#pro irish reunification

[stay-pos-cos]

Did anyone else grow up to be anti-imperialist because of A Bug's Life? Like it's how I was able to understand the Irish "Famine" and civil war.

Is this too niche?

[brw]

Taking the phrase Irish reunification away from Americans until you guys bother to learn actual Northern Irish and Republic of Ireland politics. You cannot use one screenshot from a Star Trek episode as your entire basis for understanding an incredibly tense subject that has years of civil tension and intense religious divides backed by a very long history of colonialism in Ireland as a whole. It is frankly getting embarrassing!!

[cruelsister-moved2]

who knows hopefully this will age really badly but i wish americans understood that there could never be an irish reunification like. anywhere in our lifetime probably. and if there WAS it would most likely provoke a brutal civil war. and most importantly - due to said threat of civil war - most people who actually live in the north just want like. peace. equality. an end to sectarianism. and not to be cynical but irish reunification wouldn’t actually do much to address the issues faced there i.e poverty, sectarianism, lack of healthcare/womens & LGBT rights etc etc. which are issues with their roots in british occupation so you know it’s all delicately interconnected but its mildly frustrating to see the sopping wet kitten of europe like only ever being discussed as revolution fantasy material for irish americans 😐

[werewolfetone]

Actually let me put this in its own post. it's so wild how it genuinely seems to have never once crossed the minds of the majority of data meme "pro irish reunification" online posters that there could be anyone in ireland who might have the slightest objection to immediate reunification. "oh if the british government just does this they will instantly be able to--" have you ever seen a bonfire before 🎤

[quark-nova]

Last time a king had a reign that short it ended with Ireland ditching the whole monarchy thing.

Today, Northern Ireland got a pro-reunification First Minister for the first time.

Maybe Data was right about the Irish Reunification of 2024?

[phantom-of-the-memes]

from someone from the north i’m curious,(in your personal experience)what does the republic think of the irish in the north, do they want unification, or do they not care for us?(not attacking just curious as i don’t talk to many people from the south )

That’s a great question honestly.

In my experience from where I’ve gone to school and lived in the south, people are very idealistically pro “free the six counties”, “up the ra”, etc. I’ve yet to meet someone from the south who thinks otherwise.

I think we all want reunification and are quite republican, but through the veil of our safety and our ignorance in the south, if you get what I’m saying?

Like we’re very anti-English and death to the English monarchy. I remember being about ten when Queen Elizabeth visited the republic for the first time. Even as young as that, my classmates and I were joking about assassinating her and hoping someone would.

But again I think it’s easy for us to speak on matters of the north because we don’t suffer the consequences of any of them.

If you ask anyone here about actual northern politics and what social issues are happening there, they wouldn’t have a clue. I actively seek out information and news on northern politics, but not many people would.

We learn about the troubles in history and a bit of politics, but not a lot. Mostly what people in class would have to say about the troubles is supportive of the IRA.

So whether it’s that these people truly care for the north or it’s just about screwing over the English in a way that will hardly affect us, I’m not sure.

We don’t have the trauma youse have that could inform on how best to go about reunification.

So overall all yeah, I think southerners see northerners as our siblings who were separated from us. That’s how I see you anyways.

[news247worldpressposts]

#Breaking: #NorthernIreland has appointed #MichelleO'Neill as the first Irish nationalist leader in its history after an agreement with pro-#UK unionists

Northern Ireland has appointed Michelle O’Neill as the first Irish nationalist leader in its history after an agreement with pro-UK unionists. The development is seen by many as a milestone on the path to reunification. Source: X

[notquitetwilight]

there's some weird-ass pro-british people floating around your blog rn, so i just thought id let you know that in one of my classes today we were talking about the royals, and someone put "GB get tf out of Ireland" in the chat and it got a million of the little "^^^^" comments and someone wrote "IRELAND FOREVER" and it made me think of you

this is iconic and it seriously brightens my mood to know that universally people prefer ireland to britain but also that irish republicanism makes u think of me 🥺👉🏻👈🏻💖💞💘💓💕💗

[bondsmagii]

Does ireland have a more plausible path to reunification now that football fingers is in charge?

literally being 100% serious here but Ireland is going to reunify sometime over the next decade or so. here's how I think it's gonna happen.

