Does opposing a United Ireland automatically make you unpatriotic?

markodaly

wotzgoingon wrote: »

I said it already in this thread a few posts back but I really do believe you need counseling for those drugs you are taking.

Ireland is 32 counties always was and should always be. Do you follow GAA? The all Ireland championship is with all 32 counties on this island of Ireland.

Get some counseling for those drugs anyway because you really need it.

Nope, when was Ireland united under an Irish ruler or kingdom. The answer is never.

I said this a while back but I will say it again. Ireland was NEVER united under Irish rule.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

It seems Frankie views that changing a constitution is fundamentally unpatriotic. So wanting more liberal laws like divorce, gay marriage is being unpatriotic as they had to come about from changing the constitution.

Repealing the 8th is also unpatriotic therefore.

No, changing the constitution is the correct thing to do if you oppose a clause in it.

Where are all these people who oppose 'the will to unite the Island of Ireland'.

Is there a campaign to change the constitution I am unaware of? Is Leo suddenly challenging this silent majority of opposition, that you all have alluded to?

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

wotzgoingon

markodaly wrote: »

Nope, when was Ireland united under an Irish ruler or kingdom. The answer is never.

I said this a while back but I will say it again. Ireland was NEVER united under Irish rule.

Well I'm no expert on history but I remember one high king of Ireland called Brian Boru.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

tomwaterford

markodaly wrote: »

Nope, when was Ireland united under an Irish ruler or kingdom. The answer is never.

I said this a while back but I will say it again. Ireland was NEVER united under Irish rule.

Ireland was united in 1922....Until the north formally broke away

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

No, changing the constitution is the correct thing to do if you oppose a clause in it.

Where are all these people who oppose 'the will to unite the Island of Ireland'.

Is there a campaign to change the constitution I am unaware of? Is Leo suddenly challenging this silent majority of opposition, that you all have alluded to?

Changing your tune, not surprising.

The constitution mentions that it is up to the people, i.e. the people, us, have to give their consent to a UI. They key word, consent.

Patriotism has nothing to do with it. Its a nonsense stupid argument. Its a Trump argument.

markodaly

tomwaterford wrote: »

Ireland was united in 1922....Until the north formally broke away

Under Irish rule? Read my post

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

Changing your tune, not surprising.

The constitution mentions that it is up to the people, i.e. the people, us, have to give their consent to a UI. They key word, consent.

Patriotism has nothing to do with it. Its a nonsense stupid argument. Its a Trump argument.

What are you if you 'oppose' the constitution of your country?

markodaly

wotzgoingon wrote: »

Well I'm no expert on history but I remember one high king of Ireland called Brian Boru.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_King_of_Ireland

The concept of national kingship is first articulated in the 7th century, but only became a political reality in the Viking Age, and even then not a consistent one.[2][3][4] While the High Kings' degree of control varied, Ireland was never ruled by them as a politically unified state, as the High King was conceived of as an overlord exercising suzerainty over, and receiving tribute from, the independent kingdoms beneath him

end of the road

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

it's you who is mixing up countries. all of ireland is 1 country, a small part of it is ruled by britain on a temporary basis and will be returned to irish rule soon. ireland, the 32 county ireland, is the only ireland and reunification with the north would make little difference to the country's good future. it is happening, so get used to it.

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What are you if you 'oppose' the constitution of your country?

I oppose the 8th amendment, does that make me unpatriotic?

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

I oppose the 8th amendment, does that make me unpatriotic?

Yes, if you do nothing to change the constitution. The particular clause is an aspiration of the state. If you don't agree with it and oppose it, you are against the state in respect of that clause.

It is the firm will of the Irish Nation, in harmony and friendship, to unite all the people who share the territory of the island of Ireland, in all the diversity of their identities and traditions, recognising that a united Ireland shall be brought about only by peaceful means with the consent of a majority of the people, democratically expressed, in both jurisdictions in the island.

wotzgoingon

Anyway I'm out of this thread. I find boards.ie great for everything but I rarely post in AH or politics. As the amount of west brits here really surprises me. I wouldn't be surprised if half them are prods pretending to be Irish for what ever reason. I'm not one to judge how somebody gets their kicks but afaik no Irish person signs up to some britian first webpage and pretends to be british and posts anti british stuff.

Skylinehead

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yes, if you do nothing to change the constitution. The particular clause is an aspiration of the state. If you don't agree with it and oppose it, you are against the state in respect of that clause.

