Referendum for Irish Unity 2022

Seanchai

LordSutch wrote: »

Question; Is it a contradiction in terms for a Northern Irish/British/Unionist/Protestant person to aspire for his region of the United Kingdom
(to leave the UK) and become part of an 'All Ireland' Irish/Nationalist Republic, devoid of any connection to the rest of the United Kingdom?

I'd imagine he wouldn't be a Unionist if he aspired to Irish independence and reunification.

An Coilean

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

A criminal is a criminal that's not a criticism of capitalism.

You say that socialism breeds a Lazy and dependent population, I would be of the opinion that Capitalism breeds an entitled greedy class of criminals at the top.

@Bertie Woot, there is still a large majority in favor of Irish Unity in the south, its just that those against shout it loud and often and have access to the necessary platform to make their voices heard.

Iwasfrozen

Seanchai wrote: »

By a long shot the biggest socialism in this modern capitalist state is corporate socialism, state intervention designed to support the same people from banks to developers to foreign corporations who would be at the forefront of the ranks condemning "socialism", that is when state intervention distributes wealth to poorer people.

The rants against "socialism" should be hollow to anybody who has witnessed the massive transfer of wealth, and socialisation of corporate debt, during the current recession. And the godfather of capitalist societies, the United States, is a veteran in engaging in such massive corporate socialism. These are capitalist societies in action, not capitalism in the ideals of some blinkered Libertarian theorist.

Sure under proper capitalism these institutions should be allowed to fall.

LordSutch

I don't know what to make of your posts Bertie, they are the most Irish Nationalist republican posts
(posted by a British Unionist) that I have ever read - scratches head & smiles simultaneously :cool:

So, to all intents and puropses you are now an Irish Nationalist, right?

Your language (from a Unionist point of view) also puzzles me. Total seperation from the rest of the UK - 800 years of English oppression - Great Britain as the oppressor - "Not all Ulster Unionist Protestants are narrow-minded bigots" You also mention Hibernophobia quite a lot in your posts, which I find interesting coming from a Unionist, or should I say (ex Unionist)? Now an Irish Nationalist.

Your posts are well thought out, and you have obviously put a lot of time and effort into this topic, so much so that you seem to have completly turned yourself inside out and become the flip side of what you were born, which I find fascinating. You have indeed nailed your new colours (Green White & Orange) to the mast in style, and for that I commend you, specially from one who was born into 'The Unionist Tribe' as your peers would see it. Then again I suppose you are still a Unionist, not in the tradional sense, but a New type of Unionist who seeks to end one union (to the rest of the UK), and replace it with another Union; ie, A Union with the ROI.

I can only presume there are some Nationalists in Northern Ireland who have seen the light from the other side of the prism, and thus shed their Gaelic Irish Nationalist heritage and become unrepentant British Nationalists/Unionist radicals, who will argue at all costs to retain the Union with their kinfolk in the rest of the constituent parts of the United Kingdom in England, Scotland, & Wales.

Tongue in cheek maybe, but its possible . . . .

Iwasfrozen

An Coilean wrote: »

You say that socialism breeds a Lazy and dependent population, I would be of the opinion that Capitalism breeds an entitled greedy class of criminals at the top.

So does socialism. It's the nature of the elite to try hold onto their position. That's why we need a strong capitalist society with minimum government and high social mobility. Let the hardest working move up on the ladder and push aside any complacent elites.

padma

LordSutch wrote: »

I don't know what to make of your posts Bertie, they are the most Irish Nationalist republican posts
(posted by a British Unionist) that I have ever read - scratches head & smiles simultaneously :cool:

So, to all intents and puropses you are now an Irish Nationalist, right?

Your language (from a Unionist point of view) also puzzles me. Total seperation from the rest of the UK - 800 years of English oppression - Great Britain as the oppressor - "Not all Ulster Unionist Protestants are narrow-minded bigots" You also mention Hibernophobia quite a lot in your posts, which I find interesting coming from a Unionist, or should I say (ex Unionist)? Now an Irish Nationalist.

