The Report of the Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland for 2008-2009 (bizarrely the Electoral Office year runs from 1 April to 31 March) was published on 29 October.
Though largely dealing with administrative matters, it also contains some nuggets of information that are relevant to the future 'community' shape of the electorate, and thus probably the voters too.
For example:
Though largely dealing with administrative matters, it also contains some nuggets of information that are relevant to the future 'community' shape of the electorate, and thus probably the voters too.
For example:
"The new register published on 1 December 2008 showed a net increase of 16,568 in the electorate compared with the register published on 3 December 2007. By 31 March 2009 there had been a further net increase of 11,681 individuals, largely due to the “Schools Initiative” […] bringing the total electorate to 1,154,228."
So, over a 16 month period 28,249 new voters were added to the register – the majority of them probably young people reaching the age of 18. And we know that the majority of these people are Catholic by community identification.
At the same time the Report notes that:
At the same time the Report notes that:
"During the year 11,818 deceased persons were removed from the electoral register."
And we also know that these deceased persons were likely to have been 65% Protestant and 35% Catholic by community identification.
Taking the two figures together, it is therefore likely that 21,187 young people are added to the register every year (the 28,249 cited above was for 16 months, bear in mind), and 11,818 deceased persons drop out of the register.
The 21,187 young people break down as 11,229 'Catholic community' and 9,958 'Protestant community' (ignoring for the purposes of simplicity the fact that some on both sides are irreligious or atheist, and assuming a 53%/47% split). The old people break down as 7,682 'Protestant community' and 4,136 'Catholic community'.
So the 'Protestant community' gains 2,276 net new potential voters. The 'Catholic community' gains 7,093 net new potential voters. This translates into a relative increase of 4,816 in the 'Catholic community' electorate every year.
Of course not all electors vote – generally the turn-out rate is around 62% (61.9% in 2007, 61.6% in the local elections in 2005, 62.9% in the 2005 Westminster election). So every year the relative increase in Catholic community voters should be around 3,000. But since old people have a higher turn-out rate than the young, the real loss to the 'Protestant community' may be higher. If the turn-out rate of old people is 80%, and that of young people is 50%, the 'Protestant community' actually loses voters, at a rate of 1,166 every year, while the 'Catholic community' gains 2,306 – giving a net advantage of 3,472 per year to the 'Catholic community':
Needless to say, these figures are just statistical calculations – there are a number of variables that they cannot take into account: changes in turn-out rates, emigration of young people (including the 'Protestant brain drain'), immigrants, and so on. And of course, nominal religions may not always correspond precisely with political preference. However, in most cases the evidence points to a very close correlation between religion and politics.
If the correlation remains close, we can estimate that the net gain to nationalism per year is in the region of 3,000 to 3,500. Unionism was ahead of nationalism by 42,000 in 2007 – if it is losing 3,500 of that lead every year it has barely 12 years left before it is overtaken. Even if the lower estimate (3,000) is used, the time left to unionism is only 14 years.
Project Ulster is into its last generation – the sooner unionism realises it and starts to negotiate a future for itself within a re-united Ireland, the better its future. Refusing to acknowledge the elephant in the living room will leave unionism in a weak position in 12 or 14 years!
Taking the two figures together, it is therefore likely that 21,187 young people are added to the register every year (the 28,249 cited above was for 16 months, bear in mind), and 11,818 deceased persons drop out of the register.
The 21,187 young people break down as 11,229 'Catholic community' and 9,958 'Protestant community' (ignoring for the purposes of simplicity the fact that some on both sides are irreligious or atheist, and assuming a 53%/47% split). The old people break down as 7,682 'Protestant community' and 4,136 'Catholic community'.
So the 'Protestant community' gains 2,276 net new potential voters. The 'Catholic community' gains 7,093 net new potential voters. This translates into a relative increase of 4,816 in the 'Catholic community' electorate every year.
Of course not all electors vote – generally the turn-out rate is around 62% (61.9% in 2007, 61.6% in the local elections in 2005, 62.9% in the 2005 Westminster election). So every year the relative increase in Catholic community voters should be around 3,000. But since old people have a higher turn-out rate than the young, the real loss to the 'Protestant community' may be higher. If the turn-out rate of old people is 80%, and that of young people is 50%, the 'Protestant community' actually loses voters, at a rate of 1,166 every year, while the 'Catholic community' gains 2,306 – giving a net advantage of 3,472 per year to the 'Catholic community':
Needless to say, these figures are just statistical calculations – there are a number of variables that they cannot take into account: changes in turn-out rates, emigration of young people (including the 'Protestant brain drain'), immigrants, and so on. And of course, nominal religions may not always correspond precisely with political preference. However, in most cases the evidence points to a very close correlation between religion and politics.If the correlation remains close, we can estimate that the net gain to nationalism per year is in the region of 3,000 to 3,500. Unionism was ahead of nationalism by 42,000 in 2007 – if it is losing 3,500 of that lead every year it has barely 12 years left before it is overtaken. Even if the lower estimate (3,000) is used, the time left to unionism is only 14 years.
