Question about the cause of Irish unification.

[Deep13]

Why is it so important for all of Ireland to be ruled by one government? It seems to me that a lot of people assume it ought to be, but I have never heard why. Has Northern Ireland ever had a popular vote on the subject? Would they really prefer being paid in R. of Ireland currency than in U.K. pounds? Are the social benefits better in the R. of Ireland? It seems like they are not. Don't the N. Irish Protestants have cause to worry about being ruled from Dublin and, therefore, the Vatican? Whatever the case, I am skeptical that mere real estate should dictate political boundries. I am also skeptical that offenses from 400 years ago have much relevance now.

I'm asking because I really don't know. I don't have any of this in my background.

[panader0]

1. Read 'Trinity' by Leon Uris

I'm part Irish and part English and that book explained "the troubles" better than anything else I have read. Basically the English conquered the Irish, stole their lands, then rented them back. The English had laws that no Irishman man or woman could own land, house or even property worth over something like five pounds. The English imported many Scottish farmers (the Orange) and gave them land in the north(Ulster), and that, to this day, is part of England.

[SCantiGOP]

17. Also, during the potato famine

Farmers in Ireland were required to continue growing different crops and sending them to England or they could be thrown off of their land.

[catnhatnh]

28. As a matter of fact during the famine...

the aristocracy INCREASED cattle exports to England.

[Deep13]

32. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction. nt

[11cents]

2. Kind of a moot point now.

As part of the Good Friday agreement, the Republic voted by an overwhelming margin (over 90%) to drop the articles of the Irish constitution that claims sovereignty over the 6 counties of Northern Ireland, and voters also overwhelmingly accepted the premise that Ireland would only be unified with the consent of the majority of Northerners. The North also voted to accept the Good Friday Accord principles. The North still has a Protestant majority, and it's taken for granted that that means it still has a Unionist majority. So essentially, the entire island has agreed that there will be no unification without the consent of Northern Protestants.

My own view (I'm neither Irish nor Catholic nor Protestant) is that until a few decades ago, Northern Protestants did have a legitimate reason to object to unification on the basis of the enormous power of the Catholic Church in the Republic. I don't think that holds true anymore, but there's been so much blood under the bridge on the sides ....

[SoxFan]

8. Demographics are not on the Unionist's side

Population trends favor the Catholic community. Eventually, Catholics will outnumber Protestants. It's a matter of waiting things out, and the more moderate sectors of the republican community has figured this out.

[Deep13]

33. Thanks for the information.

:hi:

[ourbluenation]

3. 400 years ago? Really? My uncle was shot dead at his front door in the 80's.

That's 1980's.

[Deep13]

5. So-o-o, that would not be 400 years ago, then.

Anyway, sorry to hear it. Was he an Irishman shot by the British, or a loyalist killed by the IRA? I'm assuming it was the former, but I don't really know since you did not say.

[newscott]

4. As in most issues revolving around England/Ireland

it's in the history.

Found out how they got there and you will see why people stand where they do.

[SoxFan]

6. And you waited until March 17 to post this?

"Don't the N. Irish Protestants have cause to worry about being ruled from Dublin and, therefore, the Vatican?"

Sweet jayzus, you sound like Ian Paisley or a Houston preacher, c. 1960.

The very construct we call "Northern Ireland" is an artificial, gerrymandered farce. There was no such thing as "Northern Ireland" until the 1920s, when it was begrudgingly accepted as a way to reach a peace agreement following the Irish war for independence. It is not the same as "Ulster"; parts of the province of Ulster are in the Republic of Ireland. The British cherry-picked only those counties with large Protestant populations and kept them under British control. The goobers in Jim Crow Alabama would have been proud.

Incidentally, most of the Protestants were imported to the north by the British from Scotland as a way to displace the Irish.

The British and their Orangeman friends set up kangaroo courts, "Diplock Courts", ostensibly to crack down on terrorism, but in reality a way to deny Catholics trials by jury for a whole host of offenses. Curiously, protestant terror groups were never tried in these courts. Funny how that works, ain't it?

