Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Referendum for Irish Unity 2022
Comments
-
My maths makes it as 53% of the entire population. Tell me what do you define a nation as? And why do the Ulster Scots not qualify as a nation? I promise for any reason you can give me as to why the Irish are distinct from the English and deserving of self determination I can give you the same reason the Ulster Scots are distinct from us and also deserving of self determination.The Ulster Scots only accounted for 65% of Protestants in the six counties. They did not have a majority in any one county (Antrim perhaps). So even if they ever claimed themselves to be a different nation (they didn't). They are not numerous enough, nor dense enough in numbers. If "Ulster Scots" form a nation then surely "Irish" within NI is another qualified nation and are due self determination as they must be as different to Ulster Scots as Ulster Scots are to them?
No, the self determination is not a valid reason. The reason was a refusal to be a minority in a majority Catholic state and a back down by the British government from their position of Home Rule for Ireland.0 -
Bertie Woot wrote: »
I'll take that as a compliment. I am from the Unionist community and was very much of that mentality for most of my adult life, and despite IRA violence, thinking like an Irish Republican has come easy. There comes a time in life when you are capable of detaching yourself from the strong emotional attachment you have had to the culture, political affiliation, national allegiance and indeed the religion you were born into. The ability to look at the past in an intellectually honest and impartial manner is not easy when you are from one community of the other in Northern Ireland. Most of the time we've played a zero-sum game and engage in political points scoring to the detriment of the other. There is a stage beyond that; where we can survey the past and acknowledge the origin of the problem, recognise that wrongs have been committed by both sides, and accept that this new stage in the political evolution of Ireland as a nation shall ultimately lead to reunification. Maybe not in my lifetime, but some day.
The Unionist people are a relic of British imperialism in Ireland. We can continue to hang onto mother Britain's coat-tail, a mother who has been attempting to orphan us for four decades, or we can finally get real, salvage our dignity, and embrace our destiny as Irishmen in a reunified 32 county independent Ireland. National self determination does not have to be an exclusive goal or preserve of one group of people. I want the best for Ireland, and ALL of its people.
I'd appreciate it if you could pinpoint my alleged "hyperbole" and "lies". Oppression and tyranny under 800 years of British rule in Ireland was a reality for the Irish people, and yes, British colonial plantation settlers from Scotland and England also suffered greatly as a result of a series of Irish uprisings. If you can provide historical text which states that the Irish people had a big happy party under British colonial rule I'd be happy to survey it. The people of the Irish Republic recognise that the current Irish economy isn't strong enough to handle reunification, but that doesn't mean they have abandoned their traditional and long held Nationalist aspiration. The ROI may not want us at present, but then, despite lip service, Britain doesn't want us either. If you think that England appreciates Ulster's loyalty, you are sorely mistaken.
Ulster has always been a different part of Ireland since the Black pig's dyke and Cuchulainn, who fought the "men of Ireland". But Ulster is as much part of Ireland as it is part of the United Kingdom. In fact what Unionists refer to as "Ulster" is not Ulster at all. It is a mere 6 out of 9 of Ulster's counties (aka Northern Ireland); and a province which was partitioned at the same time when Ireland was partitioned.
Agreed. The English view Northern Ireland as a delinquent cousin, a waste of English tax-payer's money, and a troublesome liability. The English wish nothing more than to see NI exit from the UK. Why should we sustain loyalty to England? Tone viewed England as the source of all of Ireland's political ills, and he was right.
Anachronism. The Orange Institution (known today as the Orange Order) was founded in 1796 near the village of Loughgall in County Armagh, and two years before the 1798 rebellion; so it was not a product of the rebellion as its existence preceded it.
The Ulster-Scots are referred to as "Scotch-Irish" by the Americans, and the term is accurate, as the Scots are descended from the Irish, as it was the Irish who first settled Scotland. The indigenous Irish Ulster tribes of the Ulaidh and Cruthin/Cruithne fled Gaelic colonisation of Ireland and resettled in Scotland among the Pictish peoples, who were a sister tribe of the Cruthin. They returned to Ulster in 1609 and the beginning of the Ulster plantation.
I was quite engaged by your posts up to the point where you called me a relic of British imperialism, I'm no spring chicken but I am certainly not a relic, Niether I'm I defined by 'Britain' or more specifically the English, I am well aware what many English think of us, but then the English are not the union and its not for them to decide who can or cannot be a member of it. I am not a anachronism, i am a modern human being living in a modern world and I fail to see how only Irish nationalists can be modern0 -
I was quite engaged by your posts up to the point where you called me a relic of British imperialism, I'm no spring chicken but I am certainly not a relic, Niether I'm I defined by 'Britain' or more specifically the English, I am well aware what many English think of us, but then the English are not the union and its not for them to decide who can or cannot be a member of it. I am not a anachronism, i am a modern human being living in a modern world and I fail to see how only Irish nationalists can be modern
Who in 'political' Unionism is facing up to the fact that Britain will leave eventually if the circumstances exist? Who is telling the people that Britain has repudiated your claim to be British, that you must now redefine yourselves?
Republicans, from the IRA to SF, have redefined themselves in the new Ireland, who is doing it in Unionism?0 -
Happyman42 wrote: »
Who in 'political' Unionism is facing up to the fact that Britain will leave eventually if the circumstances exist? Who is telling the people that Britain has repudiated your claim to be British, that you must now redefine yourselves?
Republicans, from the IRA to SF, have redefined themselves in the new Ireland, who is doing it in Unionism?
Who is telling the people of the Republic of Ireland that a united ireland is unaffordable? Who is telling the people of the Republic of Ireland that your government doesn't want anything to do with a 'united Ireland' we ulster unionists accept that the British or more accurately the English government does not want us, while republicans on the other hand still labour under the illusion that your government wants unification. Northern Ireland exists, Northern Ireland is still part of the UK and thanks to the gfa that can't change with out the consent of the people of Northern Ireland regradless of how much he English government wants shot of us. I will not see a united ireland in my life time, I am extremely confident that my son won't either so I really don't feel the new to 'redefine' myself on your say so.
