Bring back the British Empire. WIder still and wider.

If Ireland wants to really 'go it on it's own' then by all means. Let's cut off trade and travel between Ireland and the UK and the Irish can get by on their own 'merits'. HAHAHAHHAHAHAHA. I predict civil war and cannibalism within a year.

I was enjoying your sensible contributions in the CANZUK thread. Return yourself to that setting, please, fiedler.

Or maybe you just looked reasonable and sensible in comparison to the forum's new voice of ultra-right wing fascist leon1122.

Name calling is below the line wjessop. Please keep your conduct at somewhat approximating at least the level of a lower-class Englishman. We have standards to keep, and yes it is a burden.

In fairness to myself and leon, I was under the impression he wears those titles with pride and as fact.

Please keep your cultural assumptions (verging on imperialism) to yourself. Absolutely disgraceful.

Impression, not assumption, from the written word that states it openly. Do not feel disgraced, dear soul.

Now I haven't been following Leon much anymore, but I thought he was more libertarian, not fascist?

When he suggests that poor and unemployed people should be removed from society (and not in a 'life them out of poverty' way) and that colonialism was good for the colonies, it doesn't sound particularly libertarian to me. It was an offhand, comical remark not meant for a serious discussion. Take it to another thread if you want to carry it on, please, I'd rather this thread stick to the Irish debate.

Shit, I +1'd fielder's last comment by mistake. I hate giving accidental marks of approval to bigoted trolls like fielder and krellin.

wjessop: I hope that there will be a reunited Ireland, but wouldn't venture a guess as to how long it would be before this came to pass.

I hope for an independent Northern Ireland. A peaceful breakup of the UK spawned by a British exit from the EU later this year, followed swiftly by the SNP insisting on a second independence referendum - with justification based on a majority in Scotland wishing to remain within the EU.

Followed swiftly by the English deciding that they don't want to pay for Northern Ireland or poor areas of Wales anymore. And peaceful democratic dissolution. With the Republic of Ireland and British successor state (New England) guaranteeing Northern Irish Independance and security.

I can tell you that a majority in the republic don't give a shit about reunification. Sinn Fein (the republican party, currently in power in northern ireland with the DUP) will do the best it ever has in next friday's election and it will still be less than 25%, probably less than 20%. And virtually no other political party will touch them.

And a lot of their support doesn't cone from people who jecessarily care about reunification.

The good friday agreement and the EU regional funding has done great things for Northern Ireland. Economically, investment from the British government has stopped going towards security and has allowed for a huge amount of growth and made it a happier place. I suspect the Northern Irish themselves are all pretty happy with this. Power sharing has allowed civil rights issues of the 60s (discrimination against catholics in the job market, for example) are a thing of the distant past.

Northern Irish government seems very dysfunctional under the union. I can't imagine why they want to stay in the union. Sure lately it hasn't been a scene of sectarian warfare, but surely the standard should be higher than that? The gridlock makes the US Congress look efficient by comparison. Seems like the unionists want it that way, though. After all, their whole movement is predicated on the idea that the Irish aren't fit to rule themselves.

Aww that hurts JECE. What is wrong with you?

@putin @ora: Thanks to you both for participating

@Putin: "their whole movement is predicated on the idea that the Irish aren't fit to rule themselves."

That's a provocative way of putting it, and draws on the historic connection to colonialism and British superiority. Obviously, though, nationalists would disagree with that and emphasise the cultural and religious connections, rather than any will to abandoning political representation altogether.


@orathaic:
"I can tell you that a majority in the republic don't give a shit about reunification."

Are there any particular reasons for that? Is that based on your personal gauge, or are there studies/polls you know of that regularly monitor the mood?

I'm wondering if it's a recent development, and then why.

@JECE: Interesting, and thanks :)
Care to elaborate on why you'd preference Irish reunification?

Unionism is based on what?

Surely it is based on the idea that if the Irish were given rule of northern ireland they would massacre the Unionists?

I don't know how else it could be put. The unionists opposed home rule and had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the idea of a devolved parliament. The notion that a Fine Gael-led Dublin government would take away their religious rights seems extremely far fetched.

"Are there any particular reasons for that? Is that based on your personal gauge, or are there studies/polls you know of that regularly monitor the mood?

I'm wondering if it's a recent development, and then why."

