Referendum for Irish Unity 2022

Happyman42

junder wrote: »

What you seem to be missing is that he is not a unionist he is a self expressed Irish nationalist therefore he is out side unionism not inside and as for ' entitled and suprematist past'. That was exactly the usual republican response to the subject of unionist culture, what was that you said about respect?

He is a Unionist who has question the beliefs he inherited and has shifted his ideology.
Respect has nothing to do with not dealing in truths, you might not like the words but it doesn't make it any less true that that is how Unionism manifested itself since partition.

junder

Happyman42 wrote: »

He is a Unionist who has question the beliefs he inherited and has shifted his ideology.
Respect has nothing to do with not dealing in truths, you might not like the words but it doesn't make it any less true that that is how Unionism manifested itself since partition.

And republicanism is a violent idology that has manifested itself in murder, wait what's that? A generlization I hear, well it seems par for the course round here sometimes. As for berty,a unionist is somebody that believes in maintaining the union, Berty by his/her own admission does not er go he/she is not a unionist and what ever road to Damascus conversion that has led him/her to allegedly convert idology is very much personnel to berty so can in no way reflect unionism in general. So you want to know unionist thought speak to a unionist

T runner

kidneyfan wrote: »

Terrible how the British Isles were partitioned. Time to put that right and put the red saltire back in the front of the Union Flag.

Right Right. And would Unionists accept an Irish parliament this time? No, No? Why not, pray tell? I think there's a little bit too much sectarianism up there still eh?

Ireland has always been partioned geographically, economically and de facto politically from Britain. A corrupt Union imposed by the Richest country in Europe onto the poorest country in Europe changed nothing.

The Union with Ireland was only a strategic move by the British to minimise the threat of a foreign power attacking Britain through Ireland. There was no other reason for the Union. Lord Cornwallis spent in excess of 1.5 million sterling in corrupt payments to Irish gentry in compensation for losing seats...if they voted for The Union. That is an absolutely staggering amount of money for that time. This was not a Union of equals. It was just another example of an imperial power using a colony for its own selfish needs. Absorbing the colony into the UK being the particular selfish need of the Colonial power at the time. An example of how corrupt this Union was the fact that Ireland while having 1/3 of the population only held 1/6th of seats in Westminister. This is inline with the position that the Union was to strenghten Britain defensively while corruptly minimising the unwanted accompanying Irish voice in this "Union" and continued Britains policy of using political corruption and gerrymandering to obtain its imperial needs in Ireland.

You cant partition what was not ever a real unit can you?

The idea of a 6 county separtist entity in Ireland was only born after 1910. This was an artificial gerrymandered region whose only raison d'etre was to give a minority in Ireland, a false majority in this newly created region.

The Protestants in Ireland or Ulster do not qualify under any interpretation of self determination. They could not claim that their rights would be violated in an Independent Ireland because they made no investigation as to that fact. The preservation of 26 county Irish Protestants privlaged position gives the lie to Unionist misgivings.
Their attitudes were based on religious belief, and anti-catholism which had for many Protestants manifested itself in sectarian attitudes to individual Catholics and to institutional sectarianism. Believing your co-countrymen are inferior to you is not grounds for self determination.

And this anti-catholicism lives on..... and wont be adressed because Catholics and Protestants living without idiotic sectarianism might mean that a main barrier to a United Ireland (anti-Catholocism in NI) is gone.

T runner

junder wrote: »

And republicanism is a violent idology that has manifested itself in murder, wait what's that? A generlization I hear, well it seems par for the course round here sometimes. As for berty,a unionist is somebody that believes in maintaining the union, Berty by his/her own admission does not er go he/she is not a unionist and what ever road to Damascus conversion that has led him/her to allegedly convert idology is very much personnel to berty so can in no way reflect unionism in general. So you want to know unionist thought speak to a unionist

Sounds like censorship. You cant have views on Unionism unless your a unionist..hmmmm....You can learn a Unionists thought patterns just as well if not better by speaking to an ex-Unionist. He/she can not be accused of swallowing inherited ideologies without questioning them. They have applied unprejudiced rationality to the Unionist argument and had found it wanting.

