Conference tallis::celt

    
    I think a lot will depend on the state of the Republic's economy at the
    time. Not all NI catholics want a united Ireland. If the NI politicians
    of the day can deliver jobs to nationalists and do away with the
    discrimination then there is a strong possibility that they would vote
    to retain the status quo. If the day-to-day harrasement by the BA and
    RUC is stopped by then also then people will be more contented with
    their lot and less willing to join with the Republic. In 30 years time
    the EC may have changed a lot also to bring the standard of living of
    different nations in line with each other. This may also be a factor.
    
    What is for certain is that the people of NI will not vote to join with
    the Republic unless the Dublin Govt. changes their pro-catholic laws
    like :
    
    	- Ban on divorce
    	- Ban on aportion (and related information)
    	- Restricted access to contraception
    
    
    and clears up the sinister links between the state and the catholic
    church. 
    
    
    Tony.

    
    Firstly, there is a big assumption that "current trends" will continue
    for 30 years more. One sociologist remarked on this question that there
    is no modern case of that occurring.
    
    Secondly, there is an assumption that "Catholic" means "Nationalist".
    In a survey taken in the mid-80's, 20% of "Catholics" considered
    themselves as having "British" or "Ulster" identity rather than 
    "Irish". This means that even if present trends continue, it will
    be longer than 30 years.
    
    Thirdly, in that time greater European integration may have overtaken
    the whole question, so that the two conflicting identities may be
    subsumed into a single "European" identity.
    
    Fourthly, emigration is and will remain quite high from both North
    and South of Ireland. With greater European integration, that may
    be now directed towards the continent rather than the U.K. or
    the U.S.A. We just do not know what impact this may have.
    
    Fifthly, the basic assumption is that the "British link" is the
    problem. Solve that and everything is solved - really?
    In the case of a United Ireland, the following will still be
    true:
    
    - There will still be a large population in the North East
      of the island who have a different identity. In the
      last century, when Ireland was officially "British", sectarian
      riots were commonplace (they did not start in 1921!).
      There will still be mutual antipathy between the communities.
    - Discrimination by Catholic or Protestant will not disappear 
      overnight. 
    - Protestant or Catholic paramilitaries will not disappear
      either. The security situation may ease, but with the
      amount of guns and hatred in a small space, peace will
      not be guaranteed. Another Bosnia or Lebanon is a
      definite risk.
    - Ireland as an island will still have enormous economic
      problems, not the least of which will be to fund the
      British-oriented social welfare system in the North.
    - It is still not clear what changes the South is prepared
      to make in its sectarian and misogynist legislation in
      order to accomodate the Protestant conscience.
    
    Thus I certainly do not think that demographics will solve
    the problem for us - indeed it almost an idle question.
    The best approach would be to take it in terms of John
    Humes 3 strands:
    
    - Within Northern Ireland. Problem NOT solved, only changed.
    - Between North and South of Ireland. Problem NOT solved,
      only changed.
    - Between Britain and Ireland. Problem probably solved,
      as I believe that Britain has no economic or strategic
      reason for remaining in Northern Ireland, and would be
      delighted to leave in a manner that would save its face
      and its purse.
    
    Toby

    re .2
    
    A refreshing an intelligent treatise on the subject. Quite a difference
    between this well-reasoned entry and the mad rantings of a minority of 
    mis-informed WANKS (sp?)
    
    Ian

 re. .3
  Ian Laughlin (sp?) writes:
"A refreshing an intelligent treatise on the subject"
  
  It's worth a p alright, I'll see if I can reach it
  from here.
        
                      Mark

    You raise some interesting points Toby - I'd like to comment on them.
    First off, you are probably right in assuming that a certain percentage
    of Catholics (for lack of a better term) would prefer the British
    identity.  It may not be as much as 20% however.  Alternately, there
    are just as many Protestants that would favor integration with Ireland.
    
    European integration has already overtaken the Northern Irish problem
    in the sense that European boundaries are less important and more and
    more people consider themselves European, and not Irish or British etc.
    Again, more cause for the British military to leave and take away
    their Iron curtain border - it's a painful anachronism.
    
