Junkyard Tom wrote: » I would like to think the all the pro-UI parties will have the maturity to team up on it when the time comes, we could do without the factionalism.
Hamsterchops wrote: » No sign of a sniff at the.moment, indeed the whole notion of the island of Ireland United 'as one political entity' just doesn't ring true, they've always been different up North, and no amount of misty eyed republican bar stool chatter is ever going to shift them from their current position. That's the impression I get anyway. And even if a vote to dislodge them passed by 51% you still wouldn't have any king of republican United Ireland utopia, because they (Loyalists & Unionists) would not be happy to be shoehorned into this State.
jh79 wrote: » Exactly, if 51% of the population in the Republic reject Unification that has to he respected too.
FrancieBrady wrote: » IMO it is the only way for FF to save itself and mark itself as different to FG. Martin is trying to find a way to lead the quest for a UI with his Unity/Shared Island Unit. It's a limp effort and the next leader won't be so fearful of being seen to openly back a UI. FF are heading back to their roots. FG will lead the charge if it becomes fashionable just like they did on social issues. P.S. There are going to be some unhappy Loyalists no matter what happens...FFS they have been unhappy for decades.
BonnieSituation wrote: » I love how much love and attention is paid to loyalists after centuries of unhappiness. It's embarrassing. It's time Southern partitionists started to give a crap for their fellow Irish citizens who want to be part of the same state and society. Ha. That's a good one.
BonnieSituation wrote: » Who is saying it won't be respected?The only people who seem to think their will be violence as a result of a "ROI: NO, NI: YES" are you partitionists. Constantly fear mongering is your MO I guess. That you still can't understand how things will change after a no vote and conflate it with a "disrespect" or "violence" for the vote itself says it all. The political naivety is off the charts. It's matched only by the level of misplaced confidence in the utterances themselves.
FileNotFound wrote: » Everyone in the North will be our fellow Irish citizens in a UI. Southern Republicans acknowledge this a lot more than Southern Unionists do. Then again the irony is that many who don't want a UI really don't like Northern Unionists and thats part of the reason they are against it. They generally come across as indifferent to everyone in NI.
blanch152 wrote: » No, it is the likes of Junkyard Tom threatening "consequences" and "a mess" who are playing up the problems if ROI: NO, NI: YES. Those of us you label "partitionists" believe life will continue, as it always does. As I have pointed out already, such an outcome would be quickly interpreted as a "NOT NOW" by the likes of FF/FG/Green/Alliance and other normal parties leading to more pressure on the sectarian parties in the North, particularly SF and DUP to demonstrate that they can live together.
BonnieSituation wrote: » Right. So you haven't got the imagination. Cool. Can you point out Tom's "threats" please?
FrancieBrady wrote: » Here you go again, misrepresenting and creating strawmen. WHO said life would not continue blanch? I dispute your opinion here...what you will see is a triumphalist DUP party pressuring the GFA's continuance. Something they have always been against. I also see the partitionist elements in Fine Gael allying closer with the DUP to attempt to close off any further attempts at a UI, which will create it's own tensions.
BonnieSituation wrote: » Wow. Look at this smart fellow. Going about his day trying to redefine well established terms. As a heads up, one of your cohort attempted this nonsense a few months ago. It's rather a pathetic little sideshow. But then again, pathetic little sideshows are a partitionists stock in trade. --- Anyway, you think citizenships alone should sate those in the North who wish for a UI? "Jog on lads, you have all you need".
blanch152 wrote: » That is a paranoid interpretation of what might occur. What will happen is that people in the North will seriously look at themselves, consider the absurdity of the way that they carry on around "800 years of oppression" and "King Billy", making both sides a joke in the eyes of the rest of the world and actually look forward properly.
FrancieBrady wrote: » ^^^ The partitionists have started the demeaning already. Predictable as it is tiresome and just puts X's in the Yes box.
blanch152 wrote: » Yes, I don't have an imagination that can materialise unicorns and dragons as real living things. Similarly, my imagination can't grasp the fantastical notions being put forward of "consequences" and "a mess" if NI: YES, ROI: NO. Can you or Junkyard spit them out, instead of these vague threats.
FileNotFound wrote: » In Fairness Francie the only demeaning and really negative tones are coming from those claiming anyone not of their view is a partitionist. Some of us would love a UI in theory, but practically struggle with the concept. Not once have any of the "anti partitionists" been able to provide reason beyond emotional heat felt ones to convince others its a good way to go. Bit of childish labelling of anyone not sharing your view is all we see.
BonnieSituation wrote: » Can we tell you the threats that you're accusing us off? What is this debate?
BonnieSituation wrote: » You find the term "Partitionist" demeaning? Poor sausages.
FileNotFound wrote: » Just being grammatically accurate, I don't have a cohort that I am aware of. I do find small minded people need to label everyone, thankfully the boards community has only a few of these. Not sure if you misread my post or you are gone of on a tangent with your question there. I was simply stating a fact that in a UI everyone on the island would be one of us - so people considering them are not wrong. Maybe you are letting your emotions blind you?
FileNotFound wrote: » In Fairness Francie the only demeaning and really negative tones are coming from those claiming anyone not of their view is a partitionist.
blanch152 wrote: » consider the absurdity of the way that they carry on around "800 years of oppression" and "King Billy", making both sides a joke in the eyes of the rest of the world
FileNotFound wrote: » Jaysus now we're "sausages" haha. It's funny watching you get riled up when presented with a sensible point of view.
FrancieBrady wrote: » If you advocate for the continuation of partition, for whatever reason, you are a partitionist Just as if you advocate for the continuation of a union, then you are a unionist. That you or others have a guilt complex about a simple descriptive term is your own issue.
BonnieSituation wrote: » Oh yes, I'm puce with rage here. Flipping tables to beat the band at the attitude of some randomer on boards. :rolleyes: Again, this attitude you're conveying is another Partitionist trope. Blanch goes down this road frequently. It's very funny how you keep knocking out the hits. Nothing new at all to add but clearly trying to rile and wind up others. What ever floats your boat I guess. Seems like a sad way to spend a morning. Each to their own.
FileNotFound wrote: » Over simplifying a wide group of mindsets is a simple minded thing to do is what I am really getting at. If needs be then you can label me as you feel, I would describe those who want a union down south as Irish Unionists (they feel the union was removed and needs restoring). I have no guilt, and don't tend to think emotionally, so i look at practical things and there seem to be few practical reasons for this proposed union (reunion). Should that be shown wrong then I will happily change my mind.
blanch152 wrote: » If you advocate for the creation of a union, are you a unionist or a creationist? Or both?
BonnieSituation wrote: » "Just being grammatically accurate", "I was simply stating a fact..." These are just the refuge of the smart arse. So, you have no interest in discussing a UI then? You just want to waste our time with this crap? Good to know. Makes it easier to ignore you I guess.
FrancieBrady wrote: » So why take offence at a descriptive term? Could you explain in your self admitted 'unemotional' way why you would get upset on behalf of others yet not similarly upset when attitudes in the north are 'over simplified'. Might I suggest you are telling porkies about your 'unemotional thinking'?
