Time to prepare for a United Ireland even if it does not happen?

Zambia

Ulster9 wrote:

That is why Sinn Fein as the only all-Ireland party seeking unity is working the Good Friday Institutions as a way of advancing the idea of a New Ireland.

I agree the thread is re-railed and spinning.

However I would not like to go into a United Ireland Under SF as they are just to left wing for my liking.

Ulster9

However I would not like to go into a United Ireland Under SF as they are just to left wing for my liking.

That is unlikely to happen as an all-Ireland political union would probably bring about new political alliances with the Unionist parties possibly aligning themselves with other parties.You would probably see an emergence of new proposed political coalitions.
Regarding Sinn Fein being too left, i think others like to misrepresent Sinn Feins policies in order to scare people away from voting for them.Their policies are pretty similiar if not identical to Labours.Also as the party becomes more evolved in the South i think you will find them moving more to the left of centre as they become a broader mainstream party as has happen to them north of the border.

oscarBravo

csk wrote:

...you can pretend to be intelligent...

Down with that sort of thing. Attack the post, not the poster.

csk wrote:

...we, the Irish peole, still have a legitimate claim.

Define "legitimate".

Zambia232 wrote:

I agree the thread is re-railed and spinning.

It's not too bad, but I'd like people to keep the thread title in mind when posting in future.

Zombrex

csk wrote:

*sigh* I'm really getting tired of your refusal to actually engage with me but nevertheless...

Engage with you? I've repeatable given my position you just keep trying to find even more elaborate ways of getting around it.

You are now invoking a UN Declaration (seriously wtf?) as if this over rules our own Constitution ... nonsense :rolleyes:

csk wrote:

You then proceeded to rant and rave about me not respecting democracy and legitimacy.

You are attempting to show that a rather old (1960) UN Declartion means the people of Ireland still have a legitimate claim to the Northern counties despite the fact that in 1999 the people of Ireland voluntarily and democratically voted to give up this claim.

That is not respecting democracy and it is rather ridiculous claim at legitimacy (the UN Declaration does not over rule the democratic wishes of the people it is supposed to be protecting).

csk wrote:

You see here you are again not addressing the point, instead claiming its just some "republican Rant"

As I said, you don't have an "issue", you have a rant. There is quite a difference.

Britain's "long usurpation and refusal to acknowledge those rights" had very little influence on the 56% of the population that voted in 1999 on the 19th Amendment of the Irish constitution, nor the 95% of that voting population that voted for the Amendment.

Its a nonsense point. The British had nothing to do with the way people voted in 1999, 80 years after the formation of the free state.

csk wrote:

However just in case you hadn't realised I'm not arguing against the GFA, I have told you before that I support it.

The 19th Amendment of the Irish Constitution, that followed from the GFA, gave up the claim to the Northern counties. We do not have a claim to the Northern counties.

If you supported (or understood) the Good Friday Agreement why then are you claiming that the Irish republic has a legitimate claim to the Northern counties? We don't.

csk wrote:

Here is the waffle you intially came out with. As acknowledge later we gave up a Territorial claim, in the interests of peace and reconciliation might I add.

The reason we gave up the claim to the North is largely irrelevant to the fact that said claim was given up.

We do not have a legitimate claim to the North.

csk wrote:

If you bother to read the relevant articles of Bunreacht na hÉireann, you would see that everything I have said is in accordance with the Constitution

No, actually nothing you have said is in accordance with the Constitution, which was my original point.

Article 2 Before

The national territory consists of the whole island of Ireland, its islands and the territorial seas

Article 2 After

Pending the re-integration of the national territory, and without prejudice to the right of the Parliament and Government established by this Constitution to exercise jurisdiction over the whole of that territory, the laws enacted by that Parliament shall have the like area and extent of application as the laws of Saorstát Éireann and the like extra-territorial effect.

Notice if you will that in the 1999 Amendment there is no claim to the North. Its gone. It isn't there. It is removed.

In its place is a statement of intent that the State's wish to unify the island if this is the democratic wish of all people on the island. No claim to the North. The North is not ours to claim. It can join us if it decides.

csk wrote:

The underlined bit says it all really, we want a United Ireland, but we want it peacefully.

That is not a claim to territory, legitimate or otherwise :rolleyes:

Claiming territory means that we state "it is ours" That is what we used to say pre-1999. We claimed the North as our territory. It was part of our country.

