I read this and found the contents very interesting, realistic and close to what I have been saying in my past posts.

LAN

In N. Ireland, census hints at shifting political equation

Demographers say the number of Catholics and Protestants will be even within two decades.

BELFAST, NORTHERN IRELAND - In the mainly Protestant Oldpark neighborhood of north Belfast, newly renovated houses stand silent and empty, waiting for families who will never come.

Across the nearby 12-foot-high brick fence, the so-called peaceline, children in the Catholic Ardoyne neighborhood ride bikes and kick balls along bustling streets where families of up to nine people are crammed into tiny, two-bedroom homes.

Bursting Ardoyne and silent Oldpark illustrate a new demographic reality that could have dramatic implications in a province that has endured 30 years of sectarian strife: The Catholic population is rising at a faster rate than that of Protestants.

Census figures to be released this summer are expected to show that, if current trends continue, the size of the Protestant and Catholic communities in Northern Ireland is likely to draw even within 20 to 25 years.

The prediction by demographers of a coming 50/50 Protestant/Catholic split has come as a seismic shock to the Protestant community. Protestants, who support the current union with Britain, will soon have to adjust to living in a state where their Catholic neighbors, who wish to be united with the rest of the island of Ireland, are equal in strength, or even more numerous.

"The debate is no longer whether the two communities will ever reach the same size, but what will happen after they do," says Colin McIlheney, head of research at the Belfast office of PriceWaterhouseCoopers, who has studied census figures for 25 years.

A Catholic majority, however, is no guarantee of a united Ireland. About 10 percent of Catholics now support the union with Britain and may do so even when their community draws even numerically with Protestants, says McIlheney.

Dr. Brian Feeney, a former Belfast city councillor for the moderate Catholic party, the SDLP, and now a commentator on social change, says: "The figures mean the rival communities may have to embark on a 'charm offensive' to persuade each other of their respective causes - whether that be the status quo or a united Ireland."

The alternative could be a retreat from peace efforts here, and a society even more divided by bitterness, distrust, and violence, says Dr. Rick Wilford of the politics department of Queens University, Belfast.

"Young Catholics have bought into the [1998] Good Friday peace agreement as a transition to a united Ireland, which they believe can be achieved within a generation," Professor Wilford says.

"On the opposite side you have young male Protestants who are even more opposed than the older generation to a united Ireland. You can see that from the increasingly militaristic murals on the walls around Belfast, and from the fact that unionists who voted strongest against the Good Friday peace agreement were concentrated in this group."

Professor Wilford says that a Queen's University survey last year showed that, although 70 percent of Protestants would probably live with a united Ireland if they had to, 30 percent would never accept a united Ireland under any circumstances and would likely resort to violent measures.

Some among the Protestant political leadership here have refused to acknowledge the demographic trends. Stephen King, an adviser to the Ulster Unionist leader David Trimble, rejects the inevitability of an imminent 50/50 split, saying "We believe this is the end of a trend, not the beginning."

Northern Ireland, with a current population of 1.7 million, was created in 1921 from the island's six northeastern counties, where Protestants were concentrated, to retain the new state's link with Britain. For most of the past century, the unionist/Protestant majority held steady. The unwritten assumption underpinning Protestant political domination was a belief that Catholics would always be a minority.

Protestants have yet to come to terms with the new demographics - partly because, until this year, there were two distinct camps within the small number of academics and statisticians who study population trends in Northern Ireland.

One camp insisted that the Protestant majority would continue indefinitely, despite a higher Catholic birth rate, because of smaller Catholic families after the mass availability of contraception. The other said Catholic family sizes in Northern Ireland still remained larger than the Protestant equivalent and pointed to the relatively high number of Protestant middle-class students in British universities who never returned home after graduating.

Now both camps agree that a 50/50 Protestant/Catholic breakdown is inevitable, perhaps within 10 years but almost certainly before the year 2020. The Protestant population is also older - 10,000 die every year, compared with 5,000 Catholics.