Project Ulster is into its last generation – the sooner unionism realises it and starts to negotiate a future for itself within a re-united Ireland, the better its future. Refusing to acknowledge the elephant in the living room will leave unionism in a weak position in 12 or 14 years!
84 comments:
'Project Ulster is into its last generation....'
Horseman - 04.11.09
'Project Ulster is into its last generation....'
Horseman - 04.11.21
'Project Ulster is into its last generation....'
Horseman - 04.11.33
'Project Ulster is into its last generation....'
Horseman - 04.11.45
'Project Ulster is into its last generation....'
Horseman - 04.11.56
'Project Ulster is into its last generation....'
Horseman - 04.11.68
You see where I'm going here? Factually inaccurate information (the repeated assurance from you that Northern Ireland's place within the Union lies in sectarian exclusivity) doesn't become more accurate because you choose to regurgitate it in a different format on this blog once every few days.
As Rodney Bewes said to Tom Courtenay in Billy Liar: 'Grow up!'
Horseman,
Ignore the begrudgers and carry on. I have a hunch this will accelerate.
Some of will start leaving when the inevitable looms that much closer... like some of the Chinese leaving Hong Kong, and some of an opposite persuasion will return.
However, it's not only the unionists who need to engage. I would be interested to read of the lessons learned from other experiences (Hong Kong, Germany, Vietnam etc.). It seems South Korea isn't preparing as it should be...
Good work horseman. Unionists are in denial. They know there time is coming to an end and are getting even more extreme. Tick tock.
Unionists had 42,000 more voters than nationialists in 2007. Is this from a particular election?
I also agree it will accelerate. Say if unionists/nationalist split in a future election is 51/49. I for one would be moving up north and lending my vote for a while until the nationalists have a majority. Id say many southern nationialist would be prepared to do this.
Not only people from the South. My grandfather left NI when the country was partitioned. I've lived overseas most of my life. When I retire in a decade or so I will probably return to Ireland.
Somehow I can't see many of the unionists who have left returning to hold the line a little bit longer.
'Ignore the begrudgers and carry on.'
Begrudgery? Reality! Mind you, this blog and reality don't know the definition of teamwork.
Dazzler,
Unionists had 42,000 more voters than nationialists in 2007. Is this from a particular election?
Yes, the last Assembly election. Although this year's Euro election was also 6-county wide, I didn't use it as the turn-out in such elections is lower (42.8%) so not as reliable. (The gap it showed, though, was only 32,763)
Horseman. I'm no mathematician, but surely the gain in presumed nationalist v unionist voters each year should be an exponential rather than a purely linear one (you estimate between 3000 and 3500 every year).
While the differential in the number of offspring per catholic versus protestant family will undoubtedly be reducing, even if the two were to be exactly equal in only a year's time then it would still be a further 18 years before that reduction would be reflected in the electorate (you gotta be 18 to vote).
As a crude estimated example say a catholic family have 5 offspring and a protestant one 2, giving a nett difference of 3. If those offspring marry then in the next generation we have (5x5) or 25 catholics and (2x2) or 4 protestants. Here you would also need to take account of employing 10 catholics (5 fathers and 5 mothers) to produce 25 children whereas only 4 protestants were necessary for that next generation. So in each reproductive cycle catholics would increase by a factor of 2.5 (from 10 to 25) whereas protestants would remain constant (each two give birth to two). This will continue proportionately (10 produce 25, who then produce 62.5 (25 x 2.5) etc.
While these figures have been plucked out of thin air rather than representing average birth rates per variety of christianity, would you not agree that this demonstrates that the yearly increase in the catholic electorate will be greater with each advancing year?
New times, New approach,
In principle you are right, but bear in mind that as time goes on the proportion of deaths that is Catholic is also slowly increasing. Very lowly, but in, say, 20 years, the Catholic proportion of those over 65 might be approaching 40-45%. The kids, by then, will be 60% Catholic, so NI will have a wierd double generation gap - age and community ientification.
Keep up the good work Horseman.
Horseman said:
"However, in most cases the evidence points to a very close correlation between religion and politics."
Only amongst those that regularly vote. With a double veto at Stormount it doesn't really matter who has most seats, Unionists or Nationalists. What matters is the result of any border poll and that's where all the 'small u' catholic unionists would appear. Like all those now working for The UK civil service apparently...
"If the correlation remains close, we can estimate that the net gain to nationalism per year is in the region of 3,000 to 3,500."
