Mixing
Why are the nationalists and unionists in Ireland & Northern Ireland OK with using violence?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
This is a follow-up question to Why can't Northern Ireland just have a stay/leave referendum? As I understand the answers to that question, a key part of the problem is that a significant fraction of Northern Ireland wants to stay, just like a significant fraction of Northern Ireland wants to leave, and both are willing to kill the other faction to further their goals.
Why are both factions willing to use lethal force against each other? People in the other countries of the world (especially developed ones) regularly disagree with each other, often severely, often in situations where the minority is almost a majority, but they don't seem to resort to violence anywhere as often; in fact they'd likely pour scorn on any suggestion to use violence. Examples:
- Roughly half of Britain didn't like Brexit, but if there've been terrorist attacks by Remainers on Brexiteers (or by Brexiteers on Remainers), I've not read about them.
- Roughly half of Scotland voted to leave the UK, but if either side have attacked the other, I've also not heard about them.
- Roughly half of the US votes for the party that does not win in every presidential election, but they don't attack each other.
- The Irish (!) same-sex marriage referendum in 2015 also didn't result in violence.
Point #4 implies that the Irish (and presumably Northern Irish) can disagree with each other, including over something that has deep religious undertones, without also trying to kill each other. Why doesn't the same apply to the question of staying in/leaving the UK?
northern-ireland republic-of-ireland
asked 5 hours ago
Allure
281126
New contributor
Allure is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
This is a follow-up question to Why can't Northern Ireland just have a stay/leave referendum? As I understand the answers to that question, a key part of the problem is that a significant fraction of Northern Ireland wants to stay, just like a significant fraction of Northern Ireland wants to leave, and both are willing to kill the other faction to further their goals.
Why are both factions willing to use lethal force against each other? People in the other countries of the world (especially developed ones) regularly disagree with each other, often severely, often in situations where the minority is almost a majority, but they don't seem to resort to violence anywhere as often; in fact they'd likely pour scorn on any suggestion to use violence. Examples:
- Roughly half of Britain didn't like Brexit, but if there've been terrorist attacks by Remainers on Brexiteers (or by Brexiteers on Remainers), I've not read about them.
- Roughly half of Scotland voted to leave the UK, but if either side have attacked the other, I've also not heard about them.
- Roughly half of the US votes for the party that does not win in every presidential election, but they don't attack each other.
- The Irish (!) same-sex marriage referendum in 2015 also didn't result in violence.
Point #4 implies that the Irish (and presumably Northern Irish) can disagree with each other, including over something that has deep religious undertones, without also trying to kill each other. Why doesn't the same apply to the question of staying in/leaving the UK?
northern-ireland republic-of-ireland
asked 5 hours ago
Allure
281126
New contributor
Allure is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
2
No-one is certain both sides are willing to use lethal force, but it's a plausible scenario, given the history of such in living memory
– Caleth
4 hours ago
1
Any sources forare both factions willing to use lethal force against each other? While there are precedents of violence and those make easier to imagine the situation escalating out of control (as explained in the answers to the linked question), I am not aware or any organization asking for a return to armed fight/terrorism.
– SJuan76
4 hours ago
2
Bear in mind that in NI stuff that happened 100 years ago is considered recent history. If you talk to the extremists on both sides they will bring up stuff that happened centuries ago as if it were just last year. e.g en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Williamite_War_in_Ireland
– Paul Johnson
4 hours ago
3
There was the murder of Remainer Labour MP Jo Cox by a far-right member of "Britain First", let's not forget, but other than that yes there has been a surprising lack of violence over both the Indyref and Brexit so far.
– pjc50
3 hours ago
1
@pjc50 It's not as lacking as you might think independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/…
– origimbo
2 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
This is a follow-up question to Why can't Northern Ireland just have a stay/leave referendum? As I understand the answers to that question, a key part of the problem is that a significant fraction of Northern Ireland wants to stay, just like a significant fraction of Northern Ireland wants to leave, and both are willing to kill the other faction to further their goals.
Why are both factions willing to use lethal force against each other? People in the other countries of the world (especially developed ones) regularly disagree with each other, often severely, often in situations where the minority is almost a majority, but they don't seem to resort to violence anywhere as often; in fact they'd likely pour scorn on any suggestion to use violence. Examples:
- Roughly half of Britain didn't like Brexit, but if there've been terrorist attacks by Remainers on Brexiteers (or by Brexiteers on Remainers), I've not read about them.
- Roughly half of Scotland voted to leave the UK, but if either side have attacked the other, I've also not heard about them.
- Roughly half of the US votes for the party that does not win in every presidential election, but they don't attack each other.
- The Irish (!) same-sex marriage referendum in 2015 also didn't result in violence.
Point #4 implies that the Irish (and presumably Northern Irish) can disagree with each other, including over something that has deep religious undertones, without also trying to kill each other. Why doesn't the same apply to the question of staying in/leaving the UK?
northern-ireland republic-of-ireland
asked 5 hours ago
Allure
281126
New contributor
Allure is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
This is a follow-up question to Why can't Northern Ireland just have a stay/leave referendum? As I understand the answers to that question, a key part of the problem is that a significant fraction of Northern Ireland wants to stay, just like a significant fraction of Northern Ireland wants to leave, and both are willing to kill the other faction to further their goals.
Why are both factions willing to use lethal force against each other? People in the other countries of the world (especially developed ones) regularly disagree with each other, often severely, often in situations where the minority is almost a majority, but they don't seem to resort to violence anywhere as often; in fact they'd likely pour scorn on any suggestion to use violence. Examples:
- Roughly half of Britain didn't like Brexit, but if there've been terrorist attacks by Remainers on Brexiteers (or by Brexiteers on Remainers), I've not read about them.
- Roughly half of Scotland voted to leave the UK, but if either side have attacked the other, I've also not heard about them.
- Roughly half of the US votes for the party that does not win in every presidential election, but they don't attack each other.
- The Irish (!) same-sex marriage referendum in 2015 also didn't result in violence.
Point #4 implies that the Irish (and presumably Northern Irish) can disagree with each other, including over something that has deep religious undertones, without also trying to kill each other. Why doesn't the same apply to the question of staying in/leaving the UK?
northern-ireland republic-of-ireland
northern-ireland republic-of-ireland
asked 5 hours ago
Allure
281126
New contributor
Allure is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 5 hours ago
Allure
281126
New contributor
Allure is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 5 hours ago
Allure
281126
New contributor
Allure is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 5 hours ago
Allure
281126
asked 5 hours ago
Allure
281126
281126
New contributor
Allure is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Allure is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Allure is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
2
No-one is certain both sides are willing to use lethal force, but it's a plausible scenario, given the history of such in living memory
– Caleth
4 hours ago
1
Any sources forare both factions willing to use lethal force against each other? While there are precedents of violence and those make easier to imagine the situation escalating out of control (as explained in the answers to the linked question), I am not aware or any organization asking for a return to armed fight/terrorism.