Although your attuitude does cut to the chase of the general Irish republican attuitude ' sure unionists are welcome, as long as they redefine themselves, as long as they say what we want to hear, as long as they do as they are told'. You talk about 'my sort of unionism' well news flash sucker, if you want your united ireland I am exactly the sort of unionist you need to convince of the merits of your united Ireland and so far you are doing a piss poor job.0 -
Who is telling the people of the Republic of Ireland that a united ireland is unaffordable? Who is telling the people of the Republic of Ireland that your government doesn't want anything to do with a 'united Ireland' we ulster unionists accept that the British or more accurately the English government does not want us, while republicans on the other hand still labour under the illusion that your government wants unification. Northern Ireland exists, Northern Ireland is still part of the UK and thanks to the gfa that can't change with out the consent of the people of Northern Ireland regradless of how much he English government wants shot of us. I will not see a united ireland in my life time, I am extremely confident that my son won't either so I really don't feel the new to 'redefine' myself on your say so.
Although your attuitude does cut to the chase of the general Irish republican attuitude ' sure unionists are welcome, as long as they redefine themselves, as long as they say what we want to hear, as long as they do as they are told'. You talk about 'my sort of unionism' well news flash sucker, if you want your united ireland I am exactly the sort of unionist you need to convince of the merits of your united Ireland and so far you are doing a piss poor job.
Republicans are well aware of what it will take to convince people that a United Ireland is and always was in their interests. In that sense they are modern.
The reason Unionism is seen as a relic or anachronistic is perfectly demonstrated in your post.
??? Is that the new 'never, never never'?'news flash sucker'
A brand of Unionism never seems to see the writing on the wall, they were dragged kicking and screaming into every progressive development of the last 30 years, they threaten and threaten and then capitulate while all the time insisting on wearing their bowlers to ape English gentlemen, they hide behind and trumpet a deliberately misleading BBC poll of a thousand people while ignoring what an actual electorate (their electorate) are actually saying.
There may or may not be a UI in mine or your lifetime but that doesn't negate the urgency of the need for redefinition of who you actually are, if you cannot see that political Unionism is fracturing from its grassroots and support then you are doomed. Bertie Woot is telling you how it is from the inside and you won't listen, maybe you are better looking for the view from outside...it's clearer.0 -
Iwasfrozen wrote: »My maths makes it as 53% of the entire population. Tell me what do you define a nation as? And why do the Ulster Scots not qualify as a nation? I promise for any reason you can give me as to why the Irish are distinct from the English and deserving of self determination I can give you the same reason the Ulster Scots are distinct from us and also deserving of self determination.
Ireland has always been regarded as a nation by the Irish, British and other Nations. The evidence of Irish antionhood is overwhelming and undisputed by any serious historian. How about the Ulster Scots? Have they ever even called themselves a nation?
Self determination for Ulster Scots was never even a reason given for Partition.
They simply refused to be governed by a Catholic majority. The slogan was "Home rule is Rome rule"...Not "Home rule is foreign rule"
Can you provide even one historian who has viewed Ulster Scots as a seperate nation? Even one? No? Then let it rest.0 -
.Who is telling the people of the Republic of Ireland that a united ireland is unaffordable? Who is telling the people of the Republic of Ireland that your government doesn't want anything to do with a 'united Ireland' we ulster unionists accept that the British or more accurately the English government does not want us, while republicans on the other hand still labour under the illusion that your government wants unification
Im surprised when you say the Irish Government doesnt want a United Ireland. I believe both coalition partners have it as a long term aim? Where have you got your information?
Can the ROI absorb a loss making dependency? No.
And as a member of the UK NI receives a de facto bail out every year from London. It cant seriously compete in the British market and as a result a massive proportion of products and services in NI are British. Compare this to the productivity of the rest of Ireland and you'll see why NI is a dependency.
The Leinster economy dwarfs the NI economy now. This was not the case in 1921. The assumption is that the 6 counties will become more competitive and productive within Ireland. The British market is open to them but they will have some protections against it, as we do, and full unrestricted access to one of the most open economies and markets in the world. Irish Protestants do very well in these conditions, it stands to reason that Ulster Protestants should be no different. Can ROI absorb NI if it becomes productive after re-unification? Yes indeed!Northern Ireland exists, Northern Ireland is still part of the UK and thanks to the gfa that can't change with out the consent of the people of Northern Ireland regradless of how much he English government wants shot of us. I will not see a united ireland in my life time, I am extremely confident that my son won't either so I really don't feel the new to 'redefine' myself on your say so.
If Loyalism doesn't rid itself of its inherent sectarianism, then you'll see a UI sooner than you think.0 -
.
Im surprised when you say the Irish Government doesnt want a United Ireland. I believe both coalition partners have it as a long term aim? Where have you got your information?
Can the ROI absorb a loss making dependency? No.
And as a member of the UK NI receives a de facto bail out every year from London. It cant seriously compete in the British market and as a result a massive proportion of products and services in NI are British. Compare this to the productivity of the rest of Ireland and you'll see why NI is a dependency.
The Leinster economy dwarfs the NI economy now. This was not the case in 1921. The assumption is that the 6 counties will become more competitive and productive within Ireland. The British market is open to them but they will have some protections against it, as we do, and full unrestricted access to one of the most open economies and markets in the world. Irish Protestants do very well in these conditions, it stands to reason that Ulster Protestants should be no different. Can ROI absorb NI if it becomes productive after re-unification? Yes indeed!
If Loyalism doesn't rid itself of its inherent sectarianism, then you'll see a UI sooner than you think.
Ironically the greatest barrier to a united ireland are the Irish republicans themselves, or more specifically thier attuitude to the unionist community. As long as you continue to insult us, run us down and generally denigrate us the more remote your united ireland becomes. I for one will have no truck with an idology that refuse to respect my political out look or my culture.0 -
-
Happyman42 wrote: »
Everytime you dig further in and refuse to normalise and fix a failed state, you do a perfectly adequate job of that all on your own I'm afraid. It's called 'shooting yourself in the foot'.
I know, poor misguided me, must give you a warm fuzzy feeling to know how supier you are to me0 -
Advertisement
-
Ironically the greatest barrier to a united ireland are the Irish republicans themselves, or more specifically thier attuitude to the unionist community. As long as you continue to insult us, run us down and generally denigrate us the more remote your united ireland becomes. I for one will have no truck with an ideology that refuse to respect my political out look or my culture.
