How long before Irish reunification?

Redgirl82

Deleted User wrote: »

No
(Deos it not tire you being constant reactionary posting?)

The online polls are more accurate in nearly all other elections/referendums,and its been explained to you,this is case

(afaik red c,use a monotone over phone for snap polls to not display pos/neg reactions)


Like this poll,is notable,but fundamentally flawed in methodilogy,afaik same polling company predicted a hung-parliment in the uk at last election (conservatives won by 80ish seats in reality)

Does it help you throwing accusations at posters? Maybe stick to discussing the topic

You and other keep pointing these polls. So now your saying polls, all polls are useless. So why point at a poll?

Didn’t all the polls get it wrong prior to the General Election here?

downcow

Deleted User wrote: »

If you favour partition above reunification....surely this is partitionist??

(If this description upsets you,its some introspection required,not lashing out at other posters)

I think it is fairly clear that eagle eye is correct.
The dictionary definition of partitionist is "One who advocates partition of a country."
And since it is very clear in all international law, and reinforced by the United Nations, the Republic of Ireland is made up of 26 counties south and west of the international border.
So clearly anyone who advocates breaking up the 26 counties would be a partitionist. Maintaining the international border where it currently is can in no way be referred to as a partitionist.

Seems very clear but again some do not like facts

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/partitionist

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

I think it is fairly clear that eagle eye is correct.
The dictionary definition of partitionist is "One who advocates partition of a country."
And since it is very clear in all international law, and reinforced by the United Nations, the Republic of Ireland is made up of 26 counties south and west of the international border.
So clearly anyone who advocates breaking up the 26 counties would be a partitionist. Maintaining the international border where it currently is can in no way be referred to as a partitionist.

Seems very clear but again some do not like facts

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/partitionist

Lets all ignore the GFA that is actually an international agreement that has within it a mechanism for ending partition.

Redgirl82

Deleted User wrote: »

Im.not throwing any accusations,if you are upset by people highlighting your post style,perhaps examine your post content/style,in place of lashing out at other posters


I havnt said polls are useless,just the poll you cited is noted by otoole as fundamentally flawed


No,the polls were actually v.close,slightly under estimated FG,but varadkar likely pulled them up few percent in last debate,but any poll after that was banned,due to media blackout laws

Well I could say you post like a child but I don’t, so maybe give the same courtesy to others.

BonnieSituation

20-30 years

Redgirl82 wrote: »

What difference does it make who runs the site? Your obsessed with religion. I thought we got over that with Good Friday.

Unionism isn't a religion.

Calling Mick Fealty "pro-union" is hardly a massive statement or leap.

Do you know of Slugger or Mick? I'm assuming not.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Lets all ignore the GFA that is actually an international agreement that has within it a mechanism for ending partition.

Out of curiosity, how patient are you when it comes to a UI and what point does it become just maintaining the status quo? It's 20 + years now, willing to wait 20 more?

FrancieBrady

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Unionism isn't a religion.

Another fact based post that will be ignored by certain posters, no doubt. A clearer example of sectarian thinking by Redgirl (who will no doubt claim not to be sectarian) you couldn't get.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

Out of curiosity, how patient are you when it comes to a UI and what point does it become just maintaining the status quo? It's 20 + years now, willing to wait 20 more?

Well, had I been asked the same question that last poll asked...'

would you vote for a UI if the referendum was tomorrow'?

I would have answered 'no' as well. I have a lot of patience, as long as it works when it happens, within the next 30 years is fine.

My opinion is, within the next 10 though. Seismic changes in the last 4 years alone.
I have said before I think we are looking at the break-up of the UK begining with the Scottish independence referendum.

The centre is getting it increasingly difficult to hold.

Redgirl82

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Unionism isn't a religion.

Calling Mick Fealty "pro-union" is hardly a massive statement or leap.

Do you know of Slugger or Mick? I'm assuming not.

Why would I know Slugger or Mick?

Redgirl82

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Another fact based post that will be ignored by certain posters, no doubt. A clearer example of sectarian thinking by Redgirl (who will no doubt claim not to be sectarian) you couldn't get.

Francie I haven’t spent the day trying to belittle unionist. So will leave you off on that one. Seems like some people have moved on in the World, others haven’t

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Well, had I been asked the same question that last poll asked...'