British corporations routinely discriminated against Catholics, leading to a vastly higher unemployment rate in Catholic areas, particularly in Belfast and Derry.

Oh, one other thing. We aren't talking about 400 year old grievances (though I doubt you would be so dismissive towards injustices against Native Americans, but that's another story). In 1972, within my lifetime, British forces slaughtered 13 unarmed civilians, including 7 teenagers, attending a civil rights march in Belfast.

[Deep13]

12. The discussions of things Irish today got me thinking about it.

Specifically, a post remembering Bobby Sands for his efforts at reunification.

I didn't say that all offenses were 400 years ago. I only said that I wasn't impressed by ones that were. People are responsible for their own actions, not those of their ancestors. I am NOT saying that bad things have not happened in living memory and I'm not saying they aren't happening now. You inferred that on your own. I just think maybe it is time to forget about what happened under the Plantagenets and the Tudors.

As far as rule from the Vatican goes, the fact is that social laws in Ireland are more restrictive than in the U.K. and it is because of Catholic, clerical influence. It has only been in the last 10 years that an abused woman could divorce her husband there. And you said "Sweet Jayzus there, you might be inviting prosecution for blaspheme.

As far as your effort to change the subject, my attitude toward Native Americans is the same as it is toward anyone else. Anyone suffering from bad treatment should have justice. On the other hand, I'm not responsible for what my ancestors did and no one living today suffered at the hands of my ancestors.

[zipplewrath]

7. It's relatively obsolete now

Being part of the EU has given the Catholics much of the protection they need and deserved from protestant rule. Truth is, I've had Irish Catholics from N. Ireland tell me that if there was a vote, many (not most) N. Irish Catholics would have voted to stay with England. There were economic benefits to them, mostly having to do with being technically "british". These days, they're all EU citizens.

[SoxFan]

10. The EU had nothing to do with it

It was Bill Clinton, George Mitchell, and David Hume pushing the peace process forward, and, later on, Tony Blair, for being the only British PM in centuries to give a damn about human rights abuses.

And your claim about Catholics voting for the status quo strikes me as ludicrous.

[zipplewrath]

13. Not my claim

Just relating what I was told. Not sure why you wouldn't believe that a minority of catholics might find economic benefit from having a foot in both doors. Dual citizenship has advantages alot of places.

My understanding though of why the peace process has held, is because either side is heavily restricted from being able to particularly oppress the other. And there is a "civil" path to address grievences, outside of just the N. Irish court system. England could never supply that role, mostly because of history. The EU on the other hand can.

[Deep13]

34. Huh. Interesting perspective.

:hi:

[mdmc]

9. I am be able to answer all of the questions in your OP

Why is it so important for all of Ireland to be ruled by one government?
manifest destiny. the island was once ruled by the irish, but they got conquered by the English. Might makes right, but the empire ain't as mighty as it used to be. The Irish want it back.

Has Northern Ireland ever had a popular vote on the subject?
i am not sure, but eventually the Catholics will have more votes then the Protestants - that will be the end game for occupation - a vote will end the occupation.

Would they really prefer being paid in R. of Ireland currency than in U.K. pounds?
It seems more cultural, less economic, imho.

Are the social benefits better in the R. of Ireland?
no more or less

Don't the N. Irish Protestants have cause to worry about being ruled from Dublin and, therefore, the Vatican?
Yes, they have cause for concern.

The "boundaries" are pretty natural - the nation is an island. England scored N.I. through force - eventually they will need to yield.

[Deep13]

35. Thanks for that succinct explanation. nt

[bpj62]

11. The Troubles.

All I know is that my Grandfather fought for the British in WWI and them came home and fought against the British in the war of Independence. He then fought against Michael Collins because Collins was a Republican and my Grandfather was a free stater. The British had no intention of ever giving back the 6 counties of Ulster for many reasons. The British have used this same pattern of divisiveness in India, Palestine and when they created the modern day Middle East after the breakup of the Ottoman-Turk empire. Happy Saint Patrick's Day to all of you.

