How long before Irish reunification?

James Brown

10-15 years

facehugger99 wrote: »

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.

They're as much Irish as you or I. They don't need prove that. Part of Ulster is ruled from abroad by the British. We want their rule removed and a united Ireland.
If you keep poor personal finance should we pack you off to Devon?

FrancieBrady

facehugger99 wrote: »

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.

Partition is the problem FH, they will never unite. Their only hope (and ours) is to end partition and remove the problem. A fully inclusive Ireland free of bigotry where we can all live in peace.

James Brown

10-15 years

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Partition is the problem FH, they will never unite. Their only hope (and ours) is to end partition and remove the problem. A fully inclusive Ireland free of bigotry where we can all live in peace.

That's it they're worried they'll get treated the way the Catholics were treated. After growing up top dog, equality scares them.
Anyone down south against unification would likely be a proponent of bringing back work houses, the 'if there's no money in it why bother?' mob.

FrancieBrady

Matt Barrett wrote: »

That's it they're worried they'll get treated the way the Catholics were treated. After growing up top dog, equality scares them.
Anyone down south against unification would likely be a proponent of bringing back work houses, the 'if there's no money in it why bother?' mob.

I can understand a Unionist being wary of a UI, I cannot for the life of me get my head around the partitionist mindset.
Always the roadblock, and never a hint of positivity. Utterly selfish outlook. And I do realise there are nuances in the types of partitionist.

facehugger99

Matt Barrett wrote: »

They're as much Irish as you or I. They don't need prove that. Part of Ulster is ruled from abroad by the British.

No, it’s very different up there, you should spend some time there yourself as you’ve obviously no clue what you’re talking about.

Very different culture. Most of them don’t consider themselves Irish.

You’ve no clue at all.

RobMc59

10-15 years

Matt Barrett wrote: »

That's it they're worried they'll get treated the way the Catholics were treated. After growing up top dog, equality scares them.
Anyone down south against unification would likely be a proponent of bringing back work houses, the 'if there's no money in it why bother?' mob.

You and others constantly refer back to incidents hundreds of years ago,the cruel deeds done by the British and Protestants and you judge people and Countries by this-what of the up to ten thousand Protestant men,women and children who were slaughtered in 1641 by catholics?I would`nt class Irish Catholics today the same as those murderers who tore babies from their mothers and cruelly snuffed out their lives and I don`t think anyone with a Unionist point of view on here does either-you want to try it instead of constantly moaning on about events that happened when the world was a different place.

FrancieBrady

facehugger99 wrote: »

No, it’s very different up there, you should spend some time there yourself as you’ve obviously no clue what you’re talking about.

Very different culture. Most of them don’t consider themselves Irish.

You’ve no clue at all.

I live on the border FH. I know the north better than I know Meath. They are no different to anyone else on the island. The people of the rest of the island behaved remarkably similar when suppressed and oppressed and did the same thing(religious dominance) when given the chance. We have matured as a society because we were on our own and had self determination.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I can understand a Unionist being wary of a UI, I cannot for the life of me get my head around the partitionist mindset.
Always the roadblock, and never a hint of positivity. Utterly selfish outlook. And I do realise there are nuances in the types of partitionist.

Just as there are nuances in the UI fantasists.

Some actually believe that removing the border creates a free and peaceful island overnight. Others believe that some magic EU beans will pay for a united Ireland, there are even a few who think unionists will be secretly delighted.

Crazy they may be, but they are given a political life by too many.

blanch152

RobMc59 wrote: »

You and others constantly refer back to incidents hundreds of years ago,the cruel deeds done by the British and Protestants and you judge people and Countries by this-what of the up to ten thousand Protestant men,women and children who were slaughtered in 1641 by catholics?I would`nt class Irish Catholics today the same as those murderers who tore babies from their mothers and cruelly snuffed out their lives and I don`t think anyone with a Unionist point of view on here does either-you want to try it instead of constantly moaning on about events that happened when the world was a different place.

