United Ireland Poll - please vote

blanch152

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.

I would agree with you. Nationalist is a far better descriptor for those who follow the SF mantra than Republican. True republicans would not show the disdain for fellow humans displayed by SF attitudes to unionists and "partitionists" that are regularly featured here.

blanch152

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.

It is more than possible to separate the "two sides".

Some people - Hume, Fitt, Mallon etc. - were never in favour of an armed struggle and believed it to be wrong at all times.

Other people - Adams, McGuinness etc. - not only supported the armed struggle but still believe it was fully justified.

Those are significant distinguishers.

eire4

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

In a few years we could have a SF led government in the south, SF first Minster in the north, the Brits looking to save money on the Brexit disaster and an effective all-Ireland economy within the EU.

We need to plan for a poll and pro-UI vote with a bit more vigour.

At this point we probably need a committee in the Dail set up to begin said planning.

Marco23d

blanch152 wrote: »

It is more than possible to separate the "two sides".

Some people - Hume, Fitt, Mallon etc. - were never in favour of an armed struggle and believed it to be wrong at all times.

Other people - Adams, McGuinness etc. - not only supported the armed struggle but still believe it was fully justified.

Those are significant distinguishers.

You're right Hume preferred to play it safe even after bringing people out on a march under his orders when hundreds of people were savagely beaten and 26 people were shot he still loved to go on about peace.

Being a peacemaker is the greatest excuse for being a coward, I seen a video of him on YouTube in Westminster giving a speech about discrimination against Catholics and they were all laughing at him and cracking jokes at him the man was pathetic in all honesty.

wicklowstevo

Marco23d wrote: »

You're right Hume preferred to play it safe even after bringing people out on a march under his orders when hundreds of people were savagely beaten and 26 people were shot he still loved to go on about peace.

Being a peacemaker is the greatest excuse for being a coward, I seen a video of him on YouTube in Westminster giving a speech about discrimination against Catholics and they were all laughing at him and cracking jokes at him the man was pathetic in all honesty.

welcome back , got banned again eh :pac::pac:?

FrancieBrady

Marco23d wrote: »

You're right Hume preferred to play it safe even after bringing people out on a march under his orders when hundreds of people were savagely beaten and 26 people were shot he still loved to go on about peace.

Being a peacemaker is the greatest excuse for being a coward, I seen a video of him on YouTube in Westminster giving a speech about discrimination against Catholics and they were all laughing at him and cracking jokes at him the man was pathetic in all honesty.

Politically he had failed, until he teamed up with Adams, against the wishes of his party, who later attempted to bask in the glow of what the Hume/Adams achieved.

Those politically opposed to SF will always try to negate their input into the agreement and blame them for the violence specifically. Political oneupmanship shennanigans is all it is.

Marco23d

wicklowstevo wrote: »

welcome back , got banned again eh :pac::pac:?

Excuse me?

Junkyard Tom

blanch152 wrote: »

Nationalist is a far better descriptor for those who follow the SF mantra than Republican.

I really could not care less about SF; maybe your world-champion of Boards.ie hatred for SF has you confused.

True republicans would not show the disdain for fellow humans displayed by SF attitudes to unionists and "partitionists" that are regularly featured here.

I have much more respect for Unionists than partitionists.

jh79

BonnieSituation wrote: »

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.

I agree the recovery from COVID will be different as the whole world is in the same situation.

But to expect the markets not to react to the massive cost of unification is ridiculous. You think they are just going to ignore it's impact just because it is an aspiration of ours? The economic benefits of unification are not enough to accommodate the increase in the population.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

I agree the recovery from COVID will be different as the whole world is in the same situation.

But to expect the markets not to react to the massive cost of unification is ridiculous. You think they are just going to ignore it's impact just because it is an aspiration of ours? The economic benefits of unification are not enough to accommodate the increase in the population.

'Markets' can assess a good investment better than most. If the plan and proposal from the Irish government is good enough then why would there be a problem?

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

'Markets' can assess a good investment better than most. If the plan and proposal from the Irish government is good enough then why would there be a problem?

Not while we recover from COVID anyways. Markets won't care that we want it now rather than later.

Outside of COVID the markets just care if we can service our debts.

Problem with an UI is we only gain 10% in GDP for a 40% population increase. That's a massive drop in quality of life overnight. The gains put forward by SF (based on flawed logic too) come nowhere close to making up the loss. Billions needs to be spent on education and the like to attract FDI in NI and that investment would take years to give a return.

GDP of NI needs to increase by a factor of 4 just to match the Republic.

Of course if someone else pays for it then there is nothing to worry about.

