Referendum for Irish Unity 2022

Cavehill Red

Oscar, here's a nice easy one for you since you now accept that Ulster was colonised.
For it not to be a colony now, it would have to have ceased being one at some point. When exactly was that point?

Happyman42

junder wrote: »

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

I didn't say anything about being 'enamoured'? Plenty of room in what he said for robust debate, what I was enamoured with was something that is sadly missing in Unionst posts on here and that was...the intelligence (not the lack of it but, the use of it) to know that change must happen, and respectfulness.

oscarBravo

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Oscar, here's a nice easy one for you since you now accept that Ulster was colonised.

While I'm answering that, don't forget to point out to Chuck Stone that he's deluded and wrong about the apparently incontrovertible fact of Northern Ireland's status as an occupied colony, because he clearly hasn't read the memo.

For it not to be a colony now, it would have to have ceased being one at some point. When exactly was that point?

If you insist on an actual point in time (I'm not sure why you feel you get to set the parameters of the discussion in that way, but whatever), I would have to say the Act of Union.

Cavehill Red

But that was repealed, Oscar. Furthermore, it wasn't a representative vote of the people.

oscarBravo

Cavehill Red wrote: »

But that was repealed, Oscar.

No, it wasn't.

Furthermore, it wasn't a representative vote of the people.

That's just another argument along the lines that something you disagree with has no validity. Sorry, but reality is not required to conform to republican beliefs.

Also, you forgot to point out the error of his ways to Chuck Stone.

Cavehill Red

Sure it was, Oscar, in the Statute Law Revision Act of 1962.
In any case, a gerrymandered vote by an occupying settler force that denies suffrage to the population has no validity in international law.

LordSutch

Cavehill Red wrote: »

In any case, a gerrymandered vote by an occupying settler force that denies suffrage to the population has no validity in international law.

I prersume the 'settler force' you are refering to are those who arrived into NI the 1600s.

oscarBravo

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Sure it was, Oscar, in the Statute Law Revision Act of 1962.

Oh dear, oh dear. That Act was enacted under a Constitution that explicitly stated that it had no force outside the territory of the Free State. The Act of Union is still on the statute books in the UK, of which Northern Ireland is an integral part.

In any case, a gerrymandered vote by an occupying settler force that denies suffrage to the population has no validity in international law.

And yet, international law recognises the existence of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

I would ask at what point the overwhelming weight of evidence would eventually force you to concede that you're wrong, but the entire point of my contributions to this thread is that your way of thinking isn't open to change, hence the irony.

You forgot to point out to Chuck Stone that he's wrong about Northern Ireland not being an occupied colony.

Cavehill Red

LordSutch wrote: »

I prersume the 'settler force' you are refering to are those who arrived into NI the 1600s.

Specifically, a numerically small ruling class within that number, alongside a small number of those who arrived on the island prior.

Cavehill Red

oscarBravo wrote: »

Oh dear, oh dear. That Act was enacted under a Constitution that explicitly stated that it had no force outside the territory of the Free State. The Act of Union is still on the statute books in the UK, of which Northern Ireland is an integral part.

We've already covered that 'integral' nonsense. Of course the act is still on the statutes of the colonising force. For them to repeal it would indicate that they'd already left. It's not theirs to repeal, but that of the people colonised, and that happened fifty years back.

oscarBravo wrote: »

And yet, international law recognises the existence of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Define international law in this context please.

oscarBravo wrote: »

I would ask at what point the overwhelming weight of evidence would eventually force you to concede that you're wrong, but the entire point of my contributions to this thread is that your way of thinking isn't open to change, hence the irony.

Would you ask that? Because that would be another of your reality-defying loaded questions if you did.

oscarBravo wrote: »

You forgot to point out to Chuck Stone that he's wrong about Northern Ireland not being an occupied colony.

I didn't forget anything. I don't take your orders. If you wish to inform Chuck that NI is an occupied colony, go right ahead.

Weathering

COYW wrote: »

I agree Gallag. It is the only genuine compromise I can see. Whatever way things progress, even if a UI never happens, our links (trade and cultural) are going to get stronger and stronger with the United Kingdom. Given the way things are going in the world, I find it very comforting to know that our bond with the UK is stronger than ever. This country is a safer place with the British army so close to our shores. I firmly believe that.