– SJuan76
4 hours ago
2
Bear in mind that in NI stuff that happened 100 years ago is considered recent history. If you talk to the extremists on both sides they will bring up stuff that happened centuries ago as if it were just last year. e.g en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Williamite_War_in_Ireland
– Paul Johnson
4 hours ago
3
There was the murder of Remainer Labour MP Jo Cox by a far-right member of "Britain First", let's not forget, but other than that yes there has been a surprising lack of violence over both the Indyref and Brexit so far.
– pjc50
3 hours ago
1
@pjc50 It's not as lacking as you might think independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/…
– origimbo
2 hours ago
add a comment |Â
2
No-one is certain both sides are willing to use lethal force, but it's a plausible scenario, given the history of such in living memory
– Caleth
4 hours ago
1
Any sources forare both factions willing to use lethal force against each other? While there are precedents of violence and those make easier to imagine the situation escalating out of control (as explained in the answers to the linked question), I am not aware or any organization asking for a return to armed fight/terrorism.
– SJuan76
4 hours ago
2
Bear in mind that in NI stuff that happened 100 years ago is considered recent history. If you talk to the extremists on both sides they will bring up stuff that happened centuries ago as if it were just last year. e.g en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Williamite_War_in_Ireland
– Paul Johnson
4 hours ago
3
There was the murder of Remainer Labour MP Jo Cox by a far-right member of "Britain First", let's not forget, but other than that yes there has been a surprising lack of violence over both the Indyref and Brexit so far.
– pjc50
3 hours ago
1
@pjc50 It's not as lacking as you might think independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/…
– origimbo
2 hours ago
2
2
No-one is certain both sides are willing to use lethal force, but it's a plausible scenario, given the history of such in living memory
– Caleth
4 hours ago
No-one is certain both sides are willing to use lethal force, but it's a plausible scenario, given the history of such in living memory
– Caleth
4 hours ago
1
1
Any sources for
are both factions willing to use lethal force against each other? While there are precedents of violence and those make easier to imagine the situation escalating out of control (as explained in the answers to the linked question), I am not aware or any organization asking for a return to armed fight/terrorism.– SJuan76
4 hours ago
Any sources for
are both factions willing to use lethal force against each other? While there are precedents of violence and those make easier to imagine the situation escalating out of control (as explained in the answers to the linked question), I am not aware or any organization asking for a return to armed fight/terrorism.– SJuan76
4 hours ago
2
2
Bear in mind that in NI stuff that happened 100 years ago is considered recent history. If you talk to the extremists on both sides they will bring up stuff that happened centuries ago as if it were just last year. e.g en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Williamite_War_in_Ireland
– Paul Johnson
4 hours ago
Bear in mind that in NI stuff that happened 100 years ago is considered recent history. If you talk to the extremists on both sides they will bring up stuff that happened centuries ago as if it were just last year. e.g en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Williamite_War_in_Ireland
– Paul Johnson
4 hours ago
3
3
There was the murder of Remainer Labour MP Jo Cox by a far-right member of "Britain First", let's not forget, but other than that yes there has been a surprising lack of violence over both the Indyref and Brexit so far.
– pjc50
3 hours ago
There was the murder of Remainer Labour MP Jo Cox by a far-right member of "Britain First", let's not forget, but other than that yes there has been a surprising lack of violence over both the Indyref and Brexit so far.
– pjc50
3 hours ago
1
1
@pjc50 It's not as lacking as you might think independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/…
– origimbo
2 hours ago
@pjc50 It's not as lacking as you might think independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/…
– origimbo
2 hours ago
add a comment |Â
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
Shall we start by seeing how historical violence is viewed by some people in Northern Ireland? There's still quite a lot of murals around. Just to be absolutely clear in case the imagery isn't obvious, the men depicted there are being celebrated for their acts of illegal violence.
The Troubles is rather a large subject for an answer, but essentially it started out as a protest against discrimination by the police (Royal Ulster Constabulary, almost entirely Protestant) against Catholics. The police responded with violence and things escalated. The province became effectively a police state - random checkpoints, armed troops on the streets, use of live ammunition on demonstrators and suspected criminals and so on. There were areas of Belfast that the police wouldn't go without at least two armored cars.
It is important to understand that the conflict was effectively "street level upwards", not primarily centrally driven and recruited for. Much of it more closely resembled gang warfare - gangs of young men with stones, petrol bombs and iron bars, who would cross over into an area of the opposite community and attack someone on the "other side". People joined up for safety, pride, defence of their community, and even for something to do (unemployment was extremely high at the time). Once someone you knew had been seriously injured or killed by the "other side", this became much more likely.
Again I would urge you to think of this not as "normal political difference of opinions" but as "ethnonationalist civil war" - not quite as deadly as Yugoslavia, or Syria, it never quite escalated to genocide, but the same kind of motivational structure.
It was brought to a conclusion in 1998 by the Good Friday Agreement, which concluded a ceasefire between the main warring groups and made agreements between the British and Irish governments. Among other things, Ireland formally renounced its claim to the North, and provisions were made for the "border poll" that allowed the possibility of a future peaceful transfer of NI to Ireland. It also established the NI Assembly at Stormont for peaceful devolved politics.
Almost everyone has stopped fighting. But not everyone. There are some "dissident republicans".
So what happens next?
Nothing is certain, but the risk path is as follows:
- UK establishes border posts of some kind
- Dissident republicans vandalise them, or actually blow one up
- Police crackdown
- Belief that NI is returning to a state where Catholics are second-class citizens subject to police harassment
- Rise in street violence between gangs
- Armed groups declare that since the UK is not respecting the GFA and violence has resumed, they no longer consider themselves bound by GFA.
It doesn't help that the path to peaceful resolution of issues - Stormont - is currently not functioning because the government collapsed over fraud in heating subsidies last year.
Any kind of border infrastructure will be a problem for people. The border runs across people's farms and in some cases houses. Some of the proposed border plans present huge opportunities for VAT fraud or petrol smuggling, so organised crime is likely to start up around there.
answered 3 hours ago
pjc50
2,692614
+1 past violence is a major part of this, and the continuing viewing of it in a positive light is also a major reason
– Orangesandlemons
56 secs ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
Firstly, there is a history of violence, which is quite important here. But beyond that,
none of your examples are comparable; they do not involve territorial claims predicated around strong group identities (religious in this case)
- Roughly half of Britain didn't like Brexit, but if there've been terrorist attacks by Remainers on Brexiteers (or by Brexiteers on Remainers), I've not read about them.
