Tricolour ban for Irish gymnasts

sdanseo

P. Breathnach wrote: »

That's a spiteful misrepresentation of what I said. I suppose it makes you feel like a good patriot.

Not spiteful, sarcastic. There's a difference.

Grudaire

futurehope wrote: »

That is all completely irrelevant. If the majority in six counties choose to go one way and the majority in 26 counties chooses to go another way then both have exercised self determination. Those in the 26 counties do not have the right to force their will on those in the six counties. And following your example above, The UK did not have the right to dictate to those in the six counties how they should exercise self determination any more than they had the right to dictate to the twenty six counties.

Do you accept that Connaught has the right to sede from The Republic and form a completely new nation state? I would say yes, providing a majority of those who actually live there vote for it. This is called self determination - The ROI would not have the right to stop it. And yes, this would still apply even if a minority within Connaught did not want independence and even if the majority within The Republic did not want independence for Connaught. International law is quite plain on this matter. It would then be up to Connaught to seek recognition internationally of other sovereign states.

Surely you're not being serious here, I mean really - I bet you can't say that with a straight face.

Since you seem not to be grasping logic like I do:
- A majority in Ulster want a united Ireland (32 county Republic)
- However: A Majority in the 6 counties want to keep the union (Thus the situation we have today)
- This is where we get into splitting stuff up even more A Majority in Derry want a united Ireland (27 county Republic)
- But sure Derry city has a majority of unionists (I don't think it does - but I'm taking poetic licence here) (27 county republic - less Derry city)
- But the 'Free Derry' area wants to be a united Ireland (27 county Republic - less the unionist half of Derry)

Don't you see that if I draw the borders different we come up with a different minority (mind you the Unionists noticed this first - ahhh Mandering the aul Gerry!).

I'm all for self determination - if it's reasonable. There's no point in having say a house as it's own country, or indeed 6 counties awkwardly chopped off the side of a nation.

dlofnep

Derry City is nationalist.

Ireland was divided by political pressure and force - until the threat that not agreeing to division would result in a large scale attack by British troops. Let's face it - the majority of the country did not want division.

FutureHope - I take it that you agree with declaration of independance of Northern Cyprus?

I like how FutureHope and his likes consistently bring up "majority". Unionism is not the majority of anything.

Majority of Ulster? Nope.
Majority on the Island of Ireland? Nope.
Majority in the UK? Nope.

As I've already stated elsewhere, on 18 separate polls taken from the early 80's up until 2006 - not once did Britain vote in favour of the north remaining in the Union. It is quite abundantly clear, that the north remains in the union against the wishes of the people of both Ireland and Britain. but there ya go - so long as the slight majority in a statelet created to give a minority, a majority vote are happy - then FutureHope is happy. Unionists would actually have a much larger say in a 32 county Republic than they currently have.

Those in the 26 counties do not have the right to force their will on those in the six counties.

But yet, Britain had the right to force their will on the majority of the Irish people who did not want seperation.. And yet - those in the 6 counties have the right to force their will on the majority of the people in the UK. Pick and choosery is what I call it.

Kotek Besar

dlofnep wrote: »

As I've already stated elsewhere, on 18 separate polls taken from the early 80's up until 2006 - not once did Britain vote in favour of the north remaining in the Union. It is quite abundantly clear, that the north remains in the union against the wishes of the people of both Ireland and Britain.

Agree with you 100%. I think Raiser also put it very well:

Raiser wrote: »

The only conciliatory fact is that the Unionists are regarded as stubborn, petulant, whining, squatting British Knackers by the Irish and irritating Irish Misfits by the British - NOBODY wants anything to do with them at this stage - if, for an example, a new strain of Orange Avian Flu wiped them out overnight then I'd suspect there'd be two new National Holidays created as a consequence......

Brilliantly put!

