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

Giving some of N.I. back to the Republic

Options
1…457910…13

Comments

  • Options
    #182
    RoyalCelt
    Registered Users Posts: 2,603 ✭✭✭RoyalCelt


    Conchur wrote: »
    If anything, the very existence of this thread goes to show just how fickle the Northern Ireland state/identity is, even if the OP's suggestion isn't totally serious. It says a lot about the frivolousness of the Northern state if those unionists who proposed repartition are prepared to haemorrhage large parts of the six just to maintain a majority. When it comes down to it, for unionists Northern Ireland is a "British" enclave in Ireland which must be defended at all costs - including, in a "doomsday scenario", redrawing the borders of the state at a moment's notice to maintain a majority (as Carson reluctantly did).

    Of course, there will always be those who just want to get on with things and if, in their view, that means embracing the existence of the North in its current form then that is their prerogative and I am happy for them. Still, it bears repeating that there is something quite saddening about the move away from our true identities (be those Irish or British) for fear of causing a stir or, dare I say it, actually standing for what we believe in.

    Great post but let me just say my opening post was 100% serious and this is not the first time I've said that on here. Really enjoying this discussion but due to work commitments don't have time to get stuck into this but as I said I'm enjoying reading through it when I get a chance.


  • Options
    #183
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Mod:
    on the river wrote: »
    Northern Ireland citizens can either claim a british passport or irish one .


    i am not floating any boat. this is the law so abide by it MATE!.

    So DONT start more daft sugestions GOT IT

    Plenty of people identify themselves as Northern Irish, it isn't illegal and there's nothing wrong with it if that's how a large section of the population choose to identify themselves as.
    Conchur wrote: »
    How stupid are you? You think I don't know this?

    I am not your mate, and I don't need you telling me what I must "abide by".

    If you were semi-literate and read the post, I was actually backing you up to a degree.

    But I suppose it's baby steps with a weshty.
    on the river wrote: »
    its great to see you finally agreed with my point of view . secondly read over your posts before you post them ( spelling errors)

    finally boards is a place for debate so if you cant deal with that get out :p
    The Corinthian wrote: »
    Says Mr "your either irish or english". Three grammatical and one factual error in five words. Impressive.

    The above posts aren't debate, they are just petty sniping and digs at grammar and spelling. Cut it out please.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Options
    #184
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    Dr.Tank Adams wrote: »
    And thousands of years is not required for nationhood, we weren't talking about nationhood (which the north doesn't have anyway) we were talking about a collective identity, of which "Northern Irish" has about 10 years of government pedaling and 0% originality/distinctiveness to it's name. Northern Irishness is, at best, a chunk of Britishness and a sprinkling of Irishness, with a big, "I don't want to offend anyone" smile on it's face. That doesn't seem worthy of being referred to as an identity to me.
    That really is the biggest load of horse manure I've heard in a while.

    What you're trying to do here is impose some form of criteria for what constitutes a national identity (collective identity, if you prefer) or not that will support your own agenda.

    First you cite legal status, as some sort of measure of nationhood, then rapidly deny that you ever meant what you were saying to mean this (which begs the question why you were bringing it up in the first place).

    Then you cite history, for example, despite that Northern Ireland's current history is as old as the USA's, then you backtrack on history when this is pointed out and suddenly just turn to dismiss it as a recent invention not "worthy of being referred to as an identity".

    I've no idea how popular is the notion of NI 'national identity' is. Could be a passing fad and could also be more a community spirit, much like being a Dubliner is. But I am not so quick to dismiss that it could be something more, simply because my ideology cannot stomach the possibility that it might exist to put a spanner in my agenda's works.


  • Options
    #185
    on the river
    Registered Users Posts: 1,527 ✭✭✭on the river


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    That really is the biggest load of horse manure I've heard in a while.

    What you're trying to do here is impose some form of criteria for what constitutes a national identity (collective identity, if you prefer) or not that will support your own agenda.

    First you cite legal status, as some sort of measure of nationhood, then rapidly deny that you ever meant what you were saying to mean this (which begs the question why you were bringing it up in the first place).

    Then you cite history, for example, despite that Northern Ireland's current history is as old as the USA's, then you backtrack on history when this is pointed out and suddenly just turn to dismiss it as a recent invention not "worthy of being referred to as an identity".

    I've no idea how popular is the notion of NI 'national identity' is. Could be a passing fad and could also be more a community spirit, much like being a Dubliner is. But I am not so quick to dismiss that it could be something more, simply because my ideology cannot stomach the possibility that it might exist to put a spanner in my agenda's works.

    you can reference whatever you like . yet the reality is without the consent of the citizens the six counties will remain as they were since 1920 .


