United Ireland Poll - please vote

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Well, words are just words, let's see if there is action. Quite happy that he has renounced his partitionism...I think it wise and kind of hard to maintain now as a political stance.

Not doubting for a second that you have and are entitled to vote how you like. Just fascinated to see how partitionism will win a Border Poll with every single major party endorsing and backing unity.

What did he renounce? Wasn't aware that he ever said he was against it.

All the parties have always endorsed unification so no change there. If they manage to sell the "dramatic" tax increases needed then fair play to them but can't see it happening myself.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Give me a good reason why you object to descriptive words?

Are you saying 'partitionists/unionists don't exist?

Why be offended. I don't get offended being described as a republican/nationalist etc.

Would you be offended if called a "Republican lite" as you support a party that facilitates the rule of a Monarchy in NI?

Triangle wrote: »

I completely disagree with you on this. You do not use descriptive terms.
Your definition of partitionist is incorrect. It actually means a person who wants a partition. Where your definition is for anyone that stands in the way of unity.

It's a perfect example of a polarised viewpoint.

???

If you stand in the way of unity or block it in an Irish context...then effectively you want or prolong the opposite, i.e. partition.

jh79 wrote: »

Would you be offended if called a "Republican lite" as you support a party that facilitates the rule of a Monarchy in NI?

I have been called worse on here jh79...knock yourself out. I'll object and explain why I disagree. I don't have a guilt complex that would lead me to be offended that you called me that..no.

BTW, I voted for the GFA. Why, you think it is a dilution of my political stance to actually live by what I signed up to, (in this context - accepting the decision of the majority) baffles me.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

BTW, I voted for the GFA. Why, you think it is a dilution of my political stance to actually live by what I signed up to, (in this context - accepting the decision of the majority) baffles me.

So did I and what you signed up for was a dilution of your "Republican" ideals. Strange how that caveat doesn't apply to me and wanting a "free" UI?

jh79 wrote: »

So did I and what you signed up for was a dilution of your "Republican" ideals. Strange how that caveat doesn't apply to me and wanting a "free" UI?

Correction: that's what you think I did.
I certainly compromised and put the UI ideal on hold - willingly and without any rancour or change since.
I did not dilute my 'republican' ideals.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I am using descriptive terms and ordinary words. If you have guilt about that, not my problem.

You could be partitionist today and a unionist tomorrow.

Fine with that, so long as you accept the term of exclusionary nationalist as applying to your beliefs.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
the wait before it is explained to me that labelling others is wrong when they don't accept it or it isn't true.

Surely a (re)united Ireland is becoming less likely because the number of people in NI who identify as Northern Irish seems to be growing? I think the last census showed that many, including many Catholics, identify as either British or Northern Irish.

My personal opinion is that there might be a narrow Catholic majority in the future but that there will only be a nationalist plurality at best and that unless a significant portion of moderate unionists or Alliance supporting centrists can be persuaded that a united Ireland benefits them it will never happen.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

???

If you stand in the way of unity or block it in an Irish context...then effectively you want or prolong the opposite, i.e. partition.

Nobody on here has ever said they want to block a united Ireland. Many people have said what they would like to see before they would vote for it. That doesn't make them partitionists, it makes them realists.

Heraclius wrote: »

Surely a (re)united Ireland is becoming less likely because the number of people in NI who identify as Northern Irish seems to be growing? I think the last census showed that many, including many Catholics, identify as either British or Northern Irish.

My personal opinion is that there might be a narrow Catholic majority in the future but that there will only be a nationalist plurality at best and that unless a significant portion of moderate unionists or Alliance supporting centrists can be persuaded that a united Ireland benefits them it will never happen.

That is exactly what Varadkar was saying. He was also saying that the SF approach was counter-productive and last-century. He is right on that as well. However, I am certain that some of his "new" supporters on this thread will gloss over that bit.

blanch152 wrote: »

Nobody on here has ever said they want to block a united Ireland. Many people have said what they would like to see before they would vote for it. That doesn't make them partitionists, it makes them realists.

Yes, I would quite like to see what a proposed united Ireland would be like. Hopefully at some point there will be a white paper laying out the different options. I'm not sure if people in NI would have vastly different opinions about devolution vs. confederation vs. federation though.

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/the-3bn-payback-stormonts-vast-loans-burden-revealed-40544071.html

Another €2.8 bn added to the cost of a united Ireland.

Representatives from Ireland's Future presented at yesterday's Oireachtas meeting of the Committee on the Implementation of the Good Friday Agreement. Heartening to hear their group member Rev Karen Sethuraman put forward the eloquent and passionate case for the involvement of a civic movement in pursuit of Irish unity.

Worth a watch if time permits, starts at around the 20 min mark, link:

https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/oireachtas-tv/video-archive/committees/4342/

I'm also a bit worried by how intensely the Tories would campaign against a united Ireland in a potential border poll. They may not even care about NI but they'd definitely be content with stoking tension to get applause from the Daily Mail and Telegraph.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Correction: that's what you think I did.
I certainly compromised and put the UI ideal on hold - willingly and without any rancour or change since.
I did not dilute my 'republican' ideals.

