Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Referendum for Irish Unity 2022

1…78101213…17

Comments

  • #272
    Ambient Occlusion
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 122 ✭✭Ambient Occlusion


    Should there even be a referendum for full Irish unity? If Irish unity were to ever happen, I imagine it would happen in steps as Mick himself envisaged. There will never be a wholesale jump to unity without utter chaos, chaos verging on outright civil war.
    It'd have to move from economic union to political confederation and then to total union. I expect though that it is an inevitability that union will eventually be realised.
    Ironically the greatest barrier to a united ireland are the Irish republicans themselves

    I agree wholeheartedly with this statement. The Republican paramilitaries are nothing but petty criminals and an embarrassment at this point. They're only doing their own cause harm because they're pretty much scum at this point. The only war that matters in the search for a United Ireland is the propaganda war. The masses need to see truly that the Republicans have moved on from violence. Those groups like the RIRA, the CIRA and the like are a bunch of imbeciles. Can't they see that if they laid down their arms and let the militant loyalists to it that they popularise? Any way, since the PSNI is pretty much impartial these days the idea of the IRA as a whole is a bit redundant isn't it?
    The first step towards a United Ireland is for those gob****es to step down an admit that they're wrong.


  • #273
    Chuck Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,030 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    Ambient Occlusion wrote: »
    I agree wholeheartedly with this statement. The Republican paramilitaries are nothing but petty criminals and an embarrassment at this point. They're only doing their own cause harm because they're pretty much scum at this point. The only war that matters in the search for a United Ireland is the propaganda war. The masses need to see truly that the Republicans have moved on from violence. Those groups like the RIRA, the CIRA and the like are a bunch of imbeciles. Can't they see that if they laid down their arms and let the militant loyalists to it that they popularise? Any way, since the PSNI is pretty much impartial these days the idea of the IRA as a whole is a bit redundant isn't it?
    The first step towards a United Ireland is for those gob****es to step down an admit that they're wrong.

    You're conflating the aspiration to an 32 county Republic with physical force Republicanism, or as it is these days, 'gangsterism wrapped in a flag'.


  • #274
    junder
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,706 ✭✭✭junder


    Happyman42 wrote: »

    Every time Unionism digs a trench they are over run and end up haing to give in and get used to it, if they don't get real soon and start offering something other than the past - an identity for 21st century in a new Ireland, a UI might be your only option.

    I have an idenity for the 21st century thanks, but what that has to do with this fantasy 'new Ireland' you keep wittering on about is beyound me. Quick geography lesson for you there is this island of the western coast of Britain that encompasses two international recognised but sepperate country's, you may of heart of them, one is the Republic of Ireland the other is called Northern Ireland. 'New Ireland' is not part of this landmass but instead is an island that is part of papa New Guinea, of which I have no connection to and have no reason redefine my idenity to be part of


  • #275
    T runner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,307 ✭✭✭T runner


    junder wrote: »
    I have an idenity for the 21st century thanks, but what that has to do with this fantasy 'new Ireland' you keep wittering on about is beyound me. Quick geography lesson for you there is this island of the western coast of Britain that encompasses two international recognised but sepperate country's, you may of heart of them, one is the Republic of Ireland the other is called Northern Ireland. 'New Ireland' is not part of this landmass but instead is an island that is part of papa New Guinea, of which I have no connection to and have no reason redefine my idenity to be part of

    Ireland would be defined as an Island off the NW coast of Europe.

    You could define it as part of an archipelago for detail, but the important description in a geographical sense is its proximity to its geographical continent Europe.

    Its proximity to Britain (13th largest Island in the world vs 20th largest) is not useful geographically.

    The problems of living on one Island and having the political loyalty to its neighbour can be hard to rationalise. British and Unionists have often tried to rationalise this through distorting geography. Thatcher and the Daily mirror politicised the term "British Isles" using it to rationalise British hostorical and present political and military presence in Ireland saying its name meant that the inhabitants were British. For this reason the International community generally dont use this term anymore as its geographical use has been compromised and twisted.

    By the way the 2 states on this Island are called Ireland and (part of) the UK.

    In the purely geographical sense all the inhabitants of this Island are Irish, as all inhabitants of Cyprus are Cypriots.

    Talk geography by all means, but remember geographically you are Irish, and no amount of wriggling will turn any part of Ireland into Britain in the geographical sense.


