United Ireland Poll - please vote

RandomName2 · 16-04-2021 11:15pm

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Wow. Just wow.

Who exactly conveniently forgets about the firebombing of Tokyo?

Just wow.

Your moral compass is a bit off I have to say. The justification for Hiroshima and Nagasaki is non-existent. End of.

https://imgflip.com/i/5601hg

BonnieSituation wrote: »

---

Anyway, back to you othering nationalists...

Back to? Oh, you were finished.

FrancieBrady · 16-04-2021 11:18pm

RandomName2 wrote: »

https://imgflip.com/i/5601hg

Back to? Oh, you were finished.

Obviously, if YOU agree with the goal, anything is justifiable.

That's the issue here, if you think Irish independence was the goal, anything done was fine. If you think nationalists should have just put up with it then what was done was bad.

Not much of a moral compass operating there, just selfishness.

Junkyard Tom · 16-04-2021 11:20pm

RandomName2 wrote: »

So you say a few thousand dead is the price to pay for equality, though let's be honest, it's not just about equality,

I have huge problems with the how the PIRA behaved during the Troubles, particularly stuff like no-warning bombs and executing workmen which are, let's face it, war crimes in all but name. I wouldn't blame people for getting caught up in it all though, it's easy to condemn people from safety and comfort.

In the early part of the Troubles Republicans fought thousands of gun battles with Unionists and the British Army which I consider pretty damn honourable and necessary to prevent nationalist communities from being ethnically cleansed.

it's about the dissolution of Northern Ireland.

Yes. I consider the creation of NI moral wrong perpetrated against the Irish people.

Do you think that that ultimate goal merits more blood, if necessary?

What do you mean by necessary? I don't want any return to violence.

I'm not in any hurry, I don't need to see a UI in my lifetime. That's easy for me to say though, I live in Cork. I see the DUP are still at their **** in the north though.

RandomName2 · 16-04-2021 11:35pm

Marco23d wrote: »

What about for a greater good?

Well yes, that was the whole point of my post.

I think it would be hard to argue that life in the 70s and 80s was better for anyone living in Northern Ireland than it had been before.

Every round of atrocities from both sides generally escalated the situation and made the whole environment worse. Who would have thought?

I think it is a legitimate position for someone to take that spilling blood was a necessary evil, though I don't actually believe that the evidence bears this out.

So someone can come out and say 'Enniskillen (or whatever) was necessary. Get over it. Besides which, it wasn't your cross to bear'.

And I'd say

'Well okay. But count me out.'

The retort to that is not to say

'Damn partitionists are traitors'.

Northern Ireland has never sorted its house out Nationalists on one hand constantly sought to undermine the country they found themselves in, and unionists constantly sought to undermine and belittle nationalist communities. Remarkably idiotic behavior all around in my opinion, and if the response is that that isn't my business, well I'm more than happy keeping it that way. The communities in Northern Ireland seem only capable of not tearing themselves asunder with massive cash injections (either organically, before the 1950s, or artificially, since the 1990s). The first whiff of trouble in terms of trade barriers, and the whole thing teeters towards civil war. The response here is 'yup Dublin should take on this responsibility, because that what it means to be a true Republican.'

Excuse me, what? I thought this was meant to be about the greater good?

FrancieBrady · 16-04-2021 11:40pm

RandomName2 wrote: »

Well yes, that was the whole point of my post.

I think it would be hard to argue that life in the 70s and 80s was better for anyone living in Northern Ireland than it had been before.

Every round of atrocities from both sides generally escalated the situation and made the whole environment worse. Who would have thought?

I think it is a legitimate position for someone to take that spilling blood was a necessary evil, though I don't actually believe that the evidence bears this out.

So someone can come out and say 'Enniskillen (or whatever) was necessary. Get over it. Besides which, it wasn't your cross to bear'.

And I'd say

'Well okay. But count me out.'

The retort to that is not to say

'Damn partitionists are traitors'.