The state and the country are different things. Patriotism can be pride in either/both. You know the government is the state, and I know you don't like them. Should I call you unpatriotic? No, because that would be silly. Patriotism has nothing to do with the constitution. It is simply pride in ones country. That's it. You don't need to follow pieces of paper at all.

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yes, if you do nothing to change the constitution. The particular clause is an aspiration of the state. If you don't agree with it and oppose it, you are against the state in respect of that clause.

So you view the constitution as something that is set in stone and anyone who wants to change it is unpatriotic.

Fine so, I think that is a stupid view to hold but hey people are free to hold stupid views.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

So you view the constitution as something that is set in stone and anyone who wants to change it is unpatriotic.

Fine so, I think that is a stupid view to hold but hey people are free to hold stupid views.

No. I am saying that if you oppose it, then work to change it. I am suprised that with so many (it is claimed) opposed to a UI in the south that there has never been a hint that anyone wants to change that pretty substantial clause.
For instance, why was there not a word about dropping it altogether at the time of the GFA?
I'll let you work out yourself why.

overpronator

Jawgap wrote: »

Really? Us? Too immature?

Maybe......but at least we would never be mad enough to pull a stunt like Brexit, not even as a joke

Our government wouldnt tolerate a stunt like Brexit. We would vote vote and revote until remain got delivered.

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

No. I am saying that if you oppose it, then work to change it. I am suprised that with so many (it is claimed) opposed to a UI in the south that there has never been a hint that anyone wants to change that pretty substantial clause.
For instance, why was there not a word about dropping it altogether at the time of the GFA?
I'll let you work out yourself why.

Because most people don't care about a UI and go about their daily lives free from this nonsense. And again, it cannot be forced on us as we, the people have to vote on it. The constitution gives us that consent.

Again, patriotism doesn't come into it. You may as well argue that not liking black pudding makes you unpatriotic.

ohnonotgmail

FrancieBrady wrote: »

No. I am saying that if you oppose it, then work to change it. I am suprised that with so many (it is claimed) opposed to a UI in the south that there has never been a hint that anyone wants to change that pretty substantial clause.
For instance, why was there not a word about dropping it altogether at the time of the GFA?
I'll let you work out yourself why.

because it has zero practical effect. why waste effort opposing something that is merely aspirational?

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

Because most people don't care about a UI and go about their daily lives free from this nonsense. And again, it cannot be forced on us as we, the people have to vote on it. The constitution gives us that consent.

Again, patriotism doesn't come into it. You may as well argue that not liking black pudding makes you unpatriotic.

The old 'most people' assertion again. But not a peep out of most people when the chance was there to change the constitution and every political party in the state supporting the idea of a UI.

You aren't making a pile of sense here.

ohnonotgmail

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The old 'most people' assertion again. But not a peep out of most people when the chance was there to change the constitution and every political party in the state supporting the idea of a UI.

You aren't making a pile of sense here.

they may claim to support it but they aren't actually doing much about it. i think the phrase is "lip service".

FrancieBrady

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

because it has zero practical effect. why waste effort opposing something that is merely aspirational?

Another question. Why have Unionists and all these people who oppose it in the south never advocated for a poll?
Surely it would end the speculation and what have they to lose if they so fervently believe it is 'aspirational'?

Interested on how that is spun in anti UI/Unionist circles.

FrancieBrady

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

they may claim to support it but they aren't actually doing much about it. i think the phrase is "lip service".

So, your party doesn't mention it for years and then when a UI comes the closest it has ever come you suddenly decide to start paying 'lip service' to the idea?

Again, that doesn't make much sense.
A politician starts making noise when they see support and votes usually.

ohnonotgmail

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Another question. Why have Unionists and all these people who oppose it in the south never advocated for a poll?
Surely it would end the speculation and what have they to lose if they so fervently believe it is 'aspirational'?

Interested on how that is spun in anti UI/Unionist circles.

you're the one who wants to change the status quo. Why should the other side do the work for you?

ohnonotgmail

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So, your party doesn't mention it for years and then when a UI comes the closest it has ever come you suddenly decide to start paying 'lip service' to the idea?

Again, that doesn't make much sense.
A politician starts making noise when they see support and votes usually.

we are no closer to a UI. well except in the fevered dreams of sinn fein.

FrancieBrady

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you're the one who wants to change the status quo. Why should the other side do the work for you?

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

we are no closer to a UI. well except in the fevered dreams of sinn fein.

