How long before Irish reunification?

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Had your much vaunted 'anti discrimination' legislation had any effect at all then the AIA and the GFA that it made way for wouldn't have been neccessary at ....

The anti discrimination legislation was just that. The paramilitaries on each side could not care less about it. The reason for the pIRA armed struggle was to get the British out of Ireland, as the ages old banner Mary Lou walked behind last Paddies day stated.

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

The anti discrimination legislation was just that. The paramilitaries on each side could not care less about it. The reason for the pIRA armed struggle was to get the British out of Ireland, as the ages old banner Mary Lou walked behind last Paddies day stated.

Now, when you haven't got the facility or knowledge to continue the debate - comes the usual deflection.

The pivotal moment was the Anglo Irish Agreement. It was that which finally ended the Unionist veto. How pivotal it was can be seen in Unionist opposition to it and what came after. And can be seen in the belligerent response to the 'backstop'.

David Trimble, who would go on to win the Nobel Peace Prize threatened that 'no little violence would be needed to bring it down'. Look how far he came?
Look how far it brought Adams and SF and the IRA?

What became clear during the Brooke / Mayhew initiative was the willingness of both Governments to use the Anglo-Irish Agreement as a bargaining tactic to induce compromise from Unionists.

The Irish and British governments by signing it effectively ended the sectarian statlet. And peace and a lasting settlement followed...the GFA. Something belligerent Unionism has not accepted as of today.

https://cain.ulster.ac.uk/events/aia/after.htm

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Look how far it brought Adams and SF and the IRA

There were still a lot of IRA atrocities and violence for many years after the Anglo Irish Agreement. The great thing about the Anglo Irish agreement though is that it meant the Republic accepted partition, and it paved the way for abolition of articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution. Eventually the paramilitaries surrendered their weapons/ had them put beyond use.

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

There were still a lot of IRA atrocities and violence for many years after the Anglo Irish Agreement. The great thing about the Anglo Irish agreement though is that it meant the Republic accepted partition, and it paved the way for abolition of articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution. Eventually the paramilitaries surrendered their weapons/ had them put beyond use.

If that is what a partitionist/Unionist told/lied to themselves in order to sign up to the GFA, that is fine by me.

What the Anglo Irish Agreement was - the ending of the Unionist veto - is what it will always be though, as will the facts of Unionist/Loyalists violent opposition to it.

No matter how much you turn your head and point at 'themuns'.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If that is what a partitionist/Unionist told/lied to themselves in order to sign up to the GFA, that is fine by me.

What the Anglo Irish Agreement was - the ending of the Unionist veto - is what it will always be though, as will the facts of Unionist/Loyalists violent opposition to it.

No matter how much you turn your head and point at 'themuns'.

Do you mean partition? Sure its there in black and white if you voted for the GFA your a partitionist with aspirations to end it.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

Do you mean partition? Sure its there in black and white if you voted for the GFA your a partitionist with aspirations to end it.

Abjectly wrong.

If you voted for the GFA, you accepted that if the majority vote for a UI that you accept it.
You legitimised the aspiration to achieve a UI which is an opposition to partition.

You can see partitionists BACKING AWAY from the GFA all over this thread...'There has to be a majority bigger than 51% - maybe an independent NI would be the solution etc etc etc.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Abjectly wrong.

If you voted for the GFA, you accepted that if the majority vote for a UI that you accept it.
You legitimised the aspiration to achieve a UI which is an opposition to partition.

You can see partitionists BACKING AWAY from the GFA all over this thread...'There has to be a majority bigger than 51% - maybe an independent NI would be the solution etc etc etc.

But by voting for it we accepted partition as legitimate.

What's your definition for partitionist?

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If you voted for the GFA, you accepted that if the majority vote for a UI that you accept it.
.

That was in the Anglo Irish agreement too, as was the acknowledgement that the majority now did not want a U I , so that it why Republicans were against the Anglo Irish agreement. They had no mandate to continue their armed struggle, they never had, yet they did.

The UK government in having a border poll in 1973 in N Ireland ( free and fair election) would have left N Ireland if the majority wanted them to, same as they left everywhere else if and when the majority wanted them to.

No need for decades more of the failed " armed struggle".

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Abjectly wrong.

If you voted for the GFA, you accepted that if the majority vote for a UI that you accept it.
You legitimised the aspiration to achieve a UI which is an opposition to partition.

