Arlene foster to attend ulster final

seachto7

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I don't care.
I do care about the delusion that goes on around the status of northern Ireland

Some Unionists publcly delude themselves but privately, it is clear to me, by action and deed, that they know they are somewhere that is looked on as 'other' by the rest of the UK.

They cannot, for instance, allow a notional separation, even it it means economic survival.

Hence the clinging.

Someone from Gibraltar. Would you consider them British?

FrancieBrady

seachto7 wrote: »

Someone from Gibraltar. Would you consider them British?

'BRITAIN is a construct. Even the English (those born in England) have to identify as 'British'.

It's really a simple concept. You are 'from' the place you are born. 2nd generation Irish etc.
From England-Aus-US but 'chose' to identify as Irish.

Taytoland

seachto7 wrote: »

Francie Brady. Why do you give a f**k who considers themselves Irish or British or Martian? Seriously....

Because he wants to dictate identity of a people who he wants to rule over. Pretty much that is it. Hates anything British.

FrancieBrady

Taytoland wrote: »

Because he wants to dictate identity of a people who he wants to rule over. Pretty much that is it. Hates anything British.

I have no problem with what you chose to identify as.
The point I made way back when you said you would sling your hook if a UI happened (because you would have 'less rights in a UI' even though you have avoided answering what rights would be taken from you) was that you would be seen as Irish, wherever you roam.
You have been huffing about that since while also avoiding pointing out how it could be any different.

seachto7

So you don't agree with Scottish and British, Welsh and British, Irish and British. You have to be either Irish or British? What about all those lads who played for Ireland? It's ok for Kevin Kilbane to be Irish?
You seem to be suggesting that people "have to" identify with being British, that it's some kind of bad thing.
I am sure there are unionists who identify as Irish and British or just British. At the end of the day, who really gives a f*ck.

FrancieBrady

seachto7 wrote: »

So you don't agree with Scottish and British, Welsh and British, Irish and British. You have to be either Irish or British? What about all those lads who played for Ireland? It's ok for Kevin Kilbane to be Irish?
You seem to be suggesting that people "have to" identify with being British, that it's some kind of bad thing.
I am sure there are unionists who identify as Irish and British or just British. At the end of the day, who really gives a f*ck.

No I am not.
I have clearly stated that Kilbane is from England and identiifies as Irish
Same as Tayto will be doing when he leaves. From Ireland but identiifes as British. 'British' itself being a construct to encompass people FROM many different places.
Nothing bad about it. And I don't care either what Tayto identifies as.
He cant deny what he was born as though, as a Scots or English or Welsh person can't either

seachto7

FrancieBrady wrote: »

No I am not.
I have clearly stated that Kilbane is from England and identiifies as Irish
Same as Tayto will be doing when he leaves. From Ireland but identiifes as British. 'British' itself being a construct to encompass people FROM many different places.
Nothing bad about it. And I don't care either what Tayto identifies as.
He cant deny what he was born as though, as a Scots or English or Welsh person can't either

He's Irish and British? Well when you take into account they don't even have their own "anthem"....

I have no issue with someone who just sees themselves as British. If that's what they feel, fine. Who am I to say "but you're Irish really".

FrancieBrady

seachto7 wrote: »

He's Irish and British? Well when you take into account they don't even have their own "anthem"....

I have no issue with someone who just sees themselves as British. If that's what they feel, fine. Who am I to say "but you're Irish really".

Nor do I have any issue with him identifying as British. The point was 'that he will be seen as from the 'island of Ireland' (i.e. Irish) when he leaves, because he is from here.

Typical of a belligerent Unionist mindset, he wishes to be seen as 'not Irish' so he can continue to demean that status. (It's what belligerent Unionism does and is why we are where we are - the continued denial of equal rights)

He still has to point out what rights would be denied to him in a UI that he has now. (He has the right under the GFA to identify as British btw and I or nobody I know of intends to deny him that right, even though that same beligerent Unionist mindset easily claims that it will be denied.)

seachto7

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Nor do I have any issue with him identifying as British. The point was 'that he will be seen as from the 'island of Ireland' (i.e. Irish) when he leaves, because he is from here.

Typical of a belligerent Unionist mindset, he wishes to be seen as 'not Irish' so he can continue to demean that status. (It's what belligerent Unionism does and is why we are where we are - the continued denial of equal rights)

He still has to point out what rights would be denied to him in a UI that he has now. (He has the right under the GFA to identify as British btw and I or nobody I know of intends to deny him that right, even though that same beligerent Unionist mindset easily claims that it will be denied.)

He will lose the right to pay for his shopping in pounds....

FrancieBrady

seachto7 wrote: »

He will lose the right to pay for his shopping in pounds....

:D

Eh, that isn't a right. That's a choice. You should live along the border sometime.

seachto7

FrancieBrady wrote: »

:D

Eh, that isn't a right. That's a choice. You should live along the border sometime.

