Border Poll discussion

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

You don't need legislation for culture.

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

I'm not trying to bait you. We do recognise British culture. We speak English and despite our negative histories have strong bonds and it's a shared history nonetheless. I was asking what you meant specifically. We fought in their wars, welcomed their monarchs and speak their language. I don't get what we're not, or could be doing. We share music, art, poetry, language, sport.

Irish culture is made up of numerous influences from other cultures.
What are we not recognising and how would you propose we do? I suppose Unionists recognising the Irish language would be one?

maccored

facehugger99 wrote: »

A very different meaning to the 1922 version referred to.

Thats code for 'Hang on whilst I move the goalposts as Ive been proved wrong' is it?

facehugger99

FrancieBrady wrote: »

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.

People can aspire to whatever they want.

The constitution does not aspire to a UI.

That is the crucial difference.

FrancieBrady

facehugger99 wrote: »

People can aspire to whatever they want.

The constitution does not aspire to a UI.

That is the crucial difference.

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.

So you are claiming that this ^ represents only a 'firm wil of the Irish Nationl' to unite people's minds and call it a 'united Ireland' after a majority consent to allowing them to think like that?

If you could just affirm that this is what you voted for in the GFA then we can move to the next stage of the discussion. If you mean something else, please explain.

jm08

facehugger99 wrote: »

People can aspire to whatever they want.

The constitution does not aspire to a UI.

That is the crucial difference.

The Constitution was changed because unionists wanted it changed. It was a big bugbear for them.


Now they need to fulfill their end of the GFA.

facehugger99

jm08 wrote: »

The Constitution was changed because unionists wanted it changed. It was a big bugbear for them.

So you think the Irish Electorate voted overwhelmingly for a Unionist demand?

Sure.

volchitsa

facehugger99 wrote: »

So you think the Irish Electorate voted overwhelmingly for a Unionist demand?

Sure.

In the context of the GFA, yes. That's exactly what happened.

facehugger99

volchitsa wrote: »

In the context of the GFA, yes. That's exactly what happened.

Wow! - who knew the Unionists had such leverage down here.

Sounds like the Union is safe for a few more generations so.

Peregrinus

facehugger99 wrote: »

Wow! - who knew the Unionists had such leverage down here.

Everybody did. Except yourself, apparently.

facehugger99 wrote: »

Sounds like the Union is safe for a few more generations so.

Doesn't follow at all.

facehugger99

Peregrinus wrote: »

Everybody did. Except yourself, apparently.

Yeah - must be.

Are they able to influence other things like General Elections or just referendums?

Peregrinus wrote: »

Doesn't follow at all.

:rolleyes:

McMurphy

facehugger99 wrote: »

Yeah - must be.

Are they able to influence other things like General Elections or just referendums?





:rolleyes:

If we are to follow this train of thought, you must surely concede that the republican movement must have had a fair bit of clout when it comes to influencing elections and referendas too.

Another way of looking at things would be as either side making compromises to the other in the name of peace?

FrancieBrady

It was clear and discussed before the referendum that Unionists required constitutional change, as we required the equivalent change from the British.
The GFA was a monumental achievement in this regard.

Again we are having a debate with somebody who seems not to be aware of what happened and how it happened.

volchitsa

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It was clear and discussed before the referendum that Unionists required constitutional change, as we required the equivalent change from the British.
The GFA was a monumental achievement in this regard.

Again we are having a debate with somebody who seems not to be aware of what happened and how it happened.

Being too young to remember is one thing, but being unable, or unwilling, to learn about what happened in the past is worrying.

Though it could be someone who has never actually set foot in Ireland.

FrancieBrady

volchitsa wrote: »

Being too young to remember is one thing, but being unable, or unwilling, to learn about what happened in the past is worrying.

Though it could be someone who has never actually set foot in Ireland.

Yeh. I agree.

Here is the relevant bit from the booklet produced for the electorates for those still in doubt We knew what was required.

