You got schooled on that last week. So you wait a few days to spin that yarn again.
How so? The agreement for de-segregating schools is as valid as ever.
Indeed those opposed to it remind me of those white separatists from Jim-Crow era Alabama
"The only debate on Partition was the size of NI itself. Was it to be be 4,6 or 9 county NI"
That sentence shows what a bullshit made up place NI is. Oh how much of Ireland will we gerrymander into this jurisdiction, maybe 4, 6 or 9 counties? Time shows it was a disaster. Still 100 years later it is an apartheid with 40% of its inhabitants wishing it did not exist and people from Britain not caring for it. Being both the poorest region of the UK and Ireland. In hindsight it would have been cheaper for London just to let all of Ireland go and give grants to people who wanted to move back to Britain.
Yes there has. This has been addressed multiple times. No matter how many times it is debunked, a few months pass and we find the same small group of posters repeating it again.
The idea that because Ireland didn't exist as a modern single state over a thousand years ago that it means it wasn't ever a united country is purely revisionism meant to undermine those who seek Unification.
If you'd said having a United Ireland ruled from Ulster is more true to form than one ruled from Dublin, you'd at least be opening an interesting (albeit not particularly relevant) historical debate.
One could even push an argument that Ireland was MORE united pre Norman Invasion than the current United Kingdom, in which there are four separate territories with their own laws and national identities. I'd say that is pushing it, but it would certainly be a more logical and historically accurate position to take than the, 'Ireland was only united under British rule' nonsense again.
Entirely unsurprising that this tired old trope is wheeled out time and time again, thoroughly debunked (including with a great deal more detail and effort than this time round) and quietly dropped until the fuss blows over, then parroted again as if anyone is actually buying it as an argument to support partition......by those who ironically reject the title of Partitionist.
As we have seen history has to be told a certain way for these guys. They'll add and block aspects to suit.
Invisible lines are not a threat to life and limb and stability, people are. The blame for the deaths lie with those that committed the actions and those that gave them political support.
Nothing in that reference contradicts anything I said. Uniting the people is the primary objective, in all their diversity of identities, uniting the territory the secondary one.
As well as ignoring inconvenient facts of history that don't suit the narrative you now want us to ignore the responsibilities vested in some politicians but not others?
Par for the course.
In any situation, be it family, work or politics, the ultimate responsibility lies with those who have responsibility vested in them.
When it comes to actions, ultimate responsibility falls on those who committed the actions. Just following orders doesn't wash, neither does perceived injustice.
Have to say you are completely wrong. It was demonstrated last week that Sinn Fein clearly support sectarian-based education. You were more than schooled on that.
Everyone, including you as a partitionist, shares part of the blame.
Those who saw what would happen and allowed it to happen through inaction or lack of care will always be held responsible in any situation.
You want politics and power without responsibility blanch, the trade mark of the power swap.
The point has been made repeatedly by Francie that you cannot invade your own country. Therefore, following that logic, there was never an invasion of any part of the British Isles by the British, all they were ever doing was reuniting their own country.
Just name everywhere Britain and invade and colonise it? Why didn't somebody think of that....oh wait!
This is an important study. Very detailed and comprehensive research into views
66% in favour of remaining in the UK must be a stark setback to advocates of a united Ireland.
No, you said quite clearly that if a country think it is theirs, they are entitled to invade and take over. This archipelago has been called the British Isles since ancient times, so your view is that the British were never invaders. That isn't my view, it is yours, own it.
I thanked that post for it's comedic value.
Sins of commission are always more important than sins of omission.
Sins of omission are always ethereal. Inaction or lack of cares is insufficient, active negligence has to be proved. In this case, there is no evidence of such.
Yes, we are all laughing at your argument boomeranging back.
The gem that Serbia could invade Kosovo if they believed it was theirs was particularly funny.
Hopefully, you will drop the silly argument from this point forward.
The historian Mark was valiantly using to 'prove' his point actually points the finger at nationalists who ignored/failed to see the implications of what they were doing. Those nationalists in the main went on to form the parties of the power swap, who largely ignored what was clearly evident for another 8o years. Of course they are quick to trumpet their responsibilities when it comes to the good stuff but not so much on the bad stuff.
But that has to be blocked out of the discussion by you guys.
Who is 'we'...yourself and Mark? 😁😁
Support for Basque independence is currently at its lowest point, somewhere around 20% according to polls.
You are being completely hypocritical here by refusing to answer the question i have posed more than once now? If you think the creation of NI was fair and justified, why did the Nationalists in NI who formed a larger minority than Unionists in Ireland not get an opportunity to break away from NI and rejoin the rest of Ireland?
Not a very mature 'argument'.
Are Canada and Mexico territories of the U.S. because they are in North America?
Seriously, do you try this hard to rail against unionist or the independent NI views? No.
Fear of Shinners leaving FG in the dust on a regular basis.
You will have to take that up with Francie, he made the initial argument that you cannot invade your own country. I suspect that he didn't think through his logic completely.
If there were any unionists on here making similarly ridiculous points, I would call them out too. Thankfully, we only seem to be getting one version of these fantasies.
Support for a united Ireland in the North is at 34% according to the latest poll linked here. Not really a substantive difference in that both are really only pipedreams based on those figures.
You are the one used a silly argument that being known as the British Isles meant Britain owned Ireland.
I guess what i don't get, is if blanch truly feels that a UI is so unlikely and doesn't have public backing, why does he spend so much time on a forum about it?
Though i do agree somewhat in principle, that public support for a UI has to show up better, before anybody can expect the SoS to call a referendum.
Sample size of 1004 ppl is too small, and if your polling shows 9 or 10% of "SF voters" voting to remain in the UK; well that means ppl are probably lying on the poll questions in order to skew the results.
He basically outlined what British colonialism was. 😁
That would be a complete non-sequitur in response to my post, Blanch. I didn't make any such assertion, I pointed out that the, 'never United' thing Mark was pushing (again) is utter b*llocks.
Is there a particular reason to quote my post regarding whether Ireland was ever united with this nonsense? Even if I fully accepted the premise of your post, it isn't an argument against anything I've actually posted. Please direct your arguments with points Francie makes at him instead of attributing an assumed position to me.
Why do you think a sample size of 1004 is too small?
Too small a sample size, means it's easy to manipluate