Brexit has fucked over Northern Ireland exponentially. there's a border in the Irish Sea, effectively cutting off the whole island anyway, and any hard border on the land itself is going to be impossible. it's just not practical, because when Ireland was partitioned they did such a stupid job of it. I mean, the border runs through towns, farmland, and even people's houses. a hard border (with customs and immigration control and all the expected shit) would just not be feasable. what are you gonna do? stop people bringing their sheep from field to barn because one's in the EU and the other isn't? stop people from bringing their grocery shopping from the front door to the kitchen because the kitchen is the EU and the meat is from outside the EU? come on.

so Northern Ireland has become a pain in Britain's arse again, and this time they can't shoot at the problem or unlawfully detain and torture it, so they're going to go for the other tried and tested British reaction to a problem: they're going to listen closely and think practically. ha! no. they're going to ignore it. so Northern Ireland is going to continue to get fucked over, with more issues with operating businesses, supply chains to supermarkets and the NHS, uncertainty, general inconvenience, etc. alongside this is the growing cost of living crisis in the rest of the UK, which is felt all the more in Northern Ireland because it's always been Britain's lowest priority, so there is no longer any convenience or security in remaining part of the union. this is going to piss off moderate unionists, and it's going to really piss off all the Protestants who used to not give a shit at all. only the hardliners are going to remain loyal to a union who doesn't give a shit about them, and those guys are sticks in the mud. you're never going to persuade them to use their noggins, and they're such a minority at this point that they're not worth listening to. gradually, this dissatisfaction and annoyance is going to turn to anger and disgust, and the majority required for reunification is going to appear.

I have seen this start to happen already. I cannot tell you the amount of ex-unionists I've seen who have changed their tune completely, realising as they have that Britain has never cared about them. I have seen regular non-political Protestants getting so pissed off about this that they've gone full pro-unification. I've seen Protestants, who formerly exclusively described themselves as British, claiming their right to an Irish passport and beginning to describe themselves as Irish Protestant. this is unprecedented. and I have seen it happening a lot. if the Republic is down for it, and the people vote it, and Britain keeps its promise, this is very plausible. the only thing I would be :/ about is the Britain keeping its promise part, but Northern Ireland is now such an inconvenience for it re: Brexit meaning Brexit (🙄) that I think they'd be happy to let us go lmao.

(yes, this will cause trouble with some of the hardline loyalists. I imagine there will be some civil unrest and a few shootings. but the loyalist paramilitaries were always backed up by the British military, and without them they're pure shite. couldn't hit a barn door with a bazooka, as my old man used to say.)

anyway tiocfaidh ár lá, probably in 2024.

[somethingusefulfromflorida]

All joking aside, Prince Philip’s death could very well pave the way for the abolition of the monarchy within our lifetime.

He wasn’t the king, he was the prince consort, just the husband of the ruling queen, politically insignificant; if Elizabeth had died before him, he wouldn’t have become king, it would have passed directly to their son Charles. His death is largely irrelevant for succession and the continued existence of the monarchy, but it paves the way for a more significant death, that of Elizabeth herself.

Elderly couples, especially those who have been together for decades, tend to die shortly after one another, overcome by stress and grief. In the US, former first lady Barbara Bush died in April 2018, followed shortly by her husband president George Bush Sr that November. Now, I don’t know how much of Elizabeth and Philip’s relationship was based on real love ad how much was for appearance’s sake, but I have to assume that the queen isn’t going to just get over this like it was nothing. She’s in relatively good health and could potentially have lived to be as old as her mother had, 101, but now I think she’s going to slowly deteriorate. She has the best healthcare on the entire planet, so it’s not like she’s just going to up and die tomorrow, but I figure her lifespan will be cut short by at least a few years than it otherwise would have been.

This is significant because the UK has never had a monarch like her. She SHATTERED the record for longest reign, which will likely go unbroken for centuries as it would require someone to ascend to the throne at a very young age and then live to be almost 100. Charles and William and George will be old when they take the throne (I don’t expect George to be king until the 2060s or 70s. As life expectancy increases, it’s unlikely a king or queen will die with any youthful heirs; they’d all be middle aged)

Elizabeth is an outlier. She is beloved in ways that Charles never will be. She is seen as England Incarnate, she’s been around so long that she’s become their mascot. People can’t imagine an England without her, she’s part of the background, she comes with the drapery! When she dies, Charles won’t be nearly as popular as she is; politicians and public figures haven’t grown up under his reign, generations haven’t lived and died, he hasn’t cemented himself as part of the cultural zeitgeist like she has.

