FrancieBrady wrote: » This ^ is particularly devious. You moved the goalposts to comparing the two texts, I didn't. You said this earlier: Will you accept you were totally wrong on this and that the Irish Nation constitutionally aspires to a united Ireland?
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: » Ah here. You are asking me to accept I was wrong in describing differences between the two versions of Article 3 but also accusing me of moving the goalposts because I described the differences between the two versions of Article 3. Really?
blanch152 wrote: » I didn't read anything like you have claimed there. I haven't seen a single person from the South on here say that they are against a united Ireland in all circumstances. In that sense, there isn't a single partitionist on here. In some ways, unity has already been achieved. Everyone born on this island is entitled to be Irish. Everyone born on this island can live and work and study anywhere on this island. In other ways, unity is further away than ever. Politically, two extreme parties get most of the votes in the North. They feed off one another in a way, with consequential disruption to normal politics. This creates division.
Junkyard Tom wrote: » You know people have backed themselves into a corner when they start arguing about the meaning of words/sentences. Very very tedious.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Straight question as you seem insistent on avoiding it. Does the Irish Nation have a constitutional aspiration to a united Ireland? As referred to by an Taoiseach and Simon Coveney. Yes or No will do and then we can leave it.
blanch152 wrote: » I refer you to my previous posts that have explained it clearly that there is a constitutional aspiration akin to my aspiration to win the Lotto having bought a ticket. Very different from me claiming a Lotto win with a winning ticket. Our constitution aspires to an awful lot of things - concord with other nations, true social order, etc. I particularly like our devotion to the ideal of peace and friendly co-operation amongst nations founded on international justice and morality. What is international morality? I digress, but an aspiration is just that, a hope, a wish, a desire, nothing more, nothing less. The constitutional imperative is gone. There is no definition of national territory that includes Northern Ireland. A lot of people don't realise how far unity was downgraded in the new Article 2 and 3. The failure of the DUP to understand it doesn't bother me, their failure to understand Brexit shows it again.
blanch152 wrote: we dropped that territorial claim and aspired to unite the people rather than the territory.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Ok, I will take that as a Yes, unnecessarily long winded and self serving as it was. Anyone who knows anything about that vote knows we dropped the territorial claim. That was the change, not the aspiration to unite the island and it's people. The previous post that I linked to,
blanch152 wrote: » Look, as well as aspiring to win the Lotto, I also aspire to scoring the winning goal in a World Cup Final. Aspirations are like dreams, you can have them about anything. I really didn't understand how much the aspiration meant to nationalists, how clinging to a dream means so much. You can have your aspiration, I share it, it is everyone's dream to have a united prosperous and peaceful Ireland. But I mostly live in realities. The realities of a divided North, ruled by two extremist intolerant parties. Until we see the end of those parties and a meeting of minds and communities, we will never have a peaceful Ireland. The death of Sinn Fein and the death of the DUP are necessary preconditions for peace.
FrancieBrady wrote: » The people of the north are the exact same as you and me. The ludicrous idea of partition, which in fairness, the British didn't see lasting, has created the polarised society you seem to think is because 'themuns' are different to you. . And that will not change. It will die down periodically, enough so that partitionists can ignore it and pronounce that decades have been 'peaceful and prosperous' (maybe not your exact words, but close) when the reality was totally different. But, essentially, it will either be recovering from crisis or reverting to crisis. That is not sustainable. I am delighted you have agreed on the constitutional position, albeit begrudgingly, because it is and has been important, enabling concerned people in the south to demand the attention of a sometime partitionist Dublin government. Leo and Simon are fulfilling their constitutional duty at the moment for instance. That is down to the entire constitution, not just cherrypicked parts.
blanch152 wrote: » I am happy that we have agreed on the constitutional position, that the aspiration is like a forlorn hope.
FrancieBrady wrote: » I cannot for the life of me understand why you take offence at being described as a partitionist,
blanch152 wrote: » Two reasons (1) I do want a united Ireland, when the hearts and minds of the people have been won over to it. (2) The term partitionist has only ever been used as an insult or term of abuse outside of these boards. I would like to see where it has been used as a term of respect for someone.
droidman123 wrote: » I dont think its a term of respect or abuse,its just a term describing someones outlook.like the term unionist or nationalist,neither are terms of abuse or respect
blanch152 wrote: » Two reasons (1) I do want a united Ireland, when the hearts and minds of the people have been won over to it.
(2) The term partitionist has only ever been used as an insult or term of abuse outside of these boards. I would like to see where it has been used as a term of respect for someone.
FrancieBrady wrote: » That might never happen so is a safe place for someone who is to all other extents, partitionist in their comments. At some point it will be worth the experiment, like for instance the GFA was a risk and an experiment and proved to the naysayers that it could work. It is called progressing. I certainly use it as a criticism, but never as a term of abuse. I don't agree with the point of view it simply describes. Same as I don't agree with the 'unionist' point of view.
blanch152 wrote: » So nobody has yet been able to produce a reference to partitionist that is anything other than pejorative or republican rhetoric.
FrancieBrady wrote: » 'Critical' blanch. If you take it as pejorative that is your problem. It is a perfectly acceptable and descriptive English word. Nobody has to defend a perfectly acceptable word, that is ridiculous.
RobMc59 wrote: » Does that mean republicans in the north are partitionists?
FrancieBrady wrote: » If you wish. Or you could also call them unionists. Irish partitionsts/Uk partitionists Irish unionists/ British unionists Irish nationalists/English nationalists. These are perfectly acceptable non offensive descriptors. Unless you want to be offended.
blanch152 wrote: » Most unionists are happy to be called unionists. That makes it a perfectly acceptable non offensive descriptor. Most nationalists are happy to be called nationalists. That makes it a perfectly acceptable non offensive descriptor. Find me a partitionist happy to be called a partitionist.
FrancieBrady wrote: » I don't know anyone who is happy to be criticised, except those who accept it as constructive and who change. If you think you are being personally attacked, report the post. I am done explaining that I don't mean it as an insult. It describes a viewpoint I object to.
blanch152 wrote: » Yet you do not criticise partitionism, you criticise partitionists, making it not about the viewpoint but about the person holding the view.
BonnieSituation wrote: » He does nothing but criticise partitionism. That's his whole raison d'etre.
blanch152 wrote: » No issue with him criticising the idea of partitionism, or however he chooses to label it. However, labelling people with a label they do not accept is the problem. A label that has only ever been used as a term of abuse and derision.
Smoothtalking Liar wrote: » IF there is a yes vote how will we deal with the likes of the UVF and the UVF?
Smoothtalking Liar wrote: » Hello?
BonnieSituation wrote: » But someone exhibiting signs of a paritionist mindset should be referred to as?