We have given up that claim. We no longer claim it as ours.

Us wanting the North to some time join with us if they democratically agree is not a claim to territory. In fact it is the exact opposite, it is the recognition that we do not have a claim to the territory and therefore the territory must decide to join us if it so wishes.

csk wrote:

It does not give up the claim for Irish people to National Soveriegnty

That is EXACTLY what it is does. If you don't understand that you don't understand what a territorial claim means with relation to international relations.

If we still claimed the North then the entire new Article 2 would be nonsense because the North would, as far as the Constitution is concerned, already be ours. We would not need to ask them do they want to join us, it would be our territory already.

csk wrote:

As we see in Article two every one entitled to the rights laid out by Article one are "every person born in the island of Ireland, which includes its islands and seas, to be part of the Irish Nation."

And...?

That doesn't mean we claim territory over all of the island, it means that anyone born on the island can claim citizenship of the Irish state.

We could say this for anywhere we like, we could say that anyone born in Alaska can have Irish citizenship, that doesn't mean we claim Alaska as part of Ireland.

csk wrote:

That is A LEGITIMATE CLAIM .

If you honestly believe that you don't understand what "legitimate claim" actually means

A territorial claim is what China is doing in relation to Taiwan. They claim that Taiwan is part of China. The Taiwanese clearly disagree.

Another example would be the British sailors capture by Iran. Iran claim territory over the area of water that the sailors were picked up in. The waters were part of Iran, complicated by the fact that the border is not fixed and can shift.

Another example is the Falklands war. Argentina claimed the Falklands as part of their territory. The British disagreed.

A territorial claim is not a wishy-washy idea that we would like to all live together someday. It is a legal claim that land or water is belonging to a state.

A territorial claim is not simply "We would really like it if you guys someday would like to join our country" It is a international claim that the land or sea is part of your country. It is the equivalent of of saying "Hey, you guys, you are in our country"

csk wrote:

Why, Wicknight, have the people of Ireland not been allowed to exercise the rights laid out by the UN? Because the British wouldn't let us?

And .... ?

Does that mean that the 19th Amendment is invalid? No.

Does that mean Ireland still has a territorial claim to the Northern counties? No.

So what exactly is your point?

csk wrote:

The only question is why are you, Wicknight, against a United Ireland?

Personally I'm against a United Ireland because it would be devastating to the economy

But I think it is completely unnecessary. No one alive in the North even remembers not being from Northern Ireland. N.I is an individual state, it has been for 2 generations.

I remember a few months ago someone from America was complaining that he wasn't allowed have Irish citizenship despite the fact that his great grandfather was Irish. He was laughed off this forum.

The future of N.I is devolution. There are no benefits to uniting the two states except for making it easier for map makers. But of course if people want a United Ireland democratically I'm not going to stop them.

But again none of this has anything to do with the simple fact that the Irish State does not have claim to Northern Ireland

Fratton Fred

Ulster9 wrote:

That is unlikely to happen as an all-Ireland political union would probably bring about new political alliances with the Unionist parties possibly aligning themselves with other parties.You would probably see an emergence of new proposed political coalitions.
Regarding Sinn Fein being too left, i think others like to misrepresent Sinn Feins policies in order to scare people away from voting for them.Their policies are pretty similiar if not identical to Labours.Also as the party becomes more evolved in the South i think you will find them moving more to the left of centre as they become a broader mainstream party as has happen to them north of the border.

Are Sinn Fein the party to make a United Ireland happen, left, middle or further right than Ghengis Khan?

No disrespect to Sinn Fein or their policies, but a Sinn Fein government would, I suggest, be a very hard thing to sell to the Unionists. Sinn Fein's recent resolution to rename Merrion Avenue after Bobby Sands has probably not helped in that either.

johnnyskeleton

Wicknight wrote:

The future of N.I is devolution. There are no benefits to uniting the two states except for making it easier for map makers. But of course if people want a United Ireland democratically I'm not going to stop them.

We in the cartographer's guild believe in a peaceful, democratic colouring in of one, or the other, of the two states in the Island of Ireland. We have given up our slide rules as a gesture of goodwill, and we look forward to working with all geographers, whether they be from the geological or the meteorical side of the community.

E92

Wicknight wrote:

Its funny how people are all for legitimacy and democracy so long as they get what they want. But when they don't then they are quite happy to drop the principles of democracy and legitimacy ... ironic no?