I would have answered 'no' as well. I have a lot of patience, as long as it works when it happens, within the next 30 years is fine.

My opinion is, within the next 10 though. Seismic changes in the last 4 years alone.
I have said before I think we are looking at the break-up of the UK begining with the Scottish independence referendum.

The centre is getting it increasingly difficult to hold.

Maybe, but what if it doesn't come within 30 years? Will you just accept Ireland as being a 26 county country?

Personally see no change in the next 20 years and would be surprised if it happened in my lifetime. COVID and the impending financial crisis have all but ended it for me as something i will see ( not that i care either way tbh).

I think the SF MLA will be get over it thanks to the bumper salaries and pensions.

eagle eye

Ulster Says No. It will never happen

FrancieBrady wrote:

It is also bizarre to see a report presented by eagle eye that begins with a figure that is based on what the subvention is now, and claims that report confirms their opinion.

I put up an unbiased report.
Wheres your report from an unbiased source to refute it?

BonnieSituation

20-30 years

We seem to have amassed quite a collection of posters all eager to show their prowess in the erection of strawmen in the land of Whataboutery.

eagle eye

Ulster Says No. It will never happen

BonnieSituation wrote:

We are to have amassed quite a collection of posters all eager to show their prowess in the erection of strawmen in the land of Whataboutery.

And you showing you don't understand the meaning of words.

BonnieSituation

20-30 years

Redgirl82 wrote: »

Why would I know Slugger or Mick?

You find that most interested in the subject at hand would have at least a passing knowledge of that site and wouldn't jump to the conclusion that Francie was being rude by calling Mick "pro-unionist" and thus, it would have spared your blushes for jumping on him for "bringing up religion.

jh79

BonnieSituation wrote: »

We are to have amassed quite a collection of posters all eager to show their prowess in the erection of strawmen in the land of Whataboutery.

All talk of an UI is whataboutery in essence sure we have scant data on finances and logistics in general .

BonnieSituation

20-30 years

eagle eye wrote: »

And you showing you don't understand the meaning of words.

As opposed to your goodself who changes the meaning of them to suit themselves?

Come on man. Do better.

FrancieBrady

Redgirl82 wrote: »

Francie I haven’t spent the day trying to belittle unionist. So will leave you off on that one. Seems like some people have moved on in the World, others haven’t

As I predicted...run to the hills blbbering about something else.

You tried to sectarianise the conversation by stating that I referred to Mick Fealty's 'religion'.

Own it, apologise/withdraw it and stop chickening out.

Redgirl82

BonnieSituation wrote: »

You find that most interested in the subject at hand would have at least a passing knowledge of that site and wouldn't jump to the conclusion that Francie was being rude by calling Mick "pro-unionist" and thus, it would have spared your blushes for jumping on him for "bringing up religion.

Why would they have an interest in the site?

The link was posted, why would anyone need to know it’s a unionist? Please explain? Should we discount the website because they are unionist?

Should I check all website going forward and ask if they are unionist? Partitionist? Or whatever other term you come up?

Redgirl82

FrancieBrady wrote: »

As I predicted...run to the hills blbbering about something else.

You tried to sectarianise the conversation by stating that I referred to Mick Fealty's 'religion'.

Own it, apologise/withdraw it and stop chickening out.

I didn’t try anything, just pointed out that we have no need to know the site was a unionist which you seem obsessed with.

Tell me why we needed to know that? What value did it add to conversation?

eagle eye

Ulster Says No. It will never happen

BonnieSituation wrote:

As opposed to your goodself who changes the meaning of them to suit themselves?

I support the Republic of Ireland over all others. I call myself pro-Republic ergo Republican. Explain where I'm going wrong.

FrancieBrady

eagle eye wrote: »

I put up an unbiased report.
Wheres your report from an unbiased source to refute it?

It isn't 'unbiased' in the sense that it's base figure - the subvention - is disputed.

I have said earlier I think we need(and will get by the time the work that has started is finished) a full and transparent study.

The London University and Irish Oireachtas work I posted earlier is the beginning of that work and is unbiased in that it took submissions for across the divide Unionist/Republican/Partitionist etc.

The finished work on both sides of the debate I expect to be presented in Papers and clauses, similar to the one we actually voted for in the GFA presented in a referendum.
One thing I am sure will happen, we will not be going to poll making a judgement on misinformation or slanted info. That is not how we do refernda, typically and especially since Lisbon.