You did though, accepted partition and a monarchy on the Island.

jh79 wrote: »

You did though, accepted partition and a monarchy on the Island.

No, I agreed to accept the majority decision on that.

guy2231

VinLieger wrote: »

Its really not Francie the world and its mother knows exactly why you are doing it, its sad and beyond pathetic.

Great example proving my point thanks for that.

Partitionists like yourself tend to have a problem with label of partitionist.

Do Republicans have a problem with being called Republicans, do Unionists have a problem with being called Unionist?

The only ones who have a problem with their label seems to be the partitionists.

There are three main entities on this island, Republicans, Unionists and Partitionists the ones who have a problem with their name are the partionists probably from a sense of shame.

guy2231 wrote: »

Partitionists like yourself tend to have a problem with label of partitionist.

Do Republicans have a problem with being called Republicans, do Unionists have a problem with being called Unionist?

The only ones who have a problem with their label seems to be the partitionists.

There are three main entities on this island, Republicans, Unionists and Partitionists the ones who have a problem with their name are the partionists probably from a sense of shame.

My issue is that these labels are not as black and white as ye suggest.

Take Francie, he has previously said he would vote no in a border poll if it was in the morning. Surely he is a partitionist too then?

Can Gerry Kelly or Conor Murphy be true Republicans given they work on the behalf of a Monarch by facilitating British rule?

VinLieger

guy2231 wrote: »

Partitionists like yourself tend to have a problem with label of partitionist.

Do Republicans have a problem with being called Republicans, do Unionists have a problem with being called Unionist?

The only ones who have a problem with their label seems to be the partitionists.

There are three main entities on this island, Republicans, Unionists and Partitionists the ones who have a problem with their name are the partionists probably from a sense of shame.

How am I a partiontionist if i freely agree that a UI is the ultimate ideal for our country?

I seriously don't get the idea of having to label everyone, it just seems to me to be a pathetic attempt to make yourself feel superior and for some reason try to shame or embarrass others for simply being pragmatic by wanting to understand what they might be voting for before casting a vote.

Im not ashamed of being pragmatic i don't know why anyone would be?

jh79 wrote: »

My issue is that these labels are not as black and white as ye suggest.

Take Francie, he has previously said he would vote no in a border poll if it was in the morning. Surely he is a partitionist too then?

Can Gerry Kelly or Conor Murphy be true Republicans given they work on the behalf of a Monarch by facilitating British rule?

Yes, in the context of a poll in the morning I am partitionist. So what?

Is partitionism my political stance...no.

VinLieger wrote: »

How am I a partiontionist if i freely agree that a UI is the ultimate ideal for our country?

I seriously don't get the idea of having to label everyone, it just seems to me to be a pathetic attempt to make yourself feel superior and for some reason try to shame or embarrass others for simply being pragmatic by wanting to understand what they might be voting for before casting a vote.

Im not ashamed of being pragmatic i don't know why anyone would be?

The guilt about it is yours. It is a descriptive term like republican, nationalist, unionist, loyalist etc etc.

Hamsterchops

Heraclius wrote: »

Surely a (re)united Ireland is becoming less likely because the number of people in NI who identify as Northern Irish seems to be growing? I think the last census showed that many, including many Catholics, identify as either British or Northern Irish.

Yeah but according to Francie and others, they're not really Northern Irish or British, they're just Irish, same as the rest of us, and that's even if they identify as Northern Irish, which they're not, according to some folk on here :cool:

VinLieger wrote: »

Im not ashamed of being pragmatic i don't know why anyone would be?

By the way, why is it we never see those who don't like 'labels' interceding when someone who wants a UI being 'labelled 'an 'idealist' or a 'romantic'.

Why the peculiar problem when the word partitionist is used?

Hamsterchops wrote: »

Yeah but according to Francie and others, they're not really Northern Irish or British, they're just Irish, same as the rest of us, and that's even if they identify as Northern Irish, which they're not, apparently :cool:

People have different identities that they are entitled to. They are born in Ireland.

Hamsterchops

FrancieBrady wrote: »

People have different identities that they are entitled to. They are born in Ireland.

And if they're born in NI they may be British or Northern Irish, right?

guy2231

VinLieger wrote: »

How am I a partiontionist if i freely agree that a UI is the ultimate ideal for our country?

I seriously don't get the idea of having to label everyone, it just seems to me to be a pathetic attempt to make yourself feel superior and for some reason try to shame or embarrass others for simply being pragmatic by wanting to understand what they might be voting for before casting a vote.

Im not ashamed of being pragmatic i don't know why anyone would be?

You are partitionist because we can easily tell your true beliefs.

You are spouting the usual guff from in the closet partitionists, "I don't want a United Ireland but you never know in 50 years I might.

Partitionists like yourself know that being a partitionist is unpopular so you, just like the partitionists of the last 100 years are constantly advocating against a United Ireland using the usual lines like "maybe in 50 years" to somehow justify your beliefs.

Hamsterchops

So basically what you guys are saying is, if one doesn't agree with, envisage or forsee a United right here right now, then one is a "partitionist"?

When and where has that term even come from?

You guys seem very happy just pointing here there & everywhere at people and labelling them Partitionist, hilarious if it wasn't so menacing.