Talk:Irish reunification

The page on the encyclopedia has a very republican extremist bias, like most of the articles. It does not reflect well on the owners of the site.

I agree that there was a lot of bias in this article, but I disagree with you're interpretation of the Irish tricolour. If anything it would make the best symbol for a reunited Ireland, since Green does stand for the Gaelic Irish and Orange for the descendents of Protestant settlers, with White for peace between both. What better symbol for unity could there be? this article was obviously written by a Republican attempting to make reunification seem inevitable, but I have also come accross articles written by authors with Unionist biases, who have attempted to make unification seem impossible, which it most certainly is not! - Chris Gilmore Note: Ulster as a province also includes counties belonging to the Irish Republic. So you cannot use it to describe the 6-county entity of Northern Ireland. OK?!

And BTW, although the growth of the RC population in N.I. has declined, it is still growing, while the Protestant population is shrinking. Like it or lump it, it is a likelyhood that in 30 years or so, Catholics will outnumber Protestants in the Six Counties, or Ulster if you prefer. I'm Not trying to sound sectarian, but it's true! - Chris Gilmore

Solidarity with the victims in London, and all of the victoms of both Loyalist and Republican terror!

Don't we have this somewhere else? POV title? Dunc_Harris|☺ 22:18, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This article is so far from NPOV it is breath-taking. For example:

Each group differs on how reunification will be achieved, and how a united Ireland will function. We don't don't know if it will ever be achieved, much less how it would function if achieved. The sentence is blatently POV.

After reunification, Sinn Féin wishes to amend the Irish constitution to protect minorities (including the Protestant/Ulster Scots communities). Sinn Fein has growing support since it advocated a peaceful route to civil changes in the North and to reunification. Blatent pro-Sinn Fáin propaganda that could have come straight from a press release.

One sentence says Sinn Féin is currently the largest pro-reunification party in the Northern Ireland Assembly while another says The SDLP describes itself as 100% for a United Ireland. So one party is explicitly said to be pro-unification. One merely describes itself. That is pro-Sinn Féin bias in use of language.

There would be major political effects from reunification, unionists would have a far more powerful voice in Dail Eireann than they do in the House of Commons and, if they merged with Fine Gael, would create a strong centre-right party to rival Fianna Fail. Why would Unionists merge with Fine Gael? Why not any other party. Yet another example of POV bias.

Sinn Fein would also be much larger and present a major threat to both Fianna Fail and the Labour party making both weaker but both being its only potential coalition partners. POV.

Smaller parties like the Progressive Democrats, Socialists and Green Party are unlikely to make much progress in Northern areas. This would have the overall effect of having much more stable and stonger government in Ireland as there would be no more than two parties in charge at any one time. Complete POV.

The Irish flag has been used by many terrorist organisations and would probably have to be changed. POV.

Although this may be a foolish mistake because the tri-colour is the only one of all four flags to actually have deep meaning, Green= the celts of the island, mainly Catholic White= For peace between the two sides, something that Ireland has needed for a long time Orange= For the supporters of William of Orange, mainly Protestant. Oh come on. The scale of POV here is a joke.

The very militaristic national anthem would have to be changed. Yet more POV.

Ireland's economy would be severly damaged by reunification, the problem of unemployment is much more serious in the North, there are many areas of NI that have suffered from a chronic lack of social and infrastructure investment, which currently requre huge subsidies from the British budget which would have to come from the Irish budget upon reunification. Complete POV.

There would be a difficult transition for many from the north's free healthcare to Ireland's public medical card/private insurance mix. The education systems would also have to be merged but this would be a minor difficulty as second and primary level is similar; however, the North would experence free university education for the first time. There would also be problems with abortion laws which are polar opposites in both jurisdictions. For crying-out-loud. You could hardly cram in more POV into a paragraph if you tried.

The Republic of Ireland is likely to approve it by at least 60%. Complete POV.

If, in time, nationalists became the majority. This is the most likely possiblity in the long term. Recent statistics and studies have shown that the Catholic Irish nationalist community is growing faster than the mostly Protestant unionist community, and will one day outnumber it. Elementary and blatant statistical misrepresentation.

