50% happy for Sinn Féin to enter coalition

supersheep

rsynnott wrote:

The government may not want the trouble, though. It would be frighteningly expensive, and we'd be left with Unionist terrorism, as you say, plus lots of trouble from out-of-a-vocation IRA criminals. In any case, it seems highly improbable that NI would vote to join.

Surely, though, if people actually voted for it, the government would have a responsibility to take them in?
Even if they didn't, it would be political suicide not to - the vast majority of people on this island pay lip service to the concept of a united Ireland. I know for definite it's a Fianna Fáil 'policy aim' (albeit one they probably hope never to succeed in), and I wouldn't be surprised if it were the aim of other parties too.
It's not something I really want though, quite honestly, not unless Unionists were prepared to be a part of Irish society.

supersheep

rsynnott wrote:

Hmm? Yes, of course they were wrong; invasion for national gain is never acceptable. But that WAS quite a long time ago...

So time legitimises everything? In which case, how long do you have to occupy territory before it becomes legitimate?

rsynnott

President4Life wrote:

Improbable now yes. But not indefinitely. It could well happen if Nationalists were in the future to comprise the great majority of the population. Maybe it will be 20, 50 or even 100 years but I believe it will happen provided we do not allow non-Irish people to outnumber us and erode the element of Irish national identity that feels an affinity with Northern nationalism.

In 100 years we'll no doubt be merely a state of federal Europe.

And is that a veiled "shoot the immigrants" comment? And yes, immigration will no doubt affect public majority view on this. That may not be a bad thing.

President4Life

rsynnott wrote:

In 100 years we'll no doubt be merely a state of federal Europe.

And is that a veiled "shoot the immigrants" comment? And yes, immigration will no doubt affect public majority view on this. That may not be a bad thing.

As far as I am concerned it is a bad thing. I am criticising not ethnic-groups, but rather the policies that artificially increase the numbers coming here as a matter of policy. Let some in. But let us preserve our traditional national identity.

rsynnott

supersheep wrote:

Surely, though, if people actually voted for it, the government would have a responsibility to take them in?

People in the north voted for it? If, say, Chad voted to join Ireland, would we admit them?

supersheep wrote:

So time legitimises everything? In which case, how long do you have to occupy territory before it becomes legitimate?

You're thinking in black and white

Everyone involved in that invasion is dead, and their children, and their childrens' children... The people who live there now have NOTHING TO DO WITH IT, and have the right to self-determination. If they vote to join the ROI, and we accept them, fine.

rsynnott

President4Life wrote:

As far as I am concerned it is a bad thing. I am criticising not ethnic-groups, but rather the policies that artificially increase the numbers coming here as a matter of policy. Let some in. But let us preserve our traditional national identity.

Ah, this is the identity that has never changed before, yep? National identities must remain STATIC. Now go cut turf.

supersheep

rsynnott wrote:

People in the north voted for it? If, say, Chad voted to join Ireland, would we admit them?

Well, if half the population of Chad saw themselves as Irish, and Chad had a historical tradition of being part of Ireland, and Irish in Chad had been oppressed over the past eight hundred years of occupation, then yes, we should.
Obviously people in the North didn't vote for it... I said if. Just to clear up any confusion.

rsynnott

supersheep wrote:

Well, if half the population of Chad saw themselves as Irish, and Chad had a historical tradition of being part of Ireland, and Irish in Chad had been oppressed over the past eight hundred years of occupation, then yes, we should.
Obviously people in the North didn't vote for it... I said if. Just to clear up any confusion.

How oppressed are they these days?

President4Life

rsynnott wrote:

Ah, this is the identity that has never changed before, yep? National identities must remain STATIC. Now go cut turf.

Retaining a population balance consistent with achieving a UI does not require us to reject technological advance, and it is just nonsense to suggest otherwise.

rsynnott

President4Life wrote:

Retaining a population balance consistent with achieving a UI does not require us to reject technological advance, and it is just nonsense to suggest otherwise.

That wasn't actually a suggestion the we refuse technology; but it is part of our culture and I doubt you do it much. Let me get this straight; you wish to restrict immigration for the purpose of acheiving a United Ireland? Or you don't want our 'unchanging' culture modified? Which one is it?

supersheep

rsynnott wrote:

How oppressed are they these days?

HAD been oppressed... And, of course, by reference to Ahoghill and similar, one could argue that they still are to a degree - unfortunately I don't have time to develop that as my sister wants the PC... Grr.
And I think President4Life is just stuck on his anti-immigrant trip - he plain doesn't like them.

oscarBravo

President4Life wrote:

But let us preserve our traditional national identity.

Your traditional national identity, or mine?

President4Life

rsynnott wrote:

That wasn't actually a suggestion the we refuse technology; but it is part of our culture and I doubt you do it much. Let me get this straight; you wish to restrict immigration for the purpose of acheiving a United Ireland? Or you don't want our 'unchanging' culture modified? Which one is it?

