The now-enacted will of (some of) the people

[Rds1983]

On 26/04/2021 at 17:39, Enda said:

It’s always been about self-determination. Henry II, Elizabeth I, Henry of the beheaded wives, and Oliver Cromwell all invaded Ireland, brutally, and planted British people on the land.

Why on earth should London have any power over any part of Ireland if they’re not wanted? If there were an all-Ireland vote tomorrow, you’d be asked to leave.

I'm all for self-determination and letting people vote for and then having independence if that's what they want but could you clarify what "an all-Ireland vote" would actually involve? You mentioned people brought over from England several hundred years ago, would their descendants be allowed to vote?

I'm not having a go or trying to stir things up, just trying to better understand the complexities of the situation. 

[chrisp65]

4 minutes ago, Rds1983 said:

I'm all for self-determination and letting people vote for and then having independence if that's what they want but could you clarify what "an all-Ireland vote" would actually involve? You mentioned people brought over from England several hundred years ago, would their descendants be allowed to vote?

I'm not having a go or trying to stir things up, just trying to better understand the complexities of the situation. 

In N.I., clearly any resident that can vote in the current elections would be allowed to vote in an independence election.

Voting to unify with another country, that would surely require a positive vote in both countries? You can’t vote to be part of something else and they are compelled to let you in. We couldn’t vote tomorrow to all be part of Singapore, unless Singapore also wanted that.

Having said all that, it’s a really tricky thing when populations move around. An obvious clunking example would be this. If Germany had won WWI and they had ‘settled’ large swathes of the Midlands. Hundreds of thousands of Germans arrive, they take the best jobs their culture gets the majority of funding. They run the Midlands from 1918 to 2021. Then the Midlands gets a chance to reunify with a now independent GB.

Would you be ok with those Germans having a vote on whether the current system should continue?

How many generations would have to pass for you to accept German occupation and integration as legitimate?

It’s all a bit ugly and messy. There just isn’t a single obviously correct answer acceptable to all.

[Rds1983]

21 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

In N.I., clearly any resident that can vote in the current elections would be allowed to vote in an independence election.

Voting to unify with another country, that would surely require a positive vote in both countries? You can’t vote to be part of something else and they are compelled to let you in. We couldn’t vote tomorrow to all be part of Singapore, unless Singapore also wanted that.

Having said all that, it’s a really tricky thing when populations move around. An obvious clunking example would be this. If Germany had won WWI and they had ‘settled’ large swathes of the Midlands. Hundreds of thousands of Germans arrive, they take the best jobs their culture gets the majority of funding. They run the Midlands from 1918 to 2021. Then the Midlands gets a chance to reunify with a now independent GB.

Would you be ok with those Germans having a vote on whether the current system should continue?

How many generations would have to pass for you to accept German occupation and integration as legitimate?

It’s all a bit ugly and messy. There just isn’t a single obviously correct answer acceptable to all.

This is what I'm trying to better understand as both my wife and I have grandparents or great-grandparents from RoI, Scotland, Wales, Cornwall, Norway, Mexico and the US; and as we've discussed previously I'm an economic migrant from the South West but still have siblings and parents there, should I have a say in what happens there? 

Really not trying to stir anything or wind anyone up and certainly not trying to lecture or preach on something I'm not part of. I'm trying to better understand a complex situation and the thoughts of people who are directly involved in it so that I can understand their view points better. 

I'm also trying to decide how I'd feel about and would handle this situation if I was involved in it and how I'd feel for our son (we've mooted moving abroad before and some of our best friends have already done so).

If we moved him as a youngster to another country we'd want him to be able to vote there when he grew up just as I'd want to be able to vote here despite having relatively recent relatives who aren't from England. Should he be punished for a decision that he didn't make? But at the same time should people with greater legacies in that area (if we did move) be punished by our actions (especially if they were forced upon them). 

As with many things in life, sadly I don't think there is a correct answer, but it's still something which I want to better understand as I can see and agree with both sides of it and honestly don't know how I feel. 

Edited May 1, 2021 by Rds1983
Forgot a Scottish great-grandfather even though his kilt is in my closest.

[chrisp65]

2 hours ago, Rds1983 said:

This is what I'm trying to better understand as both my wife and I have grandparents or great-grandparents from RoI, Scotland, Wales, Cornwall, Norway, Mexico and the US; and as we've discussed previously I'm an economic migrant from the South West but still have siblings and parents there, should I have a say in what happens there? 

Really not trying to stir anything or wind anyone up and certainly not trying to lecture or preach on something I'm not part of. I'm trying to better understand a complex situation and the thoughts of people who are directly involved in it so that I can understand their view points better. 

I'm also trying to decide how I'd feel about and would handle this situation if I was involved in it and how I'd feel for our son (we've mooted moving abroad before and some of our best friends have already done so).