BonnieSituation

20-30 years

jh79 wrote: »

All talk of an UI is whataboutery in essence sure we have scant data on finances and logistics in general .

Well, when you have partitionist posters ignoring the ONS and the figures therein and then ignoring any discussion on their posts about a Trinity report, you're right, it is all whataboutery.

Listen, the fear amongst those who favour the status quo of the British border in Ireland ending is self evident by their loud and brash level of engagement and how they toss out strawmen arguments like confetti. Remember how Eagle Eye is a Republican now.

So yeah, if the level of discussion never rises above the disingenuous level it currently is at then of course, then of course we'll never tease out the issues.

FrancieBrady

Redgirl82 wrote: »

I didn’t try anything, just pointed out that we have no need to know the site was a unionist which you seem obsessed with.

Tell me why we needed to know that? What value did it add to conversation?

Why would you have no need?

You accused me of several things...belittling Unionists and of mentioning somebody's religion.

The actual point I was making about Mick Fealty was actually praiseworthy of a Unionist site.

If 'Slugger O'Toole' run by the notoriously pro Unionist Mick Fealty can be honest about it, why can you not?

And critical of you, who has now, by not withdrawing the remark, added sectarianism to your list.

eagle eye

Ulster Says No. It will never happen

FrancieBrady wrote:

It isn't 'unbiased' in the sense that it's base figure - the subvention - is disputed.

So basically what you are saying is that you have no figures at all.
So all you can do is suggest that the subvention figure might be wrong as it's disputed by somebody you don't name?

eagle eye

Ulster Says No. It will never happen

BonnieSituation wrote:

Well, when you have partitionist posters.

Who wants to partition something that's not already partitioned?

BonnieSituation

20-30 years

Redgirl82 wrote: »

Why would they have an interest in the site?

The link was posted, why would anyone need to know it’s a unionist? Please explain? Should we discount the website because they are unionist?

Should I check all website going forward and ask if they are unionist? Partitionist? Or whatever other term you come up?

I'm "coming up with terms" now?

Francie pointed out that even the pro-unionist Mick Fealty/Slugger O'Toole refuted the methodology of certain surveys that you posted. Come on. Why do we need to drag the árse out if everything?

jh79

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Well, when you have partitionist posters ignoring the ONS and the figures therein and then ignoring any discussion on their posts about a Trinity report, you're right, it is all whataboutery.

Listen, the fear amongst those who favour the status quo of the British border in Ireland ending is self evident by their loud and brash level of engagement and how they toss out strawmen arguments like confetti. Remember how Eagle Eye is a Republican now.

So yeah, if the level of discussion never rises above the disingenuous level it currently is at then of course, then of course we'll never tease out the issues.

Only fear i have is that it will cost me money.

The ONS figure do not give a true cost of an UI and to be fair i posted that EU fact check link that some were quite happy with even though the range of cost was pretty big.

FrancieBrady

eagle eye wrote: »

So basically what you are saying is that you have no figures at all.
So all you can do is suggest that the subvention figure might be wrong as it's disputed by somebody you don't name?

Sorry?

It cannot even be agreed what the actual subvention is on here...one day it is 8 billion...then 9...I have seen 12 and 11 too and somebody today mention the cost at 20 billion...just like that, no back up no stats.

Pearse Doherty got the figure from the ONS of the UK, did some rudimentary maths based on known figures and over halved the actual figure.

Your guys went for the 11 billion figure I think and measure of that...totally bad science.

BonnieSituation

20-30 years

eagle eye wrote: »

I support the Republic of Ireland over all others. I call myself pro-Republic ergo Republican. Explain where I'm going wrong.

Like Gerry Adams or Martin McGuinness the Republicans? Or the Irish Republican Army?

Seriously, why must you keep flogging this horse? It makes no sense to die on this hill other than to waste time.

You're redefining Republican and Partitionist. These are words that have clear definitions in an Irish context and you think that that is okay.

Fine, myself and Francie are Unionists now, because we believe in the Union of both jurisdictions of this Island. That's how this works does it?

Maybe we're Unionist Republicans because we want reunification but are from the republic?

I suppose we could all just decide on new definitions all we want. That would help the argument for a UI. Muddy the waters for the discussion so that Partitionists like yourself can keep the status quo a bit longer.