Northern Ireland- a failure 99 years on?

ittakestwo wrote: »

It would be up for the remainder of the UK as to whether they can keep a passport or descendants qualify for one in the future. Personally I would have no problem with former NI keeping a UK passport. Think this double identity was one of the successes of the GFA. I do believe everyone from Ireland is Irish by that fact but if some still want to identify as British too then cater for it.

Why would anyone want to change the name. It has always been Ireland.

You live in this arrogant fantasy world. “It was always called Ireland” lol.
It has had numerous names but the name it held longest of all was Scotia. Now there’s an interesting proposal for a name. The traditional name reborn and a lovely generous way of acknowledging Ulster Scots. It’s even the name st Patrick called it.
Well would you guys be up for living in a 32 county Scotia? And all of us who live in the island could be ‘little scots’?

Well what about it? And st Patrick’s cross with a red hand as the new flag.

Well Fionn. You’re one of the most progressive republicans on here. What about it? No more ireland or Irish. Back to our roots.

jm08

downcow wrote: »

You would have zero say in who is entitled to a british passport. This is the sort of arrogance I was referring to earlier.

Its weird that you choose to see it as arrogance. I'm well aware its the gift of the British Gov. My point remains that the British Gov. gave that option to people born on the island of Ireland before 1949 and its highly likely that they will do the same again - thats of course if unionists want it.

Would you want to keep your British nationality DC? And what do you want to call the island of Ireland? Why do you want to change it?

Fionn1952

blanch152 wrote: »

Not at all, I would describe myself as a post-nationalist, in that I believe in the unity of people but not in the unity of territory, something that the revised Articles 2 and 3 embody.

Yet your solution is an independent NI, which would mean the creation of a new nation and nationality. Instead of having two distinct nationalities between the UK and Ireland, your solution proposes solidifying a third nationality with it's own distinct territory.

It really doesn't gel with your supposed aspirations to unify people by further separating them.

downcow wrote: »

You live in this arrogant fantasy world. “It was always called Ireland” lol.
It has had numerous names but the name it held longest of all was Scotia. Now there’s an interesting proposal for a name. The traditional name reborn and a lovely generous way of acknowledging Ulster Scots. It’s even the name st Patrick called it.
Well would you guys be up for living in a 32 county Scotia? And all of us who live in the island could be ‘little scots’?

Well what about it? And st Patrick’s cross with a red hand as the new flag.

Well Fionn. You’re one of the most progressive republicans on here. What about it? No more ireland or Irish. Back to our roots.

Fully prepared to put it to a referendum.

Any other names you'd like on the list?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Fully prepared to put it to a referendum.

Any other names you'd like on the list?

So is this new island majority rule?

downcow wrote: »

So is this new island majority rule?

Yes.

I would even let you try to get a majority in your artificially created majority for that name. Best hurry before it is not an artificially created majority anymore.

Fionn1952

downcow wrote: »

You live in this arrogant fantasy world. “It was always called Ireland” lol.
It has had numerous names but the name it held longest of all was Scotia. Now there’s an interesting proposal for a name. The traditional name reborn and a lovely generous way of acknowledging Ulster Scots. It’s even the name st Patrick called it.
Well would you guys be up for living in a 32 county Scotia? And all of us who live in the island could be ‘little scots’?

Well what about it? And st Patrick’s cross with a red hand as the new flag.

Well Fionn. You’re one of the most progressive republicans on here. What about it? No more ireland or Irish. Back to our roots.

Wouldn't vote for it myself, Downcow. I'm open to being convinced though, so go for it.

I would highlight that there are a few etymological and historical flaws in your post, but if you can convince enough people then I'd get on with my life.

downcow wrote: »

So is this new island majority rule?

Why is majority rule so problematic for you in the event of a united Ireland, but totally acceptable to you as a justification for NI leaving the EU?

