Do You Agree With the Movement for a United Ireland?

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

Since it is now St. Patrick's Day, I would like to bring up the issue of a united Ireland, with Great Britain giving back Northern Ireland to the Republic of Ireland. Obviously, we would all prefer Ireland to become a workers' nation, but for now let us focus on a united Irish island. You do not have to support the former IRA (I do not), but I want to know if, in general, you support the movement to establish one united nation on the island of Ireland. Please also add in your opinions about Irish nationalism and its appropriateness in the face of British control.

[dodger]

British troops have no business in Ireland. I think after 800years no Irishman would value my opinion on what government it should adopt.

[The Machine]

Not that I don't like it when the IRA blows up British barracks and shoots rapists in the knees and all, but idk how a united Ireland advances the class struggle.

[Orlov]

I've supported INLA since '86 and only hope the armed struggle against any and all British forces in the occupied section of Ireland will continue. Seizing control of the Irish state and founding a new socialist Irish republic is a struggle for the international working class and is simply a base of the world revolution.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

I've supported INLA since '86 and only hope the armed struggle against any and all British forces in the occupied section of Ireland will continue. Seizing control of the Irish state and founding a new socialist Irish republic is a struggle for the international working class and is simply a base of the world revolution.

True, I totally forgot about the INLA. Great organization.

[Ostrinski]

Fuck no. Abolish all nations.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

Fuck no. Abolish all nations.

Soon, comrade, soon. Yet, an independent Irish nation would give the working class of Ireland a platform to launch further class struggles and would also weaken the more powerful capitalist state of the United Kingdom, opening up the entire area to more class struggle.

[Ostrinski]

Soon, comrade, soon. Yet, an independent Irish nation would give the working class of Ireland a platform to launch further class struggles and would also weaken the more powerful capitalist state of the United Kingdom, opening up the entire area to more class struggle.Doubtful. I don't see where national independence has ever led to intensified class struggle, if anything the opposite is so. Like all bourgeois artifacts, the only thing I support with regard to nations is their destruction.

[Grenzer]

Of course I support the movement for a United Ireland, which by necessity is a complete destruction of the whole of the Irish state, the British state, and all other bourgeois states and the removal of class distinctions worldwide. If you by movement for a united Ireland you refer to a movement for the annexation of Northern Ireland by the Republic of Ireland, then I soundly reject that. Such a thing is by very definition pro-capitalist, pro-nationalist, and in effect, pro-imperialist.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

Of course I support the movement for a United Ireland, which by necessity is a complete destruction of the whole of the Irish state, the British state, and all other bourgeois states and the removal of class distinctions worldwide. If you by movement for a united Ireland you refer to a movement for the annexation of Northern Ireland by the Republic of Ireland, then I soundly reject that. Such a thing is by very definition pro-capitalist, pro-nationalist, and in effect, pro-imperialist.

I did not really mean it like that. I was asking a question.

[Red Rabbit]

While I do agree with the movement, I do think it's a little too nationalistic, which could cause problems in the future were it to succeed.

[Prometeo liberado]

First off it's all nice and good to want to abolish the state but you are presupposing that an Irish state currently exists. It does not because, as we all know, the north is partitioned. And so long as Ireland is divided then the conditions for revolution can not exist. The cause of the north will distract from the cause for socialsim. A united Ireland would hasten the call for a revolution led by the workers.

Second, for those who abhor violence yet have no problem enjoying the freedoms that are gained by it, all that I can say is, hypocrite. For 800 years British imperialism had no problem demonstrating how the use of violence could get results. The IRA merely chose to speak the language of it's foes. I believe it was Jose Marti that said, "If history can not be written with a pen, it must be written with a gun.".

Third, "If you by movement for a united Ireland you refer to a movement for the annexation of Northern Ireland by the Republic of Ireland, then I soundly reject that. Such a thing is by very definition pro-capitalist, pro-nationalist, and in effect, pro-imperialist." How do you annex what is yours? If youre car is stolen and you go to retrieve it are you merely stealing it back? Makes no sense so I'll leave it at that.