What is worse is that while such ancient wrongs can be used to justify wrappping the green flag around oneself, if you dare speak of Brian Stack or Mairia Cahill or one of the disappeared, and the common thread that is Gerry Adams, you are accused of having a partitionist agenda, even though all those incidents are of a very recent vintage and the wounds are still raw.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Some actually believe that removing the border creates a free and peaceful island overnight. Others believe that some magic EU beans will pay for a united Ireland, there are even a few who think unionists will be secretly delighted.

Name the posters on this site who believe in that mish mash. You have identified 3 types.

1 . Some actually believe that removing the border creates a free and peaceful island overnight.
2. Others believe that some magic EU beans will pay for a united Ireland
3. there are even a few who think unionists will be secretly delighted.

Out them blanch.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Name the posters on this site who believe in that mish mash. You have identified 3 types.

1 . Some actually believe that removing the border creates a free and peaceful island overnight.
2. Others believe that some magic EU beans will pay for a united Ireland
3. there are even a few who think unionists will be secretly delighted.

Out them blanch.

Where did I say I was referring to posters on this site?

These UI fantasists can be seen all over Twitter. Even if there are some on this site, why would I out them? They are entitled to their opinion, no matter how crazy it is.

As you said yourself Francie, you know people in the North better than people In Meath, so I wouldn’t expect you to understand how ridiculous most people in the South think the UI fantasists are.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

What is worse is that while such ancient wrongs can be used to justify wrappping the green flag around oneself, if you dare speak of Brian Stack or Mairia Cahill or one of the disappeared, and the common thread that is Gerry Adams, you are accused of having a partitionist agenda, even though all those incidents are of a very recent vintage and the wounds are still raw.

The reason you are called a partitionist is that you favour 'partition'. Anybody who contributes regularly to this forum knows your stance and it is legendarily 'partitionist'.

A word that has it's rightful place in any dictionary you care to look at.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Where did I say I was referring to posters on this site?

:D:D:D Why did I not bet on that limp answer?

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

:D:D:D Why did I not bet on that limp answer?

Unlike you Francie, I don’t do the pejorative labellling of other posters thing.

the-island-man

I would say the fairest outcome for both sides would be for Northern Ireland to be a completely independent country free of the Republic and the UK. Seems financially far fetched at the moment though.

Even if they did ever decide to unite with Ireland I would foresee having something like a united "kingdom" of Ireland with a lot of devolved power held in Stormont rather than the Republic simply being extended to the 32 counties.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Unlike you Francie, I don’t do the pejorative labellling of other posters thing.

Label away. Partitionist is a recognised word in the dictionary. 'unionist' is as well, and there seems to be many on here who get very annoyed to be seen as either, while espousing the ideologies of both.

I'm a proud republican btw and don't take the term as offensive.

_blaaz

10-15 years

blanch152 wrote: »

What is worse is that while such ancient wrongs can be used to justify wrappping the green flag around oneself, if you dare speak of Brian Stack or Mairia Cahill or one of the disappeared, and the common thread that is Gerry Adams, you are accused of having a partitionist agenda, even though all those incidents are of a very recent vintage and the wounds are still raw.

Maria cahill is a particularly odious individual going about harassing people online...im suprised you are going out of your way to associate with her

FrancieBrady

the-island-man wrote: »

I would say the fairest outcome for both sides would be for Northern Ireland to be a completely independent country free of the Republic and the UK. Seems financially far fetched at the moment though.

Even if they did ever decide to unite with Ireland I would foresee having something like a united "kingdom" of Ireland with a lot of devolved power held in Stormont rather than the Republic simply being extended to the 32 counties.

Northern Ireland is a failed political and social entity. Primarily because the balance of the population was deliberately interfered with.

With the same imbalance we in the south created a fair and equal society eventually, primarily because we had no outside influence. It was up to us.

