Survey shows significant section of Irish people oppose British rule

by southern comfort Thu Oct 07, 2010 20:22

That's interesting but: "continued resistance to British occupation" means different things to different people across the island. If you mean "I don't like the idea of occupation", that's one thing that I would agree with in terms of emotions; if you mean "let's go back to the tit-for-tat killings and car bombings of the 1970s", then that would be opposed by 99%.

Where I live in Leinster nobody (out of 100s of neighbours) ever talks about the North, nor do they know anyone who lives there. I happen to know some of each "community", as friends not relations, and have been there about 20 times in my life. The last time was in 2008 and things have come on a lot since my first visit in 1965.

The 1998 referendum was passed by 90+% in the south, but less in the north, and almost all the northern antis were said to be the hard-line unionists. If Professor Tonge's 14% is 14% of northern nationalists alone, then you should make that clear. It's not so far from the 18% of Northerners who voted for a United Ireland in a 2008 poll. Northern nationalists are not "the Irish people".

Most of us southern nationalists would not want to chip in the £5bn annual cost that Britain pays, about €1,000 p.a. on every one of us, along with a guarantee of no thanks from either side.

by Tim Johnston Fri Oct 08, 2010 07:00

So, 86% are in favour of letting the people who live there decide for themselves? that's encouraging. Many of us Ulster people don't considered ourselves 'ruled' by a 'foreign power', though, thanks very much. Partition is, incidentally, a failure of Republicanism (the 1916 kind, not the pluralistic 1798 kind), and not of those Irishmen who consider ourselves British as well.

by Plato Fri Oct 08, 2010 10:56

Tim this nonsense about being "British" and "Irish" just muddies the waters. The fact is that Ireland was invaded and planted by a foreign power. This happened elsewhere too however the desire of the London establishment to hang on to Ireland led to the deplorable division by religious allegiance which plagues the pace to this day. If the British had a modicum of decency they would withdraw and allow the people of Ireland come to their own arrangement for self government free from outside interference. We owe that to our children for the simple reason that if the presnet situation is allowed to continue there will be further eruptuions of violence. Irish people will never accept British interference in their affaiors and tolerate the present position simply becaiuse they are powerless to do otherwise. British rule is maintained by force and the threat of force.

by Tim Johnston Fri Oct 08, 2010 19:36

See, I think that "nonsense" comment just illustrates the point. There's a million of us thereabouts who consider it our identity. Soft (or violent) conformism might not be the best way to approach the possibility of any future united Ireland (which I don't rule out, by the way). British rule in Northern Ireland is maintained by consent, and would only be preserved by force if force was used against it.

by Fergal Fri Oct 08, 2010 21:50

What century do some of you people live in? You make it sound like people in the North are having guns held to their head by British soldiers hell bent on ruling the country with an iron fist. Things have sort of moved on since those days - pity some of you haven't moved on with it.
The North remains part of Great Britain as that is what the majority of its inhabitants prefer. When the vote swings the other way then a United Ireland can be considered. Economically, the Republic couldn't handle the North at the minute. The cash flow into the North in the form of grants and back handers to appease terrorists is drying up fast. Plus over 30% of the jobs in the North are public sector. Its bad enough some knuckle draggers still try and bomb the North back into a United Ireland as they have no regard for anyone else's opinion but their own but some of the rest of you seem so short sighted that you don't see the socio and economic chaos it would mean to integrate 6 extra counties into Ireland.

by Jacqueline Fallon Fri Oct 08, 2010 21:52

What a waste of time that survey was, I am shocked they even had to do a survey. The majority of Irish people who are patriotic and love their country - detest British imperialist rule in Ireland.

The majority of Irish people (like me) also want peace for Ireland, but know that with the continuing foreign occupation that is highly unlikely. I do not believe you can have peace and the continuous occupation of our six counties by a foreign military power all existing at the same time.

People like Mr Johnston make me sick. If you want to be a 'British imperialist subject' (a.k.a. a complete gobshite), then feck off to England with you and take the million or so other 'British imperialist subjects' with you (if there is that many stupid people in existence).

"Ireland Unfree will Never be at Peace."

by A Freeman Fri Oct 08, 2010 22:00

Good to see people like Jacqueline Fallon showing their true colours in seeking the ethnic cleansing of one million protestants in Northern Ireland, her ilk claim to be republicans but that sounds more like the sectarian, racist language of Milosevic's Serbia to me.

by Jacqueline Fallon Fri Oct 08, 2010 22:21

FAO: A Freeman (obviously a member of the newly founded party 'The Complete Gobshites Party')

I said 'British Imperialist subject' not 'Protestant' - I have nothing against Protestants (or any religion for that matter). I consider all Protestants in Ireland to be Irish and see them as no different to myself. But it pisses me off to hear people in the 6 counties lowering themselves by describing themselves as 'British Imperialist subjects'.