Your posts are well thought out, and you have obviously put a lot of time and effort into this topic, so much so that you seem to have completly turned yourself inside out and become the flip side of what you were born, which I find fascinating. You have indeed nailed your new colours (Green White & Orange) to the mast in style, and for that I commend you, specially from one who was born into 'The Unionist Tribe' as your peers would see it. Then again I suppose you are still a Unionist, not in the tradional sense, but a New type of Unionist who seeks to end one union (to the rest of the UK), and replace it with another Union; ie, A Union with the ROI.

I can only presume there are some Nationalists in Northern Ireland who have seen the light from the other side of the prism, and thus shed their Gaelic Irish Nationalist heritage and become unrepentant British Nationalists/Unionist radicals, who will argue at all costs to retain the Union with their kinfolk in the rest of the constituent parts of the United Kingdom in England, Scotland, & Wales.

Tongue in cheek maybe, but its possible . . . .

To be honest I see Bertie's post reflects him as a very rational well thought out person. He has obviously read Irish History, is proud to be from Ireland and is a forward thinker. Maybe one who has looked at the current situation and sees a future for the whole island of Ireland.

Bertie's way of thinking is hopefully something that can be instrumental in bringing the Unionists and indeed the Loyalists in from the cold. He has seen the siege mentality and fear that Unionists and Loyalists have about their future and I believe he believes in the common good of all Irishmen of all political persuasion that the fear is unnecessary.

We are living in different times and like it or not the phobia which he has mentioned does exist.

LordSutch

Oh I agree that he's "a rational well thought out person", but in fairness Padma, even your language is loaded in favour of Irish Nationalism (to the exclusion of UK Unionism), and I quote "something that can be instrumental in bringing the Unionists and indeed the Loyalists in from the cold"

But I mean, who's to say that Unionists are out in the cold anyway?

Surely they have always seen us as being out in the cold, not just at the birth of the state, but in the modern
world/climate too, what with us being governed by Brussels & unable to even set our own interest rates!

Thing is, how do you convince one million (approx) Unionist/British folk to leave their beloved NHS, their BBC, their Royal Mail + their National heritage, and their comfort within the UK as a country > and then replace that with becoming part of the ROI.

I mean, what is the Big Carrot to get them to leave the UK and join the ROI?

padma

The truth is a lot of the Unionist and Loyalist communities have felt excluded over the past ten years or so. It took a lot for the Unionist and Loyalist politicians to get involved in the peace agreement. Even the issue of Ian Paisley meeting with Sinn Fein took ages to achieve. It wasn't until it was absolutely necessary that he did finally mellow in to the new stormont.

I digress, I've said before here, I'm not a nationalist, but it does seem to me on this Island that a future together is much better than a future divided. The pipe dream that Bertie envisages is as the likes of Wolfe Tone, and Robert Emmet envisaged, (both Protestants I may add) a future where the interests of the people of Ireland are best represented by ourselves alone.

We need faith in ourselves as a people to overcome the centuries of division in creating a lasting peace and who really has no faith in themselves to rule over themselves.

As Bertie said he feels the Loyalty displayed by Ulster Loyalists was wasted and unappreciated. Is this true of other people in the 6 counties? There is a very strong British Nationalism instilled in the Loyalist communities in Northern Ireland and is inherited as a part of their culture.

Though as Bertie pointed out,
" Whilst I have no issue with a total disconnection form Britain in the event of Irish reunification, it would be much better for the Celtic/Gaelic Irish to permit the Ulster Unionist people to sustain their ancestral/historical/ethnic/cultural link with Britain, and to sanction the dual nationality of "British-Irish" in a similar manner to the way Americans of Irish, African and Italian descent consider themselves "Irish-American", Afro-American" and Italian-American".