Cards on table, I'm English and I live in Ireland.

conchubhar1

benifa wrote: »

I'm English and I live in Ireland.

once you respect that you live in ireland

i dont get the unionist question - studying history - and its the only baffling concept i dont get

they stay there and insist they are right


the history of the north did not start in 1601-3-7 or 1690 etc etc

Kotek Besar

conchubhar1 wrote: »

once you respect that you live in ireland

I respect it very much Sir. As I'm sure you respect that tomorrow I will be driving up to the United Kingdom to do some shopping.

dlofnep

Is it one of those boat cars? Bring us for a spin, will ya!

conchubhar1

united kingdom of great britain and northern ireland, mind you

O'Coonassa

conchubhar1 wrote: »

the history of the north did not start in 1601-3-7 or 1690 etc etc

So when did it begin conchubhar1? When the Gaels showed up and wiped out our Ivernic culture? Or when the first people came here from Great Britain? Where do you place the start of Irish history?

Kotek Besar

conchubhar1 wrote: »

united kingdom of great britain and northern ireland, mind you

Of course, as per my passport, "Ríocht Aontaithe na Breataine Móire agus Thuaisceart Éireann". :P

Ok lads I'm off, stopping off in Dublin tonight on the way up to Newry. Catch up on this on Tuesday then so!

futurehope

Cliste said:

Surely you're not being serious here, I mean really - I bet you can't say that with a straight face.

Oh yes I can - although I admit it is difficult to keep a straight face when talking to Irish Nationalists - very difficult indeed.

Don't you see that if I draw the borders different we come up with a different minority (mind you the Unionists noticed this first - ahhh Mandering the aul Gerry!).

I'll just take the time here to explain to you exactly what gerrymandering means. Gerrymandering is where say three wards are elected to a council, but two only contain 1000 voters and one 3000 voters. All the labour voters are in the first two wards electing 2 labour councillors, whilst all The Conservative voters are contained in the third ward electing 1 Conservative councillor. This means the council has two labour councillors and only one Conservative, even though there are 3000 Conservatives in the town and only 2000 labour voters. THIS IS GERRYMANDERING.

What you are talking about is partition based upon consensual majority votes both sides of the border.

If you are going to use a word, I suggest you find out what it means first.

I'm all for self determination - if it's reasonable. There's no point in having say a house as it's own country, or indeed 6 counties awkwardly chopped off the side of a nation.

It's not for you to determine what is reasonable for others. Of course, should a house choose to go it's own way, it would have to face the implications of it's independence, but the principle would still apply.

"6 counties awkwardly chopped off the side of a nation" - does it look untidy on the map or something? :rolleyes:

conchubhar1

O'Coonassa wrote: »

So when did it begin conchubhar1? When the Gaels showed up and wiped out our Ivernic culture? Or when the first people came here from Great Britain? Where do you place the start of Irish history?

well, as per the definition of history, when writing down was used in ireland

so yes that would be with the ''gaels'' yes

O'Coonassa

futurehope wrote: »

What you are talking about is partition based upon consensual majority votes both sides of the border.

Are you seriously suggesting that the three majority-Catholic counties north of the border were included in Northern Ireland by the consensus of their inhabitants? I do wish sometimes that you'd try to be a little more balanced and fair minded.

I look at Anglican and Dissenter communities around the world and compare them with those in the northeast. I can't help but feel that the Pope has rubbed off on them far more than they'd ever admit. Certainly very different in attitude to their co-religionists elsewhere. What was it Neitzche said about battling not with monsters....

O'Coonassa

conchubhar1 wrote: »

well, as per the definition of history, when writing down was used in ireland

so yes that would be with the ''gaels'' yes

Well fvck the Gaels with a big splintery stick, they turned us into slaves and turned us over to the Pope and his Normans. Twats :mad:

conchubhar1

O'Coonassa wrote: »

Well fvck the Gaels with a big splintery stick, they turned us into slaves and turned us over to the Pope and his Normans. Twats :mad:

slavery in ireland by the gaels - jesus that is possibly the most unsubstantiated claim on the internet ever

O'Coonassa

conchubhar1 wrote: »

slavery in ireland by the gaels - jesus that is possibly the most unsubstantiated claim on the internet ever

You're joking right?

conchubhar1

qoute your source

i would also like to point out that pope, was english

sceptre

futurehope wrote: »

I'll just take the time here to explain to you exactly what gerrymandering means. Gerrymandering is where say three wards are elected to a council, but two only contain 1000 voters and one 3000 voters. All the labour voters are in the first two wards electing 2 labour councillors, whilst all The Conservative voters are contained in the third ward electing 1 Conservative councillor. This means the council has two labour councillors and only one Conservative, even though there are 3000 Conservatives in the town and only 2000 labour voters. THIS IS GERRYMANDERING.

