• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

United Ireland

I wonder if Great Ireland would form out of this after annexing Nationalist Scotland and Wales, and complete the cycle of "kicking out England"? Although England would have a superior population (roughly 50 million) to Great Ireland's (20 million), the latter would enjoy the unabated support of the European Union and NATO. England would be largely isolated from everyone outside of Trump's America and Right-Wing Israel.
 
I support the retention of Northern Ireland by the United Kingdom and oppose Scottish and Welsh independence. =)
 
Sherman123 said:
Because I oppose political fragmentation, and I want a United Kingdom that is as large and strong as possible. I'm uninterested in the nationalist chauvinism of the Irish or the Scots.
Click to expand...

How is it chauvinism? And political fragmentation can be very beneficial, look at the westernized Ukraine, Romania, Bulgaria, Poland, etc...
 
Sherman123 said:
Because petty nationalism is always chauvinism.
Click to expand...

But, in order to have a cohesive independence agenda one must first work through the inconvenient, and often-times messy, stage of nationalism. How can you have independence without a stable national identity? So long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others, or directly threaten neighbors in a military fashion, I see no problem with it.
 
PeteEU said:
Kinda odd no one posted this one. But there was an election in Northern Ireland and the Unionists lost big time. This means that the chance of a united Ireland is bigger than ever, as the Unionists cant block legislation leading to such an event. Add to that, Brexit and just maybe there is a good chance of an United Ireland.

For the first time in my life, the prospect of a united Ireland is not only credible but inevitable | The Independent


One has to wonder if it is possible.
Click to expand...

Well for starters the unionists have not lost their majority.

Northern Ireland Assembly election 2017 results - BBC News

Between the DUP UUP and Alliance Party of Northern Ireland (Still unionist if a lot more liberal than the others) they have 46 seats, compared to Sein Fein and SDLP´s 39. Even if we added the "others" to the nationalist side for the sake of argument it would only bring the talley up to 44.

That said if there was a referendum in a few years time i dont think it would be beyond the realms of possibility that it would would pass. The article is right to mention demographic changes, and the upsurge in Irish passport applications post brexit would certainly suggest that many would be willing to switch sides on pragmatic grounds (particularly the younger generation who have not experienced segregated schools).

Still its hard to imagine a situation where a referendum would actually take place, given that both sides would need to agree in order for this to happen.
 
Tigerace117 said:
Not to mention, of course, that the PIRA's operational doctrine specifically emphasized minimizing civillian casualties as much as possible.
Click to expand...

Indeed but they still choose to use violence when they could have just done what any other political party operating in a democracy does, try to convince people to vote for them and accept the results if they don´t
 
Sherman123 said:
Because I oppose political fragmentation, and I want a United Kingdom that is as large and strong as possible.
Click to expand...

Why? I believe you have no pony in the race, so why do you care?

Incidentally, are you in favour or against Brexit?
 
Andalublue said:
Why? I believe you have no pony in the race, so why do you care?

Incidentally, are you in favour or against Brexit?
Click to expand...

I was firmly against Brexit, and remain against it. And my pony in the race is that I'm a human living on an extremely inter-connected planet and I think the United Kingdom is greater force for good united instead of steadily split into little ethno-nationalistic enclaves. Which despite the ra-ra of the independence or unification movements is what they amount to.
 
Red_Dave said:
Indeed but they still choose to use violence when they could have just done what any other political party operating in a democracy does, try to convince people to vote for them and accept the results if they don´t
Click to expand...
Yes the words of the IRA are empty. If you don't want to hurt civilians why did you bomb and shoot and maim so many of them?
Because you did want to hurt them, that's why.

Actions speak louder than words.
 
Red_Dave said:
Indeed but they still choose to use violence when they could have just done what any other political party operating in a democracy does, try to convince people to vote for them and accept the results if they don´t
Click to expand...

That's true. But then again, in the atmosphere of the early days of the Troubles, where Protestant paramilitaries had rampantly inflitrated the RUC and other such organizations, I can't really blame people for thinking the only way out was violence.
 
Abbazorkzog said:
I wonder if Great Ireland would form out of this after annexing Nationalist Scotland and Wales, and complete the cycle of "kicking out England"? Although England would have a superior population (roughly 50 million) to Great Ireland's (20 million), the latter would enjoy the unabated support of the European Union and NATO. England would be largely isolated from everyone outside of Trump's America and Right-Wing Israel.
Click to expand...


Why would Ireland want to annex Scotland or Wales in the first place?
 
Sherman123 said:
I support the retention of Northern Ireland by the United Kingdom and oppose Scottish and Welsh independence. =)
Click to expand...

Even if a sizable number of said people wish to be independent?
 
Infinite Chaos said:
Sorry, whether they phoned in warnings or not - the tactics of putting bombs into bins, civilian areas still falls outside the definition for freedom fighter and well within the tactics of terrorism.

Intimidation of civilians is specifically achieved by placing bombs in civilian areas.
Click to expand...

By that definition, you'd also be indicting groups like the Free French as "terrorists". I guess it all depends on your point of view. Insurgencies are never clean wars.
 
Tigerace117 said:
By that definition, you'd also be indicting groups like the Free French as "terrorists". I guess it all depends on your point of view. Insurgencies are never clean wars.
Click to expand...

The Free French of WW2? You have been shown bombs placed on civilian targets that killed civilians such as Enniskillen but could you post examples of the Free French bombing civilian targets?
 
Infinite Chaos said:
The Free French of WW2? You have been shown bombs placed on civilian targets that killed civilians such as Enniskillen but could you post examples of the Free French bombing civilian targets?
Click to expand...

Republican paramilitaries killed more people than the Loyalist paramilitaries or the British security forces. What's interesting however is that Loyalist paramilitaries, frequently enthusiastically assisted by the British security forces, killed more civilians than the Republicans did, both by percentage (85% to 35%) and numerically (878 to 723). Appalling crimes were committed by the Republicans, the Loyalists and the British army during the Troubles, none of that makes the respective goals of a United Ireland or a United Kingdom any more or less legitimate. All this rehashing of old battles gets us nowhere.
 
Andalublue said:
Republican paramilitaries killed more people than the Loyalist paramilitaries or the British security forces. What's interesting however is that Loyalist paramilitaries, frequently enthusiastically assisted by the British security forces, killed more civilians than the Republicans did, both by percentage (85% to 35%) and numerically (878 to 723). Appalling crimes were committed by the Republicans, the Loyalists and the British army during the Troubles, none of that makes the respective goals of a United Ireland or a United Kingdom any more or less legitimate. All this rehashing of old battles gets us nowhere.
Click to expand...

Not to mention the Black and Tans.
 
Baff said:
Yes the words of the IRA are empty. If you don't want to hurt civilians why did you bomb and shoot and maim so many of them?
Because you did want to hurt them, that's why.

Actions speak louder than words.
Click to expand...

So what are the rules? How are you allowed to resist?
 
Baff said:
The IRA didn't get a united Ireland. Not by war and not by negotiation. They just got beat.
All the fight sucked out of them.
Click to expand...

If it is as you say you might be a wee bit too close to this.

To say that they got beat? The fight sucked out of them?

Last i checked McGuinness was deputy First from 07 til two months ago... When he resigned.

No nationalist, no government.

That kind of arrangement isn't one you give to a vanquished foe. You don't beat them, suck the fight out of them, and then legitimize them, make them indispensable, cede power and give them a measure of control...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom