As with all immature arguments there is a partial truth at its heart, but the partial truth is distorted and exaggerated to give the appearance of an irrefutable proof.
The net cost of Northern Ireland is certainly high, but no-one really knows how high. Tax revenues are subsumed into the British exchequer, and some expenditure (on reserved or excepted matters) cannot be separated from that of the UK as a whole. But in order to fund its devolved responsibilities Northern Ireland receives some £10 billion a year from London.
Clearly the Dublin government, already facing a monumental budget deficit, would not be capable of matching this type of transfer – even with Northern Irish tax revenues taken into account it is likely that Northern Ireland is a net recipient of several billion pounds a year.
Of course there is no reason why the cost of Northern Ireland could not be met by simply reducing its cost – cutting expenditure on Quangos, schools, roads, and social welfare. But if a post-reunification Dublin government did that, then a lot of people, and not just unionists, would question the wisdom of reunification.
On that level the immature unionists are right – Northern Ireland is so dependent on outside funding, and so incapable of supporting itself, that it must remain on welfare for the foreseeable future. The question, though, is whether the generosity of London will, or can, continue.
Britain is also suffering, and suffering badly. As The Economist put it: "Britain’s public finances, however, are on some measures the worst of any rich country. It is likely to have a bigger deficit in 2010, as a percentage of GDP, than even the likes of Italy. With the financial heart shot out of the economy, tax revenues have fallen dramatically just as social spending has increased. That is unavoidable; but the government’s heavy borrowing, even before recession hit, was not. Now Mr Brown needs to tap the markets for £175 billion ($254 billion) in the current fiscal year and the same the year after. In last year’s budget, public net debt was expected to be 39% of GDP this year; now it is put at 59%, and likely to increase to 79% by 2013-14. This outcome would push Britain only to the middle of the rich-country pack. But the rapid increase in borrowing is eye-watering."
And this is before Britain addresses the other issues that it has been putting off: the need to build hugely expensive power stations to replace the aged ones that are in use, the need to upgrade road and rail infrastructures, the appalling schools, the impending pensions time-bomb, and so on. Unemployment in the UK has just risen by "the biggest quarterly rise since records of the ILO measure began in 1971".
Faced with almost insurmountable financial problems at home, the British government may increasingly cast a jaundiced eye at its ungrateful yet costly little colony across the Irish Sea. A British government that is, to most extents, an English government, but one with a need to keep Scotland sweet, may increasingly resent the billions of pounds that Northern Ireland costs, especially when it sees, night after night, that the 'natives' are a mixture of rebellious nationalists and costly 'loyalists'. English money spent policing Northern Ireland's unnecessary and downright illiberal 'marching season' could have been spent on schools or hospitals. If the British government took a closer look at the costs of the dozens of Quangos and tribunals that add precisely nothing to the wellbeing of the people, yet provide some people with a standard of living much higher than that of working people in Britain, it may be tempted to rethink its generosity. The extent to which Northern Ireland depends on taxpayer-funded jobs, and its apparent lack of interest in actually creating any wealth, must grate on voters and politicians from areas where people work hard and take risks.
So Northern Ireland is caught in a fork. By remaining dependent, and producing far less than it consumes, it remains unaffordable for Dublin, and this puts a brake on aspirations for reunification. But by the same token, by remaining dependent it taxes London's patience. Nobody would suggest that Britain would ever unilaterally cast Northern Ireland aside without a border poll in favour of reunification, but if London starts to feel that the cost of Northern Ireland, and its careless dependency, is at the expense of improvements in Britain itself, attitudes towards Northern Ireland could harden.
If the power-brokers in London decide that something must be done to reduce the Northern Irish drain on the British exchequer, this could involve two possibilities, neither of which is in unionism's interests:
- A Tory government (and maybe the next one) might decide that Northern Ireland's welfare addiction must be cured. The cure could mean a radical slimming of the bloated public services, the overlapping authorities, and the unaccountable Quangos. Thousands, even tens of thousands of cushy jobs could be lost. Northern Ireland could be expected to stand on its own feet, and contribute to the British exchequer for the first time in generations. Wages would tumble as unemployment rose, and Northern Ireland would become a low-cost back-office for richer parts of Europe. The 'cost' of Northern Ireland to the British exchequer would drop, as its tax revenues would start to balance out the transfer from London that covers the costs of the remaining public services. But at the same time, of course, the potential cost for Dublin would also drop, and unionism's childish taunt that "Dublin couldn't afford us" would no longer be true. Reunification would not cost Dublin much money, and it would inherit a reasonably sound economy in Northern Ireland.
