How long before Irish reunification? (Part 2) Threadbans in OP

BonnieSituation

RobMc59 wrote: »

It's nothing to do with you either initially,unless you have retained the right to vote though birth?
I understand it's not just about Unionists,although there does appear to be a blurring of the established groups (Catholic,protestants etc)which may be significant in a vote imo.

I don't think you do understand that. If you did you wouldn't have to be reminded constantly.

jh79

BonnieSituation wrote: »

You hold SF I'm contempt because the DUP were bigots?

You can just condemn the DUP and Belligerent unionists without the need for "balance" ya know?

---

Interpreters would be available if the DUP weren't so afraid of fadas and let the ILA pass. But sure, it's Nationalists tat need to compromise.

I hold both in contempt because of their actions. I don't give SF a pass because they identify as Irish.

BonnieSituation

RobMc59 wrote: »

Whether you like it or not,six counties are part of the UK.Its those people living there that you need to convince of the benefits of a UI.Id imagine anyone undecided looking at this thread would be apprehensive Ireland is inhabited by disgruntled,partisan republicans.

Okay, so we shouldn't concern ourselves with the rest of our island and our citizens until there's a vote?

BonnieSituation

maccored wrote: »

i ask again - why should unionists get a veto in what happens in the north?

They don't. The Unionist veto is dead, whether Rob likes it or not.

BonnieSituation

jh79 wrote: »

I hold both in contempt because of their actions. I don't give SF a pass because they identify as Irish.

Hmmm... Are Sinn Féin not Irish?

Anyway, that's besides the point,the DUP did something, and you couldn't help but bring SF into it. Could you not just criticise the DUP?

Why not bring in the SDLP, TUV and Alliance while you're at it?

jm08

RobMc59 wrote: »

I don't know why you and your fellow republican posters are disgruntled,could it be because you don't like the way a UI is fading into the distance?

Why would a republican be disgruntled if the people of Northern Ireland don't vote for a UI? They have made a choice. As a democrat you have to accept that.

RobMc59

lurleen lumpkin wrote: »

What would anyone looking at this thread think of the unionist posters?

There are views here which are poles apart .That doesn't mean people have to resort to terrorism Anyone who views terrorism as a valid means to an end is condoning anarchy whether Unionist or republican.
I haven't seen anyone of a Unionist persuasion hinting that they consider terrorism a valid way to reach their goal.

RobMc59

BonnieSituation wrote: »

They don't. The Unionist veto is dead, whether Rob likes it or not.

When have I ever said I believe one group should have the say over what happens?

Natterjack from Kerry

[Deleted User] wrote: »

If a unity poll was to be held,its on basis that its likely to pass (as per gfa)


And in such a sceanrio,wouldnt the onus thus fall upon unionists to sell the merits of retaining the union?

Theres a pletora of surveys,studies and info pertaining to benefits of a utd ireland,both econmically and socially,can a counter arguement be made againest them to retain the union?


Unionists have their head buried in the sand,and launch all out attack againest any who suggest they prepare for such a poll.....leaving them hopelessly prepared for a poll

No. No. No.

If a poll were to be held on the likelyhood that it would pass, then the likelyhood is that it would pass. Discussion, in reality, at that point, is pointless.
So of course unionists have no interest in engaging in a discussion about something they don't want. Such an expectation, or view that they should explore the topic, is naive in the extreme. Is there a debate and public forum in the Republic about it rejoining the UK? Of course not. It has no interest in doing so, and would laugh the idea of discussing it.

The unionist position is rooted in far more than economics - the Republic did not leave the UK because it was going to be an economic unit better off than being part of the UK. In fact, it went in to a spectacular decline of failure for 70 years.
Economic arguments are at best debatable anyway, uncertain, possibly of marginal difference one way or the other. It is a reasonable conclusion that there is no huge difference in being part of a modern European country of 60 million, and one of 5 million. If anything, one would tend to the greater benefits of being part of the bigger country. So no number of ecomomic analyses or balance sheets of pros and cons will determine this.
Unionists want to be part of the UK. Full stop. Understanding this would help nationalists avoid expecting the impossible.