  • #276
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    junder wrote: »
    I have an idenity for the 21st century thanks, but what that has to do with this fantasy 'new Ireland' you keep wittering on about is beyound me. Quick geography lesson for you there is this island of the western coast of Britain that encompasses two international recognised but sepperate country's, you may of heart of them, one is the Republic of Ireland the other is called Northern Ireland. 'New Ireland' is not part of this landmass but instead is an island that is part of papa New Guinea, of which I have no connection to and have no reason redefine my idenity to be part of

    If we ever needed the 'head in the sand' mentality more clearly demonstrated here it is ^
    You cannot define yourself except in relation to Britain, you refuse to counternace the absolute reality that the only way forward...the only way to live in peace, was to make the solution an 'all Ireland' one. Therefore it is a 'new Ireland', the 'republic' is just as involved in your future as the British. The British have abdicated Junder, the future is up to us - 'the population of this island' to decide the future. Those of us who want a future, that is. The past has it's place and must be respected but it is 'the past'.


  • Advertisement
  • #277
    The Pheasant
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 372 ✭✭The Pheasant


    Could we get a poll on this thread?


  • #278
    T runner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,307 ✭✭✭T runner


    KeithAFCGhost. wrote: »
    The fallacy of the argument you present falls apart when you say the origin of the problem. Its just a nonsense to make a argument for a United Ireland because of a plantation which happened over 400 years ago. There comes a point when you will need to get over that. It has happened in many other countries like the United States. To try and make a argument based on that point makes it a weak argument.

    Perhaps Unionism needs to get over that. Anti-Catholicism in Ulster has not abated from that day to this.

    This point that you can only be Irish if you advocate a United Ireland is again wrong. You will see many Ulster Loyalist flags like the YCV banner which has shamrocks on it. They don't need to be in a United Ireland to express any sort of Irish identity they wish to express.

    Why can't they express Irishness in the United Kingdom like a Welshman or Scotsman?

    But Loyalism despises Irishness. There are so many examples of this as to make it undeniable. Its the last thing they would call themselves.

    Also Scots, Welsh, English identity is covered by the nationality British. Why Arent the peole of this Island recognised in UK identity?
    The State is called the UK of Britain and Ireland.
    You CANNOT be officially recognised as IRISH in your UK identity. Loyalists know this and would most likely riot if it was amended.

    You completely ignore the role the normal Irish person played in the British Empire. The saying is the British Empire was won by the Irish. You try to exagerrate the role of the Empire on the Island almost like that of Poland in the 1930s and 1940s. That just wasn't the case. If anything, Dublin was known as a cradle in the Empire.

    Imperial powers always recruit their armies from their colonies. Its usually the liveable paid work going in a colony. At the end of the Roamn Empire there were more Germans in the ranks than Romans. It means nothing its just how empires operate.
    During the 1916 rising, instead of the men coming out of the GPO to cheers, they got spat on and hounded and actually the complete opposite to what some Republicans would like you to believe. It was actually bad errors by the British Army which turned the tide and gathered support for the 1916 rebels.

    That was a report from the Irish times which was the Irish Unionist newspaper of the day. A few women spat at them because their pensions was delayed. That doesn't mean Dublin was against them: The entire Dublin Citizen army turned out for freedom. That was working class Dublin. The vast majority of Irish MPs were for more seperation from Britain at the time. The Brits doing their usual murder and torture of civilians during Irish uprisings reminded people that they were still occupied and of the fundamental racist nature of that army. The executions ordered by the local dictator (Lord Liutenant, dictator is accurate) reminded people that the British did not understand us, and that they were very wrong after all these centuries to act the colonial master putting down the rebel Irish dogs.

    They disagree with it ideologically and culturally. They are perfectly happy enough within the Union. They have good reason to fear many aspects of a United Ireland. Protecting the culture and heritage they have and the well being of their own people is the top priority.

    Unionists could secure any settlement they wanted in a United Ireland now, (and they could have in 1921 to be honest.) What have they to fear and what are these good reasons?

    Problem with this is?

    It is sectarian and undemocratic. Never did the Unionists try to explain to their Catholic countrymen their fears or worries. They were Catholics and did not deserve even to be spoken too. This sectarian motivation at the root of this position was born out by the state sectarianism in NI. The language of Unionist politicians in NI was sectarian from the start.

