NI Dec 22 Assembly Election

Sam do you really believe that many of those putting up Irish signs in my area are not doing it to be triumphalist?

you should really consider a little your beliefs. You say “having been to watch an All Ireland hurling final, the crowd was not segregated in any way and a good time was had by all”. You do realise anyone could say exactly this about most activities. I could say it about attending my local 12th.

and you ask why is there so much hatred in unionists. Unionists are human you know? There are big ones, small ones, fat ones, thin ones, bigoted ones, liberal ones, good ones, bad ones. I guess that just might be true for nationalists as well.

stop hating us. It will burn you up. We are just imperfect people you are sharing this plot of land with.

Because partition destroyed normality for Unionists too. Almost from the beginning they adopted a siege mentality from fear of having to share power. Territorial 'Our wee country' displays evolved out of that even when the territory wasn't under threat. The 'fleg' protests and the aversion to the language of where they live are symptoms too as is the current foot stamping and never never never's.

I have to point out that it was Westminster that partitioned Ireland, not "26 counties". And it was the Northern Ireland institutions that elected to opt out of the new dominion in 1922, not the IFS institutions excluded them. Between Dublin, Belfast and Westminster, the one party that had no say at all in the partition of Ireland was Dublin.

The notion of agitating "for 400 years" against the wishes of the majority is a curious one. The UK didn't become even a semi-democracy until less than 200 years ago; how you can claim to know what "the wishes of the majority" were before that is beyond me. But the eagerness with which the Catholic majority were denied any political voice during that time suggests that the political establishment of the time may not have shared your view on what the majority wanted. And, since the UK became somewhat democratic, nationalist parties have always secured a substantial majority of the popular vote in Ireland. There's no time at which the Union of 1801 ever received an electoral mandate in Ireland. Partition, as you know, basically an attempt to carve out a statelet in which union with GB could receive an electoral mandate It wouldn't have been necessary if your view were correct.

If Unionists can only defend their positions with gross historical distortions of that kind, that does suggest a certain want of self-confidence in Unionism.

"Their own interests" being to avert the threat of "immediate and terrible war" which they lacked the capacity to survive. So the notion that this is something they did freely is not one that will command a great deal of support.

But we are where we are. Northern Ireland exists and has existed for over a hundred years. This creates a reality which can't be magicked away by arguments over the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the circumstances of its creation. So (I respectfully suggest) unionists shouldn't need to rely on fabrications of history to defend their position today. And, by the same reasoning, likewise nationalist arguments that NI is an illegitimate entity today because of the circumstances of its creation a hundred years ago have little merit. The historical events concerned are interesting and important, but they don't determine the rightness or wrongness, wisdom or foolishness, of anybody's political positions today.

As to you your question about people agitating "for 400 years against the wishes of the majority" (in an area that wasn't even defined for the first 300 of those years), I'd point out that agitating against the wishes of the majority is a fundamental democratic right. Indeed, it's not only legitimate; it's necessary for a functioning democracy that groups that don't command a majority should nevertheless advance alternative positions. So, again, unionists should be slow to present this as something fundamentally illegitimate. Such a stance reflects very badly on unionism; it creates the impression that unionism and democracy are not compatible. That's not an impression unionists should want to create.

I suggest that unionist are better served by defending the union on its own merits, rather than by seeking to delegitimise the view of those who disagree with them.

We are all just quoting bits of history. If your government thought it was temporary then they should have been honest with everyone and put it in the agreement. My community never expected it to be temporary.

I know you still think it is temporary ‘because you have told me so many times’ - so I am not sure what you are complaining about. I guess nothing is for ever

They did know what was proposed was 'temporary'.

*Italics mine.

That is why they insisted on 6 counties where they could keep a majority. They(Unionists) got rid of proportional representation as soon as they could and the rest is history.

Know the history downcow.

"Our Territory"

What type of mindset is in someone who refers to the place in which they live as "our territory" ?

That's one of the most sensible posts on this and other related threads.

People from all sides of the communities need to be finding ways to work together. Not sticking their fingers in the others eyes or trying to use legislative procedure to drive change against the wishes of others.

Needs compromise on all sides and that includes nationalists/ republicans just as much as unionism.

This was all achieved in previous agreements Furze. Again, you need to look at the actual history. Unionism continually reneges on agreements, not just with nationalists either.

That’s a bit rich.

you have just told us that you thought partition was just temporary, even though the agreement said otherwise.

You think I am not truly British even though the gfa says otherwise.

you think there should be a referendum now even though the gfa says otherwise

etc etc

You have the worst understanding of actual history that I have seen here.

Even the drafters of the Government Of Ireland Act thought it was temporary and nationalists were not even consulted:

and Unionists opposed this Act as well but funnily enough, came to embrace it, just like they always do.

P.S. I fully respect your British identity, I respect all identities in Ireland.

I have never advocated for a referendum 'now'. I think a referendum should take place at least 2 years after it is called.

Here is what you said:

I've shown you that Unionists (who sat on the committee that drafted the thing) knew it was intended to be temporary and would

The Irish government didn't draft the Act so couldn't have 'put it in the agreement'.

You pivot away to something else all you want.

I gave you the facts in relation to what you said, which was:

You said this.

I corrected you. Your community sat on the committee that drafted the Bill which was envisaged

I.E. they knew it was intended to be temporary. I also said the irish government wasn't involved in the drafting or passing of the Bill/Act so could not have put anything 'in the agreement'.

It was an ACT passed in the HoC's that partitioned Ireland.

’my community’ certainly were not all sitting around a table to hear nuances of discussions. What you are saying is ludicrous and would have crazy repercussions for every agreement ever written. So you are saying ignore the text and go with the notions of those in the room and hope that they will relay those notions accurately to the masses. It is incredible that you are suggesting such.

and your notion that If you are not involved in actually drawing up and agreement, then you can claim afterwards that as a reason to change your mind - that should make life easy for the dup re the FM.

You do realise you last number of posts are pretty incredible.