Think

padma

The Big Carrot would be the orange on the tricolour, y'is can claim it to yourselves as was meant to happen. Just joking, but seriously the biggest carrot of all is Unity with your neighbors beside you. Peace for your children and a future devoid of hatred.

You'll still get BBC. As for the Royal Mail, well you can get that delivered to you when you receive a letter from the UK.

LordSutch

padma wrote: »

I digress, I've said before here, I'm not a nationalist, but it does seem to me on this Island that a future together is much better than a future divided. Think

I hear your arguments padma, and I find this argument above^ particularly poignant, specially in the light of Alex Salmond
and his ongoing argument that Britain is better divided (politically/economically) as an island, than United together as one!

Good thread this, hope it stays on the rails..

Goodnight.

Bertie Woot

LordSutch wrote: »

I don't know what to make of your posts Bertie, they are the most Irish Nationalist republican posts
(posted by a British Unionist) that I have ever read - scratches head & smiles simultaneously :cool:

I may be from the British, Unionist, Protestant community, but unlike most Unionists, who are typically right-wing and conservative, ever since I was a teenager I have believed in Socialist values and principles, and whilst condemning of IRA violence, I have had an empathy with Irish nationalism and its aspirations. Besides, I've always been bit of a maverick.

So, to all intents and puropses you are now an Irish Nationalist, right?

I've thought about this before. If I were to say that I am an "Irish Nationalist" most people would automatically assume that I am of Celtic/Gaelic heritage and a Roman Catholic. I'm not. I am of British colonial ancestral origin (English on my dad's side and Ulster-Scot on my mums), and was born into the Protestant faith (but consider myself an Agnostic), and I was also born on this island and am thus an Irishman. I have no desire to deny or conceal my origins, so must report as someone who comes from a British Unionist background, but who does not believe in the sustainment of NI's union with GB at the expense of the continued partition of Ireland. I believes that the Irish nation should be reunited as a matter of principle, and that there should be a place for the Unionist/Loyalist people within the new Ireland.

Your language (from a Unionist point of view) also puzzles me. Total seperation from the rest of the UK - 800 years of English oppression - Great Britain as the oppressor - "Not all Ulster Unionist Protestants are narrow-minded bigots" You also mention Hibernophobia quite a lot in your posts, which I find interesting coming from a Unionist, or should I say (ex Unionist)? Now an Irish Nationalist.

Whilst non-supportive of Republican violence, intellectually I believe that the Irish Republican analysis of the Irish problem is correct, in that the 'Irish problem' has never been an 'Irish problem', but a British problem as the British created it. I mention hibernophobia, because as a Northern Irish person I have experienced it, and know what it is like to be viewed with suspicion, distrust and prejudice. I've tasted the attitude of some English people towards the Irish, an attitude of superiority, and I cannot approve.

Your posts are well thought out, and you have obviously put a lot of time and effort into this topic, so much so that you seem to have completly turned yourself inside out and become the flip side of what you were born, which I find fascinating. You have indeed nailed your new colours (Green White & Orange) to the mast in style, and for that I commend you, specially from one who was born into 'The Unionist Tribe' as your peers would see it. Then again I suppose you are still a Unionist, not in the tradional sense, but a New type of Unionist who seeks to end one union (to the rest of the UK), and replace it with another Union; ie, A Union with the ROI.

That's a nice way of looking at it, but I can no longer consider myself 'a Unionist' by virtue of the fact that I do not believe in the sustainment of the union with Great Britain in its present form. I believe in the peaceful reunification of Ireland and an end to partition, and have indeed become the very antithesis of what I was born. I respect my people's right to believe in the union, but feel that their loyalty to Great Britain is foolish, and treated with flippancy and disrespect by the mainland British. I believe in nationalism, both British and Irish nationalism, and that Northern Ireland should withdraw from the union with Great Britain and form part of a new Irish nation, and that wasted loyalty to Great Britain, our country of origin, should now be transferred to our country of birth; Ireland.