    And hundreds of years after the rest of Europe have copped on. Ulster loyalists are still spreading this hatred, the language of sectarian hatred is still learnt by loyalist youths.

    If Loyalists start another cycle of sectraian violence (as nearly ahppenned overt their flags issue) then id be in favour of suspending the GFA and imposing joint rule.

    If Unionism can remove sectarianism from their culture and argue strongly to remain in the Union without the underlying anti-Catholic bull, then they will be taken more seriously. Otherwise people will correctly suspect that ant-Catholicism and anti-Irishness is really whats at the root of their Loyalism.

    Irrelevant because the English would have no say in a border poll. England used to be a great nation. It now has many major problems like immigration, erosion of English culture and many other problems. They should not throw stones in glass houses.

    The UK technically does have a democratic say in that the parliament must ratify any change.

    England was a great country for the aristocracy, colonialists, and rich. The poor although they fared better than in the colonies had it pretty rough.

    If you remove the cheap goods and unfair tariffs that England took and imposed on its colonies then it ceases to become so great.

    That said i love English people and their liberalness, fairness, wit and intelligent humour.

    The conservative ideologies North and South of our border should take note.


  • #279
    Ambient Occlusion
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 122 ✭✭Ambient Occlusion


    Aren't voting rates for the nationalist community in the north typically much lower than unionist turnouts? Wouldn't that mean that there'd have to be a significant majority nationalist population before a border poll is even considered? I can't imagine a substantial "no" vote would reflect well on a UI movement.


  • #280
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Ambient Occlusion wrote: »
    Aren't voting rates for the nationalist community in the north typically much lower than unionist turnouts? Wouldn't that mean that there'd have to be a significant majority nationalist population before a border poll is even considered? I can't imagine a substantial "no" vote would reflect well on a UI movement.
    It would kill it for the forseeable.


  • #281
    Mr Cumulonimbus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,463 ✭✭✭Mr Cumulonimbus


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    The fact that you don't think a law should have been passed doesn't mean it wasn't passed. The fact that a law was passed by means of bribery and corruption doesn't make it not a law. The Act of Union changed the political status of Ireland, and made it an integral part of the United Kingdom.

    It's a fact the Act of Union occurred, but why do you think that Ireland specifically ceased to be a colony with the passing of this Act? As I've said already the majority of the population of the island had no representation in an Irish parliament that passed this act as they were banned from sitting in it due to being Catholics, regardless what social class they came from.


  • Advertisement
  • #282
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,850 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »
    It's a fact the Act of Union occurred, but why do you think that Ireland specifically ceased to be a colony with the passing of this Act?
    Because Ireland became part of a single country called "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" as a result of its enactment.
    As I've said already the majority of the population of the island had no representation in an Irish parliament that passed this act as they were banned from sitting in it due to being Catholics, regardless what social class they came from.
    You seem to be operating under the rather bizarre assumption that I think the Act of Union was a noble or admirable thing to have happened, or that I believe that the United Kingdom that it formed was a wonderful place for everyone in it. I'm going to assume that you're operating on that assumption because it's easier than trying to understand my point.

    My point, for the umpteenth time, is that Northern Ireland isn't an occupied colony. The argument that because it was colonised once it must therefore still be a colony, irrespective of anything that may have changed that status (and conveniently ignoring anything that actually did change that status just because you would rather it hadn't happened) is - to be kind - specious. It's the sort of argument that's trotted out by someone who is incapable of changing his way of thinking, which is ironic when the same person accuses someone else of being incapable of changing his way of thinking, which is my actual point. For the umpteenth time.

    Riddle me this: is Scotland an occupied colony?


  • #283
    Paramite Pie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,312 ✭✭✭Paramite Pie


    Cavehill Red wrote: »
    Personally, I'm of the view the capital should be Tara, as it was historically.

    Tara is a protected historical site. We do not need anyone building parliament buildings there!

    Also we no longer have a High King (a symbolic role anyways) so Tara is irrelevant in a political sense.
    gallag wrote: »
    The united kingdom of great Britain and Ireland is the future. A United ireland back within the UK, Ireland would have its own parliament just like wales and Scotland.

    We don't identify with the UK identity and have no desire to re-enter the United Kingdom. We already have a parliament (for all the good it done)..

