United Ireland Poll - please vote

jh79 wrote: »

Explain how your version doesn't involve spending money?

It's a bizarre concept, along the lines of Pol Pot and year zero.

It's not a cost because it a new country so can't be compared to what the Republic used to spend.

Is that basically what you're saying?

I'll explain once again that I already said I know there will be a cost to a UI.

You are losing it...I think that's the third time...twice today.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I'll explain once again that I already said I know there will be a cost to a UI.

You are losing it...I think that's the third time...twice today.

So what is the point of saying it's not going to be a subsuming plan?

You think that's a more expensive way of doing it?

jh79 wrote: »

So what is the point of saying it's not going to be a subsuming plan?

You think that's a more expensive way of doing it?

I don't know what it is going to be until there is a plan. It is you guys doing the assuming 'bout subsuming.

Swindled

A United Ireland is a nice idea for the long term, but a lot of the people proposing it, if they are serious about having one, would need to look up the word United in a dictionary, and understand it's true meaning properly and what it takes to bring it about.

We need a few young John Humes to emerge, but there is currently no one out there. Unfortunately, politicians of that calibre, intelligence and ability only seem to appear every few generations.

Swindled wrote: »

A United Ireland is a nice idea for the long term, but a lot of the people proposing it, if they are serious about having one, would need to look up the word United in a dictionary, and understand it's true meaning properly and what it takes to bring it about.

We need a few young John Humes to emerge, but there is currently no one out there. Unfortunately, politicians of that calibre, intelligence and ability only seem to appear every few generations.

Belligerent Unionists and partitionists? Yep, they need to prepare themselves and climb down off a few towers.

I think we're well beyond the stage of whether a United Ireland will happen or not, it's already happening on the ground economically, socially, and psychologically; the north is in a political holding-pattern waiting to land.

Those unionists/partitionists who hate the notion of a UI will not prevent it but they may be able to engineer a crash-landing which will end up costing us all more in the longer run, rendering the bean-counters' wailing self-defeating.

I appeal to partitionists to look for peace within themselves and try to find heir way to:

Swindled

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Belligerent Unionists and partitionists? Yep, they need to prepare themselves and climb down off a few towers.

Our first prime example of not a Hume already.
A lot of people are going to have to climb off their respective towers.

. . . . I'll leave you all again to your busy fool job of dividing Ireland.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I don't know what it is going to be until there is a plan. It is you guys doing the assuming 'bout subsuming.

But not relevant to comparing the costs. No matter what name you give it.

Swindled wrote: »

Our first prime example of not a Hume already.
A lot of people are going to have to climb off their respective towers.

. . . . I'll leave you all again to your busy fool job of dividing Ireland.

'Ireland' is divided.

If Nordie Unionists ever got a message that the ROI actually wanted them, it might go a long way to peaceful reunification, particularly at the moment wnen the UK government is at its most dysfunctional and obnoxious. Leo last week was the first I'd heard to start down that road.
Speaking as a former Unionist, now Irish Nationalist (which puts me in a pretty small grouping).

StupidLikeAFox

maccored wrote: »

rThe simple fact is WE NEED TO DISCUSS WHAT A UI WOULD LOOK LIKE before worrying about costs etc. End of story.

Sure if you try to have a discussion on here you are told we can't have a discussion until we have a plan

StupidLikeAFox wrote: »

Sure if you try to have a discussion on here you are told we can't have a discussion until we have a plan

If that is a dig at me then I'll remind you this is one of many many threads where a UI has been 'discussed' and debated.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Belligerent Unionists and partitionists? Yep, they need to prepare themselves and climb down off a few towers.

If I am against a UI which involves changing our flag and various other concessions to unionists, but am pro a UI which involves treating the 6 and all their citizens entirely equally as every other citizen in the 26, does that make me a partitionist?

schmittel wrote: »

If I am against a UI which involves changing our flag and various other concessions to unionists, but am pro a UI which involves treating the 6 and all their citizens entirely equally as every other citizen in the 26, does that make me a partitionist?

I give up, I don't know your viewpoint well enough to make any assessment, are you partitionist?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Ah, you're back.

I give up, I don't know your viewpoint well enough to make any assessment, are you partitionist?

The above sums it up.

Not prepared to vote for a UI now if the price is a wide reaching changes to make unionists feel welcome. A red line would be changing our flag.

I'd have nothing against token gestures of goodwill, like an UlsterScots act though.

Edit to add - on second thoughts if that meant receiving letters from government in UlsterScots, I'd be against that too.

schmittel wrote: »

If I am against a UI which involves changing our flag and various other concessions to unionists, but am pro a UI which involves treating the 6 and all their citizens entirely equally as every other citizen in the 26, does that make me a partitionist?

No. It makes you a person who supports United Ireland and who wants to not have to reorder the entire country to accommodate people who don't want to be part of it.