    Yes, cutting the British link *will* solve the problem.  Let the Irish
    people in the North solve their own problems without British
    interference.  It's painful yes - but Ireland will be better off
    without British "guidance".
    
    And, will there be sectarian riots in the North when the British
    finally pack their bags?  Maybe.  Maybe not.  It can't be much
    worse than it is now in NI.  Maybe a better question - have the
    Protestants living in Dublin revolted and rioted lately?
    They seem to get along OK with their neighbors.
    
    It's true that much of the Republic's legislation is outdated
    and sectarian.  That has to change now.  But bad legislation in no
    way compares to the gerrymandered statelet which Britain has
    created and propped up militarily by abusive force.  That must
    come to an end.
    
    /George 

    
    George,
    
    Re: The 20% - I'm giving you what the survey found. As Ripley
    would say - believe it or not!
    
    Re: The gerrymandered statelet etc. etc. While all sorts of
    pejoratives can be affixed to Northern Ireland, it does not
    by one whit denigrate its status in international law.
    Ireland (or "the South") has agreed in TWO international
    agreements that there should be no change in the status
    of the North without the consent of the majority - these 
    agreements are the Anglo-Irish Agreement of 1987, and the 
    Helsinki Agreement on European boundaries.
    
    Thus any effort to get Northern Ireland out of the United
    Kingdom and into some other entity, or into an independent
    existence, must (as far as Ireland is concerned) proceed
    by means of peaceful persuasion. Do you agree?
    
    Toby

    A recent article in the latest Economist reveals that the
    rate of increase of Catholics in Northern Ireland is much
    higher than expected.  Today, 43% of the population in NI
    is Catholic, up some 7% from 20 years back.  If that continues
    the article says, within 20 years the population will be a
    Catholic majority, radically alterring the political future
    of NI.  This may explain to some extent the recent concessions
    of Unionist politians in dealing with Nationalists and Dublin.
    
    /George

    The "war" in NI is not moot, disgusting, culturally immature, morally
    repugnant, anachronistic, futile, destructive, wasteful, stupid, and
    pathetic to be sure, but not moot.
    
    I do not think that the "war" in NI is really about the partitioning of
    NI from the rest of Ireland, it is the most conveneint excuse of the
    day for Irish people and English people to hate each other, but the
    actual cause is old.  Irish and Emglish have hated each other since
    before the Christianity in the Islands.  There are stories in ancient
    tradition in which English and Irish fought, Shakespeare wrote about it
    in "Henry V" and history proclaims a long tradition of enmity between
    English and Irish.  It is really more of a tradition being played out
    with whatever justification and rationalization can be manufactured in
    the current age.
    
    I would not dream of arguing that there is no cause for Irish to
    distrust English since England has had successive waves of emigration
    to Ireland, since the time of William the Conqueror all intended to
    subject and subdue the Irish to English rule.  History is history and
    cannot be ignored.  Truth be told, the Irish have cause, historically
    to distrust the English.  
    
    That said I would like to say that I believe the only way the situation
    in NI can be solved is through PEACEFUL negotiation and Co-operation
    between all parties in this conflict.  Nationalists should try to win
    seats in parliament and involve themselves in discussions about the
    problems of normalizing conditions in NI and the possibility of
    re-unification with the Republic.  There are many complex issues
    involved, more than just the behavior of the British Army in NI, more
    than the behavior of the Provos or INLA or UDA, or any of the other
    "paramilitary"  terrorist forces over there.  There is a question of
    generations old distrust and bigotry between so-called catholics and
    so-called protestants who may not be too happy about being required to
    live peacefully with one another.  There will be some so-called
    catholics out there who think all the so-called protestants should go
    home, of course the people they are asking to go home, have been in
    Ireland for generations and have no-place to go home to.  Many people
    in the North seem concerned about the significant changes that would
    occur legally whould the north and south be reunited, citing
    restrictive, catholic traditionally influenced laws in the south as
    being potentially discriminatory against non-catholics.  There are also
    worries about the devastated economy in the North.  All of these are
    legitimate concerns as are the concerns regarding conditions in the
    North now and the levels of discrimination currently present against
    catholics.  All these things need to be talked about and worked out.
    If everyone would spend as much time and energy talking and working out
    the problems in the Noerth rather than making and using bombs, firing
    guns, beating each other, throwing rocks and carrying on like children
    in general, things would improve dramatically.  As long as the violence
    continues there will be no end to it.
    
