United Ireland Poll - please vote

Junkyard Tom

jh79 wrote: »

I was born in Ireland and live in a Republic ...

You live in a Republic founded on a vision that you don't want to see through because you're terrified of a raise in your taxes or unionists wrecking their own areas.

Unification of our country is a primarily a moral issue for Irish Republicans, please don't dilute the meaning of the term.

jh79

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

You live in a Republic founded on a vision that you don't want to see through because you're terrified of a raise in your taxes or unionists wrecking their own areas.

Unification of our country is a primarily a moral issue for Irish Republicans, please don't dilute the meaning of the term.

Do you really think I care what the average barstool Republican thinks or what labels they would apply to me?

Fecked if I'm paying more taxes to maintain a similar quality of life for 2 million people in NI so half can get pissed and celebrate being a "nation once again".

If the plan is bad I'll vote no but unlike certain types of Republicans I'll accept the wishes of the majority without complaint.

Bobeagleburger

I'm a bigger republican than you. Really? :pac:

C'mon lads, unite the clans, or we definately cant unite the country!

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

Well if it is out of habit that is different.

It's sad that a party like SF, support the GFA which recognizes NI as part of the UK, work for the British state themselves , have TD's in the Dail yet still use the term "Free State".

Do they think it cancels out all the compromises they have made?

Try those who use ' SF-ROI' and 'SF- UK' or Eire etc.

It's lingo, deosn't signify much really.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

Do you really think I care what the average barstool Republican thinks or what labels they would apply to me?

Fecked if I'm paying more taxes to maintain a similar quality of life for 2 million people in NI so half can get pissed and celebrate being a "nation once again".

If the plan is bad I'll vote no but unlike certain types of Republicans I'll accept the wishes of the majority without complaint.

Didn't take much to scratch there jh79.

The vast majority of republicans have accepted the agreement they signed up to.
The major debate here now is with those who want to renege on that agreement or construct veto's for those they will have to ally with to reject a UI - i.e. belligerent Unionists.

Junkyard Tom

6 wrote: »

I'm a bigger republican than you. Really?

I consider myself a Nationalist. There are generations of Republicans who lived and died for our country and to see out a vision for it that is centuries in the making. For some barely-disguised fiscal conservative partitionist to disabuse the term Republican is an affront to their struggle.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Didn't take much to scratch there jh79.

The vast majority of republicans have accepted the agreement they signed up to.
The major debate here now is with those who want to renege on that agreement or construct veto's for those they will have to ally with to reject a UI - i.e. belligerent Unionists.

Who wants to renege on the GFA?

GFA is about self determination and I am free to vote in any way I see fit for any reason.

As a democrat surely you see that?

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

Who wants to renege on the GFA?

GFA is about self determination and I am free to vote in any way I see fit for any reason.

As a democrat surely you see that?

Those who want to create a super-majority and other veto's for those against a UI are reneging on the GFA.

You can indeed vote how you want.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Those who want to create a super-majority and other veto's for those against a UI are reneging on the GFA.

You can indeed vote how you want.

So if i vote no because opinion pols show only a slim majority in favor in the North, am I reneging on the GFA?

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

So if i vote no because opinion pols show only a slim majority in favor in the North, am I reneging on the GFA?

Why would you be reneging on it?

Fionn1952

jh79 wrote: »

So if i vote no because opinion pols show only a slim majority in favor in the North, am I reneging on the GFA?

Not at all, you have a right to vote however you please. If you vote No because you think everyone from the North is a lunatic, or because you worry it would lead to an increase in the SF vote, or even because you don't want more Protestants about the place, I'd disagree with your choice, but none of those things run contrary to the GFA (though some justifications may run contrary to the aspirations of the Irish Constitution).

If you start campaigning for NI independence (whether it has support in NI or not as has been the latest staging post for some on here) or for adding the requirement that a certain percentage of the Unionist population vote yes for it to pass, I'd call that reneging on the GFA.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Why would you be reneging on it?

Thought you were accusing me of reneging on the GFA.