- A British government of either flavour could decide to use its undoubted influence to act as a 'persuader for Irish unity'. There is no doubt that it could make life much more uncomfortable for unionism, and if the demographic and electoral tide towards a nationalist majority became clearer, the British government could push the process of Irish reunification forward rather faster than unionism might want.
Unionism's 'strength through weakness' – the unaffordability of Northern Ireland – could turn out to be simply a weakness. No government in the current climate will happily subsidise an underperforming, yet sullen and difficult, region. But any solution to Northern Ireland's welfare dependence will render Irish reunification easier and more likely.
34 comments:
'yet costly little colony across the Irish Sea.'
'Colony - A region politically controlled by a distant country.'
OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY
Therefore, can you please define, constitutionally and legally, how Northern Ireland is a 'colony'?
Or is this simply terminological bullshit to complement your dubious demographic clair-voyancy?
Another well Researched post Horseman keep up the good work. If the Tories win the next General Election there are bound to be massive cuts in public spending and the axe will swing down on the North. And if Salmon keeps his promise for a Referendum on Scottish Independence by 2010 we could be looking at a whole new ball game. Nationalism always does well in times of economic unrest and lack of stability.
Also I see Chekov keeps going on about Paisley being a Ulster Nationalist. His leader Reg Empey of course was in Vanguard which published a document called Ulster a Nation calling for a Independent Ulster and so was David Trimble. Anybody got any photographs of Wee Reg or Purple Dave giving the Vanguard salute?
I see there is a programme on Channel 5 tonight at 8.00pm called Britain's Nazi King Revealed about Edward VIII should make for interesting viewing. The Documentary features newly released FBI files showing Edward was not trusted by the British or American Governments for his Pro-Nazi views.
I think England should secede from the U.K.
To anon. Colony is perfectly legitimate considering most unionists are descendants of colonisers. Without the plantation the North wouldn't exist. You know a colony, where one country takes the land of the natives of another country and subsequently places its own people there. Considering those descendant of the natives before the plantation don't want to be part of Britain and those descendant of planters want to remain connected to Britain it's a perfect example of a colony.
'Colony is perfectly legitimate considering most unionists are descendants of colonisers. Without the plantation the North wouldn't exist. You know a colony, where one country takes the land of the natives of another country and subsequently places its own people there. Considering those descendant of the natives before the plantation don't want to be part of Britain and those descendant of planters want to remain connected to Britain it's a perfect example of a colony.'
People from the lowlands of Scotland had been crossing the North Channel and settling in what is now NI centuries before the Plantation took place. Their arrival was only one wave of migration to the island of Ireland, including that of the Celts.
Ireland was never a united territory before its accession to the United Kingdom in 1801, so perhaps you'd like to modify your contention that 'the natives of another country' were dispossessed, given that:
1. Ireland was not a country but a series of fiefdoms - albeit with some overlapping legal commonality (Brehon).
2. The Celts themselves also took away the lands of those who lived on the island during and before the Bronze Age when they arrived en masse around 500BC.
As for your definition of a 'colony', the dictionary definition of a colony denotes a distant land, not one separated from mainland UK by a 9-mile stretch of water. In legal terms colonies do not send their political representatives to sit in the parliament of the colonial power. Only territories that are legitimately part and parcel of a sovereign state have that entitlement.
That's why Bermuda does not send its elected politicians to sit in the House of Commons and Northern Ireland does.
So, once again, can you tell me how in legal and constitutional terms Northern Irleand qualifies as a colony? I want legal and constitutional arguments and facts, not nationalist historical bullshit!!