Peregrinus

facehugger99 wrote: »

Yeah - must be.

You seem to find this implausible or suprising. I'm puzzled as to why.

facehugger99 wrote: »

Are they able to influence other things like General Elections or just referendums?

Possibly.

Stand back and think for a moment. I don't know how old you are, or whether you were old enough to be politically conscious in the 1980s and 1990s but, if you weren't, try to think yourself into the situation of someone who was. If you wanted peace in Ireland, or if you wanted any kind of settlement in Ireland, obviously you needed buy-in from both nationalist and unionist communities. Which meant, regardless of whether you classified yourself as nationalist, or unionist, or something else, or nothing, you were going to consider the effect political actions, choices etc would have on both communities. A strong argument for amending Article 3 was precisely that in its unamended form it was troubling to unionists, which made it a barrier to a settlement. So, yeah, the primary reason that Art 3 was amended was that unionists wished it to be, and acceding to unionist wishes on this matter would help build and lock in a peace settlement.

It's kind of inherent in the notion of "settlement" that you're going to be responsive to the wishes of other people. Unless your notion of "settling" your differences with others involves grinding them beneath the wheels of your chariots until you hear the lamentations of their women.

FrancieBrady

Peregrinus wrote: »

You seem to find this implausible or suprising. I'm puzzled as to why.


Possibly.

Stand back and think for a moment. I don't know how old you are, or whether you were old enough to be politically conscious in the 1980s and 1990s but, if you weren't, try to think yourself into the situation of someone who was. If you wanted peace in Ireland, or if you wanted any kind of settlement in Ireland, obviously you needed buy-in from both nationalist and unionist communities. Which meant, regardless of whether you classified yourself as nationalist, or unionist, or something else, or nothing, you were going to consider the effect political actions, choices etc would have on both communities. A strong argument for amending Article 3 was precisely that in its unamended form it was troubling to unionists, which made it a barrier to a settlement. So, yeah, the primary reason that Art 3 was amended was that unionists wished it to be, and acceding to unionist wishes on this matter would help build and lock in a peace settlement.

It's kind of inherent in the notion of "settlement" that you're going to be responsive to the wishes of other people. Unless your notion of "settling" your differences with others involves grinding them beneath the wheels of your chariots until you hear the lamentations of their women.

Worth remembering too that the DUP vociferously believed that our constitutional change didn't go far enough.
What a shame that blanch and facehugger were not vocal at the time to assure them that we only aspired to change unionist mindsets and not the governance of their statelet.

facehugger99

Peregrinus wrote: »

You seem to find this implausible or suprising. I'm puzzled as to why.


Possibly.


.

It sounds like we need to get Robert Mueller in to investigate.

Have you contacted any of the relevant authorities regarding the Unionist interference in our GE's and Referendums?

Peregrinus

facehugger99 wrote: »

It sounds like we need to get Robert Mueller in to investigate.

Have you contacted any of the relevant authorities regarding the Unionist interference in our GE's and Referendums?

This is not making any more sense than your earlier posts. I still don't know what it is you're not understanding.

facehugger99

Peregrinus wrote: »

This is not making any more sense than your earlier posts. I still don't know what it is you're not understanding.

The fact that you think we overwhelmingly voted for something just because the Unionists demanded it.

The vast majority of Irish people voted to give up an anachronistic constitutional claim to a foreign jurisdiction remove a constitutional aspiration to unite the island because we wanted to.

Not because the Unionists made us.

FrancieBrady

facehugger99 wrote: »

The fact that you think we overwhelmingly voted for something just because the Unionists demanded it.

The vast majority of Irish people voted to give up an anachronistic constitutional claim to a foreign jurisdiction remove a constitutional aspiration to unite the island because we wanted to.

Not because the Unionists made us.

It was you who introduced the concept of a 'demand'.