Northern Ireland has never sorted its house out Nationalists on one hand constantly sought to undermine the country they found themselves in, and unionists constantly sought to undermine and belittle nationalist communities. Remarkably idiotic behavior all around in my opinion, and if the response is that that isn't my business, well I'm more than happy keeping it that way. The communities in Northern Ireland seem only capable of not tearing themselves asunder with massive cash injections (either organically, before the 1950s, or artificially, since the 1990s). The first whiff of trouble in terms of trade barriers, and the whole thing teeters towards civil war. The response here is 'yup Dublin should take on this responsibility, because that what it means to be a true Republican.'

Excuse me, what? I thought this was meant to be about the greater good?

Surely if you can justify Hiroshima you can justify anything if you try hard enough.

That's not a question by the way.

RandomName2 · 16-04-2021 11:49pm

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Yes. I consider the creation of NI moral wrong perpetrated against the Irish people.

But what about unionists?

Unionists saw themselves as separate. The yfelt that being in a country where they were a small minority would mean that their values and cultrue would be trampled upon, that they would have no political sway, that their industry would be shattered, their cultural conections cut. Well history does tend to be ironic: those were the very conditions they visited upon Nationalists in their state.

But the point still stands.

It comes off as a bit rich to say the opinions of one people should be respected and not another. A glib answer would be 'if they didn't like the state they found themselves in, unionists could feck off back to Britain'. This was precisely the position that unionists took in relation to nationalists within Northern Ireland. A real recipe for a happy, cohesive society based on fairness, right? :rolleyes: And this again seems to be the position being adopted. Unionists should be forced into a United Ireland, and if they don't like it, well they are basically immigrants who don't belong here anyway.

How do you think a position like that is going to work out?

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

What do you mean by necessary? I don't want any return to violence.

But you are willing to support actions that might bring it about? As I said, I am not prepared to be blackmailed by a terrorist organization, be it loyalist or republican, but I'm not seeing the motivation. The only factors that seem to be factors are those of symbolism and sentiment, the very sort of empty nonsense likely to rile up half the population of Northern Ireland against the very idea.

RandomName2 · 16-04-2021 11:54pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Surely if you can justify Hiroshima you can justify anything if you try hard enough.

That's not a question by the way.

Up to half the civilian population of Okinawa died in the Battle of Okinawa. That's more than the casualties from Hiroshima. The firebombing of Tokyo also killed more civilians than Hiroshima. Somehow these events seem fine to you.

As I said, the Trolley problem. The morally correct answer to the Trolley problem is to flick the switch to kill one person, lest 3 people die instead, and throwing out that someone advocating the death of one person is in favor of killing people is so demonstrably inane that it doesn't actually merit much discussion.

FrancieBrady · 17-04-2021 12:05am

RandomName2 wrote: »

Up to half the civilian population of Okinawa died in the Battle of Okinawa. That's more than the casualties from Hiroshima. The firebombing of Tokyo also killed more civilians than Hiroshima. Somehow these events seem fine to you.

As I said, the Trolley problem. The morally correct answer to the Trolley problem is to flick the switch to kill one person, lest 3 people die instead, and throwing out that someone advocating the death of one person is in favor of killing people is so demonstrably inane that it doesn't actually merit much discussion.

That's the kind of thinking that allowed colonialism.

Fantastic stuff there Random!

RandomName2 · 17-04-2021 12:11am

FrancieBrady wrote: »

That's the kind of thinking that allowed colonialism.

I really don't follow. How would utilitarianism, or seeking the greater good, help propound colonialism?

FrancieBrady · 17-04-2021 12:19am

RandomName2 wrote: »

I really don't follow. How would utilitarianism, or seeking the greater good, help propound colonialism?

Colonialism is based on the idea that 'we are better and we will make you better by force if necessary'.
Hiroshima was the quintessential example of the US bombing people into acceptance of it's gifts. What the British Empire does to defend itself.
Neither is defendable like here. Violence was wrong from the beginning.

RandomName2 · 17-04-2021 12:24am

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Colonialism is based on the idea that 'we are better and we will make you better by force if necessary'.
Hiroshima was the quintessential example of the US bombing people into acceptance of it's gifts.