The british army is the only army to do harm to ireland in modern history and they get involved in countless wars around the world so i think we are better off as neutral independent country. Your comment is way off the mark. Countless Irish lives saved through neutrality

I should add he/she believes a united ireland within the uk is the best solution

oscarBravo

Cavehill Red wrote: »

We've already covered that 'integral' nonsense.

It's only 'nonsense' because you disagree with it, not because you've refuted it, which you haven't. Is Tobago an integral part of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago?

Of course the act is still on the statutes of the colonising force. For them to repeal it would indicate that they'd already left. It's not theirs to repeal, but that of the people colonised, and that happened fifty years back.

...and explicitly didn't include Northern Ireland.

Define international law in this context please.

Have you defined the international law that invalidated the Act of Union?

Would you ask that? Because that would be another of your reality-defying loaded questions if you did.

I'm only defying your carefully-crafted version of reality, which is pretty much my entire point.

I didn't forget anything. I don't take your orders. If you wish to inform Chuck that NI is an occupied colony, go right ahead.

Why would I inform him of your version of reality? He's right, it's not an occupied territory. Is it OK for him to have an opinion that's at odds with your version of reality, but not for me?

Chuck Stone

oscarBravo wrote: »

While I'm answering that, don't forget to point out to Chuck Stone....

oscarBravo wrote: »

Also, you forgot to point out the error of his ways to Chuck Stone.

oscarBravo wrote: »

You forgot to point out to Chuck Stone .

What is this crap? I'm my own man and Cavehill Red is his. I'm sure each of us have our own personal way of conceptualizing the situation that transpires on these islands. It's a pretty complex issue and I'm sure no two people will have the exact same views.

People broadly break down into two sides - those who support the a united Ireland and those who don't. I place myself in the former but at the moderate end of the spectrum in that I don't think there's any great rush and unification will happen by osmosis in its own good time.

oscarBravo

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I'm sure each of us have our own personal way of conceptualizing the situation that transpires on these islands. It's a pretty complex issue and I'm sure no two people will have the exact same views.

I can't seem to persuade Cavehill Red that seeing Northern Ireland as an "occupied colony" is a personal way of conceptualizing the situation; he seems to think it's an indisputable fact.

In fact, he seems incapable of changing his way of thinking on the subject. Which I found pretty ironic.

Chuck Stone

oscarBravo wrote: »

I can't seem to persuade Cavehill Red that seeing Northern Ireland as an "occupied colony" is a personal way of conceptualizing the situation; he seems to think it's an indisputable fact.

Tbh I'd say more supporters of a UI would subscribe to the CR's views than mine. It's not like you're going to cause a split in the UI 'tribe'.

Btw the next time you're talking to a NI Unionist you might remind them that they are about as British as I am Norse.

John Knox.

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 . . . .

I think you have fallen for his posts hook line and sinker. It was obviously made by an Irish Republican who is not from the ethnic background of the Ulster Scots.

It was full of hyperbole and lies frankly. There is next to no chance of the Ulster Scots people voting Yes in a border poll. The Republican argument is based around "800 years, oppression" nonsense. They don't have a valid 21st century argument to why the Protestant population in Ulster should vote yes in a border poll to join a state which doesn't want them.

If they put more effort in Ulster by embracing why the province is different from the rest and work to make it better they would be better off. Instead it is constant need for big government ruling over us.

Wolfe Tone was not a true son of Ulster. He was a Dublin man and his ethnic origins were English. English people haven't been looked upon that favorably by us in history either.

The Irish rebellion of 1798 didn't involve the majority of Ulster Scots and actually led to the foundation of the Orange Order which helped fight it off. There has never been a time in history when the Irish and the Ulster Scots have got on and united. Never.

John Knox.

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.

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.

Why do Republicans say this? Out from the cold is paradise to us. We don't want to be involved in a Republican state. We simply want to be left alone. Why don't some Republicans get this and understand we are culturally, ethnically, religiously and politically different in every way and we wish to maintain that.

John Knox.

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.