A divided Ireland is a divided working class. Sorry but it is that simple. Pleading and and acting the good stepchild has resulted in only famine, diaspora and retarded growth. The decades long struggle for a united Ireland is choc full of retreats, victories, spies and heroes. Perfection is a myth, but the altruistic left would have us abandon any and all efforts for revolutionary change on the basis of some arbitrary litmus test. This is the real world thank goodness so the real world struggles tend to move forward without consent from the debating left.

[Tovarisch]

I support Ireland as a progressive country and a former victim of imperialism. I really hate the British government and its greedy ways. I'd love to see Northern Ireland gain independence and break away. Britain has caused too much pain to the Irish, it has to stop

Give Northern Ireland back to the Irish!

[Ocean Seal]

Doubtful. I don't see where national independence has ever led to intensified class struggle, if anything the opposite is so. Like all bourgeois artifacts, the only thing I support with regard to nations is their destruction.
I voted that I can see where they're coming from, but I think I can point to various points in time where national independence has lead to intensified class struggle.
*1911 China- its independence was a necessary precursor for Maoist politics
*North Ireland itself fought not only for national liberation itself, not even for just national liberation and socialism, but also progressive gains in a very conservative country.
*Venezuela/Bolivia have been pushed and are constantly being pushed further to the left by their people because of the initial national libertatory gains made by Chavez/Morales. In fact I would argue today that both nations are further to the left than what Chavez/Morales ever intended them to be. And they are in better shape for a revolution than say Peru, Mexico, or Haiti.
*China today has heightened class contradictions because of the national liberation campaign which allowed it to develop its own bourgeoisie.

[l'Enfermé]

My opinion is irrelevant, what is relevant is the wishes of the North Irish and I'm pretty sure that only a small minority of them want to be annexed by the Republic of Ireland.

Though I obviously don't support the various Irish terrorist groups that go around killing civilians for no damn reason.

Edit: And both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland are very advanced capitalist societies...the island is not some backwards colony. Socialist revolution or the development of productive forces are not dependent on re-unification.

[NoPasaran1936]

Well, I speak as an English born human. Of course I support it, however, I question the IRA, other organisations such as the INLA was socialist, I wouldn't call Sinn Fein revolutionary. But with Scotland to vote for independence, then if yes; things in Britain could get interesting, Scotland has always been traditionally left-wing, so any hope would be them becoming socialist, and encouraging other nations to follow suit.

My only worry is that England would be left to be a conservative shit-hole, but with Osborne's budget due, class consciousness will soon be raised and we'll see how the UK will hold up.

[Agathor]

These Irish threads make me chuckle. Northern Ireland is occupied by the Westminster government in the same way that Birmingham is. It's a willing member of the union and has been so for hundreds of years. It returns members to parliament and has a devolved assembly. In 1973 the government ordered a referendum on Northern Irish membership of the United Kingdom, and these were the results: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Ireland_sovereignty_referendum,_1973#Reac tion

It's not typical for imperialist nations to offer client states seats in their parliament. It's even rarer for them to offer free referendums on whether they want to remain clients. It's rarest for the people of the client state to near-unanimously respond "yes".

The funniest part is that you people see yourselves showing solidarity with the Northern Irish when you propose to return their country to the civil-war atmosphere that preceded the Good Friday agreement, which they again voted to accept by huge margins:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Ireland_Good_Friday_Agreement_referendum, _1998

Loons and morons.

Also your polls omit the option "I don't give a fuck; that's a decision for the Irish to make".

[Prometeo liberado]

My opinion is irrelevant, what is relevant is the wishes of the North Irish and I'm pretty sure that only a small minority of them want to be annexed by the Republic of Ireland.

Though I obviously don't support the various Irish terrorist groups that go around killing civilians for no damn reason.

