How long before Irish reunification?

markodaly

Matt Barrett wrote: »

So's robbing a house so. Quite the opposite. You are the one using ye olden times to justify your claim we were legitimately ruled by the British.

Well they (and I use the term they loosely because it can mean anything from a French-speaking Norman, to an English Tudor, to a German monarch) did rule us for the best part of 800 years here in the South. Today, 'they' still rule over a part of the Island, legitimately as recognised by the UN and every international body. It doesn't mean diddly squat if we didn't consent to this fact back before Strongbow landed on our shores.

Back to D&D with you

Whats D&D?

James Brown

10-15 years

markodaly wrote: »

Well they (and I use the term they loosely because it can mean anything from a French-speaking Norman, to an English Tudor, to a German monarch) did rule us for the best part of 800 years here in the South. Today, 'they' still rule over a part of the Island, legitimately as recognised by the UN and every international body. It doesn't mean diddly squat if we didn't consent to this fact back before Strongbow landed on our shores.



Whats D&D?

Your entire post is irrelevant pedantry.

markodaly

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Your entire post is irrelevant pedantry.

Whats D&D?

facehugger99

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Your entire post is irrelevant pedantry.

That moment when you realise all the 'history' you were force-fed by the Christian Brothers, turned out to be bollox.

James Brown

10-15 years

facehugger99 wrote: »

That moment when you realise all the 'history' you were force-fed by the Christian Brothers, turned out to be bollox.

In that my point still stands that we never chose British rule and therefore by modern democratic standards were never legitimately ruled by them?
Another swing and a miss. You really are threading water here hugs.

FrancieBrady

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

he didnt invent the word reasonableness. It is one of the tests that a JR would apply to the SoS decision.

You are clutching at straws. Appropriate = reasonable.

I'm sure you will be cheering some belligerent Unionist or partitionist wasting money and time.

markodaly

Matt Barrett wrote: »

In that my point still stands that we never chose British rule and therefore by modern democratic standards were never legitimately ruled by them?
Another swing and a miss. You really are threading water here hugs.

The Brits never chose Norman rule, the Gauls never chose Roman rule.
Am I doing this right?

ohnonotgmail

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You are clutching at straws. Appropriate = reasonable.

and it would a JR that decides that. That is the purpose of a JR as i'm sure you well know.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I'm sure you will be cheering some belligerent Unionist or partitionist wasting money and time.

again you personalise everything. A really low standard of debate from you francie. you should be embarrassed for yourself.

Ush1

markodaly wrote: »

The Brits never chose Norman rule, the Gauls never chose Roman rule.
Am I doing this right?

Indeed, and the majority of the native Irish kings didn't just talk there way to the top of the ballot box.

FrancieBrady

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

and it would a JR that decides that. That is the purpose of a JR as i'm sure you well know.




again you personalise everything. A really low standard of debate from you francie. you should be embarrassed for yourself.

I was addressing you. I quoted your post. Do you mean you wouldn't be cheering or hoping a JR would succeed?


And a JR has already decided that a SOS decision to hold a Border Poll when they see fit is 'appropriate'.

Good luck to anyone trying to prove that he/she is being unreasonable.

facehugger99

Ush1 wrote: »

Indeed, and the majority of the native Irish kings didn't just talk there way to the top of the ballot box.

Do you mean to suggest that by 'modern democratic standards', they were not legitimate rulers?

You better not tell Matt, his brain might just explode.

James Brown

10-15 years

markodaly wrote: »

The Brits never chose Norman rule, the Gauls never chose Roman rule.
Am I doing this right?

So what Marko?
My point stands and your comment is irrelevant. We never chose British rule so to refer to it as us being united under them is wrong, occupied equally, sure.

facehugger99 wrote: »

Do you mean to suggest that by 'modern democratic standards', they were not legitimate rulers?

You better not tell Matt, his brain might just explode.

I'm not the one comparing modern day politics and the status of a proposed united Ireland to Brehon law ffs. You'd see this if you took your nose out of that poorly written book of quips you keep lifting from.

ohnonotgmail

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I was addressing you. I quoted your post. Do you mean you wouldn't be cheering or hoping a JR would succeed?


And a JR has already decided that a SOS decision to hold a Border Poll when they see fit is 'appropriate'.

Good luck to anyone trying to prove that he/she is being unreasonable.

you just cant resist little digs can you francie. everything has to be antogonistic.

facehugger99

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I'm not the one comparing modern day politics and the status of a proposed united Ireland to Brehon law ffs.

Time to put the shovel down and stop digging.

FrancieBrady

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you just cant resist little digs can you francie. everything has to be antogonistic.

Are you being a tad over sensitive? Where is the 'dig', little or otherwise?

_blaaz

10-15 years

markodaly wrote: »

I guess that Northern Ireland has its own parliament means that they are not ultimately ruled by Westminister or that the Monarch is the head of state?

