Border Poll discussion

facehugger99

Peregrinus 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?

That's a laugh.

Influence -the capacity to have an effect on the character, development, or behaviour of someone or something,

I see you're desperately trying to shift the goalposts to Article 3 of our Constitution but would you like to explain how they influenced our GE's as you've claimed?

Do you need to relevant post quoted or are you able to remember this time?

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

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.

I have already explained clearly what the changes to Article 3 meant in layman's terms:

blanch152 wrote: »

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.

Pretty much similar to the way that it was explained by Peregrinus in this paragraph.

Peregrinus wrote: »

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.

Yet, there are still many who adopt a confrontational and pejorative approach to dealing with the views of others.

BonnieSituation wrote: »

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.

FrancieBrady

facehugger99 wrote: »

That's a laugh.

Influence -the capacity to have an effect on the character, development, or behaviour of someone or something,

I see you're desperately trying to shift the goalposts to Article 3 of our Constitution but would you like to explain how they influenced our GE's as you've claimed?

Do you need to relevant post quoted or are you able to remember this time?

Bizarre sticking to your guns there tbh.

Will you even accept that unionists asked for constitutional change while we required, in the abscence of a written constitution, reciprocal legal change from the British?

I don't think we can go much further with this if you insist on rewriting factual history again.

facehugger99

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Will you even accept that unionists asked for constitutional change while we required, in the abscence of a written constitution, reciprocal legal change from the British?

Hardly matters what was asked for, the Irish electorate had to vote for it.

We voted to remove the territorial claim on NI because we accepted it was morally indefensible.

It was a fantastic victory for all right-thinking people and a wonderful rebuke to the IRA's campaign of terror, stripping away any last vestige of quasi-justification from the warped thinking of the terrorists.

It was the day the country put aside the silly aspirations of the past and moved forward with NI in a spirit of mutual cooperation between all the peoples of the island.

FrancieBrady

facehugger99 wrote: »

Hardly matters what was asked for, the Irish electorate had to vote for it.

We voted to remove the territorial claim on NI because we accepted it was morally indefensible.

It was a fantastic victory for all right-thinking people and a wonderful rebuke to the IRA's campaign of terror, stripping away any last vestige of quasi-justification from the warped thinking of the terrorists.

It was the day the country put aside the silly aspirations of the past and moved forward with NI in a spirit of mutual cooperation between all the peoples of the island.

TBH I think anyone that can delude themselves in the way you have demonstrated; who believes that we removed the aspiration to unity from Article 3, can delude themselves that the victory parades and celebrations around Belfast and the north were as the result of some kind of defeat.

It is a strong characteristic of partitionist thinking that they have to engage in this delusion and revisionism.

The GFA was a massive compromise by everybody, the fact that nobody had to capitulate entirely is why it succeeded until the current impasse.

facehugger99

FrancieBrady wrote: »

TBH I think anyone that can delude themselves in the way you have demonstrated; who believes that we removed the aspiration to unity from Article 3,

It's called being able to read Francie - no delusion required.

jm08

facehugger99 wrote: »

It's called being able to read Francie - no delusion required.

I may have missed you saying this, were you living in Ireland and old enough to vote in that referendum. Do you remember how difficult the whole process was and how it caused ructions in unionism (e.g., Jeffrey Donaldson and Arlene were both UUP at the time and joined the DUP because they didn't support it?)

RobMc59

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

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

As an English person with an interest in Irish matters I see things differently perhaps.I believe in the UK and want it to remain united.If the people of Scotland decide to have a referendum and wish to leave the UK I would`nt like it but I would abide by their democratic decision.If the people of NI do the same I would be disappointed but would abide by their democratic decision.
That`s what others should also do-even if it does`nt suit their beliefs and aspirations which is what I see happening here(people want to disregard the will of the people of NI)
I also realise the UK has done terrible things in Ireland which can never be forgotten and airbrushed out.The problem remains though,there are a large number of people in NI who don`t want to be part of a UI under any circumstances and they`re not all extremists.

McMurphy

RobMc59 wrote: »

As an English person with an interest in Irish matters I see things differently perhaps.I believe in the UK and want it to remain united.If the people of Scotland decide to have a referendum and wish to leave the UK I would`nt like it but I would abide by their democratic decision.If the people of NI do the same I would be disappointed but would abide by their democratic decision.
That`s what others should also do-even if it does`nt suit their beliefs and aspirations which is what I see happening here(people want to disregard the will of the people of NI)
I also realise the UK has done terrible things in Ireland which can never be forgotten and airbrushed out.The problem remains though,there are a large number of people in NI who don`t want to be part of a UI under any circumstances and they`re not all extremists.

Well that didn't answer the question.

RobMc59

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Well that didn't answer the question.

There are people here who appear not to accept that the GFA states the majority of people in NI wish to remain part of the UK and that Ireland acknowledged that NI is part of the UK and has no claim on it-that is cherry picking.

