United Ireland Poll

I still don't get the logic that a no vote = pro-British

dlofnep

Lads - we're all above slagging each other. Opinions differ, no matter what your view is. I've already said my bit on why I personally support Irish Unity and hope down the line all of us on this Island can live under one Government, without borders or predjudice. I think everyone has said their part at this stage.

The poll has not changed since it's beginning. The majority of the people on here support Irish Unity, a large contingent in the minority do not support it and a smaller minority are unsure, due to various reasons such as economic feasability or perhaps backlash from militant loyalists. It's all understandable and it's been great to read all the arguments from both sides and guage an understanding of today's mindset in Ireland.

Let's not turn what has been otherwise a good debate into a slag-fest.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

kreuzberger wrote: »

Im of the opinion the increase in pro British attitudes south of the border is in direct corellation with the increase in the use of mens moisturising products.

Who does a no vote AUTOMATICALLY lead to some pro-British poseur jibes?

I don't have any affection for a united Ireland and I've no affection for Britain either - it's even more conservative than it is here - and I never touch men's moisturising products.

Can I use my psorasis cream seeing as it's medical?

Can I be labeled a West European instead of a West Brit? If not, why not?

dlofnep

dlofnep wrote: »

Let's not turn what has been otherwise a good debate into a slag-fest.

I agree but sometimes some people just say the daftest things

dlofnep

Ah, people are just emotional about the topic Dolan. It's hard to express what you have to say when you're emotional or attached about a subject. Don't take it personally. I think you're a good guy and I've seen you active with the Irish language, something that I'm also very fond of, and which is being veto'd out in the North. Still, I've said my piece.

To my Republican comrades on here, I understand your emotions about the topic - but we are absolutely above slagging-matches about the topic. I appreciate you're confusion about some people's mentalities on here in regards to Irish Unity. Some is passive-attitudes, some is based on economic instability, or fear of loyalist attacks. Some just are not bothered. We have to understand and accept this, and move on. Support for Unity is in the majority on here and has been since the inception of the thread. Don't worry so much.

kreuzberger

thelordofcheese wrote: »

Ahh the fabled west brits that ruin everything. Ohh if it wasn't for them pesky west brits we'd we living in a united ireland and there'd be no problems at all.
It must be great to live in such a world where you have an amorphous entity to blame everything on.

this is plainly over exaggerated sarcasm avoiding the issue that peace talks were delibertely wrecked by sending machine gun toting cops in to break them up

Arresting terrorists? what a terrible idea, shame on them, SHAME.

actually they arrested protestant clergymen . But it seems to have been a terrible idea in the case of the Dublin Monaghan bombings , indeed great efforts were made not to arrest anyone .

Ahh yes, of course people who disagree with you must be lunatics

.

Conor CruiseOBrien, Eoghan Harris and others ive referred to clearly are lunatics though . And clealry did have unfettered access to the media along with the ability to censor opposing views in the most draconian and blanket fashion . For decades . Even though OBrien even later joined a northern unionist party and then got thrown out when he said protestants would be better off in a united Ireland .:) :D:):)

Thats is clearly not very rational behaviour . Lets not even dwell on Harris .

I mean nobody anywhere with an ounce of sense could possible object to the unification of ireland.

you clearly are not making any sense or any logical contribution to the debate

And to think that such a union would be a financial burden to the republic or even prehaps restart the violence of 'the troubles'? Ohh that'd about as sane as running naked through dublin.

this is the garret fitzgerald/OBrien doom mongering stuff as opposed to the logical analysis ive referred to as being necessary for proper and reasoned deabte. you havent demonstrated how this is actually the case . Ive pointed to clear examples of how it could very easily be funded from our own resources , extra employment created and with plenty left over .

And the bulk of your post avoided the original point with all the grace a newborn giraffe on ice.
What makes you think that all the potential problems that uniting ireland could be solved with some simple "discussions" when both sides in the north have a long history of being adverse to discussing anything. When parade routes can't even be decided upon what in the world makes you think you could hammer out the concept of being part of a united ireland?[

Because its in peoples self interest to . And both sides in the north have plainly not been adverse to discussions . Residents groups opposed to orange parades have always taken the position " no talk = no walk" , meaning they clealrly desired discussion and agreemnt . The orangemen declared they had a right to walk " the queens highway" and refused to talk , instead relying on the British to batter nationalists off the roads.

So , from the example you give one side are prepared to talk and always have been , and in a united Ireland it plainly would not be the queens highway any more . Thats quite obvious . Furthermore unionists would not be in a posiioton of bullying a powerless minority but an empowered majoriity which is a plainly different political equation . Then its very much in their interests to talk when in the previous equation it wasnt . It would not be the British tazxpayer picking up the bill for any rioting but instead the bill would be coming out of their own pockets for any damage they were responsible for . Its they whod suffer directly for any mayhem . . South of the border orangemen have no difficulty whatsoever talking to the local community and gaining their consent . Nobody stops their march in Rossnowlagh or mini marches in Monaghan and cavan ,or even thinks of doing it . They are there with consent , not because they can bully a minority . Thats how a united Ireland would work out .

Just to restate my answer to the original question (it's long lost in the fud)
heart says yes, but the head says no; not untill a lot of issues economic, cultural & political are sorted out!

dlofnep

I can appreciate that dolanbaker, that seems to be a common requirement for many of the no voters. And it's something I as a Republican and other Republicans have to conquer and devise a realistic strategy to tackle it.

kreuzberger

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

- and I never touch men's moisturising products.

obviously ,wiith a name like that

dlofnep

dlofnep wrote: »

I can appreciate that dolanbaker, that seems to be a common requirement for many of the no voters. And it's something I as a Republican and other Republicans have to conquer and devise a realistic strategy to tackle it.