That the best you can do? As I said, it would be interesting to see the 'spin'. Very disappointing actually ono!
Imagine the political capital for Unionists if they won a border poll, but they seem curiously afraid to go there, strange, for people who so fervently believe that a UI is never going to happen.

ohnonotgmail

FrancieBrady wrote: »

That the best you can do? As I said, it would be interesting to see the 'spin'. Very disappointing actually ono!
Imagine the political capital for Unionists if they won a border poll, but they seem curiously afraid to go there, strange, for people who so fervently believe that a UI is never going to happen.

typical of you. nothing smart to say so you resort to trying, and failing, to mock.

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The old 'most people' assertion again. But not a peep out of most people when the chance was there to change the constitution and every political party in the state supporting the idea of a UI.

You aren't making a pile of sense here.

Because in 1998 the issue was about peace in the North. No idea how old you are but the madness of those 30 years of troubles puts paid to any sense of stupid patriotism. United Ireland or not.

Nothing wrong to aspire to it but again it will be up to the people as they have to consent and I would say most people would want to see the details of the plan. Any stupid romantic ideas about unification was put to bed when we see what Brexit negotiations actually looks like in reality.

FrancieBrady

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

typical of you. nothing smart to say so you resort to trying, and failing, to mock.

eh? You gave trite answers to genuine questions.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

Because in 1998 the issue was about peace in the North. No idea how old you are but the madness of those 30 years of troubles puts paid to any sense of stupid patriotism. United Ireland or not.

Nothing wrong to aspire to it but again it will be up to the people as they have to consent and I would say most people would want to see the details of the plan. Any stupid romantic ideas about unification was put to bed when we see what Brexit negotiations actually looks like in reality.

Of course they will want to see a plan, and there will be one. The notion that there are people who will make this move for romantic notions alone is an old and tired one popularised mostly by those who oppose a UI for their own selfish reasons.

And it may yet be as a result of Brexit or a Scottish departure from the UK. Northern Ireland will not survive a hard Brexit for instance.

markodaly

wotzgoingon wrote: »

Anyway I'm out of this thread. I find boards.ie great for everything but I rarely post in AH or politics. As the amount of west brits here really surprises me. I wouldn't be surprised if half them are prods pretending to be Irish for what ever reason. I'm not one to judge how somebody gets their kicks but afaik no Irish person signs up to some britian first webpage and pretends to be british and posts anti british stuff.

You cannot be Irish and a Protestant? Interesting bigoted mindset there.

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Of course they will want to see a plan, and there will be one. The notion that there are people who will make this move for romantic notions alone is an old and tired one popularised mostly by those who oppose a UI for their own selfish reasons.

And it may yet be as a result of Brexit or a Scottish departure from the UK. Northern Ireland will not survive a hard Brexit for instance.

You are sounding like Nigel Farage.

Brexit is a wake up call with people with romantic notions.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

You are sounding like Nigel Farage.

Brexit is a wake up call with people with romantic notions.

And we continue to popularise the notion.

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And we continue to popularise the notion.

Yes, Ireland needs more populist nonsense in form of snake oiled UKIP like crap about a United Ireland.

Its started already, you don't want a UI, you are essentially unpatriotic.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

Yes, Ireland needs more populist nonsense in form of snake oiled UKIP like crap about a United Ireland.

Its started already, you don't want a UI, you are essentially unpatriotic.

Before you run off with more notions...if you 'oppose' (which is to actively go against the constitutionally expressed 'will' of the people) you are being unpatriotic.

The snake oil in Irish politics was accepted by those who didn't oppose partition from the beginning imo.

wotzgoingon

markodaly wrote: »

You cannot be Irish and a Protestant? Interesting bigoted mindset there.

I'm 100% bigoted. People think the IRA were terrorists, well if I was involved in the leadership of the IRA back in their hay day people would have 100% a right to call them terrorists as I would have obliterated shankill road with bombs and as I said earlier I would have ordered someone to drive up and down shankill road with a fully automatic heavy machine gun and shoot at people walking down the street and go into known loyalists estates and do the same.

IRA were never terrorists they were volunteers and freedom fighters.

spakman

No, but automatically opposing a United Ireland makes you unpatriotic

markodaly

wotzgoingon wrote: »

I'm 100% bigoted. People think the IRA were terrorists, well if I was involved in the leadership of the IRA back in their hay day people would have 100% a right to call them terrorists as I would have obliterated shankill road with bombs and as I said earlier I would have ordered someone to drive up and down shankill road with a fully automatic heavy machine gun and shoot at people walking down the street and go into known loyalists estates and do the same.

IRA were never terrorists they were volunteers and freedom fighters.

