The glorious 12th

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It was 57% jan in a referendum were claims about wide spread impersonation were made.

.

There was not widespread claims of impersonation, there may have been a few, but what else would you expect from a people (republicans) whose slogan was to vote early and vote often?
Even if impersonation accounted for say 2 or 3% of the voting, would you accept the results of the referendum?

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

There was not widespread claims of impersonation, there may have been a few, but what else would you expect from a people (republicans) whose slogan was to vote early and vote often.
Even if impersonation accounted for say 2 or 3% of the voting, would you accept the results of the referendum?

Jan...do you understand English?

I said: there were 'claims of widespread impersonation'.

You converting that to 'widespread claims of impersonation' is just criminal lying and misrepresentation of what is being said...AGAIN.

And AGAIN...I accept the result of what I consider a sham referendum of absolutely no significance in a statelet that was designed to give that result.

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

.. absolutely no significance in a statelet that was designed to give that result.

Here in this statelet there was discrimination and lack of civil rights, for example lack of access to contraception even for married couples. Maybe the statelet here was designed to give that result?

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

Here in this statelet there was discrimination and lack of civil rights, for example lack of access to contraception even for married couples. Maybe the statelet here was designed to give that result?

What??

Sofiztikated

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What??

Look, look over there. Look at it while I ignore what you said. LOOOOOOOKKKKKKKKKK!!!!!!!!

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What??

Remember the trains of people going from Dublin to N Ireland, just to get contraception.

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

Remember the trains of people going from Dublin to N Ireland, just to get contraception.

What has that to do with an artificially created majority of Unionists in NI?

You do know what 'partition' was intended to do?

janfebmar

It satisfied the majority of people in the 26 counties ( for want of a better term) and it satisfied the majority of people in the 6 counties ( for want of a better term ).

Show me a better solution at the time to keep most people happy. Go on, I dare ye.

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

It satisfied the majority of people in the 26 counties ( for want of a better term) and it satisfied the majority of people in the 6 counties ( for want of a better term ).

Show me a better solution at the time to keep most people happy. Go on, I dare ye.

I always think the democratic will of the people is the way to go.

And I think we have all the proof we need what a tragic disaster it is to create artificial majorities.

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I always think the democratic will of the people is the way to go.
.

The will of the people of the British Isles at the time was to stay United you mean?

CptMackey

janfebmar wrote: »

The will of the people of the British Isles at the time was to stay United you mean?

70 % of the country in the 1918 general election voted for sinn Fein. Unionists only got 22 seats. The will of the people was clear but ignored by Westminster so the country was partitioned to keep the unionist minority happy and set up an apartheid state

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

The will of the people of the British Isles at the time was to stay United you mean?

I will pass on this (updated for the internet age) sage advice to you from Mark Twain allegedly:

Better to not type and be thought a fool than to type and to remove all doubt.

blanch152

blanch152 wrote: »

Firstly, there is a difference between India and Ireland. India was a colony and always remained one. Ireland was a home country and was seen as such. With the Act of Union in 1800, that position of Ireland was copperfastened. India never got that status.

Secondly, the argument about willing participants would also apply to England, Wales and Scotland, as they all had similar democratic arrangements in place at the time.

That being said, both your view and mine, while mutually incompatible, are legitimate interpretations of events from several centuries ago for which there is no hard and fast evidence. We don't have opinion polls from the 17th century.

Piece in bold is a fair point. As Dytalus suggests the British were well in control of Ireland (early 17th C) before the main period of British imperial expansion began. Anyone suggesting that Ireland was never a colony of the evolving English, then British state is just wrong IMO.

janfebmar

CptMackey wrote: »

the country was partitioned to keep the unionist minority happy and set up an apartheid state

You could also argue the British Isles were also partitioned to keep the Republican minority happy and set up a Catholic state for a Catholic people.

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

You could also argue the British Isles were also partitioned to keep the Republican minority happy and set up a Catholic state for a Catholic people.

pssst!


Better to not type and be thought a fool than to type and to remove all doubt.

CptMackey

janfebmar wrote: »

You could also argue the British Isles were also partitioned to keep the Republican minority happy and set up a Catholic state for a Catholic people.

Not really. Ireland was colonised and Ulster was planted. It was then partitioned by Westminster on the threat of all out war . Even tho the general election showed a democratic mandate to Ireland to go it's own way

janfebmar

CptMackey wrote: »

Not really. Ireland was colonised and Ulster was planted.

So was America and a lot of the world. Nobody can go back and undo what was done hundreds of years ago.

janfebmar

CptMackey wrote: »

. It was then partitioned by Westminster on the threat of all out war .

It was agreed by most at the time that partition was best, to keep most people happy. No solution would have kept everyone happy.

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

So was America and a lot of the world. Nobody can go back and undo what was done hundreds of years ago.

Britian undid their illegal invasion of Ireland in 1922 jan. And they will eventually undo their undemocratic partition of the island.*


*Boris and the Brexiteers would undo it in the morning if they could.

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Britian undid their illegal invasion of Ireland in 1922 jan. And they will eventually undo their undemocratic partition .../QUOTE]

I would not hold your breath waiting for them to leave N. Ireland. 20 years ago Gerry said they would be gone by 2016.
They will only go / Ireland will only be united if the majority here and the majority in NI want that.

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Britian undid their illegal invasion of Ireland in 1922 jan. And they will eventually undo their undemocratic partition .../QUOTE]

I would not hold your breath waiting for them to leave N. Ireland. 20 years ago Gerry said they would be gone by 2016.
They will only go / Ireland will only be united if the majority here and the majority in NI want that.

I'm sure Gerry has his feet up enjoying the collapse of the entire UK atm.

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

janfebmar wrote: »

I'm sure Gerry has his feet up enjoying the collapse of the entire UK atm.

Brexit will probably have a worse effect on us than the UK, but as you say Gerry will probably have his feet up enjoying watching it.

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

Brexit will probably have a worse effect on us than the UK, .

:D:D:D:D:D Have you seen the state of the UK's borrowing and sterling and they haven't even summoned up the courage to leave yet. :D

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

:D:D:D:D:D Have you seen the state of the UK's borrowing and sterling and they hav2en't even summoned up the courage to leave yet. :D

They are a resourceful people and helped bail us out , along with the IMF, not too long ago. I would'nt worry about them too much if I were you, I'd try and get out more.:D:D:D

Think of what they will save not having to keep the EU afloat. See what happened in Italy recently?

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

They are a resourceful people

So resourceful they can't find a way to get out of the EU?


Sure jan.

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So resourceful they can't find a way to get out of the EU?

They will. You can bet on that. They are giving Leo time to get his border up.

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

They will. You can bet on that. They are giving Leo time to get his border up.

I had wondered why you had stopped contributing to the brexit threads. Now I know, you haven't a clue what you are talking about.

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I had wondered why you had stopped contributing to the brexit threads.

Well, unlike you, who has over 20,000 posts about the dastardly British, I do not have the time to be posting 24/ 7, and I have more to do with my life. Rest assured though the EU / Leo will be the ones putting a border up in Ireland. Wait and see;)

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

Well, unlike you, who has over 20,000 posts about the dastardly British, I do not have the time to be posting 24/ 7, and I have more to do with my life. Rest assured though the EU / Leo will be the ones putting a border up in Ireland. Wait and see;)

Regardless of the FACT that both will have to man a border, I am certain sure and fully supportive of us protecting the SM from a rogue nation.

But my hunch is that it will be the DUP who will be the losers here, one way or another.

Junkyard Tom

Francie if you ignored her these threads would have a use other than being a platform for her hate/bitterness.