English Irish Republican? The F**k?

[CrikeyO]

Am I the only Englishman that believes Ireland should be its own, united country, free of English rule?

I have my own, rather consistant view of what I think is good for humanity in the long term. As someone who believes in a single global uber-goverment and a united humanity, I am not a big fan of creating more independant states of any sort. Simply put the more of them that come into being, the harder things get in the long term.

Let's say Ireland becomes independant, and then things go the way I'm hoping. In a couple of generations Ireland resists being merged into a global culture/goverment. I mean after all despite the passage of time they were 'just' made independant. It creates a big mess, and I'd rather not support an independant state that ultimatly has to be wiped out our conquered.

In general due to cultural similarities, mutal spread of ideas, etc... I see Britan/The UK as likely being one of the driving forces in getting all of this going. I'd rather see Ireland brought into the fold with them, and be a relatively minor issue, than see what amounts to a fiercely independant Ireland with it's own military needing to be conquered again, and probably by the same people.

Not everyone agrees with my overall "endgame", but most of what I think comes down to that thought process. I do not see Irish independance as being in the greater good for humanity as a whole.

I have similar opinions when it comes to China and Tibet. I'd rather deal with Tibet as part of China (whether it comes to war or otherwise) as opposed to freeing Tibet and then later having to absorb it seperatly.

A world united under one banner? By force if necessary? How is that at all feasible?

Anyway on topic, as someone who lives more or less on the Border and has seen and heard of a bit of the crap that went on up there during the Troubles, I'm in favour of the status quo. Any change should be made solely by the people of Northern Ireland without external pressure from either the Republic or the UK, it's their home and it's up to them to decide what to do with it.

Honestly though, reunification is beyond the motley crew we currently have running the Republic. In so many ways ...

 

[turbo4400]

Don't know much about the topic(stupid American), but has anyone seen the movie Bloody Sunday? That and the IRA are about the extent of my knowledge on the subject and i was wondering if anyone else had seen it and what they thought.

 

[Daveman]

Do you care that the majority of people in Northern Ireland identify themselves as British and want to be part of the United Kingdom?

Obviously this. That's why it stays separate. I've been there and they have more union flags and english and scottish flags than I've seen in any other part of the UK.

 

[Therumancer]

Am I the only Englishman that believes Ireland should be its own, united country, free of English rule?

I have my own, rather consistant view of what I think is good for humanity in the long term. As someone who believes in a single global uber-goverment and a united humanity, I am not a big fan of creating more independant states of any sort. Simply put the more of them that come into being, the harder things get in the long term.

Let's say Ireland becomes independant, and then things go the way I'm hoping. In a couple of generations Ireland resists being merged into a global culture/goverment. I mean after all despite the passage of time they were 'just' made independant. It creates a big mess, and I'd rather not support an independant state that ultimatly has to be wiped out our conquered.

In general due to cultural similarities, mutal spread of ideas, etc... I see Britan/The UK as likely being one of the driving forces in getting all of this going. I'd rather see Ireland brought into the fold with them, and be a relatively minor issue, than see what amounts to a fiercely independant Ireland with it's own military needing to be conquered again, and probably by the same people.

Not everyone agrees with my overall "endgame", but most of what I think comes down to that thought process. I do not see Irish independance as being in the greater good for humanity as a whole.

I have similar opinions when it comes to China and Tibet. I'd rather deal with Tibet as part of China (whether it comes to war or otherwise) as opposed to freeing Tibet and then later having to absorb it seperatly.

A world united under one banner? By force if necessary? How is that at all feasible?

Anyway on topic, as someone who lives more or less on the Border and has seen and heard of a bit of the crap that went on up there during the Troubles, I'm in favour of the status quo. Any change should be made solely by the people of Northern Ireland without external pressure from either the Republic or the UK, it's their home and it's up to them to decide what to do with it.

Honestly though, reunification is beyond the motley crew we currently have running the Republic. In so many ways ...

Well, whenever I get into this it turns into a massive essay/rant that few people read or care about. I'll try and post a somewhat shorter version.