BonnieSituation

RobMc59 wrote: »

There are views here which are poles apart .That doesn't mean people have to resort to terrorism Anyone who views terrorism as a valid means to an end is condoning anarchy whether Unionist or republican.
I haven't seen anyone of a Unionist persuasion hinting that they consider terrorism a valid way to reach their goal.

Downcow said he couldn't guarantee that he wouldn't resort to violence in the event of s UI.

You condone the State sanctioned murder of children and other innocent people.

So that's 2 Unionists that have no issue with terrorism.

Perhaps looking closer in future would be best.

BonnieSituation

RobMc59 wrote: »

When have I ever said I believe one group should have the say over what happens?

Do you know what the Unionist veto refers to?

RobMc59

Fionn1952 wrote: »

I still have a house in the North, and should a border poll be on the cards I would happily move back there to vote. You'll note I said move back, not just pop up for the day before you make any insinuations about fraudulent voting etc. By doing so, I would forego my right to vote on the matter on this side of the border.

That being said, the Irish state will also vote on it, so even if I did not, it would still have something to do with me, unlike yourself.

Very good Fionn,nothing to do with me..So I won't be expected to help pay for a UI then as only those it has something to do with (Ireland)will pay..

maccored

RobMc59 wrote:

When have I ever said I believe one group should have the say over what happens?

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Do you know what the Unionist veto refers to?

rob either has me on ignore or just ignores me (Im happy either which way)

jm08

Natterjack from Kerry wrote: »

No. No. No.

If a poll were to be held on the likelyhood that it would pass, then the likelyhood is that it would pass. Discussion, in reality, at that point, is pointless.
So of course unionists have no interest in engaging in a discussion about something they don't want. Such an expectation, or view that they should explore the topic, is naive in the extreme. Is there a debate and public forum in the Republic about it rejoining the UK? Of course not. It has no interest in doing so, and would laugh the idea of discussing it.

The unionist position is rooted in far more than economics - the Republic did not leave the UK because it was going to be an economic unit better off than being part of the UK. In fact, it went in to a spectacular decline of failure for 70 years.
Economic arguments are at best debatable anyway, uncertain, possibly of marginal difference one way or the other. It is a reasonable conclusion that there is no huge difference in being part of a modern European country of 60 million, and one of 5 million. If anything, one would tend to the greater benefits of being part of the bigger country. So no number of ecomomic analyses or balance sheets of pros and cons will determine this.
Unionists want to be part of the UK. Full stop. Understanding this would help nationalists avoid expecting the impossible.

Seriously, are you trying to claim that Ireland was better off economically before independence than it was after? Dublin had the worst slums in Europe prior to independence, millions died or had to emigrate because of the famine (70 years prior to indepence), 1000s died in World War I and not a tree left in the country because they were all consumed in the British war machine.

FrancieBrady

RobMc59 wrote: »

There are views here which are poles apart .That doesn't mean people have to resort to terrorism Anyone who views terrorism as a valid means to an end is condoning anarchy whether Unionist or republican.
I haven't seen anyone of a Unionist persuasion hinting that they consider terrorism a valid way to reach their goal.

The British have terrorised for decades to get what they want...don't come here lecturing us Rob. Reconcile how the British destroyed this country and almost every colony they had.

RobMc59

maccored wrote: »

why should unionists get to hold the north up though? the north voted against brexit - yet the unionists (who voted for it) are now complaining when they got what they wanted. they arent the majority any longer.

One group shouldn't have the say over what happens imo.
I was under the impression this was the Unionist veto.
Any decision regarding a UI should be decided democratically imo.

Fionn1952

RobMc59 wrote: »

Very good Fionn,nothing to do with me..So I won't be expected to help pay for a UI then as only those it has something to do with (Ireland)will pay..

I didnt ask you to pay for it, Rob. I expect the UK to continue to pay its obligations (for example pensions for which it has already collected National Insurance payouts), but overall I'm sure you'll be delighted to get that economic deadweight off your shoulders after your government and the devolved NI government spent a hundred years turning it into an economic black hole.

droidman123

RobMc59 wrote: »

There are views here which are poles apart .That doesn't mean people have to resort to terrorism Anyone who views terrorism as a valid means to an end is condoning anarchy whether Unionist or republican.
I haven't seen anyone of a Unionist persuasion hinting that they consider terrorism a valid way to reach their goal.

