bigotry and should be left to unionists to deal with unionist bigotry.
I also agree with Joe that Stormont’s future is as a museum and I have no desire to see unionist and nationalist politicians having a slanging match there. We have enough of that in Dublin already.
Census trends indicate a Catholic plurality in January 2017. Indicators of demographic change published yearly show no sign of a slowdown of this trend.
Your assertion that the North wasn’t gerrymandered is laughable. We all know the reason why 9 counties were not stolen.
It was indeed morally wrong to divide a country in two against the wishes of it’s people. Even Thatcher admitted the partition was wrong.
Independent reports have been published concluding that the best long term interest for the North is unify with the South. The unaffordability myth has been busted. Brexit is economic suicide and people know it. Top of the agenda for Irish gov in negotiations is that a UI will gain automatic entry to EU. All this has led to more and more promotional Unity coverage in the press.
All bigotry should be challenged. There is bigotry in political Nationalism but nothing on the same level as Unionism which it is inherent. There are literally hundreds of examples each year from DUP TUV UKIP UUP reps. The latest being the hatred of Irish shown by cutting £50k of Liofa funding to transport deprived kids to the Gaeltacht.
“Census trends indicate a Catholic plurality in January 2017. Indicators of demographic change published yearly show no sign of a slowdown of this trend.”
Can you provide links, please?
“Your assertion that the North wasn’t gerrymandered is laughable. We all know the reason why 9 counties were not stolen.”
It’s not laughable. Clearly.you don’t understand what gerrymandering means.
“It was indeed morally wrong to divide a country in two against the wishes of it’s people. Even Thatcher admitted the partition was wrong.”
It wasn’t. It would have been morally wrong to force an entire people into a state against their will.
“Independent reports have been published concluding that the best long term interest for the North is unify with the South.”
They have? What independent reports are these?
“The unaffordability myth has been busted. Brexit is economic suicide and people know it. Top of the agenda for Irish gov in negotiations is that a UI will gain automatic entry to EU. All this has led to more and more promotional Unity coverage in the press.”
Bizarre. How.would it even be possible for NI to remain outside the EU in the event of a ‘united Ireland’? What an odd negotiating priority.
“All bigotry should be challenged.”
Of course, yet you choose only.to challenge unionist bigotry.
“There is bigotry in political Nationalism but nothing on the same level as Unionism which it is inherent. There are literally hundreds of examples each year from DUP TUV UKIP UUP reps. The latest being the hatred of Irish shown by cutting £50k of Liofa funding to transport deprived kids to the Gaeltacht.”
Odd that dissident nationalist terrorism has escaped your notice.
I asked how you knew ‘more and more people’ are beginning to realise the ‘benefits’ of ‘unity? You didn’t answer.
MT,you keep asking for proof and links. The internet is awash with studies that a united ireland would be much better off economically, do a wee bit of searching please
“MT,you keep asking for proof and links. The internet is awash with studies that a united ireland would be much better off economically”
If that’s the case it’s odd that nobody’s able.to.cite any.
“Clearly.you don’t understand what gerrymandering means.”
Perhaps he means rigging an electoral boundary for political advantage.
Exactly the reason 6 counties were chosen instead of 9 but perhaps you should give your definition as clearly in MT land its means something different
“Perhaps he means rigging an electoral boundary for political advantage.
Exactly the reason 6 counties were chosen instead of 9 but perhaps you should give your definition as clearly in MT land its means something different”
Gerrymandering is manipulating constituency boundaries to favour one party over another.
Drawing a boundary to reflect the broad wishes of the people either side isn’t gerrymandering. It’s self-determination.
Self determination was the all island elections won by Sinn Fein and later the GFA roadmap for undoing that wrong over time.
Partitioning this country and dividing our people was undemocratic, it was wrong then and is equally as wrong now.
“It would have been morally wrong to force an entire people into a state against their will”
Glad you think so because that’s exactly what happened to Northern Nationalists.
Pretty weak attempt at “both sides are as bad as the other” and the common Unionist defense when they loose an argument, “what about the IRA!”
Well, if it wasn’t for unionist led aggression towards a peaceful civil rights campaign and an attempt to drive thousands of Catholics out of the north the wouldn’t have been an IRA.
The truth is, unionism started the conflict all on their own between 1966 and 1969 because they knew change was coming and it was the IRA who were the most successful in taking the fight back to them.
Typical response from a bully when they eventually get hit back hard.
“The latest being the hatred of Irish shown by cutting £50k of Liofa funding to transport deprived kids to the Gaeltacht.”