FrancieBrady

Blanch and Facehugger best get Leo and Simon back on message:

Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar has said he aspires to a united Ireland based on "cross-community support" in remarks released on Tuesday, the UK Press Association reported.

"In terms of a united Ireland, our constitution is clear on this," he said. "Our constitution aspires to there being a united Ireland. I share that aspiration."

The Government fully endorses the legitimate aspiration to unity expressed in Article 3 of the Constitution, as amended by the people in 1998.

https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/question/2018-10-23/189/


I think the game is up on this one. You either got hoodwinked into voting for the GFA or you are engaging in partitionist wishful thinking and revisionism.

FrancieBrady

RobMc59 wrote: »

There are people here who appear not to accept that the GFA states the majority of people in NI wish to remain part of the UK and that Ireland acknowledged that NI is part of the UK and has no claim on it-that is cherry picking.

What?

Who is failing to acknowledge that? If you voted for the GFA you accepted the principle of consent. Until such time as a majority vote for a UI there won't be one. And that principle works and applies both ways by the way.

James Brown

Seems to me it's all very clear and some folk, through either wishful thinking or devilment, are gone off the reservation on this.

One wonders what any Border poll would be for? :rolleyes:

BonnieSituation

RobMc59 wrote: »

There are people here who appear not to accept that the GFA states the majority of people in NI wish to remain part of the UK and that Ireland acknowledged that NI is part of the UK and has no claim on it-that is cherry picking.

Where is this lack of acceptance?

RobMc59

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Where is this lack of acceptance?

Not open revolt against it but a surly;churlish attitude to parts of it they find unpalatable.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Blanch and Facehugger best get Leo and Simon back on message:




https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/question/2018-10-23/189/


I think the game is up on this one. You either got hoodwinked into voting for the GFA or you are engaging in partitionist wishful thinking and revisionism.

(1) Despite your repeated attempts at baiting me on Leo or Simon, I don't care what they have to say on the issue. Nobody speaks for me except me.

(2) I have already explained to you clearly the difference between the two versions of Article 3 as follows. 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.

(3) To give another example, if I buy a Lotto ticket I aspire to winning the Lotto (new Article 3), but if I have a Lotto ticket with the winning numbers on it I am claiming the Lotto win (old Article 3). Of course some Unionists didn't like the new Article 3 because even though we stopped claiming that we had won, we were still in the game, albeit with only a remote chance of winning.

It is quite astonishing to see the line-up of people who claim that the amendments to Article 3 mean nothing. The reality is that a territorial claim has been reduced to an aspiration dependent on unifying the people first.

BonnieSituation

RobMc59 wrote: »

Not open revolt against it but a surly;churlish attitude to parts of it they find unpalatable.

So we're not allowed find that the North is in a different jurisdiction as unpalatable?

Should we just lie back and think of England?

BonnieSituation

blanch152 wrote: »

(1) Despite your repeated attempts at baiting me on Leo or Simon, I don't care what they have to say on the issue. Nobody speaks for me except me.

(2) I have already explained to you clearly the difference between the two versions of Article 3 as follows. 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.

(3) To give another example, if I buy a Lotto ticket I aspire to winning the Lotto (new Article 3), but if I have a Lotto ticket with the winning numbers on it I am claiming the Lotto win (old Article 3). Of course some Unionists didn't like the new Article 3 because even though we stopped claiming that we had won, we were still in the game, albeit with only a remote chance of winning.

It is quite astonishing to see the line-up of people who claim that the amendments to Article 3 mean nothing. The reality is that a territorial claim has been reduced to an aspiration dependent on unifying the people first.

No one said they "mean nothing". Where did you pull that nonsense from?

Peregrinus

facehugger99 wrote: »

That's a laugh.

Influence -the capacity to have an effect on the character, development, or behaviour of someone or something,

I see you're desperately trying to shift the goalposts to Article 3 of our Constitution but would you like to explain how they influenced our GE's as you've claimed?

Do you need to relevant post quoted or are you able to remember this time?

I think I better had quote the exchange because, while I remember it well, you don't seem to.

facehugger99 wrote: »

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

Peregrinus wrote: »

Possibly.

So I never claimed that they have influenced general elections; just expressed the opinion, when asked by you, that they possibly could.

As for how they could, in the same way that the influenced the Art 3 referendum, which I have already explained at some length in one of the posts you have managed to forget:

Peregrinus wrote: »

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.

In short, unionist wishes can influence Irish referendums and potentially elections by being taken seriously by voters, and by being a factor that influences how they vote. Nothing sinister there. Nothing suprising, either.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

(1) Despite your repeated attempts at baiting me on Leo or Simon, I don't care what they have to say on the issue. Nobody speaks for me except me.

I mention Leo and Simon as they are the two primary Government figures at the moment and they are fully endorsing the content of Art. 2 and 3.
Why you think mentioning them as 'repeated attempts to baait you' is odd.

(2) I have already explained to you clearly the difference between the two versions of Article 3 as follows. 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.