Do you support the occupying government killing civilians for no damn reason? What is a good reason for "civilians" dieing in a war? You throw around the "terrorist" tag as though you worked for the state department. Please enlighten me as to what constitutes terrorism then use that same criteria against the unionist para's and British special forces in the north. This isn't a tea party or a debate on gerrymandering, it's war. Go argue the bombing of Dresden with with concentration camp survivors, see where that gets you.

[l'Enfermé]

Do you support the occupying government killing civilians for no damn reason? What is a good reason for "civilians" dieing in a war? You throw around the "terrorist" tag as though you worked for the state department. Please enlighten me as to what constitutes terrorism then use that same criteria against the unionist para's and British special forces in the north. This isn't a tea party or a debate on gerrymandering, it's war. Go argue the bombing of Dresden with with concentration camp survivors, see where that gets you.
No, I don't support killing civilians or innocents. If one side does it, retaliation by the other side, which accomplishes nothing at all and actually hurts the efforts of the nationalists, is not justified at all. Blowing up innocent people doesn't sit well with me.

Extremist Irish nationalists that claim to be represent the North Irish(even though the North Irish are mostly against them) and kill innocent people for no credible reason qualify is terrorists. People who commit terror attacks are terrorists.

I didn't know there were any concentration camps in Dresden. Actually, Dresden was of no military importance for the German or Allied war effort at all, the bombing was a straight up war crime. The city contained some bridges and factories and barracks, but they were located on the outskirts of the city and were not targeted by the bombings at all...purely civilian targets were bombed only. The bombing of Dresden is a bad example...

[Per Levy]

personally, i dont see the point. a unification would be used for bourgois propaganda and north irish workers will have a few other rulers but thats it. the only good thing of a reunification would be that the nationalist struggle is over and the class struggle might intensifies but even that is speculation.

[Prometeo liberado]

No, I don't support killing civilians or innocents. If one side does it, retaliation by the other side, which accomplishes nothing at all and actually hurts the efforts of the nationalists, is not justified at all. Blowing up innocent people doesn't sit well with me.

Extremist Irish nationalists that claim to be represent the North Irish(even though the North Irish are mostly against them) and kill innocent people for no credible reason qualify is terrorists. People who commit terror attacks are terrorists.

I didn't know there were any concentration camps in Dresden. Actually, Dresden was of no military importance for the German or Allied war effort at all, the bombing was a straight up war crime. The city contained some bridges and factories and barracks, but they were located on the outskirts of the city and were not targeted by the bombings at all...purely civilian targets were bombed only. The bombing of Dresden is a bad example...

It was only by means of the bomb and gun that brought the British to the negotiating table. Any type of killing should not sit well with anyone. But imperialism often leaves few options other than to meet violence with violence.

The Republican combatants are physically represented by the north. The Unionist of course have an orchestrated majority in the north. So to say that the north does not want to be part of a united Ireland is at the least a question based on pre-constructed answer.

You are correct, Dresden had little strategic importance and no concentration camps. The indiscriminate bombing there served to bring down the morale of the populace and thus soften up the German resistance. Thus making the march into Germany, and by extension the liberation of the camps, easier. If anyone can show me evidence of a clean bloodless war I'll convert.

[Hermes]

I'd support a united Ireland, mostly because the military in Ireland may be less able to suppress a worker's revolt then, say, Britain's military would be. I'd also hope that the cruel harsh working conditions that Britain has been maintaining (not so much in Ireland, that I know of, but a lot in Scotland/Wales) would help workers to resist similar actions in Ireland.

[arilando]

I dont really give a shit about it, and i'm against killing civilians for such a ridiculous and uselss cause.

[l'Enfermé]

It was only by means of the bomb and gun that brought the British to the negotiating table. Any type of killing should not sit well with anyone. But imperialism often leaves few options other than to meet violence with violence.

The Republican combatants are physically represented by the north. The Unionist of course have an orchestrated majority in the north. So to say that the north does not want to be part of a united Ireland is at the least a question based on pre-constructed answer.

