Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Referendum for Irish Unity 2022

12357…17

Comments

  • #122
    Cavehill Red
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,109 ✭✭✭Cavehill Red


    getzls wrote: »
    And the Irish courts.:cool:

    Apart from that nothing will EVER happen to make the Unionist people of Northern Ireland want to join that banana Republic.

    I and many others were prepared to die before and many did to prevent it.

    Little has changed in my way of thinking.

    Yes, this eyes wide shut approach is why unionists have their famed reputation for intransigence and stubborn stupidity the world over.
    Be honest with yourself: your 'way of thinking' isn't open to being changed, no matter what the realpolitik nor the mode of persuasion. Your frozen 'way of thinking' is all you have left of your once vibrant culture. The days of innovative industry are long gone, the religion is of no interest to the youth, the cultural expression is reduced to triumphalist marching. Your brightest and best have been emigrating forever, a good few to the Republic in recent times I note.
    It's for this reason I feel enormous pity for unionists. To me they are reminiscent of the large mammals which died out at the onset of the ice age, incapable of adapting in time to changing circumstance.


  • #123
    Chuck Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,030 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    getzls wrote: »
    Apart from that nothing will EVER happen to make the Unionist people of Northern Ireland want to join that banana Republic.

    Except that it doesn't really matter what they'd think ultimately in the face of a majority vote for unification.

    I don't think the English would be shedding too many tears either to be rid of the problem. In fact, they'd probably support a UI with gusto.


  • #124
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,850 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Cavehill Red wrote: »
    Be honest with yourself: your 'way of thinking' isn't open to being changed, no matter what the realpolitik nor the mode of persuasion.
    Out of curiosity, what would it take to persuade you to abandon the goal of a united Ireland?


  • #125
    Cavehill Red
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,109 ✭✭✭Cavehill Red


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Out of curiosity, what would it take to persuade you to abandon the goal of a united Ireland?

    I'm always open to persuasion by circumstance. If it could be demonstrated that partitioning a tiny island of only 7 million people economically and politically made sense, then I'd like to hear that argument. However, I've never lived in circumstances where that argument held any water.
    For me the issue of unifying Ireland is a secondary matter in any case. The primary issue is that the ongoing colonial throwback of occupying other people's countries is an anachronism in the modern world and one that holds back the constructive redevelopment on all relationships within this archipelago.
    In other words, I see the reconstruction of relationships WITHIN Ireland and WITHIN Britain as more important, but I have never yet been introduced to an argument which demonstrated how partitioning this nation makes any sense.


  • #126
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,850 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Cavehill Red wrote: »
    The primary issue is that the ongoing colonial throwback of occupying other people's countries is an anachronism in the modern world and one that holds back the constructive redevelopment on all relationships within this archipelago.
    What would it take to persuade you that Northern Ireland isn't a colony or occupied, and is in fact an integral part of the United Kingdom?


  • Advertisement
  • #127
    Cavehill Red
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,109 ✭✭✭Cavehill Red


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    What would it take to persuade you that Northern Ireland isn't a colony or occupied, and is in fact an integral part of the United Kingdom?

    The question lacks coherence and is loaded. NI is only part of the United Kingdom because it is a gerrymandered occupied colony. When it ceases to be an occupied colony it will simultaneously cease to be part of the UK.


  • #128
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,850 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Cavehill Red wrote: »
    The question lacks coherence and is loaded. NI is only part of the United Kingdom because it is a gerrymandered occupied colony. When it ceases to be an occupied colony it will simultaneously cease to be part of the UK.

    I guess that's as close to an answer as I'm likely to get. The reason I asked - as I suspect you realise - is that it strikes me as ironic that someone who will never, ever change his 'way of thinking' about Northern Ireland as an 'occupied colony' should lecture a unionist about the intransigence of his worldview.


  • #129
    Cavehill Red
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,109 ✭✭✭Cavehill Red


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I guess that's as close to an answer as I'm likely to get. The reason I asked - as I suspect you realise - is that it strikes me as ironic that someone who will never, ever change his 'way of thinking' about Northern Ireland as an 'occupied colony' should lecture a unionist about the intransigence of his worldview.

    Should I change my mind about the sky being blue or about the force of gravity? British occupation in Ireland is a fact. It's not a negotiable opinion, open to persuasion to a different point of view. I don't have a 'way of thinking' about it. I'm simply recognising the reality. There is no irony here, merely a dubious attempt on your part to equate opinion with fact. They're not actually the same.
    I have an opinion on the desirability about unifying Ireland, which a Unionist's opinion may dispute. The colonial occupational nature of Britain in Ireland is factual, however, unless you intend to indulge in Jonbar points and alternate history.


  • #130
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,850 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Cavehill Red wrote: »
    British occupation in Ireland is a fact.
    No, it's not.

