The issue of re-uniting Ireland is one that has had a constant presence since Partition was enacted in 1922. The one country where this issue has been most prevalent outside of Ireland is in the United States.
Ireland and the U.S have a unique connection; there are currently 42 million Americans who claim Irish heritage and millions more recent immigrants into the country. As a result the Irish American community has an interest into Irish affairs and many have their own Irish ideology and interest in politics and public affairs.
The U.S.A has played a vital role in the recent history of Ireland being a leading player in the negotiation of the Peace Process in the north and supporting and ensuring that it is upheld ever since and also its continued investment in peace and development on the island.
The strive for a United Ireland by nationalists and republicans on the island of Ireland has also been supported over decades by many in the U.S and many motions have been passed in Congress supporting a United Ireland including one by the California Democratic Party passed in 2009.
It is vital therefore that this issue remains prevalent in the US in order to ensure that these views of the Irish American people are represented by their public representatives and that the discussion remains open.
So what exactly are the reasons a re-united Ireland should come about? It is essential first and foremost that the wider American people are educated on these reasons so that they can understand why this may be an issue relevant to many people in their vast country. The first point I feel that is essential to make with regards a re-united Ireland is the fact that the majority of mainstream republicans do not strive for a mere joining up with the current status quo in the south a common misconception, they strive for a new Ireland with new structures and institutions based on the equality and input of all its citizens.
The administrations in both regions on the island have consistently failed over decades to provide stable and effective governance for its people, the need for change is staggeringly apparent and the current financial crisis has only served to highlight the growing need for new structures to be put in place to ensure that Irish people benefit from sound and stable legislative policies.
What better way to rectify this than to start with a clean slate in which all the residents of the island have a say in its structure rather than attempting to mend broken institutions and failed policies?
The status quo is unacceptable. In the north we currently have an undemocratic governing body whose powers are still restricted as a result of British government policy. There is no way to address this lack of democracy as there simply is no other option within the current state of affairs. In a new Ireland democracy will be restored and an effective political system instated.
Direct rule from Britain for the north is no alternative; Britain has demonstrated for centuries that it is unable to govern the needs of Irish society. From famine relief to the sub standard infrastructure that current politicians are attempting to rectify it is clear that the British administration cannot comprehend the needs of the small rural society. A return to this would be catastrophic for the growth of the region.
Another formidable argument against partition is that fact that it was forced on the Irish people without their views being taken into account forcing a bloody civil war as a result. This was an undemocratic, foolish and oppressive decision on the part of negotiators and one that many Irish people have refused to accept as legitimate on this basis. It’s time everyone had their voices heard and the issue left in the hands of the Irish people themselves.
Unionists sought the maintenance of British rule with the threat of war in order to protect their own interests- their privileged status in society. They felt that this privilege was sure to disappear in a united Ireland and they resisted equality at all costs. The rights of the Irish nation to self determination has been held hostage since 1922 by a power hungry minority aimed at maintaining their own selfish privileges rather than legitimately becoming a minority in a society based on equality and rights.
This privilege has been facilitated and encouraged by countless British administrations a ruthless colonial force who ravaged the nation and its people for centuries and who ensure Protestantism is a basis for undue privilege. In the 21st century should this be accepted?
The state of Northern Ireland under British rule was the only way that Protestant unionists could guarantee the superior position that they had been granted since plantation. However prior to this realization Unionists had begun the pursuit of an Independent state of Northern Ireland. This leads to the question how strong are the links with Britain? Or are they merely an act of self preservation to ensure the position of one sector of society? What are these so called links to Britain? The British culture that many in the north claim to belong to is nonexistent, these people in fact have their own distinctive culture often a variation of the wider Irish culture. British people have no marching tradition, do not celebrate the 12th July, do not partake in Ulster Scots dancing or any of the other cultural traits some people associate with. Therefore the imagined threat to this culture outside a British jurisdiction is irrelevant and it could assimilate without difficulty into a new political landscape.
We are closer to a united Ireland now than we have ever been and this has proved a success with the DOE, DHSS, tourist’s boards and also the police among others benefiting highly from this increased co-operation.
A clear benefit of re-uniting Ireland would be that the need for planned interaction would subside and the duplications of structures and services would be irradiated this would be more beneficial economically and would save immense time and resources.
British influence in Ireland has been overwhelmingly negative. The brutal colonial force that Britain asserted over hundreds of years on the people of Ireland has had a lasting impact and these policies have caused devastating conflict on its shores. We now have the opportunity to break free from this legacy and create a country where each individual stands on an equal footing sure that they and their input are safeguarded within society. Every Irish person can then experience inclusion and diversity can be a valued asset and safeguard of democracy rather than a dividing force.
However it may be useful to note that Britain has no interest in holding Ireland or any part of it, the sole reason that Britain ever concerned itself with Ireland is because they feared that the powerful Catholic nations of Europe would use Ireland as a base for attacking Britain and so asserted its rule on the Irish people to ensure its security within Europe. With this threat irradicated Britain and especially British people do not feel connected to people in the north and as I have found do not want to be either. The only time Britain claims the north as her own is when talking politics or on the front cover of a passport. Therefore it appears that the British themselves were pushed by Unionists into remaining in Ireland even though it was not preferential to do so but the fact that they owed a sense of loyalty to the people they had placed there ensured the enactment of Partition.
The ease with which they handed over the 26 counties enforces this view- if Britain, one of the most powerful countries in the world, had wanted Ireland it would not have handed it back so easily. The Falklands war is a prime example.
In addition to this the potential for foreign investment in the north is being strangled by the retainment of taxing powers in Westminster. In the north a 24% rate of corporation tax is forced upon it, a clear barrier to foreign investment however if Irish people could assert their own will on their taxes I have no doubt that it would drop to the 12.5% rate that the South has adopted, due to its success and popularity with Irish people, which attracts foreign investors and is beneficial to the economy. A united education system free from the shackles of the expense of duplicating structures and services would provide the educated workforce required to fulfill our highly skilled industry.
Economics is one common argument against uniting Ireland. The notion that we are dependent on Britain needs challenged as The British Treasury either do not give figures or give estimates. There is no accurate data and this argument is therefore based on guesswork and not concrete facts.
The British Treasury do not give exact figures in terms of money generated here, taxes, etc. For example in terms of corporation tax many companies like Tesco, asda etc based in the north pay their tax through their HQ in Britain so this would not show up on the north’s tax revenues. Direct Rule has clearly stymied our economy through slow decision making processes on air passenger duty and corporation tax.
All Ireland efficiency savings should also be factored in when talking economics. Already the dup health minister is working closely with his Dublin counterpart in a no of areas and the new cancer unit in Derry will serve people on both sides of border. It does not make sense to duplicate services.
We are closer to a united Ireland now than we have ever been and this has proved a success with such ministers among others benefiting highly from this increased co-operation. A clear benefit of re-uniting Ireland would be that the need for planned interaction would subside and the duplications of structures and services would be irradiated this would be more beneficial economically and would save immense time and resources.
It has been noted that many Protestant Unionists fear revenge may be sought from Catholic nationalists if they partake in such a venture. To counter that I quote Bobby Sands a forward thinking man who has views that were well ahead of his time, he said that ‘Our revenge will be the laughter of our children’ this statement sets out clearly the aims of nationalist/republicans- a prosperous society based on equality and rights where children no longer live in fear.
The United States has no doubt got a role to play in building this bright future that I describe. The most important role that the United States can play in this debate is as a facilitator of discussion. Nothing will ever be achieved by maintaining the status quo and refraining from discussion. The topic must be promoted and discussed both by politicians north, south and worldwide but also in communities in people’s homes and in educational facilities.
The United States can use its position to promote this discussion in the British and Irish Governments, the northern executive and within society worldwide. The United States holds the influence required to maintain this discussion and have the difficult questions asked and answered, the pro’s and con’s debated and negotiations held. Just as it did throughout the peace process the United States can provide support and encouragement to politicians and institutions and ensure that everyone’s voice is heard.
We have the chance now in a time of peace to further the growth and prosperity of the small island of Ireland free from the baggage of its past, let us hear the laughter of its children as they grow up free from fear and discrimination together as unified but diverse people in a stable and democratic country. As with the Peace process the United States of America can play a key role in this, I urge you to further this debate.
(Leanne Peacock is a young Sinn Fein member who interned in Washington this summer as part of the Washington Ireland Program. The views expressed are those of the author.)
187 Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Switch to the desktop site to post a comment.DanOLoingsigh | Sep 07, 2012, 03:45 AM EDT
CurtisJ..so you claim to have read ALL the contemporary sources? I don't think so...
curtisjohnson | Sep 05, 2012, 09:39 PM EDT
Daniel O'Connell was at least a contemporary figure and Arthur Young was the most direct and primary source we have for the conditions under which the indigenous population suffered. You're making some ridiculous extrapolation to impute moral culpability on a people who were shattered and oppressed in an extreme sense based upon all of the contemporary BRITISH sources. Moreover, tithing was a religous obligation and the Irish people clung to Catholicism as the last vestige of an independent identity.
DanOLoingsigh | Sep 05, 2012, 08:15 PM EDT
Danielle O'Connell?? Sums it up really...I have quoted an author and his sources...sadly you seem unable to accept anything that does not fit wth your Anglophobic take on 19th century Ireland...
curtisjohnson | Sep 04, 2012, 10:06 PM EDT
You haven't established any foundation for your silly premise, including the timeframe over which funding for these structures was established as well as excluding the possiblity of external fundings. Moreover, an upper echelon of Catholic landowners held on to their wealth and could have provided the funding (for instance, Danielle O'Connell). Furthermore, the attempt at character assassination falls flat in light of the fact that Irish morale, culture, and unity had been destroyed by centuries of occupation (even education was a felony). That post colonial self hatred is still successfully exploited today by the Dublin establishment evidences the level of oppression. It is not unreasonable to conclude that tithing was one of the if not the only communable obligation which remained cognizable to the population at large.
DanOLoingsigh | Sep 02, 2012, 07:56 AM EDT
Though strangely for such a 'small' group, they managed to raise plenty of funds for many churches, cathedrals, and religious buildings??? While their countrymen starved??? And that's hardly irrelevant...
curtisjohnson | Sep 01, 2012, 08:26 PM EDT
The "middle class," whatever this ill defined terms means in the context of penal Ireland, was so small as to make the point largely irrelevant.
DanOLoingsigh | Sep 01, 2012, 10:11 AM EDT
My point remains that the Irish, or indigenous Irish, Catholic middle classes preferred putting their spare cash into building churches and cathedrals, while many of their countrymen starved...this is the nub of the authors article...
curtisjohnson | Aug 31, 2012, 09:45 PM EDT
I'm referring to primary sources such as eyewitness accounts and data - the best example being Arthur Young who provides an unbiased eyewitness account based upon his travels all over penal Ireland.
DanOLoingsigh | Aug 31, 2012, 04:38 AM EDT
I am NOT quote mining, as you call it. I am citing this article, and the conclusions drawn…The author cites his sources, here are some more that he cites; Famine, Land and Politics by Peter Gray - Modern Ireland 1600-1972 by Roy Foster - The Great Irish Famine by Cormac O Grada - Landlords and Tenants in Mid-Victorian Ireland by W.E. Black ’47: Britain and the Famine Irish by Frank Neal - Strange Country: Modernity and Nationhood in Irish Writing since 1790 by Seamus Deane - Why Ireland Starved: A Quantitative and Analytical History of the Irish Economy 1800-50 by Joel Mokyr - This Great Calamity: The Irish Famine 1845-52 by Christine Kinealy Oceans of Consolation: Personal Accounts of Migration to Australia by David Fitzpatrick - The End of the Hidden Ireland: Rebellion, Famine and Emigration by Robert James - Irish Hunger: Personal Reflections on the Legacy of the Famine, edited by Tom Annals of the Famine in Ireland by Asenath Nicholson - The Making of Modern Irish History: Revisionism and the Revisionist Controversy, edited by George Boyce and Alan O’Day.
curtisjohnson | Aug 30, 2012, 11:40 PM EDT
In order to master a subject you must rigorously study the primary sources rather than gratuitously quote mine (see, for instance, Arthur Young, an Englishmen who travelled througout Ireland for agrarian studies but incidentally documented the widespread abuse and subjugation of the indigenous population). Even the quote does not establish that the vast majority of Irish people did not live in squalor and subjugation during penal Ireland.