Er, no. Even if your figures are correct for this year, you're assuming Catholic kids will continue to outnumber Protestant kids. Ever heard of a baby boom? As birth rates draw closer there is a knock on effect in the next generation. Your still seeing the effects of traditional Catholic breeding patterns work their way through the system. Those patterns have changed.
"Project Ulster is into its last generation – the sooner unionism realises it and starts to negotiate a future for itself within a re-united Ireland, the better its future. Refusing to acknowledge the elephant in the living room will leave unionism in a weak position in 12 or 14 years!"
Perhaps you can explain how Unionists would get a worse deal in 12 to 14 years time by not agreeing to Irish Unity today? I'd like specifics please.
Dazzler said:
"I also agree it will accelerate. Say if unionists/nationalist split in a future election is 51/49. I for one would be moving up north and lending my vote for a while until the nationalists have a majority. Id say many southern nationialist would be prepared to do this."
Why don't you do it now?
Anonymous said:
"Not only people from the South. My grandfather left NI when the country was partitioned. I've lived overseas most of my life. When I retire in a decade or so I will probably return to Ireland."
Is this a spoof comment? Next year in Jerusalem?
LOL
"Why don't you do it now?"
I am there (Ireland). I have a good life where I am. If its not broke don't fix it
"Why don't you do it now?"
I am there (Ireland). I have a good life where I am. If its not broke don't fix it
Good blog Horseman,
Dazzler, I'm a Southerner who has moved back north. My dad left many many years ago because of bigotry/ discrimination.
> next year Jerusalem
Sneer away.
Many Irish expatriates returned during the boom years. Many of those who left ahead of them will return and if they have antecedents in the North, as I do, some will be happy to help see Ireland reunified however they may.
A unionist minority will have no veto on Irish reunification.
It already does, or haven't you heard?
I'm just afraid the Orangemen will do something crazy when they finally realize it is the end. I have an awful bad feeling. You know the old saying, "this is too easy".....
>> A unionist minority will have no veto on Irish reunification.
> It already does, or haven't you heard?
No. And it doesn't.
First, a unionist minority doesn't exist yet but will do in a few years. When it does all that needs to be negotiated is the timetable and the process for the reunification of Ireland. There will be no veto. That has already been established.
Andys fighting a rear guard action!
And has lost!
MPG .....
SERIOUSLY THOUGH.
Not all unionists are like Andrew McCann (TBTG).
I think we are all agreed on the inevitability of demographic change and a consquent political spillover. Whether or not this spillover translates into a UI or repartition crucially depends on whether or not sane, rational (aka non-AMcC-like) unionists can be won over.
This being the case maybe demographic triumphalism is not the way to go.
'Not all unionists are like Andrew McCann (TBTG)'.
Sufficent nuymbers are to make Anschluss little more than a pipe dream.
'I think we are all agreed on the inevitability of demographic change and a consquent political spillover.'
Dr Ian Shuttleworth, lecturer in geography at Queen's (who I've recently spoken to regarding this incessant nationalist sectarian head-counting), is far from convinced. This 'all' you refer to tends to be uber-sectarian nationalists who, quirkily, also inform us that it is Unionism that has a monopoly on sectarianism.
> incessant nationalist sectarian head-counting
> unionist monopoly on sectarianism
Unionists had a monopoly on power for a very long time and they exercised it in a RUTHLESSLY sectarian manner. To bleat now that some of those they oppressed are being sectarian --by counting themselves (the impudence!) -- and that this is somehow unfair is ludicrous, and it will change nothing.
As for the incessance, if you think it's annoying now... wait a few years.
Unionists had no trouble with the democratic wishes of the majority when they were the majority.
But if a man in prison must be excused for counting the days until he is free (triumphalism??), so can a people be excused for counting themelseves if the result will someday entitle them to repossess what is rightly theirs.
It would be triumphalist if the minority expected to behave as oppressors in due course, but nobody expects this.
'As for the incessance, if you think it's annoying now..'
It's not annoying, just laughable in its baselessnes.
Andrew -
lecturer in geography at Queen's
Well, that settles it then...
Anonymous said:
">> A unionist minority will have no veto on Irish reunification.
> It already does, or haven't you heard?
No. And it doesn't.
First, a unionist minority doesn't exist yet but will do in a few years. When it does all that needs to be negotiated is the timetable and the process for the reunification of Ireland. There will be no veto. That has already been established."
I'm afraid not, you brainwashed bog hopper. The Unionist veto entails in the final analysis, not just numbers, but also WHERE those numbers are located. That's international law regarding self determination. If Britain ever broke the link with Ulster, you would see that law in practice.
Now get back to your peat digging.
'Well, that settles it then...'
Indeed, who are qualified people with PhDs compared to a blogger who has not once referenced his 'findings' with any empirical data?