You are correct, Dresden had little strategic importance and no concentration camps. The indiscriminate bombing there served to bring down the morale of the populace and thus soften up the German resistance. Thus making the march into Germany, and by extension the liberation of the camps, easier. If anyone can show me evidence of a clean bloodless war I'll convert.
What? The British had been brought to the negotiating table in 1921 when the Irish won the war of independence and negotiated with the British a peace treaty that gave freedom to Ireland. Northern Ireland was given the right secede from the Irish Free State, and it did, a decision justified by the fact that the majority of the North Irish wished to remain a part of the UK, and the majority of the North Irish have wished to remain a part of the UK since then.

Regarding Dresden, terror bombing is a war crime and the bombings of Germany actually greatly increased the death toll in the concentration camps by destroying infrastructure and food supplies etc, there's absolutely no argument for the bombing of Dresden. How can you criticize British Imperialism when it comes to Ireland yet be an apologist for Allied war crimes during World War 2? The only consistent stance of a leftist is opposition to all war crimes and immoral acts.

[gorillafuck]

Northern Ireland was given the right secede from the Irish Free State, and it did, a decision justified by the fact that the majority of the North Irish wished to remain a part of the UK, and the majority of the North Irish have wished to remain a part of the UK since then.do you know how that actually happened, though?

[Prometeo liberado]

Immoral acts? War crimes? Please you can not seriously want to argue a point based on bourgeoisie sentimentalities.

[piet11111]

If this means that the Irish people are able to put the religious violence behind them after all this time it would be progressive.

After that the united Irish people could move forward to end the other problems of nationalism and capitalism.
Until then unity would be a very good first step.


(note i do not know anything about this movement and i just hope it will be a uniting factor for the Irish people)

[Hermes]

What? The British had been brought to the negotiating table in 1921 when the Irish won the war of independence and negotiated with the British a peace treaty that gave freedom to Ireland. Northern Ireland was given the right secede from the Irish Free State, and it did, a decision justified by the fact that the majority of the North Irish wished to remain a part of the UK, and the majority of the North Irish have wished to remain a part of the UK since then.

Regarding Dresden, terror bombing is a war crime and the bombings of Germany actually greatly increased the death toll in the concentration camps by destroying infrastructure and food supplies etc, there's absolutely no argument for the bombing of Dresden. How can you criticize British Imperialism when it comes to Ireland yet be an apologist for Allied war crimes during World War 2? The only consistent stance of a leftist is opposition to all war crimes and immoral acts.

Um, a lot of the reason that the majority of northern 'Irish' wanted to remain part of the UK is because of the large influx of Protestant Scottish plantation owners who moved to Northern Ireland. (The rest of Ireland as well, but Northern Ireland in particular)

(not that I have anything against protestants/catholics/scottish/irish)

[Agathor]

Um, a lot of the reason that the majority of northern 'Irish' wanted to remain part of the UK is because of the large influx of Protestant Scottish plantation owners who moved to Northern Ireland. (The rest of Ireland as well, but Northern Ireland in particular)

(not that I have anything against protestants/catholics/scottish/irish)

The protestant emigration to Northern Ireland took place between 1610 and 1717, before most of the emigration to the Americas.

[l'Enfermé]

Immoral acts? War crimes? Please you can not seriously want to argue a point based on bourgeoisie sentimentalities.
Immorality/morality is a bourgeoisie sentimentality? I was under the impression that the concept of morality was invented a few thousand years before the bourgeoisie even existed...I guess I'm not a communist but a "bourgeouise apologist"(as I was called by several Stalinists here already)because I think that murdering thousands, hundreds of thousands and millions for no fucking reason is not an acceptable thing to do. Terror-bombing urban centers is not an acceptable thing to do. It's a crime that deserves the most cruel punishments.