I wouldn't simplify things down to a simple majority rule though, as I've repeatedly said, I'm fully in support of protection for minorities in any society. Perhaps I would've felt more comfortable with NI remaining part of the UK if we didn't have such historic issues with that.

jm08

downcow wrote: »

You live in this arrogant fantasy world. “It was always called Ireland” lol.
It has had numerous names but the name it held longest of all was Scotia. Now there’s an interesting proposal for a name. The traditional name reborn and a lovely generous way of acknowledging Ulster Scots. It’s even the name st Patrick called it.
Well would you guys be up for living in a 32 county Scotia? And all of us who live in the island could be ‘little scots’?

Well what about it? And st Patrick’s cross with a red hand as the new flag.

Well Fionn. You’re one of the most progressive republicans on here. What about it? No more ireland or Irish. Back to our roots.

From what I read, Scoti is latin for Scotland. How do you think the Scots wold like that.

While Scotia may have been used the longest (I don't know), ''Erin'' was its first name according to this:
https://www.libraryireland.com/Pedigrees2/scotia.php

ittakestwo

downcow wrote: »

You live in this arrogant fantasy world. “It was always called Ireland” lol.
It has had numerous names but the name it held longest of all was Scotia. Now there’s an interesting proposal for a name. The traditional name reborn and a lovely generous way of acknowledging Ulster Scots. It’s even the name st Patrick called it.
Well would you guys be up for living in a 32 county Scotia? And all of us who live in the island could be ‘little scots’?

Well what about it? And st Patrick’s cross with a red hand as the new flag.

Well Fionn. You’re one of the most progressive republicans on here. What about it? No more ireland or Irish. Back to our roots.

Prefer Ireland but thanks for informing me of Scotia, did not know it held the name Scotia the longest.

jm08

downcow wrote: »

So is this new island majority rule?

For referendums, yes. The PR system ensures that everyone gets a voice in the Dail. There is a good chance that a former unionist party could end up in Government. Look at the Greens at the moment.

Fionn1952 wrote: »

Wouldn't vote for it myself, Downcow. I'm open to being convinced though, so go for it.

I would highlight that there are a few etymological and historical flaws in your post, but if you can convince enough people then I'd get on with my life.

Why is majority rule so problematic for you in the event of a united Ireland, but totally acceptable to you as a justification for NI leaving the EU?

I wouldn't simplify things down to a simple majority rule though, as I've repeatedly said, I'm fully in support of protection for minorities in any society. Perhaps I would've felt more comfortable with NI remaining part of the UK if we didn't have such historic issues with that.

Of course.
All proper democracies protect their minorities.

The name of the island is not a 'protection' issue though. Nobody has lost out because the island has been called Ireland for centuries.

We have to be able to identify changes asked for because of small minded stubborness and oneupmanship and issues that cause genuine concerns to minorities.

feargale

ReginaldSmythV wrote: »

It’s a horrible place full of hate like you’d never experience anywhere else. It’s a failure in the sense that it hasn’t become the apartheid state it was meant to be.

If it's such a horrible place why do you want it to join us?

ittakestwo

When all of Ireland was part of the UK it was called Ireland and there was no problem. Why would there be a problem now. If Scotland had voted to leave the UK I would never have imagine remainers would have insisted on them changing the name so not sure why Ireland would.

The flag will probably be changed in a UI as the tri colour has only ever represented of the 26 countries. Would be open to most new new designs as long as it does not have a red hand on it

blanch152 wrote: »

Which bit of amending Articles 2 and 3 to remove the territorial claim do you not understand?

They were, as you admit, amended. The former territorial claim was made a little more ambiguous to help Unionists cope with British acquiescence. Do you really think that SF would have recommended its electorate (and PIRA volunteers) to back the GFA if it meant that the Irish people renounced their claim to Ireland? Pull the other one.

blanch152 wrote: »

You don’t understand the difference between uniting people and uniting territory.

A pro-UI vote would be exactly that, uniting people who share the same territory. A United Ireland is imperative as it would never again see the Irish nation threatened with division by means of a British border, as we have experienced in the last few years.

One of the reasons I supported the GFA was because it signalled the first move away from the linkage between nation and territory.

