United Ireland Poll - please vote

guy2231 wrote: »

What is there to decide on? Is it your pockets you're worried about?

1. That doesn't answer my question - whether someone who is undecided is a partitionist

2. There is lots to decide on - there are 6 million people on the island and 6 million versions of what a united ireland would look like.

3. My own pockets are the least of my worries - I've no problem with a united ireland costing some money in the short or medium term, but even the conservative estimates put the costs at between 3bn and 6bn for the subvention alone. Taking the midpoint- that's like putting the cost of a bank bailout on the country every 7 years - just for the subvention, not including all the welfare, min wage equalisation etc. Are you happy to take on that kind of financial burden for a UI?

Hamsterchops wrote: »

Actually, now that it's been mentioned, what exactly is a partitionist?

There he is now...

---

So I think this weekend's theme is the redefining of well established terms.

Goody. This will be fun.

FullyComp wrote: »

Oh tough guy there putting all the ass kissers in place.

Ireland has only ever had a single government under planted English rule.

Ah, a favourite of Blanch that one.

StupidLikeAFox wrote: »

Are you still a partitionist if you are undecided about unification?

You tell us?

I think it would be a stretch to say you're undecided.

BonnieSituation wrote: »

You tell us?

I think it would be a stretch to say you're undecided.

Must be very dull to view the world in such black and white terms

StupidLikeAFox wrote: »

Must be very dull to view the world in such black and white terms

I wouldn't know tbh.

Do you want us to hold your hand and tell you how to feel?

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Do you want us to hold your hand and tell you how to feel?

What in the name of jaysus are you on about?

StupidLikeAFox wrote: »

What in the name of jaysus are you on about?

I wouldn't pay to much attention to his bait posts, as they're always designed to belittle & to antagonise, best not to bite.

If his smart arse replies to me are anything to go by I'd steer well clear of engaging with him.

Drink?

StupidLikeAFox wrote: »

What in the name of jaysus are you on about?

you seem a very indecisive person or you have already decided and do not want to admit it.

StupidLikeAFox wrote: »

What in the name of jaysus are you on about?

---

StupidLikeAFox wrote: »

Are you still a partitionist if you are undecided about unification?

BonnieSituation wrote: »

You tell us?

I think it would be a stretch to say you're undecided.

It's like you wanted your own little pigeonhole because Partitionist doesn't quite give you the feels. We can't help you out there is all. You do you.

Pretty obvious reading if how those posts played out, if you weren't so aggressive and reactionary

Hamsterchops wrote: »

I wouldn't pay to much attention to his bait posts, as they're always designed to belittle & to antagonise, best not to bite.

If his smart arse replies to me are anything to go by I'd steer well clear of engaging with him.

Drink?

Want to explain how they were "bait posts"?

I always find from reading your own posts, that you're not at all comfortable with your own political viewpoints. Much less, knowledgeable enough to conduct discussions on this subject.

Hence this tendency to lash out all the time.

Bring an empire apologist must be aggressively damaging to your soul. But that's your choice.

guy2231 wrote: »

you seem a very indecisive person or you have already decided and do not want to admit it.

Perhaps they want to be special and have their own label?

I know I'd reconsider my own politics if I was in cahoots with some of the Partitionists that are active on here.

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Perhaps they want to be special and have their own label?

I know I'd reconsider my own politics if I was in cahoots with some of the Partitionists that are active on here.

Nice story, but I don't care what label you want to put on me

Anyway, your main reason for wanting a UI seems to be sticking it to the unionists, which isn't that compelling a reason for me unfortunately

StupidLikeAFox wrote: »

Nice story, but I don't care what label you want to put on me

Anyway, your main reason for wanting a UI seems to be sticking it to the unionists, which isn't that compelling a reason for me unfortunately

You seem angry about a label that suits you perfectly, do unionists get annoyed over being called unionists? Do republicans get annoyed over being called republicans?

Partitionists seem to have a problem with their label for what reason I do not know, are you ashamed of your beliefs?

guy2231 wrote: »

You seem angry about a label that suits you perfectly, do unionists get annoyed over being called unionists? Do republicans get annoyed over being called republicans?

Partitionists seem to have a problem with their label for what reason I do not know.

So people who are unsure about the impact of unification neatly fall into the partitionist bucket in your head. Must be very comforting for you to live in such a black and white world. If I'm not with you, I'm against you, no middle ground, no discussion, got it

Fionn1952

StupidLikeAFox wrote: »

So people who are unsure about the impact of unification neatly fall into the partitionist bucket in your head. Must be very comforting for you to live in such a black and white world. If I'm not with you, I'm against you, no middle ground, no discussion, got it

I don't think posters have an issue with the undecided not having a label so much as a few are calling out your undecided schtick as just that, and saying that despite your attempts to call yourself undecided your actual opinions shared make it clear that you are firmly in one camp over another.