There is no territorial claim here at all
- Roughly half of Scotland voted to leave the UK, but if either side have attacked the other, I've also not heard about them.
Both sides identify as Scots; also the Union came about via a Scottish vote and the Union has traditionally included Scottish people at the highest levels of it's administration.
- Roughly half of the US votes for the party that does not win in every presidential election, but they don't attack each other.
This doesn't even begin to resemble anything territorial.
- The Irish (!) same-sex marriage referendum in 2015 also didn't result in violence.
Again. No territorial aspect whatsoever.
answered 4 hours ago
Orangesandlemons
1,294115
Given the nationalist rhetoric around Brexit, the debate has been categorised as a Sovereignty issue, closely analogous to Territorial. Is the UK British Territory or EU Territory.
– Jontia
3 hours ago
(2) definitely is a territorial issue, but it's not really a personal identity issue.
– pjc50
2 hours ago
2
@pjc50 which is why that's the only one where I don't say it isn't territorial... I do say in the intro that "do not involve territorial claims predicated around strong group identities" which is why I mention "Both sides identify as Scots;" and "also the Union came about via a Scottish vote" to differentiate from the Ireland situation
– Orangesandlemons
2 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
-1
down vote
The (violence that you are referring to, that doesn't really exist at present, is a potential one, in which a hard border between NI and the ROI may result (in the future) in nationalists pushing to reunify with ROI,and Unionists resisting. It's a potential future conflict that a hard border may instigate, but it's not a thing that exists right now, just a possibility that worries people! It is by no means unique to nationalists and unionists in NI, and is characteristic of numerous historical and present divisions between different groups based on political or national aspirations or beliefs, from America, England, Japan, France, Spain, Israel/Palestine, China, India/Pakistan and many, many more.
If nationalists feel that their movement is sufficiently restricted with the rest of Ireland that it impacts their lives, and their feeling of connection with the rest of Ireland, then they may push for a referendum on reunification with the rest of Ireland. Unionists of course would oppose this. It would be a very divisive issue, determining the nationality of 1.5 million people, split quite evenly with opposing wishes and feelings of national identity. I don't think it's hard to imagine why such a thing may lead to violence. Hopefully it won't though.
Regarding point # 3, America has had a civil war over differences in political ideals. It's also had many, many violent events due to political conflicts, riots, assassinations, racial violence. Politically motivated violence is hardly a strange concept to Americans, or most of the world for that matter. At present I am seeing reports of violence and growing political tensions in America due to the divisiveness of the Trump administration, groups like Antifa that oppose right wing politics, and commit acts of vandalism against their political targets, and groups like the Proud boys who seek to commit acts of violence against antifa and liberals in general. You should be able to draw some parallels. Politically or identity related violence is not uncommon in America or American history!
Regarding point #4, Ireland doesn't really have any hate groups afaik, that would commit acts of violence over a gay marriage referendum. The overwhelming majority, younger and middle aged people supported it. An older, conservative and religious minority opposed it, but it would be very strange to have a violent conflict between elderly, conservative Catholics and younger, secular people!
answered 5 hours ago
Icarian
6151213
"may result (in the future) in nationalists pushing to reunify" while it is probably a point of oversimplification of media reports, the current reporting doesn't make this distinction it puts potential violence on the table directly following the re-introduction of the border.
– Jontia
4 hours ago
5
You should probably see a psychologist regarding your desire to punch people who support gay marriage Bregalad... In Ireland we don't really have hate groups that would do such things.
– Icarian
4 hours ago
3
I feel like you misunderstood my question (?) It's about staying/leaving the UK, not the EU.
– Allure
4 hours ago
Oh ok, got it. Well, again, I think I have explained why the gay marriage referendum didn't result in violence. It just didn't really affect the lives of people who opposed it, and they tend to be elderly. As I said in my third point, it's not exactly unusual to have violent conflict between two groups of people with different national and political aspirations, civil wars frequenly occur for such reasons and America was no different. Tensions are currently very high over the divisions caused by the Trump administration and I have seen political violence as a result...
– Icarian
4 hours ago
1
It may be, but nonetheless, in modern times, most people ranging from left to center right would consider a desire to commit acts of violence against people based on sexuality and monogamous commitments to be quite unhealthy. I don't think this is an unusual opinion to hold.
– Icarian
4 hours ago
 |Â
show 1 more comment
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
Shall we start by seeing how historical violence is viewed by some people in Northern Ireland? There's still quite a lot of murals around. Just to be absolutely clear in case the imagery isn't obvious, the men depicted there are being celebrated for their acts of illegal violence.
The Troubles is rather a large subject for an answer, but essentially it started out as a protest against discrimination by the police (Royal Ulster Constabulary, almost entirely Protestant) against Catholics. The police responded with violence and things escalated. The province became effectively a police state - random checkpoints, armed troops on the streets, use of live ammunition on demonstrators and suspected criminals and so on. There were areas of Belfast that the police wouldn't go without at least two armored cars.
It is important to understand that the conflict was effectively "street level upwards", not primarily centrally driven and recruited for. Much of it more closely resembled gang warfare - gangs of young men with stones, petrol bombs and iron bars, who would cross over into an area of the opposite community and attack someone on the "other side". People joined up for safety, pride, defence of their community, and even for something to do (unemployment was extremely high at the time). Once someone you knew had been seriously injured or killed by the "other side", this became much more likely.
Again I would urge you to think of this not as "normal political difference of opinions" but as "ethnonationalist civil war" - not quite as deadly as Yugoslavia, or Syria, it never quite escalated to genocide, but the same kind of motivational structure.
It was brought to a conclusion in 1998 by the Good Friday Agreement, which concluded a ceasefire between the main warring groups and made agreements between the British and Irish governments. Among other things, Ireland formally renounced its claim to the North, and provisions were made for the "border poll" that allowed the possibility of a future peaceful transfer of NI to Ireland. It also established the NI Assembly at Stormont for peaceful devolved politics.
Almost everyone has stopped fighting. But not everyone. There are some "dissident republicans".
So what happens next?
Nothing is certain, but the risk path is as follows:
- UK establishes border posts of some kind
- Dissident republicans vandalise them, or actually blow one up
- Police crackdown
- Belief that NI is returning to a state where Catholics are second-class citizens subject to police harassment
- Rise in street violence between gangs
- Armed groups declare that since the UK is not respecting the GFA and violence has resumed, they no longer consider themselves bound by GFA.
