Michael D Higgins insists he is President of Ireland, refuses to commemorate partition

Strictly speaking we the Irish people didn't vote to accept the GFA, rather, we simply voted to amend the Constitution, acceptance of the GFA on the Irish side was a Government matter alone, but required Constitutional change from the people in order for them to implement the provisions of it, the people of NI on the other hand did specifically vote to accept the GFA because that was the specific question put to them, unlike here. The people were presented two totally different questions in the referendums North and South.

But that asides, I (and no doubt many others) voted primarily to bring about peace on the island of Ireland, did we really want to carry on the 30 or so years of troubles for the sake of a territorial claim which in reality meant nothing in legal terms. I did not vote to accept partition, in fact it was the last thing on my mind, I wasn't accepting something which happened 77 years previous, rather I was accepting that reunification was a more realistic potential as agreed between the two Governments, for the third time since 1970 may I add, just this time the Constitution and legislation on both sides recognised that.

The reality is that Article 2 needed to change to the reality of the situation, Article 2 was a legal claim, not a legal fact, but, it meant nothing because we could never enforce it, the Constitution as it stands now and the UK legislation as a result of the GFA provides a mechanism for a sovereign united Ireland, the old Article 2 of the Constitution never allowed for such, so the reality is we didn't vote to accept partition, rather we voted to actually allow a possible remedy for partition - eventual reunification with the support of the people of NI, we voted for a potential fix so to speak, we don't need fixes for that which we accept.

Are you insulting ours by telling us now that all Irish people have 'accepted' abortion and same sex marriage?

I'll remind you again that you live in a democracy, where the the majority rules, but the minority view is still respected as long as it is held respectfully and within the law.

You are quite entitled to 'accept' partition Mark, nobody is stopping you or ever did stop the holding of partitionist views. What's more, come Unification we will have to respect the views of those who don't want it and accept that they don't 'accept' Unification.(It will be their turn to respect the view of the majority)

You can be sure those who are partitionist will be expounding that view to the nth degree come the time, in fact, if you look, they are doing it here whenever there is a discussion on Unification.

Democracies Mark...look them up.

Do you honestly think that prior to the GFA that any possible reunification would come any other way as in without the consent of the people of NI, we had no legal basis or ability to unite Ireland even with the territorial claim of the old Article 2.

Article 2 of the Constitution does not change anything in how unification would come about.

Change to Article 2 of the Constitution was not our acceptance of the reality of partition, it was the consequence of acceptance of peace.

Accepting that partition is there, is not and never was the same thing as 'accepting partition'.

I can accept that there is a thorn in my foot...I don't accept that it should stay there by doing that, or that it has any right to be there. It would be called sadism if you accepted that.

Same for partition, you can acknowledge it is a reality without accepting it. MDH refuses to do both, while Coveney and Chambers will acknowledge the reality without accepting it. (Coveney at pains to say it was a bad thing for the island of Ireland etc) It would be 'partitionist' to accept it and that is why it is legitimate to call any one who does 'accept' it, like yourself, partitionist.

This is basic level intuition stuff blanch and yourself and Mark are out on a dodgy limb as we have seen.

We can whinge and cry all we like about partition have aspirations, dreams and hopes in abundance, but we have accepted that it is there and there is nothing we can do about it constitutionally. It is up to others. Like it or not, that is acceptance of partition.

The obvious flaw in blanch's argument.

We live in a democracy, he has the right to accept partition and has. He wants it to continue, and is at variance with many in the state because of that. Apparently the constitution does not represent those who refuse to accept partition, according to partitionists.

His position is that of a dictator or suprematist. No room for that in a republic sadly.

They were a territorial 'claim'.

There was no expression of an intention to do anything and indeed, as a state, we never did do anything.

The original articles:

Article 2

The national territory consists of the whole island of Ireland, its islands and the territorial seas.

Article 3

Pending the re-integration of the national territory, and without prejudice to the right of the Parliament and Government established by this Constitution to exercise jurisdiction over the whole of that territory, the laws enacted by that Parliament shall have the like area and extent of application as the laws of Saorstat Eireann and the like extra-territorial effect.

It made a legal claim, it did not signal any "intention" one way or the other.

He is just making stuff up now.

The desire not to offend the British or Unionists runs strong in the partitionist family.

Quite entitled to accept partition but not accept it on behalf of the nation. The 'nation' to which the constitution refers, that is, as a whole entity.

I do not hate SF,i just do not trust the party and historically all the evidence suggests the leadersip of the party and all its tds have lied for years when they said they only received the AIW.

As recent as the presidential election the SF candidate was saying she lived on the AIW and had to admit she was being less than honest when she claimed on tv that she was living on 450 or 500 per week.

By the way i am in support of Michael D not attending as i stated and i would be in support of him attending if that was what he decided.

I campaigned and voted for Michael D unlike all the SF members who tried to vilify him on Boards spewing lies about throughout the campaign.

The irish voters saw through the lies and gave the SF candidate a derisory vote.

From Fealty, another noted journalist with a partitionist view. Which he is entitled to, but you need to be aware of that.

There was an entirely different take published early in the week.

The Union will not survive the end of the NI Protocol – Slugger O'Toole

''Up to others'' ? It is up to Irish people only whether there is a UI under the terms of the GFA. British people (People from Britain) don't have a say if Irish people want to end partition