The official census figures will be released later this year, but other indicators already support the expected statistics. There were 173,000 Catholic schoolchildren last year, compared with 146,000 Protestant. Northern Ireland's three largest cities - Belfast, Derry, and Armagh - all now have Catholic majorities.

In last general election, 44 percent of voters supported the two parties who desire a united Ireland: the Social Democratic and Labour Party, and Sinn Fein (up 4 percent from the 1997 general election).

This year's census is expected to show that between 44 and 46 percent of Northern Ireland's population is Catholic. The last census was in 1981, but since many Catholics boycotted it, the results were flawed.

Professor Wilford says the recent economic "miracle" in the Irish Republic, along with increasing secularization and the decline of the authority of the Catholic Church, has made the prospect of a unified Ireland less frightening for the Protestant middle class, although a debate has yet to begin in working-class areas.

The mainly Catholic SDLP is deeply uneasy with any discussion about birth rates and demographic trends, fearing the predictions could rattle Protestants. But Sinn Fein, seen as the political wing of the Irish Republican Army, is eager to highlight the trends and predict the possibility of a united Ireland before the centenary of the Easter Rising of 1916.

Under the Good Friday agreement, a key section of the Government of Ireland Act, by which Britain governs Northern Ireland. The British government will legislate for Irish unity if a majority of Northern Ireland's residents approve it in a referendum.

Most opinion polls in Britain show its people have little desire to hold on to its troublesome and costly province. The most recent survey, for The Guardian newspaper in August 2001, showed that only 1 in 4 Britons wants Northern Ireland to remain part of the country, with 41 percent supporting the province's joining the rest of Ireland.

This is why the unionist/loyalists are so paranoid. they fear the inevitable, and will lash out more as that inevitabilty draws nearer.

Agree fully. Those hard-liners will do everything to stop or slow the process.

Republicans must realise that the GFA is a framework for certain unity that in the long-term will favour the Republican cause. But Republicans must play their cards right in achieving that.

I am in favour of the GFA. It may have some points that are not CURRENLTY acceptable, but in the long-term the GFA will become the trump card for the nationalist cause.

As the report I posted states:

"The figures mean the rival communities may have to embark on a 'charm offensive' to persuade each other of their respective causes�

I agree with this statement. fully. This will definitely happen, but only if the GFA is given a chance.

If the GFA is a success and violent rivalry is all but extinguished then the predicted 30% of Protestants who may resort to violence may well be far fetched. It is up to the nationalists to reduce this 30% as far as possible.

If as predicted that there will be a United Ireland in 20 years or so. It will then be the Republican government who will have to deal with the sectarian troubles and not the British. It is in the hands of nationalists today, how widespread these problems will be. Todays very young protestants growing up in a divided community will be the mainstay of those that may be throwing / planting bombs in a united Ireland.

What must be done now and I have stated this before is that all religious and political festivities that breed hatred and violence (both sides of the community) such as Orange marches have to be banned outright.

I think these policies are happening but very slowly, through small steps. With the introduction of certain restrictions, then complete restrictions and finally out right banning. Republicans must continue to assert pressure here, however accept that they may have to fulfill certain requirements too. (Compromise)

I think the British government has played a lead role. The biggest problem that she faces is that she is seen by the rival factions as being to one sided to the others opponent. In my opinion she is not. She is walking a very thin line, knowing that the future is a united Ireland, but trying to get there with as little bloodshed as possible.

I think nationalists will have to work closer with the Brits in supporting the GFA and not against her. It is obvious that Britain does not want to deal with continuous problems in Ulster. She would rather build on the very good economic and political ties with the Republic. A Republic that includes the 6 northern counties.

That is why I am against warfare and the policies of the RIRA. They will further divide and stop the natural process. In other words they are playing into the hands of the Unionists. Thay are part of their card game.

These are the points that were agreed in the Anglo - Irish agreement for constitutional change in Northern Ireland.
(Irish Foreign Affairs Office).

CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES
1. The participants endorse the commitment made by the British and Irish Governments that, in a new British-Irish Agreement replacing the Anglo-Irish Agreement, they will:

(i) recognise the legitimacy of whatever choice is freely exercised by a majority of the people of Northern Ireland with regard to its status, whether they prefer to continue to support the Union with Great Britain or a sovereign united Ireland;

(ii) recognise that it is for the people of the island of Ireland alone, by agreement between the two parts respectively and without external impediment, to exercise their right of self-determination on the basis of consent, freely and concurrently given, North and South, to bring about a united Ireland, if that is their wish, accepting that this right must be achieved and exercised with and subject to the agreement and consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland;

(iii) acknowledge that while a substantial section of the people in Northern Ireland share the legitimate wish of a majority of the people of the island of Ireland for a united Ireland, the present wish of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland, freely exercised and legitimate, is to maintain the Union and, accordingly, that Northern Ireland's status as part of the United Kingdom reflects and relies upon that wish; and that it would be wrong to make any change in the status of Northern Ireland save with the consent of a majority of its people;

(iv) affirm that if, in the future, the people of the island of Ireland exercise their right of self-determination on the basis set out in sections (i) and (ii) above to bring about a united Ireland, it will be a binding obligation on both Governments to introduce and support in their respective Parliaments legislation to give effect to that wish;

(v) affirm that whatever choice is freely exercised by a majority of the people of Northern Ireland, the power of the sovereign government with jurisdiction there shall be exercised with rigorous impartiality on behalf of all the people in the diversity of their identities and traditions and shall be founded on the principles of full respect for, and equality of, civil, political, social and cultural rights, of freedom from discrimination for all citizens, and of parity of esteem and of just and equal treatment for the identity, ethos, and aspirations of both communities;

(vi) recognise the birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both, as they may so choose, and accordingly confirm that their right to hold both British and Irish citizenship is accepted by both Governments and would not be affected by any future change in the status of Northern Ireland.

2. The participants also note that the two Governments have accordingly undertaken in the context of this comprehensive political agreement, to propose and support changes in, respectively, the Constitution of Ireland and in British legislation relating to the constitutional status of Northern Ireland.

Unification: consent or dual consent?

Interesting thoughts from Martin Mansergh on what it might take to effect a democratically determined unification of Ireland:

This is largely written in reply to an article by Frank Millar a few some time ago, suggesting that such an outcome depended upon consent within both communities. Danny Morrison was one of the first to challenge this premise.

Speaking about the attitudes of the minority Catholic community Mansergh says:

"They have almost all accepted, however reluctantly, that, if there is to be peace now and peaceful change perhaps in the future, the question has to be decided by a majority of the people of the North in the first instance, as has been the formal constitutional principle in one form or another going back to 1920, from which unionists until now have been the beneficiary. The Ulster Unionist Party and loyalist parties also accepted that in 1998, and it was endorsed by a substantial majority of the people of the North."

On the mechanics of the process he points out:

"In reality, a border poll, resulting in a majority for a united Ireland, an event that is not a realistic prospect at present, could only be a first step in a much longer and more intensive process. Detailed negotiation would be required that would provide the essential guarantees needed on all sides to provide a workable, stable and harmonious unity."

He concludes:

"The real poll would be one held North and South that ratified concurrently (or rejected) a negotiated agreement, leading to the enactment of consequential parallel legislation in the Westminster and Dublin parliaments. Consent is sufficient to put a united Ireland on the table. Parallel consent North and South (and parliamentary legislation) is required to bring it into being."

I think you're being a bit nieve to presume that the Brit government wouldn't interfere with any future vote on the unification of Ireland. The GFA was voted for by the people, yet the Brits and Unionists have time and again tempered with its policies. They've manipulated the GFA to force the hand of the Republican movement, and will continue to do so as long as we are trapped in this "agreement". You have no proof that they will act otherwise, in good fate.

