If the UK asked Ireland to rejoin the Union, how would you vote?

Iwasfrozen

No to reject rejoining the Union

DarkyHughes wrote: »

Are people voting yes mad? We'd be treated like dogs by the British Army because no doubt this would cause massive support & recruits for the dissident IRA's (who I don't support but would if we voted yes) even more so than the Provos (who I did support) had. It would create a civil war that made the 1922-23 one which was the bloodiest conflict in modern Irish history look like a picnic.

So in the event people voted yes to rejoin the UK you would support a bunch of anti democratic thugs. Nice. Very socialist of you.

Nodin

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

So in the event people voted yes to rejoin the UK you would support a bunch of anti democratic thugs. Nice. Very socialist of you.

Bit surprised you don't support his stance, being an Ulster covenant man and all.

Iwasfrozen

No to reject rejoining the Union

Nodin wrote: »

Bit surprised you don't support his stance, being an Ulster covenant man and all.

Nah, I'm all for peaceful resistance. The ballotbox or nothing for me.

Had republicans any semblance of honor they would have petitioned the British government to hold a referendum in Northern Ireland prior to independence.

Or at least respect the wishes of the unionist people subsequent to their departure.

Nodin

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Nah, I'm all for peaceful resistance. The ballotbox or nothing for me.

But the ulster covenant was a promise of violence, if you recall. They weren't subtle about it either, and we know what it formed the basis for shortly after.

Can't have your cake and eat it I'm afraid.

Iwasfrozen

No to reject rejoining the Union

Nodin wrote: »

But the ulster covenant was a promise of violence, if you recall. They weren't subtle about it either, and we know what it formed the basis for shortly after.

Can't have your cake and eat it I'm afraid.

I don't support unionist threats of violence but I do support their right to self determination.

karma_

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I don't support unionist threats of violence but I do support their right to self determination.

Written without the slightest hint of irony.

Jawgap

Nodin wrote: »

No, you're trying to shift blame, oul flower. Christ knows why, but you are.

Not really just point out that while the Brits bear a significant amount of blame for the decline of the language through the 19th C, they can hardly be blamed for our failure to resuscitate it.

It needs to be let 'live' outside the Gaeltacht areas - at the moment speaking it in non-Gaeltacht areas is just not worth the hassle - there are too many idiots too quick to pull you up because in their opinion you've got a pronunciation wrong or used an inappropriate word or verb. Once, I was even told that I shouldn't be speaking the language without a Fáinne, ffs.

In my last job we put together a Irish 'glossary' to cover a range of English technical terms we were using. We got a seven page letter from ACT criticising our attempt and asking for us to submit a boat load of info justifying our word construction - boss read the letter and sent a one liner telling us to drop the glossary - it was the easy out for us rather than go 15 rounds to justify an honest effort to expand the use of Irish in our dealings with Gaeltacht areas.

Nodin

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I don't support unionist threats of violence but I do support their right to self determination.

Yeah, right. You said it was 'courageous' and lauded them 'refusing to be herded off to Dublin rule' by the British. Not a leg to stand on.

Iwasfrozen

No to reject rejoining the Union

Nodin wrote: »

Yeah, right. You said it was 'courageous' and lauded them 'refusing to be herded off to Dublin rule' by the British. Not a leg to stand on.

Yes I did. What's your point? I don't support terrorism, never have and I never will.

Nodin

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Yes I did. What's your point? I don't support terrorism, never have and I never will.

You supported a threat of armed resistance, accompanied by various military trappings, ffs. Wake up and smell the hypocrisy.

Iwasfrozen

No to reject rejoining the Union

Nodin wrote: »

You supported a threat of armed resistance, accompanied by various military trappings, ffs. Wake up and smell the hypocrisy.

I don't support unionist threats of violence but I do support their right to self determination.

Nodin

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I don't support unionist threats of violence but I do support their right to self determination.

"On the other hand I would call the signing of the ulster covenant courageous. Here we have a group of people standing up for their right of self determination and refusing to be herded off to Dublin administration by the British, their supposed country men."
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=82040059&postcount=209

Yep.......

