Reunification Vote Per County

blanch152

ELM327 wrote: »

These are one and the same thing.
You seem to be confusing the country of Ireland with the administrative region called "eire" or "the free state" created by the british in the 20's.

This was after the first and only sitting of the Irish Dáil as elected by the entirety of the country.

The Irish Consitution no longer lays claim to the northern part of this island.

As a result, the country of Ireland consists of 26 counties today. It is possible that it may consist of 32 counties at some point in the future, but that is only an aspiration.

ELM327

blanch152 wrote: »

The Irish Consitution no longer lays claim to the northern part of this island.

As a result, the country of Ireland consists of 26 counties today. It is possible that it may consist of 32 counties at some point in the future, but that is only an aspiration.

The irish constitution (a misnomer as it only applies to the free state) is not a valid constitution as it does not continue the lineage of the first elected Irish Dáil of 1918.
I do not recognise the british imposed free state as "Ireland", "Ireland" and "Irish" refers to the Island of Ireland, a political entity of its own merit.

James Brown

Aegir wrote: »

You seem to be confusing the island of Ireland and the country of Ireland. They are two separate things.

No. Ulster is part of both. Again, what do you think a re-unification referendum would be for?

ELM327

Matt Barrett wrote: »

No. Ulster is part of both. Again, what do you think a re-unification referendum would be for?

Ah, so I see
That other poster must be a British person sent here by the english in the plantations. In that case I shall disregard their opinions. CHeers for the heads up

Rhineshark

ELM327 wrote: »

The irish constitution (a misnomer as it only applies to the free state) is not a valid constitution as it does not continue the lineage of the first elected Irish Dáil of 1918.
I do not recognise the british imposed free state as "Ireland", "Ireland" and "Irish" refers to the Island of Ireland, a political entity of its own merit.

It doesn't really matter if you recognise it or not, the reality is what it is. The island of Ireland is not the same thing as the Irish-controlled Republic of Ireland. And it was reinforced by the treaty aimed to bring peace and allow for peaceful re-unification when both populations choose it.

Particularly dangerous to ignore it right now for ideological reasons when it is of existential importance.

ELM327

Rhineshark wrote: »

It doesn't really matter if you recognise it or not, the reality is what it is. The island of Ireland is not the same thing as the Irish-controlled Republic of Ireland. And it was reinforced by the treaty aimed to bring peace and allow for peaceful re-unification when both populations choose it.

Particularly dangerous to ignore it right now for ideological reasons when it is of existential importance.

The last Dáil elected by the people of Ireland (As opposed to the british created entity of Eire or the free state) was in 1918.
"Irish" refers to the nation of "Ireland" which encompasses all of her land, not just some.


If the British decide to hold a poll to allow those resident in the north of Ireland to self determine their will to align the british created state of Eire with the nation of Ireland and the result is a win for the reunification then great, but if not it does not change the fact that Ireland is a 32 county nation.

Rhineshark

ELM327 wrote: »

The last Dáil elected by the people of Ireland (As opposed to the british created entity of Eire or the free state) was in 1918.
"Irish" refers to the nation of "Ireland" which encompasses all of her land, not just some.


If the British decide to hold a poll to allow those resident in the north of Ireland to self determine their will to align the british created state of Eire with the nation of Ireland and the result is a win for the reunification then great, but if not it does not change the fact that Ireland is a 32 county nation.

First off, it would be the people of NI (and then the people of RoI) holding a referendum, not a poll of British people, as much as the likes of the Express and Sun would be all for a poll of Britain's folks to decide whether to offload it.

...Actually, re-reading that, are you claiming a British poll to "re-align" the *Republic* with...itself?

Secondly, I don't recognise the British occupation or the subsequent "Free State" or "Republic". Ancient kingdom of Dal Riada or nuffin'. That was the last truly Irish expression of sovereignity bar everything that came after including the Anglo-Irish agreement that rejected RoI's claim on NI (and the UK rejected any claim on RoI). The Scots don't get a say.

However, this would be a thoroughly irrelevant stance to take due to much change in the meantime. We need to work with the situation that we have, which includes a portion if the island being British, like it or not.

"Irish", due to our rather unique situation, has several rather fuzzy meanings. But while you can stand there are insist that Ireland is a single political entity in the face of ...reality, you are free to do so. But it makes any debate with you about the current political situation (or any political situation pre-1160s) a bit pointless.

ELM327

Rhineshark wrote: »

First off, it would be the people of NI (and then the people of RoI) holding a referendum, not a poll of British people, as much as the likes of the Express and Sun would be all for a poll of Britain's folks to decide whether to offload it.

...Actually, re-reading that, are you claiming a British poll to "re-align" the *Republic* with...itself?

Secondly, I don't recognise the British occupation or the subsequent "Free State" or "Republic". Ancient kingdom of Dal Riada or nuffin'. That was the last truly Irish expression of sovereignity bar everything that came after including the Anglo-Irish agreement that rejected RoI's claim on NI (and the UK rejected any claim on RoI). The Scots don't get a say.