If anything it finally acknowledged reality - that the people of Ireland, without external impediment, will decide when the British state will go.

blanch152

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

There were, as you admit amended, the claim was made a little more ambiguous to help Unionists cope with it. Do you really think that SF would have recommended its electorate and PIRA volunteers to back it meant that the Irish people renounced their claim to Ireland? Pull the other one.

A pro-UI vote would be exactly that uniting people who share the same territory. A United Ireland is imperative as it would never again see the Irish nation threatened with division by means of a British border, as we have experienced in the last few years.

If anything it finally acknowledged reality - that the people of Ireland, without external impediment, will decide when the British state will go.

You really don’t get it, stuck as you are in 1930s ideals of nationhood, purity and race.

Fionn1952 wrote: »

Wouldn't vote for it myself, Downcow. I'm open to being convinced though, so go for it.

I would highlight that there are a few etymological and historical flaws in your post, but if you can convince enough people then I'd get on with my life.

Why is majority rule so problematic for you in the event of a united Ireland, but totally acceptable to you as a justification for NI leaving the EU?

I wouldn't simplify things down to a simple majority rule though, as I've repeatedly said, I'm fully in support of protection for minorities in any society. Perhaps I would've felt more comfortable with NI remaining part of the UK if we didn't have such historic issues with that.

Believe it or not I am very anti referendum, including deciding brexit that way I feel it is a very poor way to take a complex decision

ittakestwo wrote: »

When all of Ireland was part of the UK it was called Ireland and there was no problem. Why would there be a problem now. If Scotland had voted to leave the UK I would never have imagine remainers would have insisted on them changing the name so not sure why Ireland would.

The flag will probably be changed in a UI as the tri colour has only ever represented of the 26 countries. Would be open to most new new designs as long as it does not have a red hand on it

You are arguing against yourself again ie Scotland wouldn’t change its name of it left the uk but you think Northern Ireland should change it’s name ?

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

They were, as you admit, amended. The former territorial claim was made a little more ambiguous to help Unionists cope with British acquiescence. Do you really think that SF would have recommended its electorate (and PIRA volunteers) to back the GFA if it meant that the Irish people renounced their claim to Ireland? Pull the other one.

A pro-UI vote would be exactly that, uniting people who share the same territory. A United Ireland is imperative as it would never again see the Irish nation threatened with division by means of a British border, as we have experienced in the last few years.

If anything it finally acknowledged reality - that the people of Ireland, without external impediment, will decide when the British state will go.

Blanch needs to ask his leaders why they are discussing the possibility of a border poll.

Why would we need a poll to unite minds?

Never heard such bull**** as this attempt by partitionists from Bruton to Blanch to rework the amendment to the constitution. Utter utter nonsense.

downcow wrote: »

Well what about it? And st Patrick’s cross with a red hand as the new flag.

No. Unionists were pissed-off that the south took the name 'Ireland' when the British created their own wee statelet in the northeast, well in a future UI you will have it back.

downcow wrote: »

You are arguing against yourself again ie Scotland wouldn’t change its name of it left the uk but you think Northern Ireland should change it’s name ?

Yes, your government has agreed to this and the multiparty's.

Northern Ireland ceases to exist constitutionally in the event of a majority vote for a UI.
Both governments will give effect to that in their respective parliaments.

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

They were, as you admit, amended. The former territorial claim was made a little more ambiguous to help Unionists cope with British acquiescence. Do you really think that SF would have recommended its electorate (and PIRA volunteers) to back the GFA if it meant that the Irish people renounced their claim to Ireland? Pull the other one.

Em, but that is exactly what happened.
The Irish state renounced its purely territorial claim to the North

A pro-UI vote would be exactly that, uniting people who share the same territory. A United Ireland is imperative as it would never again see the Irish nation threatened with division by means of a British border, as we have experienced in the last few years.

Imperative by some, others..many others don't care.