That was particularly despicable and all the more disgusting when you consider their antics in the cash for ash scandal
I think the mainstream churches here have never been closer and are working well together in making religion a personal choice in a new pluralist society where diversity is respected.
I am not so sure that support for partition is so cleanly cut down religious lines and I see no reason that the church of Ireland will not in time become the main religion on this island and not catholicism.
The papal visit may well help address falling numbers to church but I think it will be a blip and the damage has been done in Ireland.
Unionist bigotry has indeed to be faced down and hopefully by other unionists.
Sinn Fein will lead the government in a new Ireland, they have to act as if this were the case at all times and not sink to party politics regardless of voter apathy.
It is not all about votes. We have had enough of that in the past, it has to be about pursuing a better Ireland for all, not vote chasing.
Sinn Fein are bringing in a new era of politics of doing the right thing and to hell with the consequences. The people will decide whether they want to embrace change or not.
Lets hope the national security veto over the truth has been dropped by then.
It will also be interesting to see whether there are plans to celebrate the 100 years anniversary of partition.
Are there plans for the republic of Ireland to have a festival in Dublin marking the occasion with a similar event in Belfast for Northern Ireland with the streets lined with union jacks much like they were in Dublin a century ago?
More to the point, will there be protests at both and which would I attend I would be so affronted by both?
I think I would choose to protest in Dublin, the capital city of Ireland.
Would there be more people protesting than there would be celebrating.
The top 10% who are benefitting from Irelands fiscal policies would be more likely to be on a cruise somewhere warm.
But it would be unconceivable to have such events without a border poll being called in advance. Perhaps the bookies have it spot on that one will be called in 2020.
Fine Gael and Fianna Fail have indeed been very pro partition to date and as you correctly say have opposed Irish unity and attacked the only party promoting it with such visceral animosity it is sickening. But then, when you have people who can look at 7000 homeless families in Ireland and say we cannot afford to house you in the same breath as you refuse to accept 13 billion plus interest from Apple and that you wish to continue what the EU has declared as illegal state aid of 2 billion annual tax relief that will in return out an extra 200 million to 443 million onto the 2.1 billion EU contributions planned for 2017.
It is fiscal incompetence almost matched by that of the DUP, but in reality they are amateurs when it comes to gombeenism compared to the southern establishment.
Though I can see Michael Martin having the brass neck to come north telling us about the good work Fianna Fail have been doing in the background, I guess Enda could be foolish enough to try to persuade unionists for their votes.
I think both of these parties have well and truly burned their bridges to the north and unity will indeed come in spite of them and not thanks to them.
Will sin have disappeared in this Eire Nua Joe. What am I saying, it already has and we’re much the better for it aren’t we. The lion and the lamb are friends and the child plays safely over the cobra’s hole. I am my brother’s keeper and Angela Merkle is a modern day prophet who’s example has inspired the world. Fascism and fear aren’t on the rise and the worker is well rewarded for his labour.
Ah, the joys of globalism and the IMF driven EU nirvana so eloquently summed up Dominic
Such happy thoughts to start the new year 🙂
The struggle continues Jessica, happy new year
2117 now..lol..i thought somebody was saying 2016 was the year.
You see, this is exactly the kind of misguided thinking that I was nodding to wards on another thread.
As a Unionist I have come to se the futility of single issue politics (i.e. Unionism) in a global world – not that I like globalism, but there is little I can do about it.
Nationalism is suffereing form the same ailment but has yet to notice, perhaps, because they think they are heading for numerical victory, and perhaps because they, like Unionists, are still thinking with a late 19th C mindset.
In all possibility the notion of a UK or Irish Union in 100 years time will be irrelevant.
Any number of other issues will result in changes to how we live:
Global warming may lead to mass migration and food shortages or new food technologies.
Advancements in technology may see a merging between humans and computing – wearable technology is already available, the next step is integrated technology (think implants).
Space travel may lead to colonies on the moon.
Space travel might be normal.
Cultural and linguistic homogeneity will increase.
Transport will have changed beyond recognition.
People will live beyond the earth e.g. under the sea, in the sky, in space.
Increased dependence if not interdependence with robotics.
Cloning, genetic modification and advances in science will cage how we live, how long we live, how we give birth and the idea of family.
Government will change – perhaps governments will merge, perhaps organisations like the UN will govern, perhaps corporations, or wealthy elites will govern – but government will change.
The point is that a United irleand won’t matter – to anyone; except to the old comrades and members of the Gaelic heritage societies which seek to preserve the past… via their virtual reality optical implants.
Harry Houdini couldn’t have said it better
Ireland is only one nation Peter.
