blanch152 wrote: » Partitionist is a term of abuse on social media, it is not a definition of a political viewpoint. To be valid as a political definition rather than a term of abuse, those who are "partitionists" should self-define as such, rather than being labelled as such by others. They don't self-define as such.
Junkyard Tom wrote: » Reports of their demise are greatly exaggerated. The DUP are essentially the anti-Irish/Gael party and that whole Irish/Gael thing isn't going anywhere. The DUP have destroyed any chance of a hybrid 'northern' Irish identity taking hold.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Let me self define for a moment - I don't use it as a term of abuse. If you reside in a jurisdiction that constitutionally aspires to unity and you argue against that, then you favour partition - i.e. you are a partitionist. Nothing abusive about simple fact.
jm08 wrote: » How do you define yourself?
facehugger99 wrote: » The constitution aspires to a unity of the Irish people, not a united country. It was deliberately written as such. You need to transcend past a 18th century fixation on national borders. A realist.
Article 3 1. It is the firm will of the Irish Nation, in harmony and friendship, to unite all the people who share the territory of the island of Ireland, in all the diversity of their identities and traditions, recognising that a united Ireland shall be brought about only by peaceful means with the consent of a majority of the people, democratically expressed, in both jurisdictions in the island.
FrancieBrady wrote: » You are saying that it is a 'United Ireland Of The Mind' that we aspire to? Interesting.
RobMc59 wrote: » Small steps to start-not a bull at a gate.
The constitution aspires to a unity of the Irish people, not a united country.
Infini wrote: » To be fair the DUP are a group of Dinosaurs but not only that but they're grossly incompetent and utterly devoid of any sense of self respect. They reek of cronyism. The thing is though people will cop on sooner or later that voting for people like this isn't going to be in their long term interest. To point to Sky News it looks like Buisness and Farming groups are pulling financial support for them over their antics and their No Deal before Northern Ireland's Interests. The lions share of the political deadlock is on their heads for Stormont as well, Arlene refused to resign or even stand aside over the "Cash For Ash" which show's they'll put themselves before common interest and the BBC reports that they didnt even research their own Brexit position properly before deciding shows nothing but utter incompetence. If anything they'll fade in time as everything comes back to bite them. Karma is a bítch as they say and they've done enough stirring of the pot to be ground into the political dust with their own hypocracy.
facehugger99 wrote: » The Constitution aspires to a unity of the people not a unity of the country. It is a very clear and deliberate distinction.
FrancieBrady wrote: » You are stating this as if we are just aspiring to the unity of people. Which is an entirely disingenuous interpretation of Articles 2 and 3.
Schnitzler Hiyori Geta wrote: » Not Article 2 in fairness, but certainly Article 3.1 probably couldn't be more clear that what is sought is "a united Ireland shall be brought about only by peaceful means with the consent of a majority of the people, democratically expressed, in both jurisdictions in the island"
FrancieBrady wrote: » And my point is that 'a partitionist' is one who is a citizen of Ireland and who is against a 'united Ireland' or who favours the continuation of partition.
facehugger99 wrote: » Ah, it's the 'invent a phrase and ascribe a meaning to it' game.
Definition of partitionist : an advocate of political partition
FrancieBrady wrote: » No, just giving the context in which I use the phrase.
facehugger99 wrote: » Yes, which we've already established was based on a misreading and misinterpretation of the Irish constitution.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Funny that, because I would call your interpretation of it a Unionist or partitionist interpretation. If you are against the 'firm will of Irish Nation to unite the people...' then you are also a partitionist.
RobMc59 wrote: » You're forgetting that the people of NI also have to want it,which they haven't indicated is the case at the moment.
blanch152 wrote: » I am not doubting your claim that you don't use it as a term of abuse. However there are plenty of words from the c-word, the n-word and the y-word, that over the years people have claimed not to be using as terms of abuse but that are seen as terms of abuse by those that they are describing. If the use of the word partitionist is not a term of abuse, how come we don't see people proclaiming that they are happy to be labelled a partitionist. For the last word, let us turn to our favourite food expert for the real perspective:https://www.joe.co.uk/news/mcdonalds-accused-of-partitionism-by-sinn-fein-politician-because-of-a-special-edition-burger-13730 Young McElduff of the breads once again lifts the veil by referring to the "the sin of partitionism".
FrancieBrady wrote: » I haven't forgotten anything. I was referring to citizens of the south, when I use the word 'partitionist'. Hence my original conversation with ancapailldorcha. The equivalent of a southern partitionist in the north, is a Unionist, who supports and is in favour of partition. I don't see how you can live in the south, be happy with the status quo here, and call yourself a Unionist. Simple point originally, and tbh, not of much importance.
RobMc59 wrote: » Some may argue they yearn for reunification and what is reality now is partition.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Sorry?
RobMc59 wrote: » They may want reunification with the UK.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Then they are NOT 'happy with the status quo' which is an Irish sovereign independent state.