Unionists? Professional demographers? Constitutional lawyers? Who are they compared to the 'great' Horseman(ure)?
> get back to your peat digging
You know when an argument is lost when one side resorts to slurs. There's not a lot of peat where I am.
> The Unionist veto entails in the final analysis, not just numbers, but also WHERE those numbers are located. That's international law regarding self determination.
Ah, you think you'll repartition the country again?
Tell us which international law you're referring to? And have you read the Good Friday agreement by any chance? When a majority of the population of N.I. desire a united Ireland the British govt. will introduce legislation for it.
The unionists will have no veto on a united Ireland. It's in the agreement.
happy days let the count down begin, also saw this united video pretty good:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZX99D43nMzI
'Ah, you think you'll repartition the country again?'
No, we just think we'll preserve the Union.
'When a majority of the population of N.I. desire a united Ireland the British govt. will introduce legislation for it.'
Read Austen Morgan's book on the Belfast Agreement to see how international law works in practice. Your simplicities simply don't suffice.
Anonymous said:
"Tell us which international law you're referring to? And have you read the Good Friday agreement by any chance? When a majority of the population of N.I. desire a united Ireland the British govt. will introduce legislation for it.
The unionists will have no veto on a united Ireland. It's in the agreement."
You really are a retard aren't you? What's in The Belfast Agreement only stands as long as The UK as a sovereign state exists. Once The UK ceases to exist (such as by mainland Britain ceeding from it), then nothing in it is binding on Unionists in Northern Ireland. There is no legal reason why they couldn't at
that point set up their own state and seek international recognition. How the fuck do you think any new state is formed? Do you really think that if the people in Connaught wanted out of The Republic they couldn't unilaterally bring it about?
Anonymous said:
"Tell us which international law you're referring to? And have you read the Good Friday agreement by any chance? When a majority of the population of N.I. desire a united Ireland the British govt. will introduce legislation for it.
The unionists will have no veto on a united Ireland. It's in the agreement."
You really are a retard aren't you? What's in The Belfast Agreement only stands as long as The UK as a sovereign state exists. Once The UK ceases to exist (such as by mainland Britain ceeding from it), then nothing in it is binding on Unionists in Northern Ireland. There is no legal reason why they couldn't at
that point set up their own state and seek international recognition. How the fuck do you think any new state is formed? Do you really think that if the people in Connaught wanted out of The Republic they couldn't unilaterally bring it about?
"Do you really think that if the people in Connaught wanted out of The Republic they couldn't unilaterally bring it about?"
Half the population in the North want reunification. How can they go about that then? Can counties with Nationalist majorities such as Derry, Tyrone, Fermanagh, Armagh and maybe even Down seek International recognition for self determination and to form their own state? Could this new state and the Republic merge to form a new 31 county Irish Republic? Why did we not think of this!!!!
'Half the population in the North want reunification.'
Proof?
Ye, exactly. There is no proof. All the evidence suggests that a large minority of The Catholic population and nearly all The Protestant population oppose Irish unity and have done for years. Now The IRA vermin have been put down, The Union is as secure as it ever was.
Wiz said:
"Half the population in the North want reunification. How can they go about that then? Can counties with Nationalist majorities such as Derry, Tyrone, Fermanagh, Armagh and maybe even Down seek International recognition for self determination and to form their own state? Could this new state and the Republic merge to form a new 31 county Irish Republic? Why did we not think of this!!!!"
Reunification? You'll need UK rule back for that (unless you're talking about some nominal high king in the dark ages).
As regards re-partition, if mainland Britain ceeded from The UK, then there would be two peoples with the right to consider their position, namely Northern Ireland Catholics and Northern Ireland Protestants. They might decide to keep the six counties together and live together in that state, or they may decide to form two new micro states out of the six counties, or they may decide to join The ROI. Finally (and I suspect most probably), part of Northern Ireland would join with The ROI and the remainder would form an independent state. The exact borders would be negotiated with international help as in Bosnia. There would be no requirement for a county by county referendum, as an electoral ward referendum would be more accurate. Nor would there be any necessity for the new entities to be ethnically pure. Relocation grants could be offered to those trapped on the wrong side of the new border, but there would be no need for any compulsion.
So you see, if you want a United Ireland you will need to persuade most Unionists that they will be better of in such a state than where they are now - something this site utterly fails to do.
NOTHING ELSE MATTERS. THERE IS NO SCHEME OR VIOLENT INSURRECTION THAT WILL CHANGE THIS FACT.
Watcher's shitting a brick.
In deed he is. If what you suggest Watcher occurred, the new "Unionist" state would only include the North Eastern part of Ireland, possibly Antrim and North Down and Belfast would be a have to be split between the two new states. Frankly, that is were most of the Unionist majority reside. It couldn't exist on its own.