    I'm personally satisfied with the statis quo, I have Irish 'Catholic' friends (some are actually atheist, one is devout) in NI who are content to be in the United Kingdom.
    Cavehill Red wrote: »
    We will never be able to commence a truly genuine relationship with Britain UNTIL they cease occupying a quarter of our national territory. That's the truth of it. Of course, they know that and would be happy to implement it. The sticking point remains the settler population's intransigence.
    :rolleyes:
    We have a perfectly genuine relationship with the UK. And there are no settlers in NI, they were born and lived there for hundreds of years.
    Aughrim1691. wrote: »
    I would vote No. Ulster will stay within the Union for the foreseeable. Federalism is a big no also. I'd be voting to preserve a way of life for my people and that is as important as any line on a map. Voting for the land and the sacred place it has for all Ulster Protestants.

    The land has a sacred place for both communities, hence the bloodshed among the more extreme people in NI. The problem is that both claims by both communities are equally strong and equally valid.
    Aughrim1691. wrote: »
    I would never vote for it and the vast majority of Ulster Protestants would be the same because it goes against everything we are. It tries to set up a one identity/nationality. It sets up big government from Dublin over us, and it could harm our institutions.

    Ireland is a multicultural country nowadays, we don't push one identity. We're not the homogenous society we once were. Your concerns about your institutions are valid though.
    Aughrim1691. wrote: »
    Then you have the symbolism problem which is the Tri colour would be representing the whole Island. So any time the President or Taoiseach goes abroad, he would be represented under the Tri colour. Completely neglecting a very proud people in Ulster who do not associate themselves with that flag at all.

    Well the orange on the flag is supposed to represent ye guys but the IRA have understandably tarnished that. Do you feel represented by Cameron? Do people in Whales or Scotland?

    Also in the unlikely scenario of a united Ireland ye would have a vote for the President/Taoiseach.
    Aughrim1691. wrote: »
    Also radicalism politics would finish. The likes of Sinn Fein and the DUP would be over. They would serve no other common purpose. You would have the elite politicians in the south telling us up here what to do because the majority down south would always win in a vote.

    End of radicalism is a good thing, no? the DUP/UUP would reinvent themselves as parties that push for your communities voice within Dublin (or Belfast as a new capital:P)
    Aughrim1691. wrote: »
    Bad government comes from too much government. You are looking to completely change the fabric of society in a position on the Island which is just different from the rest and I think that should be accepted.

    The problem is that not everyone in Ulster feels that way. But I do sympathise, I do personally feel it's wrong to push ye guys into our country but it was also wrong for us to be pushed into the United Kingdom.
    Aughrim1691. wrote: »
    The ironic thing is Republicans talk about radical politics but a United Ireland is not radical in the sense that it would be elitist more than ever. The idea that you could form a Socialist Irish Republic with the center of it being controlled from Dublin is not realistic and would not happen.

    Socialist? That term is rarely used down here, and only by Shinners. They only got 8.6% of the National vote in our last elections. Most people down here do not call themselves nationalist/republican even if they'd love to see a united Ireland.
    Aughrim1691. wrote: »
    And then you have the police. Do you disband the Garda? Are you going to merge the Garda with the PSNI? Would Garda be policing Protestant areas given the potential hostility?

    A merge would likely have a different title and whoever currently works in the PSNI would continue to work under their new name I'd imagine.
    Aughrim1691. wrote: »
    National flag: The national flag is defined as "the tricolour of green, white and orange" (Article 7).

    How would you go about changing that?

    Public referendum is how we change our constitution. You'd be surprised how many people would be willing to change our flag for a united Ireland.
    kidneyfan wrote: »
    Really if the south wants a united Ireland (without interminable terrorism) the below is little enough to ask.
    No downside really.
    Make Donegal Irish the standard in schools.

    Why Donegal Irish? Each school teaches the local dialects as far as I know. (Leinster has no local dialect so they use the 'standardised' Connaught one, so they can adopt Donegal Irish if they want)

    For Leaving Cert, our listening exam includes all three dialects in the interest of fairness, and your oral exam *giggle* is in the local dialect also. No need for change there.

    Why don't ye Unionists try Scots Gaelic? Lovely language. Would be right up yer alley.;)
    kidneyfan wrote: »
    The postcode system is a good idea anyway and the royals have to keep some role. A new national anthem is a good idea anyway because the one yous have is rubbish. Commonwealth you get the commonwealth games

    We'll take your postcode system if you take our car license plates (can't figure yours out). Royals can keep existing titles involving NI. We'll meet in the middle and change our anthem into Donegal Irish!! kidding:P

    How about a new song about Cuchulain or something, and I'm fine with the Commonwealth.
    kidneyfan wrote: »
    I'd have no problem with a United Ireland. But
    1 Ulster is special and better that has to be recognised
    2 What's the point
    3 Why not just repartition
    4 Why bother

    1. Special yes, constitutional protection yes, minority status yes, but how is it 'better'... does that mean we're 'worse'? how?

    2. Join us and find out! We're lovely, honest.

    3. Repartition is messy....

    4. Our cheese and onion tayto tastes better than yours according to my friends up North! That alone is worth it.:P


  • #284
    GRMA
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,417 ✭✭✭GRMA


    Oscar your logic here doesn't stack up, you say Ireland stopped being a colony after the act of union - yet also acknowledge that it was passed illegitimately because of bribery and threats, a historic fact. It was also illegal under British law (if its your bag to respect colonial laws) because the Irish parliament could not vote itself out of existence - they broke their own rules. They also broke their own rules when they (Pitt) illegally diverted secret service funds in order to get papers to publish stuff in favour of the union. Thats leaving out the fact that it was in no way a parliament representative of the Irish people, the vast majority could not sit in it and those who could vote had their votes controlled by their landlords(this only ended really with O'Connell).

    This was in 1803, 5 years after a country-wide mass rebellion of huge proportion with members of all hues.

    Yet this illigitimate law passed by a unrepresentative parliament marks Ireland ceasing to be a colony?

    Surely Ireland, if anything, was more of a colony after what little independence it had was removed?


  • #285
    Mr Cumulonimbus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,463 ✭✭✭Mr Cumulonimbus


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Because Ireland became part of a single country called "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" as a result of its enactment.

    So you say. But for arguments sake, lets give this parliament the benefit of the doubt for a second. In 1782 the Irish parliament achieved a measure of legislative independence (the era of Grattan's parliament) from GB. Why do you think Ireland was a colony in this period before the Act of Union even though a limited measure of independence was present before 1801, but definitely not after?
    You seem to be operating under the rather bizarre assumption that I think the Act of Union was a noble or admirable thing to have happened, or that I believe that the United Kingdom that it formed was a wonderful place for everyone in it. I'm going to assume that you're operating on that assumption because it's easier than trying to understand my point.

    No. BTW you won't offend me if you want to advance that argument!

    Seriously though, I don't think that's a direct response to my point about the how that Irish parliament didn't represent the majority of the population. Where was the popular input to give it even a shred of legitimacy even allowing for at the time that parliamentary representation was exclusively based on class, property ownership, title etc? If you were Catholic, no input. Period.

    My point, for the umpteenth time, is that Northern Ireland isn't an occupied colony. The argument that because it was colonised once it must therefore still be a colony, irrespective of anything that may have changed that status (and conveniently ignoring anything that actually did change that status just because you would rather it hadn't happened) is - to be kind - specious. It's the sort of argument that's trotted out by someone who is incapable of changing his way of thinking, which is ironic when the same person accuses someone else of being incapable of changing his way of thinking, which is my actual point. For the umpteenth time.

    I wasn't discussing NI with you.
    Riddle me this: is Scotland an occupied colony?

    Is this in relation to NI, the island of Ireland or what? Define what you mean as an "occupied colony"?


  • #286
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,850 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    GRMA wrote: »
    Oscar your logic here doesn't stack up, you say Ireland stopped being a colony after the act of union - yet also acknowledge that it was passed illegitimately because of bribery and threats, a historic fact.
    I didn't say it was illegitimate. I acknowledged that there was underhandedness involved in its passage; hardly unprecedented, and certainly not the last example of a law being passed under dubious circumstances.

    But you're still continuing to mix up the completely different ideas of a law that you believe shouldn't have been passed with one that wasn't. You don't have to like the process by which the bank guarantee was introduced by the previous government, or how IBRC was wound down by the current one - but that distaste doesn't make those acts illegal or illegitimate.
    It was also illegal under British law...
    Something is illegal when it has been demonstrated to be in breach of an existing law, preferably in a competent court.

    Can you explain what specific law (not "rule") was broken? What court determined this illegality, and why is the Act still on the books if it's illegal?
    Surely Ireland, if anything, was more of a colony after what little independence it had was removed?
    Is Scotland an occupied colony?


  • #287
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,850 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »
    So you say. But for arguments sake, lets give this parliament the benefit of the doubt for a second. In 1782 the Irish parliament achieved a measure of legislative independence (the era of Grattan's parliament) from GB. Why do you think Ireland was a colony in this period before the Act of Union even though a limited measure of independence was present before 1801, but definitely not after?
    I'm not sure why you're having trouble grasping this concept, but what was a colony of another country was absorbed by that other country and became an integral part of that country.
    Seriously though, I don't think that's a direct response to my point about the how that Irish parliament didn't represent the majority of the population. Where was the popular input to give it even a shred of legitimacy even allowing for at the time that parliamentary representation was exclusively based on class, property ownership, title etc? If you were Catholic, no input. Period.
    You're continuing to advance the argument that because a parliament did something that you personally feel it shouldn't have done, it therefore didn't happen.

    By that argument, Iraq was never invaded.
    I wasn't discussing NI with you.
    I was discussing NI with someone else.
    Is this in relation to NI, the island of Ireland or what? Define what you mean as an "occupied colony"?
    Read the thread.


  • #288
    R P McMurphy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,129 ✭✭✭R P McMurphy


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    It would kill it for the forseeable.

    Well it would for seven years


  • #289
    Mr Cumulonimbus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,463 ✭✭✭Mr Cumulonimbus


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I'm not sure why you're having trouble grasping this concept, but what was a colony of another country was absorbed by that other country and became an integral part of that country.

    I'm not. At first glance that's what happened. But you're having trouble grasping the legitimacy of it. Also you didn't answer the question re Grattans parliament.
    You're continuing to advance the argument that because a parliament did something that you personally feel it shouldn't have done, it therefore didn't happen.

    By that argument, Iraq was never invaded.

    No I have not. I've already said the Act of Union was a fact, i.e. it happened. Likewise Iraq. Again you keep avoiding the concept of the supposed legitimacy of that act.
    I was discussing NI with someone else.

    Ok.
    Read the thread.

    I have. Why do you feel the need anyway to use comparative analysis (Scotland) when Ireland is being discussed?


  • #290
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,850 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »
    I'm not. At first glance that's what happened. But you're having trouble grasping the legitimacy of it. Also you didn't answer the question re Grattans parliament.
    I'm not talking about the legitimacy of it, because the legitimacy or otherwise doesn't change its effect. The illegitimacy of the reasons for invading Iraq doesn't mean that Iraq wasn't invaded. The legitimacy or otherwise of the Act of Union doesn't change that Ireland became an integral part of another country, and hence no longer a colony.
    No I have not. I've already said the Act of Union was a fact, i.e. it happened. Likewise Iraq. Again you keep avoiding the concept of the supposed legitimacy of that act.
    I'm not avoiding it; I'm pointing out that it's irrelevant.
    I have. Why do you feel the need anyway to use comparative analysis (Scotland) when Ireland is being discussed?
    Scotland became a part of Great Britain as a result of an Act of Union. Ireland became a part of the United Kingdom as a result of an Act of Union. If Ireland was an occupied colony, is Scotland an occupied colony?


  • #291
    Mr Cumulonimbus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,463 ✭✭✭Mr Cumulonimbus


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I'm not talking about the legitimacy of it, because the legitimacy or otherwise doesn't change its effect. The illegitimacy of the reasons for invading Iraq doesn't mean that Iraq wasn't invaded.

    Events cause effects. Why do you feel the need keep raising the idea that "illegitimacy equals it didn't happen"? Why won't you discuss the legitimacy of them?
    The legitimacy or otherwise of the Act of Union doesn't change that Ireland became an integral part of another country, and hence no longer a colony.

    Because you say so? I'll ask you again, why was Ireland a colony under Grattan's parliament from 1782 to 1800?
    I'm not avoiding it; I'm pointing out that it's irrelevant. Scotland became a part of Great Britain as a result of an Act of Union. Ireland became a part of the United Kingdom as a result of an Act of Union. If Ireland was an occupied colony, is Scotland an occupied colony?

    It's not irrelevent. Different countries, different circumstances.


