Referendum for Irish Unity 2022

getzls wrote: »

And the Irish courts.:cool:

Apart from that nothing will EVER happen to make the Unionist people of Northern Ireland want to join that banana Republic.

I and many others were prepared to die before and many did to prevent it.

Little has changed in my way of thinking.

Yes, this eyes wide shut approach is why unionists have their famed reputation for intransigence and stubborn stupidity the world over.
Be honest with yourself: your 'way of thinking' isn't open to being changed, no matter what the realpolitik nor the mode of persuasion. Your frozen 'way of thinking' is all you have left of your once vibrant culture. The days of innovative industry are long gone, the religion is of no interest to the youth, the cultural expression is reduced to triumphalist marching. Your brightest and best have been emigrating forever, a good few to the Republic in recent times I note.
It's for this reason I feel enormous pity for unionists. To me they are reminiscent of the large mammals which died out at the onset of the ice age, incapable of adapting in time to changing circumstance.

getzls wrote: »

Apart from that nothing will EVER happen to make the Unionist people of Northern Ireland want to join that banana Republic.

Except that it doesn't really matter what they'd think ultimately in the face of a majority vote for unification.

I don't think the English would be shedding too many tears either to be rid of the problem. In fact, they'd probably support a UI with gusto.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Be honest with yourself: your 'way of thinking' isn't open to being changed, no matter what the realpolitik nor the mode of persuasion.

Out of curiosity, what would it take to persuade you to abandon the goal of a united Ireland?

oscarBravo wrote: »

Out of curiosity, what would it take to persuade you to abandon the goal of a united Ireland?

I'm always open to persuasion by circumstance. If it could be demonstrated that partitioning a tiny island of only 7 million people economically and politically made sense, then I'd like to hear that argument. However, I've never lived in circumstances where that argument held any water.
For me the issue of unifying Ireland is a secondary matter in any case. The primary issue is that the ongoing colonial throwback of occupying other people's countries is an anachronism in the modern world and one that holds back the constructive redevelopment on all relationships within this archipelago.
In other words, I see the reconstruction of relationships WITHIN Ireland and WITHIN Britain as more important, but I have never yet been introduced to an argument which demonstrated how partitioning this nation makes any sense.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

The primary issue is that the ongoing colonial throwback of occupying other people's countries is an anachronism in the modern world and one that holds back the constructive redevelopment on all relationships within this archipelago.

What would it take to persuade you that Northern Ireland isn't a colony or occupied, and is in fact an integral part of the United Kingdom?

oscarBravo wrote: »

What would it take to persuade you that Northern Ireland isn't a colony or occupied, and is in fact an integral part of the United Kingdom?

The question lacks coherence and is loaded. NI is only part of the United Kingdom because it is a gerrymandered occupied colony. When it ceases to be an occupied colony it will simultaneously cease to be part of the UK.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

The question lacks coherence and is loaded. NI is only part of the United Kingdom because it is a gerrymandered occupied colony. When it ceases to be an occupied colony it will simultaneously cease to be part of the UK.

I guess that's as close to an answer as I'm likely to get. The reason I asked - as I suspect you realise - is that it strikes me as ironic that someone who will never, ever change his 'way of thinking' about Northern Ireland as an 'occupied colony' should lecture a unionist about the intransigence of his worldview.

oscarBravo wrote: »

I guess that's as close to an answer as I'm likely to get. The reason I asked - as I suspect you realise - is that it strikes me as ironic that someone who will never, ever change his 'way of thinking' about Northern Ireland as an 'occupied colony' should lecture a unionist about the intransigence of his worldview.

Should I change my mind about the sky being blue or about the force of gravity? British occupation in Ireland is a fact. It's not a negotiable opinion, open to persuasion to a different point of view. I don't have a 'way of thinking' about it. I'm simply recognising the reality. There is no irony here, merely a dubious attempt on your part to equate opinion with fact. They're not actually the same.
I have an opinion on the desirability about unifying Ireland, which a Unionist's opinion may dispute. The colonial occupational nature of Britain in Ireland is factual, however, unless you intend to indulge in Jonbar points and alternate history.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

British occupation in Ireland is a fact.

No, it's not.