But Loyalism has abused, denigrated and attacked Irish culture for centuries. Just being Catholic is and has been a valid reason to be attacked or worse in many Loyalist eyes. Sectarianism is clearly (or should be more accurately) a major issue for Unionism to eradicate.
Why for example did we see loyalist Union Jack flag protesters marches stopping at Catholic areas to sing provocative sectarian songs recently? Why cant loyalism remove sectarianism from their political ideology?
If you view an attack on sectarianism as an attack on your culture well then evidently some aspects of your culture need changing.0 -
-
The fallacy of the argument you present falls apart when you say the origin of the problem. Its just a nonsense to make a argument for a United Ireland because of a plantation which happened over 400 years ago. There comes a point when you will need to get over that. It has happened in many other countries like the United States. To try and make a argument based on that point makes it a weak argument.I'll take that as a compliment. I am from the Unionist community and was very much of that mentality for most of my adult life, and despite IRA violence, thinking like an Irish Republican has come easy. There comes a time in life when you are capable of detaching yourself from the strong emotional attachment you have had to the culture, political affiliation, national allegiance and indeed the religion you were born into. The ability to look at the past in an intellectually honest and impartial manner is not easy when you are from one community of the other in Northern Ireland. Most of the time we've played a zero-sum game and engage in political points scoring to the detriment of the other. There is a stage beyond that; where we can survey the past and acknowledge the origin of the problem, recognise that wrongs have been committed by both sides, and accept that this new stage in the political evolution of Ireland as a nation shall ultimately lead to reunification. Maybe not in my lifetime, but some day.
This point that you can only be Irish if you advocate a United Ireland is again wrong. You will see many Ulster Loyalist flags like the YCV banner which has shamrocks on it. They don't need to be in a United Ireland to express any sort of Irish identity they wish to express.The Unionist people are a relic of British imperialism in Ireland. We can continue to hang onto mother Britain's coat-tail, a mother who has been attempting to orphan us for four decades, or we can finally get real, salvage our dignity, and embrace our destiny as Irishmen in a reunified 32 county independent Ireland. National self determination does not have to be an exclusive goal or preserve of one group of people. I want the best for Ireland, and ALL of its people.
Why can't they express Irishness in the United Kingdom like a Welshman or Scotsman?
You completely ignore the role the normal Irish person played in the British Empire. The saying is the British Empire was won by the Irish. You try to exagerrate the role of the Empire on the Island almost like that of Poland in the 1930s and 1940s. That just wasn't the case. If anything, Dublin was known as a cradle in the Empire.I'd appreciate it if you could pinpoint my alleged "hyperbole" and "lies". Oppression and tyranny under 800 years of British rule in Ireland was a reality for the Irish people, and yes, British colonial plantation settlers from Scotland and England also suffered greatly as a result of a series of Irish uprisings. If you can provide historical text which states that the Irish people had a big happy party under British colonial rule I'd be happy to survey it. The people of the Irish Republic recognise that the current Irish economy isn't strong enough to handle reunification, but that doesn't mean they have abandoned their traditional and long held Nationalist aspiration. The ROI may not want us at present, but then, despite lip service, Britain doesn't want us either. If you think that England appreciates Ulster's loyalty, you are sorely mistaken.
During the 1916 rising, instead of the men coming out of the GPO to cheers, they got spat on and hounded and actually the complete opposite to what some Republicans would like you to believe. It was actually bad errors by the British Army which turned the tide and gathered support for the 1916 rebels.
They disagree with it ideologically and culturally. They are perfectly happy enough within the Union. They have good reason to fear many aspects of a United Ireland. Protecting the culture and heritage they have and the well being of their own people is the top priority.What's wrong with being "culturally, ethnically, religiously and politically different" in a united Ireland? Is it because we fear a united Ireland more than anything? Where does that fear come from?
Problem with this is?No, the self determination is not a valid reason. The reason was a refusal to be a minority in a majority Catholic state and a back down by the British government from their position of Home Rule for Ireland.
Irrelevant because the English would have no say in a border poll. England used to be a great nation. It now has many major problems like immigration, erosion of English culture and many other problems. They should not throw stones in glass houses.You can bet your bottom dollar/pound/euro that if the English were given the opportunity to vote in a referendum to have NI removed from the UK they'd jump at the offer. Unlike Scotland, NI has been a perpetual thorn in their side. They resent NI for benefiting more than other constituent UK countries under the current Barnett Formula, they view us as a nuisance state, and they generally perceive us all as "Irish", and regardless of whether you are British Unionist Protestant or Irish Nationalist Catholic.
Of course we don't give a rat's ass what the English think, as they are mostly irrelevant to us, but that is what they think, and they would disown NI tomorrow if they could.0 -
I will not see a united ireland in my life time, I am extremely confident that my son won't either
If your son is a child now then that's a wildly optimistic estimation from your perspective. I grew up with the echoes of Paisley shouting 'NEVER NEVER NEVER' and 'never' has come and gone.the general Irish republican attuitude ' sure unionists are welcome, as long as they redefine themselves, as long as they say what we want to hear, as long as they do as they are told'.
Even you seem to accept the inevitability of a UI. What happens to political Unionism when a UI begins to approach being a reality? Has anyone ever even written about it from the Unionist perspective or is it 'NEVER NEVER NEVER ...em.. okay so' again? Don't you think it would be in the best interests of Unionists to have some sort of contingency plan if only for their own interests?
How does the spectre of being a minority in a SF dominated statelet sit with Unionists? Wouldn't it be better to 'water down' SF within a 32 county republic? Do these things even get discussed in your community?You talk about 'my sort of unionism' well news flash sucker, if you want your united ireland I am exactly the sort of unionist you need to convince of the merits of your united Ireland and so far you are doing a piss poor job.
It's the people who don't identify with Unionism who will decide when a UI will happen. The days of the gerrymandered state are gone and as you've said yourself the British/English will be only too happy to be rid of the thorn in its side.0 -
An Act of Parliament was illegal under British law? Citation needed.Oscar its a historical fact that the act of Union was only passed by way of threats and bribes, against the will of the Irish people. And was in fact illegal under British law, even aside from this.
I have an ilk?This is typical of your ilk - you hide behind a thin veneer of respectability to cloak underhanded and illegal going ons in order to justify your world view.