It doesn't help that the path to peaceful resolution of issues - Stormont - is currently not functioning because the government collapsed over fraud in heating subsidies last year.
Any kind of border infrastructure will be a problem for people. The border runs across people's farms and in some cases houses. Some of the proposed border plans present huge opportunities for VAT fraud or petrol smuggling, so organised crime is likely to start up around there.
answered 3 hours ago
pjc50
2,692614
+1 past violence is a major part of this, and the continuing viewing of it in a positive light is also a major reason
– Orangesandlemons
56 secs ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
Shall we start by seeing how historical violence is viewed by some people in Northern Ireland? There's still quite a lot of murals around. Just to be absolutely clear in case the imagery isn't obvious, the men depicted there are being celebrated for their acts of illegal violence.
The Troubles is rather a large subject for an answer, but essentially it started out as a protest against discrimination by the police (Royal Ulster Constabulary, almost entirely Protestant) against Catholics. The police responded with violence and things escalated. The province became effectively a police state - random checkpoints, armed troops on the streets, use of live ammunition on demonstrators and suspected criminals and so on. There were areas of Belfast that the police wouldn't go without at least two armored cars.
It is important to understand that the conflict was effectively "street level upwards", not primarily centrally driven and recruited for. Much of it more closely resembled gang warfare - gangs of young men with stones, petrol bombs and iron bars, who would cross over into an area of the opposite community and attack someone on the "other side". People joined up for safety, pride, defence of their community, and even for something to do (unemployment was extremely high at the time). Once someone you knew had been seriously injured or killed by the "other side", this became much more likely.
Again I would urge you to think of this not as "normal political difference of opinions" but as "ethnonationalist civil war" - not quite as deadly as Yugoslavia, or Syria, it never quite escalated to genocide, but the same kind of motivational structure.
It was brought to a conclusion in 1998 by the Good Friday Agreement, which concluded a ceasefire between the main warring groups and made agreements between the British and Irish governments. Among other things, Ireland formally renounced its claim to the North, and provisions were made for the "border poll" that allowed the possibility of a future peaceful transfer of NI to Ireland. It also established the NI Assembly at Stormont for peaceful devolved politics.
Almost everyone has stopped fighting. But not everyone. There are some "dissident republicans".
So what happens next?
Nothing is certain, but the risk path is as follows:
- UK establishes border posts of some kind
- Dissident republicans vandalise them, or actually blow one up
- Police crackdown
- Belief that NI is returning to a state where Catholics are second-class citizens subject to police harassment
- Rise in street violence between gangs
- Armed groups declare that since the UK is not respecting the GFA and violence has resumed, they no longer consider themselves bound by GFA.
It doesn't help that the path to peaceful resolution of issues - Stormont - is currently not functioning because the government collapsed over fraud in heating subsidies last year.
Any kind of border infrastructure will be a problem for people. The border runs across people's farms and in some cases houses. Some of the proposed border plans present huge opportunities for VAT fraud or petrol smuggling, so organised crime is likely to start up around there.
answered 3 hours ago
pjc50
2,692614
+1 past violence is a major part of this, and the continuing viewing of it in a positive light is also a major reason
– Orangesandlemons
56 secs ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
up vote
3
down vote
Shall we start by seeing how historical violence is viewed by some people in Northern Ireland? There's still quite a lot of murals around. Just to be absolutely clear in case the imagery isn't obvious, the men depicted there are being celebrated for their acts of illegal violence.
The Troubles is rather a large subject for an answer, but essentially it started out as a protest against discrimination by the police (Royal Ulster Constabulary, almost entirely Protestant) against Catholics. The police responded with violence and things escalated. The province became effectively a police state - random checkpoints, armed troops on the streets, use of live ammunition on demonstrators and suspected criminals and so on. There were areas of Belfast that the police wouldn't go without at least two armored cars.
It is important to understand that the conflict was effectively "street level upwards", not primarily centrally driven and recruited for. Much of it more closely resembled gang warfare - gangs of young men with stones, petrol bombs and iron bars, who would cross over into an area of the opposite community and attack someone on the "other side". People joined up for safety, pride, defence of their community, and even for something to do (unemployment was extremely high at the time). Once someone you knew had been seriously injured or killed by the "other side", this became much more likely.
Again I would urge you to think of this not as "normal political difference of opinions" but as "ethnonationalist civil war" - not quite as deadly as Yugoslavia, or Syria, it never quite escalated to genocide, but the same kind of motivational structure.
It was brought to a conclusion in 1998 by the Good Friday Agreement, which concluded a ceasefire between the main warring groups and made agreements between the British and Irish governments. Among other things, Ireland formally renounced its claim to the North, and provisions were made for the "border poll" that allowed the possibility of a future peaceful transfer of NI to Ireland. It also established the NI Assembly at Stormont for peaceful devolved politics.
Almost everyone has stopped fighting. But not everyone. There are some "dissident republicans".
So what happens next?
Nothing is certain, but the risk path is as follows:
- UK establishes border posts of some kind
- Dissident republicans vandalise them, or actually blow one up
- Police crackdown
- Belief that NI is returning to a state where Catholics are second-class citizens subject to police harassment
- Rise in street violence between gangs
- Armed groups declare that since the UK is not respecting the GFA and violence has resumed, they no longer consider themselves bound by GFA.
It doesn't help that the path to peaceful resolution of issues - Stormont - is currently not functioning because the government collapsed over fraud in heating subsidies last year.
Any kind of border infrastructure will be a problem for people. The border runs across people's farms and in some cases houses. Some of the proposed border plans present huge opportunities for VAT fraud or petrol smuggling, so organised crime is likely to start up around there.
answered 3 hours ago
pjc50
2,692614
Shall we start by seeing how historical violence is viewed by some people in Northern Ireland? There's still quite a lot of murals around. Just to be absolutely clear in case the imagery isn't obvious, the men depicted there are being celebrated for their acts of illegal violence.
The Troubles is rather a large subject for an answer, but essentially it started out as a protest against discrimination by the police (Royal Ulster Constabulary, almost entirely Protestant) against Catholics. The police responded with violence and things escalated. The province became effectively a police state - random checkpoints, armed troops on the streets, use of live ammunition on demonstrators and suspected criminals and so on. There were areas of Belfast that the police wouldn't go without at least two armored cars.