Thats the best quote of the day. Agreed 100%. Sinn Fein(and others) take note.
There are only 2 real cities in this country, Dublin and Cork(and Corks only a real city cause its the real capital like ). Even I will admit that Cork isnt a proper city, 180,000 people is only a town in many other countries. I told Germans last year that we were the second biggest city in the Republic and they laughed, they said a place of 180,000 is 'small', and in fairness it is. And just cause you have the unification of this country and NI doesnt mean that we'll get on like a house on fire.
Ninty9er mentioned it quite correctly earlier, there are in effect 2 germanys still,I have never been to 'east Germany', (but I've been twice in the past year to Cologne) the 'west Germans' are not really fond of the east Germans to say the least, because a load of the taxes paid by the west Germans goes to rebuilding east Germany, and the westerners hate the way their money is being spent so heavily on east Germany. They dont like the east Germans for this, and I'm reliably informed that east Germany is still miles behind the 'west' economically and well as everything else.

@Ulster9 yes I have been to NI, its been 6-7 years since I was there, I was in Belfast(some of the buildings are very British in appearance IIRC) and other places, and I have to say that from what I remember it is quite like the 'mainland', where I have also been, which in turn struck me as a place that is quite similar to this country actually.

@Zambia232 you could go into a UI with FG, after all their old slogan was 'Fine Gael - the United Ireland party';)

Ulster9

@Ulster9 yes I have been to NI, its been 6-7 years since I was there, I was in Belfast(some of the buildings are very British in appearance IIRC) and other places, and I have to say that from what I remember it is quite like the 'mainland', where I have also been, which in turn struck me as a place that is quite similar to this country actually.

Our you deliberately trying to be smart referring to Britain as the "Mainland"?Do you see Ireland as an offshore island of Britain?Funny that you say some of the buildings are British in appearance.Who do you think built all the fine buildings we have in this country.Britain colonised all of Ireland(32) you may have forgotten.I dont think Collins be to proud of ye in Cork with that partitonist mentality.

Zambia

E92 wrote:

@Zambia232 you could go into a UI with FG, after all their old slogan was 'Fine Gael - the United Ireland party';)

Rather have the brits thanks...

But in all seriousness my out of all the 5 big parties down South do only SF campaign up North.

I could have voted Conservative in Belfast but not FF or PD etc

csk

Define "legitimate".

Well Dictionary.com defines legitimate as:

1.according to law; lawful

As I said, Bunreacht na hÉireann Articles one and two.

2.in accordance with established rules, principles, or standards.

Well the UN declaration that I cited is one example of “established rules and principles.”

3. in accordance with the laws of reasoning; logically inferable; logical

I know this isn’t necessarily the correct application of the meaning, in terms of what we are talking about, but I happen to think the Irish Nation living in an United Irish Republic, free from foreign control, on the island of Ireland is quite logical.

4.resting on or ruling by the principle of hereditary right

The Declaration of Independnce would be mean we inherit the principle of National Sovereignty, however because it is in the Constituition that is a moot point.

6.not spurious or unjustified; genuine

I know again that technically this isn’t the correct application of the meaning. However I thought it apt. Anyone who has even the most rudimentary knowledge of our history would find it hard to say that the claim to National Sovereignty is not genuine!

oscarBravo

Nice. What makes such a claim more legitimate than the legitimate right of a Northern Unionist to be British?

csk

Wicknight wrote:

Engage with you? I've repeatable given my position you just keep trying to find even more elaborate ways of getting around it.

I don’t think it’s dawned on you yet (which would put perspective on just how farcical your contributions have been thus far) but I don’t give a damn what your position is, it is redundant, irrelevant, a little insignificant thing that I would not p!ss on if it were on fire.

I see now that your failure to smear my points as republican has lead to try to obscure my points with bulls!t. Well obstructionism is soooo 19th century.

In my part of the world we have a saying, if you cannot blind them with brilliance you can baffle them with bullsh!it. Obstructionism would definitely fall into the latter.


OBSTRUCTIONIST BULLSH!T PIECE NO.1:

You are now invoking a UN Declaration (seriously wtf?) as if this over rules our own Constitution ... nonsense

I NEVER made such a claim, instead YOU HAVE DECIDED that I did.