I can only presume there are some Nationalists in Northern Ireland who have seen the light from the other side of the prism, and thus shed their Gaelic Irish Nationalist heritage and become unrepentant British Nationalists/Unionist radicals, who will argue at all costs to retain the Union with their kinfolk in the rest of the constituent parts of the United Kingdom in England, Scotland, & Wales.

There has indeed been a very surprising embracement of the Northern Irish identity among many young Nationalists here in the north, but I don't think it is anywhere near as widespread as some Unionist politicians would have you believe.

padma wrote: »

To be honest I see Bertie's post reflects him as a very rational well thought out person. He has obviously read Irish History, is proud to be from Ireland and is a forward thinker. Maybe one who has looked at the current situation and sees a future for the whole island of Ireland.

I view reunification as Ireland's destiny, and would much rather see the Ulster Unionist people embrace their Irish identity and walk into a united Ireland than wait for another push from violent Irish Republicanism. Britain was invited to Ireland in the 12th century, and by one King Dermot MacMurrough of Leinster. This invitation transmogrified into an invasion, and thus began an episode in Irish history which has lasted more than 8 centuries, and caused a lot of unnecessary suffering. I do not believe in British imperialism, in empire, and invading other peoples countries and subjecting the indigenous population to tyranny and oppression. That happened to Ireland under British rule, and although I am descended from the colonial British in Ireland, I feel no desire to look back upon past conquests with any sense of glory. The British empire is dead, it deserves to be dead, as it was wrong.

Bertie's way of thinking is hopefully something that can be instrumental in bringing the Unionists and indeed the Loyalists in from the cold. He has seen the siege mentality and fear that Unionists and Loyalists have about their future and I believe he believes in the common good of all Irishmen of all political persuasion that the fear is unnecessary.

We are living in different times and like it or not the phobia which he has mentioned does exist.

I have felt and shared the "siege mentality", as during the troubles in NI it was very real. Despite my pro-nationalist rhetoric, there is still a small part of me which has reservations about Irish reunification, and that is why I feel that steadfast copper-fastened assurances and guarantees must form a vital part of any reunification agreement, so as to dispel all doubt among the Unionist people about what they are walking into, and to obtain their full allegiance.

I shall address the other poster's points in the morning when I am fully awake, after a good night's Northern Irish sleep. Thanks for tuning in and listening.

getzls

kidneyfan wrote: »

Yes if the capital is moved to Ulster no if not.

And the rest of Ireland re-joined the U.K.

if not, stuff it.

Cavehill Red

getzls wrote: »

And the rest of Ireland re-joined the U.K.

if not, stuff it.

There won't be a 'UK' to 'rejoin' soon enough. It really is time that Unionists grasped the nettle of their political and geographical reality. England doesn't give a crap about you and Britain is slowly pulling itself apart. Independence is unfeasible. Ultimately, in a few years or a generation or two, you'll be looking to negotiate a federal settlement on the island, like it or not.

Iwasfrozen

Cavehill Red wrote: »

There won't be a 'UK' to 'rejoin' soon enough. It really is time that Unionists grasped the nettle of their political and geographical reality. England doesn't give a crap about you and Britain is slowly pulling itself apart. Independence is unfeasible. Ultimately, in a few years or a generation or two, you'll be looking to negotiate a federal settlement on the island, like it or not.

Do you mean Scottish independence? Not going to happen, I'll eat my hat if it does and you can quote that.

getzls

Cavehill Red wrote: »

There won't be a 'UK' to 'rejoin' soon enough. It really is time that Unionists grasped the nettle of their political and geographical reality. England doesn't give a crap about you and Britain is slowly pulling itself apart. Independence is unfeasible. Ultimately, in a few years or a generation or two, you'll be looking to negotiate a federal settlement on the island, like it or not.

Can you really see Unionists who some still link the Irish Republic to the support they gave or felt they gave to the IRA wanting to become part of an all Ireland?

No chance.