I guess that is another example of the 'Irish' ruling themselves. :P

Mate westminister makes the laws for NI...you may missed out devolution isnt a thing there anymore,try to keep up



Curious you try compare stormont to the gratten parliment....just highlights your deficit of knowlege here....where the NI house of lords/senaead


For your viewpoint to be accurate,britain would owe ireland reparations since act union 1801 was illegal (ie it took both parliments to ratify it)

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

In that my point still stands that we never chose British rule and therefore by modern democratic standards were never legitimately ruled by them?
Another swing and a miss. You really are threading water here hugs.

By the democratic standards of the time, the most advanced in the world at the time, we chose to ratify the Act of Union and were legitimately ruled by the UK.

If you want to be pedantic about it, we should break Italy back up into its city states because Italian unification was less democratic than the Act of Union.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

By the democratic standards of the time, the most advanced in the world at the time, we chose to ratify the Act of Union and were legitimately ruled by the UK.

If you want to be pedantic about it, we should break Italy back up into its city states because Italian unification was less democratic than the Act of Union.

Italians are entitled to do what they wish and to call that what they wish.

The Act Of Union was not democratic = fact. You can gyrate as low as you want under 'the standards of the time' bar but it will never be a democratic decision by all of the people of the island. .

James Brown

10-15 years

blanch152 wrote: »

By the democratic standards of the time, the most advanced in the world at the time, we chose to ratify the Act of Union and were legitimately ruled by the UK.

Who's 'we'? It means nothing as regards democratic politics today, that's the whole point. Trying to compare forced British rule in ye olden times to today is nonsense.

blanch152 wrote: »

If you want to be pedantic about it, we should break Italy back up into its city states because Italian unification was less democratic than the Act of Union.

I'm saying we never wanted nor were asked if we wanted to be ruled by the British. What does your trip through medieval Italy add to that?

facehugger99

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I'm saying we never wanted nor were asked if we wanted to be ruled by the British. What does your trip through medieval Italy add to that?

Have you any polling data to back that up or is it just your supposition?

_blaaz

10-15 years

facehugger99 wrote: »

Have you any polling data to back that up or is it just your supposition?

You want polling data for the entirely anglican parliment (afaik 15% population)that ratified the act of union

What planet are yous on

James Brown

10-15 years

facehugger99 wrote: »

Have you any polling data to back that up or is it just your supposition?

We never asked for it. We were never asked. Can't get more definitive than that.
We should poll the Palestinians and see if they don't want Israel stealing their land and shooting them. I mean who knows right?

FrancieBrady

facehugger99 wrote: »

Have you any polling data to back that up or is it just your supposition?

My sincerest hopes that this ^ comment is sarcastic and an admission of defeat are fighting valiantly against the suspicion that this is a genuine request.

facehugger99

Matt Barrett wrote: »

We never asked for it. We were never asked. Can't get more definitive than that.

If it's so definitive why did you change what you said?

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I'm saying we never wanted nor were asked if we wanted to be ruled by the British.

How do you know what the prevailing opinion was in relation to British rule?

Are you making stuff up?

James Brown

10-15 years

facehugger99 wrote: »

If it's so definitive why did you change what you said?




How do you know what the prevailing opinion was in relation to British rule?

Are you making stuff up?

Both are accurate. Have you been following the thread? What did you think I was talking about? You are getting desperate now. What are you hoping to achieve here? You've left any legitimate attempt at discussion far behind your attempt at humour and now pedantry. You could try mime, I won't see it though but sure go on.

facehugger99

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Both are accurate. Have you been following the thread? What did you think I was talking about? You are getting desperate now. What are you hoping to achieve here? You've left any legitimate attempt at discussion far behind your attempt at humour and now pedantry. You could try mime, I won't see it though but sure go on.

So, leaving the bluster out, you were making stuff up?

Ash.J.Williams

unify the north first

FrancieBrady

facehugger99 wrote: »

If it's so definitive why did you change what you said?




How do you know what the prevailing opinion was in relation to British rule?

Are you making stuff up?

We are talking about 'votes' not opinions. :rolleyes:

FrancieBrady

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

unify the north first

There you have put your finger on the ongoing tragedy of partition. The north will never be unified.

It will only work (as it worked) as part of an all island entity and the removal of any majority's ability to suppress and oppress.
Unity is the only possibility of a lasting solution.

facehugger99

FrancieBrady wrote: »

There you have put your finger on the ongoing tragedy of partition. The north will never be unified.

It will only work (as it worked) as part of an all island entity and the removal of any majority's ability to suppress and oppress.
Unity is the only possibility of a lasting solution.

Let them demonstrate their ability to run themselves economically and peacefully coexist before they come knocking on our door.

There’s a significant percentage of knuckle draggers and bigots up there that we want nowhere near this Republic.