You can see partitionists BACKING AWAY from the GFA all over this thread...'There has to be a majority bigger than 51% - maybe an independent NI would be the solution etc etc etc.

So i accept partition but only want a UI if it doesn't cost too much.

You accept partition but want a UI with no preconditions.

Real IRA /RSF don't recognise partition as legitimate.

To me both of us are partitionists. We accept it if it is the will of the people of NI.

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It stands to reason that you cannot identity as anything until you have the awareness to do it. i.e. when you are ready.

You are not born with an identity and you can 'change' identity whenever you wish.

The bigot speaks.

Francie, the GFA does not reference this at all so stop trying to claim that until these people are 'ready' to identify themselves one way or another that they are therefore Irish before this point. i.e by default.

This supremacist nonsense is one of the reasons people were killing each other for decades.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

But by voting for it we accepted partition as legitimate.

What's your definition for partitionist?

Partitionist - Somebody who wants to continue partition.


I don't, so can never be described as partitionist.

Partition exists whether I agree with it or not.

Look, if it suits you/makes yourself feel better to describe me as 'partitionist', knock yourself out on that.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Partitionist - Somebody who wants to continue partition.


I don't, so can never be described as partitionist.

Partition exists whether I agree with it or not.

Look, if it suits you/makes yourself feel better to describe me as 'partitionist', knock yourself out on that.

Am i a partitionist in your eyes?

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

The bigot speaks.

Francie, the GFA does not reference this at all so stop trying to claim that until these people are 'ready' to identify themselves one way or another that they are therefore Irish before this point. i.e by default.

This supremacist nonsense is one of the reasons people were killing each other for decades.

Why would the GFA reference a 'given'?

You cannot be seriously suggesting people are born with ready formed identities...are you?

That is delusion.

When I describe them as 'Irish' by default, I don't mean they emerge from the womb singing Tones songs and dancing jigs.

They are Irish, in the same way as anybody else born on an island called Ireland are 'Irish' and their identities form later.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

Am i a partitionist in your eyes?

If you create obstacles to the ending of partition, then you are 'partitionist'.

For instance, somebody who, having signed up to the GFA, says that now there has to be ''more than a simple majority' if there is to be a UI is 'partitionist' as well as having a dubious understanding of democracy.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If you create obstacles to the ending of partition, then you are 'partitionist'.

For instance, somebody who, having signed up to the GFA, says that now there has to be ''more than a simple majority' if there is to be a UI is 'partitionist' as well as having a dubious understanding of democracy.

But RSF consider SF partitionist because they facilitate partition. In their eyes you are also a partitionist.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

But RSF consider SF partitionist because they facilitate partition. In their eyes you are also a partitionist.

As I said, if it suits you/makes you feel better, go ahead and call me whatever you wish. It doesn't bother a lot of others here.

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Why would the GFA reference a 'given'?

A given?

You are the only person here trying to claim children and babies as Irish by default.
It's pathetic, sad and disturbed to be honest. I would take a long hard look in the mirror if I were you and had kids.

Your reasoning is that of a bigot and you keep digging yourself into that bigoted sectarian hole.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

A given?

You are the only person here trying to claim children and babies as Irish by default.
It's pathetic, sad and disturbed to be honest. I would take a long hard look in the mirror if I were you and had kids.

Your reasoning is that of a bigot and you keep digging yourself into that bigoted sectarian hole.

There are many different types of people born on the island of Ireland mark. It seems to me it is you who has the bigotry problem here.

You seem to think that me claiming that the quite factually correct term for people born on this island - 'the Irish' - is to claim them for one type of identity.

I'm not. We are all Irish, and we were (alá the GFA) given the birthright to identify as we please. NOBODY is born with an identity ready formed.

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

There are many different types of people born on the island of Ireland mark. It seems to me it is you who has the bigotry problem here.

You seem to think that me claiming that the quite factually correct term for people born on this island - 'the Irish' - is to claim them for one type of identity.

I'm not. We are all Irish, and we were (alá the GFA) given the birthright to identify as we please. NOBODY is born with an identity ready formed.

You must be really sad and desperate to try and claim that kids who are not yet adults are all 'Irish'.

The above is pure unadulterated muck. The GFA does not state that we are 'all Irish'. It says nothing about children and their 'presumed' identity. The GFA is crystal clear about this.

