6 ms·

NI is no more a colony than the US or Australia are today. Personally I'm all about self-determination. If the people of NI want to return the land to Eire, th

NI is no more a colony than the US or Australia are today. Personally I'm all about self-determination. If the people of NI want to return the land to Eire, then nobody should stand in their way. But that doesn't seem to be the case right now, even though support for reunification has been increasing in recent years.

dontlaugh 4y ago
The US and Australia don't have the British military as the ultimate enforcer of state power. They each have their own local armies, accepted as legitimate by Britain. Northern Ireland's army was never accepted as legitimate by the British state, they were even fought directly for decades.
- bearmode 4y ago
  The only reason for that is NI never voted/fought for secession from the UK - just relatively small groups without popular support in NI, but with the support of Ireland.
  - DocTomoe 4y ago
    Actually, they did, back when Ireland as a whole voted for independence. That that particular part of the country may have chosen to remain does not, under democratic rules, allow for it to be separated from the main country, much like Scotland and Wales could not have argue to remain in the EU because their respective populations were overwhelmingly in favour of remain.
    - vonzepp 4y ago
      When Ireland voted for independence, it was officially part of the UK. The UK as a whole would have voted against independence for Ireland. Does that mean under democratic rules Ireland was not allowed for it to be separated from the main country? We'd be better off asking why unionist don't want to join rather than telling them they have no choice.
      - argentier 4y ago
        I don't think anyone is telling them that: in fact their concerns are absurdly well catered for, though you wouldn't know it listening to the constant complaints. We can split hairs about what is and is not democratic until the end of time, but the debate takes place in a historical vacuum: the creation of Northern Ireland was a response to a very specific set of circumstances, and I don't think yak-shaving about democratic niceties casts any light. It is moot anyway, because there is no prospect of changing Northern Ireland's status without democratic sanction. Which vote of course takes place at the pleasure of His Majesty's Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
        vonzepp 4y ago
        It is not quite at the pleasure of His Majesty's Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. It is defined in law that if there are grounds to believe it would pass they would be required to hold a border poll. This could be decided in court, as in if say opinion polling was at 70% and nationalist parts were winning 70% of the votes, and the Secretary of State refused to hold the poll. They could be brought to court and a judge could rule the secretary has no grounds to refuse.
    - disgruntledphd2 4y ago
      > Actually, they did, back when Ireland as a whole voted for independence. Can you point to a vote by the Irish people in favour of independence? I'm pretty sure you can't given that no such vote has ever taken place.
      - argentier 4y ago
        There's this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1918_Irish_general_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1918_Irish_general_election The IRA derived their 'legitimacy' from it.
        iso1631 4y ago
        The one where the votes for unionists in Ulster outweighed nationalists 2:1?
        argentier 4y ago
        Ulster didn't exist as a polity at the time.
        disgruntledphd2 4y ago
        That's an election, not a referendum. And to be quite frank, you are probably thinking of the Provisional IRA when you put legitimacy in quotes, where as this was the original IRA, who basically have nothing in common with the Provos (as they were called when I were a lad) except the name.
        argentier 4y ago
        That's an interesting debate to have, definitely.
  - argentier 4y ago
    The levels of support for the small groups that fought primarily against small groups on the other side were never really gauged. However the political successors to the only one of those groups that really counted is currently the largest party in Northern Ireland. The Brits left split polities in quite a few places as they decolonized. Almost as if it was policy.
- twixfel 4y ago
  Northern Ireland is not a colony according to the common and widely understood meaning of the word colony (or in the opinion of the UN). If you make up your own definition based on "local armies" (whatever relevance or meaning that has, not sure)... then yes you can personally call anything anything you like... but it has no meaning to the rest of us and doesn't really make any sense.
rich_sasha 4y ago
NI was explicitly created as a hack to an all-Ireland independence referendum at the start of 20th century. It was a landslide victory for a one-Ireland state and the UK created this never-seen-before entity as a response. I'm not even Irish and certainly have no skin in this game but what the UK did to Ireland over the centuries is disgraceful, and it clearly is struggling to come to terms with it.
- ChuckNorris89 4y ago
  As a recent tourist, NI seemed far less developed than the Republic of Ireland to me, as if everyone there had moved to England for jobs and now that region only survives thanks to life support from London. Much of the infrastructure there reminded me more of post-communist Eastern European countries than western Europe, but then so do many parts of England (no offense). I wonder if NI wouldn't be better off part of the Republic and the EU, now with Brexit and everything?
  - mathieuh 4y ago
    As someone who grew up and lives in NI, I'm suspicious that the awful state of the place is because the UK knows NI will rejoin Ireland in the nearish future, so why would they invest in infrastructure here? It used to be the case that the roads would get noticeably worse as you crossed the border into the republic, now the situation is reversed.
    - bearmode 4y ago
      >I'm suspicious that the awful state of the place is because the UK knows NI will rejoin Ireland in the nearish future, so why would they invest in infrastructure here? NI receives a disproportionately large amount of money from the UK gov compared to other UK nations.
      - mathieuh 4y ago
        And that money still isn't enough, because NI is still suffering the effects of the troubles and a governance situation which is not fit for purpose. Everything here is in a state of disrepair, the NHS isn't functioning, the far-right Christian-fundamentalist party which is the second biggest party refuses to do anything for reasons that exist only in their own heads, etc. etc. The place needs to be actively developed, not repeatedly patched up and sent on its way to hobble along.