It is quite brave and refreshing in fact: Brave because the spectre of the outcast traitor Lundy hangs over anyone who strays from the ancient voices after all. And your view: anyone stupid enough to Lundy themselves cant comment on Unionism can they?

T runner

John Knox. wrote: »

Why do Republicans say this? Out from the cold is paradise to us. We don't want to be involved in a Republican state. We simply want to be left alone. Why don't some Republicans get this and understand we are culturally, ethnically, religiously and politically different in every way and we wish to maintain that.

You cant be left alone because you are NOT ALONE. 45% of the population in NI is Catholic. You dont have to marry them, and vice versa but you must treat them as equals. The old sectarian idea of a Proetstant state for a Protestant people is dead. Why are protestant children still being brought up to believe that Ulster is some God given land exclusivley for Protestants?
Do you not see that sectarianism inevtitably transfers from this religious worldview to your attitudes to your fellow Irishmen? (Irishmen meaning the basic commonality of occupying this Island called Ireland together. Or is that like all commonality airbrushed from your culture too?)

You emphasise differences not commonality and its hard not to conclude that the segregation and sectarianism in NI has its roots in this religious fundamnetalist attitude to Catholicism which transfers itself into attitudes to individual Catholics, ergo sectarianism. NI is the alst place in Europe to exhibit this medieval trait.

You would never hear a German Protestant say that about a German Catholic. You would have 200 hundred years ago perhaps.

You need to redefine your relationship with Catholics. If the Union is really built on strong principles it will survive. if its roots are in Anti-catholicism, then it wont, and thats only right isnt it?

junder

T runner wrote: »

Sounds like censorship. You cant have views on Unionism unless your a unionist..hmmmm....You can learn a Unionists thought patterns just as well if not better by speaking to an ex-Unionist. He/she can not be accused of swallowing inherited ideologies without questioning them. They have applied unprejudiced rationality to the Unionist argument and had found it wanting.

It is quite brave and refreshing in fact: Brave because the spectre of the outcast traitor Lundy hangs over anyone who strays from the ancient voices after all. And your view: anyone stupid enough to Lundy themselves cant comment on Unionism can they?

Censorship is preventing somebody from airing thier views since I don't have that ablity then I can hardly censor him / her, as for them term 'Lundy' not a phrase I have ever used berty is entitled to his / her views as much as the next man but they are not reflective of unionism since he / she opted out of that viewpoint and now a lines themselves with Irish nationalist idololgys which is why other Irish nationalists such as yourself like his view so much 'preaching to the converted' so to speak, it's interesting to note that while berty is being congratulated those posters who try to understand the unionist viewpoint on this site are commonly referred to as 'west Brits' , so as always it's a one way street with republicans, as long as you agree with them your grand

Happyman42

junder wrote: »

And republicanism is a violent idology that has manifested itself in murder, wait what's that? A generlization I hear, well it seems par for the course round here sometimes. As for berty,a unionist is somebody that believes in maintaining the union, Berty by his/her own admission does not er go he/she is not a unionist and what ever road to Damascus conversion that has led him/her to allegedly convert idology is very much personnel to berty so can in no way reflect unionism in general. So you want to know unionist thought speak to a unionist

Republicaism is at times 'violent', it isn't inherently violent. Unionism is inherently 'suprematist' and cannot change without a Paulian conversion ala Bertie Woot's. And by your definition, the DUP, UUP and others are not everyday 'Unionists' either, as they have agreed to the dismantling of the Union, and work happily within a political frameork that will allow it eventually. At the very least they have 'modified' their beliefs. that is why they are so often at odds with the last vestiges of 'real' Unionism on the streets. It's time for a new name for your political philosphy maybe?
Unionism is a dead end philosphy by it's very nature because, it cannot contenance any other political system. That is why it is having such difficulty adopting to ordinary decent democracy, a problem SF are not having and are prospering as a result.