  • Options
    #186
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    on the river wrote: »
    you can reference whatever you like . yet the reality is without the consent of the citizens the six counties will remain as they were since 1920 .
    What on Earth has that got to do with what I posted?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #187
    on the river
    Registered Users Posts: 1,527 ✭✭✭on the river


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    What on Earth has that got to do with what I posted?

    i am only stating the facts . sorry if you took it badly:)


  • Options
    #188
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    on the river wrote: »
    i am only stating the facts . sorry if you took it badly:)
    Badly? No, more perplexed as you posted a non sequitur which has absolutely nothing to do with what I posted. Random and irrelevant facts don't upset me, but perhaps if you're going to post some more random and irrelevant facts in future, you might make them more entertaining.


  • Options
    #189
    on the river
    Registered Users Posts: 1,527 ✭✭✭on the river


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    Badly? No, more perplexed as you posted a non sequitur which has absolutely nothing to do with what I posted. Random and irrelevant facts don't upset me, but perhaps if you're going to post some more random and irrelevant facts in future, you might make them more entertaining.

    I am stating the facts. ireland act 1920 is not random. I am here to engage with debate . the subject of northern ireland is not entertaining.

    can we please proceed with the topic . thank you


  • Options
    #190
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    on the river wrote: »
    I am stating the facts. ireland act 1920 is not random. I am here to engage with debate . the subject of northern ireland is not entertaining.

    can we please proceed with the topic . thank you
    Sorry, but you were the one who went off topic; who responded to a discussion regarding the legitimacy of a Northern Irish national identity with "reality is without the consent of the citizens the six counties will remain as they were since 1920".

    Yet, that has nothing to do with what was being discussed. No one at any stage has disputed that, or for that matter even mentioned it. We were discussing what constitutes a national identity - different topic. In fact, I'm not even sure if you were even posting it in relation to anything that I had posted.

    Now, I'm not certain if you did this because you were trying to put forward a relevant point related to the discussion, but failed to explain yourself, or if you intentionally decided you wanted to hijack and change the discussion, but either way you posted a non sequitur, no more relevant than if we were discussing NI tourism and you then decided to discuss the treaty that led to partition.

    Quite random and quite bizarre, TBH.


  • Options
    #191
    on the river
    Registered Users Posts: 1,527 ✭✭✭on the river


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    Sorry, but you were the one who went off topic; who responded to a discussion regarding the legitimacy of a Northern Irish national identity with "reality is without the consent of the citizens the six counties will remain as they were since 1920".

    Yet, that has nothing to do with what was being discussed. No one at any stage has disputed that, or for that matter even mentioned it. We were discussing what constitutes a national identity - different topic. In fact, I'm not even sure if you were even posting it in relation to anything that I had posted.

    Now, I'm not certain if you did this because you were trying to put forward a relevant point related to the discussion, but failed to explain yourself, or if you intentionally decided you wanted to hijack and change the discussion, but either way you posted a non sequitur, no more relevant than if we were discussing NI tourism and you then decided to discuss the treaty that led to partition.

    Quite random and quite bizarre, TBH.

    can we please talk about the subject . stop with the personal attacks.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #192
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    on the river wrote: »
    can we please talk about the subject . stop with the personal attacks.


    Can you talk about the subject ??


  • Options
    #193
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    on the river wrote: »
    you can reference whatever you like . yet the reality is without the consent of the citizens the six counties will remain as they were since 1920 .

    So basically the OP is a non runner, a 2 or 3 county N.I. just isn't going to happen.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Options
    #194
    on the river
    Registered Users Posts: 1,527 ✭✭✭on the river


    K-9 wrote: »
    So basically the OP is a non runner, a 2 or 3 county N.I. just isn't going to happen.

    OP has a valid argument . yet without the consent of the citizens it wont happen,

    yes if northern ireland lost 2 or counties it would not be viable .

    the current state of the roi finances means we are hardly able to look after the 26 counties . the reality is a vote on n ireland may not happen for a long time


  • Options
    #195
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    on the river wrote: »
    OP has a valid argument . yet without the consent of the citizens it wont happen,
    All a moot point as apparently according to the GFA, the only options available to the good citizens of Northern Ireland will be union with London or union with Dublin; the independence option simply isn't on the table.
    yes if northern ireland lost 2 or counties it would not be viable .
    It's doubtful it's economically viable as it stands.