Ulster was colonised for the simple fact that it was the most resistant region to English control. It was the most Gaelic part of Ireland outside English control. People may have come and gone between Scotland and Ireland beforehand but these people didn't separate themselves from those who were there previously. It is very simple, without the colonisation of ulster there would be no North. Movement of peoples is natural but confiscating land and using that land to settle colonists who regardless of how close the islands are spoke a different language and had a different religion. And don't give me that crap about Ireland not being a country, politically it may have had disputes but as a Nation goes it was probably one of the most obvious nations at that time. Try justifying it all you want but the fact of the matter is is that Ulster was colonised. Therefore, it's perfectly legitimate to call it a colony. I suppose you'll come back with that lost tribe nonsense.
Give me a break.
The Plantation was a mass movement of people that could be termed a form of colonisation but for the centuries of migration between Scotland and Ulster that I've already mentioned. I also notice that nationalists never think that the arrival of the Celts was comparable 'colonialisation'. Mmm, interesting!!
You could also argue the displacement of the Native Americans was an act of colonialisation, but you wouldn't describe today's non-Native Americans as colonisers any more than you'd describe America as an illegitimate state because of it.
So, having failed on the historical front, and being woefully unable to tell me how Northern Ireland is a 'colony' in either a legal or constitutional sense, I suggest you hold your piece, chum.
Anon (Andrew) -
I don't think there is any evidence of a displacement of native peoples by Celts. Celtic culture arrived by trade and inter-marriage not war.
Of course there was displacement of people by the Celts. It represented the single biggest migration in the island's history.
I'm still waiting for someone to define how NI is a 'colony'.
Andy,
Good to see you are keeping in touch.
"Colony - A region politically controlled by a distant country.'
OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY"
I will now also choose the reference which best suits MY position.
"Colony - A subject territory occupied by a settlement from the ruling state, a community of people who form a national, racial or cultural minority.
Collins English Dictionary."
"England had been engaged in colonial settlement in Ireland, drawing on precedents dating back to the Norman invasion in 1171. The 16th-century Plantations of Ireland, run by English colonists,
Wikipedia, The British Empire.
You, my friend, are the last vestige of the Irish colony.
As I said earlier, Ireland was not a politically unified state in history but was unified in the Gaelic world with much of Scotland, the Isle of Mann and the rest of the Celtic world. It had its own system of government, legal system and religion (Celtic Christianity, which it exported to Europe on a large scale and produced many fine pieces of artwork which still exist). The fact that it did not independantly exist, in terms of the modern meaning of the nation state, in history is no argument as to why it could or would not exist as such in the near future. Greece, Italy and Germany are all ancient peoples who only formed nation states by the union of smaller independent entities. Germany and Italy becoming nation states in the last few hundred years.
Dál Riada was indeed a Gaelic kingdom which straddled Ireland and Scotland but was shared by the same like minded peoples who shares the same roots, language etc. There has always been movements of peoples in these islands which continues to this day. You say that the Celts displaced the previous populations by force, please enlighten us with proof. On the other hand, the various English plantations over the centuries had one object in mind. Starting with the Pale and culminating with the plantation of Ulster, the English tried to establish a compliant colony in Ireland. The O`Neills of Ulster were the last vestiges of the old Ireland and open rebellion, thus sealing the fate of Ulster and Ireland to what we see politically in our nation to this day. All the plantations bar one were dismal and total failures, because these people integrated with the locals and became Irish in time. Time is running out on the one exception and in the not very distant future Unionism will be consigned to the history books but the protestant legacy will remain and will be reflected in the new rejuvenated and confident Nation to reemerge without the shackles of the English monarchy to weigh it down.
MPG .....
'A subject territory occupied by a settlement from the ruling state, a community of people who form a national, racial or cultural minority.'
Firstly, can you define how Northern Ireland is 'occupied' given that it is an integral part of the United Kingdom in domestic and international law?
Secondly, can you define how Northern Ireland governance makes it a 'colony' given the evidence I've already presented?
Using Wikipedia as a reference for anything smacks of desperation (a bit like international tours on Irish unity, eh!)
Ireland was indeed never an independent united country in history so the historical basis for Irish nationalism is not something that has existed, but something that has yet to be created.