I haven't defended the Act of Union as being a noble or honourable piece of work. I've pointed out that, to someone who's demanding that I pinpoint an exact moment in time when Ireland went from being a colony to not being one, then the Act of Union is as good a moment as any.
The fact that you don't think a law should have been passed doesn't mean it wasn't passed. The fact that a law was passed by means of bribery and corruption doesn't make it not a law. The Act of Union changed the political status of Ireland, and made it an integral part of the United Kingdom.Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »Why do you think that Ulster, or any part of the island of Ireland for that matter since there weren't two jurisdictions on the island prior to 1921, suddenly ceased to become a colony with the Act of Union? It's an event that happened, but all events that occurred may not be legitimate.0 -
Chuck Stone wrote: »
Even you seem to accept the inevitability of a UI. What happens to political Unionism when a UI begins to approach being a reality? Has anyone ever even written about it from the Unionist perspective or is it 'NEVER NEVER NEVER ...em.. okay so' again? Don't you think it would be in the best interests of Unionists to have some sort of contingency plan if only for their own interests?
How does the spectre of being a minority in a SF dominated statelet sit with Unionists? Wouldn't it be better to 'water down' SF within a 32 county republic? Do these things even get discussed in your community?
It's the people who don't identify with Unionism who will decide when a UI will happen. The days of the gerrymandered state are gone and as you've said yourself the British/English will be only to happy to be rid of the thorn in its side.
That is precisely what it would mean to be 'modern' or 'relevant', to have a discussion about what the future holds and their place in it, David Ervine was listened to, because he lived in the real world, he spoke of the real situation Unionists found themselves in, not from some last bastion of an imaginary empire where the king or queen would come valiantly to the rescue some fine day. You are right, you never hear those discussions, because you can't hear somebody, when they have their head in the sand.0 -
Happyman42 wrote: »
That is precisely what it would mean to be 'modern' or 'relevant', to have a discussion about what the future holds and their place in it, David Ervine was listened to, because he lived in the real world, he spoke of the real situation Unionists found themselves in, not from some last bastion of an imaginary empire where the king or queen would come valiantly to the rescue some fine day. You are right, you never hear those discussions, because you can't hear somebody, when they have their head in the sand.
It's not us that have thier head in the sand of thier fingers in thier ears, even berty has said that republicans need listen to unionist ( and that's all shades on unionists not just the ones that say the things you want to hear) instead of sticking your fingers in your ears whiskey shouting the equivalent of LA LA LA LA. the uncomfortable truth for you is I do not consider myself Irish and I want nothing to do with your united ireland, convince me otherwise0 -
It's not us that have thier head in the sand of thier fingers in thier ears, even berty has said that republicans need listen to unionist ( and that's all shades on unionists not just the ones that say the things you want to hear) instead of sticking your fingers in your ears whiskey shouting the equivalent of LA LA LA LA. the uncomfortable truth for you is I do not consider myself Irish and I want nothing to do with your united ireland, convince me otherwise
And you refuse to enter a discussion about all of our futures together. You are being outstripped by those who are facing it head on. And as somebody has said the choice will not always be yours, so sooner or later you will have to speak up. Stark coice but that's the truth of it....and I'm not partial to whiskey, prefer the whisky myself.0 -
Happyman42 wrote: »
And you refuse to enter a discussion about all of our futures together. You are being outstripped by those who are facing it head on. And as somebody has said the choice will not always be yours, so sooner or later you will have to speak up. Stark coice but that's the truth of it....and I'm not partial to whiskey, prefer the whisky myself.
Nope, still not seeing the merits of your united ireland, your not really selling it to me0 -
Advertisement
-
Nope, still not seeing the merits of your united ireland, your not really selling it to me
Every time Unionism digs a trench they are over run and end up haing to give in and get used to it, if they don't get real soon and start offering something other than the past - an identity for 21st century in a new Ireland, a UI might be your only option.0 -
Should there even be a referendum for full Irish unity? If Irish unity were to ever happen, I imagine it would happen in steps as Mick himself envisaged. There will never be a wholesale jump to unity without utter chaos, chaos verging on outright civil war.
It'd have to move from economic union to political confederation and then to total union. I expect though that it is an inevitability that union will eventually be realised.Ironically the greatest barrier to a united ireland are the Irish republicans themselves
I agree wholeheartedly with this statement. The Republican paramilitaries are nothing but petty criminals and an embarrassment at this point. They're only doing their own cause harm because they're pretty much scum at this point. The only war that matters in the search for a United Ireland is the propaganda war. The masses need to see truly that the Republicans have moved on from violence. Those groups like the RIRA, the CIRA and the like are a bunch of imbeciles. Can't they see that if they laid down their arms and let the militant loyalists to it that they popularise? Any way, since the PSNI is pretty much impartial these days the idea of the IRA as a whole is a bit redundant isn't it?
The first step towards a United Ireland is for those gob****es to step down an admit that they're wrong.0 -
Ambient Occlusion wrote: »I agree wholeheartedly with this statement. The Republican paramilitaries are nothing but petty criminals and an embarrassment at this point. They're only doing their own cause harm because they're pretty much scum at this point. The only war that matters in the search for a United Ireland is the propaganda war. The masses need to see truly that the Republicans have moved on from violence. Those groups like the RIRA, the CIRA and the like are a bunch of imbeciles. Can't they see that if they laid down their arms and let the militant loyalists to it that they popularise? Any way, since the PSNI is pretty much impartial these days the idea of the IRA as a whole is a bit redundant isn't it?
The first step towards a United Ireland is for those gob****es to step down an admit that they're wrong.
You're conflating the aspiration to an 32 county Republic with physical force Republicanism, or as it is these days, 'gangsterism wrapped in a flag'.0 -
Happyman42 wrote: »
Every time Unionism digs a trench they are over run and end up haing to give in and get used to it, if they don't get real soon and start offering something other than the past - an identity for 21st century in a new Ireland, a UI might be your only option.