Go raibh maith agat

javaboy

Kold wrote: »

The happenings in the North are nothing like Tibet/Burma/Sudan.

You were making the case that just because someone does not have a connection to a place, that they shouldn't care. I have no relations living in Northern Ireland and I've only been there once. Is it ok if I still have an opinion on it?

kildare paddy

Deleted User wrote: »

I still don't get the logic that a no vote = pro-British

because your accepting british rule in Ireland

Slutmonkey57b

Dudess wrote: »

Because it's the island of Ireland and the six counties were taken by force. I don't care how long ago it happened. It was still unjust.

Then you'll have no problem with everyone who votes no on the basis that the Norn Irish are a bunch of murdering terrorist bastards....?

Pythia

Britain made us what we are today. We should be grateful.
Many celebrated Irishmen of the past were actually of British parentage or were Protestant, a fact many choose to ignore.

Rb

kreuzberger wrote: »

So , from the example you give one side are prepared to talk and always have been , and in a united Ireland it plainly would not be the queens highway any more . Thats quite obvious . Furthermore unionists would not be in a posiioton of bullying a powerless minority but an empowered majoriity which is a plainly different political equation . Then its very much in their interests to talk when in the previous equation it wasnt . It would not be the British tazxpayer picking up the bill for any rioting but instead the bill would be coming out of their own pockets for any damage they were responsible for . Its they whod suffer directly for any mayhem . . South of the border orangemen have no difficulty whatsoever talking to the local community and gaining their consent . Nobody stops their march in Rossnowlagh or mini marches in Monaghan and cavan ,or even thinks of doing it . They are there with consent , not because they can bully a minority . Thats how a united Ireland would work out .

Oh wow you're genuinely insane.

kildare paddy

kildare paddy wrote: »

because your accepting british rule in Ireland

:rolleyes: (I prefer the other one but this'll do)

Deleted User wrote: »

Just to restate my answer to the original question (it's long lost in the fud)
heart says yes, but the head says no; not untill a lot of issues economic, cultural & political are sorted out!

AlmightyCushion

rb_ie wrote: »

Oh wow you're genuinely insane.

Watch it rb.

kreuzberger

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

Then you'll have no problem with everyone who votes no on the basis that the Norn Irish are a bunch of murdering terrorist bastards....?

thats not just illogical but considering the fact it was southerners who pretty much invented the IRA , IRB , Fenians, Invincibles , guerilla ambushes assassination and the like totally hypocritical . The people who started the provos and the INLA were all southerners .

dlofnep

Pythia wrote: »

Britain made us what we are today. We should be grateful.
Many celebrated Irishmen of the past were actually of British parentage or were Protestant, a fact many choose to ignore.

I'll be sure to thank Britain for turning their back on us during the famine, for implementing penal laws on us, for murdering innocent children in Derry, for dividing our country and causing a civil war, for general oppression for 100's of years.

Ireland became one of the greatest nations in the world through it's own Government, and own people. We owe nothing to Britain. But you are correct, they made us what we are today - a divided nation. Please don't insult our intelligence and try to imply that we owe britain anything.

kreuzberger

javaboy wrote: »

You were making the case that just because someone does not have a connection to a place, that they shouldn't care. I have no relations living in Northern Ireland and I've only been there once. Is it ok if I still have an opinion on it?

Its part of your own country ffs

Rb

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

Watch it rb.

Whoops, sorry AC.

Is "You're clearly delusional and your ideas are bordering pure insanity" any better?

kreuzberger

Deleted User wrote: »

Just to restate my answer to the original question (it's long lost in the fud)
heart says yes, but the head says no; not untill a lot of issues economic, cultural & political are sorted out!

then would it not be more correct to describe yourself as an undecided rather than a no ?

Rb

dlofnep wrote: »

I'll be sure to thank Britain for turning their back on us during the famine, for implementing penal laws on us, for murdering innocent children in Derry, for dividing our country and causing a civil war, for general oppression for 100's of years.

Ireland became one of the greatest nations in the world through it's own Government, and own people. We owe nothing to Britain. But you are correct, they made us what we are today - a divided nation. Please don't insult our intelligence and try to imply that we owe britain anything.

What about the English language?

dlofnep

kreuzberger wrote: »

then would it not be more correct to describe yourself as an undecided rather than a no ?

He is decided until there is a solution to what he sees as an economical problem with the unity of the Island.

Rb

kreuzberger wrote: »

then would it not be more correct to describe yourself as an undecided rather than a no ?

Er, no. If you don't want a united ireland until certain things are sorted out, then it's a clear no. DUCY?

kildare paddy

kreuzberger wrote: »

thats not just illogical but considering the fact it was southerners who pretty much invented the IRA , IRB , Fenians, Invincibles , guerilla ambushes assassination and the like totally hypocritical . The people who started the provos and the INLA were all southerners .

dead right mate i think southerners just forget their roots and also RSF/CIRA formed by southerners!

javaboy

Deleted User wrote: »

:rolleyes: (I prefer the other one but this'll do)

+1. People can vote no without it meaning they're pro-British rule.

The OP didn't ask whether we want a United Ireland in an ideal world. They asked would we want one considering the consequences. Those consequences would be disastrous imho.

kreuzberger

i asked him . if his heart says yes then hes clearly conflicted rather than committed

kildare paddy

rb_ie wrote: »

What about the English language?

what about it?

Rb

kildare paddy wrote: »

dead right mate i think southerners just forget their roots and also RSF/CIRA formed by southerners!

How'd you get your 9 honours in the LC with such attrocious English, kildare paddy?