Article: "Divided Britain: What Morrissey's stance on the Falklands tells us about national unity" b

Not really unexpected I guess, considering the usual bandwagon jumping by the tabloids in Britain, but this is in today's Mirror. :mad:

mirror.jpg



Link to online version posted by MORRIZSEY (original post):

Divided Britain: What Morrissey's stance on the Falklands tells us about national unity - by Tony Parsons, The Mirror

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Peterb

Well-Known Member
Re: Article: "Divided Britain: What Morrissey's stance on the Falklands tells us abou

No, Peter, it isn't "a perfectly legitimate statement". Did you miss Morrissey making an arse of himself on the subject last summer? It was debated ad nauseum on here at the time, so I don't really want to re-open the discussion and derail this thread any further. However, what's "wrong with" that statement is that it's ... well ... wrong (and - to put it politely - more than a little offensive). I dunno if you noticed, but between the 1960s and 1990s there was a paramilitary conflict in Northern Ireland over precisely this question, in the process of which, more than three-and-a-half thousand people were killed. It was on the news a couple of times, so I'm sure you must've seen something. The Republic of Ireland is Irish; Northern Ireland is Northern Irish and British (just as people from England are English and British). Politically, legally, socially and in ethno-religious terms, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland are separate entities and the vast majority of Northern Irish people who live there - around 73%, according to research conducted in 2010 - have no wish for that to change.
But the border between the 2 countries is arbitrary, and was drawn by the British government to create a false majority. And yes, I did miss the debate you refer to.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Re: Article: "Divided Britain: What Morrissey's stance on the Falklands tells us abou

But the border between the 2 countries is arbitrary, and was drawn by the British government to create a false majority. And yes, I did miss the debate you refer to.

Nations are not naturally-occurring phenomena: they're socially constructed, actively produced and reproduced by communities of people. Northern Ireland is no different from anywhere else in that respect. To try to say that it is, in some way, an artificial entity is to base your conclusion on a false premise.

The thing about the border being "drawn by the British government to create a false majority" is problematic too for at least two reasons. Firstly, there's either a majority of people who want to maintain the Union or there isn't. That majority, as I mentioned in my last post, stands at more than 70% and includes, incidentally, more than 50% of Northern Ireland's Catholic population. Secondly, you're ignoring political context. The partition of Ireland took place in recognition of the fact a significant minority of people, concentrated in the north of the island, didn't want Ireland to have Home Rule and had taken steps (the formation of a mass civilian army and the procurement of arms) to resist governance by a monotheistic Irish state. Had Ireland not been partitioned under the Government of Ireland Act 1920, the result would have been a protracted, bloody civil war that would almost certainly have culminated in, and been settled by, some form of partition anyway.
 

Peterb

Well-Known Member
Re: Article: "Divided Britain: What Morrissey's stance on the Falklands tells us abou

Nations are not naturally-occurring phenomena: they're socially constructed, actively produced and reproduced by communities of people. Northern Ireland is no different from anywhere else in that respect. To try to say that it is, in some way, an artificial entity is to base your conclusion on a false premise.

The thing about the border being "drawn by the British government to create a false majority" is problematic too for at least two reasons. Firstly, there's either a majority of people who want to maintain the Union or there isn't. That majority, as I mentioned in my last post, stands at more than 70% and includes, incidentally, more than 50% of Northern Ireland's Catholic population. Secondly, you're ignoring political context. The partition of Ireland took place in recognition of the fact a significant minority of people, concentrated in the north of the island, didn't want Ireland to have Home Rule and had taken steps (the formation of a mass civilian army and the procurement of arms) to resist governance by a monotheistic Irish state. Had Ireland not been partitioned under the Government of Ireland Act 1920, the result would have been a protracted, bloody civil war that would almost certainly have culminated in, and been settled by, some form of partition anyway.
Your argument is from a particular political perspective. The Republican interpretation would be somewhat different. I, however, am way out of my depth here so will not engage and will acknowledge that my simply stating 'Ireland for the Irish' was glib, particlarly so if I am unable to hold up the argument.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Re: Article: "Divided Britain: What Morrissey's stance on the Falklands tells us abou

Your argument is from a particular political perspective. The Republican interpretation would be somewhat different. I, however, am way out of my depth here so will not engage and will acknowledge that my simply stating 'Ireland for the Irish' was glib, particlarly so if I am unable to hold up the argument.