I have an idenity for the 21st century thanks, but what that has to do with this fantasy 'new Ireland' you keep wittering on about is beyound me. Quick geography lesson for you there is this island of the western coast of Britain that encompasses two international recognised but sepperate country's, you may of heart of them, one is the Republic of Ireland the other is called Northern Ireland. 'New Ireland' is not part of this landmass but instead is an island that is part of papa New Guinea, of which I have no connection to and have no reason redefine my idenity to be part of0 -
I have an idenity for the 21st century thanks, but what that has to do with this fantasy 'new Ireland' you keep wittering on about is beyound me. Quick geography lesson for you there is this island of the western coast of Britain that encompasses two international recognised but sepperate country's, you may of heart of them, one is the Republic of Ireland the other is called Northern Ireland. 'New Ireland' is not part of this landmass but instead is an island that is part of papa New Guinea, of which I have no connection to and have no reason redefine my idenity to be part of
Ireland would be defined as an Island off the NW coast of Europe.
You could define it as part of an archipelago for detail, but the important description in a geographical sense is its proximity to its geographical continent Europe.
Its proximity to Britain (13th largest Island in the world vs 20th largest) is not useful geographically.
The problems of living on one Island and having the political loyalty to its neighbour can be hard to rationalise. British and Unionists have often tried to rationalise this through distorting geography. Thatcher and the Daily mirror politicised the term "British Isles" using it to rationalise British hostorical and present political and military presence in Ireland saying its name meant that the inhabitants were British. For this reason the International community generally dont use this term anymore as its geographical use has been compromised and twisted.
By the way the 2 states on this Island are called Ireland and (part of) the UK.
In the purely geographical sense all the inhabitants of this Island are Irish, as all inhabitants of Cyprus are Cypriots.
Talk geography by all means, but remember geographically you are Irish, and no amount of wriggling will turn any part of Ireland into Britain in the geographical sense.0 -
I have an idenity for the 21st century thanks, but what that has to do with this fantasy 'new Ireland' you keep wittering on about is beyound me. Quick geography lesson for you there is this island of the western coast of Britain that encompasses two international recognised but sepperate country's, you may of heart of them, one is the Republic of Ireland the other is called Northern Ireland. 'New Ireland' is not part of this landmass but instead is an island that is part of papa New Guinea, of which I have no connection to and have no reason redefine my idenity to be part of
If we ever needed the 'head in the sand' mentality more clearly demonstrated here it is ^
You cannot define yourself except in relation to Britain, you refuse to counternace the absolute reality that the only way forward...the only way to live in peace, was to make the solution an 'all Ireland' one. Therefore it is a 'new Ireland', the 'republic' is just as involved in your future as the British. The British have abdicated Junder, the future is up to us - 'the population of this island' to decide the future. Those of us who want a future, that is. The past has it's place and must be respected but it is 'the past'.0 -
Advertisement
-
Could we get a poll on this thread?0
-
KeithAFCGhost. wrote: »The fallacy of the argument you present falls apart when you say the origin of the problem. Its just a nonsense to make a argument for a United Ireland because of a plantation which happened over 400 years ago. There comes a point when you will need to get over that. It has happened in many other countries like the United States. To try and make a argument based on that point makes it a weak argument.
Perhaps Unionism needs to get over that. Anti-Catholicism in Ulster has not abated from that day to this.This point that you can only be Irish if you advocate a United Ireland is again wrong. You will see many Ulster Loyalist flags like the YCV banner which has shamrocks on it. They don't need to be in a United Ireland to express any sort of Irish identity they wish to express.
Why can't they express Irishness in the United Kingdom like a Welshman or Scotsman?
But Loyalism despises Irishness. There are so many examples of this as to make it undeniable. Its the last thing they would call themselves.
Also Scots, Welsh, English identity is covered by the nationality British. Why Arent the peole of this Island recognised in UK identity?
The State is called the UK of Britain and Ireland.
You CANNOT be officially recognised as IRISH in your UK identity. Loyalists know this and would most likely riot if it was amended.You completely ignore the role the normal Irish person played in the British Empire. The saying is the British Empire was won by the Irish. You try to exagerrate the role of the Empire on the Island almost like that of Poland in the 1930s and 1940s. That just wasn't the case. If anything, Dublin was known as a cradle in the Empire.
Imperial powers always recruit their armies from their colonies. Its usually the liveable paid work going in a colony. At the end of the Roamn Empire there were more Germans in the ranks than Romans. It means nothing its just how empires operate.During the 1916 rising, instead of the men coming out of the GPO to cheers, they got spat on and hounded and actually the complete opposite to what some Republicans would like you to believe. It was actually bad errors by the British Army which turned the tide and gathered support for the 1916 rebels.
That was a report from the Irish times which was the Irish Unionist newspaper of the day. A few women spat at them because their pensions was delayed. That doesn't mean Dublin was against them: The entire Dublin Citizen army turned out for freedom. That was working class Dublin. The vast majority of Irish MPs were for more seperation from Britain at the time. The Brits doing their usual murder and torture of civilians during Irish uprisings reminded people that they were still occupied and of the fundamental racist nature of that army. The executions ordered by the local dictator (Lord Liutenant, dictator is accurate) reminded people that the British did not understand us, and that they were very wrong after all these centuries to act the colonial master putting down the rebel Irish dogs.They disagree with it ideologically and culturally. They are perfectly happy enough within the Union. They have good reason to fear many aspects of a United Ireland. Protecting the culture and heritage they have and the well being of their own people is the top priority.
Unionists could secure any settlement they wanted in a United Ireland now, (and they could have in 1921 to be honest.) What have they to fear and what are these good reasons?Problem with this is?
It is sectarian and undemocratic. Never did the Unionists try to explain to their Catholic countrymen their fears or worries. They were Catholics and did not deserve even to be spoken too. This sectarian motivation at the root of this position was born out by the state sectarianism in NI. The language of Unionist politicians in NI was sectarian from the start.
And hundreds of years after the rest of Europe have copped on. Ulster loyalists are still spreading this hatred, the language of sectarian hatred is still learnt by loyalist youths.
If Loyalists start another cycle of sectraian violence (as nearly ahppenned overt their flags issue) then id be in favour of suspending the GFA and imposing joint rule.
If Unionism can remove sectarianism from their culture and argue strongly to remain in the Union without the underlying anti-Catholic bull, then they will be taken more seriously. Otherwise people will correctly suspect that ant-Catholicism and anti-Irishness is really whats at the root of their Loyalism.Irrelevant because the English would have no say in a border poll. England used to be a great nation. It now has many major problems like immigration, erosion of English culture and many other problems. They should not throw stones in glass houses.