Your army has been terrorising the world for years to get what they wanted

maccored

RobMc59 wrote: »

One group shouldn't have the say over what happens imo.
I was under the impression this was the Unionist veto.
Any decision regarding a UI should be decided democratically imo.

aye but youre telling us we should do what the unionists want in the north. there are other people besides unionists living there.

FrancieBrady

RobMc59 wrote: »

One group shouldn't have the say over what happens imo.

YOUR government facilitated one group having the say for decades.

jh79

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Hmmm... Are Sinn Féin not Irish?

Anyway, that's besides the point,the DUP did something, and you couldn't help but bring SF into it. Could you not just criticise the DUP?

Why not bring in the SDLP, TUV and Alliance while you're at it?

The video was British SF. The version that got 4 million. As Mary Lou said they operate as two separate parties.

jm08

jh79 wrote: »

The video was British SF. The version that got 4 million. As Mary Lou said they operate as two separate parties.

You see now if there was a UI, SF wouldn't have been able to accept that 4 million and it would have had to go straight into Gerry Adams pocket for his personal use!

jh79

jm08 wrote: »

You see now if there was a UI, SF wouldn't have been able to accept that 4 million and it would have had to go straight into Gerry Adams pocket for his personal use!

The P Flynn of SF!

BonnieSituation

jh79 wrote: »

The video was British SF. The version that got 4 million. As Mary Lou said they operate as two separate parties.

Mother of god.

So again, why were Sinn Féin relevant to how a DUP bigot acted? Could you not just have condemned them directly without invoking another party?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

RobMc59

Fionn1952 wrote: »

I didnt ask you to pay for it, Rob. I expect the UK to continue to pay its obligations (for example pensions for which it has already collected National Insurance payouts), but overall I'm sure you'll be delighted to get that economic deadweight off your shoulders after your government and the devolved NI government spent a hundred years turning it into an economic black hole.

I'm glad NI is part of the UK.
I agree that in the event of a vote in favour of a UI the UK has outstanding obligations but beyond that believe Ireland should pay for a UI.
I doubt there would be much appetite to pitch in financially by the EU,UK or US.

RobMc59

droidman123 wrote: »

Your army has been terrorising the world for years to get what they wanted[/QUOTE]

Stop the whataboutary droid, this is about NI.
Ireland withdrew it's claim on NI and the ira supposedly disbanded and decommissioned its weapons.NI is still part of the UK, its police and military are the legitimate state representatives there.That is all part of an internationally recognised agreement(as pointed out here frequently).

Yeah_Right

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Most recently displayed last night in Lisburn council chamber. Still the bigotry and supremacism persists.

https://twitter.com/CMcGin2006/status/1364348123154419717

Am I the only one that couldn't understand what either of them were saying

RobMc59

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The British have terrorised for decades to get what they want...don't come here lecturing us Rob. Reconcile how the British destroyed this country and almost every colony they had.

The world doesn't view Britain as terrorists francie .NI is still British and the ira have disbanded.
I have absolutely no problem with your desire for a UI but your definition of a freedom fighter is viewed as a terrorist by the majority of people around the world,certainly by the Irish,British and US governments.

FrancieBrady

RobMc59 wrote: »

The world doesn't view Britain as terrorists francie .NI is still British and the ira have disbanded.
I have absolutely no problem with your desire for a UI but your definition of a freedom fighter is viewed as a terrorist by the majority of people around the world,certainly by the Irish,British and US governments.

All depends who you talk to Rob.

Are you saying those aircraft carriers you are building will be sending out the hugs around the world?

The British used terror for longer and with more force than any Irish person ever did.

Kermit.de.frog

RobMc59 wrote: »

droidman123 wrote: »

Your army has been terrorising the world for years to get what they wanted[/QUOT

Stop the whataboutary droid, this is about NI.
Ireland withdrew it's claim on NI and the ira supposedly disbanded and decommissioned its weapons.NI is still part of the UK, its police and military are the legitimate state representatives there.That is all part of an internationally recognised agreement(as pointed out here frequently).

The border down the Irish Sea and defacto ever closer alignment with ROI is now also in an international agreement.

We can work with this going forward.

Most important thing is that integration is done in as much as possible before Scotland leaves the UK to make things easier.