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

President Michael Higgins pulls out of 1916 Belfast event

Options
124»

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    karma_
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭karma_


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    To remove the prospect of a United Ireland.

    How?

    (You do realise that is impossible right?)


  • Options
    #93
    Arsemageddon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,129 ✭✭✭Arsemageddon


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    To remove the prospect of a United Ireland. Without the threat of annexation looming and the existential threat that comes with it Unionists will no longer have to define themselves by what they aren't.

    Remove the prospect of Union, answer the national question and I believe you'll see a sofenimg on both sides as people simply get on with their lives.

    To do that would be to deny the democratic right of nationalists in Northern Ireland to decide whether they want a United Ireland.


  • Options
    #94
    LeinsterDub
    Registered Users Posts: 8,229 ✭✭✭LeinsterDub


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    To remove the prospect of a United Ireland. Without the threat of annexation looming and the existential threat that comes with it Unionists will no longer have to define themselves by what they aren't.

    Remove the prospect of Union, answer the national question and I believe you'll see a sofenimg on both sides as people simply get on with their lives.
    It's not annexacton when people vote for it. It's democracy! You've failed to explain why the democratic will of the people of 2 states should be ignored if and when such a time comes. It's the equivalent of saying people in England can't be civil with Scottish people once the possibility of a vote for independence exists. If anything unionist should be building bridges in the north by normalising society and winning over floating nationalist by building a better, more inclusive and more equal state than the Republic so that when the time comes people in the North decide they are happy in the UK.


  • Options
    #95
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    LeinsterDub wrote: »
    It's not annexacton when people vote for it. It's democracy! You've failed to explain when the democratic will of the people of 2 states should be ignored if and when such a time comes. It's the equivalent of saying people in England can't be civil with Scottish people once the possibility of a vote for independence exists. If anything unionist should be building bridges in the north by normalising society and winning over floating nationalist by building a better, more inclusive and more equal state than the Republic so that when the time comes people in the North decide they are happy in the UK.

    Allowing regions a vote to join a neighbouring nation is not international practice and I see no reason why the UK should be unique.

    I've also shown the dangers the inherent in constantly living under the threat of annexation (and it is still annexation if voted on) no society should exist like that.
    Reason enough to close the door even if there were any benefits to leaving it open.


  • Options
    #96
    Strazdas
    Registered Users Posts: 18,175 ✭✭✭✭Strazdas


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    To remove the prospect of a United Ireland. Without the threat of annexation looming and the existential threat that comes with it Unionists will no longer have to define themselves by what they aren't.

    Remove the prospect of Union, answer the national question and I believe you'll see a sofenimg on both sides as people simply get on with their lives.

    Why would they do that though? It's not a given that the UK as we know it will even exist in 50 or 100 years' time. If there is a second referendum in Scotland, and they vote to leave this time, it would leave Northern Ireland especially isolated, both physically and metaphorically (ie. the two nearest countries to it wouldn't even be part of the UK).


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    karma_
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭karma_


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Allowing regions a vote to join a neighbouring nation is not international practice and I see no reason why the UK should be unique.

    How was the UK formed?


  • Options
    #98
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Strazdas wrote: »
    Why would they do that though? It's not a given that the UK as we know it will even exist in 50 or 100 years' time. If there is a second referendum in Scotland, and they vote to leave this time, it would leave Northern Ireland especially isolated, both physically and metaphorically (ie. the two nearest countries to it wouldn't even be part of the UK).
    Kalingrad survives that issue, so does Greenland.
    Removing the prospect of a United Ireland will finally solve the national question, remove the motivation behind bigotry on both sides and force both sides to finally get on with living beside each other peacefully.


  • Options
    #99
    LeinsterDub
    Registered Users Posts: 8,229 ✭✭✭LeinsterDub


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Allowing regions a vote to join a neighbouring nation is not international practice and I see no reason why the UK should be unique.

    I've also shown the dangers the inherent in constantly living under the threat of annexation (and it is still annexation if voted on) no society should exist like that.
    Reason enough to close the door even if there were any benefits to leaving it open.

    Because the UK gerrymandered the region in the first place?


  • Options
    #100
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    LeinsterDub wrote: »
    Because the UK gerrymandered the region in the first place?

    That's a reason to fight corruption not join another country.


  • Options
    #101
    Arsemageddon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,129 ✭✭✭Arsemageddon


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Allowing regions a vote to join a neighbouring nation is not international practice and I see no reason why the UK should be unique.

    I've also shown the dangers the inherent in constantly living under the threat of annexation (and it is still annexation if voted on) no society should exist like that.
    Reason enough to close the door even if there were any benefits to leaving it open.

    Good grief!

    The Irish parliament had to vote to join the UK prior to the Act of Union in 1800.

    What about all those American states that voted to join the USA?

    Do you really think that the experts in international law who framed the Good Friday Agreement know less than you?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    LeinsterDub
    Registered Users Posts: 8,229 ✭✭✭LeinsterDub


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    That's a reason to fight corruption not join another country.

    I mean the whole region was gerrymandered in the 1910's from the rest of the island The idea of a Northern Ireland is entirely a British creation.


  • Options
    #103
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Arsemageddon wrote: »
    Good grief!

    The Irish parliament had to vote to join the UK prior to the Act of Union in 1800.

    What about all those American states that voted to join the USA?

    Do you really think that the experts in international law who framed the Good Friday Agreement know less than you?

    Huh? I'm sorry what?


  • Options
    #104
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    LeinsterDub wrote: »
    I mean the whole region was gerrymandered in the 1910's from the rest of the island The idea of a Northern Ireland is entirely a British creation.

    Whether it was or wasn't what's your point?