Now, we could do the pantomime "oh yes it is" back and forth, but you've espoused something as indisputably true when it's quite simply not an objective fact, no matter how desperately you want it to be.

I've pointed out the irony. You can continue to beg the question to your heart's content, and you will doubtless continue to receive "thanks" from people who share your worldview, but the irony remains visible to anyone who doesn't.

oscarBravo wrote: »

No, it's not.

Now, we could do the pantomime "oh yes it is" back and forth, but you've espoused something as indisputably true when it's quite simply not an objective fact, no matter how desperately you want it to be.

This should be entertaining. Show us the evidence that demonstrates how the North of Ireland is NOT a colony please.

oscarBravo wrote: »

What would it take to persuade you that Northern Ireland isn't a colony or occupied, and is in fact an integral part of the United Kingdom?

Integral? Is this what you believe?

On Wednesday 15 December 1993, the Joint Declaration on Peace (more commonly known as the Downing Street Declaration) was issued by John Major, then Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, and Albert Reynolds, then Taoiseach (Prime Minister of the Republic of Ireland), on behalf of the British and Irish governments. This included statements that:

The British government had no "selfish strategic or economic" interest in Northern Ireland. This statement would lead, eventually, to the repeal of the Government of Ireland Act 1920.

Wiki

I'm not sure about how you'd define integral but the sentence I've italicised for your benefit above shows how much the British think the north is 'integral' to the UK.

Ah, Chuck. I wanted to be the one to bring that little gem to light.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

This should be entertaining. Show us the evidence that demonstrates how the North of Ireland is NOT a colony please.

http://www.un.org/en/decolonization/nonselfgovterritories.shtml

Show us the evidence that demonstrates how Northern Ireland IS a colony please.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I'm not sure about how you'd define integral...

Outside of Irish republican self-delusion, it's pretty self-evident that Northern Ireland is an integral part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The clue is in the name.

oscarBravo wrote: »

http://www.un.org/en/decolonization/nonselfgovterritories.shtml

I see no relevance.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Show us the evidence that demonstrates how Northern Ireland IS a colony please.

Knock yourself out.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Outside of Irish republican self-delusion, it's pretty self-evident that Northern Ireland is an integral part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The clue is in the name.

The name that makes a clear distinction between integral Great Britain and its colonial entity, you mean?

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I see no relevance.

Of course you don't see the relevance of a list of colonies published by the United Nations body whose responsibility is the elimination of all remaining colonies in the world. If it doesn't support your argument, it must automatically be irrelevant.

You do realise you're doing a beautiful job of illustrating my original point about irony, right?

Knock yourself out.

Asking the person you're arguing with to dig up evidence to support your side of the argument is pretty pathetic, frankly.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

The name that makes a clear distinction between integral Great Britain and its colonial entity, you mean?

I'll grant you this much: that was an extremely skillful goalpost-moving exercise. I start of talking about "an integral part of the United Kingdom", and - because you can't argue against the utterly self-evident fact that Northern Ireland is an integral part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, you cleverly start talking about "integral Great Britain" instead, which wasn't the topic under discussion.

But my point remains: you're completely, totally and utterly incapable of wrapping your head around the idea that Northern Ireland isn't an occupied colony. Which is fine: everyone's entitled to be obsessively wrong about one thing or another. But the irony of you thumbing your nose at someone else - worse, at everyone who holds an opposing political philosophy - on the grounds that they are intransigent in their world view continues to be amusing.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Outside of Irish republican self-delusion, it's pretty self-evident that Northern Ireland is an integral part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The clue is in the name.

So you're essentially presenting words written on a page in a vain attempt to make the argument that the north is self-evidently an integral part of the UK?

Stunning use of logic.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Of course you don't see the relevance of a list of colonies published by the United Nations body whose responsibility is the elimination of all remaining colonies in the world. If it doesn't support your argument, it must automatically be irrelevant.

Except, and once again we find you in denial of reality here, that's not a list of colonies.

oscarBravo wrote: »

You do realise you're doing a beautiful job of illustrating my original point about irony, right? Asking the person you're arguing with to dig up evidence to support your side of the argument is pretty pathetic, frankly.