Iwasfrozen

Happyman42 wrote: »

Republicaism is at times 'violent', it isn't inherently violent. Unionism is inherently 'suprematist' and cannot change without a Paulian conversion ala Bertie Woot's. And by your definition, the DUP, UUP and others are not everyday 'Unionists' either, as they have agreed to the dismantling of the Union, and work happily within a political frameork that will allow it eventually. At the very least they have 'modified' their beliefs. that is why they are so often at odds with the last vestiges of 'real' Unionism on the streets. It's time for a new name for your political philosphy maybe?
Unionism is a dead end philosphy by it's very nature because, it cannot contenance any other political system. That is why it is having such difficulty adopting to ordinary decent democracy, a problem SF are not having and are prospering as a result.

Don't be ridiculous Unionism is not supremacist. There's nothing inherently supremacist about wanting to maintain Union with Britain.

Chuck Stone

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Don't be ridiculous Unionism is not supremacist. There's nothing inherently supremacist about wanting to maintain Union with Britain.

And there is little arguing in particular that feelings of insecurity, of superiority, of emotional intensity and, in sum, of being under siege are features of many unionists' identities.

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/issues/politics/docs/porter1.htm

.

Nodin

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Don't be ridiculous Unionism is not supremacist. There's nothing inherently supremacist about wanting to maintain Union with Britain.

In theory. The practice proved somewhat different.

Shenandoah.

Will post a view on this later.

Shenandoah.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Republicaism is at times 'violent', it isn't inherently violent. Unionism is inherently 'suprematist' and cannot change without a Paulian conversion ala Bertie Woot's. And by your definition, the DUP, UUP and others are not everyday 'Unionists' either, as they have agreed to the dismantling of the Union, and work happily within a political frameork that will allow it eventually. At the very least they have 'modified' their beliefs. that is why they are so often at odds with the last vestiges of 'real' Unionism on the streets. It's time for a new name for your political philosphy maybe?
Unionism is a dead end philosphy by it's very nature because, it cannot contenance any other political system. That is why it is having such difficulty adopting to ordinary decent democracy, a problem SF are not having and are prospering as a result.

Unionism is a political point of view. It has millions of people all over the UK who are Unionist. What on earth you are talking about is beyond me and I am sure many other rational people.

Happyman42

Shenandoah. wrote: »

Unionism is a political point of view. It has millions of people all over the UK who are Unionist. What on earth you are talking about is beyond me and I am sure many other rational people.

Unionism as practiced in N.I. is and has been suprematist, it cannot countenance any other political arrangement. Look at it's ongoing difficulty in comfortably sharing power. They couldn't even be in the same room as somebody who didn't share their political views until recently. But they have moved away from pure Unionism, which is good.
Real 'Unionists' are the ones on the street attempting to enforce their suprematist views on others (most recently regarding the Flag) and the so called 'Unionist' parties are extremely conflicted in trying to find a position on that that keeps them onside with the purists or fundementalists. Just as SF has difficulty with the fundamental nationalists.
The DUP and UUP have long since moved away from pure Unionism, it would be extremely helpful and progressive if they redefined and indeed renamed their politics. To me they are doing just what Bertie Woot has done... altered their political beliefs to accomodate a new reality...power sharing.

Iwasfrozen

Chuck Stone wrote: »

.

I have no notion of reading all that.

Nodin wrote: »

In theory. The practice proved somewhat different.

The only Supremacist nature I've seen in this thread is from nationalists praising a former unionist as being "intelligent" and "coming out of the cold" because he changed sides.

Happyman42

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

because he changed sides.

QED - intolerance of any dilution or accomodation, i.e. suprematist.

The DUP and UUP have done the exact same as Bertie Woot, to allow themselves to share power, have they 'changed sides'?

Iwasfrozen

Happyman42 wrote: »

QED - intolerance of any dilution or accomodation, i.e. suprematist.

The DUP and UUP have done the exact same as Bertie Woot, to allow themselves to share power, have they 'changed sides'?

Yes you're right it is supremacist, from the nationalists here who think the only good unionist is a nationalist. Last I checked the DUP weren't calling for a 32 county socialist republic. Things have changed a lot.

Happyman42

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Yes you're right it is supremacist, from the nationalists here who think the only good unionist is a nationalist. Last I checked the DUP weren't calling for a 32 county socialist republic. Things have changed a lot.