I think once Elizabeth dies (place your bets; I’m guessing 2022 or 2023), there will be greater calls for the abolition of the monarchy. That’s not to say the monarchy will be immediately dissolved, just that it will become more politically and socially acceptable for people to call for its dissolution. When Elizabeth is gone, people will start to question why there even needs to be a monarchy in the first place.

It will become a partisan political issue; Tories will support the monarchy, while Labour will waffle back and forth about whether or not to commit to choosing a side one way or the other contingent on the results of the next election. SNP, Sinn Fein, and the Lib Dems will be staunch republicans (meaning they’ll support a republic, not to be confused with the American definition of Republican which is the exact opposite). The reign of King Charles III will be a window for abolitionists and Celtic nationalists; I figure there will be another Scottish independence referendum, maybe even talks of Irish reunification as the aftermath of Brexit threatens to reignite the Troubles. The future of the monarchy depending on how the UK responds to upcoming and as yet unforeseen political crises. There will be wars and recessions and partisan squabbling over whose fault the wars and recessions are, but if the UK suffers unduly then Charles will become the perfect scapegoat. Conservatives will call for his abdication to make way for the extremely popular Will and Kate, while the opposition will call for total abolition. If it’s not dissolved under Charles, then it never will be. William is more popular than his father, and Kate is beloved like Princess Di. Once they’re on the throne, popular support for republicanism will evaporate.

I see a European war on the horizon as Russia continues to interfere in eastern Ukraine and the Caucasus mountains and perhaps even the Baltics. NATO might try to step in and launch coalition forces against Russia (or more likely they’d start a proxy war, funding and selling arms to local forces to fight the pro-Russian rebels; Cold War 2.0), at which point the UK will go full isolationist and withdraw from the alliance. Conservatives will call for a NATO Brexit, “Nexit” if you will.

The death of Prince Philip is a meme right now, but I think it will have major political implications in the coming decades. His death is the first domino to fall, but there’s no way of knowing whether it’ll start a full cascade or if it’ll fizzle out and leave the rest of the dominos standing for future generations to try and topple. When Liz dies, I give 25 - 33% odds of abolition, if Labour can grow some balls and appoint a leader who actually inspires people.

[thelearnedwobbly]

See normally I'd just block this and move on, because while this is just plain wrong, and not only that, it's dangerously wrong, I normally just do not have the wherewithal to unpack posts like these, nor do I typically have the leg to stand on, but someone I care about deeply reblogged this, so I feel a need to unpack the assumptions being made here.

I'm Irish. Should mention that up front. I have family who fought in our wars of independence going back literally centuries, and I can literally name family members who fought with the Fenian Brotherhood and the First IRA, including survivors of the Easter Rising, Irish War of Independence, and Irish Civil War(incidentally my great granddad was all three)

The cause of Irish independence is extremely deeply held to me, and realistically if I'd been born a couple decades earlier I probably would have been a Provo.

And before someone makes the argument that that makes me a hypocrite, that if I support Irish independence and the reunification with the occupied North then I must be racist--I support free Palestine. I believe that they have every right to live safe and happy lives without the IDF brutalising them, without the threat of bombs or rockets or tanks destroying their homes. I believe that they deserve to be fully independent and equal members of the international community. Hell, I'm an anarchist, so I'd rather we tear down borders altogether, but we're not there yet, so I'll settle for harm reduction and national sovereignty.

The problem is that this entire argument I keep seeing--that Palestine are just defending themselves, that they're freedom fighters no different from any others, that they're only being called terrorists due to racism or zionism or islamophobia--is predicated on a massive logical fallacy.

It's one that a lot of bad actors--including those in Israel--are counting on you to not notice.

Hamas is not Palestine.

This is not a case where the people attacking Israel are a group of grassroots freedom fighters who just want a better world. Hamas are a theocratic authoritarian minority government with a massive paramilitary wing that is occupying the Gaza Strip. The IDF do not have a formal presence inside the Strip, but Hamas does.

Hamas are not freedom fighters. Their founding charter calls for the extermination of all Jewish people. It calls not for a free Palestine but for a mass pogrom of Israelis, and the establishment of a far-right islamist regime instead.