Would the EU and US be able to make an firm commitment prior to a vote or would that be seen as intefering ?

downcow

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

I really could not care less about SF; maybe your world-champion of Boards.ie hatred for SF has you confused.



I have much more respect for Unionists than partitionists.

Haha. Given your respect for me I can’t imagine what heat partitionists will take

Junkyard Tom

downcow wrote: »

Haha. Given your respect for me I can’t imagine what heat partitionists will take

Have I ever disrespected you personally?

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

Not while we recover from COVID anyways. Markets won't care that we want it now rather than later.

Outside of COVID the markets just care if we can service our debts.

Problem with an UI is we only gain 10% in GDP for a 40% population increase. That's a massive drop in quality of life overnight. The gains put forward by SF (based on flawed logic too) come nowhere close to making up the loss. Billions needs to be spent on education and the like to attract FDI in NI and that investment would take years to give a return.

GDP of NI needs to increase by a factor of 4 just to match the Republic.

Of course if someone else pays for it then there is nothing to worry about.

Would the EU and US be able to make an firm commitment prior to a vote or would that be seen as intefering ?

In my opinion the proposal/plan will contain extensive transition arrangements to mitigate shocks to economies and society.

I also thin there will be flagged support from those with an interest in it being successful. Will the UK being outside the EU free them up to 'take a side' so to speak (we being the EU)

blanch152

jh79 wrote: »

Not while we recover from COVID anyways. Markets won't care that we want it now rather than later.

Outside of COVID the markets just care if we can service our debts.

Problem with an UI is we only gain 10% in GDP for a 40% population increase. That's a massive drop in quality of life overnight. The gains put forward by SF (based on flawed logic too) come nowhere close to making up the loss. Billions needs to be spent on education and the like to attract FDI in NI and that investment would take years to give a return.

GDP of NI needs to increase by a factor of 4 just to match the Republic.

Of course if someone else pays for it then there is nothing to worry about.

Would the EU and US be able to make an firm commitment prior to a vote or would that be seen as intefering ?

Why would the EU or US make a firm commitment to anything?

RandomName2

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.

So the IRA and SDLP are basically the same in your eyes, and UVF and UUP?

Unionists engaging in a power sharing assembly is inseparable from Gerrymandering?

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

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

I think that a failure to identify behavior that is abhorrent, regardless of the justification, means an inevitability to become as bad as what one is fighting against.

BonnieSituation

jh79 wrote: »

I agree the recovery from COVID will be different as the whole world is in the same situation.

But to expect the markets not to react to the massive cost of unification is ridiculous. You think they are just going to ignore it's impact just because it is an aspiration of ours? The economic benefits of unification are not enough to accommodate the increase in the population.

Ooooh, the markets...

Jesus wept

BonnieSituation

blanch152 wrote: »

Why would the EU or US make a firm commitment to anything?

We are the EU

FrancieBrady

BonnieSituation wrote: »

We are the EU

And the UK isn't, so the EU getting involved shouldn't constitute a problem, it is in all our interests in the EU that the Single Market has integrity and is secured again.

Junkyard Tom

RandomName2 wrote: »

I think that a failure to identify behavior that is abhorrent, regardless of the justification, means an inevitability to become as bad as what one is fighting against.

Indeed and that is why you'll never read a post from me glorifying violence, conflict, or war. The conflict in the north was brought to people via state violence including murder, expecting people to sit on their hands and wait for John Hume to talk everyone around is moronic and would have led to more of this.

blanch152

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Indeed and that is why you'll never read a post from me glorifying violence, conflict, or war. The conflict in the north was brought to people via state violence including murder, expecting people to sit on their hands and wait for John Hume to talk everyone around is moronic and would have led to more of this.

You may not glorify it but you defend it, justify it, commemorate it and celebrate it.

Junkyard Tom

blanch152 wrote: »

You may not glorify it but you defend it, justify it, commemorate it and celebrate it.

I defend people's right to resist and fight back, yes. Commemorate it? What are you on about? I've never been to a commemoration in my life. Celebration would be the same as glorification.

How's the War on Terror you were such a supporter of going? Millions of casualties and up 37 million people displaced. Delighted are you?

FrancieBrady

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

I defend people's right to resist and fight back, yes. Commemorate it? What are you on about? I've never been to a commemoration in my life. Celebration would be the same as glorification.

How's the War on Terror you were such a supporter of going? Millions of casualties and up 37 million people displaced. Delighted are you?

The selectivity again. Michael Collins...good, Gerry Adams....bad.