Ultimately, the Brit government is soley resposible for the descision on whether or not "them Fenians" are capable of ruling themselves. Now we can either sit like lap dogs and obey their every command, as we have done for the last 7 years, or we can take a stand and change things, meaning we force the hand of the Brits, not the other way around.

Sl�n

Fianna

What do you mean by the Brits? The Brit governmenrt in Westminster or the Unionists in Ulster.

I personally do no think that the British Government would interfere with the democratic wishes of the people of Ulster. it is written in the GFA. However I agree with you that the Unionists would anything to hamper it.

That is what I meant in one of my earlier posts. " The biggest problem will be the hardliners in Ulster" They will do everything to upset the apple cart like slowing down the process or resorting to violence in order to get an appropriate violent responce from the republican community.

This is where the republican community is not allowed to be nieve and play into the hands of the unionists. The Republicans have done this in the past, but lately they are getting to understand the unionist game. That is good

Most people in England actually support the idea of a united Ireland.

"It is written in the GFA". As if having an agreement written in law has ever stopped the Brit government from interfering with it.

It's also agreed, in law, that the IRA do not have to publicly announce details of their decommissioning act. Even so, I've no doubt the Brits are, as we speak, busy manipulating and coercing to force the IRA to have no choice but to publicly announce details.

And yes, most people in England do support the idea of a united Ireland.

Moreover, most people in the world support the idea of a united Ireland.

But fuck world opinion, as long as Britannias interests are served, everybody else can go to hell. It's the way of the agressor. They know no different.

Sl�n

I tend to agreee more with Lan.

What are Britannias interests. They only keep claim to the 6 counties because the Unionists talk of abandonment.

The people and government of Britain would be only too pleased to see a united Ireland. Do they really need the problems that the unionists brought on themselves and continue with their intransigence ?

Sinn Fein have to convince the unionist population that their rights would be upheld and their safety would be assured in a 32 county republic.

Our Day Will Come

Hold on second, you're telling me with a straight face that Britain has no interest in the Six Counties? That they'd just return it to "the Paddies" with an "aye" from the Commons, a nod from the Queen and a click of Blairs fingers? Gimme a fuckin break, you've gotta be kidding me. Britain has a continuing economic and strategic interest in the 6 Counties. Those 15,000 troops, SAS, MI5, PSNI/RUC, they must all be there for the weather right? Cause they sure as fuck ain't there to maintain the peace or because the "Unionists talk of abandonment". They are there as an army of occupation to exploit the land and its people.

First off, as we all know, less than a century ago (still the modern era and in living memory), the Brits partitioned Ireland, keeping the 6 Counties. Why did they do this? It wasn't just because a load of Paddies thought they were Brits, so demanded they have a place to call the UK while still living in Ireland. It was to do with the economic rape of Ireland and the strategic positioning of Ireland geographically. Believe it or not, the geographical positioning of Ireland is the same as it was 100 years ago! It hasn't changed! :o And therefore retains its strategic importance. And some would say that the economic rape of Ireland continues to this day, with British companies setting up shop here in the South, only to destroy small Irish businesses and send the profits home to the "mainland".

I'm not going to get into the value of the Six Counties to the Brit Army, I think it's fairly obvious. An area to train troops in a real combat situation, only an hours flight from the UK. An area to test new equipment, vehicles and weaponry. An area to gain experience and improve techniques. All these thing so valuable to a modern, active army. Most countries would give anything to have a "back-yard battlezone" like the Six Counties. It's invaluable to the Brit Army.

But one of the biggest interests the Brits have in Ireland is with their lucrative arms trade. You know, where they sell weapons, explosives and gas to unstable dictators. Britain is one of the leading exporters of weapons and arms in the world, and is worth billions to the British economy, as they exploit and encourage the suffering of vunerable Third World countires. Why are they so successful? I can tell you one reason why. Along with each weapon comes the tag-line "Tried and tested in the heat of battle in Northern Ireland", or "Successful at combating terrorism in Northern Ireland" or "As tested in Northern Ireland". What more evidence could a potential buyer want that the product he is going to buy, at great cost, is going to be effective? It's been proven on the ground, where it matters. Nice selling point. What would they do if they lost this selling point? Even if it only resulted in a tiny loss of income, that's still huge job losses in the massive British arms industry.

