United Ireland Poll - please vote

FileNotFound

Fionn1952 wrote: »

....ehhh did you read the post he was actually quoting?

I'll remind you



So referring to the entire population of the North as, 'a joke' isn't demeaning or negative.....referring to someone who wants to continue partition as a partitionist is?!

Methinks your bias might be showing there pal...

Oh that is very demeaning, my comment was more related to the tone being taken against anyone with a different viewpoint.

Should have expanded and made clear I do not support generalising people anywhere including the North.

You are entitled to your thoughts, you'll find I am basing my views on the impact to my country.

BonnieSituation

FileNotFound wrote: »

Over simplifying a wide group of mindsets is a simple minded thing to do is what I am really getting at.

If needs be then you can label me as you feel, I would describe those who want a union down south as Irish Unionists (they feel the union was removed and needs restoring).

I have no guilt, and don't tend to think emotionally, so i look at practical things and there seem to be few practical reasons for this proposed union (reunion).

Should that be shown wrong then I will happily change my mind.

"Irish Unionists" is already accepted term and has an accepted definition. It can be used to describe those of a persuasion otherwise known as "Ulster Unionists" or "Northern Irish Unionists". It is more readily accepted and used to define those of a Unionist persuasion, pre-partition. For example, Edward Carson would be considered an Irish Unionist.

I hope that clears up your confusion on the matter. I know you think your smart-arsery is original, but it's quite boring tbh. Put your effort into something more worthwhile.

BonnieSituation

FileNotFound wrote: »

You do seem to get very wound up alright, I have added the reasoning behind my mindset.

From what i have seen your mindset is based upon happenings before your life and a noble emotional sense of guilt for leaving republicans to fend for themselves in NI.

I'm a practical person - currently lacking the practical reasons to support a UI yes vote.

If you have any I'd love to hear them.

Would you really?

Funny how you keep projecting your clear frustration onto others.

As I said on previous pages, "the lady doth protest". It's clear who is being riled up here and I'll give you a clue, it ain't me.

BonnieSituation

blanch152 wrote: »

If you advocate for the creation of a union, are you a unionist or a creationist? Or both?

Oh oh, look, blanch is trying to jump in on the grammar lesson.

BonnieSituation

FileNotFound wrote: »

Wow facts are the refuge of a smart arse is definitely a new low for you...

I am not sure you understand the term discussion? A good few times a have provided my reasoning that is open to debate and discussion, but those who disagree have failed to provide any counter to it.

While i counter your imagination with facts and get the response above.

This is really becoming a strange chat.

"I am not sure you understand the term discussion?"

I dunno if I do. Perhaps you'd like to redefine it as part of your crusade against grammatically inaccuracy?

BonnieSituation

FileNotFound wrote: »

Oh that is very demeaning, my comment was more related to the tone being taken against anyone with a different viewpoint.

Should have expanded and made clear I do not support generalising people anywhere including the North.

You are entitled to your thoughts, you'll find I am basing my views on the impact to my country.

You seem to be on edge here FileNotFound. Take a deep breath.

FileNotFound

BonnieSituation wrote: »

You seem to be on edge here FileNotFound. Take a deep breath.

On the edge of?

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

A Unionist in an Irish context is generally accepted to be an advocate of the UK union.

A unionist can refer to anyone favouring a union...fine by me as a descriptive term.

As is creationist for someone who creates things. Perfectly fine to me as a descriptive term.

A Creationist is generally somebody with specific religious beliefs which would not describe me.

As someone who favours creating a union, surely you can't object to the label of Creationist Unionist. After all, you maintain a fiction that someone who favours partition cannot object to being called a partitionist?

BonnieSituation

blanch152 wrote: »

As someone who favours creating a union, surely you can't object to the label of Creationist Unionist. After all, you maintain a fiction that someone who favours partition cannot object to being called a partitionist?

Someone's had their Weetabix today.

Hamsterchops

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Is this your own ill-informed opinion or are you playing devil's advocate here?

That was my informed opinion, and a bloody good one it is too!

BonnieSituation

Hamsterchops wrote: »

That was my informed opinion, and a bloody good one it is too!

If you do say so yourself.

How did you inform yourself?

Hamsterchops wrote: »

No sign of a sniff at the.moment, indeed the whole notion of the island of Ireland United 'as one political entity' just doesn't ring true, they've always been different up North, and no amount of misty eyed republican bar stool chatter is ever going to shift them from their current position. That's the impression I get anyway.

Where did you get your "impression" from?

Who are we trying to shift?

And even if a vote to dislodge them passed by 51% you still wouldn't have any king of republican United Ireland utopia, because they (Loyalists & Unionists) would not be happy to be shoehorned into this State.

So not only is 50%+1 not enough for anti-democratic Partitionists, we now need to have a Utopia? You need to be careful with those goalposts. You might damage them with all the moving you're doing.