It is important to understand that the conflict was effectively "street level upwards", not primarily centrally driven and recruited for. Much of it more closely resembled gang warfare - gangs of young men with stones, petrol bombs and iron bars, who would cross over into an area of the opposite community and attack someone on the "other side". People joined up for safety, pride, defence of their community, and even for something to do (unemployment was extremely high at the time). Once someone you knew had been seriously injured or killed by the "other side", this became much more likely.
Again I would urge you to think of this not as "normal political difference of opinions" but as "ethnonationalist civil war" - not quite as deadly as Yugoslavia, or Syria, it never quite escalated to genocide, but the same kind of motivational structure.
It was brought to a conclusion in 1998 by the Good Friday Agreement, which concluded a ceasefire between the main warring groups and made agreements between the British and Irish governments. Among other things, Ireland formally renounced its claim to the North, and provisions were made for the "border poll" that allowed the possibility of a future peaceful transfer of NI to Ireland. It also established the NI Assembly at Stormont for peaceful devolved politics.
Almost everyone has stopped fighting. But not everyone. There are some "dissident republicans".
So what happens next?
Nothing is certain, but the risk path is as follows:
- UK establishes border posts of some kind
- Dissident republicans vandalise them, or actually blow one up
- Police crackdown
- Belief that NI is returning to a state where Catholics are second-class citizens subject to police harassment
- Rise in street violence between gangs
- Armed groups declare that since the UK is not respecting the GFA and violence has resumed, they no longer consider themselves bound by GFA.
It doesn't help that the path to peaceful resolution of issues - Stormont - is currently not functioning because the government collapsed over fraud in heating subsidies last year.
Any kind of border infrastructure will be a problem for people. The border runs across people's farms and in some cases houses. Some of the proposed border plans present huge opportunities for VAT fraud or petrol smuggling, so organised crime is likely to start up around there.
answered 3 hours ago
pjc50
2,692614
edited 2 hours ago
answered 3 hours ago
pjc50
2,692614
answered 3 hours ago
pjc50
2,692614
answered 3 hours ago
pjc50
2,692614
2,692614
+1 past violence is a major part of this, and the continuing viewing of it in a positive light is also a major reason
– Orangesandlemons
56 secs ago
add a comment |Â
+1 past violence is a major part of this, and the continuing viewing of it in a positive light is also a major reason
– Orangesandlemons
56 secs ago
+1 past violence is a major part of this, and the continuing viewing of it in a positive light is also a major reason
– Orangesandlemons
56 secs ago
+1 past violence is a major part of this, and the continuing viewing of it in a positive light is also a major reason
– Orangesandlemons
56 secs ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
Firstly, there is a history of violence, which is quite important here. But beyond that,
none of your examples are comparable; they do not involve territorial claims predicated around strong group identities (religious in this case)
- Roughly half of Britain didn't like Brexit, but if there've been terrorist attacks by Remainers on Brexiteers (or by Brexiteers on Remainers), I've not read about them.
There is no territorial claim here at all
- Roughly half of Scotland voted to leave the UK, but if either side have attacked the other, I've also not heard about them.
Both sides identify as Scots; also the Union came about via a Scottish vote and the Union has traditionally included Scottish people at the highest levels of it's administration.
- Roughly half of the US votes for the party that does not win in every presidential election, but they don't attack each other.
This doesn't even begin to resemble anything territorial.
- The Irish (!) same-sex marriage referendum in 2015 also didn't result in violence.
Again. No territorial aspect whatsoever.
answered 4 hours ago
Orangesandlemons
1,294115
Given the nationalist rhetoric around Brexit, the debate has been categorised as a Sovereignty issue, closely analogous to Territorial. Is the UK British Territory or EU Territory.
– Jontia
3 hours ago
(2) definitely is a territorial issue, but it's not really a personal identity issue.
– pjc50
2 hours ago
2
@pjc50 which is why that's the only one where I don't say it isn't territorial... I do say in the intro that "do not involve territorial claims predicated around strong group identities" which is why I mention "Both sides identify as Scots;" and "also the Union came about via a Scottish vote" to differentiate from the Ireland situation
– Orangesandlemons
2 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
Firstly, there is a history of violence, which is quite important here. But beyond that,
none of your examples are comparable; they do not involve territorial claims predicated around strong group identities (religious in this case)
- Roughly half of Britain didn't like Brexit, but if there've been terrorist attacks by Remainers on Brexiteers (or by Brexiteers on Remainers), I've not read about them.
There is no territorial claim here at all
- Roughly half of Scotland voted to leave the UK, but if either side have attacked the other, I've also not heard about them.
Both sides identify as Scots; also the Union came about via a Scottish vote and the Union has traditionally included Scottish people at the highest levels of it's administration.
- Roughly half of the US votes for the party that does not win in every presidential election, but they don't attack each other.
This doesn't even begin to resemble anything territorial.
- The Irish (!) same-sex marriage referendum in 2015 also didn't result in violence.
Again. No territorial aspect whatsoever.
answered 4 hours ago
Orangesandlemons
1,294115
Given the nationalist rhetoric around Brexit, the debate has been categorised as a Sovereignty issue, closely analogous to Territorial. Is the UK British Territory or EU Territory.
– Jontia
3 hours ago
(2) definitely is a territorial issue, but it's not really a personal identity issue.
– pjc50
2 hours ago
2
@pjc50 which is why that's the only one where I don't say it isn't territorial... I do say in the intro that "do not involve territorial claims predicated around strong group identities" which is why I mention "Both sides identify as Scots;" and "also the Union came about via a Scottish vote" to differentiate from the Ireland situation
– Orangesandlemons
2 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
Firstly, there is a history of violence, which is quite important here. But beyond that,
none of your examples are comparable; they do not involve territorial claims predicated around strong group identities (religious in this case)
- Roughly half of Britain didn't like Brexit, but if there've been terrorist attacks by Remainers on Brexiteers (or by Brexiteers on Remainers), I've not read about them.
There is no territorial claim here at all
- Roughly half of Scotland voted to leave the UK, but if either side have attacked the other, I've also not heard about them.
Both sides identify as Scots; also the Union came about via a Scottish vote and the Union has traditionally included Scottish people at the highest levels of it's administration.
- Roughly half of the US votes for the party that does not win in every presidential election, but they don't attack each other.
This doesn't even begin to resemble anything territorial.
- The Irish (!) same-sex marriage referendum in 2015 also didn't result in violence.