"As regards re-partition".
Repartition is not going to happen. It's either reunification or maintaining the Union. Unionists are obviously scared as repartition keeps being brought up which confirms that they know the inevitable is getting closer and closer.
Anonymous said:
"In deed he is. If what you suggest Watcher occurred, the new "Unionist" state would only include the North Eastern part of Ireland, possibly Antrim and North Down and Belfast would be a have to be split between the two new states. Frankly, that is were most of the Unionist majority reside. It couldn't exist on its own."
Another retard. I said the state's didn't need to be ethnically pure. Belfast as a whole might well be part of the Protestant state. Perhaps the entire six counties will be split 50/50 as per population numbers. So many options...
Anonymous said:
"Repartition is not going to happen. It's either reunification or maintaining the Union. Unionists are obviously scared as repartition keeps being brought up which confirms that they know the inevitable is getting closer and closer."
The problem with you bog arsed micks is that you think by saying something is true it must therefore be true. You're very good at using those sweet Irish mouths as any Irish priest can confirm, I'm sure.
The union is certainly not fixed in perpetuity.
The UK props up N.I. to the tune of 7bn pounds p.a.
Most people in the UK would gladly be shot of this appalling drain on the public purse. It is a costly and expendable provincial relic of empire not held in any great affection (putting it very charitably).
Most people in England would also gladly be shot of Scotland too and the feeling is increasingly mutual.
We have enough problems with Islam without wanting to go on policing the rangers v celtic nonsense indefinitely.
If you think we're footing the bill indefinitely you're mistaken.
Clearly there will be referenda in both Scotland and N.I. in the years ahead. Anyone who thinks that either political union is indissoluble, simply because there would be minorities implacably opposed to change, is quite wrong.
M25
HA HA HA! Dear me Andrew, this is clearly getting on your nerves! I can just imagine your ugly, bigoted face contorting in rage and turning red. Love it!
Also, the fact that you are even considering repartition is conclusive evidence that you realise the show is over for NI. There will be NO repartition. If a sub-regional majority is sufficient to divide a nation, then it will also be enough to reunite it.
Tick Tock, Tick Tock
This poster's vernacular and his obsession nudity and priests is quite disgusting and strangely pathological.
And this person claims to be British? Please.. keep him.
M25
Do not gloat too much. You will have unionist bombs in Dublin.
Again.
I don't suppose they'll try to bomb us into keeping N.I.
I'm afraid the problem will be that the ROI won't want reunification when the time comes, but really we'd LOVE to be rid of N.I. (and of course they KNOW it very well).
M25
I'm afraid the problem will be that the ROI won't want reunification when the time comes
Yes we will. And we will neither be deterred by unionist bombs nor unionist bluster.
I think partitioning N.I. is the unionist's best hope given their intractibility towards Eire. I don't see how else they can keep their community in the numerical majority for very much longer. I'm actually surprised they are not working seriously on this. In the 1920's they took way too much land, included way too many Catholics and didn't base their state on any natural boundaries. Now they are paying for it. To borrow a military term, they are like an army that is deeply over-extended (think the 6th army in September 1942, at Stalingrad) and need to make a major strategic withdrawal.
'Tick Tock, Tick Tock'
Wow, republicans bring their obsession with bomb making on to the blogosphere now. As I said, this blog is laughable, not anger inducing.
Nothing is guaranteed for eternity, but neither (with the exception of death) is anything inevitable.
By the way, I'm still waiting for the evidence that half the population in Northern Ireland favour 'reunification' (whatever that means!!)
> I think partitioning N.I. is the unionist's best hope given their intractibility towards Eire.
Believe it or not the unionists live in Eire. Eire = Ireland in Irish.
Someday Eire will be a 32 country republic.
> Tick tock tick tock = bombs
A little unionist paranoia here I think. To any disisnterested and non-paranoid observer the implication is "the clock is ticking" ... toward reunification.
I know, of course, that unionist clocks make a different noise. Something like
tack tawk tack tawk
Either way, the clock is ticking.
Erin go bragh as we say in America. We will all hoist a glass to Irish unity when it happens.
Anonymous
Regular visitors to this site all know who the individual is who made that comment.
He posts under a number of identities. His comments are usually just unreconstructed bigotry mixed with personal insults.
Unfortunatly logic is not his strongest quality
M25 said:
"The union is certainly not fixed in perpetuity.
The UK props up N.I. to the tune of 7bn pounds p.a.
Most people in the UK would gladly be shot of this appalling drain on the public purse. It is a costly and expendable provincial relic of empire not held in any great affection (putting it very charitably).
Most people in England would also gladly be shot of Scotland too and the feeling is increasingly mutual.
