Reunification Vote Per County

Junkyard Tom

Aegir wrote: »

How can there be greater union? Can Cork have ever greater union with Ireland?

Oh I don't know... maybe build a big bridge from norniron to Scotland so unionists can keep pretending ULSTER IS BRITISH.

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Oh, it's 'unique' now?
It isn't actually, it is just another in a long line of territories that the British have been forced/persuaded to leave after centuries of conflict and strife.
The only reason they are not gone from Ireland is that it isn't PC to abandon your colonies/acquisitions anymore. They have done the next best thing, set up an agreement where the citizens decide for themselves. They saw the writing on the wall and unionism has been outmaneuvered.

Nice rant. Irrelevant to the conversation though.

The majority of people in Northern Ireland wish to remain part of the union. A significant number don’t. That makes it fairly unique, especialbelly when a large number were happy to resort to slaughtering innocent people to change that situation.

The GFA was an agreement to end the bloodshed and put the future of Northern Ireland in the hands of the people who live there. You can dream all you like, but it isn’t a roadmap to a United iteland to anyone other than Republicans, it is an agreement to end an insurgency.

FrancieBrady

Aegir wrote: »

Nice rant. Irrelevant to the conversation though.

The majority of people in Northern Ireland wish to remain part of the union. A significant number don’t. That makes it fairly unique, especialbelly when a large number were happy to resort to slaughtering innocent people to change that situation.

The GFA was an agreement to end the bloodshed and put the future of Northern Ireland in the hands of the people who live there. You can dream all you like, but it isn’t a roadmap to a United iteland to anyone other than Republicans, it is an agreement to end an insurgency.

Seems to have stopped the British killing people too, but how and ever.

I like the way you just ignore points made and just keep up a mantra.

Junkyard Tom

Aegir wrote: »

The GFA was an agreement to end the bloodshed and put the future of Northern Ireland in the hands of the people who live there.

That was what gave impetus to the GFA or, more accurately, the Provo bombing campaign in Britain in the 1990's. While people were killing each other in the north Ulsterisation was the response, it was 'contained'. When the IRA started bombing the centre of British cities the Troubles became intolerable.

The GFA is British acknowledgement that unification is a matter for the people Ireland alone 'without external impediment'. That external impediment has been Britain.

jm08

Aegir wrote: »

The GFA was an agreement to end the bloodshed and put the future of Northern Ireland in the hands of the people who live there. You can dream all you like, but it isn’t a roadmap to a United iteland to anyone other than Republicans, it is an agreement to end an insurgency.

The GFA was an agreement to end the bloodshed on both sides. However, it wasn't an agreement for unionism to revert back to pre-troubles days when as they said, 'Northern Ireland was a cold place for catholics.'

James Brown

Aegir wrote: »

Pretty sure Ulster is a province onthe island of Ireland. I guess as people live there it could be called occupied in as much as it isn’t empty, is that what you mean?

My mistake, the province is partially occupied by a foreign government. What would a referendum on reunification be for do you think?

James Brown

Aegir wrote: »

Nice rant. Irrelevant to the conversation though.

The majority of people in Northern Ireland wish to remain part of the union. A significant number don’t. That makes it fairly unique, especialbelly when a large number were happy to resort to slaughtering innocent people to change that situation.

The GFA was an agreement to end the bloodshed and put the future of Northern Ireland in the hands of the people who live there. You can dream all you like, but it isn’t a roadmap to a United iteland to anyone other than Republicans, it is an agreement to end an insurgency.

Cameron apologised for much of that and on the Irish side, with the exception of FG/Lab and other dissident republicans they don't make senators, the political will is towards peace.

Matt Barrett

Matt Barrett wrote: »

My mistake, the province is partially occupied by a foreign government. What would a referendum on reunification be for do you think?

It isn’t a foreign government to Northern Ireland, hence no occupation

James Brown

Aegir wrote: »

It isn’t a foreign government to Northern Ireland, hence no occupation

So you don't think part of Ulster being under British rule is an occupation because of time spent in situ and the royals being in Hello magazine. Understood.
I respectfully disagree.
So you wouldn't recognise a referendum on 'reunification' in any form because there is nothing to re-unify? A blending of part of the UK with the Republic mayhap? How about the part of an Irish province which by happenstance is in the UK, joining up to make Northern Ireland part of Western, Eastern and Southern Ireland, just for kicks?

cgcsb

I had to laugh a few years ago when the UK poured scorne on Russia for annexing parts of the Ukraine claiming that these areas had a large % of ethnic Russians and they'd organise 'democratic referenda' to confirm this is what the people wanted.

