Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

When & How could there be a united Ireland?

1…1617192122…33

Comments

  • #542
    gurramok
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭gurramok


    Mike 1972 wrote: »
    Apologies to everyone else for repeating myself/stating the blindingly obvious but since you insist............

    It depends on how much money we are talking about

    Happy now ?

    Yes, it concurs with what the other poster said, money rules over patriotism at the end of the day so the Union ain't rock solid amongst Unionists as their economic wellbeing comes first over any union.


  • #543
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Wolfe Tone


    lugha wrote: »
    True, NI has not worked. When a state only considers the political aspirations of the majority, things tend not to work. This was the case on a large scale in GB and I when Britain denied some of the Irish the right to self rule. This was the case on a small scale in NI when unionists excluded nationalists. Regrettably, republicans have this Goldilocks thinking going on that if we did it again on medium all-Ireland scale, it’s going to be third time lucky.

    No arguments there. I am a democrat and will abide by the will of the people, unlike the likes of Pearse and co and the dissidents. I will just be doing my best to persuade people to engage the organ between their ears, rather than the one further down, when they consider the matter. :pac:
    For a second I thought you meant something besides heart! LOL!



    I feel that Pearse and Co fought so that Ireland could have a democracy of its own, not be ruled from across the waves.


  • #544
    lugha
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,235 ✭✭✭lugha


    MUSSOLINI wrote: »
    For a second I thought you meant something besides heart! LOL!
    That's all you Catholics ever think about, isn't it? :pac:
    A good dose of Northern puritanical Presbyterianism is what you need! :P


  • #545
    Mike 1972
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,017 ✭✭✭Mike 1972


    gurramok wrote: »
    Yes, it concurs with what the other poster said, money rules over patriotism at the end of the day.

    I dont "do" patriotism
    gurramok wrote: »
    so the Union ain't rock solid amongst Unionists

    "Unionists" dont comprise of one monolithic bloc. I strongly suspect know its pretty much the same with Nationalists
    as their economic wellbeing comes first over any union.
    Economics (or Patriotism) arent the only considerations a rational person would take into account when deciding on such issues


  • #546
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Wolfe Tone


    lugha wrote: »
    That's all you Catholics ever think about, isn't it? :pac:
    A good dose of Northern puritanical Presbyterianism is what you need! :P


    Haha :D


  • Advertisement
  • #547
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,865 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    MUSSOLINI wrote: »
    What compromises would lead you to accept a UI?
    What compromises would lead you to accept permanent partition?


  • #548
    trapsagenius
    Closed Accounts Posts: 410 ✭✭trapsagenius


    lugha wrote: »
    True, NI has not worked. When a state only considers the political aspirations of the majority, things tend not to work. This was the case on a large scale in GB and I when Britain denied some of the Irish the right to self rule. This was the case on a small scale in NI when unionists excluded nationalists. Regrettably, republicans have this Goldilocks thinking going on that if we did it again on medium all-Ireland scale, it’s going to be third time lucky.

    No arguments there. I am a democrat and will abide by the will of the people, unlike the likes of Pearse and co and the dissidents. I will just be doing my best to persuade people to engage the organ between their ears, rather than the one further down, when they consider the matter. :pac:


    I think it has as much chance of success as any other proposal I've heard, tbh.This is all speculation anyway, and I think the important point we've clarified is that the wishes of the majority must be respected.This means NI remaining in the UK for the time being, and more than likely joining the south in the future.


  • #549
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Wolfe Tone


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    What compromises would lead you to accept permanent partition?
    A federal republic would give unionists much the same power as they have now, but satisfy many nationalists demands.


  • #550
    lugha
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,235 ✭✭✭lugha


    MUSSOLINI wrote: »
    I feel that Pearse and Co fought so that Ireland could have a democracy of its own, not be ruled from across the waves.

    Right, so Pearse and the lads disregarded the will of the Irish people and took it upon themselves to act on their behalf, without their consent ... so that the English could no longer disregard the will of the Irish people and take it upon themselves to act on their behalf without their consent. :confused::confused:
    Can you honestly say that you have no reservations at all about Pearse? Or are you happy with the argument that the end justified the means?


  • #551
    jordan..
    Closed Accounts Posts: 262 ✭✭jordan..


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    What compromises would lead you to accept permanent partition?

    thems fightin words, only joking ;)

    see this thread could go on for ever!

    CLOSE IT!


  • Advertisement
  • #552
    trapsagenius
    Closed Accounts Posts: 410 ✭✭trapsagenius


    Mike 1972 wrote: »
    1) "When" ?????
    2) What about before then ?

    1.You're only fooling yourself if you think that there will never be a nationalist majority in NI in the future.

    2.Before than, I suppose we'll have to continue with the status quo, won't we?


  • #553
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Wolfe Tone


    lugha wrote: »
    Right, so Pearse and the lads disregarded the will of the Irish people and took it upon themselves to act on their behalf, without their consent ... so that the English could no longer disregard the will of the Irish people and take it upon themselves to act on their behalf without their consent. :confused::confused:
    Can you honestly say that you have no reservations at all about Pearse? Or are you happy with the argument that the end justified the means?
    Kind of. I like Pearse.