We have enough problems with Islam without wanting to go on policing the rangers v celtic nonsense indefinitely.
If you think we're footing the bill indefinitely you're mistaken.
Clearly there will be referenda in both Scotland and N.I. in the years ahead. Anyone who thinks that either political union is indissoluble, simply because there would be minorities implacably opposed to change, is quite wrong."
Are you actually from England mate? I'll take it that you are. Well so am I and I never hear the words "Northern Ireland" spoken - to most people in England it's an issue that's gone away.
As for your hopes for English independence, I suspect you'll be waiting a fair bit. English independence parties get absolutely no support at the polls, so where is this burning desire exhibiting itself?
Anonymous said:
{Erin go bragh as we say in America. We will all hoist a glass to Irish unity when it happens.}
Well done Timothy McVeigh - as we say in The UK.
bangordub said:
"Anonymous
Regular visitors to this site all know who the individual is who made that comment.
He posts under a number of identities. His comments are usually just unreconstructed bigotry mixed with personal insults.
Unfortunatly logic is not his strongest quality"
Would you say logic is your strongest quality bangordub? You hated The Union so much that you actually moved into it! And I notice it wasn't up The Falls or The Bogside you and your Prod wife made your wee bed in - no, you moved to the most lucrative area in Ulster, North Down and incidentally one of the most Protestant and Unionist areas at that. What's the matter - can't you stand the thought of living with RCs all around you?
Hypocritical prick.
I see above some talk of bombs from Prods. Look if they do that I presume it will only be Dublin affected, Am I right?
Sure thered be no point doing it in other places as only Dublin would be blamed???
Just forgot my other point LOL)
One of the men above says the north costs a fortune for england to run but if we get it back wont it cost a fortune for us to run as well/?
And we dont have any money lol
Re: Malestrippers comment above.
I rest my case
'Someday Eire will be a 32 country republic.'
You sound like a cross between Gerry Adams and The Seekers.
As I said, laughable.
'Erin go bragh as we say in America. We will all hoist a glass to Irish unity when it happens.'
Obviously on the same evolutionary low level as Muslims in the UK who will cheer on the guy who's just murdered 13 soldiers at the US Army base.
You see, that's the reality of tribal murder. Distinctly less amusing than when dollars and cents were leaving Uncle Sam to support an organisation who murdered quite a few soldiers on our own bases, eh?
I, Andrew McCann, post under ONE identity here and ONE identity only.
'"the clock is ticking" ... toward reunification.'
Still waiting for this proof. Or is propaganda the only thing Irish republicanism has left?
>> Someday Eire will be a 32 country republic.'
> You sound like a cross between Gerry Adams and The Seekers.
> As I said, laughable.
It's a simple statement of fact. Laugh all you like. You're obviously worried. If it was IMPOSSIBLE you wouldn't waste your time here. We're not going away because we're tracking something that's going to happen: the inevitable reunification of Ireland. "Enjoying the show" as the blog states.
>>'Erin go bragh as we say in America. We will all hoist a glass to Irish unity when it happens.'
> Obviously on the same evolutionary low level as Muslims in the UK who will cheer on the guy who's just murdered 13 soldiers at the US Army base.
> You see, that's the reality of tribal murder. Distinctly less amusing than when dollars and cents were leaving Uncle Sam to support an organisation who murdered quite a few soldiers on our own bases, eh?
I'd call you a limey bastard only I'd be paying you a compliment. The truth is you're a sorry mongrel, neither British nor Irish, just a misplaced Scot whose ancestors were sent by an English king to steal Irish land.
Erin go bragh does not mean rejoice in the murder of soldiers or anyone else. It is the equivalent of "Vive la France." It take some kind of paranoid pervert to translate this into murder.
As for the fundraising by the IRA in America. Yes, it happened and it was regrettable though understandable. Remember that 40% of Americans have Irish ancestors and hell will freeze over before Irish Americans see the orange order and its ilk impose their orange apartheid on Irishmen in their own country again. Not because we will intervene on the side of the IRA but because we can and do squeeze poodle cojones in London. Without us you lot would have been given the nod to do your worst, or sold down the river, whichever was more convenient.
Squeezer
Putting aside the juvenile name-calling on both sides, serious thought should be given to the costs and economic dislocations for Eire to absorb the north (even assuming the unionists will cooperate). Has this been done? Has the Dublin government prepared careful studies? Does anyone know?
Does anyone else on here think American plastic paddies are a sick joke? I hear bead rattling school boys get buggered by priests in Boston almost as often as in Ireland - the only difference is the Yanks enjoy it...
Nice one mate - this site cracks me up LOL
Can I repeat for the benefit of those who are a little slow
Eire = Ireland (in Irish)
The unionists already live in Eire whether they like it or not.
Eire is not the Republic of Ireland, just as America is not the US.
