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

Adams,he was never in the IRA, all SF TDs, they all existed on the AIW,those lads and lassies would never lie!!! They can be trusted so all the others cannot be trusted but SF can.Roll of eyes ha ha lets hear it for the kneecappers,paragons of virtue.

All is well and good, but the text of the GFA is straight cut here. NI is and does still remain part of the United Kingdom. Indeed it is up to the NI Secretary to call a border poll, which is in effect a veto of sorts. So, the ball is truly in the Westminister court here.

Sure, we can reach out to the Unionist community because after all, one needs to reunite people before they reunite territory. If we do that, then a UI will become a reality. If we go down the hardline Republican route, then we are kicking that can down the road.

Can I ask you a question on this?

We have the usual scaremongers here talking about apocalyptic violence from Loyalists in the event of any moves towards fulfilling the wish of the majority if it votes for a UI.

Let's say they are right - do you think Loyalists will be checking loyalty and attendance records when they embark again on their random violence against the other community?

In other words, do you know what actually happened the last time? Nobody was checking the baptismal records before random and brutally killing. You were chosen because of where you came from, what area you were bundled into a car etc. Not because of the intensity of your faith.

In other words, it will not matter if you are in a religious group or a No Religious Group. You can see this very thing happening right now, if you care to really look, instead of looking at cliche's or tropes as mark and blanch would have it. The Alliance are being portrayed as quasi -Shinners and therefore the legitimate targets of Loyalist abuse. If they did return to the random cold blooded killing sprees they were fond of, Alliance voters would be targets.

'Religion' would have little to do with it.

Yes, I know. Hard to come up with an answer when you have been indulging in cliche and trope.

Adherence to your religion or non adherence never had anything to to with it. If you are identified as giving succor of any kind to the end of the 'Union', that is enough and always has been enough to make you a target.

Leo Varadkar himself is a prime example of this. Unionists happy to come down and get applauded by him and his party but soon as he stands up for Ireland and voices a desire for Unity, look what happens - vilified and targeted.

This is the kicker....

Partition is the will and wish of the majority of the people of NI, and by the GFA it is a legitimate point of view. By voting for the GFA you by proxy accept that wish and therefore accept partition.

You accept the will of the majority. Nothing more.

And in the next breath you'll be calling them sectarian.

Pick a position Mark, you are driving on both sides of the road at once.

"We accepted partition Francie by voting for the GFA"

But we didn't vote "for the GFA", acceptance for the GFA and the recognition of legitimacy of the position of NI was made by the Government under international law before any referendum, and to repeat as I previously pointed out that recognition has long been the case since 1920, only the people of NI specifically voted for acceptance of the full terms of the GFA, the people of the South voted for a Constitutional amendment to enable the Government amend the Constitution to the proposed wording which they agreed to with the UK, nothing more, acceptance or rejection of the terms of the GFA was a Government competence, not a matter for the people.

Correct here.

Our support of the GFA was implied by our acceptance of the constitutional change.

It's why some are saying a referendum is not required on unity in the south, we already constitutionally aspire to it. And nobody has contested that since 1998.

If there is a referendum then partitionists will have to mount a campaign to effectively overturn/change that aspiration, constitutionally. I cannot wait to see that and who is going to support such a quest politically.

An individual is free to dissent and personally say that they don't accept partition. That is fine, and it is ok for you to do that, while accepting the will of the majority and nothing more.

However, the State, as an institution, expressed through the vote for the GFA, has accepted partition.

Whilst support for the GFA would likely be implied by the referendum result it is then worth noting the spirit of the GFA was to bring about peace, not acceptance of partition as some claim.

The Government's here and in the UK are free to negotiate and vary any terms within the GFA as they see fit, it was never for us to decide what the Government's negotiated, agreed to or accepted, we were never given that choice.

The reality is that even had the referendum result been a majority no, the terms of the GFA (i.e the recognition of the wish of the majority of people of NI) would not render the GFA unconstitutional.

Anyone who argues a referendum is not required here for a united Ireland is incorrect.

"However, the State, as an institution, expressed through the vote for the GFA, has accepted partition"

So is it the state as an institution or the people you say accepted partition? The state isn't an institution, it's the people, the Government is an institution of the State, but not the people of the state, and it should be noted that the Government accepted the terms of the GFA, not the people, and on that point the Government accepted the terms of the GFA before the Irish people voted to amend the Constitution, not after it.

I know this, but I think it will be challenged. On the basis that a state is compelled to act on it's constitution - which aspires to unity.