[Deep13]

14. The British powers-that-be behaved very badly...

...when it was powerful and perhaps are still doing so on a smaller scale. I don't know what relevance bad behavior in Africa or the Middle East has on Ireland in 2010, except to point out the Irish were not alone. I know they were treated badly as were others.

Powerful people have done bad things throughout history and France and Spain and others have not been any better. That's not an excuse, but it is how it was. Still, it is not fair to blame the English people as a whole who often suffered under their own government. The average Englishman historically has been a peasant or a craftsman just like the average resident of most of Europe. And no one alive today is responsible for actions that happened before he or she was alive.

[catnhatnh]

15. We 'Blamed" no one...

you're the one to post a thread in this forum minimizing the British abuses in Ireland on this the most significant date to Americans of Irish/Catholic ancestry-I have an idea-why don't you go to Boston this afternoon dressed in orange and beat a big bass drum...you'll get all the discussion you deserve there.

[Deep13]

21. What the hell are you talking about?

I have minimized nothing. I am only asking. Why are you so offended by it? Do you have cause for offense or is it just a habit? And as far as your Orangemen stawman argument goes, has it occurred to you that is it possible for both side to be wrong?

[catnhatnh]

16. Also it takes a ton of chuzpah...

to post this with an avatar of and sig line by Edward Kennedy....

[Deep13]

20. I'm not arguing a position.

As I said, I'm just asking because I don't know. Excuse me if my questions are a bit Socratic in tone, but that's just how I was educated.

And the fact that I can love Uncle Ted only shows the pointlessness of ethnic hatred. Ted never indulged in it.

[steaa]

18. A NI residents viewpoint -

- Has Northern Ireland ever had a popular vote on the subject?

There was a border poll in 1973. Nationalists boycotted it but the majority of the electorate (~57%) voted to stay as part of the UK.
According to poll results released a few days ago, for the first time most people asked identified themselves as being Irish - most people I know would say they are either Northern Irish, or Irish - not British. Though going by previous polls (NILTS survey etc...) - though never 100% accurate, there seems to be a consistant ~20% of Catholics voting to remain as part of the UK.
If anything NI joining the RoI is even more distant due to the financial situation there - you have to remember the NI economy is hugely reliant on the public sector with over 30% of people employed in it. As such, the costs would be huge and ultimately I feel many people would vote with their head over their heart when its money in their pocket being affected. Either way, its for the people who live in NI to decide, not those an ocean away with idealistic views of what they think should happen.

- Would they really prefer being paid in R. of Ireland currency than in U.K. pounds?

If push came to shove, I doubt must would care. The issue is symbolic though.

- Are the social benefits better in the R. of Ireland?

I know they can get almost 3x as much per week on Jobseeker allowence, but other than that Im not familiar with their setup. However I wouldnt want to have the health system they use in the republic. I prefer the setup here in NI better.

- Don't the N. Irish Protestants have cause to worry about being ruled from Dublin and, therefore, the Vatican?

I doubt there will be complete rule from Dublin in the event of unification anyway, I see some sort of power and decision making remaining in Belfast. I have never seen it as simply as NI being absorbed into the RoI.


For me, as a Protestant from NI - Im not sure what I would vote when the border poll takes place. I know the NI economy will always remain a bit of a basketcase as long as it is part of the UK and would be probably better in the long run as part of a single Island economy as there are much different needs here than compared to Wales, Scotland or England, not to mention the only part of the UK sharing a border with an Eurozone economy. Westminster would never give us control of Taxes which is what we would need anyway. The only way I could ever see getting enough Protestants on board would be to keep some power in Belfast, in that case a Federal setup with Ulster, Munster, Leinster & Connaught would be the only real way I guess since I know many wouldnt accept being ruled completely from Dublin.
I know SF and most nationalists do an awful job of trying to get Protestants on board their cause for unifications for varying reasons, from alienating almost all of them through the 70s/80s/90s to not even doing a decent job of saying how they see unification being a benefit to everyone. Its mostly just rhetoric from them with rarely anything to back it up.

There are too many questions to be answered before I, or anyone in NI for that matter to make an informed decision.