Fionn1952

downcow wrote: »

Believe it or not I am very anti referendum, including deciding brexit that way I feel it is a very poor way to take a complex decision

Referenda can be very useful democratic tools, Downcow.....they just need to be a little better thought out than the UK generally do them. Fortunately in Ireland, we have constitutional protection surrounding our referenda to ensure complex questions aren't asked in grossly simplistic ways.

What I was asking about though is why in other threads, when asked about NI being dragged out of the EU against its will, you have defended it as an all-of-the-UK decision. Why would you not apply the same standards to decisions in a hypothetical future United Ireland?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Never heard such bull**** as this attempt by partitionists from Bruton to Blanch to rework the amendment to the constitution. Utter utter nonsense.

What Blanch doesn't seem to grasp is that this state, with its capital in Dublin, named Ireland, is crafted with a view to a 32 county ending. It is, in effect, unfinished.

If Blanch and his fellow travellers want to make partition irreversible then they need to come up with a vision it with a new flag/anthem/constitution and whatnot.

There is a unionist-like sense of ownership of the Southern state among partitionists that will shatter the moment a United Ireland referendum is called for.

It would almost be entertaining to see who, in the South, would align themselves with Unionists in the north calling for a rejection of unification, I can only imagine the assortment of oddballs that it would summon.

markodaly wrote: »

Imperative by some, others..many others don't care.

You don't say?

As responsible for what happened on this island are those with responsibility who didn't care.

markodaly wrote: »

Em, but that is exactly what happened.
The Irish state renounced its purely territorial claim to the North

It amended its territorial claim as part of an intergovernmental treaty between Ireland and Britain, we wouldn't need a treaty to renounce our claim - we would just renounce it.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You don't say?

As responsible for what happened on this island are those with responsibility who didn't care.

You still think that partition could have been avoided don't you?

A line on a map does not give someone reasonable cause or an excuse to murder children.

markodaly wrote: »

You still think that partition could have been avoided don't you?

A line on a map does not give someone reasonable cause or an excuse to murder children.

That's exactly how I feel about the entire 186 children killed in the conflict/war over partition and the criminal usurping of an artificially created majority.

Just the children killed by one side upsets you Mark...the same as it does most partitionists and belligerent unionists.

You'd wonder what goes through the heads of people like Blanch/Mark/Downcow there when Ireland was literally doing its utmost to prevent a hard border being reinstated on the island? I mean, why would we care if we didn't believe we had some sort of right to act on behalf of the whole of Ireland?

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

It amended its territorial claim as part of an intergovernmental treaty between Ireland and Britain, we wouldn't need a treaty to renounce our claim - we would just renounce it.

OLD:

Article 2
The national territory consists of the whole island of Ireland, its islands and the territorial seas.

Article 3

Pending the re-integration of the national territory, and without prejudice to the right of the Parliament and Government established by this Constitution to exercise jurisdiction over the whole of that territory, the laws enacted by that Parliament shall have the like area and extent of application as the laws of Saorstát Éireann and the like extra-territorial effect.

NEW:

Article 2
It is the entitlement and birthright of every person born in the island of Ireland, which includes its islands and seas, to be part of the Irish nation. That is also the entitlement of all persons otherwise qualified in accordance with law to be citizens of Ireland. Furthermore, the Irish nation cherishes its special affinity with people of Irish ancestry living abroad who share its cultural identity and heritage.

Article 3

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. Until then, the laws enacted by the Parliament established by this Constitution shall have the like area and extent of application as the laws enacted by the Parliament that existed immediately before the coming into operation of this Constitution.
Institutions with executive powers and functions that are shared between those jurisdictions may be established by their respective responsible authorities for stated purposes and may exercise powers and functions in respect of all or any part of the island.

It is a clear view of uniting Irish people at home and abroad and sharing this island with others. There is an aspirational unity of its people, but gone the claim for land and territory.

The key line, 'share the territory'... not 'we claim this territory'.
A UI is an aspiration but only with the democratic consent of the people

It also cements that Westminister is the only true legitimate legislature for NI. "Parliament is sovereign".