Peregrinus wrote: » I do not see the word "interfere" in the posts that you quote. Do you want to have another go? Or do you want to reread what I have already written about how their wishes influenced (not "how they interfered with") the Art 3 referendum?
FrancieBrady wrote: » What a shame that blanch and facehugger were not vocal at the time to assure them that we only aspired to change unionist mindsets and not the governance of their statelet.
blanch152 wrote: » It is the difference between me saying aggressively and threatening to my neighbour that I own a bit of land that he occupies and he must give it to me rather than me asking him politely that if he ever wishes to sell that piece of land I would consider buying it, and his kids can veto the sale if they want. There is a world of difference between the two. Pretending otherwise is just silly.
Peregrinus wrote: » It's kind of inherent in the notion of "settlement" that you're going to be responsive to the wishes of other people. Unless your notion of "settling" your differences with others involves grinding them beneath the wheels of your chariots until you hear the lamentations of their women.
BonnieSituation wrote: » Eoghan Harris and Conor Cruise O'Brien would be in their element with those definitions. I mean just wow. It's unbelievable. And that the two of you came to this definition independent of each other as well... Is there a partitionist forum or council somewhere where these things are defined that the 2 of ye were all "that's exactly it"? Maddening.
facehugger99 wrote: » That's a laugh. Influence -the capacity to have an effect on the character, development, or behaviour of someone or something, I see you're desperately trying to shift the goalposts to Article 3 of our Constitution but would you like to explain how they influenced our GE's as you've claimed? Do you need to relevant post quoted or are you able to remember this time?
FrancieBrady wrote: » Will you even accept that unionists asked for constitutional change while we required, in the abscence of a written constitution, reciprocal legal change from the British?
facehugger99 wrote: » Hardly matters what was asked for, the Irish electorate had to vote for it. We voted to remove the territorial claim on NI because we accepted it was morally indefensible. It was a fantastic victory for all right-thinking people and a wonderful rebuke to the IRA's campaign of terror, stripping away any last vestige of quasi-justification from the warped thinking of the terrorists. It was the day the country put aside the silly aspirations of the past and moved forward with NI in a spirit of mutual cooperation between all the peoples of the island.
FrancieBrady wrote: » TBH I think anyone that can delude themselves in the way you have demonstrated; who believes that we removed the aspiration to unity from Article 3,
facehugger99 wrote: » It's called being able to read Francie - no delusion required.
Johnny Dogs wrote: » I don't get how you have concluded there's cherry picking going on.
RobMc59 wrote: » As an English person with an interest in Irish matters I see things differently perhaps.I believe in the UK and want it to remain united.If the people of Scotland decide to have a referendum and wish to leave the UK I would`nt like it but I would abide by their democratic decision.If the people of NI do the same I would be disappointed but would abide by their democratic decision. That`s what others should also do-even if it does`nt suit their beliefs and aspirations which is what I see happening here(people want to disregard the will of the people of NI) I also realise the UK has done terrible things in Ireland which can never be forgotten and airbrushed out.The problem remains though,there are a large number of people in NI who don`t want to be part of a UI under any circumstances and they`re not all extremists.
Johnny Dogs wrote: » Well that didn't answer the question.
Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar has said he aspires to a united Ireland based on "cross-community support" in remarks released on Tuesday, the UK Press Association reported. "In terms of a united Ireland, our constitution is clear on this," he said. "Our constitution aspires to there being a united Ireland. I share that aspiration."
The Government fully endorses the legitimate aspiration to unity expressed in Article 3 of the Constitution, as amended by the people in 1998.
RobMc59 wrote: » There are people here who appear not to accept that the GFA states the majority of people in NI wish to remain part of the UK and that Ireland acknowledged that NI is part of the UK and has no claim on it-that is cherry picking.
BonnieSituation wrote: » Where is this lack of acceptance?
FrancieBrady wrote: » Blanch and Facehugger best get Leo and Simon back on message:https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/question/2018-10-23/189/ I think the game is up on this one. You either got hoodwinked into voting for the GFA or you are engaging in partitionist wishful thinking and revisionism.
RobMc59 wrote: » Not open revolt against it but a surly;churlish attitude to parts of it they find unpalatable.
blanch152 wrote: » (1) Despite your repeated attempts at baiting me on Leo or Simon, I don't care what they have to say on the issue. Nobody speaks for me except me. (2) I have already explained to you clearly the difference between the two versions of Article 3 as follows. It is the difference between me saying aggressively and threatening to my neighbour that I own a bit of land that he occupies and he must give it to me rather than me asking him politely that if he ever wishes to sell that piece of land I would consider buying it, and his kids can veto the sale if they want. (3) To give another example, if I buy a Lotto ticket I aspire to winning the Lotto (new Article 3), but if I have a Lotto ticket with the winning numbers on it I am claiming the Lotto win (old Article 3). Of course some Unionists didn't like the new Article 3 because even though we stopped claiming that we had won, we were still in the game, albeit with only a remote chance of winning. It is quite astonishing to see the line-up of people who claim that the amendments to Article 3 mean nothing. The reality is that a territorial claim has been reduced to an aspiration dependent on unifying the people first.
facehugger99 wrote: » Are they able to influence other things like General Elections or just referendums?