Financial side has always been the No.1 issue for me. Don't see any point in just paying the subvention where everything stays the same except for the flags on official buildings. Also don't want to have a 32 county economy that turns out worse than the previous 26 county economy. In that case everyone is worse off.

In terms of the majority in NI, I would prefer a nice clear majority as that would make things easier. But not a deal breaker for me. In a democracy you have to accept the wishes of the majority no matter what.

RandomName2

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

I consider myself a Nationalist. There are generations of Republicans who lived and died for our country and to see out a vision for it that is centuries in the making. For some barely-disguised fiscal conservative partitionist to disabuse the term Republican is an affront to their struggle.

So for anyone who was wondering (if there were any) Junkyard is not on the Hume side of the struggle, but the other one.

You know the sort. Not the 'one man one vote' sort, but the 'blood sacrifice' sort.

Which is kind of funny in the context of the term 'Republican' isn't it? We are a far cry from the no-true-scotsman fallacy. Republiicanism means a philosophy that favors civic virtue and the common good, with an emphasis on the social compact. Republicanism in this current context is just a meaningless badge, and has none of the trappings of equality or fraternity that would have been espoused by Tone. I mean Junkyard is explicit about it: he doesn't give a shíte about the views of the public (be they unionists or free-staters), and feels that ideological and symbolic sacrifice are the virtues upon which decisions should be based. It is a sentimental position that spits on rationalism.

Junkyard Tom

RandomName2 wrote: »

So for anyone who was wondering (if there were any) Junkyard is not on the Hume side of the struggle, but the other one.

It's impossible to separate the 'two sides'. Much the same way as it is impossible to separate unionism from a history of violent suppression.

The world doesn't play out like the children's fairy tales that seem to have formed the basis of your understanding of it.

Bobeagleburger

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

It's impossible to separate the 'two sides'. Much the same way as it is impossible to separate unionism from a history of violent suppression.

The world doesn't play out like the children's fairy tales that seem to have formed the basis of your understanding of it.

Solid condescending advice there Tom.

It's a serious subject for a lot of people believe it or not, and a decent thread tbh.

FrancieBrady

RandomName2 wrote: »

So for anyone who was wondering (if there were any) Junkyard is not on the Hume side of the struggle, but the other one.

You know the sort. Not the 'one man one vote' sort, but the 'blood sacrifice' sort.

Which is kind of funny in the context of the term 'Republican' isn't it? We are a far cry from the no-true-scotsman fallacy. Republiicanism means a philosophy that favors civic virtue and the common good, with an emphasis on the social compact. Republicanism in this current context is just a meaningless badge, and has none of the trappings of equality or fraternity that would have been espoused by Tone. I mean Junkyard is explicit about it: he doesn't give a shíte about the views of the public (be they unionists or free-staters), and feels that ideological and symbolic sacrifice are the virtues upon which decisions should be based. It is a sentimental position that spits on rationalism.

Dafuq, is 'the Hume side of the struggle'?

Bobeagleburger

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Dafuq, is 'the Hume side of the struggle'?

The right side is the answer surely!

FrancieBrady

6 wrote: »

The right side is the answer surely!

Would that include those who gained our independence? Were they on 'the wrong side?'.

Junkyard Tom

6 wrote: »

Solid condescending advice there Tom.

It's a serious subject for a lot of people believe it or not, and a decent thread tbh.

The World isn't black and white with goodies and baddies 6. Unionists armed themselves and threatened a campaign of terror to prevent Home Rule. The British threatened 'immediate and terrible war' to force us to accept partition.

The IRA carried out a violent campaign during the War of Independence including the execution of suspected informers whose bodies were never returned. Fianna Fail attended Lienster House with loaded guns in the 1930's.

While the peace process in the north was going on the Provos were 'encouraging' the Brits to keep at it by blowing up business districts in England.

You can't extract John Hume's laudable contribution to the GFA from the wider context of the conflict.

Bobeagleburger

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Would that include those who gained our independence? Were they on 'the wrong side?'.

Anyone who was involved in breaking down barriers to achieve peace were all on the right side imo. They are the people that made this happen.