DanOLoingsigh | Aug 29, 2012, 03:38 AM EDT
I don't have a deinition...I am merely quoting the well-researched opinion of the author...as to how the population of NI lived...where both sides lived in similar standard housing...you're giving a very partial opinion, without evidence...and you need to compare with eg Dublin, where slum housing was also much in evidence...
curtisjohnson | Aug 28, 2012, 07:53 PM EDT
I'm not debating the author but asking you what your definition was of "middle class" in the context in which you used it. Even taking the quotes at face value, they do not refute that the vast majority of the indigenous population, on balance, lived under appalling conditions throughout the penal period - based upon the accounts of the british themselves. Incidentally, many lived in hovels after 1916-1920. I had friends that visited the occupied statelet as late as the 1960s and observed that the usual standard of living for the indigenous population was below the worst American ghetto.
DanOLoingsigh | Aug 27, 2012, 04:09 AM EDT
CurtisJ; I’ve quoted both the article, the author and some of his sources…now you can either do some legwork and enlighten yourself on the real facts of the nuanced, complex society that was 19th century Ireland, or carry on with your stereotypical Irish-American take where all the Catholics lived in mud-floored hovels up until 1916-1920 …it’s up to you?
curtisjohnson | Aug 26, 2012, 11:09 PM EDT
What then do you mean by "middle class"? What does "substantial" group mean - there are always collaborators in every major historical occupation, particularly when they're as savage and deadly as the british occupation. Moreoever, the fabric of Irish society had long since been shattered.
DanOLoingsigh | Aug 26, 2012, 04:15 AM EDT
The author, Colm Tóibín, does not contend that the majority were middle class, and this is never stated, either by him or me…so I don’t know where that came from? Accusations of ‘post-colonial pro-British revisionism’ about someone you seem to know little about, smacks of a typical Pavlovian response to unwelcome assertions…His grandfather, Patrick Tobin (and his grand-uncle Michael Tobin) were IRA men (interned in Wales after the rising)…his contention is that a substantial group of ‘indigenous Irish’ as you call them, were culpable by omission in the suffering of their co-religionists…and that uncomfortable fact has been conveniently ‘air brushed’ out of the historical record…he quotes many sources…the piece is called ‘Erasures’, I suggest you read it, note the sources, and then come back and comment…
curtisjohnson | Aug 25, 2012, 08:07 PM EDT
Quote mining is not "evidence," DanO, and you need to state the specific propositions you're citing each respective source for. Which one of these establishes that the majority of the indigenous Irish during the famine and immediate post famine years were "middle class" by anglo standards. Which one establishes that the Irish who survived the famine were of a particular "class."
DanOLoingsigh | Aug 25, 2012, 03:10 AM EDT
How typical of some posters to call for evidence and then dismiss that evidence as ‘revisionism’…fortunately academic historians take the trouble to cite their sources – so here is a selection - Heathcliff and the Great Hunger: Studies in Irish Culture by Terry Eagleton - The Great Irish Famine: The Thomas Davis Lecture Series, edited by Cathal Poirteir - Ireland: A New Economic History by Cormac O Grada - The Great Famine: Studies in Irish History 1845-52, edited by Robert Dudley Edwards and Desmond William - Interpreting Irish History: The Debate on Historical Revisionism, edited by Ciaran Brady - The Famine in Ireland by Mary Daly - The Famine Decade: Contemporary Accounts 1941-51, edited by John Killen
curtisjohnson | Aug 24, 2012, 11:28 PM EDT
This is an example of the post-colonial pro-british revisionism so typical of modern Irish academia (which is a mere product of the anglo-sphere). There were little to no gradations in penal Ireland as the vast majority of the population was destitute, uneducated, and abused. "[I]mproved their prospects" is extremely relative considering they were living in pre-stone age conditions to begin with.
DanOLoingsigh | Aug 24, 2012, 04:51 AM EDT
curtisJ - ‘Catholic society in Ireland in the 1840’s was graded and complex, that to suggest that it was merely England or Irish landlords who stood by while Ireland starved is to miss the point. An ENTIRE CLASS of Irish Catholics survived the Famine; many, indeed, improved their prospects as a result of it, and this legacy may be more difficult for us to deal with in Ireland now than the legacy of those who died or emigrated.’ Colm Tóibín, Lecturer in Irish Letters at Princeton University.
curtisjohnson | Aug 22, 2012, 11:22 PM EDT
Conservatively, the penal laws lasted from 1607 to 1869 (before that formal restrictions on the indigenous population were always imposed on lands controlled by the british - at least when the Irish were not wholly cleansed from the areas). DanO acts as though a switched were turned off and the affects of laws which robbed the indigenous population of all rights and dignities for centuries magically disappeared. It's telling that a robust living can be made in Ireland just by promoting post-colonial self hatred (see Myers, Foster et. al).
curtisjohnson | Aug 22, 2012, 11:02 PM EDT
Around 5 million acres leftover plus whatever amount fell into or remained in planter hands after the the Irish people were again forced to pay for land that had been stolen from them (the ones that were "transferred" as you put it). The penal laws formally lasted at least until 1869 - the noxious extortion of tithes from the Irish people to the corrupt anglo "church" was still in force until that point (incidentally, how much of this stolen wealth has ever been repaid by this institution which owned, branded and tortured slaves). Continued effects of the penal laws were noted as late as 1920. "Thriving Catholic middle class by the 1840s[!]" - a sick joke. What percentage of the indigenous Irish people are you counting as "middle class" (this would have to be measured in british standards as there is simply no other relevant measure of comparison). What is your evidence? The Church's were permitted because the Catholic Church sold out the Irish people in favor of british imperialism.
Fergananim | Aug 22, 2012, 09:48 AM EDT
@Dan - I think by planter families he means Irish people who lack O or Mac in front of their surnames. After all, such people can't possibly be Irish, can they?
DanOLoingsigh | Aug 22, 2012, 08:27 AM EDT
CurtisJ - So how much land is in the hands of ‘planter families’? The Land Commission (UK version) transferred 13.5 million acres to farmers by 1920 (over 75% of the agricultural acreage) while The Land Commission (post independence version) transferred 800,000 acres up until it was scrapped in the 1990’s. Also land was compulsorily purchased and ‘striped’ from 1923 onwards…The Penal laws were scrapped by the mid 19th century…there was a thriving Catholic middle class by the 1840’s – witness all the fine churches built then… …such as Enniscorthy, Killarney and Ennis cathedrals… in famine times…you need to look a little harder at the evidence, and not take all of the republican narrative at face value…
Fergananim | Aug 22, 2012, 08:19 AM EDT
Not only the unionists, IrelandNorth, but the citizens of the Republic would have to say yes. Sinn Fein supporters make out that unionists are the only one impeding a UI, but this is not the case. Even those who now vote SF would not necessarily vote for unification. What's in it for them? If the only argument Ms. Peacock can make to both communities is a hoary old Bobby Sands quote, then forget it. However, the point of this article is to keep the link with America, and especially with American dollars.
IrelandNorth | Aug 22, 2012, 07:09 AM EDT
Ex leader of the NI middle-class Irish Nationalist Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP) once said that if Unionists woundn't settle for a United Ireland, a 32 county Ulster might be an amicable compromise. Appreciating that those who remember the past too much may well be condemned to repeat it, Hume's deputy leader, school teacher Seamus Mallon, said that "... every generation has the right to write its own history." Ex-MP for Fermanagh/South Tyrone, the Rt Hon Bernadette Devlin-Mc Alliskey, (in a TG4 Documentary "Bernadette: Notes from a Politicial Diary", viewable on YouTube in its entirity), said that: "No matter where we wanted to be, here is where we are!" indicating her belief that the future is more about the present than the past. Rather than looking for absolutes, the answer to the imponderable conumdrum of a partitioned Ireland may well be in a compromise formation. The respective percentage populations should dictate degrees of association with the neighbouring island. Rather than having 20%/80% of the population/territory in/out of a British union, we could have the whole of the Island of Ireland in a 20% relationship with the whole of the Island of Great Britain. Thing is, would Ulster unionists be prepared to cut the constitutional umbilical cord with mater Brittania in exchange for the currently constituted ROI reentering the Commonwealth of Nations?
Fergananim | Aug 22, 2012, 05:23 AM EDT
@Gearoid4 - on the contrary, its has been explored. But never made to appeal to Irish unionists. And it is the likes of them that SF need to appeal, not Americans.
curtisjohnson | Aug 21, 2012, 03:53 PM EDT
The point is that it wasn't a felony for citizens of those other coutnries to own land (look at the percentage of Irish land still in the possession of the british or planter families) or receive an education and they didn't have all of their wealth robbed from them. The also didn't have their economy manipulated for centuries to the benefit of their gangster neighbors. Moreover, they weren't subjected to the threat of daily violence at the whim of the squatting planter hordes. All of this, in addition to the ongoing occupation and establishment sellout to the anglosphere, explain the present condition of the Irish people. Most others would not have survived the centuries of british gangsterism and savagery.
DanOLoingsigh | Aug 21, 2012, 06:28 AM EDT
CurtisJ - the Irish people had no control over their country, YES, that's true, but far from unique...most people in most countries, up until the 20th century, had little say in their lives(many still don't)...they were born, lived and died into the same 'class', apart from the handful that didn't...in most countries it was their own 'upper class' that kept all the power, although places like Norway, Poland and states of eg Austria Hungary had bad neighbours...as did Ireland...its just that they all don't go on and on about it....and re-live every episode...and want to blame their own mistakes and misjudgements on a convenient scapegoat...and I don't agree it's occupied...it just is host for two tribes, who differ in how they want to be ran...current dificulties are largely self-inflicted, in a national sense...
curtisjohnson | Aug 20, 2012, 09:48 PM EDT
wizardofoz, you sound equally angry and nutty. @DanO " So to sum up...all the problems in Ireland are the fault of those pesky Brits...we don't have to take responsiblity for anything because.... all the problems in Ireland are the fault of those pesky Brits - repeat ad infinitum..." Even you have to admit that the Irish people had no control over their country or destiny during the penal night that constitued the height of british "rule" (terrorism) in Ireland. As noted by at least one Irish historian, the quality of life was lower then than during the stone age (at least during the megalithic phase). Its a wonder that any people could have survived this terror intact. The modern problems are largely the result of souless anglo-materialism which has been strongly fastened in this country by the british dominated Dublin establishment. Like it or not, Ireland has suffered and continues to suffer a post-colonial self hatred which is exploited by these vipers. Notably, however, the british disease not only infects the Irish people but also the citizens of its own captive nations (who it was never designed to benefit). You can blame the Irish people but Ireland is still a tiny, divided, and occupied country whose real autonomy is limited.
wizardofoz | Aug 20, 2012, 10:28 AM EDT
Dano, your comment re- "respect differences" is spot on. You are a smart man and well informed if only others realised such truth our problems would be short lived. Ulster 1999, you make a good point "It's not up to Britain, it's up to Ulster Prods" (frighten people) well said. Curtisjohnson, your post shows you know nothing of Irish history, your dumb attempt to link "British Identity" to "Bolshevism" is ridiculous, in the instance however, given that "Bolshevism" was a completely Jewish in its formation, and given to day Britain and the U.S.A. is dominated by Jews maybe you have a valid point? Others can validate that point.
DanOLoingsigh | Aug 20, 2012, 04:58 AM EDT
So to sum up...all the problems in Ireland are the fault of those pesky Brits...we don't have to take responsiblity for anything because.... all the problems in Ireland are the fault of those pesky Brits - repeat ad infinitum...
Gearoid4 | Aug 19, 2012, 08:52 PM EDT
@Ferganim, A united Ireland may be the only solution that solves the economic and political problems that both parts of the partitioned country suffers from. It's potentiality has never been explored and it may prove to be the only viable solution in the long run.
curtisjohnson | Aug 19, 2012, 07:26 PM EDT
The creole language which has come to be known as "english."
Fergananim | Aug 19, 2012, 09:42 AM EDT
@ Curtisjohnson "That a form of "german" was spoken in britain or Ireland has never been proven." And what language are we speaking now?
Fergananim | Aug 19, 2012, 09:40 AM EDT
As to the article itself - its the usual SF waffle, and a complete waste of time, sadly. The only people Ms. Peacock should be explaining the merits of a united Ireland to are the likes of Citizen69, who lives in Northern Ireland (and the likes of myself in the Republic of Ireland). Americans have no vote in the matter. The people of Northern Ireland do. Failing to do that just underlines the divisions between the two communites, and SF understand this, so they indulge in window-dressing excercises such as this. It looks good, and gives the impression that it achieves something. Its interesting that a united Ireland is rarely discussed in the day-to-day politics of Northern Ireland or the Republic, because it is not a priority to the majority of Irish people. And Sinn Fein will never gain a UI if they continue to treat the people of NI and RoI with such contempt. But I think the leadership knows this, which is why it has young members write up articles such as this. It keeps the troops happy, and give the impression that a united Ireland is "imminent".