It's as if the Russians were following a Brit recipe for annexation step by step. The only difference is the Brits also liked stirring up some sectarian violence to justify their actions as we seen in the partition of Ireland, India and Cyprus(basically one big UK army barracks)

I for one look forward to unification, as a deathknel for the UKs hypocraful, brutal and ultimately failed colonisation and annexation projects. The thrust of this thread, should we do this in a way that's sympathetic to the Brits and their colonists. The answer is no. Too much pandering and surrender already. Irish people need to stop being so passive. The people remaining in NI who identify as British will be, very graciously on our part, be allowed to stay with full equal rights from day one. Those who take issue will not be forced to remain.

Matt Barrett

Matt Barrett wrote: »

So you don't think part of Ulster being under British rule is an occupation because of time spent in situ and the royals being in Hello magazine. Understood.
I respectfully disagree.

What has Hello magazine got to do with anything? that's a rather bizarre thing to say.

Time has an awful lot to account for, or should be go back to the five kingdoms of Ireland because that's the way it was originally? Maybe the Ulster Scots have a valid claim to Norhern Ireland, because they are the descendants of the Kingdom of Dál Riada and are simply staking their claim to their historic kingdom?

Matt Barrett wrote: »

So you wouldn't recognise a referendum on 'reunification' in any form because there is nothing to re-unify?

where did you get that from, pray tell, Hellp magazine?

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

That was what gave impetus to the GFA or, more accurately, the Provo bombing campaign in Britain in the 1990's. While people were killing each other in the north Ulsterisation was the response, it was 'contained'. When the IRA started bombing the centre of British cities the Troubles became intolerable.

The GFA is British acknowledgement that unification is a matter for the people Ireland alone 'without external impediment'. That external impediment has been Britain.

so if the Loyalists started bombing Dublin and unification became untolerable, you would be happy for everything to go back to the way it was? Or is bombing innocent people only acceptable when the bombs are green white and orange?

jm08 wrote: »

The GFA was an agreement to end the bloodshed on both sides. However, it wasn't an agreement for unionism to revert back to pre-troubles days when as they said, 'Northern Ireland was a cold place for catholics.'

err no, it wasn't. Who is saying that it is?

cgcsb wrote: »

I had to laugh a few years ago when the UK poured scorne on Russia for annexing parts of the Ukraine claiming that these areas had a large % of ethnic Russians and they'd organise 'democratic referenda' to confirm this is what the people wanted.

It's as if the Russians were following a Brit recipe for annexation step by step. The only difference is the Brits also liked stirring up some sectarian violence to justify their actions as we seen in the partition of Ireland, India and Cyprus(basically one big UK army barracks)

So let me get this right, you are claiming that the Brits stirred up the sectarian violence in Cyprus and India for the lols?

Really?

cgcsb wrote: »

I for one look forward to unification, as a deathknel for the UKs hypocraful, brutal and ultimately failed colonisation and annexation projects. The thrust of this thread, should we do this in a way that's sympathetic to the Brits and their colonists. The answer is no. Too much pandering and surrender already. Irish people need to stop being so passive. The people remaining in NI who identify as British will be, very graciously on our part, be allowed to stay with full equal rights from day one. Those who take issue will not be forced to remain.

Graciously allowed to stay? What is the alternative, throwing people out of their homes because they have a different world view to you?

That isn't graciousness, that is called human rights.

Junkyard Tom

Aegir wrote: »

so if the Loyalists started bombing Dublin and unification became untolerable, you would be happy for everything to go back to the way it was?

Why would unionists bomb Dublin again? What for exactly?

FrancieBrady

Aegir wrote: »

So let me get this right, you are claiming that the Brits stirred up the sectarian violence in Cyprus and India for the lols?

By being there, they stirred up conflict and violence.

Don't you know your world history. This happened almost everywhere they went to colonise and plunder for the empire.

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

By being there, they stirred up conflict and violence.

Don't you know your world history. This happened almost everywhere they went to colonise and plunder for the empire.