They are not contradictory. A major reason why I don't want to allow in enough foreigners to outweigh a Yes vote by the majority of Irish people, is that I want a United Ireland. I would actually be a lot more relaxed about immigration after a United Ireland happens. I fear that immigration will harm the chances of getting a Yes vote.

supersheep

For that to happen, we'd need to let in far more immigrants than our nation could possibly handle, in the region of millions or at the least hundreds of thousands, and all of them would have to be opposed to a United Ireland. So that's that argument for racism shot down...

President4Life

supersheep wrote:

For that to happen, we'd need to let in far more immigrants than our nation could possibly handle, in the region of millions or at the least hundreds of thousands, and all of them would have to be opposed to a United Ireland. So that's that argument for racism shot down...

Immigration-control is not racist. And anyway, the president of DCU has admitted the Irish may be an ethnic-minority by 2050. 120,000 PPS no.s have been issued to citizens of the new EU states since Enlargement. That doesn't even include non-EU work-permits, student-visas and asylum-seekers. At that rate the Irish would be a minority in this country in the time-frame mentioned by President von Prondzynski of DCU.

Hydroquinone

President4Life wrote:

At that rate the Irish would be a minority in this country in the time-frame mentioned by President von Prondzynski of DCU.

Oh aye, and where does he come from then? One of the Galway von Prondzynskis, is he? Or perhaps the Thurles branch of the family?


People who object to immigration need to realise that it is a fact of life and opposing it is not acceptable in this day and age. I have no problems whatsoever with immigration or emmigration. If you are legally allowed to go to another country and work there, then what's the problem?

sceptre

This thread has jumped from it's original topic. Back on topic or close to it or nasty things might happen to those who don't.

President4Life

Hydroquinone wrote:

Oh aye, and where does he come from then? One of the Galway von Prondzynskis, is he? Or perhaps the Thurles branch of the family?


People who object to immigration need to realise that it is a fact of life and opposing it is not acceptable in this day and age. I have no problems whatsoever with immigration or emmigration. If you are legally allowed to go to another country and work there, then what's the problem?

When SF try to get into Government at the next election, they will be running on a platform of a United Ireland. If this is what they want then they should not be supporting something which is arguably going to prevent that happening. There is no absolute right for everyone in the world to travel to Ireland and live here permanently, Hydroquinone. The Sunday Tribune poll showed 80% of us want controls on immigration. Some immigrants should be let in. Wanting limits on this is not the same as outright opposition to immigration. You should recognise this. BTW, Prondzynski is German and like I said I am not blanket-opposed to immigration. For me, the question is how many, not yes or no.

Hydroquinone

President4Life wrote:

Wanting limits on this is not the same as outright opposition to immigration. You should recognise this. BTW, Prondzynski is German and like I said I am not blanket-opposed to immigration. For me, the question is how many, not yes or no.

I do recognise it. As I said

If you are legally allowed to go to another country and work there, then what's the problem?

President4Life wrote:

There is no absolute right for everyone in the world to travel to Ireland and live here permanently, Hydroquinone. The Sunday Tribune poll showed 80% of us want controls on immigration. Some immigrants should be let in.

Everyone in the world does not want to come here. Who said they did? Why would you think that they would? Personally, I see polls as very unreliable as it depends who you ask, when you ask and how the question is phrased. I realise I may be in the minority in paying little mind to polls in the media, but to my mind, votes are what count; votes in an election.

President4Life wrote:

When SF try to get into Government at the next election, they will be running on a platform of a United Ireland. If this is what they want then they should not be supporting something which is arguably going to prevent that happening.

It is your idea that immigrants will "arguably" not vote for a Sinn Fein and a united Ireland so therefore shouldn't be let in which I find a bit insular. If the people who came here as immigrants did so via the proper channels and get granted citizenship, they have the right to vote; the same as you and me. The Irish state thinks so and sees their electoral opinion as valid as yours and mine. You seem to think not. That's what I think is not right with your argument.
If your argument is correct and that is what happens, then the political parties - all of them - need to address the issues that the citizenry think are important, rather than the issues the political parties have decided ought to be important. Even so, how would Sinn Feinn know it was the ex-immigrant/naturalized citizen vote that scuppered them? Seems to me that there are a lot of Irish people with ninety seven generations buried above in the churchyard who are ambivalent about it even now. Some oppose it all together.

President4Life

It is your idea that immigrants will "arguably" not vote for a Sinn Fein and a united Ireland so therefore shouldn't be let in which I find a bit insular. If the people who came here as immigrants did so via the proper channels and get granted citizenship, they have the right to vote; the same as you and me. The Irish state thinks so and sees their electoral opinion as valid as yours and mine. You seem to think not. That's what I think is not right with your argument.

First of all you are completely wrong if you think I support SF, which I feel your post implies. I do support a UI however. I disagree with you completely. We need to think not just of those here today, but our ancestors who suffered unbelievable oppression at the hands of a foreign power. I do not have anything against British people today, but I am determined that the sufferings of our ancestors will not have been for nothing, and as such, am totally opposed to anything that could block a Yes vote down here. It is the Irish people - north and south - who have the right to decide on a United Ireland. It is OUR issue, and part of our national mission to complete the peaceful liberation of our country. To act in a manner as to take the decision on Southern Irish policy on a United Ireland out of the hands of the Irish people, is to betray our ancestors who fought tirelessly for the right of the Irish people to self-determination. Note that self-determination is inconsistent with foreigners deciding these issues for us.