Cavehill Red

getzls wrote: »

Can you really see Unionists who some still link the Irish Republic to the support they gave or felt they gave to the IRA wanting to become part of an all Ireland?

No chance.

Time heals all wounds, even completely fantasy ones such as you describe.

Cavehill Red

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Do you mean Scottish independence? Not going to happen, I'll eat my hat if it does and you can quote that.

I'm old. I remember Tories in Major's government saying similar bluster about the possibility of a Scottish parliament. Indeed, go back far enough and people were saying similar about Britain entering the EU. Currently they say similar about Britain leaving the EU.
Bottom line is, just because you can't imagine something doesn't make it impossible, or even unlikely.

getzls

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Time heals all wounds, even completely fantasy ones such as you describe.

Seems your not old enough to remember when the IRA crossed the border to hide under the protection of the Irish state.

I am.

Cavehill Red

getzls wrote: »

Seems your not old enough to remember when the IRA crossed the border to hide under the protection of the Irish state.

I am.

Your memory may be impaired by senility in that case, since the IRA never functioned under the protection of the Irish state. They crossed the border to evade British security, which is a different matter entirely.
Now, if you want to discuss paramilitary organisations which demonstrably DID function under state protection, we can do that, but it would be an entirely Loyalist-themed discussion, and off-topic to this discussion.

getzls

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Your memory may be impaired by senility in that case, since the IRA never functioned under the protection of the Irish state. They crossed the border to evade British security, which is a different matter entirely.
Now, if you want to discuss paramilitary organisations which demonstrably DID function under state protection, we can do that, but it would be an entirely Loyalist-themed discussion, and off-topic to this discussion.

And the Irish courts.:cool:

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

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

Little has changed in my way of thinking.

Cavehill Red

getzls wrote: »

And the Irish courts.:cool:

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

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

Little has changed in my way of thinking.

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

Chuck Stone

getzls wrote: »

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

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

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

oscarBravo

Cavehill Red wrote: »

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

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

Cavehill Red

oscarBravo wrote: »

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

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

oscarBravo

Cavehill Red wrote: »

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

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

Cavehill Red

oscarBravo wrote: »

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

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

oscarBravo

Cavehill Red wrote: »

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

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

Cavehill Red

oscarBravo wrote: »

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

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

oscarBravo

Cavehill Red wrote: »

British occupation in Ireland is a fact.

No, it's not.

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

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

Cavehill Red

oscarBravo wrote: »

No, it's not.

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

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

Chuck Stone

oscarBravo wrote: »

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

Integral? Is this what you believe?

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

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

Wiki

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

Cavehill Red

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

oscarBravo

Cavehill Red wrote: »

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

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

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

oscarBravo

Chuck Stone wrote: »

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

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

Cavehill Red

oscarBravo wrote: »

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

I see no relevance.

oscarBravo wrote: »

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

Knock yourself out.

Cavehill Red

oscarBravo wrote: »

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

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

oscarBravo

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I see no relevance.

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

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

Knock yourself out.

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

Cavehill Red wrote: »

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

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

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

Chuck Stone

oscarBravo wrote: »

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

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

Stunning use of logic.

Cavehill Red

oscarBravo wrote: »

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

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

oscarBravo wrote: »

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

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

oscarBravo wrote: »

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

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

oscarBravo wrote: »

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

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

philologos

CelticDragon7 wrote: »

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

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

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

Thanks!

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

Chuck Stone

oscarBravo wrote: »

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

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

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

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

oscarBravo

Chuck Stone wrote: »

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

Stunning use of logic.

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

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

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

Cavehill Red wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

oscarBravo

Chuck Stone wrote: »

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

Who claimed that Northern Ireland was integral to Britain?

Chuck Stone

oscarBravo wrote: »

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

Written while gritting your teeth? As much as you seem to believe there is some sort of nationalist/republican hive mind there isn't.

I don't see the north as an occupied colony. The watch towers are gone and the border crossings have been demilitarized, the BA are off the streets and the PSNI have supplanted the RUC. Much like a migrating bird I don't see the border when I travel up north. I also believe a UI will come about by osmosis rather than pushing people into corners.