Orangemen most likely won't lose the right to march up and down the roads waving union flags. They're let do it in Donegal, so I doubt the rest of Ireland would care much. Who knows. Maybe orange lodges that were once down south might reopen...

FrancieBrady

seachto7 wrote: »

Orangemen most likely won't lose the right to march up and down the roads waving union flags. They're let do it in Donegal, so I doubt the rest of Ireland would care much. Who knows. Maybe orange lodges that were once down south might reopen...

I have no problem as long as they modernise and remove any bigoted archaic and sectarian barring orders.
Like any other group, nationalist, republican, unionist or loyalist - they cannot be allowed to indulge in their yearly hate fest either.

seachto7

Bonfires will get banned! That'll be a result.

Taytoland

FrancieBrady wrote: »

seachto7 wrote: »

Orangemen most likely won't lose the right to march up and down the roads waving union flags. They're let do it in Donegal, so I doubt the rest of Ireland would care much. Who knows. Maybe orange lodges that were once down south might reopen...

I have no problem as long as they modernise and remove any bigoted archaic  and sectarian barring orders.
Like any other group, nationalist, republican, unionist or loyalist - they cannot be allowed to indulge in their yearly hate fest either.

Can a Protestant become Pope? The argument you make is illogical as it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. The Order make the rules, those rules will not be reset. 

Also I have to say the argument you make on nationality is also deeply flawed and again has no rational argument to back it up. If a Catalan was to speak to someone in Ireland or the UK they would see that Catalan as Spanish but Catalans are a distinct identity, a distinct group of people, same with Chechens, they aren't Russian, they are a distinct people. That is why I think the argument you make is fundamentally flawed.

If you said to a Catalan they are Spanish because they were born in Spain, they would laugh at it and many actually offended. They are Catalans born in Catalonia which is belongs to the Spanish state.

FrancieBrady

Taytoland wrote: »

Can a Protestant become Pope? The argument you make is illogical as it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. The Order make the rules, those rules will not be reset. 

Also I have to say the argument you make on nationality is also deeply flawed and again has no rational argument to back it up. If a Catalan was to speak to someone in Ireland or the UK they would see that Catalan as Spanish but Catalans are a distinct identity, a distinct group of people, same with Chechens, they aren't Russian, they are a distinct people. That is why I think the argument you make is fundamentally flawed.

If you said to a Catalan they are Spanish because they were born in Spain, they would laugh at it and many actually offended. They are Catalans born in Catalonia which is belongs to the Spanish state.

Q: Where were you born?

A; I was born in Ireland.



Which part of the above is 'fundamentally flawed'?


The question YOU insist on answering so as NOT to be identified as Irish is:

Q; What do you identify as?

A: I identify as British.

i.e. You are 'choosing' your identity.
You cannot chose where you are actually from though and those to whom you run when a UI happens will see you as Irish.


Nothing 'fundamentally flawed' about that either.

Taytoland

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Taytoland wrote: »

Can a Protestant become Pope? The argument you make is illogical as it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. The Order make the rules, those rules will not be reset. 

Also I have to say the argument you make on nationality is also deeply flawed and again has no rational argument to back it up. If a Catalan was to speak to someone in Ireland or the UK they would see that Catalan as Spanish but Catalans are a distinct identity, a distinct group of people, same with Chechens, they aren't Russian, they are a distinct people. That is why I think the argument you make is fundamentally flawed.

If you said to a Catalan they are Spanish because they were born in Spain, they would laugh at it and many actually offended. They are Catalans born in Catalonia which is belongs to the Spanish state.

Q: Where were you born?

A; I was born in Ireland.



Which part of the above is 'fundamentally flawed'?


The question YOU insist on answering so as NOT to be identified as Irish is:

Q; What do you identify as?

A: I identify as British.

i.e. You are 'choosing' your identity.
You cannot chose where you are actually from though and those to whom you run when a UI happens will see you as Irish.


Nothing 'fundamentally flawed' about that either.

Again, ask a Catalan, where were you born? If you said Spain, does that make them Spanish? How can you not see the fundamental flaw with this argument? Are the Chechens Russian because they are born in Russia? The answer of course to both questions is no, they aren't Spanish or Russian, they are Catalan and Chechen.

The argument you make is that IF you are born on the Island of Ireland you are Irish automatically. By this argument you would have to consider the Catalans Spanish because they are born in Spain, you would have to consider the Chechens Russian because they born in Russia. Catalans do not choose what identity they are, they just are Catalans.

FrancieBrady

Taytoland wrote: »

Again, ask a Catalan, where were you born? If you said Spain, does that make them Spanish? How can you not see the fundamental flaw with this argument? Are the Chechens Russian because they are born in Russia? The answer of course to both questions is no, they aren't Spanish or Russian, they are Catalan and Chechen.