RoyalCelt

Ulster Says No. It will never happen

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Northern Ireland is a failed political and social entity. Primarily because the balance of the population was deliberately interfered with.

With the same imbalance we in the south created a fair and equal society eventually, primarily because we had no outside influence. It was up to us.

To be fair didn't a large portion of protestants in the Republic move back to the UK? If Ireland was United wouldn't you expect a lot of the protestants in the North to move to the UK too?

I seen a piece last year that said a much higher % of young protestants move to the UK to study and a lot of them stay. So already the population demographic is being skewed even more in the Catholic sides favour due to this.

FrancieBrady

RoyalCelt wrote: »

To be fair didn't a large portion of protestants in the Republic move back to the UK? If Ireland was United wouldn't you expect a lot of the protestants in the North to move to the UK too?

I seen a piece last year that said a much higher % of young protestants move to the UK to study and a lot of them stay. So already the population demographic is being skewed even more in the Catholic sides favour due to this.

A large proportion of those working/in the pay of the British state moved after independence and there were undoubtedly instances of sectarian discrimination and triumphalism. But we are through that age now, church and state are clearly separating. My partner and children are protestant and are not in any way connected to Orangism and Unionism and are full citizens in a border community.

Young people are bleeding out of the north because it has no future. Have you seen the Ulster Bank latest reports...it is falling off a cliff economically.

mattser

FrancieBrady wrote: »

RoyalCelt wrote: »

To be fair didn't a large portion of protestants in the Republic move back to the UK? If Ireland was United wouldn't you expect a lot of the protestants in the North to move to the UK too?

I seen a piece last year that said a much higher % of young protestants move to the UK to study and a lot of them stay. So already the population demographic is being skewed even more in the Catholic sides favour due to this.

A large proportion of those working/in the pay of the British state moved after independence and there were undoubtedly instances of sectarian discrimination and triumphalism. But we are through that age now, church and state are clearly separating. My partner and children are protestant and are not in any way connected to Orangism and Unionism and are full citizens in a border community.

Young people are bleeding out of the north because it has no future. Have you seen the Ulster Bank latest reports...it is falling off a cliff economically.

Fair enough Francie.

RobMc59

10-15 years

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Label away. Partitionist is a recognised word in the dictionary. 'unionist' is as well, and there seems to be many on here who get very annoyed to be seen as either, while espousing the ideologies of both.

I'm a proud republican btw and don't take the term as offensive.

The use of 'partitionist 'to describe people is indeed a recognized word and it's no secret it's a derogatory term which is why you delight in constantly using it.

facehugger99

Happy glorious 12th!

It's a day all partionists get to revel in the knowledge that we don't have to be dealing with the ****e that goes on up in Nordieland.

A fantastic yearly reminder to the taxpayers of the Republic to ignore the Shinner-spin and continue to reject the notion of unification with that lot.

Future generations will thank us for the stand we've taken.

FrancieBrady

RobMc59 wrote: »

The use of 'partitionist 'to describe people is indeed a recognized word and it's no secret it's a derogatory term which is why you delight in constantly using it.

What would you call people who actively argue against unity?

I don't like or agree with partitionist ideology but I don't use it as a derogatory term.
Anyway FH has invented a new group, the 'partionists'. I'm off to google to find out about them!

ohnonotgmail

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What would you call people who actively argue against unity?

I don't like or agree with partitionist ideology but I don't use it as a derogatory term.
Anyway FH has invented a new group, the 'partionists'. I'm off to google to find out about them!

why the obsession with labels? There are a number of people here opposed to irish unification and they dont all have the same reasons for thinking that. You think you can throw a label over us and use that to deride us. If that is fair for you to do then it must be fair for us to use shinnerbot.

Ush1

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What would you call people who actively argue against unity?

I don't like or agree with partitionist ideology but I don't use it as a derogatory term.
Anyway FH has invented a new group, the 'partionists'. I'm off to google to find out about them!