You may or may not be aware that there were 'negociations' before it was put to the people. You have blithely ignored the evidence I posted that shows that constitutional change (the dropping of the territorial claim) was required. It was unionist negociators who requested that.
Once again you seem to be under informed and prepared to ignore fact.

Peregrinus

facehugger99 wrote: »

The fact that you think we overwhelmingly voted for something just because the Unionists demanded it.

The vast majority of Irish people voted to give up an anachronistic constitutional claim to a foreign jurisdiction remove a constitutional aspiration to unite the island because we wanted to.

Not because the Unionists made us.

I don't think that, and I've never said that I do.

We didn't amend Art 3 "just because" the Unionists demanded it; still less because they "made us"; we amended it because we perceived that doing so would help to build peace in Ireland, and awareness of unionist view about it was undoubtedly a significant factor in that perception.

And I can't accept your suggestion that "the vast majority" of Irish people regard Northern Ireland as "a foreign jurisdiction". It may be a separate jurisdiction, but it's certainly not foreign to me or, I think, to most Irish people. Indeed, a strong impetus towards amending the Irish Constitution is a recognition that Northern Ireland is not a foreign place, and that building and sustaining peace there is our business and our responsibility.

Dytalus

facehugger99 wrote: »

The fact that you think we overwhelmingly voted for something just because the Unionists demanded it.

The vast majority of Irish people voted to give up an anachronistic constitutional claim to a foreign jurisdiction remove a constitutional aspiration to unite the island because we wanted to.

Not because the Unionists made us.

Can you prove your claim?

Because I can just as validly claim that the vast majority of irish people voted to give up a constitutional claim to part of our historical homeland in the name of brokering a peace between two terrorist factions that had between them killed ~1500 civilians over the course of thirty years.

facehugger99

Peregrinus wrote: »

I don't think that, and I've never said that I do.

Sure you only have to scroll back a couple of posts to see you claiming Unionist interference in our elections and referendums.

You need to either back up your claims or withdraw them.

Peregrinus

facehugger99 wrote: »

Sure you only have to scroll back a couple of posts to see you claiming Unionist interference in our elections and referendums.

You need to either back up your claims or withdraw them.

Quote the claims, please.

facehugger99

Peregrinus wrote: »

Quote the claims, please.

facehugger99 wrote: »

Are they able to influence other things like General Elections or just referendums?

Peregrinus wrote: »

Possibly.

RobMc59

Peregrinus wrote: »

I don't think that, and I've never said that I do.

We didn't amend Art 3 "just because" the Unionists demanded it; still less because they "made us"; we amended it because we perceived that doing so would help to build peace in Ireland, and awareness of unionist view about it was undoubtedly a significant factor in that perception.

And I can't accept your suggestion that "the vast majority" of Irish people regard Northern Ireland as "a foreign jurisdiction". It may be a separate jurisdiction, but it's certainly not foreign to me or, I think, to most Irish people. Indeed, a strong impetus towards amending the Irish Constitution is a recognition that Northern Ireland is not a foreign place, and that building and sustaining peace there is our business and our responsibility.

Everyone should accept the agreement in its entirety and not cherry pick the bits they agree/disagree with-namely NI is part of the UK.

Peregrinus

facehugger99 wrote: »

I do not see the word "interfere" in the posts that you quote.

Do you want to have another go? Or do you want to reread what I have already written about how their wishes influenced (not "how they interfered with") the Art 3 referendum?

BonnieSituation

RobMc59 wrote: »

Everyone should accept the agreement in its entirety and not cherry pick the bits they agree/disagree with-namely NI is part of the UK.

Where's the cherry picking?

Did I miss the memo where Art 2 and 3 reverted?

BonnieSituation

Anyway, we seem to got waylaid here.

Still unsure about facehugger's perception that s United Ireland is not mentioned in the constitution.

McMurphy

RobMc59 wrote: »

Everyone should accept the agreement in its entirety and not cherry pick the bits they agree/disagree with-namely NI is part of the UK.

I don't get how you have concluded there's cherry picking going on.