You have completely and deliberately misunderstood what I have meant. Anyone who knows me, knows me as a peaceful person, your description of me here as someone who would support ethnic cleansing is absolutely laughable!!

by A Freeman Fri Oct 08, 2010 22:56

I support Tim Johnston's right to see himself as British if he wishes to do so, and in election after election in N.Ireland the majority of voters have supported parties who clearly embrace a continued union with Britain, he never describes himself as a 'British imperialist subject', that's merely the broken record rotating in your brain Jacqueline Fallon!

The British Empire largely ceased to exist by the 1960s but many millions of people around the world (Australia, Canada, India etc) support the continuance of their links with Britain through the Commonwealth. If Tim wishes to support this he has every right to do so.

If you're looking for gobshites I suggest you look in the mirror!

by Jacqueline Fallon Fri Oct 08, 2010 23:03

Britain has a Queen and her people are called subjects not citizens, therefore, if you call yourself British in the 6 counties, then you are a subject to the British Queen - jaysus I can't believe you don't know that - that's basic stuff!

by Tim Johnston Sat Oct 09, 2010 02:10

"The majority of Irish people who are patriotic and love their country - detest British imperialist rule in Ireland. "

That statement is 100% true, Jacqueline - and the vast majority of those people don't live under British rule.

If you can hold down your lunch for long enough, you might want to reconsider your outright contempt for a million of your fellow Irish people, people "like me", none of whom consider themselves the kind of medieval peasants that would fit the description of "imperial subjects".

What definition of "Republicanism" has such a chauvinistic view of culture that allows ideologues to decide who gets to be Irish and who doesn't? Certainly not the one my ancestors fought for in 1798.

I do rest easy though knowing that the vast majority of Irish people do not share such contempt, and are willing to offer at least some acceptance of a culture its adherents hold dear.

thankyou, A Freeman for a reminder of that.

by Jacqueline Fallon Sat Oct 09, 2010 10:27

Mr Johnston your 'precious' British Imperialist Queen would refer to you as one of her 'subjects' the word's her 'Majesty's subjects' is still used today and is a current British legal term used to describe all who she claims jurisdiction over - whether you like it or not, she regards you merely as one of her 'subjects' (who she takes money off to maintain her lavish imperialist lifestyle), didn't you know?

I have no problem admitting that I have no time for anyone in Ireland supporting British rule in the 6 counties. But it is not true to say that I hate people of the protestant faith - that is untrue. I hate people who slavishly worship the British Queen and support her regime in the 6 counties. The British rule has brought such division and misery to the Irish people - I absolutely hate it.

by Plato Sat Oct 09, 2010 10:37

"See, I think that "nonsense" comment just illustrates the point. There's a million of us thereabouts who consider it our identity. Soft (or violent) conformism might not be the best way to approach the possibility of any future united Ireland (which I don't rule out, by the way). British rule in Northern Ireland is maintained by consent, and would only be preserved by force if force was used against it."

This is more nonsense Tim. Ireland was partitioned by force and that partition is maintained by the threat of force. The fact is that the vast majority of Irish people do not want the country partitioned. Are you seriously suggesting that if there was parity of strength between the British and the Irish states that the border would survive? In all cases where the British have withdrawn they did so when confronted by greater force.
Nobody is denying you the right to call yourself British, or whatever else you feel like, but if you desire to be ruled by the British state than the honset thing to do to go live there. The British demonstrate their hypocracy on this point by insisting that all ethnic minorities living in the UK must conform to British norms. Imagine the outcry if Indians or Pakistanies living in the ghettos of London sought to be governed from their native countries.

by W. Finnerty Sat Oct 09, 2010 13:39

Why can all of the law-abiding and peace-loving people now living on the Island of Ireland not make "genuine democracy" their shared target for the future?

By "genuine democracy" I mean the kind that was so ably defined in the 1860s by former Republican US President Abraham Lincoln as: "government of the people, by the people, for the people".

The big flaw with "British Rule" -- up to now at least, and as I see things -- is that (deep down) what the people who support "British Rule" always seem to have wanted, and still want I suspect, is: "government of the ruling elites, by the ruling elites, for the ruling elites".

Trying to pay lip-service to "genuine democracy", while actually practicing and supporting the "British Rule" form of "democracy", only makes matters far worse (it seems to me).

by Frank Sat Oct 09, 2010 15:35

Unionists have a tendancy to dance on the head of an identity pin in order to avoid the awkward truth that being in Ireland since the plantations makes you Irish. We even had the spectacle of a Unionist MP addressing Westminster in so called 'Ulster Scots' making a complete gobshite of himself in the process. Whisper has it a group of Corkonians recently returned from Ibiza are seeking to secede from Dublin and fall under the Sovereignty of Spain so that their Cork Ibizian identity can be fully recognised. I'd love to relate this in their native tongue but its only the afternoon and you really need to be pissed to both speak and understand it.

by pat c Sat Oct 09, 2010 16:59

Mocking Cork people is not a good idea...