To be clear, I'm not suggesting this as my own opinion; I don't know you, haven't really been paying too much heed to your posts in this thread and don't think it is an important enough point to justify going back over your posts. It's just seems to me that in this little back and forth, the point those posters were making was to call YOU a Partitionist rather than saying everyone who is undecided/on the fence is a Partitionist, with the underlying point being that they do not believe you when you say you're on the fence.

StupidLikeAFox wrote: »

So people who are unsure about the impact of unification neatly fall into the partitionist bucket in your head. Must be very comforting for you to live in such a black and white world. If I'm not with you, I'm against you, no middle ground, no discussion, got it

It is quite clear from your posts on this thread what your beliefs are, it is about time now you drop the whole "undecided" crap (which no one believes by the way) and become proud of your beliefs, then the posters on here will respect you a lot more.

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Want to explain how they were "bait posts"?

I always find from reading your own posts, that you're not at all comfortable with your own political viewpoints. Much less, knowledgeable enough to conduct discussions on this subject.

Hence this tendency to lash out all the time.

Bring an empire apologist must be aggressively damaging to your soul. But that's your choice.

Your bait posts mostly involve a smart arse quips, or a belittiling stement, just left hanging there, just look back at you're last few posts on here Bonnie and you'll see what I mean!

And as regards the empire thing, I guess you meant to say "Being an Empire apologist must ..."

But what is it with all the Empire stuff that you and Tom keep going on about? The empire this the empire that, a long dead empire more like.

You and you're wise cracks can sod right off.

"There he is now" yeah right.

StupidLikeAFox wrote: »

Nice story, but I don't care what label you want to put on me

Anyway, your main reason for wanting a UI seems to be sticking it to the unionists, which isn't that compelling a reason for me unfortunately

Nice story. Where do I "stick it to Unionists"?

Is that your interpretation of me calling out the likes of downcow and his clear sectarianism?

I don't know about you, but I'm not really up for a reintroduction of the Unionist veto.

Like most belligerent Unionists, a lot of partitionists have a problem with equality being apportioned across the North; ie. Equating the erosion of supremancy with the erosion of rights.

I'm not sure why partitionists feel the need to keep defending Unionists, but that's their prerogative.

---

Re your "labelling", they're useful markers to enable a smooth flow of debate. That you're uncomfortable with the accuracy of that designation is all on you.

Fionn explained it rather eloquently.

Hamsterchops wrote: »

Your bait posts mostly involve a smart arse putdown, or a belittiling stement, just left hanging there, just look back at you're last few posts on here Bonnie and you'll see what I mean!

And as regards the empire thing, I guess you meant to say "Being an Empire apologist must ..."

But what is it with all the Empire stuff that you and Tom keep going on about? The empire his the empire that, a long dead empire more like.

You and you're wise cracks can sod right off, specially after you've been on the sauce.

"There he is now" yeah right.

Ooooh, you caught me out with some autocorrecting. Did that give you the warm fuzzies?

Why are you getting all personal with it? If you're not comfortable with your politics, perhaps you should re-evaluate them? A pioneer Partitionist? Absolutely scundering attitude on ya.

The thing is HC, you have a long dropped any pretence of your (nonsensical) devil's advocate approach. I never bought it anyway, but you may recall I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt a few weeks back.

Your politics are clear. You have no problem jumping to the defence of the UK or Unionists. That's the empire attitude to which myself and Tom and indeed Francie refer. Again, each to their own, but don't get into a strop when it's called out.

The Ballymurphy thread was a bellwether for you Partitionist apologists. The silence and/or equivocation that went on there was enough to show truly where people's politics truly are.

Fionn1952 wrote: »

I don't think posters have an issue with the undecided not having a label so much as a few are calling out your undecided schtick as just that, and saying that despite your attempts to call yourself undecided your actual opinions shared make it clear that you are firmly in one camp over another.

To be clear, I'm not suggesting this as my own opinion; I don't know you, haven't really been paying too much heed to your posts in this thread and don't think it is an important enough point to justify going back over your posts. It's just seems to me that in this little back and forth, the point those posters were making was to call YOU a Partitionist rather than saying everyone who is undecided/on the fence is a Partitionist, with the underlying point being that they do not believe you when you say you're on the fence.

I've been fairly consistent all along that I've no objection to a united ireland but I'm not willing mortgage the country to achieve it. I've no problem with losing a few euros in my wages each week, but the levels that are being suggested, even by those who are in favour of unification, would be eye watering. The costs just don't add up

I would consider a partitionist as somebody ideologically opposed to unification, which I'm not, and if you read over my posts you will see I never was.