This sad little pervert is going on about priests again, it seems to be a pathological obsession.
Will it delay reunification? No. Au contraire.
The Irish were always very happy to be excommunicated if that was the price of freedom, and so were always quite pragmatic in their religious beliefs. A small study of Irish history would be quite illuminating in that regard.
'It's a simple statement of fact. Laugh all you like. You're obviously worried. If it was IMPOSSIBLE you wouldn't waste your time here.'
Still waiting for this proof of 'inevitability'. Worrying doesn't come into it. True, I loathe republicans and their aspirations, but I don't worry about such aspirations becoming a reality.
The truth is that 'unification' is, for the long term, a busted flush cheered on only by petulant Shinners and their supporters from within Northern Ireland, and by naive rednecks such as yourself.
As for my being a 'limey bastard', go ahead and call me what you want. The difference is that what I think of people like yourself is, frankly, unprintable on a blog that children (judging by the quality of most of the comments) frequent.
> The truth is that 'unification' is, for the long term, a busted flush
This, I take it, is a retreat from "Ulster says NEVER! NEVER! etc." Well, I don't know how you define long term but the nationalist community will constitute a majority in about 15 years.
As you failed to note, I didn't call you a limey because you are not English, nor even British -- in the eyes of most Brits.
So, you lack the facility with the English language for which the Irish are famous? What a surprise.
'nationalist community will constitute a majority in about 15 years.'
Still heavy on bullshit, light on proof.
I was born and live in England. As such Northern Ireland is part of my United Kingdom, which gives me more right to comment on its affairs than some prat across the Atlantic.
Anonymous said:
"This, I take it, is a retreat from "Ulster says NEVER! NEVER! etc." Well, I don't know how you define long term but the nationalist community will constitute a majority in about 15 years."
The Nationalist community? I presume you mean The Catholic community - the two can be distinguished you know.
> Still heavy on bullshit, light on proof.
Ah, so now you are a limey? So you are paying for N.I.? Or are you on welfare? A limey sockpuppet is all you are kiddo. I have never in my life heard a limey talking about "My N.I." Who do you think you are kidding?
Proof? Why should any Irishman prove to an Englishman that his country will be united? Proof for a sockpuppet. You're hilarious.
As for the distinction between the Catholic and the nationalist community... keep dreaming that you're going to find a way out of the inevitable. Read the strapline on the blog.
'Proof for a sockpuppet. You're hilarious.'
Hilarious maybe, but still waiting for this 'proof'.
First you're American, now you're Irish. I'm simply waiting for evidence to back up your outlandish claims.
Northern Ireland is part of my United Kingdom. Simple! I guess you've never heard anything outside the parochial confines of your own anal retention.
It may have escaped your attention bud but many Americans have Irish ancestors and more than few have Irish passports too--very handy for working in the EU.
You'll get your proof in due course. Just wait. There's nothing outlandish about it. What's outlandish is assuming that the union will continue unchanged once the unionist community is a minority.
You keep resorting to abusive comments involving priests and, or orifices. You should get help for this. It's probably available free on the NHS. That kind of rhetoric won't save the union. It's DOOMED.
You're very good at using those sweet Irish mouths as any Irish priest can confirm, I'm sure.
Perhaps if The Irish had spent less time lusting after someone else's land they might not have subjected their kids to the lust of perverted Irish priests.
700 years of rape? I knew the priests had been busy, but really...
Ye, apparently they were. Still, that's just the two isn't it? It would appear the entire Irish race grew up felating Catholic priests - 35 000 wasn't it?
They're even on here, the apologists for the paedophile priests. What is it? Cover up for the Roman nonces and you get a day of in purgatory?
A selection of what's been on Andrew McCann's mind lately.
His frustrated creepy rants give away much more about him than he realises. I stumbled across a post from A Tangled Web the other day where he advocated beating up pregnant teenagers. If ever a man needed a woman to calm him down, it's Mr McCann.
You had me worried there until I finally got to your para explaining the quotes.
A woman?
He needs a sheep. An inflatable one. No woman deserves that.
Curious that bit about the Irish coveting other people's land.
Actually the British Government has declared that it has no strategic interest in NI, which is a polite way of saying WE DONT WANT YOU!
Ireland is one country. To divide it makes as much sense as creating a separate state in Northern England.
'What's outlandish is assuming that the union will continue unchanged once the unionist community is a minority.'
No, what's outlandish is claiming that a demographic phenomenon will occur without one iota of verifiable statistics or evidence to back it up.
'Ireland is one country. To divide it makes as much sense as creating a separate state in Northern England.'
No, it contains one country and part of another country. As for dividing islands, better tell the Haitians and the Dominicans to get on with a united Hispaniola. Or better still, unite Alaska with Canada as it shares a land border with Canada but not with the rest of the USA.