[Deep13]

36. Wow, thanks for your thoughtful and candid answers.

I appreciate it.

[RaleighNCDUer]

19. Great topic for St Pat's.

Now, let's go have a Guinness.

[Deep13]

24. Jesus, I could use one.

:crazy:

[WildEyedLiberal]

22. You ask because you "really don't know," but you assume a hell of a lot

This isn't an innocent wondering post - the entire tenor of your OP makes it perfectly clear that you think it's at best irrelevant and at worst dangerous to reunify Ireland. Setting aside your Chick tract talking points about Dublin taking marching orders from the Vatican (which, as a good Democrat, you might remember was the EXACT SAME BIGOTED CASE made against John Kennedy in 1960), your concern for the welfare of the Protestants of Northern Ireland might be touching, except that you conveniently ignore the fact that they are, historically, the privileged oppressor class, and you utterly fail to show any similar concern for Catholics in Northern Ireland, except to dismiss their grievances as something that happened "400 years ago."

Um, NO. Through the fucking 70s and 80 (the 1970s and 80s, just to clarify - not the 1670s), Catholics were legally second-class citizens in Northern Ireland. They were discriminated against politically and economically, and in many cases, they were KILLED. (Seriously, Bloody Sunday is not obscure history - U2 has a frakking famous song about it, for God's sake.) The Anglo-American media meanwhile played up the "terrorism" of the IRA while conveniently forgetting to mention that the British security forces, Orangemen and Protestant paramilitary groups were responsible for just as large a body count. But we never heard about the legions of ethnic Irish killed in Belfast and Derry; just about the car bombs the IRA set off :eyes:

This strikes a chord with me not so much because I'm all that Irish - I'm barely 1/4 Irish, although I am proud - but because it disgusts me to see such spirited apologias for brutal imperialism on A FUCKING PROGRESSIVE WEBSITE. If you replaced "Irish," "Catholics," "Northern Ireland" and "the UK" with "Algerians," "Muslims," "Algeria," and "France," do you think there would be a SINGLE soul on this website who would offer such excuses or defenses of French imperial abuses? I'm not sure if it's because "progressives" are incapable of ever imagining that any "white" ethnicity could ever be a victim of oppression, or if it's religious in nature - oh, the Vatican is super duper uber powerful so therefore no "Catholics" anywhere in the world could possibly be second-class citizens :eyes: Either way, it's a particularly ugly double standard, and this day of all days is not the time to celebrate the dark and ugly history of British imperialism.

[Deep13]

23. You are reading more into it than I said.

What I wrote did not imply anything else. I take words at their literal meaning and often fail to see inferences others might draw. Asperger's you know.

I'm not assuming. I'm asking. And the fact is the concept of original sin and of ancestral guilt are irrational. I'm sorry if you have built your world-view around such things, but they have no basis in reality. "Progressive" means tending toward progress. That means away from the tribal and toward the rational. By implication, it rejects all knee-jerk hatreds. Honestly, the automatic hatred I am getting from a few posters here is not exactly warming me up to the cause (yes, yes, you don't care.)

The RC Church is in fact tremendously powerful in the R. of Ireland as it is in many nations. What people believe matters. That's a fact.

As I have repeatedly said here, I do not claim all grievences happened 400 years ago. I am simply doubting the relevance of those that did. My remark did not include offenses happening in living memory. I was actually thinking about Protestant incursions into Ireland in the early 1600s. I don't know about most of the violence you talk about, which is WHY I'M ASKING. I know it's hard to believe, but I did not grow up listening to stories of British injustice around the dinner table, so I don't know.

My question really has very little to do with imperialism. I am asking what in 2010 the case is for reunification versus status quo. It seems to me the ONLY relevant question is what do the inhabitants of N. Ireland want to do. I still have no idea what that is.