    Frankly, I have little sympathy for any of the terrorist groups in NI
    "protestant" and "catholic" included, they have brought the cycle of
    violence upon themselves and willfully perpetuate it daily.  I have
    great pity for the innocents caught in the line of fire between people
    who cannot manage to climb up the evolutionary ladder to the point that
    they can overcome their anger adn bitterness, and xeno-phobia to the
    point that they can work out their problems like human beings, let
    alone like the christians that many profess to be.  I would also like
    to state that making war in the unsuspecting and largely innocent
    people of another nation is cowardly, barbaric, and base.  Placing
    bombs in Tube stations, rail stations, movie theatres, shopping plazas,
    etc. is deplorable behavior and if the violent terrorist groups in NI
    are trying to win a contest with the UK in who can sink to lower
    levels, I am afraid that the IRA et. al. are winning hands down.  In
    cases where terrorist acts are carried out upon non-combattants, a
    government is entitled to and mandated to take action to discover and
    bring to justice the perpetrators.  The people of England would not let
    their government do anything, but retaliate.  The difficulty I have
    with England in this matter is that there would seem to be an unequal
    enforcement of the law as concerns criminal/terrorist acts carried out
    by "protestant" groups.
    
    What it breaks down to is that blood is a poor argument.  Any political
    organization that resorts to violence to try to gain attention for
    their "righteous" cause, whether concerns be for human-rights,
    civil-rights or what-have-you, the second you begin to kill and
    terrorize people, you shatter your credibility.  England may well be
    involved in a systematic subjugation of the catholic population of NI,
    especially Belfast, there may well be discrimination, there may be
    oppression, but frankly, England would not be doing it if the region
    wasn't such a mess.  It is expensive to maintain troops at that state
    of readiness, it is expensive to support so many people on welfare
    because their town/region is in a state of social and economic
    collapse, it is expensive doing everything that they have to do in
    Belfast and NI because of the "troubles"  that continue past all logic
    and reason.  The violence must stop despite what a bunch of
    Irish-Americans who live in nice, comfortable, safe, homes, far away
    from NI with little or no real stake in the issue and nothing to lose
    should the violence increase, have got to say about it.  It is probable
    that the vast majority of people in NI on both sides of the religious
    line, would like nothing more than that the violence cease so they
    could get back to the business of living and building instead of
    ducking bullets, worrying about relatives and friends, and digging
    holes in the ground for casualties.  It must end.
    
    Andrew
    
    

    Andrew,
    
    The war really *is* about the partitioning of Ireland.  If there
    were no partition in Ireland, then the IRA would not be at war.
    You don't need to be a rocket scientist for that one.  (Not that
    I agree with their methods however).
    
    I don't think that the Irish people inherently hate English people.
    They may disagree with British government's stance on Northern Ireland,
    but those are political issues.  If this hatred you speak of is so
    great, then why are there so many English tourists in Ireland?  I mean
    you wouldn't normally visit a place you're hated.
    
    You speak of making war at unspecting and largely innocent people
    of another nation (re: IRA bombing London).  I couldn't agree more.
    However, this is precisely the same tactic used by the British army
    in Northern Ireland.  Have you ever been to south Armagh?  I would
    say that people in Armagh suffer more inconveniences and threats to
    their well-being from war than the peoples of London.  It's all
    relative.  Both sides are guilty of bringing in innocent civilians.
    
    Finally, why do you bring up a person's background (Irish-Americans)
    when discussing Northern Ireland?
    
    /George

    re: .9
    
    You were pretty convincing until you let your mask slip with the
    standard-issue, British cover-up and denial "party-line" of,
    
    <England *may* well be involved in a systematic subjugation of the catholic 
    <population of NI, especially Belfast, there *may* well be discrimination, 
    <there *may* be oppression, but frankly, England would not be doing it if 
    <the region wasn't such a mess. 
    