'...in the not very distant future Unionism will be consigned to the history books.'
Oh dear, propaganda lessons at the Felons Club again. Unionism and the Union will be around long after both you, I and Horseman have gone. I hope you realise how childish you appear when you write emotionally-loaded crap like the end of your last paragraph.
So, define legally and constitutionally, how NI is 'occupied' and a 'colony' in the 21st Century, or try keeping quiet for a while.
'Ireland was indeed never an independent united country in history'
You talk some nonsense. Wasn't Brian Boru the first king of a united Ireland?
Ireland's nationhood has always existed. Again, unionism is a consequence of colonialism. Its end is near. Only a majority in 2 counties of the 9 of Ulster. Ulster is British eh don't make me laugh.
Andy,
1. Statement of fact, look it up.
2. What evidence. The English took the land in Ulster by force and cleared the local populace to the benefit of the planter and thus securing Ireland as a colony. When push came to shove, the English allowed the minority to have its way to the detriment of the vast majority and create a statelet containing a significant Unionist majority with the biggest land grab possible. Prior to 1801 the Kingdom of Ireland did exist as an entity as an English colony and had its own parliament. The representatives in that parliament were Irish of planter stock and were hoodwinked into agreeing to the act of union, creating the UK of GB and I. The vast majority, the native Catholic population, were disenfranchised (the Penal laws) and had no say in the matter so the legitimacy of this Union is false. In 1798 the Presbiterians of Ulster, also discriminated against, joined the native Irish in rebellion against England (having been influenced by the French and American revolutions). The statelet created in the north of Ireland is a continuation of this process, in which the native and adopted Irish had no say in its imposition as a condition to the end to the war of independence with imperialist Britain.
3. Using Wikipedia as a secondary quote is the lazy way to do it I`m sure but the message is still the same. Ireland was a colony and the 6 counties continue to be in the near future. Ach tiochfaidh ár Lá.
4. You continue to speculate that Ireland was never a nation state! This is probably true in the context of your jaundiced version of history because you are obviously the descendant of a colonist and fail to acknowledge the volumes of history written confirming this fact. Open your mind, read the books, take in the available information and see the light. Ireland has been a political entity in the past and will be again in the near future.
5."propaganda lessons at the Felons Club"
The days when a statement like this can be made are long gone, mate. You and your ilk have not yet landed in the 21st century. Irish Nationalism has as much a right to existence as unionism and your logic in equating nationalism with felony is some thing out of the 18th century and is despicable. I remember your quote about a river in Egypt and the saying "look in before you look out" comes to mind when it comes to discussing elements of your "culture"(e.g. the orange order). How many felons were at Drumcree? You are right, all our times will pass eventually and Unionism will be remembered as a particularly nasty footnote in the history of Ireland.
"when you write emotionally-loaded crap"
I would say that just about sums up your responses to the various subjects raised on this blog but at least you are consistant.
6."So, define legally and constitutionally, how NI is 'occupied' and a 'colony' in the 21st Century,"
I wish I was a constitutional lawyer.... but there are history books out there (too many to mention) so my advice to you is read them and smell the roses. You might be enlightened but I doubt it.
Croppies don't lie down any more but I`m sure you have noticed that. It must be hard to have to listen to opinions which are diametrically opposed to your own but then democracy has its price and Unionists are democrats, are they not?
And of course you failed to answer my question in my last response.
MPG .....
'Ireland was a colony and the 6 counties continue to be in the near future. Ach tiochfaidh ár Lá.'
The best response from that whole diatribe that really sums up what you are.
You failed to bring up any evidence to suggest a united Irish nation other than Brian Boru, and all the evidence suggests he was originally the King of Munster, and later became High King of the island only through a process of conquer and subjugation. Lovely example of a so-called harmonious all-Ireland valhalla (LOL).
You are not a constitutional lawyer. Yet one doesn't have to be to refute the notion that Northern Ireland is a 'colony'. Colonies don't send political representatives to sit in the sovereign parliament of the colonial state, only territories that are part and parcel of that same state follow this practice.
'Croppies don't lie down any more but I`m sure you have noticed that.'