By being in Cyprus, they stirred up anti Turkish sentiment that lead to sectarian violence three years after independence?

How exactly did that work then?

FrancieBrady

Aegir wrote: »

By being in Cyprus, they stirred up anti Turkish sentiment that lead to sectarian violence three years after independence?

How exactly did that work then?

By being in Cyprus they stirred up conflict, in the form of groups seeking independence.
The British lost over 300 servicemen.

Attempts to shake off an invader/occupier have frequently led to civil and sectarian war, but sure why would the British or invader/occupier feel any responsibility for that. :rolleyes:

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

By being in Cyprus they stirred up conflict, in the form of groups seeking independence.
The British lost over 300 servicemen.

Attempts to shake off an invader/occupier have frequently led to civil and sectarian war, but sure why would the British or invader/occupier feel any responsibility for that. :rolleyes:

Aaah Francie, you do make me chuckle sometimes.

So you’re claiming the whole Enosis movement was the fault of the British?

Go read a history book.

FrancieBrady

Aegir wrote: »

Aaah Francie, you do make me chuckle sometimes.

So you’re claiming the whole Enosis movement was the fault of the British?

Go read a history book.

I suppose EOKA killed all those British servicemen by accident, they were only pretending to want independence?
I suppose the British turning a blind eye to the illegal activity of Turkish partitionists and actively stirring up the Turks in their policy of divide and conquer was accidental too?

I suspect somebody is reading history books where the British are the tolerant benign heroes of the piece, again. :rolleyes:

James Brown

Aegir wrote: »

What has Hello magazine got to do with anything? that's a rather bizarre thing to say.

Time has an awful lot to account for, or should be go back to the five kingdoms of Ireland because that's the way it was originally? Maybe the Ulster Scots have a valid claim to Norhern Ireland, because they are the descendants of the Kingdom of Dál Riada and are simply staking their claim to their historic kingdom?



where did you get that from, pray tell, Hellp magazine?

With all the PR around the British monarchy and the UK one might forget all the butchery, historic and modern got them their wealth and standing. Including portions of Ulster.

You said the section of Ulster under British rule wasn't occupied. In essence it wasn't part of Ireland, so I asked, what do you think a 're-unification' referendum would be for?

Matt Barrett

Matt Barrett wrote: »

With all the PR around the British monarchy and the UK one might forget all the butchery, historic and modern got them their wealth and standing. Including portions of Ulster.

You said the section of Ulster under British rule wasn't occupied. In essence it wasn't part of Ireland, so I asked, what do you think a 're-unification' referendum would be for?

You seem to be confusing the island of Ireland and the country of Ireland. They are two separate things.

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I suppose EOKA killed all those British servicemen by accident, they were only pretending to want independence?
I suppose the British turning a blind eye to the illegal activity of Turkish partitionists and actively stirring up the Turks in their policy of divide and conquer was accidental too?

I suspect somebody is reading history books where the British are the tolerant benign heroes of the piece, again. :rolleyes:

Try not to keep going off on a tangent Francie.

EOKA were the enosis based independence movement, but they did not invent enosis.

Cypriot enosists biewed Cypriot turks as the enemy long before the British came to Cyprus.

FrancieBrady

Aegir wrote: »

Try not to keep going off on a tangent Francie.

EOKA were the enosis based independence movement, but they did not invent enosis.

Cypriot enosists biewed Cypriot turks as the enemy long before the British came to Cyprus.

I know you accept no blame for the actions of the empire. But despite that the presence of the British, the divide and conquer policy and the stirring of the Turkish Cypriots gave rise to Eoka.

Hence proving what I said originally.

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I know you accept no blame for the actions of the empire. But despite that the presence of the British, the divide and conquer policy and the stirring of the Turkish Cypriots gave rise to Eoka.

Hence proving what I said originally.

You are a master of making one plus one equal whatever it suits your argument to be.

FrancieBrady

Aegir wrote: »

You are a master of making one plus one equal whatever it suits your argument to be.

I notice you cannot repudiate what I said. Not just what I said actually, repudiate the facts.

By being there, they stirred up conflict and violence.

ELM327

Aegir wrote: »

You seem to be confusing the island of Ireland and the country of Ireland. They are two separate things.