I know you are deliberately being arch, but this actually makes no sense. America demanding unconditional surrender has absolutely no parallel with colonialism. America wanted to destroy the Empire of Japan as a power and get revenge for the war that had been brought about. Colonialism is about extending an Empire's power and influence by colonizing and subsuming generally weaker, resource rich areas to your dominion (you know, the kind of thing the Empire of Japan had been doing). Japan wasn't a resource rich region. It was a competitor.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Neither is defendable like here. Violence was wrong from the beginning.

So you advocate for the maximum number of deaths in the Trolley problem, but only in this case. When it comes to Northern Ireland you actually have a different position.

jh79 · 17-04-2021 7:03am

blanch152 wrote: »

Why would the EU or US make a firm commitment to anything?

I don't think they will just curious if they even could prior to a poll.

Bobeagleburger · 17-04-2021 7:24am

Is the DUPs stance on gay people based on religion or what's their story? Incredibly backward stuff. Don't they have gay members in their party?

They'll need to get their house in order quick and align with the times.

FrancieBrady · 17-04-2021 8:23am

RandomName2 wrote: »

I know you are deliberately being arch, but this actually makes no sense. America demanding unconditional surrender has absolutely no parallel with colonialism. America wanted to destroy the Empire of Japan as a power and get revenge for the war that had been brought about. Colonialism is about extending an Empire's power and influence by colonizing and subsuming generally weaker, resource rich areas to your dominion (you know, the kind of thing the Empire of Japan had been doing). Japan wasn't a resource rich region. It was a competitor.

So you advocate for the maximum number of deaths in the Trolley problem, but only in this case. When it comes to Northern Ireland you actually have a different position.

Indiscriminate bombing was not the answer here or any where else.

purplepanda · 17-04-2021 12:10pm

A rough calculation on how the political parties would look in a All Ireland lower House Legislature or / extended Dáil Éireann using recent election results & TD to population ratios. NI Assembly 90 members reduced by 30% to 63 seats which is the same representation ratio.
223 members in total.

Potential Government party coalition.

FF 37
FG 35
GP 14 (2 NI)
SDLP 8
AP 6

SDLP is an associated party of FF, the Alliance Party is a member of the same European Parliament Liberal political grouping as FF. It's possible that they would join a similar government party coalition as presently runs Dáil Éireann, however they would be 12 short of a majority.

Opposition

SF 56
DUP 20
UUP 7
Other Unionist Parties 1
LP 6
SD 6
PBP 5
RTOC 1
Aontu 1
Independent 19

I have often heard SF supporters claiming they would be the biggest party in an All Ireland legislature, but that's not enough to form a government as recent events proved.

Recent NI Assmebly opinion polls, I don't think there would be major changes to the totals above as compared to a 90 seat NI Assembly.

https://024943a0-ce9e-4fe5-85a2-d9f4d3bc845d.usrfiles.com/ugd/024943_4d976919c4f5444aa9275d6732954e89.pdf

Dáil Éireann next election opinion polls suggests a rise in support for SF & also FG at the expense of FF.

I can't find any polls giving forecasts with totals of TD's for the various parties. If anyone has a link please post it here.

Kermit.de.frog · 17-04-2021 12:30pm

Why would unionist parties even exist in a UI? Wouldn't make sense at that stage.

They'd have to fall in to other parties that best suit their bread and butter politics.

BonnieSituation · 17-04-2021 12:56pm

RandomName2 wrote: »

https://imgflip.com/i/5601hg

Back to? Oh, you were finished.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Obviously, if YOU agree with the goal, anything is justifiable.

That's the issue here, if you think Irish independence was the goal, anything done was fine. If you think nationalists should have just put up with it then what was done was bad.

Not much of a moral compass operating there, just selfishness.

There's very little, Francie you can do in a debate with someone who has had such a glib attitude to the deaths of thousands.

It's warped.

Junkyard Tom · 17-04-2021 1:05pm

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Why would unionist parties even exist in a UI? Wouldn't make sense at that stage.

They'd have to fall in to other parties that best suit their bread and butter politics.

The DUP's vote would collapse. The DUP vote is predicated upon preventing a United Ireland and countering SF in the north.

The DUP oscillate between 'the union is in peril' and 'the union is safe with us' depending on the election cycle.

Again, for the kids at the back of the class, these issues are downstream of partition not the cause of it.