  • Options
    #196
    Dr.Tank Adams
    Registered Users Posts: 91 ✭✭Dr.Tank Adams


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    That really is the biggest load of horse manure I've heard in a while.

    What you're trying to do here is impose some form of criteria for what constitutes a national identity (collective identity, if you prefer) or not that will support your own agenda.

    First you cite legal status, as some sort of measure of nationhood, then rapidly deny that you ever meant what you were saying to mean this (which begs the question why you were bringing it up in the first place).

    Then you cite history, for example, despite that Northern Ireland's current history is as old as the USA's, then you backtrack on history when this is pointed out and suddenly just turn to dismiss it as a recent invention not "worthy of being referred to as an identity".

    I've no idea how popular is the notion of NI 'national identity' is. Could be a passing fad and could also be more a community spirit, much like being a Dubliner is. But I am not so quick to dismiss that it could be something more, simply because my ideology cannot stomach the possibility that it might exist to put a spanner in my agenda's works.

    What agenda? I've clearly stated I have no problem with Unionists identifying as British or Nationalists identifying as Irish, I think they're both absolutely legitimate, but "Northern Irish" is a complete fallacy, and despite all of your whataboutery you have failed to offer any explanation as to what makes it a distinct identity. Even the America logic is flawed, America has been an independent country for 250 years and has a highly divergent culture, it also has thousands of years of native history behind it which you could include if you wanted. Northern Ireland is a 90 year old province, has no real culture of it's own and the idea of a Northern Irish identity only gained any credence about 10-15 years ago. I doesn't even hold a candle to America.


  • Options
    #197
    Dr.Tank Adams
    Registered Users Posts: 91 ✭✭Dr.Tank Adams


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    All a moot point as apparently according to the GFA, the only options available to the good citizens of Northern Ireland will be union with London or union with Dublin; the independence option simply isn't on the table.

    It's doubtful it's economically viable as it stands.

    Smaller, less developed places as survived comfortably. As long as it had Belfast the North would be able to survive. The English really have done an impeccable job at scaring you all into the belief that your worlds would simply implode without their financial aid line.


  • Options
    #198
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    Dr.Tank Adams wrote: »
    What agenda? I've clearly stated I have no problem with Unionists identifying as British or Nationalists identifying as Irish, I think they're both absolutely legitimate, but "Northern Irish" is a complete fallacy, and despite all of your whataboutery you have failed to offer any explanation as to what makes it a distinct identity.
    I've not offered any explanation as to what makes it a distinct identity, beyond having earlier stated that such identities are effectibly inventions. Instead I've challenged you on a series of poorly thought-out criteria for what makes it a distinct identity, that can all be debunked with current and historical examples.

    As to your agenda, I'd imagine you are ideologically or statistically opposed to the idea of an independent NI. Unionism is on a decline, so if this alternative did gain popular support, I suspect it could end up derailing the nationalist campaign towards unification.
    Even the America logic is flawed, America has been an independent country for 250 years and has a highly divergent culture, it also has thousands of years of native history behind it which you could include if you wanted.
    That's an easily debunked argument, because however long the USA has been independent, 250 years ago it was not and had no history of independence. Did that make it less a nation when it sought independence?
    Northern Ireland is a 90 year old province, has no real culture of it's own and the idea of a Northern Irish identity only gained any credence about 10-15 years ago. I doesn't even hold a candle to America.
    This is where your argument starts to weaken; so because the Thirteen Colonies were organized in a certain way for 170 years you judge they had a national identity (despite the fact they were separate entities), yet after 90 years NI has none? What's your cut-off point then?

    And does this mean that the history of NI prior to partition can be ignored, because you can't seriously claim that it was culturally and ethnically homogeneous with the rest of the Island, thanks to the plantations, can you? And Ironically, that history stretched back as long (actually one year longer) as the American colonial one, which somehow you feel did have enough of a national identity back in 1775 to consider itself a sovereign state, but NI not, even today, despite the same length of history.

    Can you address these inconsistencies in your argument, rather than changing the subject again?
    Dr.Tank Adams wrote: »
    Smaller, less developed places as survived comfortably. As long as it had Belfast the North would be able to survive. The English really have done an impeccable job at scaring you all into the belief that your worlds would simply implode without their financial aid line.
    You haven't made a very convincing argument for the viability economy of NI there. Would you like to flesh out your argument, with a few facts, or shall we just put it down as read?


  • Options
    #199
    Dr.Tank Adams
    Registered Users Posts: 91 ✭✭Dr.Tank Adams


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    I've not offered any explanation as to what makes it a distinct identity, beyond having earlier stated that such identities are effectibly inventions. Instead I've challenged you on a series of poorly thought-out criteria for what makes it a distinct identity, that can all be debunked with current and historical examples.

    As to your agenda, I'd imagine you are ideologically or statistically opposed to the idea of an independent NI. Unionism is on a decline, so if this alternative did gain popular support, I suspect it could end up derailing the nationalist campaign towards unification.

    That's an easily debunked argument, because however long the USA has been independent, 250 years ago it was not and had no history of independence. Did that make it less a nation when it sought independence?

    This is where your argument starts to weaken; so because the Thirteen Colonies were organized in a certain way for 170 years you judge they had a national identity (despite the fact they were separate entities), yet after 90 years NI has none? What's your cut-off point then?

    And does this mean that the history of NI prior to partition can be ignored, because you can't seriously claim that it was culturally and ethnically homogeneous with the rest of the Island, thanks to the plantations, can you? And Ironically, that history stretched back as long (actually one year longer) as the American colonial one, which somehow you feel did have enough of a national identity back in 1775 to consider itself a sovereign state, but NI not, even today, despite the same length of history.

    Can you address these inconsistencies in your argument, rather than changing the subject again?

    You haven't made a very convincing argument for the viability economy of NI there. Would you like to flesh out your argument, with a few facts, or shall we just put it down as read?

    I don't think you've debunked anything I've said, not even close, in fact the main thing that's been debunked is your America example. As for this "identities are imaginary", that's a fairly high road to take, at the end of the day using that logic almost every human emotion, thought and law also becomes imaginary and you get to point where everything we do is pointless and nothing has any purpose whatsoever. Now if that is your opinion, fair enough, but it poses the question as to why you are debating identities with me on the internet if you truly believe that it's all "imaginary" anyway? Usually people don't bother discussing things that they honestly believe are meaningless...

    Examples of places smaller than or similar in size to the north that are economically viable, Andorra, Luxembourg, Monaco, San Marino, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania. I'm sure there are plenty more too.


  • Options
    #200
    on the river
    Registered Users Posts: 1,527 ✭✭✭on the river


    flashjohn wrote: »
    Why does anybody south of the border give a sh1te about those north of the border? Surely just be worried about your nearest and dearest? I never understand it. Its all romantic bull

    well said so delicately put may i add.

    Answer one thng

    IF your nearest and dearest was taken

    would you not want here back ?


  • Options
    #201
    on the river
    Registered Users Posts: 1,527 ✭✭✭on the river


    flashjohn wrote: »
    Sure would

    so flash john you could put Ireland as a metaphor for this.

    Some people are very passioate about a united Ireland and hold very strong views about it.

    They like to 'flash' their opinion now and again to keep it alive.

    so people do care about Ireland so i know you will respect their views and opinions .


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #202
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    Dr.Tank Adams wrote: »
    I don't think you've debunked anything I've said, not even close, in fact the main thing that's been debunked is your America example.
    Yes, because you've demonstrated that you can arbitrary ignore chunks of history in one case and not in another as it pleases you.

    TBH, if your tactic is to ignore the various points I made, even in my previous post, and effectively put your fingers in your ears and hum loudly, so be it. I'm to old to pointlessly argue with someone like that.
    As for this "identities are imaginary", that's a fairly high road to take, at the end of the day using that logic almost every human emotion, thought and law also becomes imaginary and you get to point where everything we do is pointless and nothing has any purpose whatsoever.
    Where did I say that it is pointless and has no purpose whatsoever?
    Examples of places smaller than or similar in size to the north that are economically viable, Andorra, Luxembourg, Monaco, San Marino, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania. I'm sure there are plenty more too.
    Why do you feel that the size of NI is related to it's economic viability? Who other than you has made that point?

    Very simply NI is presently unlikely to be economically viable because it spends way more than it earns; approximately double, every year, a loss which is presently being covered by the British exchequer. This is simply a level of expenditure it cannot afford.

    Of course, it could reform itself and balance it's payments, but politically I don't think this is viable at present.