Convincing existing Unionists of the merits of a United Ireland. This is extremely unlikely More POV

Convincing a minority of existing unionists or moderates of a United Ireland. This is the most likely possiblity in the short term. POV gone mad.

If the United Kingdom were to break up Northern Ireland would not be viable alone and the British identity would no longer exist, therefore unionists would have to accept a United Ireland. This depends on the success of Welsh and Scottish nationalism. Oh good god. Now the Welsh and Scottish are being added into this POV essay.

A United Ireland will not even be on the agenda until two conditions are fulfilled:

(1) Loyalist and Republican terrorists groups have disbanded either in reality or in practice.

(2) The current Good Friday agreement is implemented in full. Complete POV.

This article is so flawed it needs wholescale slashing to shreds, with most of its text dumped and what little is reusable completely rewritten in NPOV form. At this stage is is so OTT in its POV maybe it should simply be deleted completely. It is a classic example of how not to construct an NPOV article. FearÉIREANNFile:Tricolour.gifFile:Animated-union-jack-01.gif SOLIDARITY WITH THE PEOPLE OF LONDON\^(caint) 20:57, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to United Ireland might be ideal - people aught to write on better projects or better still not bother at all. Djegan 21:57, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the bias and speculation from this article.

Would the person please stop undoing my changes, I wrote most os this article and am trying to repair it in light of the discussion here please allow me to do so.

and can we have a better discussion beyoung just saying quotes followd by the letters POV?

The social section is poor quality so I am removing it.

Speculation about changes to the flag is just that, speculation, and should be removed.

I wrote most of this article to begin with, my changes are an effort to stick to facts and avoid speculation.

Thus if we are sticking to facts the nautrality and factual accuraccy is no longer an issue.

unsigned comment by 83.70.246.22 (talk · contribs) – ABC D✉ 00:30, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

POV means (your) personal Point of View [it ought to be PPOV, but it isn't].
NPOV means Neutral Point of View

Wiki articles aim to be mainly NPOV and minimally POV. This article is minimally NPOV and mainly POV. Take a look at United Ireland to see what to aim for. Then ask yourself - is there really a good reason not to replace this whole article with #REDIRECT United Ireland. It is right on the brink of a vote for deletion. So you might prefer to do it yourself and put your time into developing the United Ireland article instead. --Red King 17:17, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How can you re-unify that which was never unified in the first place?

Just wondering. And with that in mind, should'nt the title be changed?Fergananim 23.8. 05

It was united as one nation of the United Kingdom of Gb and Ireland pre Government of Ireland Act 1920 so your point is completely wrong.--Muc Fíníneach 15:05, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not disputing the existance of the Irish nation. What I am asking about is how Ireland could or can yet be re-unified as one policial unit covering the whole island, when such a thing never was. Fergananim 25.8.05.

it was but it was ruled from london.the parliament in Dublin had to get approval from London before it passed law.--Play Brian Moore 23:08, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, until Poyning's Law was repealed it did. There was a brief period (1782-1800) when the Irish Parliament had actual power as opposed to the illusion of it, and then it got abolished. In my opinion there's nothing wrong about referring to Irish reunification. David | Talk 17:10, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

so it had 18 years of power so Fer is wrong.--Play Brian Moore 21:10, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys. We seem to have being talking at cross purposes here for a while. I was under the (mistaken) impression that the basis for Irish reunification was the idea that Ireland was once a united political body under the rule of a Gaelic polity, such as the High Kings. We all know this was never in fact so.

The other users have correctly pointed out that Ireland was in fact politically united prior to Irish independence in 1922. However, at all times the head of state was based in London, and because of that I felt that this was incompatible with full Irish indepndence. After all, what was or is the point of an united Ireland if it had to answer to a government based abroad?

I'd also draw attention to the fact that useing the word nation can be a bit vauge. We existed as a nation for centuries before achieving political soveriginity. Likewise, no one today denys the existance of nations such as the Kurds, Basques, Palestinians or Berbers; its just that they do not have an independant political state of their own. A position we were once in.

As far as Grattan's Parliment did'nt it too have as its head of state the King of England? Certainly Ireland was united at the time but not independant. And I don't know that you could call the parliment representative as it excluded the majority of the population - the Catholics - from participation in this and other offices.

