Border Poll discussion

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Partitionist is a term of abuse on social media, it is not a definition of a political viewpoint. To be valid as a political definition rather than a term of abuse, those who are "partitionists" should self-define as such, rather than being labelled as such by others. They don't self-define as such.

Let me self define for a moment - I don't use it as a term of abuse.

If you reside in a jurisdiction that constitutionally aspires to unity and you argue against that, then you favour partition - i.e. you are a partitionist.
Nothing abusive about simple fact.

jm08

blanch152 wrote: »

Partitionist is a term of abuse on social media, it is not a definition of a political viewpoint. To be valid as a political definition rather than a term of abuse, those who are "partitionists" should self-define as such, rather than being labelled as such by others. They don't self-define as such.

How do you define yourself?

Infini

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Reports of their demise are greatly exaggerated. The DUP are essentially the anti-Irish/Gael party and that whole Irish/Gael thing isn't going anywhere.

The DUP have destroyed any chance of a hybrid 'northern' Irish identity taking hold.

To be fair the DUP are a group of Dinosaurs but not only that but they're grossly incompetent and utterly devoid of any sense of self respect. They reek of cronyism. The thing is though people will cop on sooner or later that voting for people like this isn't going to be in their long term interest. To point to Sky News it looks like Buisness and Farming groups are pulling financial support for them over their antics and their No Deal before Northern Ireland's Interests.

The lions share of the political deadlock is on their heads for Stormont as well, Arlene refused to resign or even stand aside over the "Cash For Ash" which show's they'll put themselves before common interest and the BBC reports that they didnt even research their own Brexit position properly before deciding shows nothing but utter incompetence.

If anything they'll fade in time as everything comes back to bite them. Karma is a bítch as they say and they've done enough stirring of the pot to be ground into the political dust with their own hypocracy.

facehugger99

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Let me self define for a moment - I don't use it as a term of abuse.

If you reside in a jurisdiction that constitutionally aspires to unity and you argue against that, then you favour partition - i.e. you are a partitionist.
Nothing abusive about simple fact.

The constitution aspires to a unity of the Irish people, not a united country.

It was deliberately written as such.

You need to transcend past a 18th century fixation on national borders.

jm08 wrote: »

How do you define yourself?

A realist.

FrancieBrady

facehugger99 wrote: »

The constitution aspires to a unity of the Irish people, not a united country.

It was deliberately written as such.

You need to transcend past a 18th century fixation on national borders.



A realist.

You are saying that it is a 'United Ireland Of The Mind' that we aspire to? Interesting.

Article 3

1. 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.

RobMc59

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You are saying that it is a 'United Ireland Of The Mind' that we aspire to? Interesting.

Small steps to start-not a bull at a gate.

FrancieBrady

RobMc59 wrote: »

Small steps to start-not a bull at a gate.

I don't think that is what facehugger was saying. He/she seems to be saying that our constitution does not aspire to a physical United Ireland.

The constitution aspires to a unity of the Irish people, not a united country.

And the small steps were taken the day the GFA was signed. The entire UK is now in an unforeseen unprecedented crisis because of it.

Frank Castle

Infini wrote: »

To be fair the DUP are a group of Dinosaurs but not only that but they're grossly incompetent and utterly devoid of any sense of self respect. They reek of cronyism. The thing is though people will cop on sooner or later that voting for people like this isn't going to be in their long term interest. To point to Sky News it looks like Buisness and Farming groups are pulling financial support for them over their antics and their No Deal before Northern Ireland's Interests.

The lions share of the political deadlock is on their heads for Stormont as well, Arlene refused to resign or even stand aside over the "Cash For Ash" which show's they'll put themselves before common interest and the BBC reports that they didnt even research their own Brexit position properly before deciding shows nothing but utter incompetence.

If anything they'll fade in time as everything comes back to bite them. Karma is a bítch as they say and they've done enough stirring of the pot to be ground into the political dust with their own hypocracy.