OBSTRUCTIONIST BULLSH!T PIECE NO.2:

You are attempting to show that a rather old (1960) UN Declartion means the people of Ireland still have a legitimate claim to the Northern counties despite the fact that in 1999 the people of Ireland voluntarily and democratically voted to give up this claim.

No, I using it to highlight the various rights that we should have been allowed exercise, and the point I made was that we never were allowed to. The fact that it is from 1960 is irrelevant to my point.

OBSTRUCTIONIST BULLSH!T PIECE NO.3:

That is not respecting democracy and it is rather ridiculous claim at legitimacy (the UN Declaration does not over rule the democratic wishes of the people it is supposed to be protecting).

Again with the not respecting democracy line, YOU have no more authority than the man in the moon to decide who is respecting democracy. Again this is indicative of you BULLSH!ITING over coherent arguing.



OBSTRUCTIONIST BULLSH!T PIECE NO.4:

The 19th Amendment of the Irish Constitution, that followed from the GFA, gave up the claim to the Northern counties. We do not have a claim to the Northern counties.

The 19th amendment did no such thing, again, that is what YOU DECIDED it did. What the 19th amendment did was

Allowed the State to consent to be bound by the British-Irish Agreement done at Belfast on 10 April 1998 and provided that certain further amendments to the Constitution, notably to Articles 2 and 3, would come into effect when that agreement entered into force.

The word amendment also means altered, not gave up. The 19th amendment altered articles two and three. Our rights to National Sovereignty are still contained in the Constitution.
OBSTRUCTIONIST BULLSH!T PIECE NO.5:

If you supported (or understood) the Good Friday Agreement why then are you claiming that the Irish republic has a legitimate claim to the Northern counties? We don't.

Again YOU HAVE DECIDED to claim that I don’t support the GFA.

OBSTRUCTIONIST BULLSH!T PIECE NO.6:

The reason we gave up the claim to the North is largely irrelevant to the fact that said claim was given up.

As I said that’s not what you were claiming earlier. Again as I pointed out the 19 th amendment

Allowed the State to consent to be bound by the British-Irish Agreement done at Belfast on 10 April 1998 and provided that certain further amendments to the Constitution, notably to Articles 2 and 3, would come into effect when that agreement entered into force.

OBSTRUCTIONIST BULLSH!T PIECE NO.7:

We do not have a legitimate claim to the North

.

We DO have a claim to National Sovereignty as laid out by Articles one and two, there would be no need for Article Three, if Articles One and Two did not exist.

OBSTRUCTIONIST BULLSH!T PIECE NO.8:

No, actually nothing you have said is in accordance with the Constitution, which was my original point.

Article One and Two clearly ad concisely outline our rights to National Sovereignty.

OBSTRUCTIONIST BULLSH!T PIECE NO.9:

Article 2 Before

The national territory consists of the whole island of Ireland, its islands and the territorial seas

Article 2 After

Pending the re-integration of the national territory, and without prejudice to the right of the Parliament and Government established by this Constitution to exercise jurisdiction over the whole of that territory, the laws enacted by that Parliament shall have the like area and extent of application as the laws of Saorstát Éireann and the like extra-territorial effect.
Notice if you will that in the 1999 Amendment there is no claim to the North. Its gone. It isn't there. It is removed.

Notice if you will that what you put were the old articles two and three.

OBSTRUCTIONIST BULLSH!T PIECE NO.10:

In its place is a statement of intent that the State's wish to unify the island if this is the democratic wish of all people on the island. No claim to the North. The North is not ours to claim. It can join us if it decides.

Which would be all well and good, except for the one vital thing you missed out, WE STILL HAVE A CLAIM TO NATIONAL SOVERIEGNTY REGARDLESS of what you say.

OBSTRUCTIONIST BULLSH!T PIECE NO.11:

That is not a claim to territory, legitimate or otherwise

And if that was my point then I would really be fcuked, however, fortunately for me, that is just your attempts to obscure my points with BULLSH!T.


OBSTRUCTIONIST BULLSH!T PIECE NO.12:

Us wanting the North to some time join with us if they democratically agree is not a claim to territory. In fact it is the exact opposite, it is the recognition that we do not have a claim to the territory and therefore the territory must decide to join us if it so wishes.