So there you have it, the retention of the Six Counties is directly influencial on the well-being of the British economy. See, them Brits ain't as stupid as you'd like to think...

Sl�n tamaill a chairde

Fianna mo chara.

You write with such anger, I hope it's taken as read that we are on the same side.
This is a forum for a frank exchange of views I believe, and whilst we don't have to always agree to the letter it's good to see things from a different viewpoint.

I was born in London and have always lived here in the UK so of course I will see things differently from you. I am nearly 40 now and I'm embarrassed to say that during the hunger strikes I was pretty much oblivious to the troubles.

As I got older my interest in Irish history made me realise the injustices inflicted upon Ireland over centuries, and the music and songs encouraged me to become more republican. I'm a member of Cairde Sinn Fein and Troops Out Movement.

So now more than ever I am an Irish republican I always have and always will visit "home" as often as possible. I'll do what i can to further the cause here in England.

Back to the original points...

The net cost to the UK of maintaining the union far outweighs the economic benefits derived from the 6 counties.

Is the strategic importance of the 6 or indeed the 32 counties what it was 100 years ago ? We're all members of NATO now.

Will a united Ireland stop huge british companies setting up shop in Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Galway, Waterford etc. and repatriating profits back to "the mainland" ?
Of course not. Do you think economic protectionism works in the 21st century ? look how successful Coca-Cola and McDonalds are in China and Russia !

Finally mo chara, don't hate the British people, hate British policy. You would be amazed to see how much sympathy there is here from the "man in the street."

Also where are these 15,000 troops. In the last 3 years i was twice in the North. I was in the Bogside of Derry, up the Falls Road to Milltown Cemetary, and I didn't even see 1 Brit Soldier.

Help me to see things from your viewpoint, but remember, we are comrades.

Slan go foill

I have to fully agree with what Chucky says here. Well put. Living in England, one does get a different picture of the actual opinions of the Brits. They are not the same as those stereotyped views in Ulster.

I understand the anger of Fianna and his anger towards the Brits. But this anger in my opinion is wrong. This is where Republicans have to wake up. It is not Britain or the UK. It is the unionists they have to sway..

As Chucky puts it. The British have far more to loose in holding on to sovereignty of the 6 counties than she does if they were united with the Republic. The only reason that the 6 counties are still British is down to the wishes of the Unionists.

The Unionists happen to be unfortunately in the majority (AT THE MOMENT). Give it 10 maybe 15 years and you will see that Ulster will unite with the 26 counties. Those unionists know it. It is up to the Republicans how and how well that is going to be achieved. They know that Ireland will be united. They are holding the ball. They just need to play the game tactfully and the goal will be theirs.

The U.K. is not what she was 100 years ago. She has no strategic interests in Ulster. She has no longer an imperialist empire that covered nearly half of the world. She is no longer a super power. The only super power is the US. What does she have to gain from the 6 counties? Training military personnel is in my opinion a lousy excuse. She has nothing to gain. She would be glad to see Ulster unite.

Britain and The Republic have now better economic and political ties than ever before in history. The UK is a good friend of the Republic and is the Republics biggest investor. She is no longer a plunderer or rapist of Ireland.

Business brings cash, employment and secures the future. 20 years ago the Republic was nearly bankrupt. Only Portugal was worse off. She had to survive on handouts from the EU, not forgetting the U.K. Those EU handouts or cash injections stopped in 2000 as Ireland had developed above the 75% of the average GDP in Europe (Average GDP being set at 100%).

Ireland is no longer a beggar but a major exporter of high tech goods such as computers or software. Why? Inward investment from countries such as the US or the UK.

I think Republicans need to distinguish between Brits (Unionists) and Brits (Britain). They are not the same, only on paper.

Ok, where to start with this shit...