    Now, we could do the pantomime "oh yes it is" back and forth, but you've espoused something as indisputably true when it's quite simply not an objective fact, no matter how desperately you want it to be.

    I've pointed out the irony. You can continue to beg the question to your heart's content, and you will doubtless continue to receive "thanks" from people who share your worldview, but the irony remains visible to anyone who doesn't.


  • #131
    Cavehill Red
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,109 ✭✭✭Cavehill Red


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    No, it's not.

    Now, we could do the pantomime "oh yes it is" back and forth, but you've espoused something as indisputably true when it's quite simply not an objective fact, no matter how desperately you want it to be.

    This should be entertaining. Show us the evidence that demonstrates how the North of Ireland is NOT a colony please.


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    Chuck Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,030 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    What would it take to persuade you that Northern Ireland isn't a colony or occupied, and is in fact an integral part of the United Kingdom?

    Integral? Is this what you believe?
    On Wednesday 15 December 1993, the Joint Declaration on Peace (more commonly known as the Downing Street Declaration) was issued by John Major, then Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, and Albert Reynolds, then Taoiseach (Prime Minister of the Republic of Ireland), on behalf of the British and Irish governments. This included statements that:

    The British government had no "selfish strategic or economic" interest in Northern Ireland. This statement would lead, eventually, to the repeal of the Government of Ireland Act 1920.

    Wiki

    I'm not sure about how you'd define integral but the sentence I've italicised for your benefit above shows how much the British think the north is 'integral' to the UK.


  • #133
    Cavehill Red
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,109 ✭✭✭Cavehill Red


    Ah, Chuck. I wanted to be the one to bring that little gem to light.


  • #134
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,850 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Cavehill Red wrote: »
    This should be entertaining. Show us the evidence that demonstrates how the North of Ireland is NOT a colony please.
    http://www.un.org/en/decolonization/nonselfgovterritories.shtml

    Show us the evidence that demonstrates how Northern Ireland IS a colony please.


  • #135
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,850 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Chuck Stone wrote: »
    I'm not sure about how you'd define integral...
    Outside of Irish republican self-delusion, it's pretty self-evident that Northern Ireland is an integral part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The clue is in the name.


  • #136
    Cavehill Red
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,109 ✭✭✭Cavehill Red


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    http://www.un.org/en/decolonization/nonselfgovterritories.shtml

    I see no relevance.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Show us the evidence that demonstrates how Northern Ireland IS a colony please.

    Knock yourself out.


  • #137
    Cavehill Red
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,109 ✭✭✭Cavehill Red


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Outside of Irish republican self-delusion, it's pretty self-evident that Northern Ireland is an integral part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The clue is in the name.

    The name that makes a clear distinction between integral Great Britain and its colonial entity, you mean?


  • #138
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,850 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Cavehill Red wrote: »
    I see no relevance.
    Of course you don't see the relevance of a list of colonies published by the United Nations body whose responsibility is the elimination of all remaining colonies in the world. If it doesn't support your argument, it must automatically be irrelevant.

    You do realise you're doing a beautiful job of illustrating my original point about irony, right?
    Knock yourself out.
    Asking the person you're arguing with to dig up evidence to support your side of the argument is pretty pathetic, frankly.
    Cavehill Red wrote: »
    The name that makes a clear distinction between integral Great Britain and its colonial entity, you mean?
    I'll grant you this much: that was an extremely skillful goalpost-moving exercise. I start of talking about "an integral part of the United Kingdom", and - because you can't argue against the utterly self-evident fact that Northern Ireland is an integral part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, you cleverly start talking about "integral Great Britain" instead, which wasn't the topic under discussion.

    But my point remains: you're completely, totally and utterly incapable of wrapping your head around the idea that Northern Ireland isn't an occupied colony. Which is fine: everyone's entitled to be obsessively wrong about one thing or another. But the irony of you thumbing your nose at someone else - worse, at everyone who holds an opposing political philosophy - on the grounds that they are intransigent in their world view continues to be amusing.


  • #139
    Chuck Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,030 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Outside of Irish republican self-delusion, it's pretty self-evident that Northern Ireland is an integral part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The clue is in the name.

    So you're essentially presenting words written on a page in a vain attempt to make the argument that the north is self-evidently an integral part of the UK?

    Stunning use of logic.


  • #140
    Cavehill Red
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,109 ✭✭✭Cavehill Red


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Of course you don't see the relevance of a list of colonies published by the United Nations body whose responsibility is the elimination of all remaining colonies in the world. If it doesn't support your argument, it must automatically be irrelevant.

    Except, and once again we find you in denial of reality here, that's not a list of colonies.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    You do realise you're doing a beautiful job of illustrating my original point about irony, right? Asking the person you're arguing with to dig up evidence to support your side of the argument is pretty pathetic, frankly.

    I didn't ask you to dig up any evidence. The colonisation of Ulster is so well-known a fact that the first page (of tens of millions of references) of that google search provides detailed discussion and analysis of it by, among others, the BBC. I provided you with that search to show you the extent of how ridiculous you are being by attempting to assert that Ulster is not a colony.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I'll grant you this much: that was an extremely skillful goalpost-moving exercise. I start of talking about "an integral part of the United Kingdom", and - because you can't argue against the utterly self-evident fact that Northern Ireland is an integral part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, you cleverly start talking about "integral Great Britain" instead, which wasn't the topic under discussion.

    It's hardly clever of me. I didn't name the place after all. It's not me who makes the distinction between Britain and it's Irish holdings. Clearly, since in the eyes of the governing body they are of a different order, they must be different and hence not integral.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    But my point remains: you're completely, totally and utterly incapable of wrapping your head around the idea that Northern Ireland isn't an occupied colony. Which is fine: everyone's entitled to be obsessively wrong about one thing or another. But the irony of you thumbing your nose at someone else - worse, at everyone who holds an opposing political philosophy - on the grounds that they are intransigent in their world view continues to be amusing.

    You're still (deliberately) confusing fact with opinion, because the fact doesn't suit your opinion. That's what's both ironic and amusing here.


  • #141
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    CelticDragon7 wrote: »
    Whether you would vote Yes or No in any such referendum, would you support that there should be a referendum on the issue of Irish unity some time in 2022?

    (2022 would be 100 years on from the effective ratification of the Anglo-Irish Treaty in 1922 and so really the defining moment for permanent partition and so surely the people voting 100 years later could settle the issue for the foreseeable future one way or the other).

    So basically a Yes or No answer but of course feel free to air your views and stimulate debate! :)

    Thanks!

    No I wouldn't. I suspect most of Northern Ireland wouldn't ergo I wouldn't.


  • Advertisement
  • #142
    Chuck Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,030 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    the utterly self-evident fact that Northern Ireland is an integral part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

    Repeating the mantra that 'it's self-evident' does not make what comes after it a fact.

    Again, the British conceded they'd no selfish strategic or economic interest in NI. That's not what you'd say about something you believed was integral to you.

    The north is about as integral to Britain as a gangrenous 6th toe to a foot.


  • #143
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,850 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Chuck Stone wrote: »
    So you're essentially presenting words written on a page in a vain attempt to make the argument that the north is self-evidently an integral part of the UK?

    Stunning use of logic.
    I get it. I do. I'm saying something that you can't allow your brain to understand, because it goes against everything you believe.

    You'll have to take my word for this: people who don't have a vested interest in remaining convinced that Northern Ireland is an occupied colony are able to understand my point. It's absolutely fine that you can't understand it, because - to quote someone whose posts you've thanked in this thread - your 'way of thinking' isn't open to being changed.

    Which is my entire point, no matter how hard you and he work at not getting it.
    Cavehill Red wrote: »
    Except, and once again we find you in denial of reality here, that's not a list of colonies.
    No? And yet, that's the list that the UN's decolonization committee is working on.

    Given your absolute certainty that Northern Ireland is an occupied colony, can you venture an explanation as to why the UN hasn't noticed?
    I didn't ask you to dig up any evidence. The colonisation of Ulster is so well-known a fact that the first page (of tens of millions of references) of that google search provides detailed discussion and analysis of it by, among others, the BBC. I provided you with that search to show you the extent of how ridiculous you are being by attempting to assert that Ulster is not a colony.
    And yet, I'm capable of distinguishing the separate concepts of "the colonisation of Ulster" and "Northern Ireland is an occupied colony".

    For example, I could suggest that you search Google for "colonization of America", and you will find a great deal of interesting historical analysis of that subject. That doesn't mean that America is a colony.

    Before you segue down another irrelevant tangent, I'm not claiming that Northern Ireland isn't a colony for the same reason that America isn't a colony; I'm merely pointing out that your smart-assed "google it" answer wasn't the master stroke you seemed to think it was.
    It's hardly clever of me. I didn't name the place after all. It's not me who makes the distinction between Britain and it's Irish holdings. Clearly, since in the eyes of the governing body they are of a different order, they must be different and hence not integral.
    By which logic, Tobago is an occupied colony of Trinidad. After all, if it was an integral part of the republic, it would be called...

    Wait, what would it be called? I can't follow this "logic" at all.


  • #144
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,850 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Chuck Stone wrote: »
    The north is about as integral to Britain as a gangrenous 6th toe to a foot.
    Who claimed that Northern Ireland was integral to Britain?


  • #145
    Chuck Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,030 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    You'll have to take my word for this: people who don't have a vested interest in remaining convinced that Northern Ireland is an occupied colony are able to understand my point. It's absolutely fine that you can't understand it, because - to quote someone whose posts you've thanked in this thread - your 'way of thinking' isn't open to being changed.

    Written while gritting your teeth? As much as you seem to believe there is some sort of nationalist/republican hive mind there isn't.

    I don't see the north as an occupied colony. The watch towers are gone and the border crossings have been demilitarized, the BA are off the streets and the PSNI have supplanted the RUC. Much like a migrating bird I don't see the border when I travel up north. I also believe a UI will come about by osmosis rather than pushing people into corners.


  • #146
    The Browser
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78 ✭✭The Browser


    bbam wrote: »
    Was watching an episode of Star Trek Next generation the other evening.

    They were babbling on about examples of terrorism gaining results and then mentioned the 2024 civil war in Ireland that gained a unified state...

    So that's just two years after your proposed vote.

    And how many years after that in the world of star trek until all these ridiculous tribe-based nationalisms ceased to exist in favor of something higher?


  • #147
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Cavehill Red wrote: »

    I'm old. I remember Tories in Major's government saying similar bluster about the possibility of a Scottish parliament. Indeed, go back far enough and people were saying similar about Britain entering the EU. Currently they say similar about Britain leaving the EU.
    Bottom line is, just because you can't imagine something doesn't make it impossible, or even unlikely.
    I'm young. It doesn't. Still not going to happen though.


  • #148
    LordSutch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,076 ✭✭✭✭LordSutch


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    http://www.un.org/en/decolonization/nonselfgovterritories.shtml

    Show us the evidence that demonstrates how Northern Ireland IS a colony please.

    Good point Oscar, the term 'Colony' is bandied about so much now, specially (since 1998).


  • #149
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    oscarBravo wrote: »

    No? And yet, that's the list that the UN's decolonization committee is working on.

    .

    I'd imagine it may be because of the seat on the UNSC and various political reasons. Tibet isn't on the list, nor are the Occupied Territories, West Papua, Kashmir etc.


  • #150
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    getzls wrote: »
    Seems your not old enough to remember when the IRA crossed the border to hide under the protection of the Irish state.

    I am.

    I think it's integral to the success of any way forward that the Unionist community accept their part of the responsibility for the existence of the IRA, the INLA and all their loyalist counterparts. The idea of them sitting up on the high moral ground with unstained hands is ludicrious in the extreme and has always been. The fact that they are now the greatest threat to the peace, as we seek 'normalisation' speaks of the refusal of many to rid themselves of the sense of entitlement that caused the conflict in the first place.
    We all have responsibility for what happened, just as we have responsibility for the future.

    I said earlier that the debate and the celebration of our cultural differences could be a fascinating and nourishing one if we could get to the stage of simply respecting each other.
    I would have no qualms whatsoever of a shared future with the likes of Bertie Woot, and I would look forward to a spirited and intelligent debate of the significances of different aspects of our cultures and their place in a new Ireland. United or not, we still have to find a way to share this island.
    The obstacles to a peaceful and respectful future lie, just where they have always lain...in intransigence and one sided blame mentalities like the one above.
    It's fascinating to at last hear a respectful and intelligent contribution from the Unionist fraternity on here. I have many questions and need to digest what he/she has said and maybe this thread is not the place for them. Stay on board Bertie!


  • Advertisement
  • #151
    junder
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,706 ✭✭✭junder


    Happyman42 wrote: »

    I think it's integral to the success of any way forward that the Unionist community accept their part of the responsibility for the existence of the IRA, the INLA and all their loyalist counterparts. The idea of them sitting up on the high moral ground with unstained hands is ludicrious in the extreme and has always been. The fact that they are now the greatest threat to the peace, as we seek 'normalisation' speaks of the refusal of many to rid themselves of the sense of entitlement that caused the conflict in the first place.
    We all have responsibility for what happened, just as we have responsibility for the future.

    I said earlier that the debate and the celebration of our cultural differences could be a fascinating and nourishing one if we could get to the stage of simply respecting each other.
    I would have no qualms whatsoever of a shared future with the likes of Bertie Woot, and I would look forward to a spirited and intelligent debate of the significances of different aspects of our cultures and their place in a new Ireland. United or not, we still have to find a way to share this island.
    The obstacles to a peaceful and respectful future lie, just where they have always lain...in intransigence and one sided blame mentalities like the one above.
    It's fascinating to at last hear a respectful and intelligent contribution from the Unionist fraternity on here. I have many questions and need to digest what he/she has said and maybe this thread is not the place for them. Stay on board Bertie!

    He discribes himself as a Irish nationalist so whilst apparently being raised in a unionist community he is a unionist and subsequently does not reflect what unionist believe in, but then this is why you are enamoured by his view pound since its what's you want to hear and means you dont Actully have to deal the real unionist beliefs


Advertisement