In simplistic terms it comes down to the idea that I feel over a period of time the spread of ideals, marketing, and trade will lead to the dissolution of borders and more people coming around to a single way of thinking. You already see it now through things like the recognition of American brands and icons, how our ideals have influanced what is going on in the world (oftentimes without our direct intervention nowadays, the ideals having been spread by things like TV and Movies) and other things. A lot of the "national firewall programs" are a direct reaction to hardliners in a lot of countries fearing the influance of outside ideas and wanting to maintain their own identity (which to me is a bad thing speaking in a LONG term). Basically they don't want people to think, act, and hold the same ideas as Americans or other cultures. Without these firewalls, media limitations, and "cultural preservation" projects (which are a current issue) I think very much you will see a lot of unity taking place without a shot being fired. You might not see it right now, but if things continue I feel a lot of people will decide that simply merging would be the easiest thing to do for purpose of trade, language, currency, etc...

When it comes to the use of force, the basic point is that no matter what happens decades or even a century down the road there are going to be nations and cultures which are resistant to any kind of merger. Either through a sense of history, fierce independance, religion, racism, xenophobia, or anything else. Once a big enough merger exists them it will be time to focus attention on those who are unwilling to effectively join a single earth goverment. This will involve forced military assimilation or cultural (but not ethnic) "genocide" and absorbsion of the people. A no-exceptions policy would have to exist ranging from the smallest tribe, to the longest running civilized nation. Truthfully though my preferance is for a peaceful assimilation.

You might say "Therumancer, why would you even want something like that? Are you a Hitler type lunatic?" the answer is simply that I feel that it's nessicary. I feel that to seriously engage in space exploration and expansion, to obtain new resources, spread our populat, etc... we need to be able to make full use of Earth's resources. What's more if we DID ever meet another species out there we would need to be able to deal with them race to race, being seperated into nations each with it's own agenda, would put us at a massive disadvantage if we ever got that far. Most science fiction authors and such who approach the subject seriously agree with me, though oftentimes explain a planetary unity as having taken place due to some massive holocaust (enviromental, global nuclear war, plague, etc...) I think waiting for such a "dark miracle" is stupid and whether it happens or not we need to start moving towards such an agenda.

As things stand now, when you have multiple nations competing it does things like duplicate research. One nation develops something, they tend to keep it for themselves, fearing being left behind all the other nations spend time duplicating a feat instead of working on moving forward.

Not to mention the problem with paranoia, with multiple nations everyone is scared of what other nations can put up in orbit. This limits practical developments because anything that could be potentially dangerous to other nations in the hands of one country sparks fear, protests, and threats of global war. A lot of things get scrapped at the planning stage for that reason. "OMG the space research program of nation X, could be putting missles in orbit and aiming them at us!".

Then you also have issues like the "space junk cloud". Basically it's a situation where in order to feel relevent every nation on the planet feels the need to have satellites shot up into space so as not to be dependant on the satellites of other countries. Not to mention corperations and businesses increasingly wanting their own private satellites, and it becomes impossible to regulate because if one nation won't do it, they can go somewhere else where they are more than willing to shoot turds up into space with a chemical booster rocket if someone offers enough money.

So basically what we're doing is making it impossible to launch meaningful satellites and use them effectively on a planetary level. Not to mention the fact that for all well intentioned clean up efforts, what is a piece of junk to one nation, is a point of national pride to another. I mean sure, you might have this pathetic tin can floating around up there but that doesn't mean it's not some pathetic communications satellite from a third world country shot up into space by some warlord via a mercenary space program (like say France, China, or increasingly Russia) so his rocks could feel bigger.

Unify the planet, and issues like that can be addressed, fewer, more powerful, more efficient satellites, an less concern about the eventual possibility of space garbage falling on people's heads in unprecedented numbers.

This is pretty long, but such are my thoughts.

Despite how it might sound at times, I'm not into callous mass murder, but when looking at big pictures I look at even billions of deaths in the short term being worthwhile if it has a positive effect on trillions of people to come, and the fate of humanity as a whole.