Fergananim | Aug 19, 2012, 09:27 AM EDT
@jacersagain - Thanks for the kind comments. I find it very interesting to hear from people such as curtisjohnson and understand the basis for their points of view. I have no idea where he lives, but I do get the impression that most of the posters here are USA natives, and most have probably never been to Ireland. Its interesting that I found his line of thought very much like that of my grandfather and his generation - all born in the late 19th century - and remainds me of comments and attitudes among the American descendants of his brothers, sisters, cousions. You can then see how and why political and socical thought on Ireland and Irish identity can be several steps behind the reality in Ireland itself.
jacersagain | Aug 19, 2012, 03:00 AM EDT
My follow-on post was (…more) From my reading of the debate under Leanne’s article, the best contributions have been from ankcaver, Fergananim and citizen69. In fact, I think the comments by citizen69 should be looked at more deeply and recognised for what they are. They’re good and honest but sadly ignorant of progress in peoples’ lives in the island of Ireland. I thought that the posts of IrishPhotographer and Fergananim were historically good and (mostly) true so they deserve some recognition by all, even if you’re a die-hard ‘whatever.’ My own contribution to all of this debate?... (More…) (Then follows my easy-peasy comment; no wonder I've lost all trust in ICentral)
jacersagain | Aug 19, 2012, 02:55 AM EDT
I agree curtis... Re my post at 09.38 Aug 18th, you’ll see that it has my old ‘trademark’ (more …) in it. That tells all that it was a continuation of posts before it that didn’t make it online and certainly wasn’t enough for ICentral to stop it being posted… proof of my lack of interest in posting on IC. Here’s what I posted before 09.38pm yesterday >>>> Hello again to all …. Really, I’m taking a chance on posting this. Although I regularly check in on what ICentral posters contribute to the site on various topics, I’ve not posted on ICentral for quite a while because its central computer server hive of activity is getting things all wrong. Posts ascribed to me, Townie, Antoman, Wiley Wounded Georgie and others are not his/hers/mine ...even spots of reclaiming posts even go wrong… If I click on the “Most Commented” or “Most Read” or “Most Emailed” buttons, they go blankety-blank on my screen. Bejacers, ICentral, you really need to check up on whose working in your IT dept, really, I mean that. Really, in fact, I mean really, really. >>> Anyways, trusting this post gets properly ascribed to me, as jacersagain, I say this debate has been fascinating to read. Let’s not take it out too hard on Leanne, she’ a learner as my son was once and he ended up establishing one of the most popular web-site discussion sites in the world (no, I’m not gonna tell you who he is), so let’s give a bit of room to Leanne. Actually, I disagree with her, as I’m entitled to do, in journalistic and intelligence-political-religion challenging discourses. (More…)
curtisjohnson | Aug 18, 2012, 09:55 PM EDT
"If only that excruciating decison made in London by a young, politically inexperienced Michael Collins hadn't landed us with what we Irish on the island of Ireland have had to live with since" Michael Cllins made the decision based upon the threat of unrestrained modern warfare against non-combatants by the british terror state (a campaign that had already been begun by the black and tans).
jacersagain | Aug 18, 2012, 09:39 PM EDT
(…more) Well, it’s easy-peasy … the Past is past; history is just that, dead… history, a recording of times gone by in the lives of our forefathers and foremothers which none of us can imagine being part of - think Penal Times), yet feel privileged to be descended from. Today, Love God and Love your Neighbour… then the peace We All crave for will be ours, today. That’s all everybody has to live for - today. Tomorrow will be another day for those of us privileged to live it as a ‘Today’. Like my day today… I discovered Eucharistic Miracles happened in many places that I didn’t even know existed. You all can find that truth too, if you bother your barmy to do so, like I did. Start like I did… questioning beliefs at my local Catholic Church’s tabernacle. I got my answers. Sharply and beautifully. I am glad to share this with all who disbelieve. For all the knocking comments here on ICentral, I hafta boldly say and admit that we have to recognise President De Valera and the Bishops and Popes of his time got it right. WE selfish ones got it wrong. That’ll rattle a lot of people… but if you look at it objectively, they were right. Nobody, nobody in the whole world has yet proved that their Christian and united Irish Nation aspirations were wrong. Don’tchaz thinks we might look at their truth of things again, from where we are, today??? Now there's a good something reason to look at ourselves in the mirror these days and answer as to why we Irish didn't perk up to their longings for a truly Irish-bred nation of true Irish Christians. If only that excruciating decison made in London by a young, politically inexperienced Michael Collins hadn't landed us with what we Irish on the island of Ireland have had to live with since... ahhh!
curtisjohnson | Aug 18, 2012, 09:34 PM EDT
What has prevented the unity of the Irish people is the desire of the planters to maintain a supremacist state over their indigenous neighbors. This has been strongly promoted by the british state historically.
curtisjohnson | Aug 18, 2012, 09:29 PM EDT
One entity that is certainly not and has never been a nation is the monstrosity of britain. It is a series of captive nations (anglo-saxons, Welsh, Scottish, Manx, residents of Cornwall, Devon, the occupied statelet, etc.) that were bound together by force as a result of the original Norman nation mugging and its continuation over centuries. Even among the anglo-saxons there are distinct divisions which have a rough geographic distribution today between areas settled by the various germanic tribes lumped into "anglo-saxon" and the Danes (as well as the Norman overlay which has survived predominantly in the ruling elites). Your assertion that perception of political difference creates different nations is simply ludicrous and would elminate the concept of nation in its entirety.
curtisjohnson | Aug 18, 2012, 09:18 PM EDT
@Fergananim Your mess of a post is so myth filled it is tedious to deconstruct. No one has identified "Celtic" as anything other than a culture and the current thinking is that the Celtic culture spread from the West. La Tene was merely a prodigous metal working culture - natural due to the high concentration of mineral wealth in the area. No doubt what became the indigenous people of Western Europe were originally a blend of multiple ethnicities. However, the archaelogical records suggest an advanced and singular megalithic culture in the Atlantic facade. There have been credible arguments made that the Tartessian language was a proto-Celtic language. The fact that people perceive political differences is not dispositive that Ireland was a nation joined by language, culture, and genetics since at least the Iron age (and this would be the very latest). You were the one relying on Lebor Gabala in your contrived attempt at division. The scholarly consensus is that the oral tradition is a blend of history and myth. That a form of "german" was spoken in britain or Ireland has never been proven and part of a hoax to make the anglo-saxons indigenous when all historical, genetic and archaelogical evidence suggest the contrary.
jacersagain | Aug 18, 2012, 09:10 PM EDT
(…more) From my reading of the debate under Leanne’s article, the best contributions have been from ankcaver, Fergananim and citizen69 (others, too many to mention, were ridiculous). In fact, I think the comments by citizen69 should be looked at more deeply and recognised for what they are. They’re good and honest but sadly ignorant of progress in peoples’ lives in the island of Ireland. I thought that the posts of IrishPhotographer and Fergananim were historically good and (mostly) true so they deserve some recognition by all, even if you’re a die-hard ‘whatever.’ My own contribution to all of this debate?... (More…)
jacersagain | Aug 18, 2012, 09:02 PM EDT
Hello again to all…. Really, I’m taking a chance on posting this. Although I regularly check in on what ICentral posters contribute to the site on various topics, I’ve not posted on ICentral for quite a while because its central computer server hive of activity is getting things all wrong. Posts ascribed to me, Townie, Antoman, Wiley Georgie and others are not his/hers/mine ...even spots of reclaiming posts even go wrong… If I click on the “Most Commented” or “Most Read” or “Most Emailed” buttons, they go blankety-blank on my screen. Bejacers, ICentral, you really need to check up on whose working in your IT dept, really, I mean that. Really, in fact, I mean really, really. >>> Anyways, trusting this post gets properly ascribed to me, as jacersagain, I say this debate has been fascinating to read. Let’s not take it out too hard on Leanne, she’s a learner as my son was once and he ended up establishing one of the most popular web-site discussion sites in the world (no, I’m not gonna tell you who he is), so let’s give a bit of room to Leanne. Actually, I disagree with her, as I’m entitled to do, in journalistic and intelligence-political-religion challenging discourses. (More…)
Fergananim | Aug 17, 2012, 09:15 PM EDT
"The ease with which they handed over the 26 counties enforces this view." That's one hell of an insult to those who fought the war of independence.
Fergananim | Aug 17, 2012, 08:48 PM EDT
Dan - feel free to drop by and add to the conversation (sic) an any point!
DanOLoingsigh | Aug 17, 2012, 01:08 PM EDT
Fergananim - you seem to have all the 'usual suspects' on your back...so, well done you!!!!
Fergananim | Aug 17, 2012, 08:08 AM EDT
Lebor Gabala and the Ulster Cycle are both literature, not history. Present-day genetic evidence demonstrates the genetic unity of the island, yet we are politically divided, as we were then. The Menapii and Brigantes were present in 2nd century Ireland - if they are branches of the peoples found in Belgium and Britain, then Germanic and British languages would have been spoken. The Érainn (or Iverni) - from whom the island takes its name - spoke what the 9th century "Sanas Cormac" calls "Iarnnbélrae" and says was a recently extinct language described as "dense and difficult". If the Cruthin are to be linked with the Picts of Scotland, they likewise would have spoken Pictish. As settlement of the island began about 8,000 years ago, and the Celts only came into existence in the first millinium BC, then of course there were languages in Ireland prior to Gaelic. However, the majority of people in Ireland have no genetic links with the central European homeland of the Celts, being instead linked to south-west Europe - yet we ignore our lenthy pre-Gaelic past and identify with the Celts. People of Mileasian descent - whatever the genetic basis - clearly believed themselves to be of a different race to the Laigin, Ulaid, Érainn, and other peoples. But we have always preferred to squash all those awkward kinks out of our national dogma - little wonder Irish unionists find no welcome for them in a united Ireland. If we REALLY want one, we better change our attitudes and abandon narrow-minded views of what it means to be Irish. By Irish people living in Ireland.
curtisjohnson | Aug 16, 2012, 10:28 PM EDT
Fergananim demeans oral tradition and then relies on Lebor Gabala [!] for his crazy racial theories which are totally contrary to the genetic evidence. Lebor Gabala is based upon oral traditions of the mythical foundation of Ireland. Irrespective of whether or not the Irish population was a mixture of different peoples, they had been assimilated and fused for milennia as evidenced by the uniformity in language, culture, laws and genes (moreso than anywhere else in Europe). Out of curiosity, please list the languages other than Gaelic that were widely spoken in Ireland at the time of the Viking or Norman invasions. An autocratic central political authority is not needed for a nation.
warrenpoint00 | Aug 16, 2012, 06:55 PM EDT
Ireland is and always was one country nothing has changed in that respect.You dont need to unite something that is already united. What you do need is interference from foreign governments to cease so that the people of the island of Ireland can and will take care of their own affairs.Now the british government recently stated that it has no selfish intrest in Irish affairs anymore and that is good it is also a cryptic message to the unionists of Ireland that is not good for them.
Fergananim | Aug 16, 2012, 02:17 PM EDT
ancavker - I'm simply responding to your own attitudes on our history, which are contrary to the historic record. All the early peoples of Ireland saw themselves as distict ethnic groups. Ireland was never a unified kingdom - the regional kingdoms remained eminent. Even when cultural unity exists, it does not imply political unity. And I find it laughable that while you decry British impositon in Ireland, you laud the same impositon when practised by Gaelic peoples! I'm not trying to justify partition - what I am doing is pointing out all the holes in your thesis when you reach for what (you think are) historic arguments. What they are is dogmatic positions based on 19th-century versions of Irish history. There were different peoples, languages, and cultures in Ireland long before the Vikings and Normans. We were not homogenous. We simply lived on the one island. Not much different from today.
ancavker | Aug 16, 2012, 10:27 AM EDT
Ferganamin: What exactly does people on the dole in England have to do with northern Ireland. If it is part of the UK, than it should at least be contributing something to the union as a whole. It is not, it is a drain on the English, Scottish and Welsh tax payers. My point in all of this is simply that the relationship between England and Scotland is rapidly changing, even if it does not mean outright Independence for Scotland. People in northern Ireland should be aware of that, and consider where their future lies in all of this. Simply saying well we are loyal, and so continue to subsidize us is not going to work in the future.
ancavker | Aug 16, 2012, 10:23 AM EDT
ferganamin: They did not all view themselves as distinct from each other, that is more nonsense on you part to justify the partition of Ireland. I accept that today Ireland is partitioned and that that fact will not change until all the people on the island decide that it will. But going back 3000 years to justify partition is a joke. Ireland was one unit culturally up until the Viking Norman invasions. Of course there were inhabitants on the island before the Celts arrived. Small groups of different people in various parts of the island. Some may have been of other Celtic origin some not, who knows, but they were all absorbed into the dominant cultural group which were the Gaels who spoke Gaelic, or in the Irish, Gaeilge. We all know that Gaelic is the English translation. Same thing happened in what is now England various pre historic inhabitants, than the Celts of various forms, than the Romans, Anglo-Saxons, Vikings, and the Normans. The Previous inhabitants were either ab orbed and mixed with the newcomers, or were killed or fled, some of the Brythonic Celts from England fled to Wales or Brittany. Interestingly enough there are only a scattering of place names in modern England that are Celtic in origin. The majority being Anglo-Saxon, and some Roman. And while you are coming up with what most scholars agree are in many cases mythical peoples, lets not forget the Firblogs, Formonians, and the Tuatha De Danann.
