United Ireland Poll - please vote

jimmycrackcorm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It suits you to have no truck with Poots you mean, as it does the likes of partitonist FG.

You will exclude anyone who isn't useful to you when you want to vent your spleen. And of course use anyone who is handy for the same purposes. Selective victims for instance.

Sorry your ire about 'exclusionary nationalism', doesn't pass muster.

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Your views are indistinguishable from those of the DUP on the partition/unification of our country.

As for 'exclusionary nationalism', you would like to permanently exclude those of the Irish nation in the six counties from uniting politically with the rest of their nation.

You should choose a new term other than 'exclusionary nationalism' to repeat ad-infinitum, in the desperate hope it will manifest, rather than it being little more than projecting your own dissonant views.

Every time 'Partitionist' is mentioned, I think we need a reminder that everyone in the ROI who voted for the GFA, enshrined partition in our constitution by removing our claim over NI.

Junkyard Tom

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

everyone in the ROI who voted for the GFA, enshrined partition in our constitution

This is wrong. Go read the relevant articles again and read the preamble too.

BonnieSituation

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Every time 'Partitionist' is mentioned, I think we need a reminder that everyone in the ROI who voted for the GFA, enshrined partition in our constitution by removing our claim over NI.

Do we?

I think you need a reminder of what the GFA sought to do and separately, what is meant by "Partitionist".

I mean we already had one of your partitionist cohort trying to redefine "Irish Unionist" ffs.

Again, this is just another well-worn path that Partitionists go down every few weeks. But have at it I guess.

Shebean

downcow wrote: »

You haven’t explained why.
And I take it you therefore oppose Cornish, basque, Catalonia, etc self-determination?

I have. Ulster is an Irish province on the island of Ireland.
A portion being dictated to by the remnants of an empire who took it by force, is not, in my view, the natural state.


Each situation is unique.

Shebean

blanch152 wrote: »

Most people in the UK are proud to be part of a kingdom, they love their own nation/country/kingdom, they celebrate it, yet you denigrate it by saying "The U.K. is a construct built on murder and theft defended by those who feel they might lose power if it's dissembled."

It is a feature of exclusionary nationalism to demonise the other, to make your nation superior to others, this comes through very clearly in yours and other posts on here, where it is Irish good, British bad every single time.

My opinion doesn't take away from theirs. They are welcome to their opinion and I respect it as valid.
Who said superior? I believe England, Ireland, Wales and Scotland are due equal respect and recognition. You are adding your own take.
You might prefer the unionist/british side and that's okay. You can't say one is better but you can have a view that you prefer partition based on finance or what ever. I can disagree. That doesn't mean you are not allowed think differently.
The UK/Britain is not a construct created by fair democratic process like a UI will be.

blanch152

Shebean wrote: »

My opinion doesn't take away from theirs. They are welcome to their opinion and I respect it as valid.
Who said superior? I believe England, Ireland, Wales and Scotland are due equal respect and recognition. You are adding your own take.
You might prefer the unionist/british side and that's okay. You can't say one is better but you can have a view that you prefer partition based on finance or what ever. I can disagree. That doesn't mean you are not allowed think differently.
The UK/Britain is not a construct created by fair democratic process like a UI will be.

I hold the view that partition is irrelevant.

The ideology of exclusionary nationalism as held on here requires the linking of territory to nationhood. I reject that link. It doesn't matter to my version of Irishness whether the island is united or whether Irish people live under different jurisdictions.

Shebean

blanch152 wrote: »

I hold the view that partition is irrelevant.

The ideology of exclusionary nationalism as held on here requires the linking of territory to nationhood. I reject that link. It doesn't matter to my version of Irishness whether the island is united or whether Irish people live under different jurisdictions.

Geography swings it for me. N.I. inhabits part of the Irish province of ulster on the island of Ireland. Partition was created to appease land owners and supported by their counter parts in the south. How can you defend that while disrespecting the views of those who don't?

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

I hold the view that partition is irrelevant.

The ideology of exclusionary nationalism as held on here requires the linking of territory to nationhood. I reject that link. It doesn't matter to my version of Irishness whether the island is united or whether Irish people live under different jurisdictions.

Sure...as long as you have what you have, what does it matter what others want.

'I'm alright Jackism' = 'partitionism' in this case.

Junkyard Tom

blanch152 wrote: »

linking of territory to nationhood ... It doesn't matter to my version of Irishness whether the island is united

You bitterly oppose unification of this country, yet territory doesn't matter to you?

Cognitive Dissonance

Cognitive dissonance is a term for the state of discomfort felt when two or more modes of thought contradict each other.

blanch152

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

You bitterly oppose unification of this country, yet territory doesn't matter to you?

Cognitive Dissonance

Cognitive dissonance is a term for the state of discomfort felt when two or more modes of thought contradict each other.

I don't oppose unification, I see the primary requirement being that the people of the North learn to live peacefully with each other through the integration of schooling, housing and the creation of a normal parliament. Then, when a united Ireland is the consensual option, we can have one.

Junkyard Tom

blanch152 wrote: »

I don't oppose unification, I see the primary requirement being that the people of the North learn to live peacefully with each other through the integration of schooling, housing and the creation of a normal parliament.

These problems were created by partition so the starting point to resolving them will be unification.

Then, when a united Ireland is the consensual option, we can have one.

You're experiencing phase 4 again. We won't be seeking unionist consent for a United Ireland.

Partitionist Stages of Grief:

Phase 1: 'never going to happen'.

Phase 2: 'not ready for this it's decades away yet'.

Phase 3: 'we can't afford it'.

Phase 4: 'Unionists must buy in'.