I'm not the first person to say things like this of course, and despite how it usually turns out, does not change the fact that it's fundementally true.

I figure in the end for humanity to survive and thrive we either need a massive disaster (and basically praying that a plague kills billions overnight is stupid), a massive manmade disaster (someone engineers a bio-plague to do the above, with similar intentions to say Ozymandias from The Watchmen), or we see a world unity through ideas with violence only coming into play when the spread of ideas has gone as far as it can. My way ultimatly involves the least loss of human life.

 

[CrikeyO]

Am I the only Englishman that believes Ireland should be its own, united country, free of English rule?

I have my own, rather consistant view of what I think is good for humanity in the long term. As someone who believes in a single global uber-goverment and a united humanity, I am not a big fan of creating more independant states of any sort. Simply put the more of them that come into being, the harder things get in the long term.

Let's say Ireland becomes independant, and then things go the way I'm hoping. In a couple of generations Ireland resists being merged into a global culture/goverment. I mean after all despite the passage of time they were 'just' made independant. It creates a big mess, and I'd rather not support an independant state that ultimatly has to be wiped out our conquered.

In general due to cultural similarities, mutal spread of ideas, etc... I see Britan/The UK as likely being one of the driving forces in getting all of this going. I'd rather see Ireland brought into the fold with them, and be a relatively minor issue, than see what amounts to a fiercely independant Ireland with it's own military needing to be conquered again, and probably by the same people.

Not everyone agrees with my overall "endgame", but most of what I think comes down to that thought process. I do not see Irish independance as being in the greater good for humanity as a whole.

I have similar opinions when it comes to China and Tibet. I'd rather deal with Tibet as part of China (whether it comes to war or otherwise) as opposed to freeing Tibet and then later having to absorb it seperatly.

A world united under one banner? By force if necessary? How is that at all feasible?

Anyway on topic, as someone who lives more or less on the Border and has seen and heard of a bit of the crap that went on up there during the Troubles, I'm in favour of the status quo. Any change should be made solely by the people of Northern Ireland without external pressure from either the Republic or the UK, it's their home and it's up to them to decide what to do with it.

Honestly though, reunification is beyond the motley crew we currently have running the Republic. In so many ways ...

Well, whenever I get into this it turns into a massive essay/rant that few people read or care about. I'll try and post a somewhat shorter version.

In simplistic terms it comes down to the idea that I feel over a period of time the spread of ideals, marketing, and trade will lead to the dissolution of borders and more people coming around to a single way of thinking. You already see it now through things like the recognition of American brands and icons, how our ideals have influanced what is going on in the world (oftentimes without our direct intervention nowadays, the ideals having been spread by things like TV and Movies) and other things. A lot of the "national firewall programs" are a direct reaction to hardliners in a lot of countries fearing the influance of outside ideas and wanting to maintain their own identity (which to me is a bad thing speaking in a LONG term). Basically they don't want people to think, act, and hold the same ideas as Americans or other cultures. Without these firewalls, media limitations, and "cultural preservation" projects (which are a current issue) I think very much you will see a lot of unity taking place without a shot being fired. You might not see it right now, but if things continue I feel a lot of people will decide that simply merging would be the easiest thing to do for purpose of trade, language, currency, etc...

When it comes to the use of force, the basic point is that no matter what happens decades or even a century down the road there are going to be nations and cultures which are resistant to any kind of merger. Either through a sense of history, fierce independance, religion, racism, xenophobia, or anything else. Once a big enough merger exists them it will be time to focus attention on those who are unwilling to effectively join a single earth goverment. This will involve forced military assimilation or cultural (but not ethnic) "genocide" and absorbsion of the people. A no-exceptions policy would have to exist ranging from the smallest tribe, to the longest running civilized nation. Truthfully though my preferance is for a peaceful assimilation.