Realist | Aug 16, 2012, 04:21 AM EDT
citizen69: "SF practically admitted in a 2006 interview that it was Sinn Fein strategy to undermine the confidence of the unionist community"....that is sadly quite correct. On 29th May 2006 on BBC Radio 4's Today Programme, when challenged on what exactly his party had achieved for their supporters Sinn Fein's Mitchel McLaughlin stated and I quote, "The degree of uncertainty and the lack of confidence in the unionist community". Oh dear oh dear....lol.
Fergananim | Aug 15, 2012, 11:09 PM EDT
@curtisjohnson - nonsense. They all viewed themselves as distinct from each other. And how we view ourselves determines our place in the world. The very word "Gaelic" is'nt even of Irish orign. Remember, Lebor Gabala makes it quite clear that Ireland was inhabited by many distinct and unrelated groups. The Ulster Cycle is literature that refers to events as distant from the time of its compilation as the events of 1169 are from us in 2012. No oral tradition, however historical, can survive that intact. Your take of our history is dogmatic, not historical.
curtisjohnson | Aug 15, 2012, 09:57 PM EDT
@Fergananim "Any study of early medieval Ireland will show you that there were many groups on the island who viewed themselves as different ethnic groups - Laigin, Conmaicne, Ulaid, Cálraighe, Gailenga ... the list goes on. None of them viewed themselves as Gaelic, to whom the were actively hostile" Totally false - they were all part of the same ethnic and genetic group with the same language, culture, and social and political systems. "The Ulster Cycle is literature, not history" It was originally based on an oral tradition and most likely reflected historical accounts as they were preserved in this manner.
citizen69 | Aug 15, 2012, 03:29 PM EDT
Fergananim: I think attitudes are definitely changing. True, it used to be that most unionists suspiciously regarded nearly all Irish Catholics as being part of a "Pan Nationalist Front" determined to destroy Northern Ireland. Things have changed over the years and today i think most Protestants/unionists realise that attitudes among Irish Catholics both north & south vary greatly. An event like the Queen visiting Ireland was a big indication to unionists that Ireland has changed. While Martin McGuinness meeting the Queen wasn't really a big deal with northern Protestants, her visit to the south was. It was largely welcomed and showed the Republic to be more open to it's British neighbours. even the Queen's wreath laying ceremony for those who died fighting for Irish independence attracted surprisingly little criticism.
Fergananim | Aug 15, 2012, 02:27 PM EDT
Ancavker - The Ulster Cycle is literature, not history. Its fiction, its not real. Northern Ireland may well be a drain on the UK economy, but so are thousands of people in Britain who falsely claim dole, commit insurance fraud, etc. There's no suggestion they should be stripped of citizenship, so why should the majority - who, like citizen69 - are happy with Northern Ireland remaining within the UK, likewise lose their citizenship? Because that's what you are talking about when you speak of them ending up in a United Ireland. You talk of England and Scotland - fine, let the people of NI speak. Last I heard, a majority favor remaining in the UK. And even if the people of NI wish to leave the union, where will they go? There's not much support in the Republic for them joining our country.
ancavker | Aug 15, 2012, 02:05 PM EDT
ferganamin: I am not going to argue with you, but as far as the Laigin, Conmaicne, Ulaid,a nd the others you had better go back and reread the Ulster Cycle; assuming you have read it at all. As far as the northern Ireland today, is it simply a drain on the rest of the U.K. and is a net taker, not contributor to the British economy. Look at today' announced UK unemployment rate, it dropped slightly over all, but of course rose in "Ulster" And with the constitutional arrangements between England and Scotland under the microscope with the Scottish independence referendum coming up, the people in northern Ireland might want to consider where they will fall in this new arrangement. Even if the Scots do not vote for outright independence in 2014, they will get devo max, which is very close to outright independence, where might northern Ireland fit in all of this?
Fergananim | Aug 15, 2012, 01:39 PM EDT
Do you think Irish unionists distinguish between people who actively seek a UI (such as Sinn Fein), and those to whom it is mostly an indifferent concept(many citizens of the Republic)? I have always felt most unionists put ourselves and northern Catholics in the one box, when there are many differences of opinon between us.
citizen69 | Aug 15, 2012, 01:24 PM EDT
Fergananim: It seems to me that reconciliation & respect is the only way forward for both sides of the argument. On one hand, Ireland's increasingly thawing relations with Britain is good for those who wish to see a United Ireland because quite simply the vast majority of Protestants in NI are British (many see themselves as British AND Irish but very few will object to being called British). Therefore any attack or spite against Britain is taken personally by the Unionist population of the North. They are more likely to look favourably on the Republic when Ireland's relations with NI & the rest of the UK are good. For those keen on keeping NI within the UK then respect for those with an Irish identity & culture is vital to keep NI Catholics on-board regarding the constitutional question. Either way, regardless of the eventual outcome i think both communities would benefit.
Fergananim | Aug 15, 2012, 12:32 PM EDT
Citizen69 - what to you is the best way forward for the two Irelands? Be very interested to hear ideas from someone who is actually happy with the existence of Northern Ireland - you guys get very little coverage, even though you too are of Ireland!
Fergananim | Aug 15, 2012, 12:27 PM EDT
Citizen69 - I agree. No republican group has done anything to make a UI attractive for Irish unionists. Sinn Fein are a political dead-end because they have no investment or loyalty in either Northern Ireland or the Republic of Ireland (are openly hostile to both jurisdictions). Their only loyalty is to themselves, which makes them me feiners just like Fianna Fail. And we saw how that ended. I guess that (the 30%) is part of the reason Adams moved south of the border, because he percieves that SF has gone as far as it can in NI. Which is why I think we ought to ditch the entire idea of a UI, because it's advocates can't deliver it and always end up like Fianna Fail and Sinn Fein, bloated republican parties with too much money and not enough intelligence to spend it wisely.
citizen69 | Aug 15, 2012, 11:54 AM EDT
@Fergananim: As a northerner who is British & Irish i am happy to remain within the UK. I believe the Unionist population have been ignored and little attempt has been made to respect them or welcome them as part of a greater Irish culture. Sinn Fein and others were content to play the waiting game and simply hold on until the 'prods' were outnumbered but this has backfired badly for them. They didn't expect that most Catholics would want to remain part of the United Kingdom also. SF practically admitted in a 2006 interview that it was Sinn Fein strategy to undermine the confidence of the unionist community. SO while they could have been spending the last 15 years trying to win the confidence of NI's protestants they spent their time trying to destroy it. The result being that in recent polls 0% (zero) Protestants wanted to be part of a United Ireland today, and less than 3% supported it happening 20 years or more down the line. What came as a surprise to SF is that only 30% of Catholics supported a U.I. anytime soon. Without any Protestant support they are in for a long wait. You only have to look at sites like this to realize that northern protestants/unionists are totally ignored as a group (unless it's a negative story) and are even seen as the enemy. NOT the way to encourage a United Ireland.
Fergananim | Aug 15, 2012, 11:48 AM EDT
In any case, whatever did or did not happen in the past, we are where we are. The way forward should not be stunted by past ideals that may have outlived their usefulness.
Fergananim | Aug 15, 2012, 11:45 AM EDT
Ancavker - there's no evidence to show that the Celts ever conquored Ireland, or even Britan. Any study of early medieval Ireland will show you that there were many groups on the island who viewed themselves as different ethnic groups - Laigin, Conmaicne, Ulaid, Cálraighe, Gailenga ... the list goes on. None of them viewed themselves as Gaelic, to whom the were actively hostile. Just like Britain consisted of different political and ethnic groups, so did Ireland. A united Ireland may come about, but its an artificial dogma based on a past that never existed.
ancavker | Aug 15, 2012, 10:07 AM EDT
ferganamin: Pre Viking, Pre 1169 we were not a homogeneous nation! Well what were we. After the Celts arrived on the Ireland and absorbed the small existing population there at the time, there were no more invasions until the Vikings and than the Normans.
ancavker | Aug 15, 2012, 10:04 AM EDT
ferganamin: I Agreed that at least a temporary partition of Ireland may have been necessary at the time, but it never should have included all of the six counties. That was a land grab by Craig and Carson. Also I don't believe that a minority should have been able to overrule what a majority of people wanted at the time. Had this occurred in many countries on the European continent, (end of WWI and the early 1920's). the Protestant/Unionists population simply would have been sent back to Britain. Millions of people on the continent were relocated at this time.
ancavker | Aug 15, 2012, 10:00 AM EDT
ferganamin: Cosgrave and than De Valera never could have set up the church dominated state that they did, had Ireland not been partitioned. Once it was done, than it was quite easy to have a church dominated state, as there was no longer a 20% Protestant minority in Ireland as a whole. On the other hand the 6 county state could have set up a non-sectarian inclusive state in the north, and demonstrated to the south how a modern non sectarian state is run. Instead they set up their own sectarian state which treated Catholics/Nationalists far worse than the small Protestant minority was treated in the south. As Protestant friends in the border counties of the south have told me the atmosphere was suffocating at times, but not oppressive, and in many instances they still had a large influence even though their numbers were small. De Valera just paid lip service to ending partition he never made any real attempts to end it.
DanOLoingsigh | Aug 15, 2012, 04:44 AM EDT
Curtisj - It's obvious you don't get out much...many, many 'modern regimes' have a far worse track record than NI - and many of the ills of NI were prolonged by 'campaigns' which were designed to do just that....talk to a Kurd, Marsh Arab, relative of disappeared in many recent S American regimes etc. etc. to get a proper perspective...only an idiot believes anyone in NI had it worse than these real victims of oppression...
curtisjohnson | Aug 14, 2012, 07:50 PM EDT
It's difficult to figure out how anyone would compare any modern regime (sans apartheid South Africa, who supplied weapons to the britith terrorist), let alone the ROI, to the supremacism of the occupied statelet. The "Rome rule" non-sense was a ruse to hide their real fear, the loss of supremacism over the indigenous population. Post Cromwell, the Catholic Church has overwhelmingly opposed Irish nationalism. @Fergananim completely false regaring pre-1169 Ireland. It was as homogeneous as any nation in Europe as established, inter alia, by the early mutations of the R1b haplotype and the monolithic laws, language, social structures, religion, and material culture. Only a political imbecile believes that central autocratic authority is needed for a nation.
Fergananim | Aug 14, 2012, 05:33 PM EDT
@Citizen69 - what are your thoughts on the matter?
Fergananim | Aug 14, 2012, 05:33 PM EDT
@Ancavker - citizen69 is right. Both the Republic and Northern Ireland were fairly sectarian states, triumphalist in different degrees, and woefully out of step with the world changing beyond their mutual borders. The Republic at least is a united state but one which is indifferent at best to any idea of incorporating Northern Ireland. Why should they, when the two communities have only barely begun to live in peace? What's in it for them?
citizen69 | Aug 14, 2012, 05:26 PM EDT
@Ancavker: You say the partition of Ireland was wrong but the main reason Protestants fought for it was because they feared Home Rule would mean Rome Rule and that is exactly what transpired and many northern Protestants felt justified in seceding from the Irish State. Today, that situation has changed but the communities in the North have still a long way to travel to find real unity.