Again. No territorial aspect whatsoever.
answered 4 hours ago
Orangesandlemons
1,294115
Firstly, there is a history of violence, which is quite important here. But beyond that,
none of your examples are comparable; they do not involve territorial claims predicated around strong group identities (religious in this case)
- Roughly half of Britain didn't like Brexit, but if there've been terrorist attacks by Remainers on Brexiteers (or by Brexiteers on Remainers), I've not read about them.
There is no territorial claim here at all
- Roughly half of Scotland voted to leave the UK, but if either side have attacked the other, I've also not heard about them.
Both sides identify as Scots; also the Union came about via a Scottish vote and the Union has traditionally included Scottish people at the highest levels of it's administration.
- Roughly half of the US votes for the party that does not win in every presidential election, but they don't attack each other.
This doesn't even begin to resemble anything territorial.
- The Irish (!) same-sex marriage referendum in 2015 also didn't result in violence.
Again. No territorial aspect whatsoever.
answered 4 hours ago
Orangesandlemons
1,294115
answered 4 hours ago
Orangesandlemons
1,294115
answered 4 hours ago
Orangesandlemons
1,294115
answered 4 hours ago
Orangesandlemons
1,294115
1,294115
Given the nationalist rhetoric around Brexit, the debate has been categorised as a Sovereignty issue, closely analogous to Territorial. Is the UK British Territory or EU Territory.
– Jontia
3 hours ago
(2) definitely is a territorial issue, but it's not really a personal identity issue.
– pjc50
2 hours ago
2
@pjc50 which is why that's the only one where I don't say it isn't territorial... I do say in the intro that "do not involve territorial claims predicated around strong group identities" which is why I mention "Both sides identify as Scots;" and "also the Union came about via a Scottish vote" to differentiate from the Ireland situation
– Orangesandlemons
2 hours ago
add a comment |Â
Given the nationalist rhetoric around Brexit, the debate has been categorised as a Sovereignty issue, closely analogous to Territorial. Is the UK British Territory or EU Territory.
– Jontia
3 hours ago
(2) definitely is a territorial issue, but it's not really a personal identity issue.
– pjc50
2 hours ago
2
@pjc50 which is why that's the only one where I don't say it isn't territorial... I do say in the intro that "do not involve territorial claims predicated around strong group identities" which is why I mention "Both sides identify as Scots;" and "also the Union came about via a Scottish vote" to differentiate from the Ireland situation
– Orangesandlemons
2 hours ago
Given the nationalist rhetoric around Brexit, the debate has been categorised as a Sovereignty issue, closely analogous to Territorial. Is the UK British Territory or EU Territory.
– Jontia
3 hours ago
Given the nationalist rhetoric around Brexit, the debate has been categorised as a Sovereignty issue, closely analogous to Territorial. Is the UK British Territory or EU Territory.
– Jontia
3 hours ago
(2) definitely is a territorial issue, but it's not really a personal identity issue.
– pjc50
2 hours ago
(2) definitely is a territorial issue, but it's not really a personal identity issue.
– pjc50
2 hours ago
2
2
@pjc50 which is why that's the only one where I don't say it isn't territorial... I do say in the intro that "do not involve territorial claims predicated around strong group identities" which is why I mention "Both sides identify as Scots;" and "also the Union came about via a Scottish vote" to differentiate from the Ireland situation
– Orangesandlemons
2 hours ago
@pjc50 which is why that's the only one where I don't say it isn't territorial... I do say in the intro that "do not involve territorial claims predicated around strong group identities" which is why I mention "Both sides identify as Scots;" and "also the Union came about via a Scottish vote" to differentiate from the Ireland situation
– Orangesandlemons
2 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
-1
down vote
The (violence that you are referring to, that doesn't really exist at present, is a potential one, in which a hard border between NI and the ROI may result (in the future) in nationalists pushing to reunify with ROI,and Unionists resisting. It's a potential future conflict that a hard border may instigate, but it's not a thing that exists right now, just a possibility that worries people! It is by no means unique to nationalists and unionists in NI, and is characteristic of numerous historical and present divisions between different groups based on political or national aspirations or beliefs, from America, England, Japan, France, Spain, Israel/Palestine, China, India/Pakistan and many, many more.
If nationalists feel that their movement is sufficiently restricted with the rest of Ireland that it impacts their lives, and their feeling of connection with the rest of Ireland, then they may push for a referendum on reunification with the rest of Ireland. Unionists of course would oppose this. It would be a very divisive issue, determining the nationality of 1.5 million people, split quite evenly with opposing wishes and feelings of national identity. I don't think it's hard to imagine why such a thing may lead to violence. Hopefully it won't though.
Regarding point # 3, America has had a civil war over differences in political ideals. It's also had many, many violent events due to political conflicts, riots, assassinations, racial violence. Politically motivated violence is hardly a strange concept to Americans, or most of the world for that matter. At present I am seeing reports of violence and growing political tensions in America due to the divisiveness of the Trump administration, groups like Antifa that oppose right wing politics, and commit acts of vandalism against their political targets, and groups like the Proud boys who seek to commit acts of violence against antifa and liberals in general. You should be able to draw some parallels. Politically or identity related violence is not uncommon in America or American history!
Regarding point #4, Ireland doesn't really have any hate groups afaik, that would commit acts of violence over a gay marriage referendum. The overwhelming majority, younger and middle aged people supported it. An older, conservative and religious minority opposed it, but it would be very strange to have a violent conflict between elderly, conservative Catholics and younger, secular people!
answered 5 hours ago
Icarian
6151213
"may result (in the future) in nationalists pushing to reunify" while it is probably a point of oversimplification of media reports, the current reporting doesn't make this distinction it puts potential violence on the table directly following the re-introduction of the border.
– Jontia
4 hours ago
5
You should probably see a psychologist regarding your desire to punch people who support gay marriage Bregalad... In Ireland we don't really have hate groups that would do such things.
– Icarian
4 hours ago
3
I feel like you misunderstood my question (?) It's about staying/leaving the UK, not the EU.
– Allure
4 hours ago
Oh ok, got it. Well, again, I think I have explained why the gay marriage referendum didn't result in violence. It just didn't really affect the lives of people who opposed it, and they tend to be elderly. As I said in my third point, it's not exactly unusual to have violent conflict between two groups of people with different national and political aspirations, civil wars frequenly occur for such reasons and America was no different. Tensions are currently very high over the divisions caused by the Trump administration and I have seen political violence as a result...
– Icarian
4 hours ago
1
It may be, but nonetheless, in modern times, most people ranging from left to center right would consider a desire to commit acts of violence against people based on sexuality and monogamous commitments to be quite unhealthy. I don't think this is an unusual opinion to hold.