[Tim Cornelis]

How do you annex what is yours? If youre car is stolen and you go to retrieve it are you merely stealing it back? Makes no sense so I'll leave it at that.

By what measure is it "yours"? Because they share the same ethnicity? Because they share the same land? Blut und Boden? That is surely not something you would support.

Ireland does not belong to the Irish, like you claim. It belongs to no one or everyone. What you claim is nationalist bullshit use by any far-right party to justify their agenda of removing all foreign elements.

Fuck nationalism.

[Mindtoaster]

These Irish threads make me chuckle. Northern Ireland is occupied by the Westminster government in the same way that Birmingham is. It's a willing member of the union and has been so for hundreds of years. It returns members to parliament and has a devolved assembly. In 1973 the government ordered a referendum on Northern Irish membership of the United Kingdom, and these were the results: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Ireland_sovereignty_referendum,_1973#Reac tion

I

Total shit analysis that ignores all semblance of historic context

"It's a willing member of the union and has been so for hundreds of years."

"Northern Ireland" was never an entity until the 1920s. Politically, culturally or otherwise. Ireland as a region voted overwhelmingly in favor of independence

It was gerrymandered in order for the British state to ensure that they could keep control of the largest industrial center of the colony and could ensure that they had a majority of loyal protestants to keep that control in place.

The social division caused by that partition has caused a completely irreconcilable tension that will block any real social progress until Britain is removed from the equation. Irish unity might as well be a prerequisite for socialist revolution

This is why virtually every socialist party in the North, republican or otherwise, advocates Irish unity. Partition created a carnival of reaction

[Crux]

It was only by means of the bomb and gun that brought the British to the negotiating table.
Rather, it brought the Provos to the table because they were fighting a war they could not win. At least not with the methods they were using.

[Mindtoaster]

Rather, it brought the Provos to the table because they were fighting a war they could not win. At least not with the methods they were using.

It was mutual, the Brits entered negotiations because the provos had acquired enough arms (form Libya) to continue their campaign for up to twenty years, but the provos also knew they weren't going anywhere anymore

[Aurora]

I disagree with the stageism in the OP, the national question is invariably linked with the question of workers power and the struggle for socialism, trying to separate them and put socialism on the back burner is ridiculous.
The struggle of workers for their interests as a class brings down all borders and barriers whether that be between north and south, catholic and protestant or irish and british, any attempt to liberate a nation without socialism is necessarily bourgeois and drives workers into the camp of 'their' respective bourgeois.



Doubtful. I don't see where national independence has ever led to intensified class struggle, if anything the opposite is so.
Ya if someone could give an example of where this has happened that would be great.

First off it's all nice and good to want to abolish the state but you are presupposing that an Irish state currently exists. It does not

I support Ireland as a progressive country
lol you guys are pretty funny.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

The Republic of Ireland should unite with Northern Ireland, and Britain, and the rest of Europe, and the rest of the world for that matter, in socialist revolution. I find people's belief in sacrosanct national borders to be quite dangerous however. The Irish and British people alike are not enemies, and frankly it doesn't matter where petty republics draw their border.

There should be a general respect of the people in Northern Ireland to have some amount of political self-sovereignty, and I don't think it matters how they chose to vote on this particular issue, but having sacrosanct national borders is not and has never been a prerequisite for socialism and can often even be a hindrance. That goes for both the Irish and the British.

[gorillafuck]

First off it's all nice and good to want to abolish the state but you are presupposing that an Irish state currently exists. It does not because, as we all know, the north is partitioned.uh, there is a Republic Of Ireland.

[Prometeo liberado]

uh, there is a Republic Of Ireland.

Uh, the Republic calls for all counties to be counted as part of this republic. So to say that there is a Republic is to say there is one in name only. uh.

[gorillafuck]

that's like saying that there is no Argentina because Britain holds the Falklands.