If we moved him as a youngster to another country we'd want him to be able to vote there when he grew up just as I'd want to be able to vote here despite having relatively recent relatives who aren't from England. Should he be punished for a decision that he didn't make? But at the same time should people with greater legacies in that area (if we did move) be punished by our actions (especially if they were forced upon them). 

As with many things in life, sadly I don't think there is a correct answer, but it's still something which I want to better understand as I can see and agree with both sides of it and honestly don't know how I feel. 

You should vote where you are currently resident, is the obvious route, fo me.

I don’t like the idea of ex pat’s having a say in the running of the old country. For a recent example: Brexit.

But there is a hitch, with the voting where you are resident, and that’s the problem of swathes of ‘incomers’ then changing an area, sometimes literally re writing its culture. I’m sure plenty of Spanish people would have plenty to say if ex pat Brits had a significant political say in areas of Spain and started renaming towns and local features so they were easier for people from Kent to pronounce.

It’s very easy to be ‘relaxed’ about the big lovely coke advert mixing pot of a world, if you are the dominant culture. Not so easy for working class Cornish, or whatever. Not so easy if you grew up in Barmouth and quite like the idea of starting your own family within 20 miles of where you grew up. Bloody complicated.

I know people on both sides of the line in Northern Ireland and they are all decent people that have been dealt a really tricky hand by history. Nobody wants a return to the bombs, and nobody wants to simply concede their culture to ‘the other side’. I haven’t a clue how they resolve it to be honest.

  

[OutByEaster?]

I think any vote in Ireland would be reasonably clear - if Ireland voted as a whole it'd be very obviously clear, but even in Northern Ireland there's an advantage in terms of numbers for Irish catholics that you'd think would lead to a yes to the reunification of the island.

In 2011 there're 850,000 people who identified as British in NI so there would then be the question of how many of these people would want to move over to mainland Britain and how many would want to remain and adjust to 'Irishness'.

 

[bickster]

11 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

but even in Northern Ireland there's an advantage in terms of numbers for Irish catholics that you'd think would lead to a yes to the reunification of the island.

Last census (2011) had it at 48% Protestant vs 45% Catholic. It'll be interesting to see what the current split is when the results of this years Census are released

That also gives you a 7% of "other" which might actually be a very significant 7% that usually will have zero impact on traditional voting but could have a huge impact on a reunification referendum

It was also intersting the recent poll that was posted last week or the week before? that put a United Ireland slightly ahead of remaining separate. The split of the country over reunification is very finely balanced

[Enda]

4 hours ago, Rds1983 said:

I'm all for self-determination and letting people vote for and then having independence if that's what they want but could you clarify what "an all-Ireland vote" would actually involve? You mentioned people brought over from England several hundred years ago, would their descendants be allowed to vote?

I'm not having a go or trying to stir things up, just trying to better understand the complexities of the situation. 

Hi Rob, good question, and I know you’re not trying to stir up anything. I’m a big man for bullet points/lists so here’s my response:

1. An all-Ireland vote would be one person one vote. Of course British-identifying people would be allowed to vote! But the six counties of Northern Ireland would only be given as much say as any other six counties on the island. On this basis, reunification would pass 80-20 or so.

2. This all-Ireland approach is more a theory than realistic proposal because it removes Northern Ireland’s veto, something which I agree isn’t workable.

3. But I think the all-Ireland approach is the best way to think about this dispute from an historical perspective. Chris’ “Nazis in the Midlands” idea is what I’m getting at here. But let me clarify that I’ve nothing against British-identifying people, I don’t think they’re Nazis. I think they’ve been there for centuries and are citizens just as much as everyone else. But it’s the (now widely accepted) concept of NI —their little “Nazi” border — and its veto I find daft. Let me explain.

4. Ireland is a fairly small island, and it makes sense to treat it as one unit. I don’t think that’s controversial and it had been that way for millennia. There was never a border. We all play rugby and hockey as one team. Elizabeth I was ruler of “Ireland”. The Act of Union created the UK of GB and “Ireland”. The NI border is a new phenomenon, only 100 years old, and was absolutely gerrymandered into existence. It wasn’t even just “Nazis in the Midlands”, the Unionists realised they didn’t have a majority in the Midlands (nine counties of Ulster) so they all moved to Coventry (six counties of NI). To this day, one-third of Ulster is in the Republic.

5. The actual border is so absurd the original peace agreement between Ireland and UK in 1921 actually agreed to redraw it. It was always meant to be temporary. Lloyd George and Churchill and the boys accepted it was insane to have Derry and south Armagh and other “very Irish” places under the Crown, and provision was made for redistricting after five years. Long story but the redistricting never happened. The absurd border remained.

6. So we’re left in 2021 with this mad “Nazis in Coventry” border that once upon a time everyone agreed should have been redrawn. But the narrative has now shifted, one hundred years on, and everyone pretends to solemnly respect the wishes of the people of the great and ancient state of Northern Ireland. The state that was gerrymandered into existence and has been outright abusive to a large fraction of its population.