There may be many communities on this small island but it will always be just that, a small island.
It is not surprising that we should have more in common with britain, a neighbouring island than the rest of Europe which will continue to grow until it joins up with Israel right on through to Egypt and North Africa assimilating the Sahara desert which in 100 years will be prime land for the wealthiest citizens to live in the most healthy and unpolluted part of the planet.
I could easily envisage a space plane taking off from an air port and flying to a space port on the moon.
In fact I could think of a few people who I would like to see go and live there. 🙂
What are the odds if the US colonise it first there wont be a stars and stripes flag posted on it?
They are already building hotels under the sea but I imagine it may be rather expensive for your average person to live there and they will only be in national territories so same problem.
Unifying Ireland is not a political issue, it is an imperative for the economic, social and cultural wellbeing and the wishes of the majority of Irish people on this planet.
“Self determination was the all island elections won by Sinn Fein ”
That’s right and if you look at an electoral map you will see that those determining to remain in the UK were concentrated in the north east and those determining for an independent state elsewhere, and the border was drawn broadly between the two.
“and later the GFA roadmap for undoing that wrong over time.”
The GFA isn’t a road map. The process for uniting the jurisdictions was already agreed before the GFA and wasn’t changed by it.
“Partitioning this country and dividing our people was undemocratic, it was wrong then and is equally as wrong now.”
It was nationalists who wanted to partition the country. Unionists were happy to keep the British Isles united. The outcome, which satisfied the majority of both peoples, wasn’t undemocratic. It would have been undemocratic to force the unionist people into a state against their democratically expressed wishes.
The people of London almost entirely voted to remain in the EU, but I wouldn’t expect England to draw a border through its national boundary to accommodate their views.
Just as those who wished Ireland to be ruled from London should have accepted home rule as the democratic wishes of the Irish people.
The troubles were a direct consequence of this denial of democracy going back to 1921.
There is only ever going to be one outcome, reunification.
People like yourself who still try to justify partition are not only delaying the inevitable but you have a lot to answer for.
“The people of London almost entirely voted to remain in the EU, but I wouldn’t expect England to draw a border through its national boundary to accommodate their views.”
Why on earth would they do that? There’s no support for a separate London state.
“Just as those who wished Ireland to be ruled from London should have accepted home rule as the democratic wishes of the Irish people.”
I’m afraid every people has the right to determine its own future. That means unionists as well as nationalists.
“Why on earth would they do that? There’s no support for a separate London state. ”
Indeed there is MT and if Mrs May doesn’t play her cards right, that might be what she gets.
You can be quite sure that the british army have already drawn up contingency plans to move in and take control of the capital among other English cities and intelligence services will be working on a means of removing the current mayor of London just as they did before with Harold Wilson
“Indeed there is MT”
There isn’t.
“You can be quite sure that the british army have already drawn up contingency plans to move in and take control of the capital among other English cities and intelligence services will be working on a means of removing the current mayor of London just as they did before with Harold Wilson”
You’re bonkers.
Do I need to add that even Margaret Thatcher claimed the decision to partition in 1921 was wrong.
They got it wrong
MT, partition is WRONG
“MT, partition is WRONG”
Then why do you support it?
I don’t MT.
I never though I would ever find myself in agreement with Maggie thatcher, but I agree with her that it was wrong to partition Ireland. The UK got it wrong in 1921
Even maggie thatcher didn’t agree with your theory MT
“I don’t MT.”
You do. You support the partition of the British Isles.
“Even maggie thatcher didn’t agree with your theory MT:”
What theory?
The British Isles is on the main 2 islands Great Britain and Ireland, with thousands of smaller islands.
Britain and Ireland are separated by the Irish sea and it wasn’t nationalists who broke up the UK, it was unionists by refusing to accept Irish home rule within the UK but instead forming and arming the UVF in 1912.
This led to nationalists doing like wise and inevitably led to conflict and once that happened the union between Great Britain and Ireland was finished.
Your theory that to partition Ireland in 1921 to accommodate ulster unionists was somehow right, did not have the agreement of maggie thatcher who claimed it was wrong.
If even maggie thatcher thought it was wrong in 1986 and since then britain have declared no selfish economic or strategic interest to remaining in Ireland, then how on earth do you expect any Irish person to support partition within the island of Ireland?
Why is it that maggie thatcher can consider partitioning Ireland to have been wrong yet you MT cannot?
