Whatcar212 wrote: » So you are insulted on behalf of all unionists or are you just assuming you know what all unionists think? I know many unionists (pretty much all my unionists friends actually) who don't give a crap about the flag or the anthem or any of that. Those are token issues for those with extreme views. The normal people of NI are only concerned about their quality of life and how that is affect. The rest is just tokenism.
Whatcar212 wrote: » Why do people assume the needs of a minority must be catered to and given even keel to the majority. This doesn't happen anywhere else, yet for some reason hardline unionists need to be catered to... I'm not buying into that crap. They can keep their parades but have them restricted to their own areas. What next? A KKK march down O'Connell Street to cater to the minority of racists in the country? This mindset of the catering to keep a unionist minority happy is a joke
ineedeuro wrote: » One post comparing unionist to KKK, next trying to say you have unionist friends A United ireland should be for everyone, not just the people who think they know what everyone else wants. That’s the bit people are struggling with here and making up stories ain’t going to change that
FrancieBrady wrote: » A UI is for those who want it, just like the country now. If you don't want it, nobody is going to force you, but you have to accept the democratic wishes of the majority. There is really no alternative to that, if there is, please outline what you think the alternative is. That is what moderate Unionism and nationalism and the south signed up to in the GFA.
Whatcar212 wrote: » I'm born and raised in derry (before moving to the south). of course I have unionist friends. all small u unionist and normal people. Capital U unionists are extremists and have no place being accommodated anywhere. Not in NI, the south, or in a UI. Same goes for those with extreme nationalist views. Not a single normal person in NI has ever threatened to march down O'connell street. Because they are not nut jobs. Too many on here have an awful habit of lumping normal unionists in with the extreme ones and pretending these extreme views are held by the majority
FrancieBrady wrote: » So why are you not lobbying to get rid of it now. If it is 'irredeemable', that is your logic. No need to mention the UJ, deal with your position on the flag.
ineedeuro wrote: » What’s the plan? Stick people in camps who don’t agree with you? The hint is in the name “United Ireland”, it is for everyone In this new Ireland are LGTBQ community allowed? Do you have an entrance exam of questionnaire to full out?
ineedeuro wrote: » Gemma and her lot walk down O Connell street, in this new United Ireland are you banning them? Sounds like we are ending up with a fairly s**ty country with people having no freedom.
blanch152 wrote: » You really love to misrepresent others.I didn't use the word 'irredeemable', yet you place it in quotations to imply that I did.
[*]I referenced clearly its use in Northern Ireland by SF/IRA as the problem which creates a context where it could not be used in a united Ireland context
FrancieBrady wrote: » I was just shortening what you meant.
blanch152 wrote: » No, you were misrepresenting what I posted, and by putting it in quotation marks, were attempting to paint it as my actual words.
FrancieBrady wrote: » No, I don't see internment as a solution. EVERYONE is free to decide if they wish to engage or not. SAME as happens in any democratic country, same as what happens here now (it didn't under the early decades of the power swap). We call it a 'modern inclusive society' for a reason (even though politically we have a way to go) What will happen is the same thing that happened with the GFA and to those who didn't sign up to it - the world will swiftly move on and they will diminish in strength and the ability to destabilse - again, as we have seen.You still haven't outlined your alternative for dealing with those who don't want to engage with the state. Will it be pointless asking you to answer that? Just say so and we'll move on without back and forth.
ineedeuro wrote: » Who said they don’t want to engage in the discussion would be first question I would have? Nothing about your points is democratic. It’s about trying to put people into groups and then telling them they have no say in the future. Now it’s unionist you are singling out. Who is it tomorrow? you decide they think LGBTQ is wrong, will we need to single them out? Who is next after that? Traveller? Etc etc
FrancieBrady wrote: » What are you on about? Another poster who will NOT enter genuine debate and go off in tangents or deploy escape hatches when challenged. The DUP and it's support will not engage in discussions on a UI nor countenance it happening. They even accused our TD's of breaking the GFA for expressing their desire to see a UI. What is your alternative for dealing with those who refuse to engage with the state or accept the democratic will of the people? In the instance of LGBTQ rights - what is your solution to deal with those still denying them rights even though their parliament and executive have gien those rights. Time you answered some questions instead of diverting.
ineedeuro wrote: » The DUP have already engaged in a debate on a United Ireland. So that is a lie. It's a lot more than some parties have done. Not sure why you think you can make demands to other posters.
FrancieBrady wrote: » We are all debating. The issue is engaging in discussions on creating a UI and accepting the will of the people. How are they doing on that score at the minute? Alright, you should have just said you had no intention of answering the question when you were asked. I knew this would be the escape hatch you would use.
ineedeuro wrote: » So you admit you lied and the DUP are in fact engage in a United Ireland discussion. So I go back to my original question, who has said they won’t engage in a discussion?
FrancieBrady wrote: » Pedantry now. OK I'll clarify:The DUP will not engage in a discussion about setting up a UI. If that is wrong, show me where. p.s. Arlene Foster rubbished any debate/discussion on a UI as recently as April, after a poll showed a majority on both sides of the border thought that NI would leave the UK within 25 years.
blanch152 wrote: » And you seriously expect them to engage in a discussion about setting up a UI? Are you deluded?
FrancieBrady wrote: » No, I don't expect them to because of their stated position. So, if a majority vote for a UI...how would you deal with those who do not want to engage with the negotiations. If you are not going to answer this either, can you just say so now?
blanch152 wrote: » IF that ever happens, then I am sure that they will engage. However, expecting them to do so now, or to even hint that they will do so in the event of a successful border poll, is delusional.
FrancieBrady wrote: » The question you sidestepped is: IF a majority voted for a UI and IF there were some who refused to engage, HOW would you propose to deal with them.The question is not about what you think will happen.
FrancieBrady wrote: » What are you on about? Another poster who will NOT enter genuine debate and go off in tangents or deploy escape hatches when challenged.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Time you answered some questions instead of diverting.
ineedeuro wrote: » Just put up by FF “A new Shared Island Unit has been set up to work with all communities and traditions on the island to build consensus around a shared future on the island underpinned by the Good Friday Agreement #CommunitiesFirst” At least FF are thinking about all communities
blanch152 wrote: » I suppose that we would hope that a statesman of the stature of John Hume would step up to the plate and talk to them in the way that he brought the SF/IRA terrorists back from the cliff edge back in the day.
IF a majority voted for a UI and IF there were some who refused to engage, HOW would you propose to deal with them.
blanch152 wrote: » I think the wording around a shared future on the island is very important because of its inclusive nature, a united Ireland is only one possible option of a shared future.
FrancieBrady wrote: » DO you understand the word 'refuse'? It means people who will not respond to an entreaties from anyone to engage. The 'John Hume's' have been rebuffed and all other options closed. They REFUSE to engage. Again, in light of that, are you prepared to answer the actual question or keep evading it? *By the way, it was the same genepool who wrecked John's much vaunted Sunningdale Agreement. So maybe looking for someone of similar ilk might not be a great idea.
