Border Poll discussion

facehugger99

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Maybe if you could give us some examples of those who have 'the firm will' to 'unite the people' only, your argument might make some sense.

Uniting the people of this island is a legitimate aspiration. I hope we can continue to develop closer ties with our neighbors in NI.

Uniting the country, or attempting to, would be a ugly, divisive and expensive exercise.

It's for these reasons that myself and millions like me voted on this very issue francie, when we removed the territorial claim on the north.

We made our choice. I guess we must be all partitionist in our thinking, but we console ourselves that we have constitution to back us up.

FrancieBrady

facehugger99 wrote: »

Uniting the people of this island is a legitimate aspiration. I hope we can continue to develop closer ties with our neighbors in NI.

Uniting the country, or attempting to, would be a ugly, divisive and expensive exercise.

It's for these reasons that myself and millions like me voted on this very issue francie, when we removed the territorial claim on the north.

We made our choice. I guess we must be all partitionist in our thinking, but we console ourselves that we have constitution to back us up.

Millions of us know the difference between a 'territorial claim' and an 'aspiration' or 'firm will'. We know they are not the same thing.


Any luck finding us one actual person who wants to 'unite the people' only?

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So when our Taoiseach, in his capacity as Taoiseach talks about a physical united Ireland he is actually being unconstitutional.

Who knew.

That is a complete twisting of what I have said.

The official Constitutional position of the State is to seek unity of the people.

That does not preclude you or anyone else (including An Taoiseach) aspiring to a physical united Ireland. However, it also means that labelling someone who favours the existing status quo as a partitionist is not only pejorative and sneering, but also inaccurate.

James Brown

facehugger99 wrote: »

Uniting the people of this island is a legitimate aspiration. I hope we can continue to develop closer ties with our neighbors in NI.

Uniting the country, or attempting to, would be a ugly, divisive and expensive exercise.

It's for these reasons that myself and millions like me voted on this very issue francie, when we removed the territorial claim on the north.

We made our choice. I guess we must be all partitionist in our thinking, but we console ourselves that we have constitution to back us up.

You're dodging here. Instead of responding you are explaining why you wouldn't support a united Ireland. Trying to fudge what it means is pretty poor. If you're against it, stand by that rather than trying to fudge things.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Millions of us know the difference between a 'territorial claim' and an 'aspiration' or 'firm will'. We know they are not the same thing.


Any luck finding us one actual person who wants to 'unite the people' only?

There are many of us who want to unite the people first as a precondition for uniting the territory. But we would also be happy if the people in the North united around the concept of staying in the UK. That is the direction things were heading until Brexit. That momentum towards acceptance of the UK has stopped, but it remains to be seen where momentum heads post-Brexit. It will depend largely on the type of Brexit.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

There are many of us who want to unite the people first as a precondition for uniting the territory. But we would also be happy if the people in the North united around the concept of staying in the UK. That is the direction things were heading until Brexit. That momentum towards acceptance of the UK has stopped, but it remains to be seen where momentum heads post-Brexit. It will depend largely on the type of Brexit.

We are not at war with the Irish currently under British jurisdiction. I'd say we all get along quite well. We share Rugby, as was raised and all live on the same island.
How do you propose we unite the people further, an all Ireland song competition?

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You're dodging here. Instead of responding you are explaining why you wouldn't support a united Ireland. Trying to fudge what it means is pretty poor. If you're against it, stand by that rather than trying to fudge things.

The new Articles 2 and 3 fudged what it means.

The old ones were clear - we want to annex Northern Ireland. The new ones are not so clear - we want to unite the people. Article 3 actually leaves open the theoretical possibility of a devolved Assembly for the whole of this island within the United Kingdom. There is nobody practically looking for that, but it would not be against those Articles (it may fall foul of other Articles).

The outcome foreseen by the drafters was a closer political Union in Europe allowing all-Ireland administration within that context, because with rights guaranteed by Europe, and limited devolved powers akin to the current Assembly, a united Ireland would happen in that way.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

We are not at war with the Irish currently under British jurisdiction. I'd say we all get along quite well. We share Rugby, as was raised and all live on the same island.
How do you propose we unite the people further, an all Ireland song competition?

We need to develop a modern Irish culture that incorporates fully the British heritage on this island.

facehugger99

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Millions of us know the difference between a 'territorial claim' and an 'aspiration' or 'firm will'. We know they are not the same thing.

Really? - you seemed a bit confused about it - there is no aspiration in the constitution to unite the country - that is a simple fact.