“The British Isles is on the main 2 islands Great Britain and Ireland, with thousands of smaller islands. Britain and Ireland are separated by the Irish sea and it wasn’t nationalists who broke up the UK, it was unionists by refusing to accept Irish home rule within the UK but instead forming and arming the UVF in 1912. This led to nationalists doing like wise and inevitably led to conflict and once that happened the union between Great Britain and Ireland was finished.”
As I said, you support the partition of the British Isles.
“Your theory that to partition Ireland in 1921 to accommodate ulster unionists was somehow right, did not have the agreement of maggie thatcher who claimed it was wrong.”
It’s not a theory. It’s an opinion.
So if maggie thatcher considered partitioning the island of Ireland in 1921 to accommodate ulster unionists was wrong, how can you expect anyone here to accept your opinion that it was right?
Do you think perhaps that you have got this one wrong MT?
“So if maggie thatcher considered partitioning the island of Ireland in 1921 to accommodate ulster unionists was wrong, how can you expect anyone here to accept your opinion that it was right?”
I’ve no idea what you’re referring to ans have no. Interest in Thatcher’s opinions.
I am referring to the fact that a british prime minister in 1986 claimed that the decision to partition the island of Ireland in 1921 was wrong,
You know perfectly well that the people of Britain have a lot of respect for Ireland and would be more than happy to work with a united and sovereign Irish nation.
It was always unionism which soured the relationship between these islands.
“Glad you think so because that’s exactly what happened to Northern Nationalists.”
It’s not. ‘Northern nationalists’ were not an entire people. And there were fewer of them included in NI than there would have been unionists in an all-Ireland state.
“Pretty weak attempt at “both sides are as bad as the other” and the common Unionist defense when they loose an argument, “what about the IRA!””
You’ve completely failed to address the point, which was your omission of nationalist bigotry (in its worst form – murder and terrorism) from.your list. Why was this?.What does it tell us about you?
Partition left a 30% nationalist population in the divided north,
Based on the result of the previous elections, there would have been 25% unionist population over all of Ireland so even that weak attempt to justify dividing a country doesn’t stack up.
Any wonder maggie felt it was wrong to partition the country, I am guessing she would have stood up to the unionist threat better than Lloyd George did.
And less of the crap about murder and terrorism, unionism started the conflict and it has been over for nearly 20 years.
It is unionism that still courts paramilitaries such as the UDA, nationalists do not want any paramilitaries in the country period.
“Partition left a 30% nationalist population in the divided north,
Based on the result of the previous elections, there would have been 25% unionist population over all of Ireland so even that weak attempt to justify dividing a country doesn’t stack up.”
You think it would have been fairer to force 1m people into a state against their will than half that number?
“And less of the crap about murder and terrorism, unionism started the conflict and it has been over for nearly 20 years.”
Murder and terrorism are always wrong. It doesn’t matter who you think ‘started it’.
“You think it would have been fairer to force 1m people into a state against their will than half that number? ”
I think it would have been fairer had the unionist threat been faced down and Ireland been given home rule and never left the UK.
“Murder and terrorism are always wrong. It doesn’t matter who you think ‘started it’.”
And I hope unionism feels the same way as we once again move towards finally exiting the UK and the loyalist dogs of war are not set loose once again.
But this time you wont have the state police on your side, the dogs will have to go against the PSNI and face the consequences of that.
You are running out of options methinks
“I think it would have been fairer had the unionist threat been faced down and Ireland been given home rule and never left the UK.”
So that’s a yes, you do think it would have been fairer to force 1m people into a state against their will than half that number.
“So that’s a yes, you do think it would have been fairer to force 1m people into a state against their will than half that number.”
I think that argument is a load of crap and smacks of desperation.
The truth is protestant bigots did not like the idea of sharing control of Ireland with the Catholic majority as they were getting things their own way against the run of democracy through coercing Westminster to do their bidding.
It seems unionism has not budged an inch in almost 100 years and we are approaching the same crisis point as we were in 1917.
Will unionism share power in 2017 and if not what will Westminster do this time around?
We heard maggies view that they got it wrong in 1921, will they get it wrong in 2021 I wonder?
“So that’s a yes, you do think it would have been fairer to force 1m people into a state against their will than half that number.”
“I think that argument is a load of crap and smacks of desperation.”
It’s not an argument. It’s a statement of your position.
Ireland was only one state, partition created a new state leaving northern nationalists under the cosh of unionist bigots against the wishes of the majority of the country.
Had the 1m protestants not been led by 100,000 UVF terrorists who threatened violence to pursue their political aims then perhaps the state would never have had the catholic interference and been a more pluralist society sooner in the states existence.