    Do you see the role of politics today to correct what you consider historical wrongs?
    If so would you hold this opinion even if it meant unintentionally inciting ethnic tensions?


  • Options
    #105
    Arsemageddon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,129 ✭✭✭Arsemageddon


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Huh? I'm sorry what?

    You claimed that there is no possibility in international law that a territory/state/region can choose to join another state. You are from a country that did just this in the past when it joined the UK in 1800. The USA was formed in a similar fashion, as was Germany, as was Italy.


  • Options
    #106
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Arsemageddon wrote: »
    You claimed that there is no possibility in international law that a territory/state/region can choose to join another state. You are from a country that did just this in the past when it joined the UK in 1800. The USA was formed in a similar fashion, as was Germany, as was Italy.
    I did no such thing, I said it wasn't international standard practice.


  • Options
    #107
    Arsemageddon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,129 ✭✭✭Arsemageddon


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    I did no such thing, I said it wasn't international standard practice.

    I have no idea what 'international standard practice' means. It is certainly not a principle of international law.

    The examples I gave you of sovereign states choosing to unite with other sovereign states has happened frequently in the past. Therefore, it is an established principle of international law.


  • Options
    #108
    Strazdas
    Registered Users Posts: 18,175 ✭✭✭✭Strazdas


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Kalingrad survives that issue, so does Greenland.
    Removing the prospect of a United Ireland will finally solve the national question, remove the motivation behind bigotry on both sides and force both sides to finally get on with living beside each other peacefully.

    There may be strategic reasons why Russia chooses to hang on to Kalingrad. One wonders though if a potential 'United Kingdom of England and Wales' would be all that bothered what happens to Northern Ireland, especially if it was viewed as little more than a drain on their resources.


  • Options
    #109
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Arsemageddon wrote: »
    I have no idea what 'international standard practice' means. It is certainly not a principle of international law.

    The examples I gave you of sovereign states choosing to unite with other sovereign states has happened frequently in the past.
    Never said it was.

    Let me ask you this, would the US tolerate a star voting to leave and join another nation? Would France? Would Germany? Would Italy? Heck would Russia?

    No? No. Not international practice and I don't see why the UK should be unique.


  • Options
    #110
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Strazdas wrote: »
    There may be strategic reasons why Russia chooses to hang on to Kalingrad. One wonders though if a potential 'United Kingdom of England and Wales' would be all that bothered what happens to Northern Ireland, especially if it was viewed as little more than a drain on their resources.

    If it's a drain never mind "more than a little drain" they can keep it.


  • Options
    #111
    Arsemageddon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,129 ✭✭✭Arsemageddon


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Never said it was.

    Let me ask you this, would the US tolerate a star voting to leave and join another nation? Would France? Would Germany? Would Italy? Heck would Russia?

    No? No. Not international practice and I don't see why the UK should be unique.

    Well there is the small matter of the binding international agreement signed by the British and Irish governments in April 1998 which was then ratified by the people of Northern Ireland in a referendum.

    Keep digging....


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Arsemageddon wrote: »
    Well there is the small matter of the binding international agreement signed by the British and Irish governments in April 1998 which was then ratified by the people of Northern Ireland in a referendum.

    Keep digging....

    When have I ignored it? I referenced it in an earlier post.


  • Options
    #113
    LeinsterDub
    Registered Users Posts: 8,229 ✭✭✭LeinsterDub


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Whether it was or wasn't what's your point?

    Do you see the role of politics today to correct what you consider historical wrongs?
    If so would you hold this opinion even if it meant unintentionally inciting ethnic tensions?

    I hold the opinion that people should be allowed to have their voices heard in a democracy even if that leads to some lunatics using it as an excuse to create tensions.


  • Options
    #114
    Arsemageddon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,129 ✭✭✭Arsemageddon


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    When have I ignored it? I referenced it in an earlier post.

    ......and yet you seem to have no idea what it is about.


  • Options
    #115
    Strazdas
    Registered Users Posts: 18,175 ✭✭✭✭Strazdas


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    If it's a drain never mind "more than a little drain" they can keep it.

    I do think Scotland leaving would be a game changer for the UK and bad news for NI, even though Unionist politicians would undoubtedly spin it as being of no consequence whatsoever (just as Brexit this year would almost certainly destabilise the EU).


  • Options
    #116
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    LeinsterDub wrote: »
    I hold the opinion that people should be allowed to have their voices heard in a democracy even if that leads to some lunatics using it as an excuse to create tensions.

    But do you see the role of politics in today's society to correct historical wrongs? It seems you do when you referenced NI's creation.

    I'd rather people of NI work together to build the best society they can but that can't happen while the threat of a massively destabilizing and unnecessary annexation looms as a small possibility.

    That's why we should close the door on the possibility, it solves the national question, removes the motivation for bigotry on both sides and forces both sides to get on with living together.


  • Options
    #117
    LeinsterDub
    Registered Users Posts: 8,229 ✭✭✭LeinsterDub


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    But do you see the role of politics in today's society to correct historical wrongs? It seems you do when you referenced NI's creation.

    I'd rather people of NI work together to build the best society they can but that can't happen while the threat of a massively destabilizing and unnecessary annexation looms as a small possibility.

    That's why we should close the door on the possibility, it solves the national question, removes the motivation for bigotry on both sides and forces both sides to get on with living together.
    Yes politics can correct historical wrongs but we aren't taking about politics but the will of the people.

    Closing the door to the possibility of a UK partly contributed to a 30 year armed struggle.

    We shouldn't close the door to democracy just because a few cranks can't move on


  • Options
    #118
    karma_
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭karma_


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    I'd rather people of NI work together to build the best society they can

    What? We haven't been doing this? News to me.


Advertisement