Hamas opened this war by killing thirteen hundred innocent people. And you can try to claim that they were 'settler-colonials' or whatever buzzword is the current way to describe living, breathing, thinking, feeling, hoping people--many of whom in the Kibbutzes Hamas destroyed wholesale, slaughtering children alongside noncombatants--were pro-peace activists. Leftists and progressives who wanted the same thing this post ostensibly does.

Palestine and Hamas are not interchangeable. Hamas is not the only possible answer--they are not an example of extremists being the only ones willing to fight, as sometimes happens in history, and I know this, because Fatah is right there.

Fatah, who have a democratic majority in the West Bank. Fatah, who want a peaceful two-state solution. Fatah, who have a militant wing they use when necessary. Fatah, who do not use their citizens' bodies as human shields. Fatah, who do not call for the extermination of their enemies, down to the last man, woman, and child.

Men, women, and children who did not ask to be born in Israel. Innocent people whose only 'crime' is of faith. People whose ancestors moved to Israel on a broken British promise, just two years after the end of World War Two and the Holocaust. People who, until the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin, had a real chance at peace through negotiations with Fatah...until the far-right of Israel shot that peace dead, then tore up the Oslo Accords and took power.

The Israeli government under Likud are absolutely an increasingly-corrupt right-wing regime intent on theocratic and autocratic rule...but the Israeli people are not their government any more than Palestine is Hamas. This is not a war of revolution, and Hamas are not freedom fighters, any more than Likud and the current IDF are liberators or whatever propaganda they're spouting right now. But they were attacked first, and not in the manner of a freedom fighter; not in the desperate use of limited force against civilian officials because every other option has been closed to them; wanton, pointless slaughter and kidnapping; rape and torture of random, innocent Israelis, many of whom were anti-Likud. The IDF had entire units on strike due to Netanyahu's attempts to gut the judiciary and increase his own power; there were protests in the streets. And then Hamas killed their families and kidnapped their friends, and many of them picked up weapons to defend themselves. Do you blame them?

There is no easy 'good guy' or 'bad guy' here, and I question Tumblr's current fixation on trying to find one; sometimes, two right-wing regimes hellbent on establishing theocratic rule go at each other, and the civilians--and the people who actually want to fix the problems of their forefathers--get caught in the middle. That is who you should root for.

I just...do not understand how so many people who should know better have failed to research this before making their voices heard; I barely understood this conflict a year ago, and I have refrained from saying anything until I'd done my own independent research. Now I can avoid putting my foot in my mouth, and I'm so late to the races I'm seeing people I genuinely care about claiming an antisemitic terror organisation are comparable to an Irish nationalist militia whose primary motivation when the fighting began was preventing pogroms against catholic neighbourhoods. And that really fucking hurts, to say nothing of how badly my Jewish friends are hurting to see leftists and progressives unbashedly rooting for Hamas or framing the IDF as intrinsically evil; claiming that Jewish people in Israel should pay for the mistakes of terrified ancestors and the idiocy of the British government of the late 1940s. Even if you don't mean to be antisemitic, even if you just care deeply and want to avoid seeming like you're sitting this one out, I promise you, the people you're trying to support wouldn't want you to root for their oppressors--whether that's Hamas or Likud.

I'm trying to find a pithy or cathartic way to end this. I can't. This is a humanitarian tragedy with no easy answers, and people I know don't mean to are repeating propaganda uncritically from both sides because they don't want to be seen to be silent--take the time, breathe, think about what these posts are trying to sell you, and do your own research. And I get that this is a busy, shitty world, with a lot going on, and you can't always make that time, but if you can't do that, you need to try to avoid weighing in, because you're extremely liable to do more harm than good. And I don't mean 'boost people who seem to know what they're talking about', I mean don't even reblog a post if you can't vet it, because the information war is active, and you are very likely to become a casualty.

you know when irish people were fighting for freedom the rebels were never considered revolutionaries or freedom fighters. we had only ever been called terrorists by the british government, because when you call a people fighting for their rights and their freedoms terrorists you can distance yourself from them. people aren't fighting because they've been radicalised by 800 years of colonialism or 75 years of brutal settler imperialism, they're fighting because they're dirty terrorists trying to hurt our democracy and kill our children. and now we don't have any responsibility to reckon with the years of subjugation and settler violence and attempted genocide, because how can you expect us to deal with terrorists? the same story repeats itself over and over n it's shocking how people will eat it up every time when it comes to protecting and maintaining western power.