I can talk from me personal experience, that growing up northern ireland seemed very distant, that it wasn't relevant to my life, and that i always felt it would be better if they could work things out by themselves. (despite the obvious fact that every kid knew growing up, that ireland should be reunited... this was a very early belief which was questioned at a young age)

This is not the case for people growing up in the north most counties of the republic, but those communities are very rural, there are no major cities, and the largest towns (letterkenny, and dundalk) have a combined population of ~53 thousand.

I grew up in the southeast, and in a city, so i may not be representative of rural populations or of other areas.

So yeah, personal gauge, combined with there being only one political party who explicitly states it wants to see reunification, and their polling numbers being consistently low (though they are now in the top 4 and will probably come 2nd or 3rd in friday's election).

Yes putin, they opposed home rule, and setup their own home ruling in Stormont.

They were afraid not of the Irish ruling themselves, they were afraid of repercussions of the Irish ruling Unionists (or more properly Protestants, and Scottish Presbyterian).

As happened from 1919-1923 (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_Irish_country_houses_(1919-1923) )

That was during the civil war. Yes, I get it that the unionists wanted to keep their privileged status in Ireland as landowners and felt home rule was a threat to it. The notion that they were legitimately afraid of being massacred both ignores the fact that they opposed home rule since the 1860s and British/unionist repression of republicans.

wjessop, I do consider myself right-leaning on economic issues. However, I would not consider myself fascist. I also never said poor people should be removed from society. There is so way to do so without violating their human right. In fact, they are quite necessary components of our economy. I also never said colonialism was good for Africa. I said it would have been best if Europeans kept their interaction with Africa as limited as possible.

*no way to do so

You've said they need to be eliminated from the gene pool.

Quote me.

@Putin, yes, keeping their privileged position.

(NB it was the war of independence, and continued into the civil war.) But there was historically a threat of violence, the memory of massacres in Ulster going back to 1641.

So they were certain to oppose home rule, or any rule by Catholics, as a threat to themselves. Whether they were more concerned about their safety or their social status or both isn't really that important.

You said "After all, their whole movement is predicated on the idea that the Irish aren't fit to rule themselves. " - i believe this is rather misleading; it is possible that they used this as propaganda to support their own selfish ends. Especially among poorer Irish Protestants, who had less to lose.

When I mentioned about supporting people during periods of unemployment (inevitable in capitalism, which is dynamic, particularly as sectors shift with technology, or simply outsourcing), you says that "if there aren't enough jobs, there need to be less people" and that it was as simple as that. You couldn't talk about human beings in a crueler way, Leon. You equate poverty with laziness, and disregard the inherent unevenness of the capitalist system, instead blaming the poor for their own situation. You dismissed state childcare, even to rape victims, claiming simply that "irresponsible pregnancies should be aborted". And, yes, you did claim in the CANZUK thread that colonialism was good, citing "roads and railways", as a fair trade in the face of systemic violence, ethnic division, the slave trade, and the neo-colonial system that maintains the hegemony of the imperial centre over many of the former colonies. What I said of you is fair; and actually you are truly the most frightening person I have encountered on this website, the 2 characters that JECE mentioned are prolific but they are characters nonetheless, shock-jocks of hyperbole, you are far worse because your disregard for other human beings and belief in cruelty is sincere and earnest.

FYI. I typed that on my phone.

@Leon: You've had your say and I've responded to you. If you don't like it, message me or start a thread soliciting feedback on your cruelty. This thread is about Ireland and should stay that way please.

I only wrote in this thread because you were and still are misrepresenting my position. I will not create a thread to respond to your petty reply. I said that there need to be fewer human beings by reproducing less, but you stick your head in the dirt and let my words fly over you. The other quotes are likewise the result of synthesis of multiple messages and not actually direct quotes. I will leave it at that to prevent further cluttering this thread and encourage those who seek the truth to read the threads in which I have stated my positions. I do not have the time to debate for days on end.

Of course the Irish rejoining the UK is inevitable. We are the same group of islands after all.

All joking aside, I don't see what the South would gain from adding the North, nor what the North would gain from abandoning the idea of self rule in favour of rule from Dublin. British and Irish have the same passports, you can literally cross the border in your sleep, and the only way of telling that you're in a different country is that Euros can be used in every shop.

My own position is that as long as the North wants to stay British then they are British and I will support them to the hilt. The same is true of the Falklands.