dontlaugh 4y ago

The US and Australia don't have the British military as the ultimate enforcer of state power. They each have their own local armies, accepted as legitimate by Britain. Northern Ireland's army was never accepted as legitimate by the British state, they were even fought directly for decades.

bearmode 4y ago
The only reason for that is NI never voted/fought for secession from the UK - just relatively small groups without popular support in NI, but with the support of Ireland.
- DocTomoe 4y ago
  Actually, they did, back when Ireland as a whole voted for independence. That that particular part of the country may have chosen to remain does not, under democratic rules, allow for it to be separated from the main country, much like Scotland and Wales could not have argue to remain in the EU because their respective populations were overwhelmingly in favour of remain.
  - vonzepp 4y ago
    When Ireland voted for independence, it was officially part of the UK. The UK as a whole would have voted against independence for Ireland. Does that mean under democratic rules Ireland was not allowed for it to be separated from the main country? We'd be better off asking why unionist don't want to join rather than telling them they have no choice.
    - argentier 4y ago
      I don't think anyone is telling them that: in fact their concerns are absurdly well catered for, though you wouldn't know it listening to the constant complaints. We can split hairs about what is and is not democratic until the end of time, but the debate takes place in a historical vacuum: the creation of Northern Ireland was a response to a very specific set of circumstances, and I don't think yak-shaving about democratic niceties casts any light. It is moot anyway, because there is no prospect of changing Northern Ireland's status without democratic sanction. Which vote of course takes place at the pleasure of His Majesty's Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
      - vonzepp 4y ago
        It is not quite at the pleasure of His Majesty's Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. It is defined in law that if there are grounds to believe it would pass they would be required to hold a border poll. This could be decided in court, as in if say opinion polling was at 70% and nationalist parts were winning 70% of the votes, and the Secretary of State refused to hold the poll. They could be brought to court and a judge could rule the secretary has no grounds to refuse.
  - disgruntledphd2 4y ago
    > Actually, they did, back when Ireland as a whole voted for independence. Can you point to a vote by the Irish people in favour of independence? I'm pretty sure you can't given that no such vote has ever taken place.
    - argentier 4y ago
      There's this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1918_Irish_general_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1918_Irish_general_election The IRA derived their 'legitimacy' from it.
      - iso1631 4y ago
        The one where the votes for unionists in Ulster outweighed nationalists 2:1?
        argentier 4y ago
        Ulster didn't exist as a polity at the time.
      - disgruntledphd2 4y ago
        That's an election, not a referendum. And to be quite frank, you are probably thinking of the Provisional IRA when you put legitimacy in quotes, where as this was the original IRA, who basically have nothing in common with the Provos (as they were called when I were a lad) except the name.
        argentier 4y ago
        That's an interesting debate to have, definitely.
- argentier 4y ago
  The levels of support for the small groups that fought primarily against small groups on the other side were never really gauged. However the political successors to the only one of those groups that really counted is currently the largest party in Northern Ireland. The Brits left split polities in quite a few places as they decolonized. Almost as if it was policy.
twixfel 4y ago
Northern Ireland is not a colony according to the common and widely understood meaning of the word colony (or in the opinion of the UN). If you make up your own definition based on "local armies" (whatever relevance or meaning that has, not sure)... then yes you can personally call anything anything you like... but it has no meaning to the rest of us and doesn't really make any sense.

rich_sasha 4y ago

NI was explicitly created as a hack to an all-Ireland independence referendum at the start of 20th century. It was a landslide victory for a one-Ireland state and the UK created this never-seen-before entity as a response. I'm not even Irish and certainly have no skin in this game but what the UK did to Ireland over the centuries is disgraceful, and it clearly is struggling to come to terms with it.

ChuckNorris89 4y ago
As a recent tourist, NI seemed far less developed than the Republic of Ireland to me, as if everyone there had moved to England for jobs and now that region only survives thanks to life support from London. Much of the infrastructure there reminded me more of post-communist Eastern European countries than western Europe, but then so do many parts of England (no offense). I wonder if NI wouldn't be better off part of the Republic and the EU, now with Brexit and everything?
- mathieuh 4y ago
  As someone who grew up and lives in NI, I'm suspicious that the awful state of the place is because the UK knows NI will rejoin Ireland in the nearish future, so why would they invest in infrastructure here? It used to be the case that the roads would get noticeably worse as you crossed the border into the republic, now the situation is reversed.
  - bearmode 4y ago
    >I'm suspicious that the awful state of the place is because the UK knows NI will rejoin Ireland in the nearish future, so why would they invest in infrastructure here? NI receives a disproportionately large amount of money from the UK gov compared to other UK nations.
    - mathieuh 4y ago
      And that money still isn't enough, because NI is still suffering the effects of the troubles and a governance situation which is not fit for purpose. Everything here is in a state of disrepair, the NHS isn't functioning, the far-right Christian-fundamentalist party which is the second biggest party refuses to do anything for reasons that exist only in their own heads, etc. etc. The place needs to be actively developed, not repeatedly patched up and sent on its way to hobble along.