[pyaasa]

lesbiansandgayssupporttheminers is racist; she thinks she understands racism better than poc, stands by racists, and attacks poc for trying to speak to her about racism

Tw: racism, rape mention, incest mention. also possible transphobia 

For the full story, you first need a bit of background: if you’ve been following me for a while then you will be aware I have called out @ayeforscotland’s racism several times. I would recommend reading this post for a full explanation.

In addition to the incidences mentioned in the post I have just linked, ayeforscotland has also had interactions with neo @androidgynes who is Romani and another person who is black (but didn’t want to be named) and they’ve both also called him out for his racism.

Anyway so. @androidgynes​ saw that lesbiansandgayssupporttheminers was reblogging from ayeforscotland, and that the op of the post was @/getpoliticaluk (who defends incest). Androidgynes messaged lesbiansandgayssupporttheminers (who I will from now refer to as lagstm) and informed her that ayeforscotland is racist and getpoliticaluk defends incest - the conversation that followed went like this. (the below screenshots are posted with permission from @androidgynes​)

The post that neo (@androidgynes) linked of mine was this. And I mean... clearly that particular post by ayeforscotland was very racist, he literally just sat there laughing about anti-black racism as if it was a joke. When @mangopickled​ tried to speak to him about how offensive this post was, he removed her comments from the notes of the post (like. to be clear: ayeforscotland, a WHITE MAN, made a post about racism, and then removed a WOMAN OF COLOUR’S commentary from that post when she told him that his comments were inappropriate). When I saw that, I called that out, and he blocked me. There’s many levels to his racism here that I don’t have the energy to explain, and if you don’t understand why it’s so problematic then you should probably stop reading here cos you clearly know nothing and probably care even less about anti-racism.

So on that particular post that neo linked to lagstm, there is ayeforscotland being racist, and 2 woc calling out his racism. And yet on having this post shown to her, this is how she chose to respond

lagstm literally says that she thinks my views on racism lack nuance. I am a woman of colour, I am visibly muslim, and I’ve experienced racism pretty much all my life. And here is a white woman saying that she thinks my views on racism “lack nuance”. I,, I genuinely don’t have words to convey how angry this makes me. Literally who does she even think she is. Not even is it racist to dismiss my literal LIVED experience of being a woman of colour in this country, but she is literally saying “look at these stupid brown folk, they don’t know what they’re talking about cos they’re so stupid :)”

neo points out firstly that as a white person lagstm doesn’t have the right to make that call, and also that there is ofc another woc on that post saying that exact same thing, and androidgynes themselves are roma. lagstm is not just dismissing me as a stupid savage who is too stupid to form complex thoughts, but she is also indirectly saying the same thing about 2 other poc, and saying that her judgement, as a white person, is more sound than all of ours.

It���s also worth mentioning that neo, who is Romani, was polite to lagstm during this exchange, and lagstm was rude and dismissive. I find this deeply hypocritical. Lagstm has been talking a lot about the policing bill and how it will affect GRT communities, but when she’s talking to someone who is actually *from* the Roma community, she is dismissive and condescending. All this shows is that she’s fake AF. She pretends to care about the Roma community on her blog and then speaks down to them in private.

And again this is worth repeating: AYEFORSCOTLAND WAS BEING RACIST ON THAT POST. IT WAS RACIST. WHAT HE SAID WAS RACIST. So lagstm isn’t just ignoring 3 poc, she is also ignoring,,,, you know,,, the actual racism,,,

And she also says ayeforscotland is borderline racist? Like she acknowledges ayeforscotland is borderline racist but she’s still happy to follow him? Like that alone would be enough for me actually

neo then blocked lagstm and messaged me and told me what happened, and showed me the above screenshots - btw prior to this neo and I had never interacted. Anyway I was obviously a bit disgusted but instead of going straight to blocking lagstm or making a callout post straight away, I messaged her to explain herself and take back what she said. That is now two poc who tried to resolve the matter privately - clearly a lot more than lagstm ever deserved. Androidgynes messaged me last Friday, and I messaged lagstm the next day on Saturday

My convo with lagstm went as follows:

So you can see that initially she was apologetic and said she “didn’t mean to imply that that my judgement on racism was flawed” (even tho that’s literally what she said) and defended herself by saying “I react poorly in interactions like this” - genuinely not a defence but whatever. She then proceeded to say that what she doesn’t trust my opinion on is Scotland and Ireland - which completely irrelevant. Firstly I am ambivalent to Scottish nationalism and have always said I don’t know much about it, and I support the reunification of Ireland. And secondly, my issue with aye has got literally nothing to do with Scotland or Scottish nationalism; he is racist all on his own. And the post neo linked was barely even about scottish nationalism, it was just him being anti-black. So lagstm saying “I don’t trust your judgement on Scotland and Ireland” is ridiculous considering that Scottish/Irish nationalism have nothing to do with this.