".............do hereby pledge ourselves in solemn Covenant, throughout this our time of threatened calamity, to stand by one another in defending, for ourselves and our children, our cherished position of equal citizenship in the United Kingdom, and in using all means which may be found necessary to defeat the present conspiracy to set up a Home Rule Parliament in Ireland. And in the event of such a Parliament being forced upon us, we further solemnly and mutually pledge ourselves to refuse to recognise its authority. In sure confidence ..............."

Off the high horse there Tonto.

Iwasfrozen

No to reject rejoining the Union

Nodin wrote: »

"On the other hand I would call the signing of the ulster covenant courageous. Here we have a group of people standing up for their right of self determination and refusing to be herded off to Dublin administration by the British, their supposed country men."
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=82040059&postcount=209

Yep.......

".............do hereby pledge ourselves in solemn Covenant, throughout this our time of threatened calamity, to stand by one another in defending, for ourselves and our children, our cherished position of equal citizenship in the United Kingdom, and in using all means which may be found necessary to defeat the present conspiracy to set up a Home Rule Parliament in Ireland. And in the event of such a Parliament being forced upon us, we further solemnly and mutually pledge ourselves to refuse to recognise its authority. In sure confidence ..............."

Off the high horse there Tonto.

Do you understand that a person may support the signing of the covenant and the right of unionists to self determination without supporting violence against the government? Because I don't think you do.

I will never support the use of violence to achieve political gain, I believe those who commit violent acts to be beneath contempt. And yes I'm talking about both sides here.

Karl Stein

Nodin wrote: »

Off the high horse there Tonto.

More like a tired old Shetland Pony.

Nodin

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Do you understand that a person may support the signing of the covenant and the right of unionists to self determination without supporting violence against the government? Because I don't think you do.

I will never support the use of violence to achieve political gain, I believe those who do to be beneath contempt. And yes I'm talking about both sides here.

Do you retract your support for the ulster covenant then?

Jawgap

Nodin wrote: »

But the ulster covenant was a promise of violence, if you recall. They weren't subtle about it either, and we know what it formed the basis for shortly after.

Can't have your cake and eat it I'm afraid.

Just under 500,000 signed the Ulster Covenant - are you saying there were all offering a 'promise of violence'?

Any reading of literature seems to suggest that there was no 'promise of violence' - that the Unionist leadership were vacillating.....

from 'Unionist Myths 1912-1985' by Alvin Jackson (QUB)

Patrick Buckland, some twenty years ago, rightly distinguished the bellicosity of the U.V.F. from the convictions and priorities of the Unionist political leadership: "most of the political leaders of Unionism hoped and thought that the U.V.F. would not have to fight".

Archival evidence made available since this comment was published (in 1973) has confirmed the hesitancy of the Unionist leadership, the distance between their qualms and their rhetoric. The U.V.F. was useful as a demonstration of Unionist conviction as well as a means of channelling loyalist emotion away from the kind of street confrontation which had been so damaging, both politically and financially, in 1886.

But the usefulness of the U.V.F. depended on the strength of its morale, and this in turn depended on its being gainfully employed. In these contingencies lay a very profound political dilemma for Unionism in 1913-14. Thus Asquith's "masterly inactivity", based as it was - if only indirectly - on intelligence reports of the condition of Unionism, had perhaps a more solid rationale than some commentators have allowed.

Simply by doing nothing Asquith could permit the Unionist leadership to become prisoners of their own logic, penned in by their own indecision over violence, and by their own supporters' desire for a more assertive command.

Aggression, on any realistic assessment, threatened sympathy in England; inertia threatened morale in Ireland, as was increasingly clear by late 1913.

Iwasfrozen

No to reject rejoining the Union

Nodin wrote: »

Do you retract your support for the ulster covenant then?

No. Do you understand that a person may support the signing of the covenant and the right of unionists to self determination without supporting violence against the government? Because I don't think you do.