Robert Emmet was from Dublin.

John Knox.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

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.

Thousands of Ulster Scots take part in bands which promote the cultural and heritage they have in peace and play good music. Speaking of emigration, thousands of people can't wait to get out of the Irish Republic. Its hardly a state which is beaming with confidence. Perhaps look closer to home before making such comments.

John Knox.

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.

Exactly.

Don't let facts get in the way of a good story, even if it is a story based on delusion. The politicians in the UK are in a majority when it comes to keeping the Union together. They are looking to strengthen the Union, not weaken it.

Some people have this saying that if English people could vote they would want Northern Ireland to leave the Union. This argument is a fallacy in the grand scheme of things because they would do the exact same for Scotland judging by opinion polls.

The English don't get a vote in the 2014 Scottish referendum. Neither would they in a border poll here in Ulster. So why on earth would Ulster Protestants care about what way English people would vote in a border poll when they would never get the chance to vote anyway. Its an irrelevant point to make.

John Knox.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Oscar, here's a nice easy one for you since you now accept that Ulster was colonised.
For it not to be a colony now, it would have to have ceased being one at some point. When exactly was that point?

Why does it matter to you so much if it was colonised in the 1600s? Ireland as a Island has never had a Republican state in the way you describe.

Hell, it used to have Kings and kingdoms. Why do Republicans never mention that? Perhaps it would expose the arguments they have.

Chuck Stone

John Knox. wrote: »

The politicians in the UK are in a majority when it comes to keeping the Union together.

Welcome back.

When the majority decides it unification will begin.

John Knox.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Welcome back.

When the majority decides it unification will begin.

All polls point towards the opposite. There is no evidence it will happen in our life time. Which is all that matters. Of course the option is open but you don't have a solid argument as to why it should happen.

How would the Irish Republic afford Northern Ireland? It simply couldn't. So that rules it out for the foreseeable future while the Irish Republic attempts to recover.

John Knox.

If a Republican can make a case as to why it should happen in the next 10-20 years then go ahead. I don't see such a case being brought forward because they know it is economically impossible given the current situation with the Irish Republic and the UK and the recovery from the 2008 financial crisis.

The argument for the foreseeable is clearly in favour of Unionism. I sometimes get a bit embarrassed for Sinn Fein when they mention a border poll because even they don't believe the bullsh*t they are forced to come out with to appease disillusioned Republicans.

Chuck Stone

John Knox. wrote: »

All polls point towards the opposite.

They're only polls with a reductive dichotomy - as is or UI.

There is no evidence it will happen in our life time.

Evidence for the future? You're right there Ted. :pac:

Of course the option is open but you don't have a solid argument as to why it should happen.

Loads of arguments as to why it should happen.

How would the Irish Republic afford Northern Ireland? It simply couldn't.

Well you see Kei.. Mr Knox, the notion that there would be an overnight tipping point where all costs and responsibilities would be internal betrays how much thought you've put into it i.e. none.

Crooked Jack

John Knox. wrote: »

I think you have fallen for his posts hook line and sinker. It was obviously made by an Irish Republican who is not from the ethnic background of the Ulster Scots.

It was full of hyperbole and lies frankly. There is next to no chance of the Ulster Scots people voting Yes in a border poll. The Republican argument is based around "800 years, oppression" nonsense. They don't have a valid 21st century argument to why the Protestant population in Ulster should vote yes in a border poll to join a state which doesn't want them.

If they put more effort in Ulster by embracing why the province is different from the rest and work to make it better they would be better off. Instead it is constant need for big government ruling over us.

Wolfe Tone was not a true son of Ulster. He was a Dublin man and his ethnic origins were English. English people haven't been looked upon that favorably by us in history either.

The Irish rebellion of 1798 didn't involve the majority of Ulster Scots and actually led to the foundation of the Orange Order which helped fight it off. There has never been a time in history when the Irish and the Ulster Scots have got on and united. Never.

