FrancieBrady wrote: » Maybe if you could give us some examples of those who have 'the firm will' to 'unite the people' only, your argument might make some sense.
facehugger99 wrote: » Uniting the people of this island is a legitimate aspiration. I hope we can continue to develop closer ties with our neighbors in NI. Uniting the country, or attempting to, would be a ugly, divisive and expensive exercise. It's for these reasons that myself and millions like me voted on this very issue francie, when we removed the territorial claim on the north. We made our choice. I guess we must be all partitionist in our thinking, but we console ourselves that we have constitution to back us up.
FrancieBrady wrote: » So when our Taoiseach, in his capacity as Taoiseach talks about a physical united Ireland he is actually being unconstitutional. Who knew.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Millions of us know the difference between a 'territorial claim' and an 'aspiration' or 'firm will'. We know they are not the same thing. Any luck finding us one actual person who wants to 'unite the people' only?
blanch152 wrote: » There are many of us who want to unite the people first as a precondition for uniting the territory. But we would also be happy if the people in the North united around the concept of staying in the UK. That is the direction things were heading until Brexit. That momentum towards acceptance of the UK has stopped, but it remains to be seen where momentum heads post-Brexit. It will depend largely on the type of Brexit.
Matt Barrett wrote: » You're dodging here. Instead of responding you are explaining why you wouldn't support a united Ireland. Trying to fudge what it means is pretty poor. If you're against it, stand by that rather than trying to fudge things.
Matt Barrett wrote: » We are not at war with the Irish currently under British jurisdiction. I'd say we all get along quite well. We share Rugby, as was raised and all live on the same island. How do you propose we unite the people further, an all Ireland song competition?
FrancieBrady wrote: » Millions of us know the difference between a 'territorial claim' and an 'aspiration' or 'firm will'. We know they are not the same thing.
blanch152 wrote: » That is a complete twisting of what I have said. The official Constitutional position of the State is to seek unity of the people. That does not preclude you or anyone else (including An Taoiseach) aspiring to a physical united Ireland. However, it also means that labelling someone who favours the existing status quo as a partitionist is not only pejorative and sneering, but also inaccurate.
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.
facehugger99 wrote: » Really? - you seemed a bit confused about it - there is no aspiration in the constitution to unite the country - that is a simple fact. I certainly wouldn't have voted for it if there had been.
blanch152 wrote: » We need to develop a modern Irish culture that incorporates fully the British heritage on this island.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Well explain what 'it is the firm will of the Irish Nation...' means then.
facehugger99 wrote: » I think we've done all that Francie. It would seem you had a dose of constitution-confusion and I suspect, despite your pleadings of ignorance, that you actually know very well where you were wrong. Every day's a school-day as they say.
Matt Barrett wrote: » Are you suggesting we take on some form of brit-centrc legislation in the Republic? I'm not sure what you mean. We have many cultures here none are refused the right to be who they are. Can you elaborate? I believe those peoples who wish to, are not stopped from celebrating their heritage. Why would that change under a united Ireland? The Chinese new year, Bastille day, Burns day etc. lots of celebrations in modern Ireland.
blanch152 wrote: » You don't need legislation for culture. There is nothing complicated about saying that Irish culture needs to recognise its British heritage.
FrancieBrady wrote: » How does a 'culture' recognise anything? Irish culture is a sum of it's parts, including that of the British.
BonnieSituation wrote: » Francie please avoid going down the tunnels that the two partitionists have constructed to do their gymnastics in. I honestly can't believe that the references that are in the constitution to a united Ireland and the consent to same now don't actually mean the reunification of the 2 jurisdictions on this island. I completely missed that definition. Please for the love of all that is holy, would someone explain to me how a united Ireland does not actually mean what we have all taken it to have meant since 1922?
BonnieSituation wrote: » Please for the love of all that is holy, would someone explain to me how a united Ireland does not actually mean what we have all taken it to have meant since 1922?
facehugger99 wrote: » Where is a united ireland mentioned in the constitution? Well you post up the relevant part please so we can all see which clause you're referring to.
FrancieBrady wrote: »
facehugger99 wrote: » A very different meaning to the 1922 version referred to.
the articles also express a desire for the peaceful political unification of the island subject to the consent of the people of Northern Ireland and Ireland.
blanch152 wrote: » https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_2_and_3_of_the_Constitution_of_Ireland "As amended, Article 3, Section 1 expresses the "firm will" of the Irish nation to create a united Irish people, though not, explicitly, a united country."
The proposed new Article 3 contains a powerful statement that highlights one of the central objectives of the Agreement: "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. 3' 2 The aspiration to unity remains undimmed-but it is also recognized that a united Ireland shall be brought about only by peaceful means and with the consent of a majority of the people, democratically expressed, in both jurisdictions of the island. We have drawn a clearer distinction between the jurisdiction of the State on the one hand and the membership of the nation on the other hand. This shift of focus from land to people, from territory to nationhood, was of great significance in achieving a settlement. It is also highly significant that, taking the proposed Article 3 and the proposed changes to British constitutional legislation together, there will be, for the first time, a clear mechanism through which a united Ireland may be achieved. The existing Article 3 is silent on this, while the Northern Ireland Constitution Act of 1973 does not address the situation in which a majority in Northern Ireland support a united Ireland. This deficiency has been rectified by the Northern Ireland Act of 1998, which will oblige the British Government to bring forward proposals to give effect to the wish of a major
FrancieBrady wrote: » Wickipedia? Really? Here is a legal take on it.https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://scholar.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1616&context=ilj
blanch152 wrote: » And there it is: "We have drawn a clearer distinction between the jurisdiction of the State on the one hand and the membership of the nation on the other hand. This shift of focus from land to people, from territory to nationhood, was of great significance in achieving a settlement." In other words, everyone on the island can be Irish, we don't need territory to do that. That is the substantive change. Previously there was a claim over territory, now there is not.
FrancieBrady wrote: » So you just ignored this bit and cherry picked out a bit that suited you. Brilliant.that highlights one of the central objectives of the Agreement: "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. 3' 2 The aspiration to unity remains undimmed
blanch152 wrote: » The aspiration comes after and is subject to the unity of the people, so it remains an aspiration. If you believe that is an undimmed aspiration, fair play to you. but the constitutional imperative has completely disappeared.