7. And, I get it. We’re all human and basic compassion and common sense tells us we should do whatever it takes to stop the fighting and the bombs in pubs and just get on with it. So I pretend to respect the great and ancient state of Northern Ireland, even though everyone knows the emporer (or should I say empire?) has no clothes. It’s better this way. There are no bombs, and no grieving families, be that in Belfast or Birmingham, and that’s definitely worth it. I thought we, British or Irish, had consensus on that.

8. Brexit is an absolute smack in the face to that consensus. Brexit has ruptured the fragile status quo. Buoyant nationalism doesn’t work in NI. And in this context of sorting disputes between nationalists and unionists in the North, and talk of border polls, it’s worth keeping at the back of your mind that NI is a powder keg in an absurd gerrymandered state. If and when people start dying again, the Tories’ inevitable trotting out of “the wishes of the majority of NI” will be a convenient use of political fiction, but it is not the great solemn decree they think it is.

[Enda]

Anyway, my 2000 word rants have a habit of being thread killers, so rather than a Villa fan ranting here’s an historian’s take on the dubious circumstances of NI’s birth.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/partition-paradox-how-home-rules-bitterest-opponents-became-its-pioneers-40371785.html 

[Rds1983]

9 minutes ago, Enda said:

Anyway, my 2000 word rants have a habit of being thread killers, so rather than a Villa fan ranting here’s an historian’s take on the dubious circumstances of NI’s birth.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/partition-paradox-how-home-rules-bitterest-opponents-became-its-pioneers-40371785.html 

I think your still about 72 words short of 2000 so you're good. 

Some very interesting points, thanks for sharing. 

As a side - I find it so weird whenever someone calls me Rob on here. 

[Enda]

2 hours ago, Rds1983 said:

I think your still about 72 words short of 2000 so you're good. 

Some very interesting points, thanks for sharing. 

As a side - I find it so weird whenever someone calls me Rob on here. 

Sorry Sandra.

[Rds1983]

1 hour ago, Enda said:

Sorry Sandra.

Haha. It's fine, the names in the profile (I think /hope). It's more that it happens so rarely. 

[sidcow]

14 hours ago, Rds1983 said:

Haha. It's fine, the names in the profile (I think /hope). It's more that it happens so rarely. 

OK Bobby. 

[sidcow]

So we've signed a trade deal with India which includes free movement of people between the nations.  

Indians are free to move to the UK.................That will please a lot of Brexiteers . 

[bickster]

We've sent the Navy to Jersey in retaliation for the French threatening to cut off their electrickery and naughty French FIshermen

[HanoiVillan]

4 hours ago, sidcow said:

So we've signed a trade deal with India which includes free movement of people between the nations.  

Indians are free to move to the UK.................That will please a lot of Brexiteers . 

I hate to piss on the bonfire, but it definitely doesn't include 'free movement'. It includes a youth mobility scheme that allows up to 3,000 Indians aged 18-30 to come to the UK per year, without a job offer, and stay for up to 24 months.

[Davkaus]

4 hours ago, sidcow said:

So we've signed a trade deal with India which includes free movement of people between the nations.  

Indians are free to move to the UK.................That will please a lot of Brexiteers . 

It's limited to 3,000 graduates per year, so not so bad. Any kind of more widespread easing of visa requirements is bad news, IMO.

[fruitvilla]

On 01/05/2021 at 06:13, Enda said:

Hi Rob, good question, and I know you’re not trying to stir up anything. I’m a big man for bullet points/lists so here’s my response:

I generally agree with your post here.

As someone who could do a reasonable impression of a English Brit, I always thought the British Isles should have been one political unit. That way the habit drinking beer at cellar temperatures could be more easily protected.

[sidcow]

9 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

I hate to piss on the bonfire, but it definitely doesn't include 'free movement'. It includes a youth mobility scheme that allows up to 3,000 Indians aged 18-30 to come to the UK per year, without a job offer, and stay for up to 24 months.

Yeah, sorry I misread it although it does say that the fuller trade deal would require free movement. I'm pretty sure India was one of the big prizes Brexiteers mentioned so I'm sure they will still have that to chunter about at some point in the future. 

[KenjiOgiwara]

I was surprised when I saw we didn't agree on a fishing deal with you lot. Think it was on the BBC last week or at the start of this week or something. Seems like something both countries could do with avoiding really.

[Genie]

54 minutes ago, KenjiOgiwara said:

I was surprised when I saw we didn't agree on a fishing deal with you lot. Think it was on the BBC last week or at the start of this week or something. Seems like something both countries could do with avoiding really.

The Navy patrolling the Channel now, f**k yeah, In-ger-lund, In-ger-lund, In-ger-lund.

EU learning not to mess with da big boyz.