[MotherCossack]

we do not have any right to even have this debate....
for the love of anything remotely sane....
i stole all your stuff.... and sold it for loads of profit which i earned a fortune on and then 10 years later sit in the ritz discussing with my nasty mates if maybe i should send you the approximate original rip-off price i made flogging your stuff to the cheapest bidder.

is the pope a catholic...should we give a people back their fucking country!

[Prometeo liberado]

we do not have any right to even have this debate....
for the love of anything remotely sane....
i stole all your stuff.... and sold it for loads of profit which i earned a fortune on and then 10 years later sit in the ritz discussing with my nasty mates if maybe i should send you the approximate original rip-off price i made flogging your stuff to the cheapest bidder.

is the pope a catholic...should we give a people back their fucking country!

What?

[Prometeo liberado]

that's like saying that there is no Argentina because Britain holds the Falklands.

Wrong again. I have to question you're knowledge of Ireland at this point.
The Irish are a distinct native people, culture and speak/spoke distinct form of Gaelic. The north has seen a strategic population influx of Scots by the British. The Falklands have no continuous native population or language. Nor has the Falkland troubles ever spawned such a diaspora as the one started by the imperialist Crown. Millions of workers and their families scattered to all ends of the earth is certainly something that every socialist ought be fighting against.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

While I do identify with the ultra-left, I grew up in a family that sympathizes with the Irish unification movement. As a result I have some sympathies for it, though I don't see it as a "required step" in the international proletarian struggle ... and in many respects I see it as a distraction from international class struggle. Although I can see how it could potentially galvanize the proletarian movement there, if they play their cards right ...

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

At least we can all agree that this situation is a very complex one, particularly in the context of our proletariat internationalism conflicting with our desires to also see imperialism be defeated.

[dodger]

At least we can all agree that this situation is a very complex one, particularly in the context of our proletariat internationalism conflicting with our desires to also see imperialism be defeated.

Dear Commistar..complex for some....sweet simplicity for others. Britain out of Ireland. Tosh about the minority in the north and British protection morphed into protection of the majority. With a faster Catholic birthrate no doubt some will live to see protection of the minority once more. Head spinning, Commistar? No no...of course not it's such an old Imperial Game. Churchill was not the 1st to play the Orange Card. There is not an Irishman who cannot fathom the end of that little game or Gordian knot. BRITAIN OUT OF IRELAND, let them sort out their own politics in their own sweet way in their own sweet time. The EU and US always hovering need to be given short shrift. As we all have found to our costs, outside interference in our internal affairs brings only misery. ETERNAL INTERFERENCE = ETERNAL SUBJUGATION.

There is no conflict with British working class interests to see an Ireland unfettered from Britain....the reverse is true. Hence no conflict with working class Internationalism. As each nation breaks free then we might see real Internationalism. Not before.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Wrong again. I have to question you're knowledge of Ireland at this point.
The Irish are a distinct native people, culture and speak/spoke distinct form of Gaelic. The north has seen a strategic population influx of Scots by the British. The Falklands have no continuous native population or language. Nor has the Falkland troubles ever spawned such a diaspora as the one started by the imperialist Crown. Millions of workers and their families scattered to all ends of the earth is certainly something that every socialist ought be fighting against.

It is certainly true from a historical perspective that the British Imperialist project had atrocious effects on the Irish people, but it is another matter entirely whether it has any modern political relevance regarding the liberation of the Irish.

There are many national groupings like the Native Americans which can never get their "national homeland" back in any kind of complete or original form. They will always, like the Northern Irish, need to respect the immigrant population while pursuing their rights legitimately. If Socialist Revolution necessitates that ethnic and national homelands are respected in some kind of absolute way, then these groups like the Native Americans are boned (and it also works to justify things like Zionism, where the descendants of people exiled 2000 years ago come home and decide to plop a nation-state on what is their "homeland"). One of the appeals of Socialist revolution actually is that it helps to break down these petty distinctions between Irish/British, Palestinians/Irish, Whites/Native Americans, or at least minimizes the political and economic importance of these distinctions.