The argument you make is that IF you are born on the Island of Ireland you are Irish automatically. By this argument you would have to consider the Catalans Spanish because they are born in Spain, you would have to consider the Chechens Russian because they born in Russia. Catalans do not choose what identity they are, they just are Catalans.

You do realise that the proper title is The United Kingdom of Great Britain AND Northern Ireland.

The distinction has been made...AND Northern Ireland.

There is no ambiguity even from Great Britain. You are from Northern Ireland, hence you are Irish.
You chose to identify as British.
Which the British and Irish governments and the people of Ireland in favour of the GFA have given you as a right
You still have that right in a UI.
Ireland won't be and never was Britain though.

Taytoland

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Taytoland wrote: »

Again, ask a Catalan, where were you born? If you said Spain, does that make them Spanish? How can you not see the fundamental flaw with this argument? Are the Chechens Russian because they are born in Russia? The answer of course to both questions is no, they aren't Spanish or Russian, they are Catalan and Chechen.

The argument you make is that IF you are born on the Island of Ireland you are Irish automatically. By this argument you would have to consider the Catalans Spanish because they are born in Spain, you would have to consider the Chechens Russian because they born in Russia. Catalans do not choose what identity they are, they just are Catalans.

You do realise that the proper title is The United Kingdom of Great Britain AND Northern Ireland.

The distinction has been made...AND Northern Ireland.

There is no ambiguity even from Great Britain. You are from Northern Ireland, hence you are Irish.
You chose to identify as British.
Which the British and Irish governments and the people of Ireland in favour of the GFA have given you as a right
You still have that right in a UI.
Ireland won't be and never was Britain though.

Again you won't answer the essence of my argument and question. By using this argument you are calling the Catalan people Spanish and the Chechen people Russian, do you think they are Spanish and Russian? That is the basis of what you are saying, that is the logical conclusion you can only come to with your argument.

One of the other flaws in what you are saying is the name of the state can dictate what identity you are. Lets look at this rationally. By using this argument you are saying the people of the Republic of Macedonia are Macedonians, when most Greek historians will tell you they are Slavic, not Macedonian. Macedonians are Greek. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonia_(Greece)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Macedonia

This is why using the argument of the name of an Island or a state does not dictate what identity the people or a specific group of people who live there are. While I can respect you have passionate opinions on the politics, I do not understand the logic of the argument between name of a land or a state specifically with identity.

FrancieBrady

Taytoland wrote: »

Again you won't answer the essence of my argument and question. By using this argument you are calling the Catalan people Spanish and the Chechen people Russian, do you think they are Spanish and Russian? That is the basis of what you are saying, that is the logical conclusion you can only come to with your argument.

One of the other flaws in what you are saying is the name of the state can dictate what identity you are. Lets look at this rationally. By using this argument you are saying the people of the Republic of Macedonia are Macedonians, when most Greek historians will tell you they are Slavic, not Macedonian. Macedonians are Greek. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonia_(Greece)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Macedonia

This is why using the argument of the name of an Island or a state does not dictate what identity the people or a specific group of people who live there are. While I can respect you have passionate opinions on the politics, I do not understand the logic of the argument between name of a land or a state specifically with identity.

Until Catalonia becomes a separate country then they are from Spain etc etc.

It is the United Kingdom of Great Britain AND Northern Ireland.

Great Britain = England, Scotland, Wales. All separate nationalities.

Northern Ireland = a partitioned and disputed part of the island of Ireland.

Take your issue up with those who made the distinction maybe?

Ring them. I guarantee the receptionist will say:
'Someone from Ireland wants to complain...'.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Until Catalonia becomes a separate country then they are from Spain etc etc.

It is the United Kingdom of Great Britain AND Northern Ireland.

Great Britain = England, Scotland, Wales. All separate nationalities.

Northern Ireland = a partitioned and disputed part of the island of Ireland.

Take your issue up with those who made the distinction maybe?

Ring them. I guarantee the receptionist will say:
'Someone from Ireland wants to complain...'.

Since the GFA the legitimacy of NI as part of the UK is no longer disputed. It's the self determined wish of the majority of the people of NI.

jh79

(iii) acknowledge that while a substantial section of the people in
Northern Ireland share the legitimate wish of a majority of the people of
the island of Ireland for a united Ireland, the present wish of a majority of
the people of Northern Ireland, freely exercised and legitimate, is to
maintain the Union and, accordingly, that Northern Ireland’s status as part
of the United Kingdom reflects and relies upon that wish; and that it
would be wrong to make any change in the status of Northern Ireland save
with the consent of a majority of its people;

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

Since the GFA the legitimacy of NI as part of the UK is no longer disputed. It's the self determined wish of the majority of the people of NI.