But lets give Ulster Scots some time to develop as a language, I'm sure, after a while, they will discover an ancient Book in Ulster Scots telling how Cuchulainn held the Gap of the North against Beverly Cooper Flynns attempts to enter the investment policy market there.

And think what we are missing by not being part of the Commonwealth. Our athletes could share beds with stray dogs at the games and get poisoned in swimming pools.

by Tim Johnston Sat Oct 09, 2010 20:57 tim.johnston33 at gmail dot com

Pat,
mocking Cork people is bad but mocking Ulster people is just fine. (And having a dig at Indians too?)

Frank,
who is trying to avoid being Irish? Many of us simply reject the definition of Irishness that has arisen during the 20th century. There is more than one way to be Irish.

Jacqueline,
seriously, are we living in the 1700s? Your ignorance of Unionism is understandable because you resent it, but what happened to "know your enemy"?
I've never understood the scar that 'partition' has supposedly left on the national psyche - why is it anyone's business what people at the other end of the island do? Is anyone in England traumatised by the partition of their island into three?

But claiming that I just want to show my obeisance to the Queen is no different to my accusing you of wanting to worship the Pope and kiss his ring all day. Nobody seriously believes Irish Catholics think like that anymore, so why the belief that Loyalism is equated with the same kind of royalism? Sure, you hear plenty of monarchist talk, but I would say it's barely skin deep.

There is an incredibly strong Republican tradition among Northern Protestants, particularly Presbyterians -who have no interest in bowing down to anyone. It still exists under the surface. Personally, I'd take an American-styled constitutional Republic over the current British system any day. But that's not what exists in the South, is it?

Nationalists have completely failed to ask themselves what it is about the South than Northern Unionists are so reluctant to join it. Their response has been to project those failings onto us and claim that we need to be 'ethnically cleansed' as Plato above suggests.

How about rather making Irishness a bit more pluralistic and decentralising - or federalising - the state, allowing for the preservation of regional identities?

by Frank Sat Oct 09, 2010 21:38

So Tim you are Ulster Scotch Irish British? Anything else? Or is it something else, perhaps?

by Tim Johnston Sat Oct 09, 2010 21:50

I'll be happy to just be Irish one day, Frank.

by pat c Sun Oct 10, 2010 14:30

Pat,
mocking Cork people is bad but mocking Ulster people is just fine. (And having a dig at Indians too?)

Sigh. Irony is dead. Nothing wrong with mocking Cork people; I do it all of the time. Thats why I founded the Culchie Control Platform.
If Ul;ster folk invent a new language then they have to expect a jibe or two.

Not mocking ordinary Indians by any means, just the corrupt incompetent Indian capitalists (almost as corrupt as the Robinsons or Bertie Aheatne) who made a hames of preparing for the Commonwealth games. Driving out tens of thousands of "beggars" and slum dwellers.

by Tim Johnston Sun Oct 10, 2010 17:58

fair comment, Pat. Nothing against Cork folks myself...

As for Scots, the jury's still out on whether it's a language, dialect, or even slang or just an old spelling of English but most of its speakers would seem to say its a language. There's enough Norse and Saxon in it to justify that claim.
In Ireland, though, arguments for Ulster Scots tend to be more to make a point that anything else, namely that nobody hardly speaks Irish either so why is it considered so important? Having said that, I do think that if people self-identify, it's their right to do so, and I can tell you from experience that many people in parts of Antrim do actually speak an incomprehensible (to me) form of Scots.

by willy sash Mon Oct 11, 2010 02:48

Tim plenty of people speak Irish, especially in Belfast as well as the Gaeltacht areas. As for not understanding those guys in Antrim (thought you lived in Canada) thats their accent, not a language

by Tim Johnston Mon Oct 11, 2010 05:55

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Charter_for_Regio...arter

http://languagecharter.eokik.hu/sites/languages/L-Ulste...K.htm

It's as different from English as Norwegian is from Danish.

And no, I don't live in Ireland anymore.

by Plato Mon Oct 11, 2010 09:28

Tim, Ulster Scots "ratification" was undertaken only as part of the Good Friday agreement. This was raised by unionists as an issue in an attempt to have government recognition of the Irish language removed. But it is hardly a surprise that you are confused as to what constitutes a "language" when you have such problems with your own identity.

by Mr Man Mon Oct 11, 2010 13:56

Link to survey/paper?