These are one and the same thing.
You seem to be confusing the country of Ireland with the administrative region called "eire" or "the free state" created by the british in the 20's.

This was after the first and only sitting of the Irish Dáil as elected by the entirety of the country.

cgcsb

Aegir wrote: »

so if the Loyalists started bombing Dublin and unification became untolerable, you would be happy for everything to go back to the way it was? Or is bombing innocent people only acceptable when the bombs are green white and orange?

Lol. Loyalist paramilitary groups peaked in strength in the early 1980s and at that point they remained incapable of wiping their own bums without Her Majesty's Gorvernment's assistance. They're now basically all small time drug dealers now.

a loyalist terrorist campaign in a UI also would lack something very important, a cause, realistically they'd be fighting for a portion of Antrim to rejoin the UK at that stage, and the UK wouldn't be receptive to same. It'd be a non-cause.

Aegir wrote: »

So let me get this right, you are claiming that the Brits stirred up the sectarian violence in Cyprus and India for the lols?

I don't think they done it 'for the lols' they done it for insidious reasons, in Ireland it allowed them keep the wealthiest part of Ireland at the time and hold on to key ship building facilities. In Cyprus it allowed them to make Turkey the enemy of greek Cypriots and the Brits their saviours, which in turn gave them a massive military outpost in the eastern med.

India is a bit more complicated so I wont go there now as it's off topic.

Aegir wrote: »

Graciously allowed to stay? What is the alternative, throwing people out of their homes because they have a different world view to you?

That isn't graciousness, that is called human rights.

Indeed human rights, which were not granted to the native Irish in the British occupation or by the Orange State when it was created in 1922.

cgcsb

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I suppose EOKA killed all those British servicemen by accident, they were only pretending to want independence?
I suppose the British turning a blind eye to the illegal activity of Turkish partitionists and actively stirring up the Turks in their policy of divide and conquer was accidental too?

I suspect somebody is reading history books where the British are the tolerant benign heroes of the piece, again. :rolleyes:

Some bizzar Thatcher era history book, where Britain's only conflict was WW1 and 2 and sure weren't they great.

seamus

cgcsb wrote: »

Indeed human rights, which were not granted to the native Irish in the British occupation or by the Orange State when it was created in 1922.

How many people were displaced in 1922?

And how many of them are still alive today?

blanch152

ELM327 wrote: »

These are one and the same thing.
You seem to be confusing the country of Ireland with the administrative region called "eire" or "the free state" created by the british in the 20's.

This was after the first and only sitting of the Irish Dáil as elected by the entirety of the country.

The Irish Consitution no longer lays claim to the northern part of this island.

As a result, the country of Ireland consists of 26 counties today. It is possible that it may consist of 32 counties at some point in the future, but that is only an aspiration.

ELM327

blanch152 wrote: »

The Irish Consitution no longer lays claim to the northern part of this island.

As a result, the country of Ireland consists of 26 counties today. It is possible that it may consist of 32 counties at some point in the future, but that is only an aspiration.

The irish constitution (a misnomer as it only applies to the free state) is not a valid constitution as it does not continue the lineage of the first elected Irish Dáil of 1918.
I do not recognise the british imposed free state as "Ireland", "Ireland" and "Irish" refers to the Island of Ireland, a political entity of its own merit.

James Brown

Aegir wrote: »

You seem to be confusing the island of Ireland and the country of Ireland. They are two separate things.

No. Ulster is part of both. Again, what do you think a re-unification referendum would be for?

ELM327

Matt Barrett wrote: »

No. Ulster is part of both. Again, what do you think a re-unification referendum would be for?

Ah, so I see
That other poster must be a British person sent here by the english in the plantations. In that case I shall disregard their opinions. CHeers for the heads up

Rhineshark

ELM327 wrote: »

The irish constitution (a misnomer as it only applies to the free state) is not a valid constitution as it does not continue the lineage of the first elected Irish Dáil of 1918.
I do not recognise the british imposed free state as "Ireland", "Ireland" and "Irish" refers to the Island of Ireland, a political entity of its own merit.

It doesn't really matter if you recognise it or not, the reality is what it is. The island of Ireland is not the same thing as the Irish-controlled Republic of Ireland. And it was reinforced by the treaty aimed to bring peace and allow for peaceful re-unification when both populations choose it.