That isn't gerrymandering. That's called malapportionment - where a given voter has disproportionate representation.

Gerrymandering, entirely separate but often used in conjunction with malapportionment (and hence often confused), is where constituency boundaries are redrawn in a manner whereby a given constituency (or constituencies) elect a disproportionate amount of members from a particular party, regardless of the proportion of voters in that area that might be reasonably expected to vote for both parties. It's an application of the wasted vote effect. There are plenty of current examples on the Internet, my favourites are California's 23rd district and the 4th in Illinois, both of which are likely to illustrate the method rather well if you look for a map of them.

conchubhar1

oh jesus i hope your not taking that there was slavery in ireland and twisting that into saying that the gaels conquered ireland and subjegated the population

sceptre

Now, as an aside and nothing to do with the post I've quoted above, the last few posters really need to post smarter or find a new playground. In particular I'm looking at you conchubhar1. Take that one as a mod instruction.

O'Coonassa

conchubhar1 wrote: »

qoute your source

i would also like to point out that pope, was english

He was Catholic, and I'd like to point out that the Normans were French.

The Gaels were proto-feudal slave owners and slave traders. Most of us common men on the bottom of the pile didn't even properly belong to a tuath but were vassals and slaves, not freemen.

conchubhar1

sceptre wrote: »

Now, as an aside and nothing to do with the post I've quoted above, the last few posters really need to post smarter or find a new playground. In particular I'm looking at you conchubhar1. Take that one as a mod instruction.

why?

conchubhar1

but from what you said it looked like that came in and introduced slavery and subjugated the island

not true

catholic - relevance?
normans were french - yes - of scandnavian descent - what is the point?

sceptre

conchubhar1 wrote: »

why?

Because I told you to as the exchange between yourself and O'Coonassa is close to being as far removed from an intelligence discourse remotely connected to the point of the thread as it could be. This isn't After Hours. Take seven days for continuing it along regardless, O'Coonassa you can make your call on whether you'd like to follow suit.

This thread is rather close to being closed, the next few posts will determine how soon that happens.

sdanseo

So, who's up for a competition to compose the All Ireland Gymnastics anthem?

I'm going to win, so I'll get writing...and my coat.

futurehope

dlofnep said:

Ireland was divided by political pressure and force - until the threat that not agreeing to division would result in a large scale attack by British troops. Let's face it - the majority of the country did not want division.

No. Wrong again. 'Ireland' (the island of Ireland) was divided because the majority within the 26 counties wanted out of The UK. They got their wish. The majority within the 6 counties wanted to stay part of The UK. They got there wish. Everything else is just so much green manure. All of it.

FutureHope - I take it that you agree with declaration of independance of Northern Cyprus?

I have no problem with it, although to be honest I couldn't care less about Cyprus (or The Republic of Ireland either).

I like how FutureHope and his likes consistently bring up "majority". Unionism is not the majority of anything.

Unionism is the majority within Northern Ireland - the only majority that matters.

As I've already stated elsewhere, on 18 separate polls taken from the early 80's up until 2006 - not once did Britain vote in favour of the north remaining in the Union. It is quite abundantly clear, that the north remains in the union against the wishes of the people of both Ireland and Britain. but there ya go - so long as the slight majority in a statelet created to give a minority, a majority vote are happy - then FutureHope is happy.

All the opinion polls in GB don't effect the right to self determination of those in British Ulster. It is true that GB as a whole could sede from The UK if those living there wanted it. But this wouldn't create a United Ireland unless those in Northern Ireland and those living in Southern Ireland wanted it.