So yes, this would have been infinitely better than giving in to terrorist demands to create a new state and allow them to discriminate and abuse the power given for 5 decades before starting a bitter conflict costing 3000 lives, all over nothing. We are approaching the same crossroads once more 100 years on.
Has unionism learned anything?
“Ireland was only one state, partition created a new state leaving northern nationalists under the cosh of unionist bigots against the wishes of the majority of the country.”
Ireland was part of only one state. Nationalists wanted partition to leave unionists under the cosh of nationalist bigots against the wishes of the majority in their part of the country.
“Had the 1m protestants not been led by 100,000 UVF terrorists who threatened violence to pursue their political aims then perhaps the state would never have had the catholic interference and been a more pluralist society sooner in the states existence.”
Had the 5m Catholics not been led by hundreds of thousands of IRA terrorists who actually employed violence to pursue their political aims then perhaps the state would never have had the Protestant interference and been a more pluralist society sooner in the state’s existence.
“So yes, this would have been infinitely better than giving in to terrorist demands to create a new state and allow them to discriminate and abuse the power given for 5 decades before starting a bitter conflict costing 3000 lives, all over nothing. We are approaching the same crossroads once more 100 years on.”
So yes, this would have been infinitely better than giving in to terrorist demands to create a new state and allow them to discriminate and abuse the power given for decades before starting a bitter conflict costing 3000 lives, all over nothing.
“Has unionism learned anything?”
Has nationalism learned anything?
Your argument is Unionists being forced to remain in an All Ireland state would have been morally wrong but Nationalists forced into a sectarian state against their will was fine and dandy. Hypocrisy.
You could be arguing the price of a litre of milk with a Unionist and they would bring the IRA into it if they were loosing the argument. That’s a separate issue to bigotry inherent in DUP and a number of other parties which needs to be confronted.
“Your argument is Unionists being forced to remain in an All Ireland state would have been morally wrong but Nationalists forced into a sectarian state against their will was fine and dandy. Hypocrisy.”
No it isn’t.
My argument is that both peoples’ right to self-determination should have been facilitated as best as possible.
You supported one people’s right at the expense ofthe other.
“You could be arguing the price of a litre of milk with a Unionist and they would bring the IRA into it if they were loosing the argument. That’s a separate issue to bigotry inherent in DUP and a number of other parties which needs to be confronted.”
Again you fail to acknowledge never mind address the point.
Unionism has yet to acknowledge it started the troubles conflict and it appears you are unable to acknowledge that England did no want to divide Ireland, that it was UVF threats that forced it to do so, not self determination.
“My argument is that both peoples’ right to self-determination should have been facilitated as best as possible.”
Your argument is that the Protestant people should had the right to self-determination but Northern Nationalists do not. Clearly hypocritical.
“Again you fail to acknowledge never mind address the point”
It’s a different point but if you are determined to bring it back to the troubles I could go on about Loyalists terrorists as well as Republican freedom fighters.
“Your argument is that the Protestant people should had the right to self-determination but Northern Nationalists do not. Clearly hypocritical.”
No. My argument is as stated: both nationalists’ and unionists’ rights to self-determination should have been facilitated as best as possible. That’s not hypocritical.
It is you who believes that one people’s right should override the other’s.
“It’s a different point but if you are determined to bring it back to the troubles I could go on about Loyalists terrorists as well as Republican freedom fighters.”
I’m not sure how calling out your failure to acknowledge the bigotry of dissident terrorists is ‘bringing it back to the troubles’, but the above sentence appears to indicate that you were a supporter of nationalist terror during the Troubles. So you appear to have revealed yourself to be a bigot.
“No. My argument is as stated: both nationalists’ and unionists’ rights to self-determination should have been facilitated as best as possible. That’s not hypocritical”
Why are you lying for MT? lol we know you don’t support self determination for nationalists.
“It is you who believes that one people’s right should override the other’s”
Err….that’s what Unionism has been practicing for the past few centuries MT and you support that given you support the undemocratic failed state that is “Northern Ireland”. And yes, that is a fact. Pick up a history book.
“So you appear to have revealed yourself to be a bigot.”
A bigot accusing someone else of being a bigot…..and lets not beat about the bush MT, most of this blog know simply by your comments your a bigot.
Define a “terrorist” for us MT? And no, whoever you pick to be a “terrorist” isn’t a terrorist.
“Why are you lying for MT?”
I’m not.
“lol we know you don’t support self determination for nationalists”
You don’t.
“Err….that’s what Unionism has been practicing for the past few centuries MT and you support that given you support the undemocratic failed state that is “Northern Ireland”. And yes, that is a fact. Pick up a history book.”