Particularly dangerous to ignore it right now for ideological reasons when it is of existential importance.

ELM327

Rhineshark wrote: »

It doesn't really matter if you recognise it or not, the reality is what it is. The island of Ireland is not the same thing as the Irish-controlled Republic of Ireland. And it was reinforced by the treaty aimed to bring peace and allow for peaceful re-unification when both populations choose it.

Particularly dangerous to ignore it right now for ideological reasons when it is of existential importance.

The last Dáil elected by the people of Ireland (As opposed to the british created entity of Eire or the free state) was in 1918.
"Irish" refers to the nation of "Ireland" which encompasses all of her land, not just some.


If the British decide to hold a poll to allow those resident in the north of Ireland to self determine their will to align the british created state of Eire with the nation of Ireland and the result is a win for the reunification then great, but if not it does not change the fact that Ireland is a 32 county nation.

Rhineshark

ELM327 wrote: »

The last Dáil elected by the people of Ireland (As opposed to the british created entity of Eire or the free state) was in 1918.
"Irish" refers to the nation of "Ireland" which encompasses all of her land, not just some.


If the British decide to hold a poll to allow those resident in the north of Ireland to self determine their will to align the british created state of Eire with the nation of Ireland and the result is a win for the reunification then great, but if not it does not change the fact that Ireland is a 32 county nation.

First off, it would be the people of NI (and then the people of RoI) holding a referendum, not a poll of British people, as much as the likes of the Express and Sun would be all for a poll of Britain's folks to decide whether to offload it.

...Actually, re-reading that, are you claiming a British poll to "re-align" the *Republic* with...itself?

Secondly, I don't recognise the British occupation or the subsequent "Free State" or "Republic". Ancient kingdom of Dal Riada or nuffin'. That was the last truly Irish expression of sovereignity bar everything that came after including the Anglo-Irish agreement that rejected RoI's claim on NI (and the UK rejected any claim on RoI). The Scots don't get a say.

However, this would be a thoroughly irrelevant stance to take due to much change in the meantime. We need to work with the situation that we have, which includes a portion if the island being British, like it or not.

"Irish", due to our rather unique situation, has several rather fuzzy meanings. But while you can stand there are insist that Ireland is a single political entity in the face of ...reality, you are free to do so. But it makes any debate with you about the current political situation (or any political situation pre-1160s) a bit pointless.

ELM327

Rhineshark wrote: »

First off, it would be the people of NI (and then the people of RoI) holding a referendum, not a poll of British people, as much as the likes of the Express and Sun would be all for a poll of Britain's folks to decide whether to offload it.

...Actually, re-reading that, are you claiming a British poll to "re-align" the *Republic* with...itself?

Secondly, I don't recognise the British occupation or the subsequent "Free State" or "Republic". Ancient kingdom of Dal Riada or nuffin'. That was the last truly Irish expression of sovereignity bar everything that came after including the Anglo-Irish agreement that rejected RoI's claim on NI (and the UK rejected any claim on RoI). The Scots don't get a say.

However, this would be a thoroughly irrelevant stance to take due to much change in the meantime. We need to work with the situation that we have, which includes a portion if the island being British, like it or not.

"Irish", due to our rather unique situation, has several rather fuzzy meanings. But while you can stand there are insist that Ireland is a single political entity in the face of ...reality, you are free to do so. But it makes any debate with you about the current political situation (or any political situation pre-1160s) a bit pointless.

What a load of tripe.
Irish has just one meaning. Born in the country/island of Ireland.
You can mess about with false borders and different artificial political entities enforced by foreign sovereigns but the fact remains that anyone born on the island of Ireland to parents born on the island of Ireland is entitled to an Irish passport. If the narnia regime in part of the north of Ireland is to be recognised (incorrectly) as british, then how can one be born a british subject to the british monarch, never set foot in what you deem to be Ireland (ie the 26 county free state), yet be entitled to an Irish passport?

Rhineshark

ELM327 wrote: »

What a load of tripe.
Irish has just one meaning. Born in the country/island of Ireland.
You can mess about with false borders and different artificial political entities enforced by foreign sovereigns but the fact remains that anyone born on the island of Ireland to parents born on the island of Ireland is entitled to an Irish passport. If the narnia regime in part of the north of Ireland is to be recognised (incorrectly) as british, then how can one be born a british subject to the british monarch, never set foot in what you deem to be Ireland (ie the 26 county free state), yet be entitled to an Irish passport?