Unionists would actually have a much larger say in a 32 county Republic than they currently have.

And if Cork went independent, those in Cork would have a much larger say in Cork's affairs than now - so what? :rolleyes:

futurehope

O'Coonassa wrote: »

Are you seriously suggesting that the three majority-Catholic counties north of the border were included in Northern Ireland by the consensus of their inhabitants? I do wish sometimes that you'd try to be a little more balanced and fair minded.

Well the line had to be drawn somewhere my balanced and fair minded Irish friend. As a balanced and fair minded Irish man/woman/priest/whatever do you think it was fair that majority Unionist areas across Ireland especially in areas such as Donegal were trapped in the sectarian cess pit that The Free State became? What about those majorities? Can you be a bit more balanced and fair minded about them?

Grudaire

futurehope wrote: »

Oh yes I can - although I admit it is difficult to keep a straight face when talking to Irish Nationalists - very difficult indeed.

Equally so for talking with them Unionists:

futurehope wrote: »

I'll just take the time here to explain to you exactly what gerrymandering means. Gerrymandering is where say three wards are elected to a council, but two only contain 1000 voters and one 3000 voters. All the labour voters are in the first two wards electing 2 labour councillors, whilst all The Conservative voters are contained in the third ward electing 1 Conservative councillor. This means the council has two labour councillors and only one Conservative, even though there are 3000 Conservatives in the town and only 2000 labour voters. THIS IS GERRYMANDERING.

I think you may be (deliberately?) missing the point. Right what happened with the North is pretty similar to the exact definition of Gerrymandering. Take your example above - now just imaging that they got rid of the third ward which elected a single Conservative councillor - thus creating a false majority. (ie they chose a region where there was a majority)

futurehope wrote: »

What you are talking about is partition based upon consensual majority votes both sides of the border.

Well to be fair the Northern majority was falsely created. You are forgetting that there was a Boundary Commission set up to fix the bounds to be fairer - however they changed very little - but this got lost in the fray that was the Civil war

futurehope wrote: »

If you are going to use a word, I suggest you find out what it means first.

Well if we want to get technical I never actually used the word - however that there is what is called nit-picking (ie deal with the actual issue)

futurehope wrote: »

It's not for you to determine what is reasonable for others. Of course, should a house choose to go it's own way, it would have to face the implications of it's independence, but the principle would still apply.

"6 counties awkwardly chopped off the side of a nation" - does it look untidy on the map or something? :rolleyes:

It looks rather untidy - the teddy bears head is chopped off.

Hang on - what makes it anyone else's choice. You should tell the UK that - it could have solved a lot of trouble (in fact the troubles), if they'd have used that logic, and listened to the Nationalists


Anyway you're dragging us well off topic. I have made the point before, but I don't think anyone listened:

This is not a 32 county organisation, there is a Northern Irish Gymnastic Association, I have a link somewhere back in one of my posts - google is your friend.

A Dub in Glasgo

futurehope wrote: »

No. Wrong again. 'Ireland' (the island of Ireland) was divided because the majority within the 26 counties wanted out of The UK. They got their wish. The majority within the 6 counties wanted to stay part of The UK. They got there wish. Everything else is just so much green manure. All of it.

I am sorry to inform you that you are wrong, there was no 6 or 26 before partition. Ulster was divided to ensure an inbuilt majority for those who wanted to stay part of the UK. This is primary school stuff.

in British Ulster

What is the difference between Ulster and British Ulster? An in built majority?

junder

Elliemental wrote: »

The Unionists are really going to have to make more of an effort to move on from this pettiness. Even if the gymnasts were competing in Britain, they'd still be able to display their national flag. Besides, the displaying of the Union Jack offends many people round here, but the Unionists wont let a little thing like that get in the way.

the same could be said about republicans who seem to want to strip northern ireland of all of its British symbols, wasting gods knows how much of the tax payers money on equlity surveys, constantly moaning about creating neutral enviorments. Then whinge and bitch because they have created a monster which effects even young people collecting money at supermarkets. If this was a simple local gymnastics compertition why was there any need to fly any flags or play any national anthems?