As I said, our claim to National Sovereignty is in Article One and Two, Article Three highlights why we forego those rights in the name of “harmony and friendship”. You wish to cling to the undemocratic, unjust, unfair veto that wee have given to Unionists, fair enough, it still does not give up our claim to National Sovereignty.

OBSTRUCTIONIST BULLSH!T PIECE NO.13:

That is EXACTLY what it is does. If you don't understand that you don't understand what a territorial claim means with relation to international relations.

NO it doesn’t give up our claim to National Sovereignty.

OBSTRUCTIONIST BULLSH!T PIECE NO.14:

If we still claimed the North then the entire new Article 2 would be nonsense because the North would, as far as the Constitution is concerned, already be ours. We would not need to ask them do they want to join us, it would be our territory already.

Ah but that is where Article Three comes in. You seemed fixated on the old Article Two and Three but they have gone, redundant. I will admit that they were a lot more straightforward than the new ones but all that means is we have regressed in our pursuit of National Sovereignty.


OBSTRUCTIONIST BULLSH!T PIECE NO.15:

And...?

and… you could maybe not selectively quote me in order to obscure my point.


[QOBSTRUCTIONIST BULLSH!T PIECE NO.16:

We could say this for anywhere we like, we could say that anyone born in Alaska can have Irish citizenship, that doesn't mean we claim Alaska as part of Ireland.

But we don’t, now do we. Again that is not what I was saying more bullsh!t from you.

OBSTRUCTIONIST BULLSH!T PIECE NO.17:

A territorial claim is what China is doing in relation to Taiwan. They claim that Taiwan is part of China. The Taiwanese clearly disagree.

Yes that is true, but your point is…? Anyway once again I’ll say this, Articles One and Two clearly and concisely lay out our rights to National Sovereignty. Yes the new Articles are a slight step backwards compared with the old ones, however it is more like the Treaty was a step back from the Republic, an obstacle if you will. Yes you could say it is a big step back or a big obstacle but it does not give up our claim to National Sovereignty. If it did Articles One and Two would not exist, if these did not exist, then there would also be no need for Article Three.

Another example is the Falklands war. Argentina claimed the Falklands as part of their territory. The British disagreed.

Just as an aside, I was watching the coverage of the anniversary of the War on SKY the other week and they had an interview with some politician who was a high up official at the time. He claimed that the war was over the right for people to self determination; something his government had longed denied the People of Ireland.



OBSTRUCTIONIST BULLSH!T PIECE NO.18:

And .... ?

And…you could answer the question, like in a debate, you know that thing we are supposed to be doing instead of trying to obscure and bullsh!t your way out of the hole you dug earlier, when you tried claiming what it was YOU DECIDED what the people of Ireland voted for.

OBSTRUCTIONIST BULLSH!T PIECE NO.19:

Personally I'm against a United Ireland because it would be devastating to the economy

If there was a United Ireland in the morning then yes it probably would, in its present state, have an adverse effect on the economy. However, as noted by yourself, it probably won’t happen for a while. That would mean that any examination of the economic advantages would have to be purely superficial. Basing it on superficial reasons, then, I see no reason how an extra 2 million, give or take, tax payers would be a bad thing, nor how having one currency would be a bad thing on such a small island as ours is.

OBSTRUCTIONIST BULLSH!T PIECE NO.20:

But I think it is completely unnecessary. No one alive in the North even remembers not being from Northern Ireland.

Actually the last electoral register in the north December 2006 records the oldest person as 107. However even if that person has since died, your point would still be nonsense.

OBSTRUCTIONIST BULLSH!T PIECE NO.21:

N.I is an individual state, it has been for 2 generations.

.
BULLSH!T PIECE NO.21 : Again irrelevant nonsense. The Irish Nation is countless generations old, and, has never been allowed exercise its right to National Sovereignty.

OBSTRUCTIONIST BULLSH!T PIECE NO.22:

I remember a few months ago someone from America was complaining that he wasn't allowed have Irish citizenship despite the fact that his great grandfather was Irish. He was laughed off this forum. Quote.

Yes I remember that too. But your brining it up here is a nonsense point. More Bullsh!t from yourself.

But of course if people want a United Ireland democratically I'm not going to stop them.

Right so; the Irish Nation as whole should have a vote? And we should actually be allowed to exercise our right to National Sovereignty? it’s good to see you finally, after 22 attempts to obscure my points with bullsh!t, agree.