Tbh, the main voter base for the dup is the poor and poorly educated. The type of people who buy into their rhetoric and for most of them, who's situation will not change with brexit. They are already at the bottom of the ladder, there's nowhere else for them to go.
Unfortunately these are the people who will keep voting for the DUP. They honestly believe everything the DUP say, that is their bubble and there is no bursting it.

The best hope to get rid of the dup long term is to improve the education and show these people there is nothing to fear from the other side. Most probably have never talked to a catholic, never mind stepped foot south of the border.

And as long as SF keep getting votes, then these people will panic vote DUP to make sure themuns don't get anything, or worse "destroy our culture".
(I'm born and raise protestant and unionist and I never understand this bull**** "marching and flags are our culture". Its embarrassing).

(this is based on personal experience, unfortunately I have several relations who fall into this category)

Edit for perspective: my parents raised me well and we are moderate unionists (although I am now 50/50), I'd be an alliance voter if I still lived in the north.

facehugger99

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You are saying that it is a 'United Ireland Of The Mind' that we aspire to? Interesting.

The Constitution aspires to a unity of the people not a unity of the country.

It is a very clear and deliberate distinction.

FrancieBrady

facehugger99 wrote: »

The Constitution aspires to a unity of the people not a unity of the country.

It is a very clear and deliberate distinction.

You are stating this as if we are just aspiring to the unity of people.
Which is an entirely disingenuous interpretation of Articles 2 and 3.

Schnitzler Hiyori Geta

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You are stating this as if we are just aspiring to the unity of people.
Which is an entirely disingenuous interpretation of Articles 2 and 3.

Not Article 2 in fairness, but certainly Article 3.1 probably couldn't be more clear that what is sought is "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".

The Constitution aspires to both - Art 2 aspires to unity of the people and Art 3.1 aspires to a peaceful transition to a united Ireland.

facehugger99

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You are stating this as if we are just aspiring to the unity of people.
Which is an entirely disingenuous interpretation of Articles 2 and 3.

It's a very factual interpretation actually.

The rest of Articles are just talks about mechanisms - nothing aspirational about that at all.

I suggest you need to reread it looking at the actual words and phrasings, not what you want them to mean.

FrancieBrady

Schnitzler Hiyori Geta wrote: »

Not Article 2 in fairness, but certainly Article 3.1 probably couldn't be more clear that what is sought is "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"

No argument on that.

And my point is that 'a partitionist' is one who is a citizen of Ireland and who is against a 'united Ireland' or who favours the continuation of partition.

facehugger99

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And my point is that 'a partitionist' is one who is a citizen of Ireland and who is against a 'united Ireland' or who favours the continuation of partition.

Ah, it's the 'invent a phrase and ascribe a meaning to it' game.

Frank Castle

facehugger99 wrote: »

Ah, it's the 'invent a phrase and ascribe a meaning to it' game.

Don't think he invented it tbh...

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/partitionist

FrancieBrady

facehugger99 wrote: »

Ah, it's the 'invent a phrase and ascribe a meaning to it' game.

No, just giving the context in which I use the phrase. It isn't intended to insult or abuse, it is used to describe a person or a group of people who are against a 'united Ireland' or who favours the continuation of partition.

Fairly simple really, and I also don't use it with a capital 'P'.

Definition of partitionist
: an advocate of political partition

facehugger99

FrancieBrady wrote: »

No, just giving the context in which I use the phrase.

Yes, which we've already established was based on a misreading and misinterpretation of the Irish constitution.

maccored

facehugger99 wrote: »

Yes, which we've already established was based on a misreading and misinterpretation of the Irish constitution.

Are you sure it isnt you who has done that?

FrancieBrady

facehugger99 wrote: »

Yes, which we've already established was based on a misreading and misinterpretation of the Irish constitution.

Funny that, because I would call your interpretation of it a Unionist or partitionist interpretation.