However, this would be a thoroughly irrelevant stance to take due to much change in the meantime. We need to work with the situation that we have, which includes a portion if the island being British, like it or not.

"Irish", due to our rather unique situation, has several rather fuzzy meanings. But while you can stand there are insist that Ireland is a single political entity in the face of ...reality, you are free to do so. But it makes any debate with you about the current political situation (or any political situation pre-1160s) a bit pointless.

What a load of tripe.
Irish has just one meaning. Born in the country/island of Ireland.
You can mess about with false borders and different artificial political entities enforced by foreign sovereigns but the fact remains that anyone born on the island of Ireland to parents born on the island of Ireland is entitled to an Irish passport. If the narnia regime in part of the north of Ireland is to be recognised (incorrectly) as british, then how can one be born a british subject to the british monarch, never set foot in what you deem to be Ireland (ie the 26 county free state), yet be entitled to an Irish passport?

Rhineshark

ELM327 wrote: »

What a load of tripe.
Irish has just one meaning. Born in the country/island of Ireland.
You can mess about with false borders and different artificial political entities enforced by foreign sovereigns but the fact remains that anyone born on the island of Ireland to parents born on the island of Ireland is entitled to an Irish passport. If the narnia regime in part of the north of Ireland is to be recognised (incorrectly) as british, then how can one be born a british subject to the british monarch, never set foot in what you deem to be Ireland (ie the 26 county free state), yet be entitled to an Irish passport?

It may indeed be tripe but due to our pretty complex history with our nearest neighbour, it is the situation.

Irish actually specifically does *not* mean "born on the island of Ireland" since a 1994 referendum on the 27th amendment (the result of which I heartily disagree with btw but that is neither here nor there, it is also reality) where we decided that merely being born here if your parents are foreign does not entitle you to citizenship because a class of essentially stateless people was a *brilliant* idea.

Other than that, see quote from Wikipedia;

A person may be an Irish citizen[1] through birth, descent, marriage to an Irish citizen or through naturalisation. The law grants citizenship to individuals born in Northern Ireland under the same conditions as those born in the Republic of Ireland.

"Descent" here means a parent or grandparent, not just yourself.

So, no, your statement is factually incorrect.

That second part, the part you are questioning, is down to an agreement as part of the Good Friday Agreement which entitled NI citizens to RoI citizenship and British citizenship should they so choose. This is due to the sectarian divide between those that identify as British, roughly descended from the plantations of Scots and those that identify as Irish, roughly descended from the Irish population of the time albeit with much fuzzing due to the passage of time since. Also because the British Isles have always been good at fudge and the lack of a hard border due to being in the EU CU/SM allowed for much freer movement between the regions. And to bring an end to the Troubles by compromise.

You're talking from ideology here. It does not reflect reality. It's the same sort of woolly logic based on what might be preferred thatbid currently causing an unholy mess next door. Your opinion does not over-rule either reality or Irish law. Or even British law if it comes to that.

ELM327

Rhineshark wrote: »

It may indeed be tripe but due to our pretty complex history with our nearest neighbour, it is the situation.

Irish actually specifically does *not* mean "born on the island of Ireland" since a 1994 referendum on the 27th amendment (the result of which I heartily disagree with btw but that is neither here nor there, it is also reality) where we decided that merely being born here if your parents are foreign does not entitle you to citizenship because a class of essentially stateless people was a *brilliant* idea.

Other than that, see quote from Wikipedia;



"Descent" here means a parent or grandparent, not just yourself.

So, no, your statement is factually incorrect.

That second part, the part you are questioning, is down to an agreement as part of the Good Friday Agreement which entitled NI citizens to RoI citizenship and British citizenship shoukd they so choose.

You're talking from ideology here. It does not reflect reality. It's the same sort of woolly logic based on what might be preferred thatbid currently causing an unholy mess next door. Your opinion does not over-rule either reality or Irish law. Or even British law if it comes to that.

Interesting.
Now lets actually read what I wrote.]
It's almost as if you are just arguing and not actually reading.

ELM327 wrote: »

What a load of tripe.
Irish has just one meaning. Born in the country/island of Ireland.
You can mess about with false borders and different artificial political entities enforced by foreign sovereigns but the fact remains that anyone born on the island of Ireland to parents born on the island of Ireland is entitled to an Irish passport. If the narnia regime in part of the north of Ireland is to be recognised (incorrectly) as british, then how can one be born a british subject to the british monarch, never set foot in what you deem to be Ireland (ie the 26 county free state), yet be entitled to an Irish passport?

James Brown

ELM327 wrote: »

Ah, so I see
That other poster must be a British person sent here by the english in the plantations. In that case I shall disregard their opinions. CHeers for the heads up

I'd say he's merely feigning confusion because he won't accept the reality that Ulster is an Irish province.