I didn't ask you to dig up any evidence. The colonisation of Ulster is so well-known a fact that the first page (of tens of millions of references) of that google search provides detailed discussion and analysis of it by, among others, the BBC. I provided you with that search to show you the extent of how ridiculous you are being by attempting to assert that Ulster is not a colony.

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'll grant you this much: that was an extremely skillful goalpost-moving exercise. I start of talking about "an integral part of the United Kingdom", and - because you can't argue against the utterly self-evident fact that Northern Ireland is an integral part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, you cleverly start talking about "integral Great Britain" instead, which wasn't the topic under discussion.

It's hardly clever of me. I didn't name the place after all. It's not me who makes the distinction between Britain and it's Irish holdings. Clearly, since in the eyes of the governing body they are of a different order, they must be different and hence not integral.

oscarBravo wrote: »

But my point remains: you're completely, totally and utterly incapable of wrapping your head around the idea that Northern Ireland isn't an occupied colony. Which is fine: everyone's entitled to be obsessively wrong about one thing or another. But the irony of you thumbing your nose at someone else - worse, at everyone who holds an opposing political philosophy - on the grounds that they are intransigent in their world view continues to be amusing.

You're still (deliberately) confusing fact with opinion, because the fact doesn't suit your opinion. That's what's both ironic and amusing here.

philologos

CelticDragon7 wrote: »

Whether you would vote Yes or No in any such referendum, would you support that there should be a referendum on the issue of Irish unity some time in 2022?

(2022 would be 100 years on from the effective ratification of the Anglo-Irish Treaty in 1922 and so really the defining moment for permanent partition and so surely the people voting 100 years later could settle the issue for the foreseeable future one way or the other).

So basically a Yes or No answer but of course feel free to air your views and stimulate debate!

Thanks!

No I wouldn't. I suspect most of Northern Ireland wouldn't ergo I wouldn't.

oscarBravo wrote: »

the utterly self-evident fact that Northern Ireland is an integral part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Repeating the mantra that 'it's self-evident' does not make what comes after it a fact.

Again, the British conceded they'd no selfish strategic or economic interest in NI. That's not what you'd say about something you believed was integral to you.

The north is about as integral to Britain as a gangrenous 6th toe to a foot.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

So you're essentially presenting words written on a page in a vain attempt to make the argument that the north is self-evidently an integral part of the UK?

Stunning use of logic.

I get it. I do. I'm saying something that you can't allow your brain to understand, because it goes against everything you believe.

You'll have to take my word for this: people who don't have a vested interest in remaining convinced that Northern Ireland is an occupied colony are able to understand my point. It's absolutely fine that you can't understand it, because - to quote someone whose posts you've thanked in this thread - your 'way of thinking' isn't open to being changed.

Which is my entire point, no matter how hard you and he work at not getting it.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Except, and once again we find you in denial of reality here, that's not a list of colonies.

No? And yet, that's the list that the UN's decolonization committee is working on.

Given your absolute certainty that Northern Ireland is an occupied colony, can you venture an explanation as to why the UN hasn't noticed?

I didn't ask you to dig up any evidence. The colonisation of Ulster is so well-known a fact that the first page (of tens of millions of references) of that google search provides detailed discussion and analysis of it by, among others, the BBC. I provided you with that search to show you the extent of how ridiculous you are being by attempting to assert that Ulster is not a colony.

And yet, I'm capable of distinguishing the separate concepts of "the colonisation of Ulster" and "Northern Ireland is an occupied colony".

For example, I could suggest that you search Google for "colonization of America", and you will find a great deal of interesting historical analysis of that subject. That doesn't mean that America is a colony.

Before you segue down another irrelevant tangent, I'm not claiming that Northern Ireland isn't a colony for the same reason that America isn't a colony; I'm merely pointing out that your smart-assed "google it" answer wasn't the master stroke you seemed to think it was.

It's hardly clever of me. I didn't name the place after all. It's not me who makes the distinction between Britain and it's Irish holdings. Clearly, since in the eyes of the governing body they are of a different order, they must be different and hence not integral.

By which logic, Tobago is an occupied colony of Trinidad. After all, if it was an integral part of the republic, it would be called...

Wait, what would it be called? I can't follow this "logic" at all.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

The north is about as integral to Britain as a gangrenous 6th toe to a foot.

Who claimed that Northern Ireland was integral to Britain?