I have no problem with Irish unification in and of itself. What I do have a problem with is people basing this on an unreal view of our past. I sincerely hope that this clarifys my take on the matter, and why I still have a problem with the title of the article. Fergananim 22:57, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with most of what you just said. Except with one point, Ireland was united under independence prior to English annexation under Brian Boru! He DID command the loyalty of every noble clan and province in the nation. I would like to bring up two points if possible. A. a nation does not have to be united in order to be a nation, both Germany and Italy were never united prior to the 1870s yet were nations much like Ireland with a unique language and shared culture and common history.

And B. The Ulster Protestant community both culturally and historically shares much in common with Catholic Ireland; so in many ways Orange Ulster really does have more in common with Eire than the UK, and is in effect still apart of the Irish nation.

celticpunk

Hello Celticpunk. Sorry, but like a great many people, you are wrong on this point. Brian never united the island politically. All he did was establish himself as the most powerful king on the island and establish the basis for the island being united politically. That basis was badly shaken in 1014, swept away in 1022 on the death of Mael Sechnaill II, and though energeticlly fought for by the likes of Diarmait mac Mail na mBo, Tairrdelbach mac Ruaidri Ua Conchobair and indeed his Ua Brian descendants, was never to fully become a reality.

And Brian did not command the loyalty of every noble clan and province in the nation ... were that it were so. Why else do you think Clontarf was fought in the first place? Remember, it was primeraly a war between Munster and Leinster because Leinster (quite rightly) refused to pay the outragous borumna or tribute that Brian demanded. The Vikings merely fought as mercenerys on both sides or as partys looking after their own interests (such as the King of Dublin).

It is indicitive just how little loyalty Brian commanded if you look at those who accompanied him to Clontarf on the Irish side: "...Mael Sechnaill son of Domnall, king of Temair ... Mothla son of Domnall son of Faelán, king of the Déisi Muman; Eochu son of Dúnadach and Niall ua Cuinn and Ceinnéitig's son, —Brian's three companions; two kings of Uí Maine, Ua Cellaig . . . . . . . . , and Mael Ruanaid ua hEidin, king of Aidne, and Géibennach ua Dubagáin, king of Fernmag, and Mac Bethad son of Muiredach Claen, king of Ciarraige Luachra and Domnall son of Diarmait, king of Corcu Baiscinn, and Scannlán son of Cathal, king of Eóganacht of Loch Léin,"

Mael Sechnaill and Mothla mac Domnall were kings who had being forced into submission and had no reason to love Brian (Mael Sechnaill prudently refused to commit his forces untill well into the battle) while Tadhg Ua Ceallaigh and Maelruanaidh na Paidre Ua hEidhin were minor kings of two kingdoms long since reduced to vassal status. They were there because two of Brian's wives were of their respective dynastys. Also because they relied on Brian to keep the Ua Conchobhair from re-establishing their overlordship upon them.

The kings of Fernmag, Ciarraige Luachra, Corcu Baiscinn and Eoganacht Loch Lein were similarly small kings of reduced kingdoms, and none of them were politically or military important in their own right.

Despite what you say, Brian did not command the loyalty of important allies such as the Kings of Osraige, Aileach, Ulaidh (Ulster), Airgialla, Brefine or Connacht. In fact he had no important Irish allies at all beside the King of Meath, who hated him!

Now, as to your latter points:

1 - I take grave issue with you stateing that Ireland was annexed to England! Loose use of language, and worse, you make it sound like we gave up without a fight. And when exactly did this event take place?

2 - I agree totally with point A.

3 - B: Except that much of Ulster Protestant community never and still does not see itself as part of the Irish nation; they veiw themselves (correctly) as part of the British nation. You'll have to explain this to me, and then to them!