Fergananim | Aug 14, 2012, 05:25 PM EDT
@Ancavker - fair enough. But presupposing a united Ireland is the best outcome for both parts of Ireland is not one that will find universal approval in either Northern Ireland or the Republic. For over four hundred years the idea has always failed because people refuse to recognise the right of certain Irish people not to have a united Ireland. Partion may have been wrong from a certain point of view (padawan), but it was always going to happen because not all Irish people wished to join an independent Irish state. The Dogma of a United Ireland is an Article of Faith, and it needs to be put aside.
ancavker | Aug 14, 2012, 04:39 PM EDT
Fergananim: I agree with you. My only point and this is addressed to the rabid revisionists who visit this site is that the partition of Ireland was wrong (as it was partitioned), and that the English government have a sorry history in Ireland.Unity won't come easy, but it will and should come peacefully. It is the best out come for both parts of the island.
citizen69 | Aug 14, 2012, 03:59 PM EDT
What Fergananim says is correct. You will not unite Ireland by dividing the people of Northern Ireland.
Fergananim | Aug 14, 2012, 03:29 PM EDT
None of that changes my point that "If Ireland is ever to be united it must be up to the people living in Ireland themselves, both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland." And the best way to achieve a united Ireland is create a united Northern Ireland. Otherwise, citizens of the Republic won't entertain it. Sad, but true.
Fergananim | Aug 14, 2012, 03:26 PM EDT
@Ancavker - I said pre-1169, and pre-Viking. Even then, we were not a homogenous nation. Our own records make that quite clear.
ancavker | Aug 14, 2012, 01:31 PM EDT
Ferganamin: The Irish we not as you say politically untied, but they were as you also say culturally united, and they were homogeneous. Viking settlements were really only along the coastal areas, and those that remained in Ireland after the Vikings defeat were absorbed by the notice Irish. Even with the Norman invasion those settlers too were absorbed by the native Irish, as witnessed by the English attempts to prevent that with the Statues of Kilkenny. Had England not continued to intervene in Irish affairs, their would have evolved a Hiberno-Norman culture, a combination of Irish culturally fused with Norman feudalism. My point in all this is to people who say Ireland was never united therefore northern Ireland is a legitimate entity. It is not, it is of course the reality, but it is not a legitimate entity. had it been a 2.5 county entity for a temporary period I would have understood that it may have been necessary for a time. But there is no way Fermanagh, Tyrone, south Armagh, and west Derry should have been included in what became northern Ireland.
Fergananim | Aug 14, 2012, 12:04 PM EDT
@ seanomelb and curtisjohnson - Bloody Friday, La Mon, Kingsmill, Mullaghmore, Enniskillin, Teebane, Harrod's, Bermingham, Manchester, Guilford, Warrington, and the Abercorn restruant bombing were all IRA actions that deliberatly targeted and killed civillians. 1786 civilians were killed during The Troubles. The IRA and various Republican groups are responsible for 2061 of the 3500 deaths. As most of these actions occoured in Ireland, the IRA could not fail but kill Irish people. Just for the record, all branches of the British security forces killed 363. I think its fair to say that the IRA out did them on the death count of Irish people. Why else do you think the IRA had so little support in Ireland? http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/sutton/tables/Organisation_Responsible.html
Fergananim | Aug 14, 2012, 11:35 AM EDT
@curtisjohnson - "the british state is the product of at least three distinct nations cobbled together by force". So is the USA.
Fergananim | Aug 14, 2012, 11:30 AM EDT
@ancavker - there were a number of Ard Ri, some of whom were stronger rulers than others, but the regional kingdoms (Airgiall, Ulaid, Laigin, Osraighe, Connachta, etc)their dynasties and kings remained intact. Sadly, each Ard Ri was more of a monarch than a king. That was changing, but Ireland's internal politics brought about the Norman invasion in 1169. We were culturally united, but divided by politics and race (people forget the Irish were not homogenous, even pre-1169 or pre-Viking). If Ireland is ever to be united it must be up to the people living in Ireland themselves, both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.
curtisjohnson | Aug 13, 2012, 08:50 PM EDT
Please stop typing in capital letters - it makes you appear hysterical. Say what you want about Irish Americans but without them Ireland would still be living in fourth world conditions under british rule and the remaining nationalists in the occupied counties would be have been fully ethnicially cleansed by now. Britain would have had a free hand to do what Turkey did in Armenia (and, it turns out, what britain did in Kenya).
STEVENSTAR | Aug 13, 2012, 08:29 PM EDT
JUST LOOKING AT THAT PHOTO ABOVE OF AMERICANS MARCHING FOR A UNITED IRELAND MAKES MY BLOOD BOIL !!! THE ABSOLUTE ARROGANCE OF YOU ALL TO INTERFERE IN IRISH AFFAIRS AND STICKING YOUR NOSE IN WHERE IT'S NOT WANTED, TYPICAL AMERICAN ATTITUDE.. I SUGEGST YOU KEEP YOUR NOSE OUT OF IRISH AFFAIRS YE CAUSED ENOUGH TROUBLE IN MY COUNTRY FOR YEARS SUPPORTING THE IRA , WE NOW HAVE PEACE IN MY COUNTRY AND WE ARE HAPPY WITH THE WAY THINGS ARE... SO KEEP OUT OF OUR AFFAIRS AND SORT OUR YE'RE MESS IN YE'RE OWN COUNTRY!!!
curtisjohnson | Aug 13, 2012, 03:02 PM EDT
I have to say that your comments on wealthy merchants is not far from accurate as britain is still controlled by a commerical oligarchy which the Dublin establishment pander to.
curtisjohnson | Aug 13, 2012, 02:59 PM EDT
@IrelandNorth - completely false. The british state and colluding loyalists intentionally targeted far more non-combatants than the IRA (the IRA hasn't even been accused of anything nearly as barbaric as the Shankhill butchers, who it seems british forces would cooperate in freezing areas for). From an historical perspective, the british terror state must rank up there or exceed the Mongol hordes in terms of targetting non-combatants. They definitely have the upper hand on the Mongols in terms of perfecting torture and have the distinction of having been the world's largest drug dealer. Their barbaric conduct in Ireland in terms of the pitch and cap and half hangings exceeds the aggregate violence during the troubles. When one considers their conduct in Kenya and India, the scales aren't even close. It should be remembered that throughout most of this history britain was acting on the pretense of being a "Christian" nation and still has a "Christian" monarch at its head. The rest of your post is some bizarre fantasy you've concocted.
warrenpoint00 | Aug 13, 2012, 12:58 PM EDT
For those poor unfortunate uneducated souls (mostly pro british union of course) not too familiar with our nation,s geographical lay out. Ireland has 32 counties and four provinces, Ulster,Munster, Connacht and Leinster. Irish = IRELAND =love it or leave it.It is the united kingdom of Ireland.
STEVENSTAR | Aug 13, 2012, 11:28 AM EDT
WHAT PLANET ARE YOU PEOPLE OM? WE DO NOT WANT YOU IN OUR IRISH AFFAIRS MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS WE ARE HAPPY THE WAY WE ARE, IM AN IRISHMAN BORN AND BRED AND I LIVE HERE AND I HAVE NEVER READ SUCH RUBBISH IN MY LIFE !!
IrelandNorth | Aug 13, 2012, 08:44 AM EDT
The upper middle-class merchants of NI realise the merits of an All Ireland economy. The upper middle-class merchants of the ROI realise the merits of an All Island economy. The British upper middle-class merchants realise the merits of not having to shell out STG£10b subvention year after yearto prop up NI, not least in times of macro economic retrenchment. And the very raison d'étre of an increasingly federal Europe (and confederal Britian and Ireland?), is economic/political/geographic convergence. And believe me, what the captains of industry want they shall have. Sooner or later, this reality will filter down to every little town, village and hamlet on the Island of Ireland.
DanOLoingsigh | Aug 13, 2012, 05:58 AM EDT
More pathetic anglophobic rantings...US posters still can't explain how it took 600,000 deaths to get rid of slavery in the states, but a single act of parliament in the 'evil empire', many years before??
DanOLoingsigh | Aug 13, 2012, 05:47 AM EDT
seanomelb and curtisjohnson... strange then that the republican heros you support in their barbarous war against innocents were more successful in their targeting of children and co-religionists than that dastardly British Army you so fondly blame on the world's woes. And remember who it was that bravely executed Jean McConville. When it comes to unmatched records in killing people, look no furter than the great US of A. They beat the Brits hands down in both killing and being killed. I always knew your rantings were fuelled by alcohol. During the Troubles a favourite pastime of the cowardly IRA volunteers was to dress up in combat clothes similar to that of the British Army, tie a big dog to a pole and then beat the crap out of it. This taught the animal to attacked anyone in uniform. They would then wait for an Army patrol to pass through their estate and then set the dogs on them. I belive the same thing must have happened to you Sean me ol' duffer. The local IRA hoods, dresed in army fatigues, tied you to a pole and beat the crap out of you. And here you are, happy in your rantings, insisting that all the proddies in the North should acquiese and join the failed Republic of Ireland while you live in Aussie land oblivious to your hypocrisy in your alcohol induced fugue. Keep taking the tablet, sean me ol' git though my prognosis of any improvement in your mental faculties is not good.
curtisjohnson | Aug 11, 2012, 12:27 AM EDT
That's correct, seanomelb. The british have an unmatched record for targeting women and children for murder and other unspeakable atrocities on a world wide basis. It is consistent with their state ethos and british "manhood."
seanomelb | Aug 10, 2012, 07:38 PM EDT
The child murdering British soldier (Schon) preaching his crap on this site. I find his post intellectually un-stimulating and typical of the hate monger that he is. Crawl back into your one bedroom council flat and suck another cheap whiskey(that's if you can afford it). I'll retire to my townhouse in Melbourne and have a glass of Jameson's 18yr.old
curtisjohnson | Aug 10, 2012, 07:24 PM EDT
Germany was also unified by common culture, laws and genetics. The root problems that existed in Italy when it was unified by freemasonry still persist to the extent that there is a strong movement for secession in the North. That said, much of Italy was culturally, religously, and genetically homogeneous.
curtisjohnson | Aug 10, 2012, 07:17 PM EDT
@fergananim - the british state is the product of at least three distinct nations cobbled together by force - England, Wales, Scotland (six if you consider Cornwall, Devon and the occupied statelet). It began as an autocratic tyrrany over the English and spread insidiously to a form of proto-bolshevism which, as you reference, has been unfortunately durable. It depends on how you define success - it has never been run for the purpose of benefiting the populations of the captive nations. Since Bill the Orange, it has in substance been a commercial oligarchy (Charles being the last King who exercised authority as a true Monarch). The roots of the legal system can be traced to the Welsh adaptation of Roman law to what was left of their indigenous social structure. The "anglo saxons" we not even literate until the Irish provided "their letters and learning, and learned men" in the words of Spenser. Ireland was unified by culture, laws, and genetics. To suggest that an autocratic central authority is needed for a "nation" is ludicrous.
ancavker | Aug 10, 2012, 03:23 PM EDT
fergananim: Did not Ireland in ancient times, have a High King? Yes it did. That is indicative that the Irish people at the time, saw Ireland as one entity. Successful union influence on the world etc, sounds like slavish praise on your part.
Schon | Aug 10, 2012, 11:26 AM EDT
Kilsally don't pay no mind to seanomelb the apologist for murdering republican terrorists. He's a runaway that voices his 'convictions' from Aussie land no less. He wants the majority population of the North to subsists in the failed Irish state that he has skulked away from. On top of this he talks a load of shi te. He'll tell you about the millions of Roman Catholic nuns that were raped and ravished by the dastardly Brits but he's uncharacterically silent when the debate swings to discussing the abuse of children by pedo-priests and the coverup and acquiesence of the Roman Catholic Church. I used to believe that you needed to have a brain to be brainwashed... then along comes seanomelb, the brainless mumbler. Yo seanomelb. Missed ya. Luv & kisses.
Fergananim | Aug 10, 2012, 11:17 AM EDT
Ireland was never a united soverign state in our history, so you cannot 're-unite' it. The Republic of Ireland is a united country, and its citizens have no great desire to see Northern Ireland incorporated into it, and you cannot force us to take it.