I certainly wouldn't have voted for it if there had been.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

That is a complete twisting of what I have said.

The official Constitutional position of the State is to seek unity of the people.

That does not preclude you or anyone else (including An Taoiseach) aspiring to a physical united Ireland. However, it also means that labelling someone who favours the existing status quo as a partitionist is not only pejorative and sneering, but also inaccurate.

So the 'firm will' in this bit, is to peacefully unite the minds of all the people of the island, so that everyone thinks of themselves as Irish? Why would this require 'consent' of a majority?

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.

FrancieBrady

facehugger99 wrote: »

Really? - you seemed a bit confused about it - there is no aspiration in the constitution to unite the country - that is a simple fact.

I certainly wouldn't have voted for it if there had been.

Well explain what 'it is the firm will of the Irish Nation...' means then.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

We need to develop a modern Irish culture that incorporates fully the British heritage on this island.

Are you suggesting we take on some form of brit-centrc legislation in the Republic? I'm not sure what you mean.
We have many cultures here none are refused the right to be who they are. Can you elaborate?
I believe those peoples who wish to, are not stopped from celebrating their heritage. Why would that change under a united Ireland?
The Chinese new year, Bastille day, Burns day etc. lots of celebrations in modern Ireland.

facehugger99

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Well explain what 'it is the firm will of the Irish Nation...' means then.

I think we've done all that Francie.

It would seem you had a dose of constitution-confusion and I suspect, despite your pleadings of ignorance, that you actually know very well where you were wrong.

Every day's a school-day as they say.

FrancieBrady

facehugger99 wrote: »

I think we've done all that Francie.

It would seem you had a dose of constitution-confusion and I suspect, despite your pleadings of ignorance, that you actually know very well where you were wrong.

Every day's a school-day as they say.

You didn't explain what it meant to you.

Now you are trying to winkle out of explaining what it means by patronising me.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Are you suggesting we take on some form of brit-centrc legislation in the Republic? I'm not sure what you mean.
We have many cultures here none are refused the right to be who they are. Can you elaborate?
I believe those peoples who wish to, are not stopped from celebrating their heritage. Why would that change under a united Ireland?
The Chinese new year, Bastille day, Burns day etc. lots of celebrations in modern Ireland.

You don't need legislation for culture.

There is nothing complicated about saying that Irish culture needs to recognise its British heritage.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

You don't need legislation for culture.

There is nothing complicated about saying that Irish culture needs to recognise its British heritage.

How does a 'culture' recognise anything?

Irish culture is a sum of it's parts, including that of the British.

BonnieSituation

FrancieBrady wrote: »

How does a 'culture' recognise anything?

Irish culture is a sum of it's parts, including that of the British.

Francie please avoid going down the tunnels that the two partitionists have constructed to do their gymnastics in.

I honestly can't believe that the references that are in the constitution to a united Ireland and the consent to same now don't actually mean the reunification of the 2 jurisdictions on this island.

I completely missed that definition.

Please for the love of all that is holy, would someone explain to me how a united Ireland does not actually mean what we have all taken it to have meant since 1922?

FrancieBrady

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Francie please avoid going down the tunnels that the two partitionists have constructed to do their gymnastics in.

I honestly can't believe that the references that are in the constitution to a united Ireland and the consent to same now don't actually mean the reunification of the 2 jurisdictions on this island.

I completely missed that definition.

Please for the love of all that is holy, would someone explain to me how a united Ireland does not actually mean what we have all taken it to have meant since 1922?

Apparently, 'millions' believed at the time of the vote that it was 'mind control' that that they were endorsing.
Once we have persuaded a majority to 'think they are Irish' then we have a UI apparently.

No need to bother writing up lengthy Oireachtas plans for a physical united Ireland and the separation of the British government, apparently they can stay.

facehugger99

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Please for the love of all that is holy, would someone explain to me how a united Ireland does not actually mean what we have all taken it to have meant since 1922?

Where is a united ireland mentioned in the constitution?

Well you post up the relevant part please so we can all see which clause you're referring to.

FrancieBrady

facehugger99 wrote: »

Where is a united ireland mentioned in the constitution?

Well you post up the relevant part please so we can all see which clause you're referring to.

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.

facehugger99

FrancieBrady wrote: »

A very different meaning to the 1922 version referred to.

FrancieBrady

facehugger99 wrote: »

A very different meaning to the 1922 version referred to.