The UK technically does have a democratic say in that the parliament must ratify any change.
England was a great country for the aristocracy, colonialists, and rich. The poor although they fared better than in the colonies had it pretty rough.
If you remove the cheap goods and unfair tariffs that England took and imposed on its colonies then it ceases to become so great.
That said i love English people and their liberalness, fairness, wit and intelligent humour.
The conservative ideologies North and South of our border should take note.0 -
Aren't voting rates for the nationalist community in the north typically much lower than unionist turnouts? Wouldn't that mean that there'd have to be a significant majority nationalist population before a border poll is even considered? I can't imagine a substantial "no" vote would reflect well on a UI movement.0
-
It would kill it for the forseeable.Ambient Occlusion wrote: »Aren't voting rates for the nationalist community in the north typically much lower than unionist turnouts? Wouldn't that mean that there'd have to be a significant majority nationalist population before a border poll is even considered? I can't imagine a substantial "no" vote would reflect well on a UI movement.0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »The fact that you don't think a law should have been passed doesn't mean it wasn't passed. The fact that a law was passed by means of bribery and corruption doesn't make it not a law. The Act of Union changed the political status of Ireland, and made it an integral part of the United Kingdom.
It's a fact the Act of Union occurred, but why do you think that Ireland specifically ceased to be a colony with the passing of this Act? As I've said already the majority of the population of the island had no representation in an Irish parliament that passed this act as they were banned from sitting in it due to being Catholics, regardless what social class they came from.0 -
Advertisement
-
Because Ireland became part of a single country called "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" as a result of its enactment.Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »It's a fact the Act of Union occurred, but why do you think that Ireland specifically ceased to be a colony with the passing of this Act?
You seem to be operating under the rather bizarre assumption that I think the Act of Union was a noble or admirable thing to have happened, or that I believe that the United Kingdom that it formed was a wonderful place for everyone in it. I'm going to assume that you're operating on that assumption because it's easier than trying to understand my point.As I've said already the majority of the population of the island had no representation in an Irish parliament that passed this act as they were banned from sitting in it due to being Catholics, regardless what social class they came from.
My point, for the umpteenth time, is that Northern Ireland isn't an occupied colony. The argument that because it was colonised once it must therefore still be a colony, irrespective of anything that may have changed that status (and conveniently ignoring anything that actually did change that status just because you would rather it hadn't happened) is - to be kind - specious. It's the sort of argument that's trotted out by someone who is incapable of changing his way of thinking, which is ironic when the same person accuses someone else of being incapable of changing his way of thinking, which is my actual point. For the umpteenth time.
Riddle me this: is Scotland an occupied colony?0 -
Cavehill Red wrote: »Personally, I'm of the view the capital should be Tara, as it was historically.
Tara is a protected historical site. We do not need anyone building parliament buildings there!
Also we no longer have a High King (a symbolic role anyways) so Tara is irrelevant in a political sense.The united kingdom of great Britain and Ireland is the future. A United ireland back within the UK, Ireland would have its own parliament just like wales and Scotland.
We don't identify with the UK identity and have no desire to re-enter the United Kingdom. We already have a parliament (for all the good it done)..
I'm personally satisfied with the statis quo, I have Irish 'Catholic' friends (some are actually atheist, one is devout) in NI who are content to be in the United Kingdom.
:rolleyes:Cavehill Red wrote: »We will never be able to commence a truly genuine relationship with Britain UNTIL they cease occupying a quarter of our national territory. That's the truth of it. Of course, they know that and would be happy to implement it. The sticking point remains the settler population's intransigence.
We have a perfectly genuine relationship with the UK. And there are no settlers in NI, they were born and lived there for hundreds of years.Aughrim1691. wrote: »I would vote No. Ulster will stay within the Union for the foreseeable. Federalism is a big no also. I'd be voting to preserve a way of life for my people and that is as important as any line on a map. Voting for the land and the sacred place it has for all Ulster Protestants.
The land has a sacred place for both communities, hence the bloodshed among the more extreme people in NI. The problem is that both claims by both communities are equally strong and equally valid.Aughrim1691. wrote: »I would never vote for it and the vast majority of Ulster Protestants would be the same because it goes against everything we are. It tries to set up a one identity/nationality. It sets up big government from Dublin over us, and it could harm our institutions.
Ireland is a multicultural country nowadays, we don't push one identity. We're not the homogenous society we once were. Your concerns about your institutions are valid though.Aughrim1691. wrote: »Then you have the symbolism problem which is the Tri colour would be representing the whole Island. So any time the President or Taoiseach goes abroad, he would be represented under the Tri colour. Completely neglecting a very proud people in Ulster who do not associate themselves with that flag at all.
Well the orange on the flag is supposed to represent ye guys but the IRA have understandably tarnished that. Do you feel represented by Cameron? Do people in Whales or Scotland?
Also in the unlikely scenario of a united Ireland ye would have a vote for the President/Taoiseach.Aughrim1691. wrote: »Also radicalism politics would finish. The likes of Sinn Fein and the DUP would be over. They would serve no other common purpose. You would have the elite politicians in the south telling us up here what to do because the majority down south would always win in a vote.
End of radicalism is a good thing, no? the DUP/UUP would reinvent themselves as parties that push for your communities voice within Dublin (or Belfast as a new capital:P)Aughrim1691. wrote: »Bad government comes from too much government. You are looking to completely change the fabric of society in a position on the Island which is just different from the rest and I think that should be accepted.
The problem is that not everyone in Ulster feels that way. But I do sympathise, I do personally feel it's wrong to push ye guys into our country but it was also wrong for us to be pushed into the United Kingdom.Aughrim1691. wrote: »The ironic thing is Republicans talk about radical politics but a United Ireland is not radical in the sense that it would be elitist more than ever. The idea that you could form a Socialist Irish Republic with the center of it being controlled from Dublin is not realistic and would not happen.
Socialist? That term is rarely used down here, and only by Shinners. They only got 8.6% of the National vote in our last elections. Most people down here do not call themselves nationalist/republican even if they'd love to see a united Ireland.Aughrim1691. wrote: »And then you have the police. Do you disband the Garda? Are you going to merge the Garda with the PSNI? Would Garda be policing Protestant areas given the potential hostility?