– Icarian
4 hours ago
 |Â
show 1 more comment
up vote
-1
down vote
The (violence that you are referring to, that doesn't really exist at present, is a potential one, in which a hard border between NI and the ROI may result (in the future) in nationalists pushing to reunify with ROI,and Unionists resisting. It's a potential future conflict that a hard border may instigate, but it's not a thing that exists right now, just a possibility that worries people! It is by no means unique to nationalists and unionists in NI, and is characteristic of numerous historical and present divisions between different groups based on political or national aspirations or beliefs, from America, England, Japan, France, Spain, Israel/Palestine, China, India/Pakistan and many, many more.
If nationalists feel that their movement is sufficiently restricted with the rest of Ireland that it impacts their lives, and their feeling of connection with the rest of Ireland, then they may push for a referendum on reunification with the rest of Ireland. Unionists of course would oppose this. It would be a very divisive issue, determining the nationality of 1.5 million people, split quite evenly with opposing wishes and feelings of national identity. I don't think it's hard to imagine why such a thing may lead to violence. Hopefully it won't though.
Regarding point # 3, America has had a civil war over differences in political ideals. It's also had many, many violent events due to political conflicts, riots, assassinations, racial violence. Politically motivated violence is hardly a strange concept to Americans, or most of the world for that matter. At present I am seeing reports of violence and growing political tensions in America due to the divisiveness of the Trump administration, groups like Antifa that oppose right wing politics, and commit acts of vandalism against their political targets, and groups like the Proud boys who seek to commit acts of violence against antifa and liberals in general. You should be able to draw some parallels. Politically or identity related violence is not uncommon in America or American history!
Regarding point #4, Ireland doesn't really have any hate groups afaik, that would commit acts of violence over a gay marriage referendum. The overwhelming majority, younger and middle aged people supported it. An older, conservative and religious minority opposed it, but it would be very strange to have a violent conflict between elderly, conservative Catholics and younger, secular people!
answered 5 hours ago
Icarian
6151213
"may result (in the future) in nationalists pushing to reunify" while it is probably a point of oversimplification of media reports, the current reporting doesn't make this distinction it puts potential violence on the table directly following the re-introduction of the border.
– Jontia
4 hours ago
5
You should probably see a psychologist regarding your desire to punch people who support gay marriage Bregalad... In Ireland we don't really have hate groups that would do such things.
– Icarian
4 hours ago
3
I feel like you misunderstood my question (?) It's about staying/leaving the UK, not the EU.
– Allure
4 hours ago
Oh ok, got it. Well, again, I think I have explained why the gay marriage referendum didn't result in violence. It just didn't really affect the lives of people who opposed it, and they tend to be elderly. As I said in my third point, it's not exactly unusual to have violent conflict between two groups of people with different national and political aspirations, civil wars frequenly occur for such reasons and America was no different. Tensions are currently very high over the divisions caused by the Trump administration and I have seen political violence as a result...
– Icarian
4 hours ago
1
It may be, but nonetheless, in modern times, most people ranging from left to center right would consider a desire to commit acts of violence against people based on sexuality and monogamous commitments to be quite unhealthy. I don't think this is an unusual opinion to hold.
– Icarian
4 hours ago
 |Â
show 1 more comment
up vote
-1
down vote
up vote
-1
down vote
The (violence that you are referring to, that doesn't really exist at present, is a potential one, in which a hard border between NI and the ROI may result (in the future) in nationalists pushing to reunify with ROI,and Unionists resisting. It's a potential future conflict that a hard border may instigate, but it's not a thing that exists right now, just a possibility that worries people! It is by no means unique to nationalists and unionists in NI, and is characteristic of numerous historical and present divisions between different groups based on political or national aspirations or beliefs, from America, England, Japan, France, Spain, Israel/Palestine, China, India/Pakistan and many, many more.
If nationalists feel that their movement is sufficiently restricted with the rest of Ireland that it impacts their lives, and their feeling of connection with the rest of Ireland, then they may push for a referendum on reunification with the rest of Ireland. Unionists of course would oppose this. It would be a very divisive issue, determining the nationality of 1.5 million people, split quite evenly with opposing wishes and feelings of national identity. I don't think it's hard to imagine why such a thing may lead to violence. Hopefully it won't though.
Regarding point # 3, America has had a civil war over differences in political ideals. It's also had many, many violent events due to political conflicts, riots, assassinations, racial violence. Politically motivated violence is hardly a strange concept to Americans, or most of the world for that matter. At present I am seeing reports of violence and growing political tensions in America due to the divisiveness of the Trump administration, groups like Antifa that oppose right wing politics, and commit acts of vandalism against their political targets, and groups like the Proud boys who seek to commit acts of violence against antifa and liberals in general. You should be able to draw some parallels. Politically or identity related violence is not uncommon in America or American history!
Regarding point #4, Ireland doesn't really have any hate groups afaik, that would commit acts of violence over a gay marriage referendum. The overwhelming majority, younger and middle aged people supported it. An older, conservative and religious minority opposed it, but it would be very strange to have a violent conflict between elderly, conservative Catholics and younger, secular people!
answered 5 hours ago
Icarian
6151213
The (violence that you are referring to, that doesn't really exist at present, is a potential one, in which a hard border between NI and the ROI may result (in the future) in nationalists pushing to reunify with ROI,and Unionists resisting. It's a potential future conflict that a hard border may instigate, but it's not a thing that exists right now, just a possibility that worries people! It is by no means unique to nationalists and unionists in NI, and is characteristic of numerous historical and present divisions between different groups based on political or national aspirations or beliefs, from America, England, Japan, France, Spain, Israel/Palestine, China, India/Pakistan and many, many more.
If nationalists feel that their movement is sufficiently restricted with the rest of Ireland that it impacts their lives, and their feeling of connection with the rest of Ireland, then they may push for a referendum on reunification with the rest of Ireland. Unionists of course would oppose this. It would be a very divisive issue, determining the nationality of 1.5 million people, split quite evenly with opposing wishes and feelings of national identity. I don't think it's hard to imagine why such a thing may lead to violence. Hopefully it won't though.
Regarding point # 3, America has had a civil war over differences in political ideals. It's also had many, many violent events due to political conflicts, riots, assassinations, racial violence. Politically motivated violence is hardly a strange concept to Americans, or most of the world for that matter. At present I am seeing reports of violence and growing political tensions in America due to the divisiveness of the Trump administration, groups like Antifa that oppose right wing politics, and commit acts of vandalism against their political targets, and groups like the Proud boys who seek to commit acts of violence against antifa and liberals in general. You should be able to draw some parallels. Politically or identity related violence is not uncommon in America or American history!