Wait. so, he has formulated his own opinion that doesnt conform to the opinion you think protestants should have, ergo he's a republican plant? diabolical villains them tiocs, arent they.
Actually, he isnt alone. a very good friend of mine from coleraine has an almost identical story. i suppose he's been a secret IRA agent PROVOcateur all along

junder

Happyman42 wrote: »

I didn't say anything about being 'enamoured'? Plenty of room in what he said for robust debate, what I was enamoured with was something that is sadly missing in Unionst posts on here and that was...the intelligence (not the lack of it but, the use of it) to know that change must happen, and respectfulness.

Respect is a word I find most republicans are yet to understand the meaning of, hardly 'respectful' to refer to my community as colonists to infer that we are somehow intruders into the land we where born in, ironically if you took the same attitude with a black person you would be called racist yet it's ok to infer that ulster unionist are 'foreigners' moreover the use of the term 'colony' when refering to Northern Ireland is hardly 'respectful' is it? And the attuitude to important parts of my culture such as the bands are the loyal orders is hardly 'respectful' either now don't the typical republican response to these important cultural traditions will be along shortly

sparkling sea

If the majority of people want unity so be it.

I for don't think the majority give a toss about NI; people in the Republic have enough to do worrying about their own country and the state of politics here and how to make ends met and bank bailouts and paying mortgages and so on; I'd say the last thing the majority wants are more problems and that includes the integration of another country.

Happyman42

junder wrote: »

Respect is a word I find most republicans are yet to understand the meaning of, hardly 'respectful' to refer to my community as colonists to infer that we are somehow intruders into the land we where born in, ironically if you took the same attitude with a black person you would be called racist yet it's ok to infer that ulster unionist are 'foreigners' moreover the use of the term 'colony' when refering to Northern Ireland is hardly 'respectful' is it? And the attuitude to important parts of my culture such as the bands are the loyal orders is hardly 'respectful' either now don't the typical republican response to these important cultural traditions will be along shortly

There are all shades of opinion within republicanism, and they are tolerated and listened to. Look what happens when somebody thinks a little differently within Unionism.
Unionism is a rigid ideology by it's very nature and name. I respect Unionism and it's members and have said it on here.
I do however reserve the right to disagree with it and attempt to persuade you and others otherwise.
I have no problem with 'bands' and 'marches' other than the fact that that is where Unionism expresses the last vestiges of it's entitled and suprematist past.
That is a big challenge for Unionism as we move forward into a new Ireland.

junder

Happyman42 wrote: »

There are all shades of opinion within republicanism, and they are tolerated and listened to. Look what happens when somebody thinks a little differently within Unionism.
Unionism is a rigid ideology by it's very nature and name. I respect Unionism and it's members and have said it on here.
I do however reserve the right to disagree with it and attempt to persuade you and others otherwise.
I have no problem with 'bands' and 'marches' other than the fact that that is where Unionism expresses the last vestiges of it's entitled and suprematist past.
That is a big challenge for Unionism as we move forward into a new Ireland.

What you seem to be missing is that he is not a unionist he is a self expressed Irish nationalist therefore he is out side unionism not inside and as for ' entitled and suprematist past'. That was exactly the usual republican response to the subject of unionist culture, what was that you said about respect?

Happyman42

junder wrote: »

What you seem to be missing is that he is not a unionist he is a self expressed Irish nationalist therefore he is out side unionism not inside and as for ' entitled and suprematist past'. That was exactly the usual republican response to the subject of unionist culture, what was that you said about respect?

He is a Unionist who has question the beliefs he inherited and has shifted his ideology.
Respect has nothing to do with not dealing in truths, you might not like the words but it doesn't make it any less true that that is how Unionism manifested itself since partition.

junder

Happyman42 wrote: »

He is a Unionist who has question the beliefs he inherited and has shifted his ideology.
Respect has nothing to do with not dealing in truths, you might not like the words but it doesn't make it any less true that that is how Unionism manifested itself since partition.

And republicanism is a violent idology that has manifested itself in murder, wait what's that? A generlization I hear, well it seems par for the course round here sometimes. As for berty,a unionist is somebody that believes in maintaining the union, Berty by his/her own admission does not er go he/she is not a unionist and what ever road to Damascus conversion that has led him/her to allegedly convert idology is very much personnel to berty so can in no way reflect unionism in general. So you want to know unionist thought speak to a unionist

T runner

kidneyfan wrote: »

Terrible how the British Isles were partitioned. Time to put that right and put the red saltire back in the front of the Union Flag.