Fergananim | Aug 10, 2012, 07:47 AM EDT
curtisjohnson – you say that British identity is ‘phoney and contrived’…compared to what exactly – Germany was a patchwork of states up till the mid 19th century, as was Italy…GB has been one of the most successful unions in history…and British influence in government, legal systems, sport and culture can be seen in many of the successful states across the globe. Of course this does not fit with the tired, republican narrative, as posters like yourself demonstrate with increasing tedium…
curtisjohnson | Aug 10, 2012, 12:05 AM EDT
Ireland was more homogeneous from a cultural, legal and genetic perspective than nearly any other european society. A nation is not defined merely in terms of a autocratic central authority. Moreoever, Ireland had been ruined by the british terror state at the time widely considered to be the birth of the modern nation state (Westphalia 1648). Hopefully Kilsally at least rejects the phony and contrived "british" identity, which is nothing more than a form of early bolshevism enduring beyond its due date as a result of the machinations and supremacy of the governing commerical oligarchy.
seanomelb | Aug 09, 2012, 11:07 PM EDT
Kilsally passing off her meanderings as historical fact
ulster1999 | Aug 09, 2012, 05:01 PM EDT
The past is irrelevant. It should be remembered and respected but never used as a basis for future policy. What mainstream republicanism has largely come to realise is that it is not the British Government they have to convince to 'leave' Ireland, it is the Unionist population in Northern Ireland that need to be convinced of the benefits of leaving the UK. Simply transferring sovreignty would serve no purpose except economic collapse and 'troubles' that make the 60s/70s look like a pillow fight. Both communities are unprepared (and sometimes) unwilling to make any compromise. A United Ireland is a long way off.
ancavker | Aug 09, 2012, 12:03 PM EDT
kilsally: A ton of inaccuracies and falsehoods in your posts as well.
Kilsally | Aug 09, 2012, 11:32 AM EDT
re Ulster-Scots - not the point ancavker - I was reply to the authors points which are inaccurate
ancavker | Aug 09, 2012, 10:43 AM EDT
kilsally: So you are saying that the Ulster Scots are in fact Scottish, and so they get to have two home lands Scotland, and the 6 counties? And what about the COI Protestants in the north? I know many who would not be caught dead going to an Orange march, and they certainly don't identify as Ulster Scots.
ancavker | Aug 09, 2012, 10:39 AM EDT
kilsally: Blah blah Ireland was never united. Well difficult to do when you were constantly under invasion and attack. There was a period where there could have been a united Hiberno-Norman state (Irish culturally/Norman civil political system), and yes sadly the Irish did not take advantage of that. Fast forward, to partition and yes, partition did do incredible damage to both parts of the island of Ireland. Ulster could have said yes before no, or at least maybe.
ancavker | Aug 09, 2012, 10:36 AM EDT
kilsally: If Ireland were never partitioned, than De Valera never would have been able to establish the Catholic state that he did. Once partition was made permanent Dev only paid lip service to ending it.
Kilsally | Aug 09, 2012, 08:34 AM EDT
Seanomelb says `The partition of Ireland is responsible for all the tears and deaths.` - silly statement of the day - Ireland had several warring Kingdoms, the the Pope sent the English (Anglo / Norman / Saxon so French influence there too as well as Viking)in the 11th century, then the plantation of Ulster by the Scottish & English. Ireland was only ever united under High King Brian Boru and under English influence. Your comment on partition being the root cause of conflict is false and the notion that a United Ireland will solve everything is fanciful at the very best. British & Irish government Ulsterised the situation via devolution for a reason, to make the two communities in NI sort themselves out via self government in Belfast, keeping us out of Dublin & London`s hair.
Kilsally | Aug 09, 2012, 08:21 AM EDT
You seem to ignore the fact that there would still be two communities in Northern Ireland in any United Ireland - there is a reason the British & Irish governments `Ulsterised` the problem.
Kilsally | Aug 09, 2012, 08:18 AM EDT
There is some amount of MOPERY going on `most oppressed people ever` - Northern Ireland was never about supremacy, it was about identity and also fear that a separate Ireland meant Rome Rule, which is historically what we got, De Valera declared Ireland a Catholic country, the Catholic Church written into the constitution, there were boycotts of Protestant communities when mixed marriages refused to raise the children Catholic, there were Librarians sacked because they were Protestant - people in Northern Ireland saw this and saw people moving from the South to NI and to other places like England / Canada for similar reasons, they saw the IRA working with the Nazi`s during World War 1 to facilitate an invasion of Northern Ireland and / or Britain via Ireland. It was far from a one sided story the commenters below portray. As to Northern Ireland`s finances - it was once the industrial powerhouse of Ireland - the collapse in heavy industry throughout the UK and the 40 year campaign of bomb ing by the IRA kept investors away (which was the IRA`s plan) - it will take time to get the NI economy away from reliance on public purse. However why would the people of NI vote for a United Ireland if it meant a huge drop in living standards when the Republic could not hope to provide the billions of subsidy NI currently gets from the UK? And add to that the fact that there are many smaller nations that Northern Ireland that manage perfectly well so - I see little economic benefit from a United Ireland, especially as both are part of the European Union.
Kilsally | Aug 09, 2012, 07:53 AM EDT
Why would the USA facilitate the breakup of the UK, it`s greatest ally. An awful lot of the UK troops that have fought beside US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan have come from the Royal Irish Regiment and the Irish Guards - not going to happen in a United Ireland that insists on neutrality even in WW1 & WW2 but where the USA stationed it`s troops in Northern Ireland.
Kilsally | Aug 09, 2012, 07:50 AM EDT
You fail to factor in the European Union when talking about corporation tax - last I heard the EU was for forcing the Republic to significantly increase it`s corporation tax rate
Kilsally | Aug 09, 2012, 07:47 AM EDT
A nonsense of an article. Protestants in Ulster were often as poor as their Catholic counterparts and the statistics both historically and indeed modern show that there is deep poverty in many of the republican and loyalist heartlands where paramilitarism, crime, drugs and broken families are rife. No marching culture in Britain? Scotland has huge 12th July parades as does Canada. Liverpool, southport and London have all had 12th July parades this year. Ulster-Scots culture and language comes directly from Scotland and the musical tunes and lingustic phrases are comman between Ulster & Scotland.
DanOLoingsigh | Aug 09, 2012, 05:10 AM EDT
You 'probably' should offer evidence...but you 'probably' don't have any, which is 'probably' par for the course...
seanomelb | Aug 08, 2012, 08:10 PM EDT
You live on falsehoods Dano.
DanOLoingsigh | Aug 08, 2012, 04:21 PM EDT
Manners, Seano...don't like it when false accusations are made, do you...neither do others, cobber!!!
seanomelb | Aug 07, 2012, 06:32 PM EDT
Go hide in your little London council flat Lynch. He (schon) was stationed there by his own admission moron.
DanOLoingsigh | Aug 07, 2012, 12:25 PM EDT
Curitiba - I agree that NI needs some form of support...but can't see RoI being able to take it on, without huge taxes and or major reductions in spending across the island...
DanOLoingsigh | Aug 07, 2012, 12:21 PM EDT
Seano with his 'probablies' again...no evidence offered, of course...I think he was 'probably' molesting donkeys at the time, which is why he was exiled to Oz...no need for evidence from me either...
seanomelb | Aug 06, 2012, 07:06 PM EDT
Ciara preaching on Ireland!! We know her by the company she keeps. Ciara you backed a poster named schon a couple of weeks back. Schon was a serving member of the Brit army in the north probably bullying(or killing) nationalists children. We know you for the west Brit pseudo Irish ingrate that you are. Your full of narcissistic ignorant drivel.
Curitiba | Aug 06, 2012, 02:35 PM EDT
The point is, Dan, that NI is like Northern England-completely dependent on the UK public sector for its survival. It is not viable economically. Not even the economic genius of Allan07 could ensure its survival as a separate political entity without major handouts from London.
molliepmac | Aug 06, 2012, 01:54 PM EDT
Ciaradexy; Northern Ireland 'feels' more like Britain - what drivel you write. Which part of Britain do you mean? The Scottish higlands, the Cotswolds, Swansea or Kent - do explain. Would imagine though at this time in history the people of NI of any shade of opinion are unlikely to want to join with a corrupt failed state like the present republic.
DanOLoingsigh | Aug 06, 2012, 01:28 PM EDT
Difficult to explain Curitiba’s enthusiasm to see NI ‘stranded financially’, especially if living there...NI is ‘hideously broke’, but is supported by current ‘fellow citizens’...simple maths suggests that if/when donors are reduced by a factor of 10, the per capita support required will increase by a factor of 10...not sure a ‘fire sale ‘ of Orange Halls and regalia will help bridge too much the funding gap...what with pension levies, property taxes, Quinn levies, and other future bailout and b**llsup charges, the phrase ‘be careful what you wish for’ springs to mind...
kinvara7 | Aug 06, 2012, 12:23 PM EDT
@allan07: Do you not know that the team representing Ireland is called "Team Ireland" and it represents the entire island of Ireland (So unlike what you said earlier, sport is a unifying factor; think rugby etc.) Furthermore, there is no Team UK and the NI medals you refer to were won for Team GB. Team Ireland has secured two medals of some colour in boxing and I should hope that you would be gracious enough to wish the island of Ireland well. Furthermore, I believe there are more athletes from NI competing for Team Ireland than for Team Great Britain. I believe, that out of the 556 athletes competing for Team GB, 6 are from Northern Ireland. In contrast, I believe that out of the 66 athletes representing Team Ireland, 14 are from Northern Ireland.
ancavker | Aug 06, 2012, 11:51 AM EDT
Sorry should be southwest Fermanagh;too fast on the spell check.
ancavker | Aug 06, 2012, 11:49 AM EDT
ciara: Well I can tell you that southwest Fermenting, and northwest Cavan are the same country, and both areas feel like Ireland, and not Britain. The Majestic Slieve Russell Mountains, and my beloved Cuilcagh mountains. Go from Blacklion in Cavan into Belcoo in Fermanagh, and it is the same country, and same people, regardless of what some insane unfair border says. As far as feeling like Britain, that would be any major city in the Republic of Ireland, starting with of course Dublin. But for those of us who come from the border areas, and who were most impacted by "The Troubles", it is only Ireland, and that will never change.Although I don't live in the area any more, most of my family including two siblings are still there, and I am back every year. Please do not refer to our home place as Britain. It is Ireland, and it always will be.
Curitiba | Aug 06, 2012, 07:29 AM EDT
Hi Ciara, I'm really glad you raised that point. Seeing as NI is in my country not yours, I think you don't need to concern yourself with anything that happens there, whereas I will.
ciaradexy | Aug 06, 2012, 06:36 AM EDT
Curitiba, as youre neither from Ireland nor NI, then you wont have to worry about the colour of its inhabitants.
ciaradexy | Aug 06, 2012, 06:34 AM EDT
Gearoid, please show me a link to the poll you speak off? You are very wrong by the way. yes some have a bizarre romantic notion of a united Ireland but this wont happen anytime soon and why would it? Have you even been up to NI? It 'feels' like Britain not Ireland. Sean, seriously, an Aussie, a man who has spent more time in Oz than ireland telling me how the majority of irish feel? seriously? You havent a clue! Looking at the Queens face on your money must have made you insane!
seanomelb | Aug 05, 2012, 08:36 PM EDT
allen07 it may surprise you but the six counties did not exist in Olympic land and did not march under the stolen Ulster banner. Ciaradexy is at it again thanks for putting her "right" Gearoid4. She has a tendency to put her foot in her mouth before checking her facts.
Curitiba | Aug 05, 2012, 07:34 PM EDT
I can't wait until we get a black or Asian prime minister in the UK who will take one look at NI and decide it's "hideously white" (a well known phrase in the UK, first said by a former BBC director general about his own organisation). He'll also look at the supremacism that has gone on there since 1922 and decide it doesn't fit in with the multicultural nirvana that Britain has become and will decide to either a) enrich it with millions of folk from the Third World, or b) withdraw all funding and dump it. NI will be stranded financially, and will be forced to throw its lot in with the rest of Ireland, whether it likes it or not.
teacher1101 | Aug 05, 2012, 05:20 PM EDT
why not unity!
Gearoid4 | Aug 05, 2012, 02:28 PM EDT
Sorry, Ciara, you are wrong, recent polls do show a majority in the ROI do aspire do a united. Although one can argue over the level of romanticism involved in some of the respondent's minds, the objective is still a valid and achievable one. The two jurisdictions on this Island have hit very hard economic times and we have the illogical situation of duplicated government and industrial agencies in competition with each other, across different sectors. An all-Ireland approach could ameliorate, if not totally eradicate, many of our socio-economic and political problems. This could then leave the door open to the political unity of the divided country.
ciaradexy | Aug 05, 2012, 10:33 AM EDT
Could people give over with the history lessons? Religion has nothing to do with this anymore. The majority when polled do not want a united ireland regardless of religion. As most 'catholics' are only catholics becasue they were baptised and not because they believe in all that nonsense, religion is not an argument anymore. The majority do not want a united Ireland. Remember that.
ciaradexy | Aug 05, 2012, 10:31 AM EDT
Chucky, shot up about the famine would ye! Even the irish dont keep harping on about that. And learn how to spell potato.
ciaradexy | Aug 05, 2012, 10:29 AM EDT
IrishRyan, in all recent polls, the majority in the Republic DO NOT want a United Island. Americans need to worry about their own country and maybe intervene where people are being massacred such as Syria and leave Ireland alone.