You might say "Therumancer, why would you even want something like that? Are you a Hitler type lunatic?" the answer is simply that I feel that it's nessicary. I feel that to seriously engage in space exploration and expansion, to obtain new resources, spread our populat, etc... we need to be able to make full use of Earth's resources. What's more if we DID ever meet another species out there we would need to be able to deal with them race to race, being seperated into nations each with it's own agenda, would put us at a massive disadvantage if we ever got that far. Most science fiction authors and such who approach the subject seriously agree with me, though oftentimes explain a planetary unity as having taken place due to some massive holocaust (enviromental, global nuclear war, plague, etc...) I think waiting for such a "dark miracle" is stupid and whether it happens or not we need to start moving towards such an agenda.

As things stand now, when you have multiple nations competing it does things like duplicate research. One nation develops something, they tend to keep it for themselves, fearing being left behind all the other nations spend time duplicating a feat instead of working on moving forward.

Not to mention the problem with paranoia, with multiple nations everyone is scared of what other nations can put up in orbit. This limits practical developments because anything that could be potentially dangerous to other nations in the hands of one country sparks fear, protests, and threats of global war. A lot of things get scrapped at the planning stage for that reason. "OMG the space research program of nation X, could be putting missles in orbit and aiming them at us!".

Then you also have issues like the "space junk cloud". Basically it's a situation where in order to feel relevent every nation on the planet feels the need to have satellites shot up into space so as not to be dependant on the satellites of other countries. Not to mention corperations and businesses increasingly wanting their own private satellites, and it becomes impossible to regulate because if one nation won't do it, they can go somewhere else where they are more than willing to shoot turds up into space with a chemical booster rocket if someone offers enough money.

So basically what we're doing is making it impossible to launch meaningful satellites and use them effectively on a planetary level. Not to mention the fact that for all well intentioned clean up efforts, what is a piece of junk to one nation, is a point of national pride to another. I mean sure, you might have this pathetic tin can floating around up there but that doesn't mean it's not some pathetic communications satellite from a third world country shot up into space by some warlord via a mercenary space program (like say France, China, or increasingly Russia) so his rocks could feel bigger.

Unify the planet, and issues like that can be addressed, fewer, more powerful, more efficient satellites, an less concern about the eventual possibility of space garbage falling on people's heads in unprecedented numbers.

This is pretty long, but such are my thoughts.

Despite how it might sound at times, I'm not into callous mass murder, but when looking at big pictures I look at even billions of deaths in the short term being worthwhile if it has a positive effect on trillions of people to come, and the fate of humanity as a whole.

I'm not the first person to say things like this of course, and despite how it usually turns out, does not change the fact that it's fundementally true.

I figure in the end for humanity to survive and thrive we either need a massive disaster (and basically praying that a plague kills billions overnight is stupid), a massive manmade disaster (someone engineers a bio-plague to do the above, with similar intentions to say Ozymandias from The Watchmen), or we see a world unity through ideas with violence only coming into play when the spread of ideas has gone as far as it can. My way ultimatly involves the least loss of human life.

A long post, but you explain rather succintly what you would like to achieve. I applaud you for that.
That said, while you account for a lot of factors that would affect any potential global government, you can't account for basic flaws, human weakness, lust for power, ambition ... any of these could potentially cripple a global government. One would argue that Hitler himself saw his Greater Germany plan smashed by his own hubris.
And if the EU is a colossal, unworkable bureaucracy, how bad would six billion under one flag be? Have you given any thought to how this government would actually work?

 

[Squarez]

It'd be like making Wales independent, there's just no point.

 

[Therumancer]

A long post, but you explain rather succintly what you would like to achieve. I applaud you for that.
That said, while you account for a lot of factors that would affect any potential global government, you can't account for basic flaws, human weakness, lust for power, ambition ... any of these could potentially cripple a global government. One would argue that Hitler himself saw his Greater Germany plan smashed by his own hubris.
And if the EU is a colossal, unworkable bureaucracy, how bad would six billion under one flag be? Have you given any thought to how this government would actually work?[/quote]


I see it this way. A world unity will not be a Utopia, there will ALWAYS be those problems. It will simply make things a bit better, and most importantly more efficient in a lot of ways. Oh sure there will be a nasty bureaucracy but that will never change, nor will much radically change for the general schmoe on the street. However instead of having like 20 differant space programs we'll have 1 for the planet. Instead of a jillion differant currencies we'll have one. We'll have ONE language taught in schools (even if people choose to learn multiple languages for fun) so everyone can communicate a couple generations down the road. There would be a lot of benefits.