A merge would likely have a different title and whoever currently works in the PSNI would continue to work under their new name I'd imagine.Aughrim1691. wrote: »National flag: The national flag is defined as "the tricolour of green, white and orange" (Article 7).
How would you go about changing that?
Public referendum is how we change our constitution. You'd be surprised how many people would be willing to change our flag for a united Ireland.Really if the south wants a united Ireland (without interminable terrorism) the below is little enough to ask.
No downside really.
Make Donegal Irish the standard in schools.
Why Donegal Irish? Each school teaches the local dialects as far as I know. (Leinster has no local dialect so they use the 'standardised' Connaught one, so they can adopt Donegal Irish if they want)
For Leaving Cert, our listening exam includes all three dialects in the interest of fairness, and your oral exam *giggle* is in the local dialect also. No need for change there.
Why don't ye Unionists try Scots Gaelic? Lovely language. Would be right up yer alley.;)The postcode system is a good idea anyway and the royals have to keep some role. A new national anthem is a good idea anyway because the one yous have is rubbish. Commonwealth you get the commonwealth games
We'll take your postcode system if you take our car license plates (can't figure yours out). Royals can keep existing titles involving NI. We'll meet in the middle and change our anthem into Donegal Irish!! kidding:P
How about a new song about Cuchulain or something, and I'm fine with the Commonwealth.I'd have no problem with a United Ireland. But
1 Ulster is special and better that has to be recognised
2 What's the point
3 Why not just repartition
4 Why bother
1. Special yes, constitutional protection yes, minority status yes, but how is it 'better'... does that mean we're 'worse'? how?
2. Join us and find out! We're lovely, honest.
3. Repartition is messy....
4. Our cheese and onion tayto tastes better than yours according to my friends up North! That alone is worth it.:P0 -
Oscar your logic here doesn't stack up, you say Ireland stopped being a colony after the act of union - yet also acknowledge that it was passed illegitimately because of bribery and threats, a historic fact. It was also illegal under British law (if its your bag to respect colonial laws) because the Irish parliament could not vote itself out of existence - they broke their own rules. They also broke their own rules when they (Pitt) illegally diverted secret service funds in order to get papers to publish stuff in favour of the union. Thats leaving out the fact that it was in no way a parliament representative of the Irish people, the vast majority could not sit in it and those who could vote had their votes controlled by their landlords(this only ended really with O'Connell).
This was in 1803, 5 years after a country-wide mass rebellion of huge proportion with members of all hues.
Yet this illigitimate law passed by a unrepresentative parliament marks Ireland ceasing to be a colony?
Surely Ireland, if anything, was more of a colony after what little independence it had was removed?0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »Because Ireland became part of a single country called "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" as a result of its enactment.
So you say. But for arguments sake, lets give this parliament the benefit of the doubt for a second. In 1782 the Irish parliament achieved a measure of legislative independence (the era of Grattan's parliament) from GB. Why do you think Ireland was a colony in this period before the Act of Union even though a limited measure of independence was present before 1801, but definitely not after?You seem to be operating under the rather bizarre assumption that I think the Act of Union was a noble or admirable thing to have happened, or that I believe that the United Kingdom that it formed was a wonderful place for everyone in it. I'm going to assume that you're operating on that assumption because it's easier than trying to understand my point.
No. BTW you won't offend me if you want to advance that argument!
Seriously though, I don't think that's a direct response to my point about the how that Irish parliament didn't represent the majority of the population. Where was the popular input to give it even a shred of legitimacy even allowing for at the time that parliamentary representation was exclusively based on class, property ownership, title etc? If you were Catholic, no input. Period.My point, for the umpteenth time, is that Northern Ireland isn't an occupied colony. The argument that because it was colonised once it must therefore still be a colony, irrespective of anything that may have changed that status (and conveniently ignoring anything that actually did change that status just because you would rather it hadn't happened) is - to be kind - specious. It's the sort of argument that's trotted out by someone who is incapable of changing his way of thinking, which is ironic when the same person accuses someone else of being incapable of changing his way of thinking, which is my actual point. For the umpteenth time.
I wasn't discussing NI with you.Riddle me this: is Scotland an occupied colony?
Is this in relation to NI, the island of Ireland or what? Define what you mean as an "occupied colony"?0 -
I didn't say it was illegitimate. I acknowledged that there was underhandedness involved in its passage; hardly unprecedented, and certainly not the last example of a law being passed under dubious circumstances.Oscar your logic here doesn't stack up, you say Ireland stopped being a colony after the act of union - yet also acknowledge that it was passed illegitimately because of bribery and threats, a historic fact.
But you're still continuing to mix up the completely different ideas of a law that you believe shouldn't have been passed with one that wasn't. You don't have to like the process by which the bank guarantee was introduced by the previous government, or how IBRC was wound down by the current one - but that distaste doesn't make those acts illegal or illegitimate.
Something is illegal when it has been demonstrated to be in breach of an existing law, preferably in a competent court.It was also illegal under British law...
Can you explain what specific law (not "rule") was broken? What court determined this illegality, and why is the Act still on the books if it's illegal?
Is Scotland an occupied colony?Surely Ireland, if anything, was more of a colony after what little independence it had was removed?0 -
I'm not sure why you're having trouble grasping this concept, but what was a colony of another country was absorbed by that other country and became an integral part of that country.Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »So you say. But for arguments sake, lets give this parliament the benefit of the doubt for a second. In 1782 the Irish parliament achieved a measure of legislative independence (the era of Grattan's parliament) from GB. Why do you think Ireland was a colony in this period before the Act of Union even though a limited measure of independence was present before 1801, but definitely not after?
You're continuing to advance the argument that because a parliament did something that you personally feel it shouldn't have done, it therefore didn't happen.Seriously though, I don't think that's a direct response to my point about the how that Irish parliament didn't represent the majority of the population. Where was the popular input to give it even a shred of legitimacy even allowing for at the time that parliamentary representation was exclusively based on class, property ownership, title etc? If you were Catholic, no input. Period.
By that argument, Iraq was never invaded.
I was discussing NI with someone else.I wasn't discussing NI with you.
Read the thread.Is this in relation to NI, the island of Ireland or what? Define what you mean as an "occupied colony"?0 -
-
oscarBravo wrote: »I'm not sure why you're having trouble grasping this concept, but what was a colony of another country was absorbed by that other country and became an integral part of that country.