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I'm not. We are all Irish, and we were (alá the GFA) given the birthright to identify as we please. NOBODY is born with an identity ready formed.

Just posting this beauty here again. In once sentence you contradict yourself.
Another notch on the FrancieBrady bed of drivel.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

Just posting this beauty here again. In once sentence you contradict yourself.
Another notch on the FrancieBrady bed of drivel.

Were is the contradiction?

It isn't a 'birthright to be British or Irish' as blanch tried to say...read the GFA. It is a 'birthright to CHOOSE an identity'.

You cannot choose as a newborn. And at any time in your life you can change your identity, people do all the time.


No contradiction at all.

By saying we are all Irish by virtue of being born on the island of Ireland, I am not claiming an identity or imposing one on anybody.

Ian Paisley, one of the most extreme Unionists we ever witnessed understood this as do a lot of 'confident'' Unionists. Why? Because it is a logical and simple fact.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Were is the contradiction?

It isn't a 'birthright to be British or Irish' as blanch tried to say...read the GFA. It is a 'birthright to CHOOSE an identity'.

You cannot choose as a newborn. And at any time in your life you can change your identity, people do all the time.


No contradiction at all.

By saying we are all Irish by virtue of being born on the island of Ireland, I am not claiming an identity or imposing one on anybody.

Ian Paisley, one of the most extreme Unionists we ever witnessed understood this as do a lot of 'confident'' Unionists. Why? Because it is a logical and simple fact.

It is also a fact that people born in the UK are british and NI is part of the UK. Due to the GFA they can identify as either Irish ir British.

Have you come across a defintion of nationality which states place of birth thrumps nation of birth?

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

It is also a fact that people born in the UK are british and NI is part of the UK. Due to the GFA they can identify as either Irish ir British.

Have you come across a defintion of nationality which states place of birth thrumps nation of birth?

FFS the GFA exists because people rejected the notion of the nationality that was assumed for them or conferred on them jh79.

The very essence of the agreement is that you can CHOOSE whatever identity you want and the structure of the state allows that. It is a unique solution to the problem caused by the partition of the island and people of Ireland = the Irish.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

FFS the GFA exists because people rejected the notion of the nationality that was assumed for them or conferred on them jh79.

The very essence of the agreement is that you can CHOOSE whatever identity you want and the structure of the state allows that. It is a unique solution to the problem caused by the partition of the island and people of Ireland = the Irish.

I agree but you're in my opinion you are saying they are Irish who identify as British but the ones who identify as Irish are just irish in an attempt to lessen the validity of the former.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

I agree but you're in my opinion you are saying they are Irish who identify as British but the ones who identify as Irish are just irish in an attempt to lessen the validity of the former.

No, I am actually saying we are all the same people who choose different identities.
It is all I have ever been saying.

downcow

20-30 years

downcow wrote: »

The faulklands are British afaik

Just reading the BBC earlier today and the entire fishing area of the post-Brexit British state has a paltry 12 - 12 - ships "to monitor a space three times the size of the surface area of the UK". 12! And still the British continue these delusional imperial ego trips like "defending" Islas Malvinas almost 13,000km away. Hubris leads to nemesis.

RobMc59

10-15 years

Deleted User wrote: »

downcow wrote: »

The faulklands are British afaik

Just reading the BBC earlier today and the entire fishing area of the post-Brexit British state has a paltry 12 - 12 - ships "to monitor a space three times the size of the surface area of the UK". 12! And still the British continue these delusional imperial ego trips like "defending" Islas Malvinas almost 13,000km away. Hubris leads to nemesis.

That sounds like you fancy your chances squaring up to the Royal Navy-good luck with that.

FrancieBrady

RobMc59 wrote: »

That sounds like you fancy your chances squaring up to the Royal Navy-good luck with that.

Well, they aren't coming to rescue NI so nobody will be squaring up.

RobMc59

20-30 years

RobMc59 wrote: »

That sounds like you fancy your chances squaring up to the Royal Navy-good luck with that.

What a strange conclusion.

The Rape of Lucretia

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The very essence of the agreement is that you can CHOOSE whatever identity you want and the structure of the state allows that. It is a unique solution to the problem caused by the partition of the island and people of Ireland = the Irish.

But being only a one way street, a very biased and bigoted one, failing to correct and restore the equivalent right of those born in the Republic to identify as citizens of the UK and take British citizenship. A tragedy and injustice.