Right Right. And would Unionists accept an Irish parliament this time? No, No? Why not, pray tell? I think there's a little bit too much sectarianism up there still eh?

Ireland has always been partioned geographically, economically and de facto politically from Britain. A corrupt Union imposed by the Richest country in Europe onto the poorest country in Europe changed nothing.

The Union with Ireland was only a strategic move by the British to minimise the threat of a foreign power attacking Britain through Ireland. There was no other reason for the Union. Lord Cornwallis spent in excess of 1.5 million sterling in corrupt payments to Irish gentry in compensation for losing seats...if they voted for The Union. That is an absolutely staggering amount of money for that time. This was not a Union of equals. It was just another example of an imperial power using a colony for its own selfish needs. Absorbing the colony into the UK being the particular selfish need of the Colonial power at the time. An example of how corrupt this Union was the fact that Ireland while having 1/3 of the population only held 1/6th of seats in Westminister. This is inline with the position that the Union was to strenghten Britain defensively while corruptly minimising the unwanted accompanying Irish voice in this "Union" and continued Britains policy of using political corruption and gerrymandering to obtain its imperial needs in Ireland.

You cant partition what was not ever a real unit can you?

The idea of a 6 county separtist entity in Ireland was only born after 1910. This was an artificial gerrymandered region whose only raison d'etre was to give a minority in Ireland, a false majority in this newly created region.

The Protestants in Ireland or Ulster do not qualify under any interpretation of self determination. They could not claim that their rights would be violated in an Independent Ireland because they made no investigation as to that fact. The preservation of 26 county Irish Protestants privlaged position gives the lie to Unionist misgivings.
Their attitudes were based on religious belief, and anti-catholism which had for many Protestants manifested itself in sectarian attitudes to individual Catholics and to institutional sectarianism. Believing your co-countrymen are inferior to you is not grounds for self determination.

And this anti-catholicism lives on..... and wont be adressed because Catholics and Protestants living without idiotic sectarianism might mean that a main barrier to a United Ireland (anti-Catholocism in NI) is gone.

T runner

junder wrote: »

And republicanism is a violent idology that has manifested itself in murder, wait what's that? A generlization I hear, well it seems par for the course round here sometimes. As for berty,a unionist is somebody that believes in maintaining the union, Berty by his/her own admission does not er go he/she is not a unionist and what ever road to Damascus conversion that has led him/her to allegedly convert idology is very much personnel to berty so can in no way reflect unionism in general. So you want to know unionist thought speak to a unionist

Sounds like censorship. You cant have views on Unionism unless your a unionist..hmmmm....You can learn a Unionists thought patterns just as well if not better by speaking to an ex-Unionist. He/she can not be accused of swallowing inherited ideologies without questioning them. They have applied unprejudiced rationality to the Unionist argument and had found it wanting.

It is quite brave and refreshing in fact: Brave because the spectre of the outcast traitor Lundy hangs over anyone who strays from the ancient voices after all. And your view: anyone stupid enough to Lundy themselves cant comment on Unionism can they?

T runner

John Knox. wrote: »

Why do Republicans say this? Out from the cold is paradise to us. We don't want to be involved in a Republican state. We simply want to be left alone. Why don't some Republicans get this and understand we are culturally, ethnically, religiously and politically different in every way and we wish to maintain that.

You cant be left alone because you are NOT ALONE. 45% of the population in NI is Catholic. You dont have to marry them, and vice versa but you must treat them as equals. The old sectarian idea of a Proetstant state for a Protestant people is dead. Why are protestant children still being brought up to believe that Ulster is some God given land exclusivley for Protestants?
Do you not see that sectarianism inevtitably transfers from this religious worldview to your attitudes to your fellow Irishmen? (Irishmen meaning the basic commonality of occupying this Island called Ireland together. Or is that like all commonality airbrushed from your culture too?)

You emphasise differences not commonality and its hard not to conclude that the segregation and sectarianism in NI has its roots in this religious fundamnetalist attitude to Catholicism which transfers itself into attitudes to individual Catholics, ergo sectarianism. NI is the alst place in Europe to exhibit this medieval trait.