Regarding point #4, Ireland doesn't really have any hate groups afaik, that would commit acts of violence over a gay marriage referendum. The overwhelming majority, younger and middle aged people supported it. An older, conservative and religious minority opposed it, but it would be very strange to have a violent conflict between elderly, conservative Catholics and younger, secular people!
answered 5 hours ago
Icarian
6151213
edited 3 hours ago
answered 5 hours ago
Icarian
6151213
answered 5 hours ago
Icarian
6151213
answered 5 hours ago
Icarian
6151213
6151213
"may result (in the future) in nationalists pushing to reunify" while it is probably a point of oversimplification of media reports, the current reporting doesn't make this distinction it puts potential violence on the table directly following the re-introduction of the border.
– Jontia
4 hours ago
5
You should probably see a psychologist regarding your desire to punch people who support gay marriage Bregalad... In Ireland we don't really have hate groups that would do such things.
– Icarian
4 hours ago
3
I feel like you misunderstood my question (?) It's about staying/leaving the UK, not the EU.
– Allure
4 hours ago
Oh ok, got it. Well, again, I think I have explained why the gay marriage referendum didn't result in violence. It just didn't really affect the lives of people who opposed it, and they tend to be elderly. As I said in my third point, it's not exactly unusual to have violent conflict between two groups of people with different national and political aspirations, civil wars frequenly occur for such reasons and America was no different. Tensions are currently very high over the divisions caused by the Trump administration and I have seen political violence as a result...
– Icarian
4 hours ago
1
It may be, but nonetheless, in modern times, most people ranging from left to center right would consider a desire to commit acts of violence against people based on sexuality and monogamous commitments to be quite unhealthy. I don't think this is an unusual opinion to hold.
– Icarian
4 hours ago
 |Â
show 1 more comment
"may result (in the future) in nationalists pushing to reunify" while it is probably a point of oversimplification of media reports, the current reporting doesn't make this distinction it puts potential violence on the table directly following the re-introduction of the border.
– Jontia
4 hours ago
5
You should probably see a psychologist regarding your desire to punch people who support gay marriage Bregalad... In Ireland we don't really have hate groups that would do such things.
– Icarian
4 hours ago
3
I feel like you misunderstood my question (?) It's about staying/leaving the UK, not the EU.
– Allure
4 hours ago
Oh ok, got it. Well, again, I think I have explained why the gay marriage referendum didn't result in violence. It just didn't really affect the lives of people who opposed it, and they tend to be elderly. As I said in my third point, it's not exactly unusual to have violent conflict between two groups of people with different national and political aspirations, civil wars frequenly occur for such reasons and America was no different. Tensions are currently very high over the divisions caused by the Trump administration and I have seen political violence as a result...
– Icarian
4 hours ago
1
It may be, but nonetheless, in modern times, most people ranging from left to center right would consider a desire to commit acts of violence against people based on sexuality and monogamous commitments to be quite unhealthy. I don't think this is an unusual opinion to hold.
– Icarian
4 hours ago
"may result (in the future) in nationalists pushing to reunify" while it is probably a point of oversimplification of media reports, the current reporting doesn't make this distinction it puts potential violence on the table directly following the re-introduction of the border.
– Jontia
4 hours ago
"may result (in the future) in nationalists pushing to reunify" while it is probably a point of oversimplification of media reports, the current reporting doesn't make this distinction it puts potential violence on the table directly following the re-introduction of the border.
– Jontia
4 hours ago
5
5
You should probably see a psychologist regarding your desire to punch people who support gay marriage Bregalad... In Ireland we don't really have hate groups that would do such things.
– Icarian
4 hours ago
You should probably see a psychologist regarding your desire to punch people who support gay marriage Bregalad... In Ireland we don't really have hate groups that would do such things.
– Icarian
4 hours ago
3
3
I feel like you misunderstood my question (?) It's about staying/leaving the UK, not the EU.
– Allure
4 hours ago
I feel like you misunderstood my question (?) It's about staying/leaving the UK, not the EU.
– Allure
4 hours ago
Oh ok, got it. Well, again, I think I have explained why the gay marriage referendum didn't result in violence. It just didn't really affect the lives of people who opposed it, and they tend to be elderly. As I said in my third point, it's not exactly unusual to have violent conflict between two groups of people with different national and political aspirations, civil wars frequenly occur for such reasons and America was no different. Tensions are currently very high over the divisions caused by the Trump administration and I have seen political violence as a result...
– Icarian
4 hours ago
Oh ok, got it. Well, again, I think I have explained why the gay marriage referendum didn't result in violence. It just didn't really affect the lives of people who opposed it, and they tend to be elderly. As I said in my third point, it's not exactly unusual to have violent conflict between two groups of people with different national and political aspirations, civil wars frequenly occur for such reasons and America was no different. Tensions are currently very high over the divisions caused by the Trump administration and I have seen political violence as a result...
– Icarian
4 hours ago
1
1
It may be, but nonetheless, in modern times, most people ranging from left to center right would consider a desire to commit acts of violence against people based on sexuality and monogamous commitments to be quite unhealthy. I don't think this is an unusual opinion to hold.
– Icarian
4 hours ago
It may be, but nonetheless, in modern times, most people ranging from left to center right would consider a desire to commit acts of violence against people based on sexuality and monogamous commitments to be quite unhealthy. I don't think this is an unusual opinion to hold.
– Icarian
4 hours ago
 |Â
show 1 more comment
Allure is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Allure is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Allure is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Allure is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f34511%2fwhy-are-the-nationalists-and-unionists-in-ireland-northern-ireland-ok-with-usi%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
2
No-one is certain both sides are willing to use lethal force, but it's a plausible scenario, given the history of such in living memory
– Caleth
4 hours ago
1
Any sources for
are both factions willing to use lethal force against each other? While there are precedents of violence and those make easier to imagine the situation escalating out of control (as explained in the answers to the linked question), I am not aware or any organization asking for a return to armed fight/terrorism.– SJuan76
4 hours ago
2
Bear in mind that in NI stuff that happened 100 years ago is considered recent history. If you talk to the extremists on both sides they will bring up stuff that happened centuries ago as if it were just last year. e.g en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Williamite_War_in_Ireland
– Paul Johnson
4 hours ago
3
There was the murder of Remainer Labour MP Jo Cox by a far-right member of "Britain First", let's not forget, but other than that yes there has been a surprising lack of violence over both the Indyref and Brexit so far.
– pjc50
3 hours ago
1
@pjc50 It's not as lacking as you might think independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/…
– origimbo
2 hours ago