Qualifier: An agreement to abide by the wishes of the majority was reached in the GFA.

The legitimacy of partition is still disputed- hence the clause relating to the holding of border polls.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Qualifier: An agreement to abide by the wishes of the majority was reached in the GFA.

The legitimacy of partition is still disputed- hence the clause relating to the holding of border polls.

No , whatever the majority want is the legitimate status of NI. One option is no less legitimate than the other.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

No , whatever the majority want is the legitimate status of NI. One option is no less legitimate than the other.

Exactly and it is a temporary legitimacy.
Why would you attempt to end partition if you didn't 'dispute' it?
Why would you constitutionally aspire to a UI of you didn't think partition was a bad thing?

Taytoland

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Taytoland wrote: »

Again you won't answer the essence of my argument and question. By using this argument you are calling the Catalan people Spanish and the Chechen people Russian, do you think they are Spanish and Russian? That is the basis of what you are saying, that is the logical conclusion you can only come to with your argument.

One of the other flaws in what you are saying is the name of the state can dictate what identity you are. Lets look at this rationally. By using this argument you are saying the people of the Republic of Macedonia are Macedonians, when most Greek historians will tell you they are Slavic, not Macedonian. Macedonians are Greek. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonia_(Greece)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Macedonia

This is why using the argument of the name of an Island or a state does not dictate what identity the people or a specific group of people who live there are. While I can respect you have passionate opinions on the politics, I do not understand the logic of the argument between name of a land or a state specifically with identity.

Until Catalonia becomes a separate country then they are from Spain etc etc.

It is the United Kingdom of Great Britain AND Northern Ireland.

Great Britain = England, Scotland, Wales. All separate nationalities.

Northern Ireland = a partitioned and disputed part of the island of Ireland.

Take your issue up with those who made the distinction maybe?

Ring them. I guarantee the receptionist will say:
'Someone from Ireland wants to complain...'.

Catalonia is a disputed part of Spain among a LOT of people in Catalonia, maybe you missed the news in the last year or so on that front. At least you are being honest in what you believe, you believe the state determines your identity.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Exactly and it is a temporary legitimacy.
Why would you attempt to end partition if you didn't 'dispute' it?
Why would you constitutionally aspire to a UI of you didn't think partition was a bad thing?

We don't know if it is temporary may never change. But why is that even important. It's politics it's always determined by the will of the majority.

FrancieBrady

Taytoland wrote: »

Catalonia is a disputed part of Spain among a LOT of people in Catalonia, maybe you missed the news in the last year or so on that front. At least you are being honest in what you believe, you believe the state determines your identity.

NoTayto. YOU determine your identity, and you have that right enshrined in the GFA.
Your location at birth determines where you are 'from'.
You have presented nothing to alter those truisms. And you will be met by same truisms when you sling your hook to a landmass that sees you as other already. I.E. The United Kingdom of Great Britain AND Northern Ireland.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

We don't know if it is temporary may never change. But why is that even important. It's politics it's always determined by the will of the majority.

And the majority of Nationalists/Republicans (the clue is in those labels) as represented by SF dispute partition. As stated.
Of course that is politics too.

Taytoland

The argument doesn't add up because what you are saying is anyone BORN in Catalonia is Spanish because Catalonia is on the landmass of what would be called Spain. I am amazed how you don't see the real error with this thinking, why it's flawed. I have given you two examples of countries in Greece and Macedonia, the Macedonia within Greece and the country of the Republic of Macedonia which is made up of Slavic people and not actual Greeks, Macedonians.

I also put down the example of Chechnya which is inside the state called Russia, the Chechans are not Russian but according to you they are because they are born on a landmass called Russia.  I also used the example of Canada, they are on the landmass called the Americas, but you wouldn't describe them as American, same with Brazil, that is why I think the argument you use doesn't make sense.

You seem to have a problem with British people living on the Island, who are born British. I don't know why that is the case, no one is disputing your own nationality and belonging, I certainly wouldn't do that to you, I'd expect the same for those who are British. 

Unless you can show me why Catalans are not Catalans but Spanish and the same with Chechans, then I just think it's more Francie anti-British sentiment as it certainly doesn't make a lot of sense to claim that the landmass you are born on determines your identity as shown by the numerous examples outlined on this forum.

You also seem to equate what people from "outside" so to speak think of your identity somehow makes your identity less valid or wrong is another argument which I don't see as a valid argument. Since when did that ever matter? Why would a British people living in Carrickfergus care what a person from London thinks of them identity wise?

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And the majority of Nationalists/Republicans (the clue is in those labels) as represented by SF dispute partition. As stated.
Of course that is politics too.

But still a minority of the people of NI for now. So as stated in the GFA and accepted by SF by supporting the GFA, NI is legitimately a part of the UK for the time being. They have a legitimate wish for the status of NI to change nothing more.