  • Options
    #203
    on the river
    Registered Users Posts: 1,527 ✭✭✭on the river


    flashjohn wrote: »
    My point is: Why? what diff will it make? only if you live up there will it make a diff surely. It would be the same if I got passionate about the Basque region separating from Spain?


    flash john flash john .

    look turn the table the other WAY around if you lived in a society where you believed that should with a different state or free then you would definently understand.

    flash john you are the lucky ones where you can do whather you please in a free state. Only if. you say john but they are your people too . dont seperate intergrate into the society in which you were raised. we all have to support n ireland in their asiperations of peace and prosperity. go john be the 'flasher' that can change. you were a born leader :)


  • Options
    #204
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    on the river wrote: »
    you could put Ireland as a metaphor for this.
    I'm sure we could come up with lots of metaphors; nonetheless metaphors are only metaphors, not to be taken literally.
    Some people are very passioate about a united Ireland and hold very strong views about it.
    Thing is some people are very passionate about Allah or Jesus or the Proletariat too, but when they start demanding that we change the society we live in to better reflect the values they're passionate about, is where there's a problem.
    so people do care about Ireland so i know you will respect their views and opinions .
    As I'm sure you'll respect the opinions of those who disagree with you and not order them to stop making "daft suggestions".


  • Options
    #205
    on the river
    Registered Users Posts: 1,527 ✭✭✭on the river


    flashjohn wrote: »
    Yes but it is a different country? Nothing to do with me, I understand why people up there are passionate, but Flash won't be losing a wink of sleep bout it

    good flasher i respect your opinion . you have great wisdom.

    Tell me do you think Ireland will be united ? i dont think it will be ? but i suppose anything is possible john.


  • Options
    #206
    on the river
    Registered Users Posts: 1,527 ✭✭✭on the river


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    I'm sure we could come up with lots of metaphors; nonetheless metaphors are only metaphors, not to be taken literally.

    Thing is some people are very passionate about Allah or Jesus or the Proletariat too, but when they start demanding that we change the society we live in to better reflect the values they're passionate about, is where there's a problem.

    As I'm sure you'll respect the opinions of those who disagree with you and not order them to stop making "daft suggestions".

    i do and you should stop be so mocking towards me i would appreciate that .


  • Options
    #207
    orangesoda
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,223 ✭✭✭orangesoda


    flashjohn wrote: »
    Why does anybody south of the border give a sh1te about those north of the border? Surely just be worried about your nearest and dearest? I never understand it. Its all romantic bull

    I suppose you're right in a sense John because i couldn't give two damns about you either


  • Options
    #208
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    on the river wrote: »
    i do and you should stop be so mocking towards me i would appreciate that .
    I don't believe you do and I am not mocking - I'm exposing; showing that what you're claiming now is completely different to what you claimed earlier in the thread.


  • Options
    #209
    on the river
    Registered Users Posts: 1,527 ✭✭✭on the river


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    I don't believe you do and I am not mocking - I'm exposing; showing that what you're claiming now is completely different to what you claimed earlier in the thread.

    can we just leave it there. lets move on and discuss the topic. peace


  • Options
    #210
    Conchur
    Registered Users Posts: 18 ✭Conchur


    flashjohn wrote: »
    I probably over did the first comment. However I suppose my point being is surely people who live in the south have more to worry about in their lives, bigger fish to fry?

    Yes, you did.

    Of course people in the south have "more to worry about in their lives" - it goes without saying that everyone prioritises the security of their family, their home and their local community above all else. I'm a nationalist in the north, but I don't sit around all day dreaming about a united Ireland and wondering what it would be like if we were a part of the Republic. I get the impression that many in the south think that is all we do and, to be frank, it doesn't get more ignorant than that.

    That doesn't mean that people on both sides of the border cannot have aspirations. I would still like to see both parts of this island united under a single, independent jurisdiction, but I don't lose sleep over it. Still, you seem to be implying that the desires and pressing concerns of the people of Northern Ireland are inane in comparison to those of the people of the Republic, which is arrant rubbish.

    Saying that you do not care about people in the North is dispiriting. The Irish nation, as it is described in Bunreacht na hÉireann, constitutes all thirty-two counties (or the island of Ireland). You are effectively saying that you do not care about a significant portion of the people that make up your nation. I am not particularly concerned about matters which affect Dublin or Cork, but I still care about the people that live there, and was deeply saddened to learn of the damage the floods had caused in the Rebel County earlier in the week.

    I believe you described the idea of the Irish nation as being "romantic" - this is practically tautological, as nations are, by definition, romantic constructs. If you are arguing against the existence of the nation altogether, then have that conversation in a separate thread.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #211
    Black Swan
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 47,236 CMod ✭✭✭✭Black Swan


    MOD REMINDER:
    Please cut out the personal sniping. Focus on the topic, and not each other.


Advertisement