What is the difference?

blanch152

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Francie please avoid going down the tunnels that the two partitionists have constructed to do their gymnastics in.

I honestly can't believe that the references that are in the constitution to a united Ireland and the consent to same now don't actually mean the reunification of the 2 jurisdictions on this island.

I completely missed that definition.

Please for the love of all that is holy, would someone explain to me how a united Ireland does not actually mean what we have all taken it to have meant since 1922?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_2_and_3_of_the_Constitution_of_Ireland


"As amended, Article 3, Section 1 expresses the "firm will" of the Irish nation to create a united Irish people, though not, explicitly, a united country."

BluePlanet

Here it says this:

the articles also express a desire for the peaceful political unification of the island subject to the consent of the people of Northern Ireland and Ireland.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_2_and_3_of_the_Constitution_of_Ireland


"As amended, Article 3, Section 1 expresses the "firm will" of the Irish nation to create a united Irish people, though not, explicitly, a united country."

Wickipedia? Really?

Here is a legal take on it.

The proposed new Article 3 contains a powerful statement
that highlights one of the central objectives of the Agreement: "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. 3' 2 The aspiration to unity remains undimmed-but it is also
recognized that a united Ireland shall be brought about only by
peaceful means and with the consent of a majority of the people,
democratically expressed, in both jurisdictions of the island. We
have drawn a clearer distinction between the jurisdiction of the
State on the one hand and the membership of the nation on the
other hand. This shift of focus from land to people, from territory to nationhood, was of great significance in achieving a settlement.
It is also highly significant that, taking the proposed Article
3 and the proposed changes to British constitutional legislation
together, there will be, for the first time, a clear mechanism
through which a united Ireland may be achieved. The existing
Article 3 is silent on this, while the Northern Ireland Constitution Act of 1973 does not address the situation in which a majority in Northern Ireland support a united Ireland. This deficiency has been rectified by the Northern Ireland Act of 1998,
which will oblige the British Government to bring forward proposals to give effect to the wish of a major

https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://scholar.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1616&context=ilj

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Wickipedia? Really?

Here is a legal take on it.

https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://scholar.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1616&context=ilj

And there it is:

"We have drawn a clearer distinction between the jurisdiction of the
State on the one hand and the membership of the nation on the
other hand. This shift of focus from land to people, from territory to nationhood, was of great significance in achieving a settlement."

In other words, everyone on the island can be Irish, we don't need territory to do that. That is the substantive change. Previously there was a claim over territory, now there is not.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

And there it is:

"We have drawn a clearer distinction between the jurisdiction of the
State on the one hand and the membership of the nation on the
other hand. This shift of focus from land to people, from territory to nationhood, was of great significance in achieving a settlement."

In other words, everyone on the island can be Irish, we don't need territory to do that. That is the substantive change. Previously there was a claim over territory, now there is not.

So you just ignored this bit and cherry picked out a bit that suited you. Brilliant.

that highlights one of the central objectives of the Agreement: "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. 3' 2 The aspiration to unity remains undimmed

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So you just ignored this bit and cherry picked out a bit that suited you. Brilliant.

that highlights one of the central objectives of the Agreement: "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. 3' 2 The aspiration to unity remains undimmed

The aspiration comes after and is subject to the unity of the people, so it remains an aspiration. If you believe that is an undimmed aspiration, fair play to you. but the constitutional imperative has completely disappeared.

It is the difference between me saying aggressively and threatening to my neighbour that I own a bit of land that he occupies and he must give it to me rather than me asking him politely that if he ever wishes to sell that piece of land I would consider buying it, and his kids can veto the sale if they want.

There is a world of difference between the two. Pretending otherwise is just silly.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

The aspiration comes after and is subject to the unity of the people, so it remains an aspiration. If you believe that is an undimmed aspiration, fair play to you. but the constitutional imperative has completely disappeared.

The 'territorial claim' has disappeared. The 'firm will of the Irish nation' to unify in a 'united Ireland' remains undimmed.

That is why our Oireachtas is planning for a UI, that is why our Taoiseach is able to talk about the aspiration to unity, that is why it was included in the GFA as a legitimate aspiration.

BonnieSituation

Eoghan Harris and Conor Cruise O'Brien would be in their element with those definitions.

I mean just wow. It's unbelievable. And that the two of you came to this definition independent of each other as well...

Is there a partitionist forum or council somewhere where these things are defined that the 2 of ye were all "that's exactly it"?

Maddening.