Yawn.
Anyway back to the central thrust of the argument. How is Northern Ireland 'occupied' and how is it classed as a 'colony' in British, EU or international law?
Utrinque Paratus.
BTW, unless you're prepared to answer the direct question I posed above instead of resorting to silly history lessons, I see no point in continuing the argument.
A straight answer to a straight question: 'How is Northern Ireland constitutionally a 'colony'?'
I will now also choose the reference which best suits MY position.
"Colony - A subject territory occupied by a settlement from the ruling state, a community of people who form a national, racial or cultural minority.
Collins English Dictionary."
If you do not like the Collins definition, take it up with them.
Diatribe is a dish best served cold as I`m certain you know judging by the hot headed rubbish and thinly veiled threats you issue here on a regular basis.
Brian Ború was indeed said to be the last High King who rid Ireland of the Danes. The Irish have never accepted the legitimacy of English rule in Ireland, that is why we have had strife and war in our country until the end of the last century. The English tried to subjugate us and failed and the last vestige of this is the shrinking Unionist population in the 6 counties(I was going to include your good self in this but you do not even live here). The process of decolonisation is a work in progress and as described here is continuing at a pace unconfortable to your good self. If I was you and had your opinions, I would stay in Britain but then again they probably call you "Paddy" over there. Imagine that, it must be terrible to be associated with us but then again you can not deny your fate.
Once a colony always a colony until of course events overtake the situation. This is exactly what this blog is about so if you do not like it, lump it.
Now go away and get a life.
MPG .....
Oh, one more thing. The parachute regiment are gone (good riddance), never to return so it seems that they were NOT ready for everything after all. The RAF will be following soon.
MPG .....
'A subject territory occupied by a settlement from the ruling state, a community of people who form a national, racial or cultural minority.'
Yes, but the Province is not 'occupied' territory. It is part and parcel of the UK and its people are British citizens. It sends its political representatives to sit in parliament. So it's neither a 'colony', nor is it 'occupied'.
So thanks for spectacularly failing to justify your descriptions. As for not living here, I too live in the UK.
And as for the Paras, they didn't leave before putting you republican **ck pigs in your place.
Now, Andy, thats not very nice!
MPG .....
Don't provoke if you're not man enough to take it in return.
The fact remains that I am implacably opposed to the idea of an all-Ireland republic and would indeed support any Unionists who would not be prepared to simply roll over and take lessons in democracy from Irish republicanism, when the latter did not abide by democracy for so many years.
If you think that by not living in Northern Ireland such support would be impossible, I'll take my lessons from the pub patrons of Boston, Massachusetts.
Get a life, weirdo. Your threats are hollow. It must really hurt to be called "Paddy" in your homeland. The diatribe emanating from you is getting decidedly hot and as I said earlier, it is a dish best served cold.
As for the exchange, consider it finished.
Slán leat
MPG .....
'It must really hurt to be called "Paddy" in your homeland.'
(LOL) I am English as well as British, idiot!!
'Your threats are hollow.'
As is your intellect. I don't make hollow threats.
'The diatribe emanating from you is getting decidedly hot and as I said earlier, it is a dish best served cold.'
The diatribe from you has never been hot and is a dish best consigned to the dustbin.
T?igh trasna ort f?in
Congratulations on being English, thanks for the information. I`m not a mind reader and neither are you. Being a foreigner, keep your nose out of Irish affairs. Your opinions are not wanted, even my northern Protestant fellow country men keep you at a distance. Its not you they want, its your money and your monarch (as long as he/she does not become a Catholic or marry one).Oh, I forgot, a Catholic can not become the king or queen of England. I wonder why? Is it the last remnants of Bigotry in England? I wonder does this anomaly break EU discrinination laws?
Perhaps you know since seem to be well versed in all thing lawful and also some things not so.
Unfortunatly, I was not born a hermafrodite so I find it impossible to do that to myself. Perhaps you can and you might enlighten us with your experiences here but then again, Horseman might object. I say you could make your fortune on stage in Soho or Shoreditch and become famous or infamous the world over. I reckon you are brilliant at it at this stage, with so much practice under your belt.