[WildEyedLiberal]

29. Oh, please. Your OP makes your bias VERY clear.

YOU are the only one who seems to think that this is about "400 year old grievances," so why don't you put that little strawman to rest? If you really were "just asking" because you care, then it seems to me like you'd be more eager to admit that gee, the Troubles have less to do with 400 year old imperialism and more to do with VERY recent oppression that happened in your lifetime, but no, you insist on blathering on about "tribal hatreds." That tells me that you have not listened to a thing anyone has said in this entire thread, because your mind is ALREADY made up - that the NI situation is all about a bunch of whiny Catholics bearing ancient ethnic grudges about shit that happened 400 years ago. I also find it very sad and telling that the measure of how much you care about a "cause" is how random strangers talk about it on a message board, and that you tacitly admit that you will be less sympathetic to X issue because you got yelled at on the internet.

I have no idea what point you're even trying to make about the Catholic Church. Do you really and truly believe that Catholics couldn't have been oppressed in NI because the Catholic Church is powerful - or worse, that it doesn't MATTER that they were oppressed because Catholics somewhere else are oppressive? What the fuck does the "Roman Catholic Church" have to do with justifying British imperialism?

Claiming that your question has little to do with imperialism is like asking a question about race in America today and then claiming it has NOTHING to do with Jim Crow. You seem to think that history is irrelevant, that how we arrived at the state we are at today has no bearing on how we move forward. Such whitewashes only serve to benefit those who would prefer not to admit that grievous, terrible wrongs were inflicted on certain minorities, and that moving forward into a world of harmony where we all get along is somehow going to magically happen by pretending that those grievous, terrible wrongs did not exist.

[Deep13]

31. So, you can't explain the case for reunification then.

Sure, I have a bias. My purpose here was to learn the facts. In response, I'm reading a lot of accusations and a lot of indignation that anyone would question anything about it. Without clear reasons, it really looks like the right to hate all things Anglo is more of a habit than anything else. Of course history matters, but it does not change the fact that people alive today are not reponsible for what their ancestors did, nor have they suffered the wrongs that their ancestors did. Again, I'm not talking about shit happening today or in living memory.

I find skeptical questions produce the best answers. Had I been asking about the case for status quo, the questions would have been different.

Here's a follow up question. Had the English reformation failed as it nearly did, Would England, Wales and Ireland be a united kingdon with the Protestant Scotts being their own republic? The Scotts have been treated pretty badly by English aggression too and the Welsh even worse. Still, they are all one kingdom today with violence restricted to soccer riots.

If Ireland had become Protestant, would both islands be united under a single government today? The reason I think it might be is because powerful nations like France and Spain used religion as tool to pit less powerful nations (like Eng., Scotl. and Irel.) against each other. With that basis for division removed, the history might have been a lot more peaceful.

[muriel_volestrangler]

25. One point - Republican paramilitary groups were responsible for a little over half of the killings

Summary of Organisation responsible for the death: Count
British Security 363
Irish Security 5
Loyalist Paramilitary 1018
not known 82
Republican Paramilitary 2058
TOTAL 3526

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/sutton/tables/Organisation_Summary.html

[steaa]

26. Graph of killings

- http://www.wesleyjohnston.com/users/ireland/past/troubles/troubles_stats.html

[WildEyedLiberal]

30. I stand corrected - thanks for posting

I did not intend to minimize the violence and terrorism perpetuated by the IRA or other Republican forces; I only wanted to point out that the Loyalists and British troops racked up quite the body count as well, but while the IRA is a well-known terrorist organization, virtually no one in America has even heard of the Orangemen or any of the Loyalist terror groups, despite the fact that they killed hundreds of people as well.

Edit: I have edited my original post to more fairly reflect the data you've posted.

[catnhatnh]

27. And if you like this post...

then you'll LOVE his Yom Kippur posting about how Jews killed Nazi's too...

[Xithras]

37. My grandfather was an avid IRA supporter and donated much money to them.

He passed away years ago, so I'm not concerned with the legal ramifications of admitting that. He was a short, feisty little Irishman who hated the British. He and I used to get into ferocious debates because I supported a middle way, while he was a staunch opponent of the Belfast Accords. I agreed that Ireland needed peace, but he wanted the British out above all else.

The thing is, he really DIDN'T care about having Ireland ruled under one government. he would have been happy with Ireland being ruled by two, three, or five different governments. The counties could have all been separate nations, and he would have been happy...so long as those nations were ruled by the Irish.