That's a perfectly reasonable position to hold and I daresay that the vast majority of us will hold similar views. Unionists will not be coming to a United Ireland with demands, that whole 'we unionists say what goes' is history the day after a pro-UI vote.

schmittel wrote: »

The above sums it up.

Not prepared to vote for a UI now if the price is a wide reaching changes to make unionists feel welcome. A red line would be changing our flag.

I'd have nothing against token gestures of goodwill, like an UlsterScots act though.

Changing a flag would hardly be wide ranging imo nor the anthem.

But position noted, you are partitionist if you don't get what you want.

blackbox

It's not a question of NI having to be part of the UK or else having to be part of the Republic of Ireland.

The best thing for all would be for NI to exist as an independent country for a number of years. Once it sorted out it's governance and finance then it could (if it wished) request to merge with the Republic of Ireland.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Changing a flag would hardly be wide ranging imo nor the anthem.

But position noted, you are partitionist if you don't get what you want.

I would describe changing our national flag as appeasing unionists.

So we can add appeasers to the list of labels bandied around the debate.

schmittel wrote: »

I would describe changing our national flag as appeasing unionists.

So we can add appeasers to the list of labels bandied around the debate.

If you see a UI as a simple takeover/subsuming of NI then that is fair enough.

I don't see it as that.

I have absolutely no intention of 'appeasing' belligerent Unionists but I am fully prepared to listen to moderate Unionists.

blackbox wrote: »

I
The best thing for all would be for NI to exist as an independent country for a number of years. Once it sorted out it's governance and finance then it could (if it wished) request to merge with the Republic of Ireland.

The lunatics running the asylum ? No thanks, recipe for disaster.

ineedeuro

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If you see a UI as a simple takeover/subsuming of NI then that is fair enough.

I don't see it as that.

I have absolutely no intention of 'appeasing' belligerent Unionists but I am fully prepared to listen to moderate Unionists.

I doubt many people will be interesting in talking or listening to you

The people that will bring about a United ireland will not be so quick to try and stick people into groups so they can try ridicule them. That’s the reason why we have so much trouble in ireland and thankfully we are moving forward, well some of us

The only people I would ever ridicule are belligerent Unionists and those who are dishonest about what they are and pretend to be in favour while putting up obstacles that will exist when the last icecap melts, in which case none of us will be bothered about a UI or NI.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If you see a UI as a simple takeover/subsuming of NI then that is fair enough.

I don't see it as that.

I have absolutely no intention of 'appeasing' belligerent Unionists but I am fully prepared to listen to moderate Unionists.

I don't see it as a takeover, far from it. The peaceful conclusion of a democratic process. all of which will be discussed diplomatically and respectfully no doubt.

Happy to change our national flag, the symbolism of which was specifically designed to celebrate the peaceful unification of green and orange, because it might trigger unionists who enjoy burning it?

Appeasement plain and simple.

schmittel wrote: »

Happy to change our national flag, the symbolism of which was specifically designed to celebrate the peaceful unification of green and orange, because it might trigger unionists who enjoy burning it?

I like the flag, it has a noble message and it's the one I'll be most connected to regardless of what transpires.

How many Unionists would be comfortable having the Orange stripe representing them though? I don't think I'd be too happy if some weird blood-and-thunder Catholic fraternity's colour was representing 'our side'.

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

I like the flag, it has a noble message and it's the one I'll be most connected to regardless of what transpires.

How many Unionists would be comfortable having the Orange stripe representing them though? I don't think I'd be too happy if some weird blood-and-thunder Catholic fraternity's colour was representing 'our side'.

I have no idea. And would not entertain trying to find out. What’s the point?

Should we only keep our national flag if 50% + 1 of unionists are comfortable with it?

schmittel wrote: »

Should we only keep our national flag if 50% + 1 of unionists are comfortable with it?

No. The flag is the flag until there an agreement between people to change it. As I said, the tail will not wag the dog in a United Ireland.

I suspect that unionists would rather have nailed-down rights on flags and symbols they subscribe to in the northeast of the country.

ineedeuro

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

No. The flag is the flag until there an agreement between people to change it. As I said, the tail will not wag the dog in a United Ireland.

I suspect that unionists would rather have nailed-down rights on flags and symbols they subscribe to in the northeast of the country.

If that is your opening point then fairly pointless discussing anything else on a United ireland isn’t it?

Not very “United” comment is it?

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

No. The flag is the flag until there an agreement between people to change it. As I said, the tail will not wag the dog in a United Ireland.

I suspect that unionists would rather have nailed-down rights on flags and symbols they subscribe to in the northeast of the country.

Nobody is going to object to unionists waving the red hand anywhere in the country any more than they object to Munster flag flying. Similarly I doubt we’ll pass laws banning them painting symbols and murals on the sides of their houses. Let them do as they please, as long as it’s within the law, and the laws are the same for everybody.

Modern Ireland is a pretty tolerant and inclusive society overall. We don’t need to go the extra mile for unionists.