Phase 5: 'NI will go independent'

FrancieBrady

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

These problems were created by partition so the starting point to resolving them will be unification.



You're experiencing phase 4 again. We won't be seeking unionist consent for a United Ireland.

Partitionist Stages of Grief:

Phase 1: 'never going to happen'.

Phase 2: 'not ready for this it's decades away yet'.

Phase 3: 'we can't afford it'.

Phase 4: 'Unionists must buy in'.

Phase 5: 'NI will go independent'

Everytime I see that it gives me the giggles. Such a perfect summary/description

Junkyard Tom

Good to see that Unionism has been manoeuvred into a position where it needs devolved governance of the north more than us. We have Dublin, Brussels, and Washington guarding gains of GFA (the soft reunification of our country) while Unionists can't even trust Whitehall.

The more Unionism pushes London to resile from the NIP the more harm it is doing to its patron, weakening it further relative to us in the EU. What a bind Unionism has itself in.

Hamsterchops

blanch152 wrote: »

I don't oppose unification, I see the primary requirement being that the people of the North learn to live peacefully with each other through the integration of schooling, housing and the creation of a normal parliament. Then, when a united Ireland is the consensual option, we can have one.

Ditto.

jimmycrackcorm

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Do we?

I think you need a reminder of what the GFA sought to do and separately, what is meant by "Partitionist".

Seemingly partitionist is just a term invented and interpreted by a few just in this thread. That's why you refer to 'sought to do' rather than the actual reality. Prior to our constitutional change, we rejected partition by stating in our constitution: The 'national territory' is defined as "the whole island of Ireland, its islands and the territorial seas". Our constitution did not recognize the partition, there in black and white.

Since the GFA we have no claim on the North and they can stay part of the UK in perpetuity as long as the people there wish so.

We've gone from stating that the island of Ireland is a single nation to say we're ok for NI to be part of the UK as long as it wishes to be. All N.I. gained was the same rights as Scotland to leave the UK via referendum.

So, if you accept that NI can only be unified with ROI by their democratic choice, then you have to accept that they can stay in the UK permanently if that is their choice; ergo you accept partition. The Denialists on here simply refuse to acknowledge this simple fact.

So answer that - do you accept N.I. being part of the UK for as long as the people there choose to do so? If you do, then please explain how that is not accepting the partition of this Island?
What if it is another 100 years before they choose unification - are you happy with that?

FrancieBrady

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Seemingly partitionist is just a term invented and interpreted by a few just in this thread.

What?

Hamsterchops

Actually, now that it's been mentioned, what exactly is a partitionist?

jimmycrackcorm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What?

Let me help you with that: https://www.boards.ie/search/submit/?sort=newest&date_to=&date_from=&query=partitionist&page=1

Can I suggest using Frestatorism, from the horse's mouth, as a much better term to lessen any feelings about being a Denialist for those who voted yes to accept partitionism in the 19th constitutional referendum?

FullyComp

Hamsterchops wrote: »

Actually, now that it's been mentioned, what exactly is a partitionist?

Someone who supports the Good Friday Agreement

jimmycrackcorm

Hamsterchops wrote: »

Actually, now that it's been mentioned, what exactly is a partitionist?

McDonalds is an example of a partitionist.

guy2231

Hamsterchops wrote: »

Actually, now that it's been mentioned, what exactly is a partitionist?

Someone who believes Ireland should remain divided, they go by many names they are generally (not exclusively) snobs, twerps, a** kissers.

StupidLikeAFox

guy2231 wrote: »

Someone who believes Ireland should remain divided, they go by many names they are generally (not exclusively) snobs, twerps, a** kissers.

Are you still a partitionist if you are undecided about unification?

FullyComp

guy2231 wrote: »

Someone who believes Ireland should remain divided, they go by many names they are generally (not exclusively) snobs, twerps, a** kissers.

Oh tough guy there putting all the ass kissers in place.

Ireland has only ever had a single government under planted English rule.

Hamsterchops

guy2231 wrote: »

Someone who believes Ireland should remain divided, they go by many names they are generally (not exclusively) snobs, twerps, a** kissers.

So then it's a derogatory term for supporters of the GFA who believe in consent. Charming, not :cool:

guy2231

StupidLikeAFox wrote: »

Are you still a partitionist if you are undecided about unification?

What is there to decide on? Is it your pockets you're worried about?

guy2231

Hamsterchops wrote: »

So then it's a derogatory term for supporters of the GFA who believe in consent. Charming, not :cool:

What kind of nonsense is that? Can you not support the GFA and still support unification?

Hamsterchops

guy2231 wrote: »

What kind of nonsense is that? Can you not support the GFA and still support unification?

Yes of course, but only when the majority of people living in Northern Ireland want it.

Which I guess makes me a partitionist?

guy2231

Hamsterchops wrote: »

Yes of course, but only when the majority of people living in Northern Ireland want it.

Which I guess makes me a partitionist?

you're not even making any sense, give it up.

Hamsterchops

guy2231 wrote: »

you're not even making any sense, give it up.

I asked what was the definition of a partitionist, and what's wrong with that?
Tell me exactly what a partitionist is, and then tell me if I'm one

FrancieBrady

Hamsterchops wrote: »

Actually, now that it's been mentioned, what exactly is a partitionist?

An Irish partitionist is someone who by act or word advocates against a UI and by so doing prolongs the partition of Ireland.

They can be temporary partitionists or committed lifelong ideological ones. A unionist can be a UK unionist or an Irish unionist.

Nothing scary or derogatory about any of the terms. Not unless you feel guilty about your stance I suppose.