‘Unionism’ has accepted nationalists’ right to self-determination since at least 1912.
“A bigot accusing someone else of being a bigot…..and lets not beat about the bush MT, most of this blog know simply by your comments your a bigot.”
I’m not a bigot. On the contrary I oppose bigotry. You won’t find any evidence of bigotry in anything I’ve said.
It reveals a lot that you consider someone to be a bigot because he or she opposes all terrorism and challenges and exposes those who support it.
“Define a “terrorist” for us MT? And no, whoever you pick to be a “terrorist” isn’t a terrorist.”
Use whatever definition you like. These are plenty out there.
‘Unionism’ has accepted nationalists’ right to self-determination since at least 1912.
Is that why ‘Unionism’ formed the UVF, smuggled in arms and threatened civil war to oppose home rule?
Funny way of showing acceptance of nationalists’ right to self-determination don’t you think?
And a bigot is someone who is intolerant of other peoples opinions.
You are completely self indulgent, you believe you are right and everyone else is wrong, you are incapable of accepting that the UK was a union of separate states and that one of those states opting to leave the union is different from dividing one of the states within the union into two states with one in and one out.
For many, membership of the EU was sufficient to make the border invisible, but now we are faced with the same issue, the UK is leaving the EU and we will once again be left with Ireland part in and part out of the EU with a hard border in between.
Can you understand any of this at all MT?
“Is that why ‘Unionism’ formed the UVF, smuggled in arms and threatened civil war to oppose home rule?”
No. That was to assert their own right to self-determination, at the time being denied by nationalists and the government.
“Funny way of showing acceptance of nationalists’ right to self-determination don’t you think?”
Recognising nationalists’ corresponding rights where they were a majority? Not sure how that is funny.
“And a bigot is someone who is intolerant of other peoples opinions.”
Indeed. And taking that intolerance to the lengths of supporting murder is bigotry taken to the extreme.
“You are completely self indulgent”
I’m not.
” you believe you are right and everyone else is wrong”
I don’t.
” you are incapable of accepting that the UK was a union of separate states and that one of those states opting to leave the union is different from dividing one of the states within the union into two states with one in and one out.”
The UK wasn’t a union of separate states. It was a single state. That is a point of fact.
“For many, membership of the EU was sufficient to make the border invisible, but now we are faced with the same issue, the UK is leaving the EU and we will once again be left with Ireland part in and part out of the EU with a hard border in between. Can you understand any of this at all MT?”
You’re asking if I understand the possible implications of Brexit? Yes of course.
“No. That was to assert their own right to self-determination, at the time being denied by nationalists and the government. ”
So you are ok that they used the threat of violence to achieve their political aims against even their own government and this makes partition ok.
I wonder how many other British PMs thing it was wrong?
“Recognising nationalists’ corresponding rights where they were a majority? Not sure how that is funny.”
So you believe rights are only valid if they are a majority?
Most of us would consider the rights of minorities having to be most protected, but then again, most people would not consider it a right for any group to be in control of a state and partition to be a reasonable method of achieving it.
“Indeed. And taking that intolerance to the lengths of supporting murder is bigotry taken to the extreme. ”
It was unionism who started the murder which led to the conflict, perhaps when unionism acknowledges this we can move beyond it.
“The UK wasn’t a union of separate states. It was a single state. That is a point of fact.”
Only in the MT book of facts, made up to suit MT opinions.
“You’re asking if I understand the possible implications of Brexit? Yes of course.”
No, I am asking if you understand the problems caused by dividing one small island into two disparate economies competing against one another.
“So you are ok that they used the threat of violence to achieve their political aims against even their own government and this makes partition ok.
I wonder how many other British PMs thing it was wrong?”
All peoples are entitled to assert and defend their right to self-determination.
“So you believe rights are only valid if they are a majority?”
Rights are always valid.
“Most of us would consider the rights of minorities having to be most protected, but then again, most people would not consider it a right for any group to be in control of a state and partition to be a reasonable method of achieving it.”
I don’t think most would otherwise they would have to oppose Irish nationalists being in control of the Irish state and achieving it by partition, and indeed all independence movements.
“Indeed. And taking that intolerance to the lengths of supporting murder is bigotry taken to the extreme. ”
“It was unionism who started the murder which led to the conflict, perhaps when unionism acknowledges this we can move beyond it.”
All murder is wrong no matter who ‘started it’. Unlike you I oppose all murder.
“The UK wasn’t a union of separate states. It was a single state. That is a point of fact.”
“Only in the MT book of facts, made up to suit MT opinions.”
No. It’s simple fact.