If you are against the 'firm will of Irish Nation to unite the people...' then you are also a partitionist.

RobMc59

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Funny that, because I would call your interpretation of it a Unionist or partitionist interpretation.

If you are against the 'firm will of Irish Nation to unite the people...' then you are also a partitionist.

You're forgetting that the people of NI also have to want it,which they haven't indicated is the case at the moment.

FrancieBrady

RobMc59 wrote: »

You're forgetting that the people of NI also have to want it,which they haven't indicated is the case at the moment.

I haven't forgotten anything.
I was referring to citizens of the south, when I use the word 'partitionist'. Hence my original conversation with ancapailldorcha.

The equivalent of a southern partitionist in the north, is a Unionist, who supports and is in favour of partition.

I don't see how you can live in the south, be happy with the status quo here, and call yourself a Unionist.

Simple point originally, and tbh, not of much importance.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Let me self define for a moment - I don't use it as a term of abuse.

If you reside in a jurisdiction that constitutionally aspires to unity and you argue against that, then you favour partition - i.e. you are a partitionist.
Nothing abusive about simple fact.

I am not doubting your claim that you don't use it as a term of abuse.

However there are plenty of words from the c-word, the n-word and the y-word, that over the years people have claimed not to be using as terms of abuse but that are seen as terms of abuse by those that they are describing.

If the use of the word partitionist is not a term of abuse, how come we don't see people proclaiming that they are happy to be labelled a partitionist.

For the last word, let us turn to our favourite food expert for the real perspective:

https://www.joe.co.uk/news/mcdonalds-accused-of-partitionism-by-sinn-fein-politician-because-of-a-special-edition-burger-13730

Young McElduff of the breads once again lifts the veil by referring to the "the sin of partitionism".

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

I am not doubting your claim that you don't use it as a term of abuse.

However there are plenty of words from the c-word, the n-word and the y-word, that over the years people have claimed not to be using as terms of abuse but that are seen as terms of abuse by those that they are describing.

If the use of the word partitionist is not a term of abuse, how come we don't see people proclaiming that they are happy to be labelled a partitionist.

For the last word, let us turn to our favourite food expert for the real perspective:

https://www.joe.co.uk/news/mcdonalds-accused-of-partitionism-by-sinn-fein-politician-because-of-a-special-edition-burger-13730

Young McElduff of the breads once again lifts the veil by referring to the "the sin of partitionism".

the C-word and the N- word are pejorative and racist terms to begin with. (Not sure what the Y word is.)

If you fear the word 'partitionist' so much, maybe open a thread in feedback about it and a mod can decide on it.

My last word on it, I intend it to mean what the dictionary definition of it is, i.e.

Definition of partitionist
: an advocate of political partition

RobMc59

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I haven't forgotten anything.
I was referring to citizens of the south, when I use the word 'partitionist'. Hence my original conversation with ancapailldorcha.

The equivalent of a southern partitionist in the north, is a Unionist, who supports and is in favour of partition.

I don't see how you can live in the south, be happy with the status quo here, and call yourself a Unionist.

Simple point originally, and tbh, not of much importance.

Some may argue they yearn for reunification and what is reality now is partition.

FrancieBrady

RobMc59 wrote: »

Some may argue they yearn for reunification and what is reality now is partition.

Sorry?

Chips Lovell

Without straying too far into semantics, I'd imagine there's a fair few unionists who'd see unification with Ireland as partition of the UK.

RobMc59

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Sorry?

They may want reunification with the UK.

ancapailldorcha

No more nonsense tweets please.

FrancieBrady

RobMc59 wrote: »

They may want reunification with the UK.

Then they are NOT 'happy with the status quo' which is an Irish sovereign independent state.

RobMc59

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Then they are NOT 'happy with the status quo' which is an Irish sovereign independent state.

They are entitled to think that-as with any division of a country there will be people unhappy with how it works out for them-look at Korea or India.