Yes, that is lovely. Ethnic cleansing of the North brought to you by keyboard warriors.

wotzgoingon

markodaly wrote: »

Yes, that is lovely. Ethnic cleansing of the North brought to you by keyboard warriors.

I was just proving a point how easy the IRA could have done that if they were terrorists which they were not.

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Before you run off with more notions...if you 'oppose' (which is to actively go against the constitutionally expressed 'will' of the people) you are being unpatriotic.

The snake oil in Irish politics was accepted by those who didn't oppose partition from the beginning imo.

That is nice, I await Sinn Fein bring this line to the campaign for a UI. Oppose our viewpoint and your unpatriotic. Will go down a treat with the public.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

That is nice, I await Sinn Fein bring this line to the campaign for a UI. Oppose our viewpoint and your unpatriotic. Will go down a treat with the public.

SF can do what they like. I think it will be self evident, which is why you will not see a single political party in the state opposing it. Actually looks like FG (fecking FG of all parties) will be actively advocating for it.

markodaly

wotzgoingon wrote: »

I was just proving a point how easy the IRA could have done that if they were terrorists which they were not.

Easy? I don't think so. You obviously know nothing about the logistics about such an operation, never-mind having to go up toe to toe with the BA, UDA, UFF and UVF. As I said, your nothing but a keyboard warrior.

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

SF can do what they like. I think it will be self evident, which is why you will not see a single political party in the state opposing it. Actually looks like FG (fecking FG of all parties) will be actively advocating for it.

Its an aspiration to go for but its an ideal for now. We have to await the details.

What I am calling out is the stupid nature of this debate, where even opposing the UI makes you unpatriotic. Funny coming from you, as you wanted to police what symbols people wore, a freedom that is granted to all via the constitution.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

Easy? I don't think so. You obviously know nothing about the logistics about such an operation, never-mind having to go up toe to toe with the BA, UDA, UFF and UVF. As I said, your nothing but a keyboard warrior.

I think you might be the misinformed one to be honest, they were able to bring high amounts of explosives into the heart of London during a period of the tightest security the British could manage and bombed their PM in her bed.

Not glorifying it, but if ethnic cleansing was their goal they could have made a fair shape at it.

wotzgoingon

markodaly wrote: »

Ethnic cleansing of the North brought to you by keyboard warriors.

Ethnic cleansing, what about the Indians, the aborigines, the Irish and other places I can't think of off the top of my head and the british may have even been involved in ethnic cleansing of the native Americans.

I have no idea why you are sticking up for the british if you are really an Irish person to be honest. Mass atrocities of the Irish people, famine no land moved from their home, the bit of money they managed to get paid straight back to foreigners in their own country due to massive rents etc...

Are you really Irish. I 100% think not and any sane person can see that.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

Its an aspiration to go for but its an ideal for now. We have to await the details.

What I am calling out is the stupid nature of this debate, where even opposing the UI makes you unpatriotic. Funny coming from you, as you wanted to police what symbols people wore, a freedom that is granted to all via the constitution.

I wanted to 'police' what symbols people wore? Man, you do have some notions.

I object to some people wearing symbols that are provocative, which I said goes for provocatively wearing the Easter Lily too.

Amazing what a snowflake attitude helps you to overlook!

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I think you might be the misinformed one to be honest, they were able to bring high amounts of explosives into the heart of London during a period of the tightest security the British could manage and bombed their PM in her bed.

Not glorifying it, but if ethnic cleansing was their goal they could have made a fair shape at it.

Nonsense, the reason the PIRA had to used the guerrilla tactics they did because they were unable to do anything else. There was no way the PIRA could have launched some kind of military revolution or uprising in the North. They didn't have the weapons, they didn't have public support, they didn't have the operational capacity.

If they went toe to toe with the BA, they would have been cut down in a few days, like those in the Easter Rising.

Even old PIRA heads admit this.

markodaly

wotzgoingon wrote: »

Ethnic cleansing, what about the Indians, the aborigines, the Irish and other places I can't think of off the top of my head and the british may have even been involved in ethnic cleansing of the native Americans.

I have no idea why you are sticking up for the british if you are really an Irish person to be honest. Mass atrocities of the Irish people, famine no land moved from their home, the bit of money they managed to get paid straight back to foreigners in their own country due to massive rents etc...

Are you really Irish. I 100% think not and any sane person can see that.

Im not sticking up for the British, im just calling you out on your bigoted comments, that Irish people cannot be protestants.

Now, you think that I am not even Irish, of course we are one homogenous hive mind, who all think alike, right? :rolleyes::rolleyes: