How long before Irish reunification?

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It only exists in the mind of a British Imperialist or one of it's apologists.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

Encyclopedia Brittanica...enough said there mark.

Hope you noticed what the green line denotes!

Dytalus

15-20 years

markodaly wrote: »

*snip map*

Genuinely thought the Isle of Man was part of the UK. Did not realise it was entirely self-governing and thought it was an arrangement like Scotland.

themoreyouknow.gif

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If that is where they were born, that is where they were born.
I can't change that and neither can they.

.

This way of thinking is actually AGAINST the EUCHR and the UNHRC, as well as the GFA.

Talks like a bigot, posts like a bigot, yes.. you are a bigot.

markodaly

Dytalus wrote: »

Genuinely thought the Isle of Man was part of the UK. Did not realise it was entirely self-governing and thought it was an arrangement like Scotland.

themoreyouknow.gif

The Isle of Man has a parliament older than Westminister. It has a long history of democracy.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

This way of thinking is actually AGAINST the EUCHR and the UNHRC, as well as the GFA.

Talks like a bigot, posts like a bigot, yes.. you are a bigot.

Keep it up mark, you are failing dismally.

Not once have I denied anybody their 'identity'. I absolutely voted for and uphold the GFA.


You cannot cope (out of fear or just partitionist stubbornness) with simple facts.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Keep it up mark, you are failing dismally.

Not once have I denied anybody their 'identity'. I absolutely voted for and uphold the GFA.


You cannot cope (out of fear or just partitionist stubbornness) with simple facts.

So again, MON is a British woman who identifies as Irish is an acceptable statement to make?

It meets the definition of nationality via nation of birth and therefore a simple fact and i am not denying her right under the GFA to identify as Irish.

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Encyclopedia Brittanica...enough said there mark.

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Not once have I denied anybody their 'identity'. I absolutely voted for and uphold the GFA.

Apart from newborns....

Why do you have a fetish for the identity of newborns Francie?

Dytalus

15-20 years

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Keep it up mark, you are failing dismally.

Not once have I denied anybody their 'identity'. I absolutely voted for and uphold the GFA.


You cannot cope (out of fear or just partitionist stubbornness) with simple facts.

In much the same that freedom of religion allows freedom from religion, freedom of identity also allows freedom from identity. In modern language, nobody uses landmasses for identity anymore. They use heritage, nationality, ethnicity. I don't think anyone's categorically used landmasses in centuries.

If an employee is sent from Ireland to work in, say, Dubai for a period of time and his pregnant wife flies out to be with him. It's short, within a few months they're going to be home. While there, for whatever reason, the baby must be prematurely born. It's correct to say that baby was 'born in the UAE' but no sensible human being would say he was 'from the UAE'. And certainly nobody would say he was arabic. Except some people in this thread.

Nobody would say a child born to, for example, a Japanese mother on erasmus in Germany was German - save perhaps his father was German. Again, except
some people in this thread.

I'll concede Ireland has the whole partition thing muddying it up. Whether one considers Northern Ireland and Ireland separate nations, whether one thinks NI is an illegitimate state, and ignorance/bigotry all confuse the matter. But I have legitimately never heard someone use 'Irish' in a 'born on the island' manner outside of this thread. They've always referred (as people always do with this kind of language) to nationality, or heritage, or ethnicity.

James Brown

10-15 years

jh79 wrote: »

So again, MON is a British woman who identifies as Irish is an acceptable statement to make?

It meets the definition of nationality via nation of birth and therefore a simple fact and i am not denying her right under the GFA to identify as Irish.

She can identify as British if she likes, but she was born in Ireland, is Irish by birth and chooses to be Irish by identity. It's kindergarten stuff.
The unionists tend to use Ulster-Scots rather than Irish even though Ulster is an Irish province, on the island of Ireland. They were/are born Irish.
As I say, a Welsh person can be British too, but are still born Welsh.

RobMc59

10-15 years

FrancieBrady wrote: »

markodaly wrote: »

Encyclopedia Brittanica...enough said there mark.

Hope you noticed what the green line denotes!

On the contrary francie,the encyclopedia brittanica is published by an American company which shows the US also call our group of islands the British Isles.

markodaly

RobMc59 wrote: »

On the contrary francie,the encyclopedia brittanica is published by an American company which shows the US also call our group of islands the British Isles.

That encyclopedia has been American since 1901 but for poor old bigots like Francie, they can't see beyond the term, Britannica. :D

Dytalus

15-20 years

markodaly wrote: »

That encyclopedia has been American since 1901 but for poor old bigots like Francie, they can't see beyond the term, Britannica. :D

To be fair to Francie, I didn't know it either. It's not like people look up the publishing houses of encyclopaedia's all that often (well...some might. I'm not one to disparage people for their interests).

themoreyouknow.gif MK2

James Brown

10-15 years

markodaly wrote: »

That encyclopedia has been American since 1901 but for poor old bigots like Francie, they can't see beyond the term, Britannica. :D

Ran out of road I see? Most just bow out and disappear when shown up.

markodaly

Dytalus wrote: »

To be fair to Francie, I didn't know it either. It's not like people look up the publishing houses of encyclopaedia's all that often (well...some might. I'm not one to disparage people for their interests).

themoreyouknow.gif MK2

Perhaps, but if you are going to counter the argument by stating that the source was somehow British (in other words biased), then best get your facts checked before you make the point.

Otherwise, you look like a complete tit and fool.

markodaly

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Ran out of road I see? Most just bow out and disappear when shown up.

Is this directed at Francie, because he is the person with egg on his face?

Jump_In_Jack

Jump_In_Jack wrote: »

It was the same thing recently when the British media were talking about the "Great Britain and Irish Lions" rugby league team, but shortened it to being the British Lions in the media reports.
Brian Carney gave one broadcaster a firm reprimand for doing it on a report recently.
Good man Brian!
Brian Carney rightly stands up for the Irish rugby league players that were forgotten in the British media

that's is absolutely shocking. I still can't believe that is right.

Someone from Ireland plays Rugby League :eek:

James Brown

10-15 years

markodaly wrote: »

Is this directed at Francie, because he is the person with egg on his face?

No, you're childish attempt at a dig.

Imreoir2

20-30 years

Imreoir2 wrote: »

I would call one of them Ireland, the other Britain, is there really a reason to have a collective term? If, for some reason, one finds that they must refer to all of the islands between Britain and Ireland then the British and Irish Isles will do, but for some reason it only ever really seems to come up when trolls want to use the term "British Isles" to refer to Ireland while trying to claim Ireland as British.

I agree that this need for a collective term is obviously political. However, if people were looking for a politics-free historic collective term they could choose to use a term used by, among others, an annalist in the year 1582: Oileáin Iarthair Eorpa.

'M1584.2. Sir Niclas Maulbi gobernóir chóiccidh Connacht d'écc i n-Áth Luain fá initt, fer foglamtha i m-bérlaibh & i t-tengtoibh oilén Iarthair Eorpa [Oileáin Iarthair Eorpa] esidhe, fear crodha cath-bhuadhach seachnon Ereann, Alban, & na Fraingce'(Source: http://www.ucc.ie/celt/published/G100005E/index.html).
Translation: 'M1584.2. Sir Nicholas Malby, Governor of the province of Connaught, died at Athlone, about Shrovetide. He was a man learned in the languages and tongues of the islands of the West of Europe, a brave and victorious man in battles fought throughout Ireland, Scotland, and France'(Source: http://www.ucc.ie/celt/online/T100005E/text009.html).

In Dinneen's 1927 Foclóir Gaeilge Béarla, Irish-English Dictionary (1979 reprint) on p. 812: 'Oileáin Iarthair Eorpa, the British or West European Isles.'

But that doesn't have the jingoistic politics embraced by everybody who still chooses to describe Ireland as being in their "British Isles". "Geographic term" my eye. As if anything with "British" in it is, after centuries of explicitly British political and military occupation of Ireland, some harmless, apolitical term from thousands of years ago. Language changes, and this is why most people will accept the swastika does not have the same meaning in western Europe to day as it did 100 years ago or 1000 years ago.

Every single person who consciously uses the term "British Isles" knows precisely what political point they're making about the position of the Irish. And so do we.

FrancieBrady

Dytalus wrote: »

In much the same that freedom of religion allows freedom from religion, freedom of identity also allows freedom from identity. In modern language, nobody uses landmasses for identity anymore. They use heritage, nationality, ethnicity. I don't think anyone's categorically used landmasses in centuries.

If an employee is sent from Ireland to work in, say, Dubai for a period of time and his pregnant wife flies out to be with him. It's short, within a few months they're going to be home. While there, for whatever reason, the baby must be prematurely born. It's correct to say that baby was 'born in the UAE' but no sensible human being would say he was 'from the UAE'. And certainly nobody would say he was arabic. Except some people in this thread.

Nobody would say a child born to, for example, a Japanese mother on erasmus in Germany was German - save perhaps his father was German. Again, except
some people in this thread.

I'll concede Ireland has the whole partition thing muddying it up. Whether one considers Northern Ireland and Ireland separate nations, whether one thinks NI is an illegitimate state, and ignorance/bigotry all confuse the matter. But I have legitimately never heard someone use 'Irish' in a 'born on the island' manner outside of this thread. They've always referred (as people always do with this kind of language) to nationality, or heritage, or ethnicity.

How many times have you heard people outside Ireland refer to two people with Irish accents (say Cavan and Down) as anything other that 'Irish'? ONE of them has to tell the foreigner what their identity is though.
To semi quote David Trimble again - to anyone outside the country, we are ALL paddies.

This conversation is getting ridiculous now.. I made a very simple factual point and the usual fretful insecure crowd are up in arms.(not aimed at you) The 'British Isles' stuff just jumped the shark altogether.
Thankfully the partitionists and belligerent Unionists are in the minority or we'd be changing the name of the island as a concession.

Something must be happening!

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

Perhaps, but if you are going to counter the argument by stating that the source was somehow British (in other words biased), then best get your facts checked before you make the point.

Otherwise, you look like a complete tit and fool.

I was reading some of the text of the Encyclopedia there, it hasn't been updated in years.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

So again, MON is a British woman who identifies as Irish is an acceptable statement to make?

It meets the definition of nationality via nation of birth and therefore a simple fact and i am not denying her right under the GFA to identify as Irish.

jh79, you can say whatever the hell you want and it is either right or it is wrong.

If I say someone is 'Irish because they were born in Ireland' then that is a fact all day long and no amount of not wanting to offend, no amount of hat doffing and no amount of ranting because you are insecure in your 'identity' will make it not a fact.

Dytalus

15-20 years

FrancieBrady wrote: »

How many times have you heard people outside Ireland refer to two people with Irish accents (say Cavan and Down) as anything other that 'Irish'? ONE of them has to tell the foreigner what their identity is though.
To semi quote David Trimble again - to anyone outside the country, we are ALL paddies.

Oh absolutely, I don't disagree. I recall showing an American friend of mine around Peterborough and we stopped to grab a drink. Two English guys in the pub struck up a conversation and asked me had I voted for Cameron (I think there was some election going on at the time which sparked the question, but I genuinely don't remember). When explaining that I hadn't voted for anyone because I'd not been living in the UK at the time, they got confused. It took the third English guy to explain "Oh he's from the other Ireland" (or words to that effect anyway, it was a while ago. I remember the vague direction not the specifics of the conversation).

One of them called me a plastic paddy later on, but I've no idea where that came from but I remember that bit very clearly.

But that's a failing of theirs to not differentiate between the two states - it's usually followed with surprise that NI and ROI aren't the same country (at least when it comes to Americans. I have had better luck with folks from European countries. The few Australians I've regular conversations with are about 60/40 in favour of getting it right). About half of those people think Ireland is part of Britain and has the Queen as its head of state.

Considering how beloved we're supposed to be around the world, I bump into more people who get things fantastically wrong than people who get it right.

This conversation is getting ridiculous now.. I made a very simple factual point and the usual fretful insecure crowd are up in arms.(not aimed at you) The 'British Isles' stuff just jumped the shark altogether.
Thankfully the partitionists and belligerent Unionists are in the minority or we'd be changing the name of the island as a concession.

Something must be happening!

If your factual point was simply how people see us, rather than what people actually are then I'd have agreed with you (in fact I believe I did way back when this useless tangent started). But some people also see all nations of the middle east as the same and it doesn't make them correct. Most egregiously the folks who think Iranians are arabic.

FTR, on the British Isles thing, I do dislike the nomenclature. If it weren't for our...uh... 'shared history' with Britain I don't think I'd mind it all that much. A quirk of geographical naming, happens all the time, it ultimately means nothing. But given the history of occupation, coupled with the belligerent anti-Irish sentiment bubbling up with Brexit looming and the tendency for Irish personalities to be claimed by British media (I have lost track of the number of times an athlete representing the Republic has had the Union Jack beside their name on Sky Sports) or events in Ireland to be described as happening in Britain (again, on Sky News), I kind of view it like I view the Irish language matter in Northern Ireland. It shouldn't matter, it shouldn't be a big deal but it does and it is. Intentionally or not, it leaves a bitter taste in the mouths of the Irish and those who respond with "it's just a name, why you heff to be mad" almost never accept that if it's "just a name" then changing it shouldn't be a problem.

"British and Irish" or "Western Europe" Isles works just fine. Given anti-EU sentiment in the UK lately maybe not the latter, but the former couldn't possibly be offensive.

jh79

Matt Barrett wrote: »

She can identify as British if she likes, but she was born in Ireland, is Irish by birth and chooses to be Irish by identity. It's kindergarten stuff.
The unionists tend to use Ulster-Scots rather than Irish even though Ulster is an Irish province, on the island of Ireland. They were/are born Irish.
As I say, a Welsh person can be British too, but are still born Welsh.

MON was equally born British (nation of birth) as she was Irish (place of birth) she just chose an Irish identity.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Keep it up mark, you are failing dismally.

Not once have I denied anybody their 'identity'. I absolutely voted for and uphold the GFA.


You cannot cope (out of fear or just partitionist stubbornness) with simple facts.

Please show me the international agreement and underpinning legislation that says everyone born in Northern Ireland is automatically Irish and must later opt to be British.

Otherwise, all you are posting is complete bigoted racist sectarian nonsense as always.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Exactly. newborns can't self determine. Somebody else has to do it for them. That child may well grow up and 'identify' as Irish or both. It still doesn't change WHERE they were born...on the island of Ireland.


Does a Jamaican come from anywhere else other than Jamaica if they identify as British?
No, he/she doesn't, they will always come from Jamaica even though they could be a model British citizen.

Is it that you fear conceding some ground to republicanism/shinners/the 'ra that you cannot see this simple truth?

Can you explain why they are not British if that was there nation of Birth?

FrancieBrady

Dytalus wrote: »

Oh absolutely, I don't disagree. But that's a failing of theirs to not differentiate between the two states - it's usually followed with surprise that NI and ROI aren't the same country (at least when it comes to Americans. I have had better luck with folks from European countries. The few Australians I've regular conversations with are about 60/40 in favour of getting it right). About half of those people think Ireland is part of Britain and has the Queen as its head of state.

Considering how beloved we're supposed to be around the world, I bump into more people who get things fantastically wrong than people who get it right.


If your factual point was simply how people see us, rather than what people actually are then I'd have agreed with you (in fact I believe I did way back when this useless tangent started). But some people also see all nations of the middle east as the same and it doesn't make them correct. Most egregiously the folks who think Iranians are arabic.

You will find people too who think we are British.

But we are not. Way back, this conversation started with a disappeared poster making the absolutely anti-GFA claim that ALL 'Nordies' are different to us.

They aren't, we are all the same people 'The Irish', except some of us have different identities. One set identify with as 'British' and the other set identify as 'Irish'.

The confusion stems from partition, nothing else.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

jh79, you can say whatever the hell you want and it is either right or it is wrong.

If I say someone is 'Irish because they were born in Ireland' then that is a fact all day long and no amount of not wanting to offend, no amount of hat doffing and no amount of ranting because you are insecure in your 'identity' will make it not a fact.

Never said it wasn't a fact but it no less a fact that MON could be described as a British woman who identifies as Irish.

How could i be insecure in my identity ? I was born in the 26 so my place of birth and nation of birth are the same. So were my parents and theirs before them.

Just was calling you out on your attempt to belittle another posters valid claim of British nationality and the flaws in your logic in your attempt to do so.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Please show me the international agreement and underpinning legislation that says everyone born in Northern Ireland is automatically Irish and must later opt to be British.

Otherwise, all you are posting is complete bigoted racist sectarian nonsense as always.

I don't need to do that. I just refer you to the name of the island. It is a given that the people of an an island are from that island.

'Bigoted, 'sectarian' and 'racist' now. :D:D:D