    [ed. note * is my empahsis]
        
    Get it straight Andrew: there *IS* systematic subjugation and discrimination
    of the catholic population in the north of IRELAND in jobs , education
    and housing. There bloody hell *IS*, (not *may be*) oppression of the 
    catholic minority not only in Belfast, but in the rest of British-occupied 
    north-east IRELAND as well. Not to mention a proven shoot-to-kill
    policy toward Irish nationalist suspects. (see Stalker Affair)
    
    Ever heard of the MacBride Principles, or Amnesty International?
    Maybe if you weren't so dishonest, trying to fool others and yourself
    with that same old Brit crap that "HMG is an 'honest broker', bravely 
    standing between two warring factions of Oirish in Ireland" you might 
    learn the truth about waht's really going on in Ireland.
    
    As for that classic bit of British tripe,
    
    <The violence must stop despite what a bunch of Irish-Americans who live 
    <in nice, comfortable, safe, homes, far away from NI with little or no 
    <real stake in the issue and nothing to lose should the violence increase, 
    <have got to say about it. 
    
    Oh, that's a classic Andrew. 
    
    DO tell us Andrew, when is the last time you stayed in the Bogside of
    Derry, or West Belfast? When was the last time you went to NI to see
    for yourself what's really going on there instead of just mouthing HMG
    standard lies? Better yet, let's start from the beginning: do you even
    know where the north of Ireland is?
    
    Instead of writing a whole mess of crap like note .9, trying to
    whitewash the British government's use of  brutal colonially
    repressive measures to interfere in the affairs of the Irish, 
    why not instead use that time to read any and/or all of the following:
    
    CELT Note 1033.25 (Amnesty International list of publications
    condemning the British government's brutality in Ireland.)
              
    CELT 1033.26  (The charter of the British "TIME TO GO!" movement)
              
    CELT 1033.28  (Information from the British TROOPS OUT! Movement
    about house raids directed exclusively at Irish nationalists
    ("catholics") in the occupied north-east corner of Ireland.
    
    
     The body count, mainly of Irish nationalists will stop when 
    Britain stops mucking in the affairs of Ireland. I mean, even you seem
    to have a clue about this, when you wrote:
    
    <I would also like to state that making war in the unsuspecting and 
    <largely innocent people of another nation is cowardly, barbaric, and base. 
    
    That's all England's presence has been in IRELAND for the last 800+
    years: COWARDLY, BARBARIC and BASE.
    
    And this other statement of yours:
    
    <Any political organization that resorts to violence to try to gain 
    <attention for their "righteous" cause, whether concerns be for 
    <human-rights, civil-rights or what-have-you, the second you begin to 
    <kill and terrorize people, you shatter your credibility.
    
    First of all, England has no credibility in Ireland to begin with. And
    Secondly, considering the violence it uses to oppress the Irish 
    nationalist population there, I dare say any credibility that HMG 
    pretends to have has long since been shattered. 

    Don't tell me I am being dishonest with myself when i talk about war
    and terrorism.  I was a soldier once, and I know what urban warfare is
    about and how it affects the mindset of soldiers.  I have never been to
    NI, I have been in Red Army Faction land in Germany and seen the
    affects of living with the fear that at any moment, someone might drive
    a vw van into my gate and blow it up, killing mostly the families of
    military personnel.  During the Gulf War I had the dubious pleasure of
    guarding a post full of civilian dependents while their military family
    members were in the Gulf.  Checkpoints, guardposts, snipers,
    barbed-wire, and suspicion abounded and what made it worse for me was
    that I was the one holding the damn gun.  Nothing sets me off like war
    and senseless killing.  I am sick to death of it and I am tired of
    seeing people all over the world waste their lives and efforts hating
    and killing one another instead of working out their problems like
    human beings.  NI is a mess, which is criminal since if the British
    Government and the Irish nationalists could get their acts together,
    they could clean the mess up, but no one seems to want to try, least of
    all those who spend so much time rebelling against conditions there.  I
    don't have time to keep on this now, but rest assured that I am not
    talking from Britain's side alone, I condemn any government that abuses
    it's peoples rights, civil and human, even England, even America, but
    more, i condemn anyone who thinks they can change that by resorting to
    tactics on the same level or below those of the abuser.  To stand on
    higher ground, you have to be willing to climb the mountain and bear up
    against the buffet of the winds.
    