Like akjfbkjdfbs this is actually so ridiculous. It doens’t make any sense. Lagstm clearly says “I don’t trust pakisstani’s judgement on THIS issue [the issue being racism] and her views on THIS issue [the issue being racism] lack nuance” but now turns around and says “I wasn’t talking about racism, I was talking about Scotland/Ireland” like she must really think I’m dumb

And you can see Lagstm bringing up unrelated hypothetical scenarios, and saying “in this situation, you can’t tell me to defer to poc” which i found ??? Like why are you bringing up scenarios in which you think you are allowed to educate us poor and stupid black and brown folk?? I then told her she was straw-manning and that her points about Ireland/Scotland were ridiculous, but then she claimed it was me that was engaging her in bad faith. Like SHE, the white woman who practically said that I am too stupid to understand racism, and when confronted on it started straw-manning and bringing up unrelated scenarios, said I am not engaging her in good faith. AFTER both neo and I tried to speak to her privately about this. Like I tried to speak to her privately AFTER I FOUND OUT SHE HAD SAID RACIST THINGS ABOUT ME. BUT I’M NOT ENGAGING HER IN GOOD FAITH? LMAOOO

And then the accusation about rape threats which is actually the most disgusting part of this entire thing. I shouldn’t have to explain that accusing 2 poc of conspiring to send her rape threats (without any evidence whatsoever. Frankly I think she’s lying about the rape threats 🤷🏽‍♀️ it’s quite a transparent attempt to distract from her own nasty behaviour and deflect onto us) is actually extremely racist. She is invoking her white fragility and painting me and androidgynes as aggressors who are threatening her safety and inflicting/threatening to inflict sexual violence on her. It is beyond disgusting 🤮

What’s more, neo is trans, so when lagstm is baselessly accusing them of issues related to rape, she is also playing up to transphobic tropes.

One more thing worth mentioning is that there are several lies peppered throughout lagstm’s comments. Firstly when she claimed to have briefly unfollowed me - she didn’t actually. I was checking regularly, and she never unfollowed me. This was a small lie that I picked up on striaght away but because it wasn’t relevant I didn’t say anything about it. But I just think it’s interesting that she would lie for no reason. And another lie - feigning ignorance about ayeforscotland’s racism, and actually even asking for receipts is incredibly disingenuous when on this particular post, if you scroll through the notes, you can see she has literally liked it. Like she had already seen the posts where me and mangopickled called out his racism and literally LIKED it, and when neo says to lagstm that aye is racist, lagstm says “receipts please :)” YOU’VE ALREADY SEEN THEM! AND LIKED THEM! screenshot in case she unlikes it (sorry for including dumb comments by dumb scots but i need to prove it’s the same post so):

LASTLY. Last point I swear. When lagstm said “it was also coloured by the statements they’d made about another tumblr user, which didn’t relate to racism, which I didn’t address with them because I didn’t want to upset them” <- she must mean getpoliticaluk defending incest? So like what is lagstm saying here, she didn’t want to bring up that she also herself defends incest?? Like is she tryna say she’s a pro-shipping freak?????????????????????? What other way is there to read that statment

Okay that’s everything.

I’m not interested in discourse on this post - if you are white and think lagstm isn’t racist or you’re inclined to defend her then save your breath, I don’t need white people telling me what is or isn’t racist. I gave her the chance to defend herself, which is way more than she deserves, and this is how she responds. Her actions and indefensible and she can choke ☺️❤️  I will be unfollowing/blocking anyone I see reblogging from her because I deserve better than to follow people who are ok with racists ❤️ 

[politicotalk]

The impact of Brexit on Northern Ireland

On the 23rd of June, 2016, the United Kingdom’s population went to the polls and voted whether or not they wanted to stay a part of the European Union. The result was shortly declared: 51.89% of the population was in favour of leaving the Union. Even so, a majority of the population of Northern Ireland voted to remain. It’s possible the population understood the consequences of Brexit, and the impact it had on them, being the only part of the UK not in Great Britain and sharing a land border with a member of the European Union, the Republic of Ireland.