SF clearly has questions to answer on the UI issue. Namely, how do they reconcile their purported support for a UI with their liberal policy on immigration? I have browsed their website and it clearly states that they believe there should be no numerical limit imposed on immigration numbers. If by pursuing such a policy they create a context in which a Yes vote by a majority of Southerners could be rendered irrelevant by a majority No vote by immigrants, then surely their immigration policy defeats SF's supposed raison-d'etre of getting a United Ireland? I doubt I am the only one to feel this way. While holding different views to myself, I believe rsynnott has already admitted on this thread that immigration would indeed impact on a referendum result on a UI in the south, and I feel this serves to underline what I am saying.

Once a UI has been achieved, my position on immigration will become more liberal.

rsynnott

President4Life wrote:

First of all you are completely wrong if you think I support SF, which I feel your post implies. I do support a UI however. I disagree with you completely. We need to think not just of those here today, but our ancestors who suffered unbelievable oppression at the hands of a foreign power.

I'm gay. Gay people have been horribly oppressed by heterosexuals for the past few millenia. Pay me reparations immediately. Or give me my own country, or something.

See how silly that is?

Do you support a UI even where the majority of people in NI don't?

President4Life wrote:

Once a UI has been achieved, my position on immigration will become more liberal.

That has to be one of the most horrible perversions of democracy I've ever seen.

Ironically, demographic vote rigging (gerrymandering) was one of the more controversial things done in NI.

supersheep

For your scenario to work, President4Life, you have to assume two things. One, that enough immigrants will enter the country to change the balance - which would need to be quite a few, to say the least. Two, that all these immigrants would oppose a United Ireland, which is not a given. A hell of a lot of foreigners would support a United Ireland too - whether due to Irish ancestry, a love of Ireland, a hatred of the British, or just love of the underdog.
rysnnott, want your own country for gay people? Hmmm... You can have Northern Ireland! That solves everything - no need for a United Ireland. Of course, you'll have to kill most of the people there, or force them out of their homes, but hey... it's worth it for your own country. After all, you've been persecuted for millenia, Republicans have only been persecuted for decades. You deserve it more!
<removes tongue from cheek>

rsynnott

supersheep wrote:

rysnnott, want your own country for gay people? Hmmm... You can have Northern Ireland! That solves everything - no need for a United Ireland. Of course, you'll have to kill most of the people there, or force them out of their homes, but hey... it's worth it for your own country. After all, you've been persecuted for millenia, Republicans have only been persecuted for decades. You deserve it more!
<removes tongue from cheek>

It was a JOKE, to illustrate the silliness of demanding a country in response to oppression. :rolleyes:

supersheep

<waggles the tongue that had been in his cheek at rsynnott>
I got that much! Please don't tell me you thought I was being serious?

President4Life

rsynnott wrote:

It was a JOKE, to illustrate the silliness of demanding a country in response to oppression. :rolleyes:

We had a country in 1169, which is still being partly occupied today. So when a UI comes, it will be the liberation of a conquered country. The Northern statelet should never have been set up. I accept the GFA which states that only when a majority in NI vote for a UI will it happen, but I strongly am of the view that this is a generous concession by us, since the "majority" in NI is artificial, i.e. the statelet was created in order to get a Unionist majority. Never before in the history of the world has an internationally-recognised state been founded for this purpose, so NI is not as legitimate an entity as the Republic of Ireland.

I am also gay. To make a comparison with gay people seeking a state is just nonsensical, as European nation states are nearly all based on ethnic-majorities, not sexual-orientation.

For your scenario to work, President4Life, you have to assume two things. One, that enough immigrants will enter the country to change the balance - which would need to be quite a few, to say the least. Two, that all these immigrants would oppose a United Ireland, which is not a given. A hell of a lot of foreigners would support a United Ireland too - whether due to Irish ancestry, a love of Ireland, a hatred of the British, or just love of the underdog.

The current rate of over 100,000 per annum from the new member states of the EU and student-visas and non-EU work-permits is already "quite a few", especially if we extrapolate a realistic figure of 5 million over 50 years. Ironically, it is probable that 50 years from now will be the date when a majority in NI vote for UI, based on demographic-trends. It seems likely that because they will lack the ethnic-ties to the Northern nationalists, that at the very least they will look at the issue with a lesser likelihood of voting Yes, due to the consequent lack of emotional feeling on the issue consequent on not being Irish. SF's failure to realise this reflects failings on their part to consider long-term implications of present-day actions.

sceptre

I suppose my basic warning was just a joke then?

Thread locked.

President4Life banned for being a previously banned user who didn't care to sit out his original temp ban and kept reregistering accounts. That's a siteban by the way, all these phoenix accounts from people who've been banned previously on boards.ie just make life harder for the admins and their lower management underlings so I've standing approval to siteban where this occurs.