Marco23d

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

I defend people's right to resist and fight back, yes. Commemorate it? What are you on about? I've never been to a commemoration in my life. Celebration would be the same as glorification.

How's the War on Terror you were such a supporter of going? Millions of casualties and up 37 million people displaced. Delighted are you?

I wouldn't blame him for that, most people just go along with whatever is in the media at the time no one really tries to question anything that's why I try to not have opinions on things I don't know much about because I know from experience once you learn about these things your opinion always ends up changing.

He just doesn't know any better.

Five Eighth

blanch152 wrote: »

You may not glorify it but you defend it, justify it, commemorate it and celebrate it.

Did you grow up a Catholic (even if you were not really religious or practising) in NI Blanch? If yes, then your views on the Troubles carry, for me, much more weight then if you didn't experience what the Irish/Nationalist/Catholic people did in their lives. It's very easy to pontificate from a distance.

RandomName2

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

I defend people's right to resist and fight back, yes. Commemorate it? What are you on about?

Well okay you may not be glorifying it, but you're still saying 'a necessary evil'. That's reasonable, though I disagree with it, and believe that there's ample evidence to show that atrocities only produce further atrocities. 'Just defending themselves by planting a bomb in a pub' just doesn't stick with me.

But I try and stay away from moral absolutism. I've defended the bombing of Hiroshima, not because tens of thousands of people dying in nuclear fire is something that I think is great, but I think it was better than what had been happening (people for some reason conveniently forget events like the firebombing of Tokyo, or the civilian death toll that would result from America's planned invasion).

So you say a few thousand dead is the price to pay for equality, though let's be honest, it's not just about equality, it's about the dissolution of Northern Ireland. Do you think that that ultimate goal merits more blood, if necessary?

I support death, if, like the Trolley problem a choice leads to ultimately a lower loss of life. I don't see anybody's life being on the line here. Now I'm not one for being blackmailed by pieces of shít in the IRA or UVF either, but I'm also not seeing any practical motivation.

You make an appeal to emotion as if that has any validity in the current situation.

jimmycrackcorm

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.

Generations used to dance at the crossroads and the catholic church held sway over the land for all that time. Just because that's the way it was doesn't mean modern Ireland has to bring those back.

BonnieSituation

RandomName2 wrote: »

But I try and stay away from moral absolutism. I've defended the bombing of Hiroshima, not because tens of thousands of people dying in nuclear fire is something that I think is great, but I think it was better than what had been happening (people for some reason conveniently forget events like the firebombing of Tokyo, or the civilian death toll that would result from America's planned invasion).

Wow. Just wow.

Who exactly conveniently forgets about the firebombing of Tokyo?

Just wow.

Your moral compass is a bit off I have to say. The justification for Hiroshima and Nagasaki is non-existent. End of.

---

Anyway, back to you othering nationalists...

FrancieBrady

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Generations used to dance at the crossroads and the catholic church held sway over the land for all that time. Just because that's the way it was doesn't mean modern Ireland has to bring those back.

Who is saying anything remotely like that?

Marco23d

RandomName2 wrote: »

Well okay you may not be glorifying it, but you're still saying 'a necessary evil'. That's reasonable, though I disagree with it, and believe that there's ample evidence to show that atrocities only produce further atrocities. 'Just defending themselves by planting a bomb in a pub' just doesn't stick with me.

But I try and stay away from moral absolutism. I've defended the bombing of Hiroshima, not because tens of thousands of people dying in nuclear fire is something that I think is great, but I think it was better than what had been happening (people for some reason conveniently forget events like the firebombing of Tokyo, or the civilian death toll that would result from America's planned invasion).

So you say a few thousand dead is the price to pay for equality, though let's be honest, it's not just about equality, it's about the dissolution of Northern Ireland. Do you think that that ultimate goal merits more blood, if necessary?

I support death, if, like the Trolley problem a choice leads to ultimately a lower loss of life. I don't see anybody's life being on the line here. Now I'm not one for being blackmailed by pieces of shít in the IRA or UVF either, but I'm also not seeing any practical motivation.

You make an appeal to emotion as if that has any validity in the current situation.

What about for a greater good?

Originally during the first couple years in the troubles the IRA were barely active, most of the deaths in the first couple of years were all innocent Catholics killed by the army and loyalist paramilitaries, nearly ten thousand people were burned out of their homes in pogroms, there were endless allegations of bother verbal and physical abuse by the army and RUC.

Catholics were treated like second class citizens for 50 years there were no opportunities or future for most Catholics, as another poster said what were people supposed to do sit on their hands and wait for Hume to talk everyone around?