Also, FYI, loyalists are never happy. Should they find themselves "shoehorned" into this new State, it will be as a result of a democratic decision by all the people of this island. Surely you'd not be on their side in that case?

Hamsterchops

BonnieSituation wrote: »

If you do say so yourself.

How did you inform yourself?

Where did you get your "impression" from

Keeping one's ear to the box, from a variety of stations on wireless & TV, BBC Ulster, Radio 4, RTE Radio 1, Newstalk, RT News, Primetime, Newsnight, all sorts of audio & visual clues that tell me there isn't even a sniff of a United Ireland in the pipeline.

BonnieSituation

Hamsterchops wrote: »

Keeping one's ear to the box, from a variety of stations on the wireless, BBC Ulster, Radio 4, RTE Radio 1, Newstalk, RT News, Primetime, Newsnight, all sorts of audio & visual clues that tell me there isn't even a whiff of a United Ireland in the pipeline . . .

Oh right. Not a whiff you say. Cool.

You seem very sure of yourself. On a very active thread. Discussing a UI.

Wait, is this you playing devil's advocate again?

Hamsterchops

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Oh right. Not a whiff you say. Cool.

You seem very sure of yourself. On a very active thread. Discussing a UI.

Wait, is this you playing devil's advocate again?

Just doing the rounds, off to another 'less heavy' thread now, will call in again when I'm bored.

Certainly more than a whiff (or a sniff) of Scotland going walkies, but I don't get that same vibe from NI.

Maybe you live there, maybe you're an expert, you certainly sound like one who likes to dominate other peoples informed ideas, so I presume you breath Northern air, hence your authority on the subject.

See ya soon . . .

jimmycrackcorm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If you advocate for the continuation of partition, for whatever reason, you are a partitionist
Just as if you advocate for the continuation of a union, then you are a unionist.

That you or others have a guilt complex about a simple descriptive term is your own issue.

By that definition then everyone who voted to change the constitution to remove the territorial claim over NI and only allow unification following a referendum of acceptance is a partitionist. Because we voted to accept partition as it is until democratically decided otherwise.

The 6% who voted no in the 1998 referendum are the only anti-partitionists.

BonnieSituation

Hamsterchops wrote: »

Just doing the rounds, off to another 'less heavy' thread now, will call in again when I'm bored.

Certainly more than a whiff (or a sniff) of Scotland going walkies, but I don't get that same vibe from NI.

Maybe you live there, maybe you're an expert, you certainly sound like one who likes to dominate other peoples informed ideas, so I presume you breath Northern air, hence your authority on the subject.

See ya soon . . .

Your ideas are no more informed than the sky is polkadot.

Pop over to the Ballymurphy thread and give us more insight into your knowledge-base.

Have a good day now.

FileNotFound

BonnieSituation wrote: »

"I am not sure you understand the term discussion?"

I dunno if I do. Perhaps you'd like to redefine it as part of your crusade against grammatically inaccuracy?

Sure no problem at all always happy to help you out.

"the act of discussing; talk or writing in which the pros and cons or various aspects of a subject are considered".

Now to date i have given the cons:
- Increased taxation to support the cost of not only deficit but also the cost of all business related changes.
- The Immediate political swing that will occur with the introduction of NI assembly parties. (May be a Pro if you are an avid SF voter).
- The potential to have an orange parade on the streets of Dublin should we need to enshrine such rights as part of any deal to ensure everyone is on side. (Conjecture for sure).
- Lower wages in NI will mean a wealth discrepancy that will create other issues. Once again more funding will be needed to fix this and at the taxpayer expense.

And the Pros:
- We fulfill the romantic notion of being one nation and one people again.


As I have said before I am quite practical in my approach to this choice.

Feel free to provide your view on the points above if you have one.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

As someone who favours creating a union, surely you can't object to the label of Creationist Unionist. After all, you maintain a fiction that someone who favours partition cannot object to being called a partitionist?

You are capitalising the words...which makes them wrong.

otherwise using them as descriptors in the way 'partitionist' is to be an advocate of partition is perfectly acceptable.

My religious views are not 'Creationist' nor am I a member of any 'Unionist' grouping though.

Here endeth yet another lesson in simple grammar.

FrancieBrady

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

By that definition then everyone who voted to change the constitution to remove the territorial claim over NI and only allow unification following a referendum of acceptance is a partitionist. Because we voted to accept partition as it is until democratically decided otherwise.

The 6% who voted no in the 1998 referendum are the only anti-partitionists.

I don't advocate the continued partition of the island nor did I ever vote for it.

My constitutional 'aspiration' which I fully endorse and intend to take advantage off at the first democratic opportunity makes me different to partitionists who actively seek to continue partition.

StupidLikeAFox

BonnieSituation wrote: »

You seem very sure of yourself. On a very active thread. Discussing a UI.