Can you not contribute without abusing others?
MPG .....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algeria
'Being a foreigner, keep your nose out of Irish affairs. Your opinions are not wanted, even my northern Protestant fellow country men keep you at a distance.'
I'm British and I'll comment on British affairs. Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom and I support that position wholeheartedly. Perhaps you'd like to advise foreigners in Boston or New York to keep their noses out of UK affairs?
'Oh, I forgot, a Catholic can not become the king or queen of England.'
You forget much and remember nothing. A Catholic cannot become Monarch in any of the 17 or so territories where the Queen is Head of State. Perhaps you'd like to comment on them, rather than choosing just one of the four regions that make up the United Kingdom.
'Unfortunatly, I was not born a hermafrodite..'
But you were, if we use Horseman's definition, born an Irish nationalist, which in infinitely worse.
'...so I find it impossible to do that to myself. Perhaps you can and you might enlighten us with your experiences here but then again, Horseman might object. I say you could make your fortune on stage in Soho or Shoreditch and become famous or infamous the world over. I reckon you are brilliant at it at this stage, with so much practice under your belt.'
Followed by...
'Can you not contribute without abusing others?'
So Paddies do neither irony nor intellect!!!
Well, there is no answer to that! Is there?
Except, how many Paddies are known the world over for their writing skills? (many protestant/nationalist).
Perhaps a visit to your mental health specialist might be of benefit to you and help you iron out a few issues which are doing your head in.
Your superiority complex and views of the Irish are extremely negative and do not warrant further comment from me.
Go away and get help, these island will be the better for it if you do.
Slán,
MPG .....
'Well, there is no answer to that! Is there?'
So that's two answers you can't make adequately.
1. How is Northern Ireland constitutionally defined as a 'colony'?
2. How come Paddies do neither intellect nor irony?
'Perhaps a visit to your mental health specialist might be of benefit to you and help you iron out a few issues which are doing your head in.'
When in desperation, bring in your opponent's mental capacity.
'Your superiority complex and views of the Irish are extremely negative and do not warrant further comment from me.'
If only that last sentence were true. Alas, it looks like I'll be knocking you down for some time to come on this thread.
Ha,
Don't make me laugh!
You just belong in the 18th century. Stay there, nobody cares!
MPG .....
Hoboroad said:
"Another well Researched post Horseman keep up the good work. If the Tories win the next General Election there are bound to be massive cuts in public spending and the axe will swing down on the North. And if Salmon keeps his promise for a Referendum on Scottish Independence by 2010 we could be looking at a whole new ball game. Nationalism always does well in times of economic unrest and lack of stability."
Ye, and The ROI has bags of cash to spend subsidising Catholics in Ulster to the standards they've become used to - giggle.
Nationalism always does well in times of economic unrest? That would explain the million who voted for The BNP at the last Euro elections and the millions more who voted UKIP. I wonder what would happen to Irish Nationalists if those types got in power? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
Hoboroad said:
"I see there is a programme on Channel 5 tonight at 8.00pm called Britain's Nazi King Revealed about Edward VIII should make for interesting viewing. The Documentary features newly released FBI files showing Edward was not trusted by the British or American Governments for his Pro-Nazi views"
Should be of interest to Irish Republicans considering they aligned themselves with The Nazis.
Anonymous said:
"'Ireland was indeed never an independent united country in history'
You talk some nonsense. Wasn't Brian Boru the first king of a united Ireland?
Ireland's nationhood has always existed. Again, unionism is a consequence of colonialism. Its end is near. Only a majority in 2 counties of the 9 of Ulster. Ulster is British eh don't make me laugh."
Then why don't you take back your land glory boy? Or are you like all Irish 'men', severely lacking in male equipment?
Anonymous said:
"Congratulations on being English, thanks for the information. I`m not a mind reader and neither are you. Being a foreigner, keep your nose out of Irish affairs. "
That's a laugh! The English are part of the same state as The Northern Irish, have fought across the world with them, sit in the same parliament with them, were blitzed with them and have every right to comment on what happens there unlike the ACTUAL foreigners from The Irish Republic. There's some real retards on this blog...
Post a Comment