“No, I am asking if you understand the problems caused by dividing one small island into two disparate economies competing against one another.”
There are always advantages and disadvantages in any situation.
“Is that why ‘Unionism’ formed the UVF, smuggled in arms and threatened civil war to oppose home rule?”
No. That was to assert their own right to self-determination, at the time being denied by nationalists and the government.
You do realise that what you are saying here, is that a unionist minority in Ireland is entitled to use violence to maintain control over a reduced part of Ireland to maintain a unionist minority and that if the government doesn’t like it, it is ok to assert this right to self-determination through force of arms.
What message do you think that sends out in a post conflict society?
No. That was to assert their own right to self-determination, at the time being denied by nationalists and the government.
“You do realise that what you are saying here, is that a unionist minority in Ireland is entitled to use violence to maintain control over a reduced part of Ireland to maintain a unionist minority and that if the government doesn’t like it, it is ok to assert this right to self-determination through force of arms.”
I’m saying all peoples have the right to self-determination and to defend that right. Do you disagree? If so, then you must consider that it was wrong for nationalists to have actually used violence to achieve and maintain control of even that part of Ireland in which they were a majority.
“Your argument is that the Protestant people should had the right to self-determination but Northern Nationalists do not. Clearly hypocritical”
Ahh, come on now Enda, this is MT, utter hypocrisy is to be expected and laughed at lol but never tolerated. Of course he supports self determination for himself but not for Catholics, that’s been the whole agenda of Unionism since they first set foot on these shores.
As expected this blog by Joe has sent MT into a frenzy judging his comments. He’s definitely going to be one of those Unionists who wont accept the inevitable and will be still screaming No Surrender as Equality for all reigns and the Protestant Ascendancy is dead and buried 6 foot under the Earth where it belongs.
“Define a “terrorist” for us MT?”
I’ll take this one Ryan. I would regard a terrorist gtoup as any group whose policy is to deliberately target civilians. While Republicans (and British army soldiers) killed civilians and some individuals went on solo runs the target was British army and state security personnel. On the Loyalists side they just wanted to kill innocent people because they were Catholic.
Please back up your claim that I support terror or any violence? How would support of violence make someone a bigot anyway?
“I’ll take this one Ryan. I would regard a terrorist gtoup as any group whose policy is to deliberately target civilians. While Republicans (and British army soldiers) killed civilians and some individuals went on solo runs the target was British army and state security personnel. On the Loyalists side they just wanted to kill innocent people because they were Catholic.”
The PIRA targeted civilians all the time.
“Please back up your claim that I support terror or any violence? How would support of violence make someone a bigot anyway?”
Your use if language gives you away: choosing to describe nationalist terrorists as ‘freedom.fighters’ and then seeking to sanitise their evil deeds by pretending they didn’t target civilians.
Anyone who thinks it’s OK for some people to murder people to advance their own aims is a bigot.
You’ve also made it clear that you support rights for nationalists that you deny to unionists.
The conflict is over MT.
All conflicts involve terrorism, there are no friendly conflicts.
There is almost zero support for any paramilitaries in the nationalist community, Sinn Fein have made it very clear they are committed to the peace process and reconciliation. Unionism still stands shoulder to shoulder with active paramilitaries who have yet to decommission weapons or stop recruiting.
All paramilitaries use terror to control their communities, from what I can see, unionist politicians and parties have not done nearly enough to remove them from society. Is it any wonder nationalists feel this is to keep the threat of violence in their back pocket.
“Anyone who thinks it’s OK for some people to murder people to advance their own aims is a bigot.”
Unionism has still not acknowledged that it was the RUC and unionist mobs led by Ian Paisley who’s political party the DUP leads unionism today who used murder to advance their own aims that led to the conflict in the first place.
This is factual recorded history which will never go away and sooner or later a leader of unionism will have to step forward and acknowledges this.
“Unionism has still not acknowledged that it was the RUC and unionist mobs led by Ian Paisley who’s political party the DUP leads unionism today who used murder to advance their own aims that led to the conflict in the first place.”
Nobody has acknowledged such a claim. It’s in your head. I asked you some time ago to cite any reputable historians who makes this claim and you still haven’t been able to do so.
“This is factual recorded history”
It is? Where is it recorded?
I have posted this a few times now MT
There are references included, if it is all in my head and unionism did not in fact start the conflict then it is a hell of a conspiracy and many people are fooled by it.
http://www.judecollins.com/2015/12/truth-justice-and-reconciliation-part-3-by-jessica-mcgrann/
All this guff from a person who believes that the British claim jumpers have a legal and moral right to hold on to as much of their neighbours land as they can – ably backed up by the armed wing of the Saxe Coburg Gothas.