It may indeed be tripe but due to our pretty complex history with our nearest neighbour, it is the situation.

Irish actually specifically does *not* mean "born on the island of Ireland" since a 1994 referendum on the 27th amendment (the result of which I heartily disagree with btw but that is neither here nor there, it is also reality) where we decided that merely being born here if your parents are foreign does not entitle you to citizenship because a class of essentially stateless people was a *brilliant* idea.

Other than that, see quote from Wikipedia;

A person may be an Irish citizen[1] through birth, descent, marriage to an Irish citizen or through naturalisation. The law grants citizenship to individuals born in Northern Ireland under the same conditions as those born in the Republic of Ireland.

"Descent" here means a parent or grandparent, not just yourself.

So, no, your statement is factually incorrect.

That second part, the part you are questioning, is down to an agreement as part of the Good Friday Agreement which entitled NI citizens to RoI citizenship and British citizenship should they so choose. This is due to the sectarian divide between those that identify as British, roughly descended from the plantations of Scots and those that identify as Irish, roughly descended from the Irish population of the time albeit with much fuzzing due to the passage of time since. Also because the British Isles have always been good at fudge and the lack of a hard border due to being in the EU CU/SM allowed for much freer movement between the regions. And to bring an end to the Troubles by compromise.

You're talking from ideology here. It does not reflect reality. It's the same sort of woolly logic based on what might be preferred thatbid currently causing an unholy mess next door. Your opinion does not over-rule either reality or Irish law. Or even British law if it comes to that.

ELM327

Rhineshark wrote: »

It may indeed be tripe but due to our pretty complex history with our nearest neighbour, it is the situation.

Irish actually specifically does *not* mean "born on the island of Ireland" since a 1994 referendum on the 27th amendment (the result of which I heartily disagree with btw but that is neither here nor there, it is also reality) where we decided that merely being born here if your parents are foreign does not entitle you to citizenship because a class of essentially stateless people was a *brilliant* idea.

Other than that, see quote from Wikipedia;



"Descent" here means a parent or grandparent, not just yourself.

So, no, your statement is factually incorrect.

That second part, the part you are questioning, is down to an agreement as part of the Good Friday Agreement which entitled NI citizens to RoI citizenship and British citizenship shoukd they so choose.

You're talking from ideology here. It does not reflect reality. It's the same sort of woolly logic based on what might be preferred thatbid currently causing an unholy mess next door. Your opinion does not over-rule either reality or Irish law. Or even British law if it comes to that.

Interesting.
Now lets actually read what I wrote.]
It's almost as if you are just arguing and not actually reading.

ELM327 wrote: »

What a load of tripe.
Irish has just one meaning. Born in the country/island of Ireland.
You can mess about with false borders and different artificial political entities enforced by foreign sovereigns but the fact remains that anyone born on the island of Ireland to parents born on the island of Ireland is entitled to an Irish passport. If the narnia regime in part of the north of Ireland is to be recognised (incorrectly) as british, then how can one be born a british subject to the british monarch, never set foot in what you deem to be Ireland (ie the 26 county free state), yet be entitled to an Irish passport?

James Brown

ELM327 wrote: »

Ah, so I see
That other poster must be a British person sent here by the english in the plantations. In that case I shall disregard their opinions. CHeers for the heads up

I'd say he's merely feigning confusion because he won't accept the reality that Ulster is an Irish province.

Rhineshark

ELM327 wrote: »

Interesting.
Now lets actually read what I wrote.]
It's almost as if you are just arguing and not actually reading.

I did read it. My point stands. You actually even limit it more than just a person being born here to born here *and* with both parents born here by your phrasing, ignoring, say, mixed nationality marriages, parents born here but you not, neither you nor parents born here but an Irish grandparent etc, all of which makes you eligible for Irish citizenship.

Which is patently incorrect and I refer you to the Irish citizenship authorities for correction.

ELM327

Rhineshark wrote: »

I did read it. My point stands. You actually even limit it more than just a person being born here to born here *and* with both parents born here by your phrasing, ignoring, say, mixed nationality marriages, parents born here but you not, neither you nor parents born here but an Irish grandparent etc, all of which makes you eligible for Irish citizenship.