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Ooooh, you caught me out with some autocorrecting. Did that give you the warm fuzzies?

Jasus, there you go again :rolleyes:

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Why are you getting all personal with it? If you're not comfortable with your politics, perhaps you should re-evaluate them? A pioneer Partitionist? Absolutely scundering attitude on ya.

No idea what that ^ means.

BonnieSituation wrote: »

The thing is HC, you have a long dropped any pretence of your (nonsensical) devil's advocate approach. I never bought it anyway, but you may recall I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt a few weeks back.

I'm sorry I ever mentioned the devil's advocate thing now, as you bloody well mention it in every 2nd post. But it came about thanks to you lot hammering the one or two Unionists on here, hence is there any middle ground? Like must it be Republican Vs Unionist, or is there something in the middle, hence me trying to give a bit of balance, and I will stick to my guns and I will say that I support the middle ground approach against hard-line Republicanism & Loyalism, all this in the context of the GFA, for if at some point in the future they lose the vote, then that's it, NI leaves the UK and becomes one with us < that's my firm belief.

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Your politics are clear. You have no problem jumping to the defence of the UK or Unionists. That's the empire attitude to which myself and Tom and indeed Francie refer. Again, each to their own, but don't get into a strop when it's called out.

Bloody Empire stuff again, dear Lord :cool:

BonnieSituation wrote: »

The Ballymurphy thread was a bellwether for you Partitionist apologists. The silence and/or equivocation that went on there was enough to show truly where people's politics truly are.

I didn't even post in the Ballymurphy thread which was a bloodbath in itself, I steered well clear of all that.

I don't like your posts and I don't like your stance.

Junkyard Tom

Hamsterchops wrote: »

what is it with all the Empire stuff that you and Tom keep going on about?

You know, that you don't believe Ireland was colonised, and that you label all resistance to British rule as 'terrorism', and that you get annoyed when Britain's behaviour gets called out for the malevolent force it is.

That stuff. The stuff we're still dealing with today, and always will be, but can be mitigated by ending British jurisdiction and making some security pacts that will counterbalance the threat.

You know, the kind of thing you hate to hear.

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

You know, that you don't believe Ireland was colonised, and that you label all resistance to British rule as 'terrorism', and that you get annoyed when Britain's behaviour gets called out for the malevolent force it is.

That stuff. The stuff we're still dealing with today, and always will be, but can be mitigated by ending British jurisdiction and making some security pacts that will counterbalance the threat.

You know, the kind of thing you hate to hear.

Oh dear, you and Bonnie are like two sides of the same coin, colonies & Empires, oh God it's like some kind of colonial time warp when you guys are around.

Far too much emphasis on empires and colonies from you two, and as regards to your resistance to British rule comment, then I guess you're referring to the Provisional IRA, which obviously I didn't support, and why would I?

Never been into terrorism myself, and as regards your Brexit Link, then what? I think those who voted for Brexit were wrong, totally wrong somehow believing that the UK as one entity could leave the EU without total chaos and division, I never agreed with Brexit or the Brexit mindset which was totally wrong and left them with the NI protocol which must remain in its entirety as agreed upon.

I think that's covered everything for now. I'll call back in a few days time......

Fionn1952

StupidLikeAFox wrote: »

I've been fairly consistent all along that I've no objection to a united ireland but I'm not willing mortgage the country to achieve it. I've no problem with losing a few euros in my wages each week, but the levels that are being suggested, even by those who are in favour of unification, would be eye watering. The costs just don't add up

I would consider a partitionist as somebody ideologically opposed to unification, which I'm not, and if you read over my posts you will see I never was.

My post wasn't placing any comparative value on anyone's posts, just highlighting that the posters you were replying to were clearly making a point that they specifically believe YOU are a Partitionist, not that everyone who holds or purports to hold a middle ground view is.

I'm not going to read back over your posts; I'm sure you know your own opinion and how accurate or inaccurate those other posters' takes on how genuine you were presenting it were. My affirmation or judgement would be essentially worthless, so there isn't much point to it.

I would align with your definition of Partitionist however. The grey area creeps in when certain posters claim that they aren't ideologically opposed to it, but for whom if every concern they highlighted was addressed, they'd go looking for some more obstructions. While those people might HYPOTHETICALLY have some impossible standard that could never be reached at which point they would vote yes, for all intents and purposes, that person would be a Partitionist.

I totally understand financial concerns, particularly among those who perhaps have limited discretionary income, it is very easy to understand why someone would be concerned about their families needs over that of some stranger in Armagh they've never met.

When someone's position requires that flaws in the state caused by partition are resolved before one would vote for Unification, well that seems a bit cart-before-horse to me, and a bit more difficult to understand.