(3) To give another example, if I buy a Lotto ticket I aspire to winning the Lotto (new Article 3), but if I have a Lotto ticket with the winning numbers on it I am claiming the Lotto win (old Article 3). Of course some Unionists didn't like the new Article 3 because even though we stopped claiming that we had won, we were still in the game, albeit with only a remote chance of winning.

It is quite astonishing to see the line-up of people who claim that the amendments to Article 3 mean nothing. The reality is that a territorial claim has been reduced to an aspiration dependent on unifying the people first.

At no point did I mention the differences between the two versions, in fact I never referred to the original version at all.
You moved the goalposts.

Here is what I said.

franciebrady wrote:

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.

Regardless of what 'you think'. One can believe the moon is made of blue cheese,if one wishes, there is a right and a wrong answer to the question; Does the Irish Nation still have a constitutional aspiration to a United Ireland'?

That answer is Yes, it does.

jm08

Mary McAleese (keynote speaker at Brexit Conference in DCU) says that a Cross-border Citizen Assembly could be used to start a debate on the future of the island of Ireland.

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/mary-mcaleese-nis-emerging-nationalist-majority-has-to-be-taken-into-account-in-brexit-process-914127.html

She also brought up this:

Following the result of the Brexit referendum, then Taoiseach Enda Kenny secured an agreement with the EU that Northern Ireland would seamlessly re-join the bloc if the North and South were to reunite.

So Enda was thinking of reuniting more than just the minds quite a while ago.

RobMc59

BonnieSituation wrote: »

So we're not allowed find that the North is in a different jurisdiction as unpalatable?

Should we just lie back and think of England?

No,the fact some on here have been sent homeward to think again is enough.

McMurphy

RobMc59 wrote: »

No,the fact some on here have been sent homeward to think again is enough.

I lost you ages ago, but this is a new wtf moment.

BluePlanet

blanch152 wrote: »

It is quite astonishing to see the line-up of people who claim that the amendments to Article 3 mean nothing. The reality is that a territorial claim has been reduced to an aspiration dependent on unifying the people first.

It doesn't require "unifying the people". It only requires a democratic majority in both jurisdictions. The "people" can be as divided as ever on everything else.

volchitsa

facehugger99 wrote: »

Hardly matters what was asked for, the Irish electorate had to vote for it.

We voted to remove the territorial claim on NI because we accepted it was morally indefensible.

What made it morally indefensible? Was West Germany's claim on East Gemany morally indefensible too or are all other such claims different?

RobMc59

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

I lost you ages ago, but this is a new wtf moment.

I replied to a humorous post with a humorous reply-why does that confuse you?

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I mention Leo and Simon as they are the two primary Government figures at the moment and they are fully endorsing the content of Art. 2 and 3.
Why you think mentioning them as 'repeated attempts to baait you' is odd.



At no point did I mention the differences between the two versions, in fact I never referred to the original version at all.
You moved the goalposts.

Here is what I said.



Regardless of what 'you think'. One can believe the moon is made of blue cheese,if one wishes, there is a right and a wrong answer to the question; Does the Irish Nation still have a constitutional aspiration to a United Ireland'?

That answer is Yes, it does.

If we start from the premise that you are not disagreeing with my explanation of the differences between the two versions of Article 3, we may even have grounds for further agreement.

James Brown

RobMc59 wrote: »

I replied to a humorous post with a humorous reply-why does that confuse you?

The only confusion here is that some posters seem to be selling the idea that the Irish, officially, don't want any part of a united Ireland beyond being pals and holding hands.
It's accepted by the rest of us, for and against, that any moves in that direction would require a democratic vote with each side having a say. Coincidentally, what this thread was created to discuss.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

The only confusion here is that some posters seem to be selling the idea that the Irish, officially, don't want any part of a united Ireland beyond being pals and holding hands.
It's accepted by the rest of us, for and against, that any moves in that direction would require a democratic vote with each side having a say. Coincidentally, what this thread was created to discuss.

I didn't read anything like you have claimed there. I haven't seen a single person from the South on here say that they are against a united Ireland in all circumstances. In that sense, there isn't a single partitionist on here.

In some ways, unity has already been achieved. Everyone born on this island is entitled to be Irish. Everyone born on this island can live and work and study anywhere on this island.

In other ways, unity is further away than ever. Politically, two extreme parties get most of the votes in the North. They feed off one another in a way, with consequential disruption to normal politics. This creates division.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

If we start from the premise that you are not disagreeing with my explanation of the differences between the two versions of Article 3, we may even have grounds for further agreement.

This ^ is particularly devious. You moved the goalposts to comparing the two texts, I didn't.

You said this earlier:

blanch152 wrote:

It used to refer to reintegration of the national territory. As part of the GFA, we dropped that territorial claim and aspired to united the people rather than the territory.

Will you accept you were totally wrong on this and that the Irish Nation constitutionally aspires to a united Ireland?