    Andrew
    

    Well said Andrew.  I think that both groups must be willing
    to climb the mountain.  That being said, the big impasse
    seems to be that the British will not speak to the IRA
    until it renounces violence.  The IRA will not renounce
    violence until Britain declares its intent to end partition.
    
    Britain ultimately wants to withdraw, but for reasons of
    pride or history or whatever, cannot make the bold move.
    There is not much left of its empire, so I do not know really
    why it is stalling on NI.  Even Hong Kong will be gone in
    4 years.  What is left?  Gilbrater and the Falklands and an
    odd assortment of islands in the Caribbean and South Pacific?  
    Britain could bypass the IRA entirely by declaring its intent
    to withdraw and deal directly with the Republic.
    
    The danger in prolonging their occupation is that the military
    engagement gets more involved.  Last week the IRA took down a
    British Army helicopter in Fermanagh.  When will it all end?
    
    /George

    To suggest that if either the IRA of the British Govt made the first
    move and the other reciprocated then the problem would be solved is, at
    best, extremely naive.
    
    FACT. In the last two years, Loyalist paramilitaries have killed more people
    than the Nationalist ones have.*   The minute the British Army withdraw,
    there will be no holding these people back. They will continue to kill,
    torture and maim catholics even more vigorously than before because
    THEY (the Unionist paramilitaries) will see themselves as living under
    a government that does not represent them. So like it or not, the
    presence of the British Army in NI protects the nationalist community
    from the UVF, UFF etc.   
    
    As a footnote, there have been more murders in Strathclyde (where I
    live) than in NI in the last six months.  Do any Americans give a damn
    about that ?  No, I thought not.
    
    
    Have a nice day,
    
    Mark

    No, not really. the IRA have stated that if Britain declares
    its intent to withdraw, they will call a cease-fire.  That is
    a fact.
    
    I agree with you that Loyalist paras have of late been responsible
    for more murders in NI.  And I would agree that if the British
    Army left today, that there would be an huge increase in violence,
    especially by loyalist paras.
    
    Knowing that, I think it would be quite sensible to have a phased
    British withdrawal from NI.  This could take 10 or 15 years or so.
    The British could gradually give back local authority to some
    sort of power-sharing authority in NI under the auspices of Dublin
    & London.  Similar to the Anglo-Irish accord I suppose.
    
    In any form of British withdrawal there is likely to be an some
    increase in violence.
    
    By the way, the Unionists have been living under a government that
    doesn't represent them for some time now.  I think we could both
    agree that they should govern themselves again.
    
    I don't know how your footnote pertains to NI.  There are more
    murders in NYC each year than in all of NI.  So what?
    
    /George 

    The phased withdrawal of British forces from Ireland can be
    supplanted by integrating the police forces of both the Republic
    and NI.  That means some number of Garda go serve in the North
    and some number of RUC serve in the south.  By integrating the
    police forces, no longer would the RUC be seen as an oppresive
    force by the nationalists.  I believe it would be then easier to
    recruit Catholics into the RUC.
    
    Yes, Northern Ireland can keep some form of local government
    under a federal structure of Ireland.  Heck, it might even make
    economic sense to add the 3 remaining counties in Ulster to NI
    as one political unit.  Donegal certainly could use more jobs
    and tourism.
    
    But ultimately, the British Army must declare its intention to
    end partition and remove itself from Northern Ireland.  Leave
    Ireland to the Irish.
    
