_Kaiser_ wrote: » A few days later and this thread shows exactly why the a United Ireland is a bad idea. Anyone expressing legitimate concerns about the economics of the idea, the security concerns, or the history involved is labelled unpatriotic, a West Brit or a Prod by the armchair Republicans :rolleyes: Then there's the lad talking about driving up and down the road with machine guns and.. Riiiiight! The genuinely sad thing I suppose is that this mindset still exists but it's absolutely the best indicator that the whole idea is a bad one because, despite what they might think, there's clearly a lot of people who aren't as ready for a United Ireland as they think they are.
FrancieBrady wrote: » To actively oppose it in those circumstances is to be anti our constitution and can therefore be considered unpatriotic.
FrancieBrady wrote: » I think you may have been trolled by said poster. He/she is acting a role, precisely to get the reaction you just gave. I didn't engage with him/her because he/she is so much of a cliche I suspect they may be an anti-UI plant. He/she is no more a representative of Republicanism or the pro-UI side than Willie Frazer is representative of the vast majority of decent Unionism.
baylah17 wrote: » Eh no! Our Constitution carries in it an aspiration for unification, not a requirement. To claim that opposing something in the Constitution is the height of stupidity. The 8th amendment is in the Constitution if I oppose that am I unpatriotic?
FrancieBrady wrote: » It carries an 'Aim'. If you actively oppose an Aim of a country, after the requisite conditions have been met (a majority vote in the north in this case) you are essentially being unpatriotic to that country. That is your right, just be aware of what it is you are doing, is the point.
_Kaiser_ wrote: » Regardless of whether that particular poster is just trolling or not, the attitude he/she expresses is still very common to varying degrees.
Far too many people haven't gotten over the whole "800 years" and still have a prominent resentment towards "de Brits" or anyone they perceive to be supportive of them (West Brits). This thread may be mostly more civilised than the poster in question, but the same attitudes are there
ohnonotgmail wrote: » and a majority vote in the south as well, dont forget.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Well if the south has already voted in a referendum, actively opposing the outcome might be a tad too late.
I happen to believe strongly in citizenship and a republican form of government. I also think that a United Ireland would be an unmitigated disaster for people living on both sides of the border from a political, economic, health and security point of view. I do think that a path for unification should be open pending a vote firstly in the north and then in the republic, but as things stand I would vote against it.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » you must have read a different OP to me.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Good lord...WHY would I be talking about a pointless campaign to oppose a UI AFTER both jurisdictions had voted in favour of it?
ohnonotgmail wrote: » so you decided to have your sub-thread? the question in the OP was quite clear. why not discuss that?
baylah17 wrote: » So only the North gets a vote, how democratic!
Baron de Charlus wrote: » I think if you want to change people's minds about a united Ireland, the best way of doing it is to call them Prods, West-Brits and unpatriotic. Works every time.
Charles Babbage wrote: » Opposing an independent Ireland does make you unpatriotic. Wanting the part of Ireland you happen to live in to be independent while not wanting it for other people makes you a selfish mé féiner.
Foxhound38 wrote: » Whereas threatening what security and economic stability we do have (something current and past generations of Irish people struggled to build post-independence) so that armchair nationalists can fulfill romantic notions of historical destiny to no tangible benefit for anyone at any side of the border isn't being a selfish mé féiner, is it?
FrancieBrady wrote: » What do you mean 'no tangible benefit'? NI has failed as a state, for a very long time now. It requires an international agreement between 2 governments to keep it from internally combusting to the detriment of the whole island, not to mention Britain. If that can be fixed, how can it not be a 'tangible benefit'? And please don't answer with 'it can't be fixed'. That might be good enough for lazy partitionists but it isn't for responsible adults with a vested interest in the future.
Foxhound38 wrote: » NI is reasonably stable at the moment, childish SF/DUP games aside. Unification would light the whole thing up like a petrol-fire again (one we are in no way equipped to handle), not to mention the fact that we can't even afford to even nearly keep up their subsidies or prop up their economy the way it is meaning they would take an almost immediate drop in standards of living, as would we - and for what? We have free movement, nobody is interested in putting a hard border back up, and nationalists already have political representation? This is not laziness, this is the result of a basic cost-benefit analysis. Bleating about it in our current context amounts to nationalist bitterness that their pet project has been sidelined in recent decades, as the tangible benefits of such a project lessen and give way to more wishy washy "800 years/padraig pearse died for this" arguments.
diomed wrote: » The idea is linked to living on an island. If we were attached to mainland Europe would we want the whole continent?
conorhal wrote: » We might.... if we were German....
Kermit.de.frog wrote: » I don't want a UI until the north can pay it's own way.
FrancieBrady wrote: » conorhal wrote: » We might.... if we were German.... There are some Irish people who would have France or Germany take over rather than take responsibility for the whole island. I think it is fear that the bogey men and women they invented themselves actually exist in reality.
baylah17 wrote: » Like the bogeyman who CELEBRATE the slaughter of 10 protestant workers at Kingsmills by sneeringly donning a Kingsmills sliced pan on their head on the anniversary of their slaughter. Keep them in their six county pen they have zero in common with us.
FrancieBrady wrote: » baylah17 wrote: » Like the bogeyman who CELEBRATE the slaughter of 10 protestant workers at Kingsmills by sneeringly donning a Kingsmills sliced pan on their head on the anniversary of their slaughter. Keep them in their six county pen they have zero in common with us. No southern politician has ever made an insensitive remark? Are you actually being serious here or just trolling?