    History proved them right, they can be viewed as the necessary third party so to speak.


  • #554
    Mike 1972
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,017 ✭✭✭Mike 1972


    trapsagenius wrote: »
    You're only fooling yourself if you think that there will never be a nationalist majority in NI in the future.

    Youre only fooling yourself if you regard it as a certainty and fooling yourself more if you regard it as imminent.
    trapsagenius wrote: »
    Before than, I suppose we'll have to continue with the status quo, won't we?
    Respecting the democratic will of the people ? How very gracious !


  • #555
    lugha
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,235 ✭✭✭lugha


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    What compromises would lead you to accept permanent partition?

    Well that's just the thing. Nationalists (and I included unionists in a broader understanding of nationalism) don't really reason logically. For nationalists, partition is the problem and a UI is the solution. And all arguments must be devised to lead to that solution. And ditto with unionists retaining the link with GB.


  • #556
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,865 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    MUSSOLINI wrote: »
    A federal republic would give unionists much the same power as they have now, but satisfy many nationalists demands.
    Nicely avoided, but I'd prefer an actual answer.


  • #557
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    MUSSOLINI wrote: »
    A federal republic would give unionists much the same power as they have now, but satisfy many nationalists demands.
    You haven't answered his question.


  • #558
    trapsagenius
    Closed Accounts Posts: 410 ✭✭trapsagenius


    Mike 1972 wrote: »
    Youre only fooling yourself if you regard it as a certainty and fooling yourself more if you regard it as imminent.

    It is highly likely, especially if the nationalist parties continue their upward trajectory in the next few elections.SF are the largest party in NI at the moment after all.;)

    I don't think that it is "imminent" though.


  • #559
    lugha
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,235 ✭✭✭lugha


    MUSSOLINI wrote: »
    Kind of. I like Pearse.


    History proved them right

    Ah, but that takes me back to the question that all republican apologists posting here consistently avoid. Why can't the same reasoning be applied to dissident republicans? Maybe history will prove them right too? If you allow groups to disregard the will of the people on the basis that future generations might prove them right, then that is a licence for anarchy.


  • #560
    trapsagenius
    Closed Accounts Posts: 410 ✭✭trapsagenius


    Mike 1972 wrote: »

    Respecting the democratic will of the people ? How very gracious !

    No bother.Let's hope the unionists will do the same.


  • #561
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,865 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    lugha wrote: »
    Well that's just the thing. Nationalists (and I included unionists in a broader understanding of nationalism) don't really reason logically. For nationalists, partition is the problem and a UI is the solution. And all arguments must be devised to lead to that solution. And ditto with unionists retaining the link with GB.
    Well, yeah, but I was hoping to lead Mussolini there through a Socratic process. ;)


  • Advertisement
  • #562
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Wolfe Tone


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Nicely avoided, but I'd prefer an actual answer.
    I would be willing to think about some sort of joint head of state and governance.


    But I feel that a federal republic is a good compromise.

    Fancy a cup of poison oscarbravo? Although you will not be easily replaced....


  • #563
    karma_
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,797 ✭✭✭karma_


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    What compromises would lead you to accept permanent partition?

    The compromise I make is I am happy to stay part of the union as long as the majority of people in the North desire it. In return I expect that should the majority wish to join with the rest of Ireland it be granted.


  • #564
    trapsagenius
    Closed Accounts Posts: 410 ✭✭trapsagenius


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    What compromises would lead you to accept permanent partition?

    For as long as the majority in NI want to remain part of the UK I will respect that decision, even though I do not agree with it.

    Edit:Beat me to it Karma!


  • #565
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,865 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    MUSSOLINI wrote: »
    I would be willing to think about some sort of joint head of state and governance.
    We had those prior to 1922.


  • #566
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Wolfe Tone


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    We had those prior to 1922.
    Just for ulster.


    And I wanted a high 5 for my Socrates reference.... boooo!


    Trap and karmas compromise is good also.


  • #567
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,865 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    MUSSOLINI wrote: »
    Just for ulster.
    No; for all of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. One head of state; one government.


  • #568
    Mike 1972
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,017 ✭✭✭Mike 1972


    trapsagenius wrote: »
    SF are the largest party in NI at the moment after all.

    Possibly but thats not the same as having an outright majority
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    No; for all of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. One head of state; one government.
    And a home rule bill

    Not the sacred cow Republic they were after of course but then again neither was the Free state.


  • #569
    trapsagenius
    Closed Accounts Posts: 410 ✭✭trapsagenius


    Mike 1972 wrote: »
    Possibly but thats not the same as having an outright majority

    Just using it as an example of how the nationalist vote has climbed.


  • #570
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Wolfe Tone


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    No; for all of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. One head of state; one government.
    ? Why would I want that? I meant just for Ulster would be my compromise that I would think about, ie joint between king and queen, within a federal republic.


    Basically just have the queen involved somehow.


  • Advertisement
  • #571
    Mike 1972
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,017 ✭✭✭Mike 1972


    trapsagenius wrote: »
    Just using it as an example of how the nationalist vote has climbed.

    and/or how the Unionist vote has fragmented.

    Still we cant assume that electoral trends are always continuous or irreversible


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement
Advertisement