But again none of this has anything to do with the simple fact that the Irish State does not have claim to Northern Ireland

Which makes it a good thing we have a claim to National Sovereignty then!

csk

E92 wrote:

Thats the best quote of the day. Agreed 100%. Sinn Fein(and others) take note.

Care to elaborate?

csk

oscarBravo wrote:

Nice. What makes such a claim more legitimate than the legitimate right of a Northern Unionist to be British?

Define British?

oscarBravo

csk wrote:

Define British?

Define Irish?

There seems to be a broad willingness to accept the concept of "Irishness" without actually having to define it or to explain precisely why it's broken if it has to share an island with anyone else, coupled with a reluctance to accept that other people have a similarly emotive and irrational need to cling to an alternative national identity.

DublinWriter

Jesus CSK, that's the logest post I've ever seen. I've gotten RSI on my right index finger from using the mouse scroll wheel!

In all honesty CSK, posts of that size and nature are pretty unreadable. You are wasting your time if you are trying to get across a political point if you post like that.

But anyway...preparing for a United Ireland...let's see:

1. Bit o' orange on the national flag? Check.
2. Speak the same language? Check.
3. Good economical environment? Check (but keeps eraser handy)
4. Same Rugby team? Check.
5. Same Tourist Board? Check.
6. ROI Government funding Loyalist sites of historic interest? Cheque.

I do think Soutern Nationalists are extremely naive when they estimate Northern Loyalists. I think it was the late David Irvine who said that Southern Nationalists tend to think that Loyalists are just a wee bit misguided and just need a friendly talking to in order to make them see sense.

It's not so much a political difference as a cultural chasm that seperates the traditions.

csk

oscarBravo wrote:

Define Irish?

There seems to be a broad willingness to accept the concept of "Irishness" without actually having to define it or to explain precisely why it's broken if it has to share an island with anyone else, coupled with a reluctance to accept that other people have a similarly emotive and irrational need to cling to an alternative national identity.

Yes that's all well and good but as far as I'm aware, Britain is a political Union.

oscarBravo

csk wrote:

Yes that's all well and good but as far as I'm aware, Britain is a political Union.

To some. To others it's a whole lot more; to yet others a whole lot less. And it's got surprisingly little to do with a subjective definition of "Britishness".

Interesting that you should bring up the point of it being a political union. In fact, the United Kingdom is a legal union, with the full recognition of international law. Hard to trump that for legitimacy.

csk

oscarBravo wrote:

Interesting that you should bring up the point of it being a political union. In fact, the United Kingdom is a legal union, with the full recognition of international law. Hard to trump that for legitimacy.

Yes unfortunately, they have a bigger Army too. So we are forced to acquiesce in the denial of our own National Sovereignty.

csk

DublinWriter wrote:

Jesus CSK, that's the logest post I've ever seen. I've gotten RSI on my right index finger from using the mouse scroll wheel!

In all honesty CSK, posts of that size and nature are pretty unreadable. You are wasting your time if you are trying to get across a political point if you post like that.

Yes I realised that afterwards. I normally try to keep my posts in a reasonable lenght but I got sucked down to another posters level unfortunately. However the main point of my gigantic post was that my previous points had not been rebutted.

I do think Soutern Nationalists are extremely naive when they estimate Northern Loyalists. I think it was the late David Irvine who said that Southern Nationalists tend to think that Loyalists are just a wee bit misguided and just need a friendly talking to in order to make them see sense.

It's not so much a political difference as a cultural chasm that seperates the traditions.

I think that may have been the case in the past but I'm not so sure now. I certainly would not underestimate the differences there are. However, I do think, there is a certain type of person in the south who like to play up those differences any chance they get.

Unfortunately, I think, it's got to the stage where we are too generous in recognising that cultural chasm even at the expense of those people who would consider themselves Irish in the north.

I was watching the Sunday Game last night and they were in Crossmaglen. Marty Morrissey made a very pertinent point in his introduction, that Crossmaglen was like any other village in Ireland. Yet according to some people here, Crossmaglen is not even in Ireland. I will never accept that and I don't think Irish people should either.

Zambia

csk wrote:

Yes unfortunately, they have a bigger Army too. So we are forced to acquiesce in the denial of our own National Sovereignty.

Hang on in this day and age this is not really an issue? Last I looked there was no threat of military action from Northern Ireland.