You state a division of a country into two to appease a small minority is correct on the basis that a minority shouldnt be forced into a state against their will. Unionists were already in an All Ireland state. Nationalists were the ones forced into a state against their will and against the will of the vast majority of the Irish people. You seem to be able to twist facts to suit your own warped agenda.
My comments related to demographic trends and Unionist bigotry. Because you are unable to counter this point you do what most Unionists do and try to change the subject to want to the IRA. Move on.
My choice of language in no way varies your claim that I support violence or murder to advance aims. That is all in your head.
I take it you are in favour of disbandment of the British Army? If not you are calling yourself a bigot as well as a hypocrit but I take it you don’t really know the meaning of the word.
“You state a division of a country into two to appease a small minority is correct on the basis that a minority shouldnt be forced into a state against their will.”
I state that all peoples have the right to self-determination and those rights should be respected and facilitated as best as possible.
“Unionists were already in an All Ireland state.”
Unionists, like nationalists, were already in an all-British Isles state.
“Nationalists were the ones forced into a state against their will and against the will of the vast majority of the Irish people.”
We don’t know that, given that it happened before the era of democratic politics. But certainly Catholic elites at the time did not favour the Union.
“You seem to be able to twist facts to suit your own warped agenda.”
I haven’t twisted any facts.
“My comments related to demographic trends and Unionist bigotry. Because you are unable to counter this point you do what most Unionists do and try to change the subject to want to the IRA. Move on.”
You referred only to bigotry, not unionist bigotry. I wasn’t changing the subject, rather sticking on the subject of bigotry.
“My choice of language in no way varies your claim that I support violence or murder to advance aims. That is all in your head.”
It very much gives the impression that you supported nationalist terror. Are you now saying you opposed it?
“I take it you are in favour of disbandment of the British Army?”
Why would I be in favour of disbanding the British Army? Are you?
“If not you are calling yourself a bigot as well as a hypocrit but I take it you don’t really know the meaning of the word.”
One is a bigot and a “hypocrit” If one doesn’t support the disbanding of the British Army? Wow. That makes just about everyone in the world a bigot and “hypocrit”.
What an incredible thing to say
Please quote where I said I was not opposed to violence?
On one hand you state “anyone who thinks it’s OK for some people to murder people to advance their own aims is a bigot”
On the other you support the British Army who bomb and kill people all over the world. By your own definition of bigotry you are claiming you are a bigot. Not mine or the dictionary definition by the way.
“Please quote where I said I was not opposed to violence?”
Why? You haven’t made such a statement. I’ve made it clear that it’s your choice of language, using euphemisms to describe terror gangs and telling lies about their targeting of civilians, that gives the impression that you supported Irish nationalist terror.
“On one hand you state “anyone who thinks it’s OK for some people to murder people to advance their own aims is a bigot” On the other you support the British Army who bomb and kill people all over the world. By your own definition of bigotry you are claiming you are a bigot. Not mine or the dictionary definition by the way.”
I oppose murder by anyone, including the British Army or any other army. I’m not sure how you translate that into a charge of bigotry, not what dictionary you are using.
Reply Comments
No point going round in circles. Anyone reading this exchange can make up their own mind. I am more interested in the future and have no interest in dwelling on the past. I am very confident in what the future holds.
The British shouldn’t have partitioned Ireland, but equally we shouldn’t have allowed it to happen; what were we thinking about?
Are you saying we should have fought on Dominic?
We should’ve persevered with the new political mandate in 1918. Did the people vote for Soloheadbeg?
“We should’ve persevered with the new political mandate in 1918. Did the people vote for Soloheadbeg?”
Indeed. Violence should only ever be a last resort.
“The British shouldn’t have partitioned Ireland, but equally we shouldn’t have allowed it to happen; what were we thinking about?”
Why?
Why what?
“The British shouldn’t have partitioned Ireland, but equally we shouldn’t have allowed it to happen; what were we thinking about?” Why?
“Why what?”
Why should ‘the British’ not have partitioned Ireland, and why should we not have allowed it to happen?
Because it was unjust and undemocratic
..and it hasn’t worked
“..and it hasn’t worked”
How has it not worked, how do you know any other solution would have ‘worked’?
“Because it was unjust and undemocratic”
How was it unjust and undemocratic?
Alright, it was a just and democratic way to answer the Irish people’s express wish for independence through the ballot box and it has worked out extremely well for generations of Irish people, particularly here in the north of the country.