Peregrinus wrote: » Possibly.
Peregrinus wrote: » Stand back and think for a moment. I don't know how old you are, or whether you were old enough to be politically conscious in the 1980s and 1990s but, if you weren't, try to think yourself into the situation of someone who was. If you wanted peace in Ireland, or if you wanted any kind of settlement in Ireland, obviously you needed buy-in from both nationalist and unionist communities. Which meant, regardless of whether you classified yourself as nationalist, or unionist, or something else, or nothing, you were going to consider the effect political actions, choices etc would have on both communities. A strong argument for amending Article 3 was precisely that in its unamended form it was troubling to unionists, which made it a barrier to a settlement. So, yeah, the primary reason that Art 3 was amended was that unionists wished it to be, and acceding to unionist wishes on this matter would help build and lock in a peace settlement. It's kind of inherent in the notion of "settlement" that you're going to be responsive to the wishes of other people. Unless your notion of "settling" your differences with others involves grinding them beneath the wheels of your chariots until you hear the lamentations of their women.
blanch152 wrote: » (1) Despite your repeated attempts at baiting me on Leo or Simon, I don't care what they have to say on the issue. Nobody speaks for me except me.
(2) I have already explained to you clearly the difference between the two versions of Article 3 as follows. It is the difference between me saying aggressively and threatening to my neighbour that I own a bit of land that he occupies and he must give it to me rather than me asking him politely that if he ever wishes to sell that piece of land I would consider buying it, and his kids can veto the sale if they want. (3) To give another example, if I buy a Lotto ticket I aspire to winning the Lotto (new Article 3), but if I have a Lotto ticket with the winning numbers on it I am claiming the Lotto win (old Article 3). Of course some Unionists didn't like the new Article 3 because even though we stopped claiming that we had won, we were still in the game, albeit with only a remote chance of winning. It is quite astonishing to see the line-up of people who claim that the amendments to Article 3 mean nothing. The reality is that a territorial claim has been reduced to an aspiration dependent on unifying the people first.
franciebrady wrote: 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.
Following the result of the Brexit referendum, then Taoiseach Enda Kenny secured an agreement with the EU that Northern Ireland would seamlessly re-join the bloc if the North and South were to reunite.
BonnieSituation wrote: » So we're not allowed find that the North is in a different jurisdiction as unpalatable? Should we just lie back and think of England?
RobMc59 wrote: » No,the fact some on here have been sent homeward to think again is enough.
blanch152 wrote: » It is quite astonishing to see the line-up of people who claim that the amendments to Article 3 mean nothing. The reality is that a territorial claim has been reduced to an aspiration dependent on unifying the people first.
facehugger99 wrote: » Hardly matters what was asked for, the Irish electorate had to vote for it. We voted to remove the territorial claim on NI because we accepted it was morally indefensible.
Johnny Dogs wrote: » I lost you ages ago, but this is a new wtf moment.
FrancieBrady wrote: » I mention Leo and Simon as they are the two primary Government figures at the moment and they are fully endorsing the content of Art. 2 and 3. Why you think mentioning them as 'repeated attempts to baait you' is odd. At no point did I mention the differences between the two versions, in fact I never referred to the original version at all. You moved the goalposts. Here is what I said. Regardless of what 'you think'. One can believe the moon is made of blue cheese,if one wishes, there is a right and a wrong answer to the question; Does the Irish Nation still have a constitutional aspiration to a United Ireland'? That answer is Yes, it does.
RobMc59 wrote: » I replied to a humorous post with a humorous reply-why does that confuse you?
Matt Barrett wrote: » The only confusion here is that some posters seem to be selling the idea that the Irish, officially, don't want any part of a united Ireland beyond being pals and holding hands. It's accepted by the rest of us, for and against, that any moves in that direction would require a democratic vote with each side having a say. Coincidentally, what this thread was created to discuss.
blanch152 wrote: » If we start from the premise that you are not disagreeing with my explanation of the differences between the two versions of Article 3, we may even have grounds for further agreement.
blanch152 wrote: It used to refer to reintegration of the national territory. As part of the GFA, we dropped that territorial claim and aspired to united the people rather than the territory.