GerardKeating

darkman2 wrote:

b: That a vote on Northern Ireland's posistion in the UK is held and won by a nationalist majority. This may be unlikely for the next 10 or 15 years at the very least.

About 15/20 years ago the Rev Paisley was asking in an press Interview, would he accept a United Ireland in the event of a nationalist majority and he states that in this event, he would go for re-partition, take Antrim, Derry, Down and Tyrone and persuade the nationalist in this area to move to the other counties.

Zombrex

csk wrote:

I don’t think it’s dawned on you yet (which would put perspective on just how farcical your contributions have been thus far) but I don’t give a damn what your position is

Then why do you keep asking me for it?

csk wrote:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=53093092&postcount=147
The only question is why are you, Wicknight, against a United Ireland?

:rolleyes:

csk wrote:

I NEVER made such a claim, instead YOU HAVE DECIDED that I did.

Oh I'm sorry, you aren't actually quoting long passages from a 1960 UN Declareation to support your claim that the Irish Republic has a legitimate claim to Northern Ireland. That must have been my imagination when you said this

csk wrote:

That is A LEGITIMATE CLAIM .
Here is the United Nations Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples:
...
Why, Wicknight, have the people of Ireland not been allowed to exercise the rights laid out by the UN?

Clearly I'm taking drugs and I imagined you posting that (and presumably I imagined me just quoting your post just now ...)

Although in fairness to you, your little rants on sovereignty and legitimacy kinda suggest that you actually don't understand what the hell you are talking about, so you could genuinely not understand the implications of what you are are actually claiming.

csk wrote:

No, I using it to highlight the various rights that we should have been allowed exercise, and the point I made was that we never were allowed to.

In 1999 when 95% of the voting population voted to give up the territorial claim to the entire island of Ireland we did so with full legal authority. The Republic of Ireland is a state recognised by the United Nations who's government has the authority by its constitution to implement results of democratically held referendums, which was what was carried out.

csk wrote:

The fact that it is from 1960 is irrelevant to my point.

But the fact that it occurred before 1999 is to mine :rolleyes:

csk wrote:

Again with the not respecting democracy line, YOU have no more authority than the man in the moon to decide who is respecting democracy.

The Irish Constitution decides who is respecting democracy. You are ignoring the Irish constitution, and the people in 1999 who voted to change the Irish constitution. You are ignoring democracy.

csk wrote:

Allowed the State to consent to be bound by the British-Irish Agreement done at Belfast on 10 April 1998 and provided that certain further amendments to the Constitution, notably to Articles 2 and 3, would come into effect when that agreement entered into force.

Which REMOVED the territorial claim to Northern Ireland. THAT WAS THE WHOLE POINT OF THE REFERENDUM!!! What did you think you were voting for?????:rolleyes:

csk wrote:

Again YOU HAVE DECIDED to claim that I don’t support the GFA.

Csk at this point I don't think you have a clue what was actually in the Good Friday Agreement...

csk wrote:

Article One and Two clearly ad concisely outline our rights to National Sovereignty.

Our right to national sovereignty isn't the issue. It is what we are sovereign over. Pre-1999 our constitution defined our territory as being the entire island of Ireland. Post-1999 this claim was removed from the constitution.

In 1999 (and let me say this very clearly so you might understand) 95% of those who voted in the referendum voted to CHANGE the Irish constitution so that we NO LONGER make a territorial claim to the entire island of Ireland

Seriously, what part of that DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND??

csk wrote:

Which would be all well and good, except for the one vital thing you missed out, WE STILL HAVE A CLAIM TO NATIONAL SOVERIEGNTY REGARDLESS of what you say.

We always had that, other wise the constitution would be meaningless.

Do you actually understand what sovereignty means? We, the Irish people, through the Irish Constitution, have sovereignty over the Republic of Ireland. The Republic of Ireland was originally, pre-1999, defined in the Irish constitution as being the entire island of Ireland. In 1999 this territorial claim was REMOVED from the Irish constitution.

I mean my God man, what part of that isn't clear?!?!. Were you not around for the referendum, did you not understand what we were being asked to voted on?

csk wrote:

You wish to cling to the undemocratic, unjust, unfair veto that wee have given to Unionists, fair enough, it still does not give up our claim to National Sovereignty.

I "cling" dear boy to the Constitution of the Irish Republic

csk wrote:

NO it doesn’t give up our claim to National Sovereignty.