Rhineshark

ELM327 wrote: »

Interesting.
Now lets actually read what I wrote.]
It's almost as if you are just arguing and not actually reading.

I did read it. My point stands. You actually even limit it more than just a person being born here to born here *and* with both parents born here by your phrasing, ignoring, say, mixed nationality marriages, parents born here but you not, neither you nor parents born here but an Irish grandparent etc, all of which makes you eligible for Irish citizenship.

Which is patently incorrect and I refer you to the Irish citizenship authorities for correction.

ELM327

Rhineshark wrote: »

I did read it. My point stands. You actually even limit it more than just a person being born here to born here *and* with both parents born here by your phrasing, ignoring, say, mixed nationality marriages, parents born here but you not, neither you nor parents born here but an Irish grandparent etc, all of which makes you eligible for Irish citizenship.

Which is patently incorrect and I refer you to the Irish citizenship authorities for correction.

The meaning of my post was patently clear.

James Brown

I think if you're born somewhere that's your nationality. If that gives you citizenship rights that's up to the law of the land. I disagreed with that element of the GFA. If you are born on the island of Ireland, you are Irish in my book.

Rhineshark

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I think if you're born somewhere that's your nationality. If that gives you citizenship rights that's up to the law of the land. I disagreed with that element of the GFA. If you are born on the island of Ireland, you are Irish in my book.

Tbh, I agree, although we are both out of accord with the law of the land on that one due to the 1994 decision. Interestingly, it looks like that might be coming up for review. I hope if it passes, it can cover retroactively any unfortunates caught in limbo born in Ireland to non-national parents between 1994 and 201?. Everyone should have the automatic right to nationality of *somewhere* dammit.

I won't call a NI person who positively identifies as British "Irish", mind, although I absolutely agree with their right to do so if they so choose. But it's as insulting to apply it to them if they do not choose it as it is to insist on calling a NI Irish person British.

James Brown

Rhineshark wrote: »

Tbh, I agree, although we are both out of accord with the law of the land on that one due to the 1994 decision. Interestingly, it looks like that might be coming up for review. I hope if it passes, it can cover retroactively any unfortunates caught in limbo born in Ireland to non-national parents between 1994 and 201?. Everyone should have the automatic right to nationality of *somewhere* dammit.

I won't call a NI person who positively identifies as British "Irish", mind, although I absolutely agree with their right to do so if they so choose. But it's as insulting to apply it to them if they do not choose it as it is to insist on calling a NI Irish person British.

Agreed. I'd call anyone born up the north British and Irish. Like a Scottish or Welsh person. We're looking to change all that

BonnieSituation

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I think if you're born somewhere that's your nationality. If that gives you citizenship rights that's up to the law of the land. I disagreed with that element of the GFA. If you are born on the island of Ireland, you are Irish in my book.

It's always been the case.

The 1956 Citizenship act confirmed same.

The GFA solidified those rights.

And the PDs diluted it with the parental citizenship addendum.

James Brown

BonnieSituation wrote: »

It's always been the case.

The 1956 Citizenship act confirmed same.

The GFA solidified those rights.

And the PDs diluted it with the parental citizenship addendum.

We were talking about in our own view and previously noted the law. If you're born in the occupied portion of Ulster you're Irish and British.

Nitrogan

Free from nationalistic Irish, British or English claims the people of NI should be free to choose their own destiny.

LoughNeagh2017

Someone should have mentioned that counties don't really exist in the Northern Ireland political world, my political identity is technically Mid-Ulster, there are signs up now when you enter Mid-Ulster, I dislike the logo they created though, it was obviously designed by a GAA man, oakleafs and red hands, believe it or not the whole reason why there is an oak leaf on the Derry GAA logo is because of Derry city so it shouldn't really be used as a political logo of South county Derry, it is like sticking a Viking ship on a logo for a region of the county Dublin countryside.

cameramonkey

Nitrogan wrote: »

Free from nationalistic Irish, British or English claims the people of NI should be free to choose their own destiny.

Dont you mean noi or the six counties?

cameramonkey

LoughNeagh2017 wrote: »

Someone should have mentioned that counties don't really exist in the Northern Ireland political world, my political identity is technically Mid-Ulster, there are signs up now when you enter Mid-Ulster, I dislike the logo they created though, it was obviously designed by a GAA man, oakleafs and red hands, believe it or not the whole reason why there is an oak leaf on the Derry GAA logo is because of Derry city so it shouldn't really be used as a political logo of South county Derry, it is like sticking a Viking ship on a logo for a region of the county Dublin countryside.

Vikings were all over Dublin, we dont have a viking ship as a logo but it would be nice.



I presume there were Oak trees all over county Derry. Oak leaf is a great emblem, its the nation tree of Ireland.

https://treecouncil.ie/project/oak-sessile/

Irish Kings

blanch152 wrote: »

I think a bare 51% vote in the North would give the people down South something to think about and there is no guarantee we would accept a divided North.

you are not 'we', the Island of Ireland is we