IrishRyan | Aug 05, 2012, 09:30 AM EDT
@Allan07, it doesnt matter what the Loyalist people (what you call "protestants", even though some protestantss are Irish Nationalists" want, its what the MAJORITY wants that matters andd very soon Irish Nationalists will be in the majority in the 6 counties. Allan this isnt the 1750's where Loyalists suppressed democracy and constantly got their way, those days are over. As for the Olympics, dont get carried away allan07, just because a few guys from NI won a silver and a bronze at the Olympics lol the Olympics is just a sporting tournament, calm yourself. As the the ROI troubles, the ENTIRE WORLD is in some sort of ecomonic trouble and Britain is in WORSE trouble than the ROI in the long run. As for this article, i agree the USA and Irish Americans haave a great role to play in reuniting Ireland. Irish Republicans such as myself completey understannd we have alot to thank our American brothers and sisters for, for their endless support not onlyy in the past decades but the past centuries too.
kinvara7 | Aug 05, 2012, 05:34 AM EDT
Leanne: I’m an Irishman, living in the Republic who would like to see the country united. Having said that I think your article is flawed in many respects. To what extent is your assertion of equally valued input, undermined by your casual assertion that the British culture so many in the North cherish does not exist? Do you think the fears of Protestant Unionists will be erased by quoting Bobby Sands? You say that: “mainstream Republicans … strive for a new Ireland with new structures and institutions based on the equality and input of all its citizens,” admirable, of course, but what are they? Post re-unification, a significant portion of the population would consider themselves British (exclusively British or British and Irish). The new structures and institutions would have to reflect this fact. Therefore, I don’t think it is very useful to say the culture they feel they belong to does not exist. That and other such comments only cause further antagonism. Discussions on a United Ireland should focus on what we share and, in so far as there are differences, how those differences can be given recognition and respect in a new constitution and new institutions.
allan07 | Aug 05, 2012, 04:53 AM EDT
seanomelb you can remain in Aussie as the ROI is almost empty as it has failed its people have fled once again. As a protestant from Northern Ireland the protestant people will NEVER accept a United Ireland in any form. Oil and water are both liquids but they certainly do not mix. Not ever. The people in Ireland are divided by religion, nationality, culture, history, allegiences, background, sport and every other measurement stick you want to use. The Republic of Ireland is bankrupt and being bailed out by Britain, the EU and the IMF. It is in the pits with Greece. In the Olympics the ROI medal tally reads 0 Gold, 0 silver and 0 bronze. Australia has only 1 gold to date. Hardly a world beater either. Northern Ireland have more medals than the ROI. The ROI are pants in every form.
chuckyarla | Aug 05, 2012, 12:59 AM EDT
The British have ruled the media for hundreds of years Potatoe Famine ? imagine if one vegetable like a carrot , potatoe cabbage went off, would every one in any country die ? the famine is the best lie in the world , while the famine ? was happening Ireland was exporting 40 to 70 ship loads of food. there was no famine its the first Holocaust
curtisjohnson | Aug 04, 2012, 10:54 PM EDT
merefallow - "nationalism flag waving drum beating hand on heart bullshit" A definition of british patriotardism, particularly as it pertains to their northern supremacists planters. The irony is that the "britain" monstrosity can hardly be classed as a nation.
seanomelb | Aug 04, 2012, 07:56 PM EDT
citizen69 may ask himself what party rules the Scottish parliament before making some more ignorant anti_Irish comments like his half-baked pal Towngate who's grasp on reality is disturbing.
warrenpoint00 | Aug 04, 2012, 06:57 PM EDT
I know that the brit posters on here are not rocket scientists but come on old chaps you dont need rocket science to evaluate the condition of your empire. It is extinct.Period. All gone. Over. Finished.I know it must be very hard for you to accept but you must understand your empire of evil is finished.No more theft or debauchery,all gone, now ask any Scottish, English or Welsh man an he will tell you the same.I cannot see any Irish protestant ever wanting to go live in Scotland, England or Wales while he is more than welcome to live work and prosper in the Nation of Ireland.That is of course as long as he contributes to the good of our nation and its law abiding citizens. Welcome to Ireland. Ireland is Irish...love it or leave it.
merefalow | Aug 04, 2012, 04:17 PM EDT
nationalism flag waving drum beating hand on heart bullshit,it stirs people up,gets people killed,it might have made sense once when we were all tribal,but now when we are a multiculteral stew,why worry anymore,our countries arent realy regognisable as what they once were,would all the guys who died in the first and second world wars have been so willing to die if they saw what their countries were going to become,thanks to a political philosophy that seeks a one world state with no borders or seperate national identity,where nationalism will make no sense,its already here.
Gearoid4 | Aug 04, 2012, 11:52 AM EDT
As the late Harold McMillan, the one time Conservative prime-minister of GB in the 60's stated, in relation to external influences which shape political fortunes.."events! dear boy, events!" The upcoming referendum in relation to Scottish independence, set for 2014, potentially could radically alter the configuration and future relevance of the UK. It will undoubtedly impinge upon the Irish question, which has still to be finally settled. Just watch this space as the good ole cliche goes.
Irishphotograph | Aug 04, 2012, 11:19 AM EDT
King Billy had the support of Rome to fight in Ireland King William III was the Protestant head of the Dutch royal house of Orange. He was married to Mary, the Protestant-raised daughter of King James II of Britain, a convert to Catholicism. James's naked ambition to lead Britain back into the old church alienated the court and many of his subjects. In 1688, powerful establishment figures invited William and Mary to take the throne. But when they landed in England, the royal army, led by John Churchill, the future Duke of Marlborough, defected and James fled to France. But he had friends among his mostly Catholic subjects in Ireland and a redoubtable ally in Louis XIV of France, then at the height of a ruthless drive to make himself Europe's overlord. William was rabidly anti-French, and was an eager recruit to the alliance of powers which opposed Louis. Other leaders of the League of Augsburg - later the Grand Alliance - included the Austrian emperor, Leopold, and Pope Alexander VIII. Thus, when James landed in Ireland in a doomed attempt to win back his throne and promote the Catholic faith, he was indirectly fighting the Pope. And William, defending the Protestant ascendancy in both of John Bull's islands, was at the same time advancing the cause of the Vatican. For all that, the victory at Oldcastle, near the mouth of the River Boyne, was hugely significant for Ireland and Britain. It glued William and Mary firmly on the throne, and consolidated the momentous changes in the British way of government known as the Glorious Revolution. King James was the last of the Stuart kings who hankered after absolute rule. King Billy, though he was no democrat, astutely accepted the supremacy of parliament. In that sense, the battle of the Boyne, though relatively minor in military significance, was a landmark event in British affairs, as well as a continuing landmine in Irish history.
Irishphotograph | Aug 04, 2012, 11:16 AM EDT
GENERATIONS of Roman Catholic Irish Republicans have proclaimed loud and long that the source of all of Ireland's woes has been the presence of the English. The Emerald Isle, once famed as a land of Saints and Scholars, has been drenched in blood down the centuries, as inhuman fiends posing as patriots have murdered, maimed and massacred, rebelled and waged civil war, often with the blessing of the Roman Catholic clergy, in the supposed cause of Irish freedom. However the suppressed facts of history are that when King Henry IIof England landed with an army of 4,000 at Waterford in October 1171, he came at the Pope's behest and carrying as his authority the Papal Bull Laudabiliter, by which the Roman Pontiff claimed the right to bestow Ireland as a gift to the English King on condition that he suppressed the ancient Celtic or Culdee Church, and brought the island and its people into submission to Rome.
Irishphotograph | Aug 04, 2012, 11:15 AM EDT
HOW THE ROMAN POPES GAVE IRELAND TO THE ENGLISH TO RULE OVER US ROME WANTED TO SUPPRESS THE CHURCH SAINT PATRICK HELP ESTABLISH. THE CELTIC CHRISTIAN CHURCH. This was indeed what King Henry did and one of his first acts was to call the Council of Cashel in 1172 at which the ancient Celtic Church of Ireland was brought into submission to the yoke of Roman bondage. As for the Papal insults that the Irish were a rude, ignorant, uncivilized people, had not the missionaries of Patrick's Celtic Church brought the uncorrupted Gospel not only to the rest of the British Isles but to Europe? Was it a savage people who produced such beautifully illuminated Christian manuscripts as the Book of Kells, and who preserved the primitive Christian faith in their communities even under Viking attack, whilst Papal Rome was sunk in, the depths of vice and superstitions? The Roman Catholic writer O'Driscoll admits: "The Christian Church of Ireland was founded by St. Patrick, existed for many centuries free and unshackled ... and differed on many points from Rome. From the days of Patrick to the Council of Cashel was a bright and glorious career for Ireland. From the sitting of that Council to our own times the lot of Ireland has been unmixed evil and all her history a tale of woe." Views of Ireland, Vol. 2, Page 84.
Padraig8 | Aug 04, 2012, 10:13 AM EDT
Thanks to whom ever attributed my comments to someone else, i will not attempt to comment any more on Irish Central.
SAirish | Aug 04, 2012, 08:55 AM EDT
The comments on here get more stupid and inaccurate. There is going to be no break up of the UK. Citizen69 is quite correct the nationalistic aspirations in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales are all in a minority and are unlikely to change for a long time. Even in Scotland only a third of the population support separation. People should support their arguments with hard facts such as opinion polls etc. Wishful thinking is not going to change the truth.
Towngate | Aug 04, 2012, 06:46 AM EDT
MISTAKEN IDENTITY ALERT! Sorry @89west and @maireadmelb; Your confusion is understandable,but you are responding to a Comment @09.42 I did not Post, and is mistakenly atributted to me. IC moderators have been alerted but have not - as yet - identified the true author.(Nobody is holding their breath!) Btw: seanomelb@11.35 ... we are glad you are (albeit mistakenly and misguidedly) paying some attention. Perhaps you might learn something after all...
citizen69 | Aug 04, 2012, 05:15 AM EDT
Seanomelb wants to run Ireland based on an election almost 100 years ago! And then he has the gall to call his fellow Irish Catholics 'West Brits' & 'Cowards' while he ran away to the other side of the world! Sirpeter also talking his usual bullshit... Northern Ireland, Scotland & Wales all have a nationalist MINORITY not majority, and those minorities are getting smaller by the year!...Pair of numpties!
DanOLoingsigh | Aug 04, 2012, 04:45 AM EDT
Those who seek the land, but demonise the majority born there, repeat the mistakes of Dev and co. in elevating one religion above others, and elevating a minority tongue above the commonly spoken language… Ireland can be reunited when cultural differences on the island are acknowledged and respected…we can weep for the past, we must learn for the future.
curtisjohnson | Aug 03, 2012, 11:44 PM EDT
That would make sense, warrenpoint00, as this "britain" thing is merely a whitehall artifice rather than any type of real nation. It began as a tyrrany over the english and has devolved into a commercial oligarchy (with a showpiece "monarch") suppressing several real nations.
seanomelb | Aug 03, 2012, 11:35 PM EDT
Maireadinmelb ! Towngate referred to Patrick Pearse as a fascist racist in a previous posting on this site and claims to be Irish.
warrenpoint00 | Aug 03, 2012, 10:52 PM EDT
There is absolutely no other option other than Ireland as one nation governed by its own people.Not a lot to ask for now is it Now more than ever with the evident break up of the british union is this becoming a reality.Where are these so called unionists in Ireland going to go? the English dont want them hanging on to their coat tails and there will be no union to be loyal too anymore.Their best and only intrest is in becoming part of a new Ireland. A new Ireland it will be of course, with or without them.
maireadinmelb | Aug 03, 2012, 09:55 PM EDT
Towngate you cannot compare the RUC of the 1970's in any way with a police force of a modern democratic country. The purpose of teh RUC was not to serve a community it was to preserve a way of life within a community! The RUC were an arm of oppression used by a puppet government to abuse and torture particular members of a community!
curtisjohnson | Aug 03, 2012, 09:18 PM EDT
Correct, seanomelb. The british terror state only accepts democracy when it fits their own narrow interest (a prominent example being their engineering of the violent overthrow of the peaceful and democratic Iranian regime in 1953 to facilitate massive natural resource theft). The vile supremcacists in the statelet should go the way of their blood and ideological US cousins in the Klan. sirpeter, good point regarding nationalist majorities. Why not go a step further and allow areas of britain with heavy Irish communities to be part of the ROI?
sirpeter | Aug 03, 2012, 08:51 PM EDT
@michaelidaho.There is three counties that have a Nationalist majority.Why should those counties be part of the UK?Did you factor in that at all in your factoring?You listening to Dano and his crap about Dev and his vision for a peasant Ireland.I'm away a few days and Dano and company is running amok with there bullsh*t.You think that's a good critique on DeValera.Mick cop yourself on.
seanomelb | Aug 03, 2012, 06:51 PM EDT
The partition of Ireland is responsible for all the tears and deaths. The majority of Irish people had voted for a republic and won the election only to be denied their rights by a colonial power who would prefer a "divide and conquer"policy by creating an artificial gerrymandered state which existed only by the will of the British and the repression of the nationalist community (in the north)and for 50 years strangling the economy of the republic. The west Brits have a "surrender" mentality and accept partition as if it were normal the cowards.
michaelidaho | Aug 03, 2012, 06:41 PM EDT
DanOLoingsigh -- good critique on DeValera. sparticusnorth -- good job describing the Unionist attitude towards a united Ireland and the dominate view in the Republic. These factors go a long way in showing why the Unionist community has never jumped on board to a 32 county Republic.