You would never hear a German Protestant say that about a German Catholic. You would have 200 hundred years ago perhaps.

You need to redefine your relationship with Catholics. If the Union is really built on strong principles it will survive. if its roots are in Anti-catholicism, then it wont, and thats only right isnt it?

junder

T runner wrote: »

Sounds like censorship. You cant have views on Unionism unless your a unionist..hmmmm....You can learn a Unionists thought patterns just as well if not better by speaking to an ex-Unionist. He/she can not be accused of swallowing inherited ideologies without questioning them. They have applied unprejudiced rationality to the Unionist argument and had found it wanting.

It is quite brave and refreshing in fact: Brave because the spectre of the outcast traitor Lundy hangs over anyone who strays from the ancient voices after all. And your view: anyone stupid enough to Lundy themselves cant comment on Unionism can they?

Censorship is preventing somebody from airing thier views since I don't have that ablity then I can hardly censor him / her, as for them term 'Lundy' not a phrase I have ever used berty is entitled to his / her views as much as the next man but they are not reflective of unionism since he / she opted out of that viewpoint and now a lines themselves with Irish nationalist idololgys which is why other Irish nationalists such as yourself like his view so much 'preaching to the converted' so to speak, it's interesting to note that while berty is being congratulated those posters who try to understand the unionist viewpoint on this site are commonly referred to as 'west Brits' , so as always it's a one way street with republicans, as long as you agree with them your grand

Happyman42

junder wrote: »

And republicanism is a violent idology that has manifested itself in murder, wait what's that? A generlization I hear, well it seems par for the course round here sometimes. As for berty,a unionist is somebody that believes in maintaining the union, Berty by his/her own admission does not er go he/she is not a unionist and what ever road to Damascus conversion that has led him/her to allegedly convert idology is very much personnel to berty so can in no way reflect unionism in general. So you want to know unionist thought speak to a unionist

Republicaism is at times 'violent', it isn't inherently violent. Unionism is inherently 'suprematist' and cannot change without a Paulian conversion ala Bertie Woot's. And by your definition, the DUP, UUP and others are not everyday 'Unionists' either, as they have agreed to the dismantling of the Union, and work happily within a political frameork that will allow it eventually. At the very least they have 'modified' their beliefs. that is why they are so often at odds with the last vestiges of 'real' Unionism on the streets. It's time for a new name for your political philosphy maybe?
Unionism is a dead end philosphy by it's very nature because, it cannot contenance any other political system. That is why it is having such difficulty adopting to ordinary decent democracy, a problem SF are not having and are prospering as a result.

Iwasfrozen

Happyman42 wrote: »

Republicaism is at times 'violent', it isn't inherently violent. Unionism is inherently 'suprematist' and cannot change without a Paulian conversion ala Bertie Woot's. And by your definition, the DUP, UUP and others are not everyday 'Unionists' either, as they have agreed to the dismantling of the Union, and work happily within a political frameork that will allow it eventually. At the very least they have 'modified' their beliefs. that is why they are so often at odds with the last vestiges of 'real' Unionism on the streets. It's time for a new name for your political philosphy maybe?
Unionism is a dead end philosphy by it's very nature because, it cannot contenance any other political system. That is why it is having such difficulty adopting to ordinary decent democracy, a problem SF are not having and are prospering as a result.

Don't be ridiculous Unionism is not supremacist. There's nothing inherently supremacist about wanting to maintain Union with Britain.

Chuck Stone

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Don't be ridiculous Unionism is not supremacist. There's nothing inherently supremacist about wanting to maintain Union with Britain.

And there is little arguing in particular that feelings of insecurity, of superiority, of emotional intensity and, in sum, of being under siege are features of many unionists' identities.

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/issues/politics/docs/porter1.htm

.

Nodin

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Don't be ridiculous Unionism is not supremacist. There's nothing inherently supremacist about wanting to maintain Union with Britain.

In theory. The practice proved somewhat different.

Shenandoah.

Will post a view on this later.