Wrong. I think you're confusing Ireland with the UK. Coming from an alleged "Irish Republican", that's pretty suspect. But seeing as you've been assimilated into British society, with its ignorance and complete lack of regard for anything but itself, that's understandable.

But a question for you with all the answers: If the Six Counties isn't of strategic importance to the Brits, why is it the most densely militarized zone in Western Europe? What the fuck are they holding on so tightly for?

You're a member of the Troops Out Movement, yet seem over the fuckin moon that when you went to the North there wasn't a soldier to be seen. Isn't that a bit of a contradiction? Maybe if you visit South Armagh you'll find out just where some of those 15,000 troops are.

In South Armagh, troop levels and activity are greater than they were before the GFA. The Brits ferry troops in and out in choppers, landing on farmland killing cattle and livestock as they do so. You ring for the police in South Armagh, your greeted not by a cop car with flashing sirens, but with a squad of Paras abseiling from a low-flying Chinook.

And you mightn't have seen them, but I can guarantee you that they saw you. Brit Army watch-towers and spy-towers are constantly being upgraded and maintained. Visit the Bogside did you? Hope you smiled for Big Brit Brother. Have your mobile with you? Hope you don't mind your Government knowing exactly where you were. Make any calls? Good to know the person you were talking to wasnt the only one privy to the conversation, isn't it?

Ever stop to think that the lack of Brit Army presence is just another tool of propaganda at their disposal? It's called "normalisation", and it's your fuckin enemy. It's an attempt by the Brits to mask their illegal presence in our country. If there's no Brit soldiers on patrol, they're not there, right? Right??? Think for yourself and open your fuckin eyes.

And as for you LAN', I really don't know what to say to you, and besides, I'm too fuckin tired now. We seem to go over the same old shit again and again. Yet again you've brought up the waiting game dilema. My views on this are simple and clear. You don't get anything by sitting around and waiting for others to do the work. Freedom was never won by those who waited for a reaction, it was won by those who caused the reaction.

No, she isn't. But what's just as bad is that she'd like to cover up the fact that she ever was.

Britain will pay for what it did, it's only a matter of time..."carry on my gallant and brave comrades until that certain day".

B�s n� an bua.

Fianna

I'm a little taken aback by your aggressive stance towards me.

Maybe you should direct your anger at the enemies of our cause. Do you think you know more than the SF and PIRA leadership ?

Such intransigence is exactly why the UUP reneged on their deal last week. If everyone in Ireland shares your lack of compromise we'll be exactly where we are now in another 30 years, with thousands of unnecessary deaths into the bargain.

As i've already stated, this discussion board if for a frank exchange of views. If you cannot accept someone elses point of view then that's a big shame. Just coz you don't agree does that make me wrong ?

As I keep saying, we want the same end result, just see a different way of achieving it.

Daithi

No, I don't think I know more than the Provos and Sinn F�in, but that's not to say that the Provos and Sinn F�in are infallible, their policies and leadership unquestionable. And by saying that you're the one that's dismissing my views. Since I don't know as much as the Provos and Sinn F�in, why should I bother posting? Why should any of us bother?

Alot of people think it's your type that are the problem with the the Republican movement at the moment. You join Chairde Sinn F�in and march about London a couple of times a year, maybe visit Ireland to give your "support", discuss politics at your local. You follow Sinn F�in blindly, and are happy to sit on your arse until things slowly swing (hopefully) our way. And once Freedom is achieved, you'll be the first to tell your grandchildren that you were a "proud Republican" and sing Republican Army songs with your "chairde" in your local, toasting the memory of your fallen "comrades".

I'm not attacking you personally, and I'm not trying to define your Republicanism, because after all, as Bobby Sands said, "Everybody has a part to play". I just don't think you've any fuckin right to tell me where to "direct my anger".

I do accept your views. You can think what you like, it means shit it me. I'm just arguing my point, and if I express it too strongly for you then maybe you'd be better off ignoring my posts.

Sl�n