  • Advertisement
  • #292
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,850 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »
    Events cause effects. Why do you feel the need keep raising the idea that "illegitimacy equals it didn't happen"? Why won't you discuss the legitimacy of them?
    Because it's not relevant to my point.
    Because you say so? I'll ask you again, why was Ireland a colony under Grattan's parliament?
    Are you arguing that it wasn't?
    It's not irrelevent. Different countries, different circumstances.
    If you say so.


  • #293
    Mr Cumulonimbus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,463 ✭✭✭Mr Cumulonimbus


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Because it's not relevant to my point.

    I think it is tbh with you.
    Are you arguing that it wasn't?

    No. I just raised it as a possible scenario to establish why you picked the Act of Union as the time when Ireland suddenly wasn't a colony anymore. So then, why was Ireland seemingly a colony in the era of Grattans parliament?
    If you say so.

    Just my two cents on the matter.


  • #294
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,850 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »
    No. I just raised it as a possible scenario to establish why you picked the Act of Union as the time when Ireland suddenly wasn't a colony anymore. So then, why was Ireland seemingly a colony in the era of Grattans parliament?
    I'm unclear on the frame of reference for this discussion. You've established that you believe Ireland was a colony prior to the Act of Union. Is it your view that Northern Ireland is still a colony today?


  • #295
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I'm unclear on the frame of reference for this discussion. You've established that you believe Ireland was a colony prior to the Act of Union. Is it your view that Northern Ireland is still a colony today?

    How could it not be when it's sovereignty is up for grabs?


  • #296
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,850 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    How could it not be when it's sovereignty is up for grabs?
    So is Scotland a colony, given that it's talking about the possibility of independence? Is the Basque country a colony?


  • #297
    The Pheasant
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 372 ✭✭The Pheasant


    Do you guys wanna make an "Is Northern Ireland a colony?" thread somewhere? Btw I would support a referendum on a united Ireland. The change up there would have to be very gradual though, like phase it in over 5 - 10 years or so if the referendum was passed...we couldn't just go up the day after passing and paint all their post boxes green, hang tricolours everywhere and stuff Gaeilge down their throats. I think that if a UI is to be a possibility it'll require a very softly softly approach with the unionists.


  • #298
    nowanathiest
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 85 ✭✭nowanathiest


    Why would anyone want to reunificate with a country that is bankrupt, i.e Southen Ireland? I can see the benefits for Ireland wanting to join Sterling, but the chances of NI wanting to join the Euro would be absolute zero, and a common currency would need to be established amongst other things.

    Discussions about historic Act of Unions or Colony's, Danie O'Connell, Land Acts or anything else you care to dredge up from history books are obsolete........the world has moved on and doesn't give a fig about this stuff. The only way this country would ever be reunited is if it's a win-win situation for both populations, and that chasm is extremely wide at present.


  • #299
    The Pheasant
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 372 ✭✭The Pheasant


    nowanathiest wrote: »
    Why would anyone want to reunificate with a country that is bankrupt, i.e Southen Ireland? I can see the benefits for Ireland wanting to join Sterling, but the chances of NI wanting to join the Euro would be absolute zero, and a common currency would need to be established amongst other things.

    Discussions about historic Act of Unions or Colony's, Danie O'Connell, Land Acts or anything else you care to dredge up from history books are obsolete........the world has moved on and doesn't give a fig about this stuff. The only way this country would ever be reunited is if it's a win-win situation for both populations, and that chasm is extremely wide at present.

    We're talking about 2022 though; things may have picked up a good deal economically by then - in the early 90's the Irish economy was nowhere, but ten years later we were in a boom. These things move in cycles, who knows what could be the state of affairs in ten years or so


  • #300
    Mr Cumulonimbus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,463 ✭✭✭Mr Cumulonimbus


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I'm unclear on the frame of reference for this discussion. You've established that you believe Ireland was a colony prior to the Act of Union.

    Yes. As I have already said the unrepresentative nature of that Irish parliament leads me to question the legitimacy of that act, and consequently Ireland's status post 1800.

    I don't understand why you are unclear re the question about Grattan's parliament as it is related to Ireland's status pre 1800.
    Is it your view that Northern Ireland is still a colony today?

    Why veer back to this? We weren't discussing NI's status.


  • Advertisement
  • #301
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,850 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »
    Why veer back to this? We weren't discussing NI's status.
    It's germane to the topic.


Advertisement