Bobeagleburger · 17-04-2021 1:44pm

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Why would unionist parties even exist in a UI? Wouldn't make sense at that stage.

They'd have to fall in to other parties that best suit their bread and butter politics.

They'd be a minor party. On the scrap heap with others such as PBP. They'd have one thing in common with them, anti almost everything.

BonnieSituation · 17-04-2021 1:57pm

6 wrote: »

Is the DUPs stance on gay people based on religion or what's their story? Incredibly backward stuff. Don't they have gay members in their party?

They'll need to get their house in order quick and align with the times.

It's this attitude of the bigots in the DUP and elsewhere in Unionism that sticks in the craw of a lot of us when partitionists are very quick to defend Unionists and other nationalism.

Bobeagleburger · 17-04-2021 2:09pm

BonnieSituation wrote: »

It's this attitude of the bigots in the DUP and elsewhere in Unionism that sticks in the craw of a lot of us when partitionists are very quick to defend Unionists and other nationalism.

There's bigots on both sides of the divide up the North, let's not kid ourselves. You'll even have bigots down in the south. Ridiculous really.

The DUP would be the worst of the lot, that's for sure.

BonnieSituation · 17-04-2021 2:20pm

6 wrote: »

There's bigots on both sides of the divide up the North, let's not kid ourselves. You'll even have bigots down in the south. Ridiculous really.

The DUP would be the worst of the lot, that's for sure.

I don't doubt that there's bigots on all sides but this bullshít of saying "they're all at it" has to stop.

The DUP are actively bigoted. SF aren't. FG aren't. AP aren't etc.

Nothing I said is me "kidding myself'. I was making the singular point that those that are quick to jump to stick up for unionism are more often than not sticking up for openly active bigots.

Bobeagleburger · 17-04-2021 2:29pm

BonnieSituation wrote: »

I don't doubt that there's bigots on all sides but this bullshít of saying "they're all at it" has to stop.

The DUP are actively bigoted. SF aren't. FG aren't. AP aren't etc.

Nothing I said is me "kidding myself'. I was making the singular point that those that are quick to jump to stick up for unionism are more often than not sticking up for openly active bigots.

Sinn Feins

Brian Stanley.
Paddy Holohan.

They hardly covered themselves in glory recently...

As I said, both sides have issues. But, imo the DUP is by far the worst.

Both sides have massive bigotry in the supporter ranks. That's without question.

drdidlittle · 17-04-2021 2:32pm

BonnieSituation wrote: »

I don't doubt that there's bigots on all sides but this bullshít of saying "they're all at it" has to stop.

The DUP are actively bigoted. SF aren't. FG aren't. AP aren't etc.

Nothing I said is me "kidding myself'. I was making the singular point that those that are quick to jump to stick up for unionism are more often than not sticking up for openly active bigots.

Bigot...
a person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic towards a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.

Think of some of the replays here.

BonnieSituation · 17-04-2021 2:33pm

6 wrote: »

Sinn Feins

Brian Stanley.
Paddy Holohan.

They hardly covered themselves in glory recently...

As I said, both sides have issues. But, imo the DUP is by far the worst.

Both sides have massive bigotry in the supporter ranks. That's without question.

Again, are you deliberately missing the point?

BonnieSituation · 17-04-2021 2:34pm

drdidlittle wrote: »

Bigot...
a person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic towards a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.

Think of some of the replays here.

Tell us more

Junkyard Tom · 17-04-2021 2:48pm

There's already a SF thread lads, maybe we can keep this one free of the SF stuff?

BonnieSituation · 17-04-2021 2:52pm

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

There's already a SF thread lads, maybe we can keep this one free of the SF stuff?

DUP are actively homophobic and bigoted.

"Buh wah 'bou Sinn Féin/IRA"

It's insane.

eleventh · 17-04-2021 6:01pm

bonzothedog wrote: »

Simple question - if there was a poll for a United Ireland would you vote yes or no - or yes but it would have to happen within 10 years.

There won't be an Ireland left in 10 years, the way things are going.

drdidlittle · 17-04-2021 6:02pm

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Tell us more

The line that SF or FG aren't bigots. They are in every class, party or group. Some more than others and its not all about religion

United Ireland Poll - please vote

Comments