Thank you for that, Peter. Yes, my perspective is subjective, and yes, an Irish nationalist might interpret the facts differently. They'd be entitled to do so, but either way, the facts that I've mentioned remain. The number of Northern Irish people who want to secede from the Union is small (approximately 16%, according to the aforementioned research), regardless of what Morrissey would have us believe. Just one other thing, I should've mentioned above, regarding the "false majority" argument: following thirty years of politically-motivated violence, a referendum was held in 1998 on both sides of the border on the question of Northern Ireland's constitutional position. More than 90% of people in the Republic (and over 71% in N.I.) expressed the view that Northern Ireland should remain an integral part of the UK for as long as a majority of people in Northern Ireland want that to be the case.

Sorry for derailing thread.
 

Peterb

Well-Known Member
Re: Article: "Divided Britain: What Morrissey's stance on the Falklands tells us abou

Thank you for that, Peter. Yes, my perspective is subjective, and yes, an Irish nationalist might interpret the facts differently. They'd be entitled to do so, but either way, the facts that I've mentioned remain. The number of Northern Irish people who want to secede from the Union is small (approximately 16%, according to the aforementioned research), regardless of what Morrissey would have us believe. Just one other thing, I should've mentioned above, regarding the "false majority" argument: following thirty years of politically-motivated violence, a referendum was held in 1998 on both sides of the border on the question of Northern Ireland's constitutional position. More than 90% of people in the Republic (and over 71% in N.I.) expressed the view that Northern Ireland should remain an integral part of the UK for as long as a majority of people in Northern Ireland want that to be the case.

Sorry for derailing thread.
Not at all. It's a pleasure to read the posts of someone who knows their subject.
 

Bagpuss

New Member
You can quote statistics and academic verbiage, but the fact remains - Ireland belongs to the Irish. The fact that a significant percentage of North Ireland wish to remain under British rule is nebulous to say the least. British Home Rule has caused such misery and English landowners were directly culpable for the horrendous "potato famine." Anway, I digress. Moz was wearing a lovely shirt in Peru.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Re: Article: "Divided Britain: What Morrissey's stance on the Falklands tells us abou

You can quote statistics and academic verbiage

Do you find that facts tend to cloud you judgement? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ArojhUeZ53s

Anyway, yes, I've backed up my arguments. Personally, I wouldn't have wanted to make a tit of myself by wading into a discussion about a sensitive political issue without first having marshaled at least a few elementary details that might prove relevant.

the fact remains - Ireland belongs to the Irish.

What does this mean? I mean that as a serious question. What do you want to convey with the words, "Ireland belongs to the Irish"? Clearly, you think it's a pretty snappy soundbite - you've used it a couple of times, now - but I need you to unpack it a little for me. I've referred you to the findings of empirical research and referenda results that substantiate what I've said. If you want, I can I give you successive Northern Irish election results which show that most people in Northern Ireland are happy with their status as UK citizens. I'm not sure what else I can do.

The fact that a significant percentage of North Ireland wish to remain under British rule is nebulous to say the least.

Okay, you've started, here, by saying that it's a "fact" that a significant percentage of Northern Irish people want to remain part of the UK and then seem to contradict yourself by saying that that's, somehow, a "nebulous" fact. What the f*** is a "nebulous fact"? Surely it's straightforwardly either a fact or it isn't. If you're trying to say that you don't believe that it's a fact, then at least make an effort to justify your certainty in that belief.

British Home Rule has caused such misery and English landowners were directly culpable for the horrendous "potato famine."

In your last post, you referred to the Falkland Islands as the Maldives and now you're talking about "British Home Rule", whatever that's supposed to mean. If you keep talking, there's a significant risk that you're gonna give the impression that you haven't a f***ing clue what you're talking about.
 

Trending Threads

Top Bottom