Nodin

Jawgap wrote: »

Just under 500,000 signed the Ulster Covenant - are you saying there were all offering a 'promise of violence'?

Any reading of literature seems to suggest that there was no 'promise of violence' - that the Unionist leadership with vacillating.....

from 'Unionist Myths 1912-1985' by Alvin Jackson (QUB)

They were marching around with flags in paramilitary fashion on the day. Pull the other one.

Nodin

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

No.

Well then. Back to trying to have your cake and eat it.

Iwasfrozen

No to reject rejoining the Union

Nodin wrote: »

Well then. Back to trying to have your cake and eat it.

Do you understand that a person may support the signing of the covenant and the right of unionists to self determination without supporting violence against the government? Because I don't think you do.

Nodin

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Do you understand that a person may support the signing of the covenant and the right of unionists to self determination without supporting violence against the government? Because I don't think you do.

The ulster covenant was a declaration of intent re armed resistance, phase II being the setting up of the UVF shortly after. You're supporting violence, essentially. But it doesn't count to you, because its loyalist violence.

Jawgap

Nodin wrote: »

They were marching around with flags in paramilitary fashion on the day. Pull the other one.

Really?

Because looking at the PRONI sources - there's a few flags, there's women and children and guys in bowler hats carrying sticks. But maybe that's your definition of 'paramilitary'!

Iwasfrozen

No to reject rejoining the Union

Nodin wrote: »

The ulster covenant was a declaration of intent re armed resistance, phase II being the setting up of the UVF shortly after. You're supporting violence, essentially. But it doesn't count to you, because its loyalist violence.

I certainly do not support loyalist violence and your accusations to the contrary don't change that.

I do however support the declaration of non-compliance and self determination the ulster covenant declares.

Nodin

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I certainly do not support loyalist violence and your accusations to the contrary don't change that.

I do however support the declaration of non-compliance the ulster covenant represents.

Course ye do. Different sauces depending on the gender of the duck.

Jawgap

Nodin wrote: »

The ulster covenant was a declaration of intent re armed resistance, phase II being the setting up of the UVF shortly after. You're supporting violence, essentially. But it doesn't count to you, because its loyalist violence.

So the 1000 people in London who signed it, the 32 in Bristol, the 458 in Manchester, the 282 in Lancashire etc etc......were declaring an intent to engage in armed resistance?????

Hopefully someone will be along directly to take that shovel from you so you can stop digging!!

Incidentally, the 9 signatories who were recorded for China - who were they intending to offer armed resistance to?????? And were the 40 or so on board the SS Lake Champlain expected to mutiny to give expression to their "intent re armed resistance" !!!

Iwasfrozen

No to reject rejoining the Union

Nodin wrote: »

Course ye do. Different sauces depending on the gender of the duck.

I have no idea what that metaphor means but your attempt to find some sort of contradiction in my beliefs is interesting.

Perhaps you can answer me a something I've been wondering for a while, why do most republicans also seem to be socialist? Not all of course but there does seem to be a correlation between the two beliefs.

Jawgap

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I have no idea what that metaphor means but your attempt to find some sort of contradiction in my beliefs is interesting.

I think he was attempting to infer your 'goose' was cooked;)

EDIT - or maybe it's a subtle play on the idea of duck being served in 'orange' sauce.......

Xivilai

Its shocking how many of these threads there are. People need to accept facts, the Union of the past is gone forever, something the great majority of us have always endorsed.

Iwasfrozen

No to reject rejoining the Union

Xivilai wrote: »

Its shocking how many of these threads there are. People need to accept facts, the Union of the past is gone forever, something the great majority of us have always endorsed.

Forever is a very long time, I wouldn't rule out the British Isles being united again, especially under a European state.

Jawgap

Xivilai wrote: »

Its shocking how many of these threads there are. People need to accept facts, the Union of the past is gone forever, something the great majority of us have always endorsed.

I don't think anybody doubts that - but this is the internet so we can speculate about anything!