"But there was historically a threat of violence, the memory of massacres in Ulster going back to 1641. "

Most of these massacres in history were carried out by the British state against the Irish, especially during that lovely Cromwell period. I hardly see this as a justification or rationalization for unionism in 2016. Unionists sound a lot like Zionist settlers in the West Bank complaining about Palestinian resistance to displacement and repression as an excuse for their support for Israeli sovereignty over land that isn't theirs.

"I don't see what the South would gain from adding the North, nor what the North would gain from abandoning the idea of self rule in favour of rule from Dublin. "

I don't know maybe they'd stop being the poorest performing region in the UK?

"Of course the Irish rejoining the UK is inevitable. We are the same group of islands after all."

You are clearly mistaken, the ever closer Union with the UK and RoI is both being part of Europe ;p

@Putin, nobody is equating the historical tradition of Unionism with a modern rationalisation or even saying it is justified. I am quiet clearly stating the historical context which Unionism is based on.

And no it wasn't against home rule on the basis of not thinkin the Irish were fit to rule themselves. It was on the basis that if the Irish were able to rule Protestants that those protestants would suffer and be oppressed in the same way as Catholics had been during the rule of the Protestant Ascendancy.

They did not want a reversal of their fortunes, so they opposed home rule, and as they couldn't stop it, in the end they accepted seperate home rule in Belfast.

@Poorest region? I'n sure there are regions of England and Wales which are pretty damn poor.

But certainly some of the poorest region of the RoI are the border regions, specifically because of the economic damage being beside an internatio al border can do. Stability is ruined when trade moves with the currency exchanges. Investment is lower when stability can't be guarenteed. And cross border smuggling is the only advatage from an economic standpoint.

So yes, i think it would benefit both the Republic border regions and the North Irish economy if there was a single economy.

The biggest thing being NI joining the Euro. (Even while the Rest of the UK remains under the sterling).

Whether you need to unify tax policy is unclear to me.

"@Poorest region? I'n sure there are regions of England and Wales which are pretty damn poor. "

I'm referring to this regional scheme of the UK.

http://www.bmvwarehouse.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Uk-map-whole.jpg

I'm also referring to this report.

http://pwc.blogs.com/northern-ireland/2016/01/employment-not-the-sole-measure-of-economic-performance-pwc.html

If somebody could please explain the modern justification for unionism I am listening.

Re:

Leon1122,

Quote you? Sure.

"Putin, why is a Darwinian fight to the death a bad thing. Helping the lazy survive will only allow them to live to breed and weaken our gene pool. I totally support what Krellin said."

Clearly you indicate a desire to eliminate the poor from the gene pool as allowing them to survive weakens it.

You forgot what you said merely a week ago. That's a pretty bad memory.

http://webdiplomacy.net/forum.php?threadID=1340193&page-thread=1#threadPager

page 1

@Putin: i'm refering to where EU regional finding goes.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_policy_of_the_European_Union#/media/File%3AEuropean_regional_policy_2014.svg
This shows red as poorest regions, yellow as transational regions and blue as wealthy regions (ie ones not getting additional funding)

See: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_policy_of_the_European_Union

@""Putin, why is a Darwinian fight to the death a bad thing. Helping the lazy survive will only allow them to live to breed and weaken our gene pool. I totally support what Krellin said."

Clearly you don't have a fucking clue about biology. Letting more people survive increases diversity which actually strengthens the gene pool. Never mind the fact that laziness is the mother of invention. And this seen as a strength. We don't know what genes will be needed in the future, so more diversity equals strength.

Removing them from the gene pool didn't involve removing them from society. Without government assistance, perhaps they won't keep giving birth to 15 children. Clearly, you have no idea how biology works, orthaic. It's not like all rich people come from one family. We need more innovators, not more food stampers. I think this article explains quite well why overpopulation is a problem. http://www.chathamjournal.com/weekly/opinion/chatlist/hunting-is-necessary-61228.shtml . That is why the government shouldn't be incentivizing it.

Overpopulation is not a problem in the developed world. Outside of the US we barely have replacement level population growth. And most growth comes from migration.

Think of the forests we are cutting down and the slums across the country. If there were fewer people, everyone could have a higher standard of living.

If there were fewer people, there would be less demand, less capital would be invested to meet that lower demand; no one would have confidence in te future of the country and standards of living would decrease.

Look at russia and most of the former soviet block, over the last 25 years. They have seen populations reduce.

The economy depends on confidence of people, be they investors, entrepreneurs or consumers. And seeing a population drop would be devestating for that confidence.