To understand the impact of Brexit on Northern Ireland, we must first understand the history of Northern Ireland: from the Troubles to the signing of the Good Friday Agreement in 1998. It is also necessary to understand the content of the Good Friday Agreement. Afterwards, we will discuss the impact of Brexit and the major problem that will bring imposing a hard border, and the consequence it poses on people’s opinion as to remaining or leaving the United Kingdom.

History

Before we talk about the issues brought in by Brexit, it is important to talk about the history of Northern Ireland.

For centuries, Ireland was controlled by Great Britain and was a part of the Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. With the Irish language being outlawed, differences were marked significantly in religion, Great Britain was mostly protestant and Ireland, Catholic. Nevertheless, areas in Ulster, in the North of Ireland, had a significant protestant population. The Irish had made several rebellions against the British occupants, but these really picked up in the beginning of the 20th century, bringing in the creation of Sinn Fein, a nationalist party popular especially amongst Catholics, in favour of home rule. To simplify the events up to World War I, a Ireland was seeing a lot of violence between British and Irish.

World War I put a pause to negotiations, as Britain’s attention was on the front. This didn’t put a stop to violence in Ireland nevertheless, and might have actually worked in favour of Ireland’s independence. Realizing that they had to quickly before losing everything, Britain passed the Government of Ireland Act in 1921. This split Ireland into two parts: 26 counties would be independent and form the Republic of Ireland, and six counties, in the North where most Irish protestants lived would remain under British occupation and form Northern Ireland.

Almost immediately, troubles arose in Northern Ireland. These troubles became more intense starting in the 1960’s and peaking in the 70’s. This period in question is known as the Troubles. In this time, the Irish National Army, or IRA was formed, a pro-nationalist terrorist group. This group was opposed to the British Army, both responsible for the deaths of many civilians. From the 1970’s, many talks were made between nationalists and unionists in favour of peace, but these never brought any solutions. It wasn’t until 1994 that Northern Ireland saw a paramilitary ceasefire and 1998 until the Good Friday agreement was signed.

 The Good Friday Agreement

Before diving into issues in Northern Ireland, it is very important to understand what the Good Friday Agreement is. This was an agreement signed between the Republic of Ireland, the United Kingdom and members of Northern Ireland, voted in favour by adults in Northern Ireland, became active in December 1998 and agreed on the following.

1. The creation of a Northern Irish Assembly at Stormont. 2. The North-South Ministerial Council 3. The British-Irish Council

The Northern Irish Assembly, simply put, is an assembly created for Northern Ireland to debate issues that fall under Northern Irish legislation, issues brought in by devolution, which were previously decided by Westminster. There would be two leaders with equal power, a First Minister, elected as leader of the party with the most votes, and a Deputy First Minister, leader of the party in the 2nd largest community designation. This means that one of these is a Unionist and the other, Nationalist. For the record, the DUP (Unionist) has always held the position of First Minister and Sinn Féin (Nationalist), Deputy. In this system, if either of the two resigns, the other one gets taken down and an election is called.

The North-South Ministerial Council was set up to develop cooperation between both northern and southern parts of Ireland. It created institutions for the promotion of social, economic benefits for the habitants of the island of Ireland.

On the question concerning whether Northern Ireland should remain part of the UK, it was agreed that this question can only be answered by the people of Northern Ireland alone, with agreement of the majority.

 Issues with Brexit

With Brexit and Britain’s will to put in place a hard border, this causes great issue for Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland relies on goods imported from Great Britain and Ireland trades a lot with Northern Ireland, goods that include milk and eggs, for example. This means that, by imposing a hard border, trading between the two will impose customs checks. This border, by default, would be placed between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Neither Northern Ireland nor the Republic of Ireland want this, as both countries’ economies are dependent of each other, and imposing customs borders would impose sanctions on certain goods. The idea of fences being built would also bring in memories of the Troubles, as described above, and could potentially cause tensions and violence to reignite. Another option that was brought forward was the idea of checking the content of trucks before they get to the border, either by checking the contents before reaching the border, or by using technology that could read the content of the cargo.