That said, sovereignty cannot exist in any meaningful sense without the support of the people, so if the people of Northern Ireland want to reunite with the Republic of Ireland (which they don't right now but might thanks to higher birthrates amongst the Catholics), it is only democratic to let them do what they want. But I would not mistake that for a socialist revolution, nor do I think that the Irish right to a homeland trumps the popular nature of all legitimate political sovereignty over and above claims of a historical "national character" which must be upheld.

[MotherCossack]

What?

oops i thought i was being a tad unclear.... sorry... sometimes in the heat of the moment, all guns blazing, impatient to express powerful emotions and political beliefs....dearly held .... with true heart worn on sleeve for all to see....
sometimes.... i fear that i may convey a message muddled somehat by the manner in which i feel obliged to deliver it.
[ i am a drama queen, what else am i to do .... sorry!]

yep.... we need to get out of a country that is not our country...
what part of 'we are invaders' do people not understand?

is it cos we are close to ireland... is it a bit ours anyway?... i mean it is right next to us... yeah... might as well nab it...
or well... it is so little they cant be a different country... nah... it is part of our country...
yeah... that is why we are called united kingdom... yeah!...
yeah.... but no!!!!!!! we are not a united kingdom just cos we say so!

this is ludicrous and sooooo colonial!
and i find it tricky keeping my cool... over such outrages.

and another thing why shouldn't they express nationalism....
we stole their fucking country...
we bloody well would... anyone who has seen any films, archived footage or any coverage of us during ww2...
hey when a big, fat, stinky bully points a gun at you and threatens to invade and take everything and kill you all.... i think you'll find that we all discover a nationalistic streak in the core of our being.

[MustCrushCapitalism]

In principle, yes.

But from what I've heard, it doesn't exactly have popular support in the north.

[Crux]

It was mutual, the Brits entered negotiations because the provos had acquired enough arms (form Libya) to continue their campaign for up to twenty years, but the provos also knew they weren't going anywhere anymore
Which is pretty much what I said. And instead they opted for collaborationism. Now does not that tell you something?

[gorillafuck]

Wrong again. I have to question you're knowledge of Ireland at this point.I have to question your knowledge of what constitutes a country.


The Irish are a distinct native people, culture and speak/spoke distinct form of Gaelic.which somehow indicates that the republic of Ireland isn't a country?


The north has seen a strategic population influx of Scots by the British. The Falklands have no continuous native population or language. Nor has the Falkland troubles ever spawned such a diaspora as the one started by the imperialist Crown. Millions of workers and their families scattered to all ends of the earth is certainly something that every socialist ought be fighting against.you are aware that the Falklands was colonized? just because the situation produced is much different doesn't mean that when Argentina loses some of it's land it remains a country while when Ireland does it is not a country.

[Rooster]

I think the concept of a united Ireland is rather moot these days. You can drive across the border no problem. No one stops you, checks passports, etc. It's barely a border. It feels more like travelling from Wales to England. Both the Republic and the North are a part of the EU and both abide by the many treaties there allowing for the free movement of people within the EU to stay and work. I don't think unification would make a great deal of difference considering that in this context, they're pretty much already unified as it is.

[Mindtoaster]

Which is pretty much what I said. And instead they opted for collaborationism. Now does not that tell you something?

Yeah that the provos had basically accomplished all they could through armed struggle, and were in a position to negotiate concessions and rights for nationalists

Armed struggle is a dead end in the north, that doesn't reduce the legitimacy of a united Ireland, nor does it it mean that there won't be continuing cycles of armed violence until the British presence is removed

[CommieTroll]

True, I totally forgot about the INLA. Great organization.

Surely you must be joking? There's nothing Socialistic about the INLA or the IRA.

[grendalsbane]

Northern Ireland should be given the choice to reunify with the Republic of Ireland. Wales and Scotland should also be allowed independence.

Although ultimately I would like to see the abolition of all nations, still keep the names of countries but only as a geographical reference.