That was his rub, and something that infuriated him until the day he died. His position, if you think about it, was simple. The British Isles were, at one time, four nations. Wales, Ireland, Scotland, & England. Four nations, with four governments, and four rulers. One by one, England invaded them and forced them to become part of Great Britain. These were separate nations, with vastly different histories, and who had different cultures and languages than the English.

After hundreds of years, the Irish finally managed to drive the English back out of their country, establish their independence, and rule their own homes again...except for one small portion of their ancestral land. That small portion is still controlled by the English, the same people who raped, murdered, and oppressed their people for centuries. People like my grandfather saw it as a slap in the face that even a single square inch of Ireland was allowed to remain under English rule.

The funny thing is, he really didn't dislike Protestants either. He was Catholic, but didn't see any problem with having a Protestant/Catholic mixed population in Ireland, and even a Protestant majority in the six counties. As long as they were Irish Protestants supporting an Irish government, he would have been happy. If Northern Ireland had become an independent Irish nation, and nothing else changed, he would have been thrilled. He just wanted the English dominance ended.

You have to remember that at least part of it is generational. He grew up listening to the stories of my great-grandfather, who lived in Ireland until 1920 and was witnesss to many horrific events at the hands of the British. My great-grandfather was so anti-English that he refused to speak with my grandfather for many years after WW2. He wasn't pro-nazi, but he was so staunchly anti-English that he wanted the Germans to annihilate the British before we went in an liberated the rest of Europe. Old hatreds can run deep, and his ran very deep. For the people who lived through it, wounds exist that will probably never heal. For the younger generations, that hatred has largely faded. In time, as the older generations pass away, the push toward a unified Ireland will fade.

[hedgehog]

38. First of all, religion is basically a marker for the different communities involved;

native Irish, Scots moved to Ireland by landlords who wanted them off the land in Scotland, and English. In a classic divide and conquer move, the Scots in Northern Ireland were themselves kept in poverty, but at least they were better of than the native Irish. They were also subjected to generations of propaganda that if the Crown ever left, they would be massacred.

Following WWI, a small group (including both Catholics and Protestants) engaged in guerrilla warfare to overthrow British rule in Ireland. British efforts to fight the guerrillas resulted in increasing support for the guerrillas from the Catholic population. Finally, the British government decided to cut its losses and leave. There was a valuable industrial district centered around Belfast, including weaving mills and shipyards. Those the government wanted to keep.

Traditionally, Ulster included Cavan, Donegal, and Monaghan. Traditional Ulster had Catholic majority. By redrawing the boundaries to exclude those counties, a Protestant majority province was created. That Ulster remained in the United Kingdom. It was treated poorly by the British government (as were coal mining and old industrial districts in England itself), but the Protestant majority accepted the situation because they still were better off than the Catholic minority. During the 1970's, inspired by the civil rights movement in the US, a peaceful Catholic civil rights movement rose in Ulster. The government reacted with force, culminating in Bloody Sunday, and we were off to the races.

Many Irish-Americans donated money to various groups under the banner of the IRA more out of nostalgia than out of any real understanding of the situation. As time went on, both the various factions of the IRA and the Loyalist groups tended to devolve into criminal gangs.

So, should Ulster become part of the Republic of Ireland? I really don't know.

First of all, I'm not certain that Ireland was anything but a loose federation of small communities with a common culture up until the time of Queen Elizabeth I. In other words, I think Ireland became a single entity only when it was organized as a governmental unit under English rule. Our concept of nationhood is relatively recent and we shouldn't make the mistake of projecting it backwards.

Is it proper to let a nostalgia for something that might never have been real override the wishes of the current population? There was injustice laid upon injustice in the past, but that's the past. I think the key now is to ensure equality and safety for all the residents of Ulster today, rather than to try to bring Ulster into the Republic. Borders are becoming less and less important all over Europe. It's time to let old grievances go.

[Deep13]

39. That's very interesting. Pretty tragic.

Thanks for your detailed account. It's pretty illuminating.