Another solution, brought by Brussels, is to push back the border to the Irish Sea. This would mean that Northern Ireland would be treated differently from the rest of the UK, therefore keeping Northern Ireland in the customs union. As it stands, the European Union does not allow the importation of chilled meat products from any non-EU members, meaning that, in this scenario, Great Britain would not be allowed to send meat products to Northern Ireland. The European Union is showing no signs to changing their policy in regards to this. A solution brought forward by Theresa May suggested keeping all of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in the customs union with the European Union, through her Soft Brexit approach. This approach, to place a border in the Irish Sea, is the approach that Boris Johnson favours.

Arlene Foster, then First Minister of Northern Ireland and leader of the DUP, sought to gain more advantages of this situation for the sake of Northern Ireland and refused May’s proposition. Meanwhile, in the UK, Theresa May was replaced by Boris Johnson who was more in favour of a Soft Brexit approach. Unfortunately for Foster, Johnson’s Conservatives had the majority in the Houses of Parliament and did not need the DUP’s support to pass the Brexit plan in Northern Ireland. This was a major slip for Foster who found herself obligated to resign, calling an election in Northern Ireland.

The issue with the impact of Brexit on Northern Ireland has long been debated to be an incentive for Northern Ireland to consider holding a referendum in regards to whether or not they would like to leave the UK or not. The tendency in Northern Ireland is for Catholics to be Nationalists and Protestants, to be Unionists, but this tendency is more blurred as religion is generally losing its impact on people’s political opinions. Several Protestants have expressed their annoyance and sense of betrayal in regards to Boris Johnson’s approach. In consequence, more and more people in Northern Ireland are reconsidering their political opinion. In 2012, 25% of the population was in favour of reunification and 55% people were in favour of remaining in the Union. In 2021, this number jumped to 40% for both opinions.

Several people are seeing Arlene Foster’s actions as having a direct impact on this rapid shift in opinion. By putting a border in place, this means that their closest trading neighbour, the Republic of Ireland, is a member of the EU. This means that regardless of the type of Brexit, Northern Ireland will still have to work closely with the EU in terms of trade. Furthermore, several British companies have seen this border as a burden, and have ceased trade to Northern Ireland. Now, we don’t need to worry, Northern Irish grocery stores’ shelves are not bare! Instead, there has been a shift to an “all island” economy that has been flourishing recently. Several experts have also pointed the finger at Boris Johnson for being the catalyst for the change in public political opinion.

Several supporters of a reunification are welcoming the difficulties that Brexit has brought. This is truly a big moment in the history of the island of Ireland. However, these same experts and politicians agree that a majority of the public is not in favour of a reunification, and that the moment still isn’t right for holding a referendum.

 Conclusion

Northern Ireland has had a very troubled history, which saw a lot of violence, terrorism and death brought to innocent people. This violence is still fresh in the minds of several people, and is a state to which the population does not wish to return. The consequences that Brexit would bring might have the consequence of reigniting these tensions and violence. Several solutions have been offered but all have very dire consequences. Though Brexit’s aim is to leave the EU, it might just cause a member to rejoin the United Kingdom as a consequence.

[werewolfetone]

Sorry for being a killjoy about this again and obviously I’m aware that getting this mad over a meme is pretty much pointless but this post which keeps showing up on my dash for some fucking reason pisses me off so bad because you ppl genuinely do not seem to realise that the entire population of britain could all individually come out as pro irish reunification and many of the people who are currently getting ready to do an orgy of british nationalism IN NORTHERN IRELAND for the next two months would not only still be there but would also still be genuinely willing to see people die to prevent it. but god forbid that someone point out that northern irish people have diverse and varied opinions on their own politics I guess

[butchnandos]

first essay of term is on Irish home rule and I didn't know shit about Irish history before three days ago (bc the British education system wants kids to think we're the good guys) and literally after two days of reading I'm completely anti-Unionist and lowkey... pro-reunification bc unionists don't speak for the whole of NI ygm

[sofiyaalexandrovnarostova]

y’all the amazon thing is funny and i’m pro-irish-reunification as they come too but can ignorant americans stop throwing around phrases like ‘tiocfaidh ár la’ and actually read up on the atrocities committed by the IRA against innocent civilians, do any of you realize how it makes you look