Again to blow my own country's horn, I basically figure that when the spread of ideas goes far enough, the trick will be to basically hold a global constitutional convention of those nations in agreement. The attitude being "we're going to make this happen, and we're not leaving until we come up with something workable" rather than "let's talk about it". At the time this happened in the US it was unprecedented, few people thought it could work, but it did, and America eventually became the dominant global super power and has been spreading it's ideas globally to the point where I think it's possible to do this globally given enough time and effort.

On the other hand also consider that big problems have to be addressed when it comes to currency and economics. See if there are no longer seperate nations, then debts owed between them no longer apply. This means private businessmen who were involved in dealing with goverments based on those debts will wind up losing money, and of course will resist it. To create one global currency I'd imagine the above convention would have to basically declare a cancellation of all debts public and private, which of course would result in a lot of potential problems. It would simply be doable because of one central goverment and
presumably the will to make it work. So yes, I have looked at issues like what setting up one global currency would entai. I have no doubts that things would get very nasty even if they wound up being better overall in the long run.

 

[MetalDooley]

Well at the moment all the nutcases and fanatics up north are Britain's problem.If Ireland is united then we'll have to deal with them and this country is in enough shit already so I'm quite happy if things stay as they are

No offence intended to any northern members of course

 

[whiskey rock n' roller]

As a Northener of Ireland I have to say this is a real shitty idea, it was a shitty idea to have a plantation in the first place, but two wrongs won't make a right.

 

[Lord Mountbatten Reborn]

As an English guy with my mother's side hailing from Ireland - I think my great grand-dad was a member of Sinn Fein - my attitude towards Ireland is contrary to my usual ones (that side of the family all died of alcoholism by the way, which really doesn't help the stereotype).

I'm one of those Englishmen who is arrogant about being an Englishman. Argentina annoys me, and I don't care about the Falklands' oil one bit - no one there is Argentinian, and there's a God-damn Fish and Chip shop there - it is British now.

Anyways, looking at Sinn Fein and the Democratic Unionist Party, I know where I'd be ideologically. The SF is a left-leaning, more socialist party. The DUP is a right-wing, Christian values promoter.

So to me, Sinn Fein is instantly better. However, to add to that, I've studied Ireland in History, and my God we were dicks. I mean super-dicks. Of course, being English, I blame the Dutch William of Orange.

I for one believe that, since ideologically I am inclined towards Sinn Fein, and I agree with their motives and goal, I would not feel any animosity towards seeing a united Ireland.

I can't see how it could be achieved though. There would probably be a fight, though I went with the Darwinist strategy of make Northern Ireland independent, then let the sides (Unionists and Republicans, no Brits) duke it out. Winner takes all.

 

[Nickolai77]

Do you care that the majority of people in Northern Ireland identify themselves as British and want to be part of the United Kingdom?

Obviously this. That's why it stays separate. I've been there and they have more union flags and english and scottish flags than I've seen in any other part of the UK.

^This, plus there was a referendum in the 1970's where the Northern Irish voted to remain in the UK. That is why it is justified that N Ireland is part of the UK, because that is what the people want- it is also why the Falkland Islands are a British territory- the people on that island want to be in the United Kingdom, just like the Northern Irish. It's all very well the Irish republicans wanting to unify Ireland- but it is the Northern Irish people themselves who have the right to decide by majority vote if they should join the Irish republic or stick with the UK. If the Northern Irish don't want to join Ireland, well thats Irelands problem.

 

[Hobo Joe]

I don't think it should be - it's just not feasible and I don't think there's a real reason to.