I cant remember you discussing any of the pros or cons of a united ireland

FileNotFound

StupidLikeAFox wrote: »

I cant remember you discussing any of the pros or cons of a united ireland

Its seems to be Bonnie's thing to not engage in any actual discussion.

dam099

FileNotFound wrote: »

- The potential to have an orange parade on the streets of Dublin should we need to enshrine such rights as part of any deal to ensure everyone is on side. (Conjecture for sure)

Not sure that's a big issue really. Looking at it from a distance it always seemed to me a big part of the Nationalist community's problem with Orange Parades is the triumphalism associated with it.

In a United Ireland such a parade should become less contentious as the winning of the Battle of the Boyne is now moot, who cares who won a battle 300+ years ago if the result has now been reversed. The parades then become a cultural relic for the Unionist community, let them have it.

FileNotFound

dam099 wrote: »

Not sure that's a big issue really. Looking at it from a distance it always seemed to me a big part of the Nationalist community's problem with Orange Parades is the triumphalism associated with it.

In a United Ireland such a parade should become less contentious as the winning of the Battle of the Boyne is now moot, who cares who won a battle 300+ years ago if the result has now been reversed. The parades then become a cultural relic for the Unionist community, let them have it.

You make a valid point there. I guess on that point I let my feelings about the "as is" version cloud me.

The change of symbolism would really change it. And we would probably have some kind of yearly thing to mark unification.

Never considered it that way. Cheers.

Shebean

FileNotFound wrote: »

Sure no problem at all always happy to help you out.

"the act of discussing; talk or writing in which the pros and cons or various aspects of a subject are considered".

Now to date i have given the cons:
- Increased taxation to support the cost of not only deficit but also the cost of all business related changes.
- The Immediate political swing that will occur with the introduction of NI assembly parties. (May be a Pro if you are an avid SF voter).
- The potential to have an orange parade on the streets of Dublin should we need to enshrine such rights as part of any deal to ensure everyone is on side. (Conjecture for sure).
- Lower wages in NI will mean a wealth discrepancy that will create other issues. Once again more funding will be needed to fix this and at the taxpayer expense.

And the Pros:
- We fulfill the romantic notion of being one nation and one people again.


As I have said before I am quite practical in my approach to this choice.

Feel free to provide your view on the points above if you have one.

I thought the point of the marches was as much to do with the route as the belligerence?
Any political swings changes would be democratic and accepted.

The pros in my opinion would be a new lease of life for the island, international good will and investment from abroad. The situation as it stands is like the island has a foot mired in a historical bog. N.I. isn't going to see any positive changes outside of a U.I.

BonnieSituation

StupidLikeAFox wrote: »

I cant remember you discussing any of the pros or cons of a united ireland

That's your cross to bear I guess.

FileNotFound

BonnieSituation wrote: »

That's your cross to bear I guess.

Or maybe just another of those inconvenient facts "people hide behind" haha.

BonnieSituation

FileNotFound wrote: »

Its seems to be Bonnie's thing to not engage in any actual discussion.

Seems it's your thing to be disingenuous while pretending to want a serious discussion.

We can all play this game.

Junkyard Tom

Unionism is stifling the north's potential to benefit from its unique position.

https://twitter.com/MorpheusNI/status/1395297150901293062?s=20

A NEW 12,000-word document setting out Economy Minister Diane Dodds’ vision for the next decade has been criticized for omitting any reference to the Irish protocol or the all-island economy

___________________________________________________________________

SDLP MLA Sinead McLaughlin recently asked DUP economy minister Diane Dodds whether Stormont’s tourism recovery steering group intended to bring forward a plan and programme to connect the Causeway coast and Wild Atlantic Way in terms of joint promotion, other joint marketing and route signage.

In her reply, Dodds queried the economic rationale of doing so while raising concerns about whether the North’s brand might be diluted under such a joint initiative.

_____________________________________________________________________

At this point we should start considering the costs of not having a United Ireland.

jh79

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Unionism is stifling the north's potential to benefit from its unique position.

https://twitter.com/MorpheusNI/status/1395297150901293062?s=20

A NEW 12,000-word document setting out Economy Minister Diane Dodds’ vision for the next decade has been criticized for omitting any reference to the Irish protocol or the all-island economy

___________________________________________________________________

SDLP MLA Sinead McLaughlin recently asked DUP economy minister Diane Dodds whether Stormont’s tourism recovery steering group intended to bring forward a plan and programme to connect the Causeway coast and Wild Atlantic Way in terms of joint promotion, other joint marketing and route signage.

In her reply, Dodds queried the economic rationale of doing so while raising concerns about whether the North’s brand might be diluted under such a joint initiative.

_____________________________________________________________________

At this point we should start considering the costs of not having a United Ireland.

But the interest in NI is due to its access to both the EU and UK markets. Unification would remove that advantage.

Hamsterchops

FileNotFound wrote: »

Its seems to be Bonnie's thing to not engage in any actual discussion.

I guess he's the Governor round these parts, he's the boss & he asks the questions, step out of line & you'll get a sharp put down.