You are right, it doesn't. A constitution by definition cannot give up claim to national sovereignty, if it did the constitution itself would have no legitimate standing

What it does is it gives up our claim to territory known as Northern Ireland!!!! (I think, I think, I've said that before ...)

Our constitution NO LONGER claims that OUR SOVEREIGNTY extends to the ENTIRE ISLAND of Ireland which it did claim BEFORE the 19th amendment to the constitution.

We no longer have territorial claim, in the constitution, to sovereignty, over Northern Ireland.

I'm not going to say it again :rolleyes:

oscarBravo

csk and Wicknight: calm down, let yiz.

ninty9er

can somone put them in a room until they sort their little problem out:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Zombrex

ninty9er wrote:

can somone put them in a room until they sort their little problem out:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Its not little, its big I tell you .. big!! ... oh wait, what are we talking about ... ?

Liam Byrne

Ulster9 wrote:

i think others like to misrepresent Sinn Feins policies in order to scare people away from voting for them.Their policies are pretty similiar if not identical to Labours.

I don't ever remember any Labour leader (or any other Labour member on the Late Late show, for that matter) refusing to condemn the murder of a Garda ?

The best way to prepare for a vaguely possible United Ireland is for certain sections of society to realise that they can't make the rules to suit themselves and that in a true democracy most ordinary decent people obey the laws and have respect for the choices and lifestyles of others, providing they too abide by the laws of the state.

Personally, I think the word "republican" has been tarnished to the point that normal, open-minded, right-thinking people are afraid to use it to describe themselves in case they're considered psychotic. And while the notion of a whole island of our own is a great one, in theory, it's not a foregone conclusion and I for one am happy to relinquish it if it means that no more innocent people have to suffer.

If it can be achieved by democratic means without imposing on the rights of the "other side", then great; otherwise forget about it.

And considering the number of UK chains and stores in the Republic at this stage, there's a whole other debate as to what "Irish" actually means anymore.....

LordSutch

HP Sauce, Fish & Chips, the Royal Family, Two World Wars, Coronation Street, Going to University in England or Scotland, Curry, The Royal Mail, NHS, Fair Play, Union Jack, Religion (various), Cricket, Rugby, Darts, Rounders, Sunday School, Panto, Marmite, Tommy Cooper, Joey Dunlop, Van Morrisson, Mrs T, Ian Paisley, the Falklands, Billy Connolly, Harry Hill, Hugh Grant, English Scots, Irish, Welsh, Footie ………………


Being British can be very hard to define, and there are many definitions of being British (some ignorant English people even think that they alone are the British) but suffice to say, if you are British you know you are, and you proclaim it without hesitation.

Do not confuse being British with being English (they overlap) many Irish people are British too ..................

Being British can mean many things to many people. Many people who live on the island of Britain profess (not to be British) even though their family roots might have been in Britain for hundreds of years, this is inexplicable to the majority of British people who, like Gordon Brown (for example) the (Scottish Chancellor of the exchequer) Shouts in the House of Commons about how Great it is to be British & how the 'Union' must be maintained.

Sir Reg Empey, Ian Paisley, Gerry Adams, Barbara De'Bruin and there you have the real meaning of Britishness (or not) as the case may be, Adams as far as I am aware enjoys all the benefits of that British system, yet still, he hates everything British while at the same time he asks for more money off the British chancellor Gordon Brown! Sir Reg & Paisley profess to being totally 'British' to the core, whilst still being Irish.

Sir Reg & Paisley will always wear a Poppy to remember the Thirty Thousand+ (Irish Ward dead) + all the other British & Commonwealth War dead in the two World Wars (this is very British) while Adams & Mc Guinness will refuse to remember or acknowledge the War dead at all.

To be honest, there are so many examples of Britishness that I could be here all day, suffice to say that many, many Irish people (Nationalists inc) are so close to being British as makes little difference ~ even if they hate the Royal Family or Hate the Union Jack (while they watch ManU on the BBC) oh yes, and havent we also floated away from the British Isles recently? but thats another story .....................

A Dub in Glasgo

Page 5, Post 82

It would have been easier to link to the earlier post. Anyway, I have asked some questions about it previously

darkman2

ArthurF wrote:

oh yes, and havent we also floated away from the British Isles recently? but thats another story .....................

The antagonistic term 'British' Isles is on the way out already removed from several atlases in this country.