Which is patently incorrect and I refer you to the Irish citizenship authorities for correction.

The meaning of my post was patently clear.

James Brown

I think if you're born somewhere that's your nationality. If that gives you citizenship rights that's up to the law of the land. I disagreed with that element of the GFA. If you are born on the island of Ireland, you are Irish in my book.

Rhineshark

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I think if you're born somewhere that's your nationality. If that gives you citizenship rights that's up to the law of the land. I disagreed with that element of the GFA. If you are born on the island of Ireland, you are Irish in my book.

Tbh, I agree, although we are both out of accord with the law of the land on that one due to the 1994 decision. Interestingly, it looks like that might be coming up for review. I hope if it passes, it can cover retroactively any unfortunates caught in limbo born in Ireland to non-national parents between 1994 and 201?. Everyone should have the automatic right to nationality of *somewhere* dammit.

I won't call a NI person who positively identifies as British "Irish", mind, although I absolutely agree with their right to do so if they so choose. But it's as insulting to apply it to them if they do not choose it as it is to insist on calling a NI Irish person British.

James Brown

Rhineshark wrote: »

Tbh, I agree, although we are both out of accord with the law of the land on that one due to the 1994 decision. Interestingly, it looks like that might be coming up for review. I hope if it passes, it can cover retroactively any unfortunates caught in limbo born in Ireland to non-national parents between 1994 and 201?. Everyone should have the automatic right to nationality of *somewhere* dammit.

I won't call a NI person who positively identifies as British "Irish", mind, although I absolutely agree with their right to do so if they so choose. But it's as insulting to apply it to them if they do not choose it as it is to insist on calling a NI Irish person British.

Agreed. I'd call anyone born up the north British and Irish. Like a Scottish or Welsh person. We're looking to change all that

BonnieSituation

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I think if you're born somewhere that's your nationality. If that gives you citizenship rights that's up to the law of the land. I disagreed with that element of the GFA. If you are born on the island of Ireland, you are Irish in my book.

It's always been the case.

The 1956 Citizenship act confirmed same.

The GFA solidified those rights.

And the PDs diluted it with the parental citizenship addendum.

James Brown

BonnieSituation wrote: »

It's always been the case.

The 1956 Citizenship act confirmed same.

The GFA solidified those rights.

And the PDs diluted it with the parental citizenship addendum.

We were talking about in our own view and previously noted the law. If you're born in the occupied portion of Ulster you're Irish and British.

Nitrogan

Free from nationalistic Irish, British or English claims the people of NI should be free to choose their own destiny.

LoughNeagh2017

Someone should have mentioned that counties don't really exist in the Northern Ireland political world, my political identity is technically Mid-Ulster, there are signs up now when you enter Mid-Ulster, I dislike the logo they created though, it was obviously designed by a GAA man, oakleafs and red hands, believe it or not the whole reason why there is an oak leaf on the Derry GAA logo is because of Derry city so it shouldn't really be used as a political logo of South county Derry, it is like sticking a Viking ship on a logo for a region of the county Dublin countryside.

cameramonkey

Nitrogan wrote: »

Free from nationalistic Irish, British or English claims the people of NI should be free to choose their own destiny.

Dont you mean noi or the six counties?

cameramonkey

LoughNeagh2017 wrote: »

Someone should have mentioned that counties don't really exist in the Northern Ireland political world, my political identity is technically Mid-Ulster, there are signs up now when you enter Mid-Ulster, I dislike the logo they created though, it was obviously designed by a GAA man, oakleafs and red hands, believe it or not the whole reason why there is an oak leaf on the Derry GAA logo is because of Derry city so it shouldn't really be used as a political logo of South county Derry, it is like sticking a Viking ship on a logo for a region of the county Dublin countryside.

Vikings were all over Dublin, we dont have a viking ship as a logo but it would be nice.



I presume there were Oak trees all over county Derry. Oak leaf is a great emblem, its the nation tree of Ireland.

https://treecouncil.ie/project/oak-sessile/

Irish Kings

blanch152 wrote: »

I think a bare 51% vote in the North would give the people down South something to think about and there is no guarantee we would accept a divided North.

you are not 'we', the Island of Ireland is we