The term 'Unionist' is redundant in the 'new Ireland', which exists and is functioning whether you want to accept that or not.
It can be part of your political philosophy but it can't be the defining part, because you need to accomodate other political viewpoints, which is what the DUP and UUP and Bertie Woot are doing.

Iwasfrozen

Happyman42 wrote: »

The term 'Unionist' is redundant in the 'new Ireland', which exists and is functioning whether you want to accept that or not.
It can be part of your political philosophy but it can't be the defining part, because you need to accomodate other political viewpoints, which is what the DUP and UUP and Bertie Woot are doing.

What's this new Ireland that currently exists you're talking about? Unionism and Nationalism will always be at logger heads because they're competing ideologies. That doesn't make Unionism intolerant or supremacist. What they need to do now is convince the growing number of Catholics who are losing fate in traditional nationalism.

Happyman42

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

What's this new Ireland that currently exists you're talking about?

Again the inability to countenance the changed reality. The 'new Ireland' had the real Unionists out on the streets a few months ago.

Iwasfrozen

Happyman42 wrote: »

Again the inability to countenance the changed reality. The 'new Ireland' had the real Unionists out on the streets a few months ago.

I was under the impression Unionists were protesting the removal of the Union flag from Belfast city hall.

Happyman42

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

the removal of the Union flag from Belfast city hall.

As mandated by the 'new Ireland'.

Iwasfrozen

Happyman42 wrote: »

As mandated by the 'new Ireland'.

That's funny I thought it was mandated by the city council.

Happyman42

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

it was mandated by the city council.

Which no longer has the supematist Unionist veto.

Iwasfrozen

Happyman42 wrote: »

Which no longer has the supematist Unionist veto.

Suprematist? I thought the hall was more Baroque. Sorry that was a low blow.

I still don't see where you're going with this, what's the new Ireland?

Lelantos

Happyman42 wrote: »

Which no longer has the supematist Unionist veto.

And when the balance of power swings back, it's less new Ireland, more old UK?

Happyman42

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Suprematist? I thought the hall was more Baroque. Sorry that was a low blow.

Malevich Says NO!

I still don't see where you're going with this, what's the new Ireland?

The GFA has ushered in a new arrangement for all of Ireland, it is working in the main. Unionism, (as practiced by the DUP and UUP) has changed, it has altered, it is no longer pure 'Unionism'. Therefore it needs to redefine what it is.

junder

Happyman42 wrote: »

As mandated by the 'new Ireland'.

Is that the same 'new Ireland' that names play parks after terrorists

Iwasfrozen

Happyman42 wrote: »

The GFA has ushered in a new arrangement for all of Ireland, it is working in the main. Unionism, (as practiced by the DUP and UUP) has changed, it has altered, it is no longer pure 'Unionism'. Therefore it needs to redefine what it is.

I don't see why. Two competing ideologies can co exist without re defining you know.

Happyman42

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I don't see why. Two competing ideologies can co exist without re defining you know.

It's not me that is throwing Bertie Woot out of 'Unionism'.
'Unionism' is too narrow to allow for accomodation of differing views within it, hence your description of Bertie Woot having 'gone over to the other side'. That is in spite of the fact that many others have done exactly the same thing as Bertie Woot, e.g. the DUP and UUP at the table.
You can see that conflict within Unionism most clearly in the Flag issue and the difficulties it posed for the leaders of the above parties.

Iwasfrozen

Happyman42 wrote: »

It's not me that is throwing Bertie Woot out of 'Unionism'.
'Unionism' is too narrow to allow for accomodation of differing views within it, hence your description of Bertie Woot having 'gone over to the other side'. That is in spite of the fact that many others have done exactly the same thing as Bertie Woot, e.g. the DUP and UUP at the table.
You can see that conflict within Unionism most clearly in the Flag issue and the difficulties it posed for the leaders of the above parties.

Unionism is a political ideology not an ethnicity. I don't agree that unionism has no room for movement, the DUP and power sharing shows they do. On the other hand if a guy rejects the core principal of unionism (the maintenance of the union) then he can no longer be called a unionist.