    /George

    Return of authority to local organizations in NI is important, I
    believe, in anything that is done in NI, eventually leading to true
    "home-rule" then perhaps to re-unification with the Republic.  Such a
    return of local control needs to be done gradually and with great
    forethought so that the shock of the change does not blast the country
    as it did the Soviet Union and most of its satellites.  Look at the
    republics that used to be Yugoslavia to see what can happen when order
    imposed from without, suddenly vanishes.  One thing I think needs to be
    done in NI now, is that the British Government must enforce the law
    equally on all parties, regardless of loyalty, so-called religion, or
    other affiliation and it must be enforced from street toughs throwing
    rocks to terrorists firebombing pubs, setting explosives in tube
    stations, or attacking catholics on their way home from church.  This
    enforcement of the law must also be exercised on the British Army in
    garrison in NI, who, most likely, are guilty of infractions of law and
    certainly overzealousness in the line of duty as well as fear based
    reactions such as undisciplined fire.
    	The biggest mistake that could be made would be an immediate
    withdrawal of all control and assets, casting the nation into anarchy. 
    Such a situation would definitely result in terrible violence, this
    last to be avoided at all costs.  Also, in any solution, the problems
    associated with inevitable absorption of NI into the Republic as
    regards intrusions of catholic church mores and traditions into public
    law must be addressed for all demographic groups in NI who are used to
    quite different rules.  Protection of the rights of protestants must
    also be addressed in the eventuality of reunification in order to limit
    any violence resulting from the (perceived) disenfranchisement of the
    protestant/unionist population of NI.
    	Inevitably there will be difficulties with hard-liner nationalists
    and unionists who absolutely will not accept the specific terms of the
    deal and they will need to be dealt with vigorously and evenhandedly
    lest a situation like NI be created in the Republic.  With some
    reservations I agree with our Mr. Darcy, I believe that Britain would
    be just as happy to be rid of NI and all it's problems, though I also
    believe that NI could be quite peaceful and happy under British rule
    should all parties involved grow up and learn to cooperate with one
    another, after all, many different ethinic groups live together in
    England in relative peace, also in most other nations in  the world,
    even in the U.S. with all its violence, most is caused by economic
    pressures rather than ethnic, although there are racial difficulties in
    the U.S. few break down along perceived religious lines, if any. 
    
    Despite what some might think, I am not a British partizan, I am not so
    stupid as to believe that all the problems in NI are the fault of the
    IRA or the so-called catholics, neither am I so nationalistic as to
    throw all the blame on Britain, though doubtless a great deal of the
    problem could have been solved from the very start if someone had
    exercised a little common sense and justice.  What I deplore is the
    violence and the terrorism inflicted by radicals of both sides against
    innocents in the name of "the war".  There is government oppression in
    NI against "catholic" populations, why this is the case is not that
    much of a mystery really since most attacks on British Army units and
    British government officials are perpetrated by nationalist elements,
    almost all of whom are nominally catholic and since they wear no
    uniforms and strike without warning, the british Army and RUC units are
    definitely paranoid as regards where a threat may come from since any
    uniformed person is a big bullseye in an urban situation.  It is a
    really nasty situation over there for the people because they are being
    treated like suspects by the military and police, as well as for the
    military and police since they are always looking over their shoulders
    and wondering where the next shot is going to come from.
    
    It is a fact that urban warfare is the most dangerous form of
    conventional combat, especially when an organized uniformed force is
    fighting a geurilla force that wears no uniforms and who know the
    territory well.  Urban environments offer snipers endless places to
    hide, run and take cover.  There is a lot of hard cover in urban areas
    that can withstand small arms fire, obviously people on the insode of
    buildings are better able to take advantage of that cover and
    concealment.  A soldier or police officer walking down a street is
    exposed from multiple angles and directions as well as greater ranges,
    with little cover or concealment.  In contrast he is fighting a force
    that can only be reliably identified after they have been observed
    firing upon a soldier or police officer, and by that point, it is in
    many cases, too late.  If the soldier or officer is then able to return
    fire, they are faced with the probability that the target has ducked
    behind a wall next to their firing point, or ducked into a doorway or
    something.  The window of opportunity to return fire in an urban
    situation is often less than one second.  The soldier is at a major
    disadvantage and the mindset is eroded, in the case on NI I am certain
    certain rules of engagement have been modified to limit the degree of
    disadvantage, the result is infringement of citizens rights and a
    higher than acceptable level of wrongful shootings.  This is not right
    from a civilian, legal or moral point of view, from a military point of
    view it is an act of self-preservation in hostile territory.  I do not
    condone the behavior, but I understand at least that aspect of it.
    
    Just an observation from a military point of view.
    
    Andrew