Shenandoah.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Republicaism is at times 'violent', it isn't inherently violent. Unionism is inherently 'suprematist' and cannot change without a Paulian conversion ala Bertie Woot's. And by your definition, the DUP, UUP and others are not everyday 'Unionists' either, as they have agreed to the dismantling of the Union, and work happily within a political frameork that will allow it eventually. At the very least they have 'modified' their beliefs. that is why they are so often at odds with the last vestiges of 'real' Unionism on the streets. It's time for a new name for your political philosphy maybe?
Unionism is a dead end philosphy by it's very nature because, it cannot contenance any other political system. That is why it is having such difficulty adopting to ordinary decent democracy, a problem SF are not having and are prospering as a result.

Unionism is a political point of view. It has millions of people all over the UK who are Unionist. What on earth you are talking about is beyond me and I am sure many other rational people.

Happyman42

Shenandoah. wrote: »

Unionism is a political point of view. It has millions of people all over the UK who are Unionist. What on earth you are talking about is beyond me and I am sure many other rational people.

Unionism as practiced in N.I. is and has been suprematist, it cannot countenance any other political arrangement. Look at it's ongoing difficulty in comfortably sharing power. They couldn't even be in the same room as somebody who didn't share their political views until recently. But they have moved away from pure Unionism, which is good.
Real 'Unionists' are the ones on the street attempting to enforce their suprematist views on others (most recently regarding the Flag) and the so called 'Unionist' parties are extremely conflicted in trying to find a position on that that keeps them onside with the purists or fundementalists. Just as SF has difficulty with the fundamental nationalists.
The DUP and UUP have long since moved away from pure Unionism, it would be extremely helpful and progressive if they redefined and indeed renamed their politics. To me they are doing just what Bertie Woot has done... altered their political beliefs to accomodate a new reality...power sharing.

Iwasfrozen

Chuck Stone wrote: »

.

I have no notion of reading all that.

Nodin wrote: »

In theory. The practice proved somewhat different.

The only Supremacist nature I've seen in this thread is from nationalists praising a former unionist as being "intelligent" and "coming out of the cold" because he changed sides.

Happyman42

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

because he changed sides.

QED - intolerance of any dilution or accomodation, i.e. suprematist.

The DUP and UUP have done the exact same as Bertie Woot, to allow themselves to share power, have they 'changed sides'?

Iwasfrozen

Happyman42 wrote: »

QED - intolerance of any dilution or accomodation, i.e. suprematist.

The DUP and UUP have done the exact same as Bertie Woot, to allow themselves to share power, have they 'changed sides'?

Yes you're right it is supremacist, from the nationalists here who think the only good unionist is a nationalist. Last I checked the DUP weren't calling for a 32 county socialist republic. Things have changed a lot.

Happyman42

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Yes you're right it is supremacist, from the nationalists here who think the only good unionist is a nationalist. Last I checked the DUP weren't calling for a 32 county socialist republic. Things have changed a lot.

The term 'Unionist' is redundant in the 'new Ireland', which exists and is functioning whether you want to accept that or not.
It can be part of your political philosophy but it can't be the defining part, because you need to accomodate other political viewpoints, which is what the DUP and UUP and Bertie Woot are doing.

Iwasfrozen

Happyman42 wrote: »

The term 'Unionist' is redundant in the 'new Ireland', which exists and is functioning whether you want to accept that or not.
It can be part of your political philosophy but it can't be the defining part, because you need to accomodate other political viewpoints, which is what the DUP and UUP and Bertie Woot are doing.

What's this new Ireland that currently exists you're talking about? Unionism and Nationalism will always be at logger heads because they're competing ideologies. That doesn't make Unionism intolerant or supremacist. What they need to do now is convince the growing number of Catholics who are losing fate in traditional nationalism.

Happyman42

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

What's this new Ireland that currently exists you're talking about?

Again the inability to countenance the changed reality. The 'new Ireland' had the real Unionists out on the streets a few months ago.

Iwasfrozen

Happyman42 wrote: »

Again the inability to countenance the changed reality. The 'new Ireland' had the real Unionists out on the streets a few months ago.

I was under the impression Unionists were protesting the removal of the Union flag from Belfast city hall.