I'm not angry with you, just sad that so few people seem interested in our history, and those who do have such a terrible understanding of it. Please get back to me as you seem like someone who is genuinely intersted and can have a discussion not an argument. Cheers, and thanks! Fergananim 18:52, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reunification/amalgamation

The opening paragraph needed working on. Not all nationalists (certainly not republicans) have historically supported the amalgamation of Northern Ireland with the Republic, because they regarded the twenty-six county state as illegitimate as the six-county one, not least as it was supposedly capitalist, theocratic and reactionary, and no basis for a thirty-two county republic. That was the rationale of Sinn Féin's old policy of Éire Nua, continued by Republican Sinn Féin. In reality, of course, the twenty-six county state is unlikely to be overthrown, and a united Ireland, if and when achieved, would probably be a reformed version of it. Quiensabe 03:17 2005-08-31 I think reference should be made to see Articles_2_and_3_of_the_Constitution_of_Ireland somehow. Feb 01-2006

Conservatives "strongly unionist"

"In Great Britain, the Conservative Party, UKIP, and other conservative groups tend to be strongly unionist." The Tory party under Thatcher signed the Anglo-Irish Agreement that all mainstream Unionist parties rejected. The Tories are not 'strongly unionist', just tacitly unionist. - Johnbull 03:41, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's a government action, not a feeling of the party, and the Unionist Parties in Northern Ireland do not have a monopoly on deciding what does and doesn't constitute pro union motivated action. Whilst I am no fan of the Anglo-Irish Agreement , it did represent an attempt at a halfway house, not dissimilar to the Belfast Agreement, whereby the introduction of a "southern dimension" could theoretically strengthen the existing status quo, reinforce the SDLP at the expense of Sinn Fein and thus in turn create a more stable Northern Ireland within the UK that had the acceptance of more than just the Unionist community.

Beyond the track record in government, members of the Conservative Party are staunchly pro union. Indeed whenever members ask themselves what their greatest regrets over Thatcher's time government are, the Anglo-Irish Agreement rivals only the Single European Act as the first response. Timrollpickering 12:32, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All the Unionist MPs resigned their seats and were re-elected (except for one) and a 400,000 signatured petition was presented to Buckingham Palace to protest against the Agreement. If so many unionists were against the Agreement I find it hard to believe that the party that voted for the Agreement in an overwhelming majority could ever be called "strongly unionist". They may like the idea of the Union in theory but in practice they are prepared to let other countries outside the Union have say in a constituent part of the Union and to (constitutionally) appease people in the Union who actually want to belong to a different country.

Secondly, I don't think the "feeling of the party" really has much to do with it if the policies of the party do not correspond with their members. Labour party members are probably socialists but then I'd find it hard to say that Tony Blair's government are socialist. - Johnbull 16:32, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Typical opposition stance. The Agreement was badly sold, and was exploited by the usual demagogues who seize on anything that can be presented as "proof the Union is in danger and only they can save it," but that does not mean it was intended to undermine the union. There are different ways to preserve the Union and this was seen as one. That cannot be taken from just because headcounts went the other way.

And the so-called Unionist Parties records weren't so great either. Rather than make the state work for all and let sentiment for reunification die out they actively pursued a strategy of alientaing a large part of the community. Paisley has long proved one of the best recruiting sergeants the IRA could have, as well as one of the worst adverts for Northern Ireland Unionism that the outside world could ever see. Hardline "Unionists" hold responsibility for the way the Union is still a real question to this day. Timrollpickering 19:45, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The mainstream Ulster Unionist Party objected strongly to the Agreement and 400,000 people cannot, to me, be regarded as a hardline fringe. The Agreement was repugnant to the Unionist community of Northern Ireland. It undermined the Union because it gave a non-Union country for the first time ever a role in the governance of Northern Ireland. Regardless of the merits of the Agreement (or whether it was right or wrong) it, rationally evident to me, constitutionally subverted the Union because it took away the sole right of the UK to govern NI.Johnbull 21:01, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Molyneaux has never exactly been Mr Moderate! I don't deny that the Agreement was dislikes by the Unionist community but that in itself does not affect the Conservatives' pro union credentials. Note also that the Belfast Agreement has a southern dimension and that was voted for by a majority of unionist voters - was that an undermining of the UUP's union credentials (or for that matter those of the UK wide Conservative Party, who supported it)?

And in any case your argument relates to the Thatcher era. That was twenty years ago - the question is as much about the party today. Timrollpickering 23:08, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:United Ireland which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 01:31, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]