Curitiba | Aug 03, 2012, 05:32 PM EDT
Message to Niall O'Dowd: Dear Niall, please note that the comment posted at 12.02 pm on Aug 03,2012 is not mine. Could you assign the correct author to it please? My one is the one above it concerning Australia, at 12.06. People will think I have gone mad otherwise as I have never expressed a Unionist view in my life, except perhaps for a Union of Northern Ireland and the Republic. Nor have I ever expressed any anti-American sentiment.
DanOLoingsigh | Aug 03, 2012, 04:17 PM EDT
ancavker – to blame partition for what happened subsequently risks letting those responsible for later political decisions, north and south, off the hook…imo Dev, with his rejection of the treaty, his ‘vision’ for a peasant Ireland, and his ‘economic war’ carries much of the responsibility…there is no particular reason why a homogenous 26 county state could not have gone in a different direction…too much focus on the re-Gaeling of Ireland, instead of using the advantages post-independence and especially post WW2, cannot be left out of the equation…
michaelidaho | Aug 03, 2012, 03:59 PM EDT
It is very simple. A united Ireland will come about when the Protestants of Ulster believe it is in their interests to do so. Leanne Peacock's article reiterates the same tired republican discourse with poorly constructed, subjective arguments. Finally, please do not call for more activism by the U.S. government, especially when the Irish are so critical of America's involvement in world affairs.
citizen69 | Aug 03, 2012, 01:31 PM EDT
Hmmm, How about just leaving it up to the people of Ireland to decide what happens on their own island!?!? The article states "the status quo is unacceptable"... to whom!? Irish-Americans!? The Irish people aren't complaining about it so why should they listen to what some Americans want? Yer having a laugh!!
ancavker | Aug 03, 2012, 01:06 PM EDT
Curtiba: I agree with alto of what you say, and believe the U.S. should go back to it's more traditional isolationist stance. But that being said, if we do, who will fill the void, when things go awry? The U.N.? No, basically ineffective. Europe? Look at the mess the continent is in, not to mention Ireland and Britain. Russia? China? I don't think so. SO if the U.S. steps down, who steps up?
ancavker | Aug 03, 2012, 01:02 PM EDT
Dan: Yes it is sloppy. But partition destroyed Ireland, all because a minority in the northeast could have said yes, or even maybe before no.
89west | Aug 03, 2012, 01:01 PM EDT
Towngate; it is a small minority of officers who hold the sentiments you describe. Most feel, as you do, about the loss of the 300 RUC members. I'll bet this assembly has more to do with partying than politics and most don't have a clue to how offensive their actions are to those that lived through this tragedy. Since the diehards immigrants from the twenties and thirties died off, most here are not inclined to become involved with republican, left wing Irish politics. Further, little or nothing is written about Irish or NI politics in the US press and this venture to Donegal will go unnoticed by the media.
DanOLoingsigh | Aug 03, 2012, 12:54 PM EDT
Sloppy piece of poorly proofed, partisan writing, riddled with the usual SF myopia… eg SF did their very best to deny NI ‘stable and effective governance’, both by their abstentionist policy and the various ‘campaigns’… those who ‘forced a bloody civil war’ were the forebears of SF, no one else…and it’s fanciful to think a ‘clean slate’ exists…all parties come with their own baggage…finally quite why she wants ‘structures and services’ exposed to radiation is a complete mystery?
Towngate | Aug 03, 2012, 12:36 PM EDT
Readers Plaeae note@ The Comment @ 09.42 which exercised Corkkerry so much ... was NOT posted by me. Perhaps IC can !clarify.... SILLING , Thanks, all the same but I am not the least bit devious. Of course nobody can change actual history, and we sometimes choose to be selective in our acceptance. How the island of Ireland came to be owned by Britain (England - if you like) is well documented and available to you. It did not involve any 'invasion' whatsoever - quite the opposite ( a Courtly request from Irish Rulers and Holy Invitation and Permission from Rome!) King HenryII landed entirely un-opposed at Baginbun - as a matter of fact, and joined the Earl of Pembroke, already established in Dublin. That's not changing history - it's getting it right!
jamieLM | Aug 03, 2012, 12:34 PM EDT
@Curitiba, I highly doubt Australia wants to unite with Ireland or anyone else. How would that benefit them? It wouldn't. As an American, I keep my nose out of Irish politics and I suggest the Irish do the same by keeping their noses out of Am. politics (past & present) and the upcoming election. It's a 2 way street, Curitiba. Btw: Native Americans do own land in the U.S. - thousands of acres - where many run their own gambling casinos, making money from people all over the world who enjoy gambling. In small Iowa, for example, the Mesqwakie own a lucrative casino and more than 10,000 acres of prime farm land.
Curitiba | Aug 03, 2012, 12:06 PM EDT
Why not unite Ireland with Australia? That's where most Irish are to be found these days. Granted, being part of the Commonwealth of Australia isn't going to do much for Ireland's weather, but they can pretend it's Tasmania. Countries are completely artificial constructions and therefore can be renamed, split up, united with somewhere else, whatever, so why not unite it with Australia. Better than being united with Europe as the Irish are equally as bad as the British at speaking foreign languages. Anyway, there are no jobs in Europe even if they could speak the lingo.
Curitiba | Aug 03, 2012, 12:02 PM EDT
The best thing americans could do is keep their noses out of things that don't concern them. The reason why most countries hate americans is because they have to get involved in issues concerning other countries rather than solve their own problems at home. Ireland will never be un ited never mind reunited, you cant force the Unionist minority to accept a government that is openly sectarian against protestants in the republic of Ireland and a government that is financially broken, depending on bail outs from Europe and Britain. The Facts are that the overwhelming majority of people in Northern Ireland including Catholics do not want a United Ireland. If americans want to redress the balance, then give the native americans back their lands that you stole from them after ethnically cleansing them, and stay away from Ireland we don't want you. And for the half wit author of this article to say that there is no democracy in the North of Ireland, where is she coming from? Does she think that it is all out anarchy, there is more democracy in N.I than there is in USA, you are an absolute joker, go back to reading spiderman comics leanne.
Silling | Aug 03, 2012, 12:01 PM EDT
If the Republic of Ireland was willing to give up its sovereignty and become the 51st state of America, that would quickly unite the 32 counties. Everyone gets a green card and the country would be devoid of people in a month. Mass emigration.
Silling | Aug 03, 2012, 10:57 AM EDT
Towngate says those who broke it should fix it but he says the british are not to blame,my question to him is who invaded those many years ago? if not britain? I guess the Irish just sent thier own people out to connaught to make room for the Scot- protestants to Colonize Ulster and as to the partition maybe he can alibi the fact they were selective in NOT taking all of Ulster, was it perhaps because of the Catholic population in the part they did not want? Towngate, you are a devious person but you do not posess the ability to change History.
RedBranch | Aug 03, 2012, 10:57 AM EDT
Well Ms. Peacock we'll see you at the Ulster Covanant discussion at the Feile this coming Monday Conway St. Mill at 7:30. I'll be the one wearing the Che beret (with star) and a Pearse Carson T-shirt. Looking forward to it!
Towngate | Aug 03, 2012, 10:49 AM EDT
Corkerry: .... don't write in riddles,man. What 'assumption'? and why should I write to N/Y or Bloomberg? Please explain yourself ....
brennanirish | Aug 03, 2012, 10:47 AM EDT
Leanne, well done. You had to realize that writing a controversial piece, with such a definitive stance, was going to earn you a heaping pile of anglo-invective. Ignore it. A good statistic to remember, next time, is that Ireland's 19th century population and hence its demographic; having been reduced by nearly 2/3's due to: famine, forced migration, penal colonies, forced eviction and genocide; was unnaturally altered. The after-effects of this enormous upheaval, on a united Ireland, have taken 150 years to subside. Restoring the concept of Irishness and a fostering sense of Unity has been incredibly slow and difficult given the remaining obstacles. However, you nailed the point. The time for Unity will eventually come as the positive forces at work are now irreversible. Good work!!
corkkerry | Aug 03, 2012, 10:34 AM EDT
Towngate, your first assumption is wrong, but I think you should write to the NY legislature and Mayor Bloomberg about this. Americans can be very pragmatic and don't always connect the past with the present...
pilib04 | Aug 03, 2012, 10:25 AM EDT
Ms. Peacock obviously wrote a fluff piece about a future United Ireland. She is terribly in her belief that the United States has a vanguard role in this endeavor. Any role that the US has is strictly of a supportive nature. The Irish diaspora in America will continue to play that role in supporting legitimate reunification efforts. As for England, they have no business in Ireland and are slowly realizing that fact. However, centuries of imperialist domination is hard to overcome in a few years. A reunified Ireland will come when Sinn Fein becomes the majority party north and south. Those days are almost on us.
Towngate | Aug 03, 2012, 09:54 AM EDT
Oh Dear, Leanne! ... this 'apprentice piece' of yours is a poor start and a certain Fail mark! ........ Partition was only 'enacted' after both parties to the 1922 Treaty Agreed to it! (Read the full Agreement - it is available on-line.)... You dream about educating famously ignorant Americanians about Ireland... start by telling them Ireland has nothing to do with them politically! If they harbour romantic and sentimental notions about the place, all well and good, but please inform them also that Ireland will never be 're-united' until those who broke it,fix it! And for your and their information ~ that certainly was NOT the British!
Towngate | Aug 03, 2012, 09:42 AM EDT
The Americans have no respect for the Protestant people of Northern Ireland as can be shown in a recent revealation which disgusts any right minded human being. The Emerald Society Police Band, made up entirely of serving Police Officers from NYPD are to attend and support the hunger strikers commemoration event in Co Donegal on 25th Aug. These super slimmers belonged to an organisation which brutally murdered over 300 serving Police Officers of the Royal Ulster Constabulary G.C., and left over 9,000 seriously injured. The victims families are refused compensation of funding whilst the murderers have received over £100 million. The presence of the band is despicable when one remembers the disaster of twin towers when only 29 officers of NYPD lost their lives, and the messages of condolence from RUC and financial donations given. It is totally horrendous when a Government body, shouting against criminality and terrorism openly support the murderers of so many fellow Police Officers. Where is their conscience. I don't thing they have one. Shame..Shame..Shame.
Scotchtommy | Aug 03, 2012, 09:14 AM EDT
What a load of bilgewater.Note all the jargon (Clearly a result of two years night school at Community College)"New structures and new institutions to be put in place" i.e what Bobby Sands (God rest his soul )died for.A United Irish Socialist Workers Republic.You don't believe me that this is Sinn Fein policy - check it out.Anyway, ignoring this ,who in his right mind just now would want to become a citizen of the Irish Republic.It's dying on it's feet only keep alive by German subsidies.And you think a Sinn Fein Govenment is going to solve Ireland's woes.
YoungPike | Aug 03, 2012, 09:09 AM EDT
Britain doesn't want Ulster, and certainly doesn't want the Loyalists! As soon as the nationalists outnumber the loyalists, Reunification will come!
WoundedKnee | Aug 03, 2012, 07:53 AM EDT
This is fantasy. There's more chance of uniting Ireland with Poland than uniting North and South. And, given the huge numbers of Poles in the 26 Counties, more logic.