The British have no strategic interest and would, in fact, like the whole thing to go away.
The unionist majority, the basis for its veto on a united Ireland, is shrinking and will continue to do so.
Alaska was sold to the US, not invaded, colonized and forcibly occupied by a foreign country. Hispaniola, as it was, suffered the same fate from two sets of invaders. These are not great precedents for arguing for the union, they are also irrelevant to the future of the union, which will be decided by a majority of the population of N.I.
The writing is on the wall and it has been ever since the border was drawn.
Andy?
No answer yet?
You disappoint me
Anonymous said:
"The British have no strategic interest and would, in fact, like the whole thing to go away.
The writing is on the wall and it has been ever since the border was drawn."
You say the British have 'no strategic interest'. I presume this is based upon a single statement made by The UK government? All I can say is you have a touching faith in the WORDS of British politicians.
As for them wanting 'the whole thing to go away', have you asked yourself hoe a future Irish government will feel after decades of violence and subsidies in the event of a United Ireland?
If the 'writing is on the wall', then it has been there for a fair while now hasn't it? Not that long of a century.
"rage rage against the dying of the light"
not to mention the spelling and grammmar
poor aul andy
> have you asked yourself hoe a future Irish government will feel after decades of violence and subsidies in the event of a United Ireland?
Have you heard of welfare reform? Contraction of the public sector?
In a united Ireland many of those in N.I. who became accustomed to being kept at the UK taxpayer's expense will become private sector taxpayers. The island of Ireland cannot afford 70% of the economy of N.I. to come from the exchequer (nor can the UK afford it any longer). There will need to be significant external investment for this to happen, with the US and EU contributing.
In threatening violence (if I understand you correctly) you are implicitly accepting that reunification is inevitable but you'd like to prevent it with threats. Democracy is fine as long as the result is protestant / unionist hegemony? You must be kidding.
Anonymous said:
"Have you heard of welfare reform? Contraction of the public sector?"
I've heard of it, but I'll be interested to see why The UK can't implement it, but The Republic can.
"In a united Ireland many of those in N.I. who became accustomed to being kept at the UK taxpayer's expense will become private sector taxpayers. The island of Ireland cannot afford 70% of the economy of N.I. to come from the exchequer (nor can the UK afford it any longer). There will need to be significant external investment for this to happen, with the US and EU contributing."
Wishful thinking. If The UK can't achieve this to the level required, I don't see how The Republic can.
"In threatening violence (if I understand you correctly) you are implicitly accepting that reunification is inevitable but you'd like to prevent it with threats. Democracy is fine as long as the result is protestant / unionist hegemony? You must be kidding."
I don't recall Catholic/Nationalist pacifism when Unionists were in a two to one majority in Northern Ireland, do you? I'd say the precedent for violence has already been set by Irish Republicans - in fact, they're still at it as we speak...
> I've heard of it, but I'll be interested to see why The UK can't implement it, but The Republic can.
I made no such claim. I said the present situation was unusustainable, therefore the idea that a united Ireland is not on because the republic can't afford it is a non-starter. A united Ireland is something that all interested parties would like to see established peacefully--with the likely exception of some unionists--and external investment would likely be forthcoming.
The original precedent for violence was a reaction to 50 years of apartheid style repression. I don't believe for a second that there is or will be any "boot on the other foot" aspirations for revenge after Ireland is reunited -- in the country as a whole. One of the first consequences would likely be a slide into oblivion of Sinn Fein, which has virtually no support at all in the ROI now and which will become a national irrelevance once its raison d'etre is gone.
Most Irish people want to secede from the UK, the Unionists set up the UVF to threaten violence to prevent democracy.
N.I. is formed. Most people in places like Derry vote Nationalist, but their councils return Unionist majorities year in year out.
Most people in the UK don't want a union between GB and NI. Do Unionists accept it? Of course not!
A majority of NI voters at some point in the future vote for unity, will Unionists accept it? Probably not. They hate democracy.
"Anonymous said...
Can I repeat for the benefit of those who are a little slow
Eire = Ireland (in Irish)
The unionists already live in Eire whether they like it or not.
Eire is not the Republic of Ireland, just as America is not the US."
For your benefit I should inform you that according to Article 4 of the Irish constitution, "The name of the State is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland."
'Éire' is therefore the official name of the Irish republic. The 'Republic of Ireland', as popularised by the soccer team, has no legal basis as the name of the Irish republic.
It is therefore technically correct to say that Northern Irish unionists do not live in Éire.
Colm
And at the end of all that, still no verifiable evidence to back up the claims of 'inevitability'. That will consistently be the case on this blog, which is why it will always be small fry instead of a big fish.
Andrew McCann
Post a Comment