Jim2007

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

I consider myself a Nationalist. There are generations of Republicans who lived and died for our country and to see out a vision for it that is centuries in the making. For some barely-disguised fiscal conservative partitionist to disabuse the term Republican is an affront to their struggle.

These so called generations of republicans over the past 100 years have long sense debased the term Republican, with their attempt to achieve by force something they have been unable to achieve by consensus, so I would not loose any sleep over them.

Bobeagleburger

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

The World isn't black and white with goodies and baddies 6. Unionists armed themselves and threatened a campaign of terror to prevent Home Rule. The British threatened 'immediate and terrible war' to force us to accept partition.

The IRA carried out a violent campaign during the War of Independence including the execution of suspected informers whose bodies were never returned. Fianna Fail attended early Dail sittings with loaded pistols.

While the peace process in the north was going on the Provos were 'encouraging' the Brits to keep at it by blowing up business districts in England.

You can't extract John Hume's laudable contribution to the GFA from the wider context of the conflict.

Fair enough post, bar this bit

:pac:

That's dilusional

FrancieBrady

6 wrote: »

Anyone who was involved in breaking down barriers to achieve peace were all on the right side imo. They are the people that made this happen.

You didn't answer the question.

BTW, very arrogant take, given the people most affected choose by a large majority a different party to the one John Hume led.

They clearly don't see the SDLP as making anything happen for them.

FrancieBrady

Jim2007 wrote: »

These so called generations of republicans over the past 100 years have long sense debased the term Republican, with their attempt to achieve by force something they have been unable to achieve by consensus, so I would not loose any sleep over them.

How do you achieve 'consensus' in a state designed so that you can never get that consensus. Do explain.

Junkyard Tom

6 wrote: »

Fair enough post, bar this bit

:pac:

That's dilusional

The talks had stalled on decommissioning until February 9th 1996 when the Docklands bomb went off. On 28 February, John Major, John Bruton the Taoiseach announced that all-party talks would be resumed in June.

Major's decision of dropping the demand of a previous IRA decommissioning of weapons led to criticism from the press, which accused him of being "bombed to the table".

Bobeagleburger

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You didn't answer the question.

BTW, very arrogant take, given the people most affected choose by a large majority a different party to the one John Hume led.

They clearly don't see the SDLP as making anything happen for them.

You didn't read my post then.

Anyone who was involved in breaking down barriers to achieve peace were all on the right side imo. They are the people that made this happen

SF
SDLP
Unionists
Irish politicians
British reps


Talking is what stopped the war. No other way would have worked.

FrancieBrady

6 wrote: »

You didn't read my post then.



SF
SDLP
Unionists
Irish politicians
British reps


Talking is what stopped the war. No other way would have worked.

Fair enough...so there is no 'Hume side', which is what I raised my eyebrows at.

Junkyard Tom

Jim2007 wrote: »

These so called generations of republicans over the past 100 years have long sense debased the term Republican, with their attempt to achieve by force something they have been unable to achieve by consensus.

Consensus was destroyed by the creation of a rotten sectarian statelet for Unionists.

What would you have done if you'd have grown up in Derry or Belfast and watched your neighbours being murdered by the British Army? Got out the guitar and sang come-by-ya?

I would never be so arrogant as to judge people for fighting back against a rotten murderous regime that wanted to keep its boot on the neck of our fellow Irishmen at all costs.

Bobeagleburger

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Fair enough...so there is no 'Hume side', which is what I raised my eyebrows at.

Wasn't my post, so I'll let the poster reply themselves.

BonnieSituation

jh79 wrote: »

I agree and believe irrespective of support in NI, the SoS won't call one until they get the nod from Dublin and that will depend on our ability to pay for it.

With us 46bn down due to COVID, we are way off that point even if Brexit increases support for a UI in NI.

Literally doesn't matter.

Covid has up ended this nonsense.

When everyone is in the shíte it's not that big of a problem. Our economy was fundamentally sound before covid. It's nothing like 2008.

But glad to see that we're back to the "we can't afford it right now" talking point.