So can I call you a unionist?:pac:

FrancieBrady

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

why the obsession with labels? There are a number of people here opposed to irish unification and they dont all have the same reasons for thinking that. You think you can throw a label over us and use that to deride us. If that is fair for you to do then it must be fair for us to use shinnerbot.

It isn't a label, there is no capital 'p' being used, it is a descriptor.

Is 'shinnerbot' a perfectly normal word in the dictionary to describe something or somebody? To call somebody a shinnerbot, it would seem to me you would need evidence that they were in the pay or under the instructions of SF.

If you actively argue against unity, the evidence is there that you are partitionist (note the small 'p')

How would you describe somebody or a group of somebody's who actively argue against unity?

Here are a few(just a few of many) of it being used perfectly normally in political discourse and thought:

https://books.openedition.org/psn/5216?lang=en

https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/partitionist-mentality-denying-northerners-right-to-seek-presidency-1.109744
https://www.newstalk.com/the-pat-kenny-show/the-mental-partitionists-why-our-disinterest-in-the-north-is-dangerous-555439
https://www.derryjournal.com/news/video-project-ireland-2040-a-partitionist-lie-with-sop-thrown-in-say-disgruntled-north-western-representatives-1-8394543

ohnonotgmail

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It isn't a label, there is no capital 'p' being used, it is a descriptor.

Is 'shinnerbot' a perfectly normal word in the dictionary to describe something or somebody? To call somebody a shinnerbot, it would seem to me you would need evidence that they were in the pay or under the instructions of SF.

If you actively argue against unity, the evidence is there that you are partitionist (note the small 'p')

How would you describe somebody or a group of somebody's who actively argue against unity?

Here are a few(just a few of many) of it being used perfectly normally in political discourse and thought:

https://books.openedition.org/psn/5216?lang=en

https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/partitionist-mentality-denying-northerners-right-to-seek-presidency-1.109744
https://www.newstalk.com/the-pat-kenny-show/the-mental-partitionists-why-our-disinterest-in-the-north-is-dangerous-555439
https://www.derryjournal.com/news/video-project-ireland-2040-a-partitionist-lie-with-sop-thrown-in-say-disgruntled-north-western-representatives-1-8394543

you are using it in a derogatory manner. the world can see that. You think it is a slur to lay against somebody.

FrancieBrady

Ush1 wrote: »

So can I call you a unionist?:pac:

I have been called worse!

Yes, I am a unionist. I favour Irish unity.

Fionn1952

15-20 years

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What would you call people who actively argue against unity?

I don't like or agree with partitionist ideology but I don't use it as a derogatory term.
Anyway FH has invented a new group, the 'partionists'. I'm off to google to find out about them!

why the obsession with labels? There are a number of people here opposed to irish unification and they dont all have the same reasons for thinking that. You think you can throw a label over us and use that to deride us. If that is fair for you to do then it must be fair for us to use shinnerbot.

Regardless of reasoning behind it, surely anyone in favour of maintaining partition, no matter how noble or sensible said reason is, by definition is a partitionist?

I don't think the word makes any assumption on the right or wrong of your reasoning. It's a descriptive term, which has no real alternative with the same meaning.

I'd see it as pretty different to Shinnerbot, which is exclusively used as a derogatory term.

I've disagreed with Francie on a number of things (and have no doubt he certainly injects the word with his own personal scorn), but what word would you suggest is used as an overarching term to describe the broad group who do not support Irish reunification from the Irish side?

We have Republicans as a term for those who support it on either side of the border and Unionists for those who don't support it on the British/currently British side of the border. Those are all wide groups, with a wide variance of reasons for supporting their viewpoint.

How is it throwing more of a label on you to describe you as a partitionist than to describe myself or Francie as Republican? I'm sure my reasoning behind supporting the unification of Ireland (and what I see as a pathway towards that) differs from Francie's just as significantly as your reasoning against it does with others who support continued partition?