I'm not. At first glance that's what happened. But you're having trouble grasping the legitimacy of it. Also you didn't answer the question re Grattans parliament.You're continuing to advance the argument that because a parliament did something that you personally feel it shouldn't have done, it therefore didn't happen.
By that argument, Iraq was never invaded.
No I have not. I've already said the Act of Union was a fact, i.e. it happened. Likewise Iraq. Again you keep avoiding the concept of the supposed legitimacy of that act.I was discussing NI with someone else.
Ok.Read the thread.
I have. Why do you feel the need anyway to use comparative analysis (Scotland) when Ireland is being discussed?0 -
I'm not talking about the legitimacy of it, because the legitimacy or otherwise doesn't change its effect. The illegitimacy of the reasons for invading Iraq doesn't mean that Iraq wasn't invaded. The legitimacy or otherwise of the Act of Union doesn't change that Ireland became an integral part of another country, and hence no longer a colony.Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »I'm not. At first glance that's what happened. But you're having trouble grasping the legitimacy of it. Also you didn't answer the question re Grattans parliament.
I'm not avoiding it; I'm pointing out that it's irrelevant.No I have not. I've already said the Act of Union was a fact, i.e. it happened. Likewise Iraq. Again you keep avoiding the concept of the supposed legitimacy of that act.
Scotland became a part of Great Britain as a result of an Act of Union. Ireland became a part of the United Kingdom as a result of an Act of Union. If Ireland was an occupied colony, is Scotland an occupied colony?I have. Why do you feel the need anyway to use comparative analysis (Scotland) when Ireland is being discussed?0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »I'm not talking about the legitimacy of it, because the legitimacy or otherwise doesn't change its effect. The illegitimacy of the reasons for invading Iraq doesn't mean that Iraq wasn't invaded.
Events cause effects. Why do you feel the need keep raising the idea that "illegitimacy equals it didn't happen"? Why won't you discuss the legitimacy of them?The legitimacy or otherwise of the Act of Union doesn't change that Ireland became an integral part of another country, and hence no longer a colony.
Because you say so? I'll ask you again, why was Ireland a colony under Grattan's parliament from 1782 to 1800?I'm not avoiding it; I'm pointing out that it's irrelevant. Scotland became a part of Great Britain as a result of an Act of Union. Ireland became a part of the United Kingdom as a result of an Act of Union. If Ireland was an occupied colony, is Scotland an occupied colony?
It's not irrelevent. Different countries, different circumstances.0 -
Advertisement
-
Because it's not relevant to my point.Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »Events cause effects. Why do you feel the need keep raising the idea that "illegitimacy equals it didn't happen"? Why won't you discuss the legitimacy of them?
Are you arguing that it wasn't?Because you say so? I'll ask you again, why was Ireland a colony under Grattan's parliament?
If you say so.It's not irrelevent. Different countries, different circumstances.0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »Because it's not relevant to my point.
I think it is tbh with you.Are you arguing that it wasn't?
No. I just raised it as a possible scenario to establish why you picked the Act of Union as the time when Ireland suddenly wasn't a colony anymore. So then, why was Ireland seemingly a colony in the era of Grattans parliament?If you say so.
Just my two cents on the matter.0 -
I'm unclear on the frame of reference for this discussion. You've established that you believe Ireland was a colony prior to the Act of Union. Is it your view that Northern Ireland is still a colony today?Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »No. I just raised it as a possible scenario to establish why you picked the Act of Union as the time when Ireland suddenly wasn't a colony anymore. So then, why was Ireland seemingly a colony in the era of Grattans parliament?0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »I'm unclear on the frame of reference for this discussion. You've established that you believe Ireland was a colony prior to the Act of Union. Is it your view that Northern Ireland is still a colony today?
How could it not be when it's sovereignty is up for grabs?0 -
So is Scotland a colony, given that it's talking about the possibility of independence? Is the Basque country a colony?Happyman42 wrote: »How could it not be when it's sovereignty is up for grabs?0 -
Do you guys wanna make an "Is Northern Ireland a colony?" thread somewhere? Btw I would support a referendum on a united Ireland. The change up there would have to be very gradual though, like phase it in over 5 - 10 years or so if the referendum was passed...we couldn't just go up the day after passing and paint all their post boxes green, hang tricolours everywhere and stuff Gaeilge down their throats. I think that if a UI is to be a possibility it'll require a very softly softly approach with the unionists.0
-
Why would anyone want to reunificate with a country that is bankrupt, i.e Southen Ireland? I can see the benefits for Ireland wanting to join Sterling, but the chances of NI wanting to join the Euro would be absolute zero, and a common currency would need to be established amongst other things.
Discussions about historic Act of Unions or Colony's, Danie O'Connell, Land Acts or anything else you care to dredge up from history books are obsolete........the world has moved on and doesn't give a fig about this stuff. The only way this country would ever be reunited is if it's a win-win situation for both populations, and that chasm is extremely wide at present.0 -
nowanathiest wrote: »Why would anyone want to reunificate with a country that is bankrupt, i.e Southen Ireland? I can see the benefits for Ireland wanting to join Sterling, but the chances of NI wanting to join the Euro would be absolute zero, and a common currency would need to be established amongst other things.
Discussions about historic Act of Unions or Colony's, Danie O'Connell, Land Acts or anything else you care to dredge up from history books are obsolete........the world has moved on and doesn't give a fig about this stuff. The only way this country would ever be reunited is if it's a win-win situation for both populations, and that chasm is extremely wide at present.
We're talking about 2022 though; things may have picked up a good deal economically by then - in the early 90's the Irish economy was nowhere, but ten years later we were in a boom. These things move in cycles, who knows what could be the state of affairs in ten years or so0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »I'm unclear on the frame of reference for this discussion. You've established that you believe Ireland was a colony prior to the Act of Union.
Yes. As I have already said the unrepresentative nature of that Irish parliament leads me to question the legitimacy of that act, and consequently Ireland's status post 1800.
I don't understand why you are unclear re the question about Grattan's parliament as it is related to Ireland's status pre 1800.Is it your view that Northern Ireland is still a colony today?
Why veer back to this? We weren't discussing NI's status.0 -
Advertisement
-
It's germane to the topic.Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »Why veer back to this? We weren't discussing NI's status.0
Advertisement