The Browser

bbam wrote: »

Was watching an episode of Star Trek Next generation the other evening.

They were babbling on about examples of terrorism gaining results and then mentioned the 2024 civil war in Ireland that gained a unified state...

So that's just two years after your proposed vote.

And how many years after that in the world of star trek until all these ridiculous tribe-based nationalisms ceased to exist in favor of something higher?

Iwasfrozen

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I'm old. I remember Tories in Major's government saying similar bluster about the possibility of a Scottish parliament. Indeed, go back far enough and people were saying similar about Britain entering the EU. Currently they say similar about Britain leaving the EU.
Bottom line is, just because you can't imagine something doesn't make it impossible, or even unlikely.

I'm young. It doesn't. Still not going to happen though.

LordSutch

oscarBravo wrote: »

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

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

Good point Oscar, the term 'Colony' is bandied about so much now, specially (since 1998).

Nodin

oscarBravo wrote: »

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

.

I'd imagine it may be because of the seat on the UNSC and various political reasons. Tibet isn't on the list, nor are the Occupied Territories, West Papua, Kashmir etc.

Happyman42

getzls wrote: »

Seems your not old enough to remember when the IRA crossed the border to hide under the protection of the Irish state.

I am.

I think it's integral to the success of any way forward that the Unionist community accept their part of the responsibility for the existence of the IRA, the INLA and all their loyalist counterparts. The idea of them sitting up on the high moral ground with unstained hands is ludicrious in the extreme and has always been. The fact that they are now the greatest threat to the peace, as we seek 'normalisation' speaks of the refusal of many to rid themselves of the sense of entitlement that caused the conflict in the first place.
We all have responsibility for what happened, just as we have responsibility for the future.

I said earlier that the debate and the celebration of our cultural differences could be a fascinating and nourishing one if we could get to the stage of simply respecting each other.
I would have no qualms whatsoever of a shared future with the likes of Bertie Woot, and I would look forward to a spirited and intelligent debate of the significances of different aspects of our cultures and their place in a new Ireland. United or not, we still have to find a way to share this island.
The obstacles to a peaceful and respectful future lie, just where they have always lain...in intransigence and one sided blame mentalities like the one above.
It's fascinating to at last hear a respectful and intelligent contribution from the Unionist fraternity on here. I have many questions and need to digest what he/she has said and maybe this thread is not the place for them. Stay on board Bertie!

junder

Happyman42 wrote: »

I think it's integral to the success of any way forward that the Unionist community accept their part of the responsibility for the existence of the IRA, the INLA and all their loyalist counterparts. The idea of them sitting up on the high moral ground with unstained hands is ludicrious in the extreme and has always been. The fact that they are now the greatest threat to the peace, as we seek 'normalisation' speaks of the refusal of many to rid themselves of the sense of entitlement that caused the conflict in the first place.
We all have responsibility for what happened, just as we have responsibility for the future.

I said earlier that the debate and the celebration of our cultural differences could be a fascinating and nourishing one if we could get to the stage of simply respecting each other.
I would have no qualms whatsoever of a shared future with the likes of Bertie Woot, and I would look forward to a spirited and intelligent debate of the significances of different aspects of our cultures and their place in a new Ireland. United or not, we still have to find a way to share this island.
The obstacles to a peaceful and respectful future lie, just where they have always lain...in intransigence and one sided blame mentalities like the one above.
It's fascinating to at last hear a respectful and intelligent contribution from the Unionist fraternity on here. I have many questions and need to digest what he/she has said and maybe this thread is not the place for them. Stay on board Bertie!

He discribes himself as a Irish nationalist so whilst apparently being raised in a unionist community he is a unionist and subsequently does not reflect what unionist believe in, but then this is why you are enamoured by his view pound since its what's you want to hear and means you dont Actully have to deal the real unionist beliefs