Is the end of the Union in sight? (It may well be but then again…)

[LeoMc]

Actually, I find Fear's synopsis of the situation beautifully succinct and accurate, pointing to the "doublethink" mentality of some unionists today, i.e. the espousal of two equal and opposite views while believing both of them.

I laud the GFA, of course, but am amused at unionism's new-found faith in and defence of democracy.  EG, your nimble-footed dance explaining the rationale for ignoring democracy at the time of Partition (worse, willing to die rather than yield to it) followed by your elegant support of it as embodied in the GFA is, it seems to me, a bare-footed dance on hot coals. 
Your mentioning what the rest of the UK thought at the time is a red herring.  In fact, having spent years in England, I have found that most English people don't give a rat's ass about the Irish question, nor indeed know a damn thing about it.

So, to return to Fear's pithy analysis.  In the GFA, the people of Ireland, that is the south and the north (not Lancashire or Lanarkshire), agreed democratically to uphold certain agreed upon principles.  Back in the day, though, when democracy didn't suit them, unionists said to hell with democracy, let discrimination be unconfined, and established an enclave whose daily existence for years flouted all things democratic. 

So, again, though I celebrate unionism's new-found discovery of democracy, I just wish it had happened many many years ago. 

And though it won't happen, I'd like a mea culpa, loosely translated as a "we screwed you big time." So, yes, the man from Strabane in his straightforward summary is simply calling a spade a spade, and not an agricultural implement.

Is Unionisms willingness to fight against Home rule in 1922 and their acceptance of democracy today any more remarkable than Republicanisms willingness to fight for Independence in 1921 and accept democracy today?

IMO his mention of a British Isles wide vote was asking at what level Governance the democratic majority works? To me it appeared he was challenging the current recognised viewpoints:
Republican: The vote on Irish Unification should be on a 32 County basis (all or nothing) as that is the basis on which the war of Independence was fought. The 6 Counties are part of that Geographical unit.

Unionist: The Vote should be on a 6 County basis (first!) as 3-6 Counties would have seceded from the newly Independent Ireland, a war avoided by the messy compromise of partition.

EG: The Vote should have been on a British Isles wide as the Island of Ireland was just one part of the larger geographical unit.

Alternatively he could have asked should the vote to secede from the Union be (or have been) on a County by County, or Council by Council basis?

Not publishing the Boundary commission report has a lot to answer for. but we have what we have.

[lynchbhoy]

Interestingly enough your last line sums up your whole response. Yet another lengthy load of  long winded meaningless pointless nothingness !
Yer posts are all mouth and no trousers!
You don't have a response for the FACT that the island of IRELAND wanted to remain a single entity – what does the wishes of a foreign country not attached to Ireland have to do with it ?
You are being hypocritical when evoking democracy and coming up with that load of rubbish !
As for the second part – you just don't want to embrace reality !
Your problem not mine. I think this shows your rank bitterness at whats impending ! you have admitted much yourself in posts previous that it 'most likely WILL happen' !!

Name calling and stooping to that level speaks volumes for yourself and the lack of an argument in your repertoire!

I am used to "ploughing a lone furrow" on this Board. When I debate some point with another member, I am used to others joining in and taking up his/her case.

Have you never wondered why "the Cavalry" never seems to come to your  aid?

(My money's on simple embarrassment on their part, btw  )

P.S. "... you [EG] have admitted much yourself in posts previous that it  [Irish Unity] 'most likely WILL happen' !!"  Which posts were those? 

good one !
you go off topic when well beaten !! 

keep digging !!

[Evil Genius]

Actually, I find Fear's synopsis of the situation beautifully succinct and accurate, pointing to the "doublethink" mentality of some unionists today, i.e. the espousal of two equal and opposite views while believing both of them.

No inconsistency at all. As LeoMc avers, the question is not whether we should bow to the will of the majority but rather where we should draw the boundary, within the confines of which we conduct the count.

I have already already asserted that I know of no overriding Law of Nature which automatically determines where the Boundary should have been in the Irish context; therefore I take the pragmatic approach that we must choose that which will lead to the least bloodshed and destruction etc. Of course, this approach is open to the charge of encouraging the men of violence and giving them a veto etc. But in Ireland in 1920, both sides were already using (or prepared to use) violence, with each equally certain that it was justified in doing so.

I laud the GFA, of course, but am amused at unionism's new-found faith in and defence of democracy.  EG, your nimble-footed dance explaining the rationale for ignoring democracy at the time of Partition (worse, willing to die rather than yield to it) followed by your elegant support of it as embodied in the GFA is, it seems to me, a bare-footed dance on hot coals. 
Your mentioning what the rest of the UK thought at the time is a red herring.  In fact, having spent years in England, I have found that most English people don't give a rat's ass about the Irish question, nor indeed know a damn thing about it.

So, to return to Fear's pithy analysis.  In the GFA, the people of Ireland, that is the south and the north (not Lancashire or Lanarkshire), agreed democratically to uphold certain agreed upon principles.  Back in the day, though, when democracy didn't suit them, unionists said to hell with democracy, let discrimination be unconfined, and established an enclave whose daily existence for years flouted all things democratic. 

I did not "ignore" democracy, rather I took a different view of what the consequences of Democracy should have been for the people of Ireland to you.
Namely, that just as it was wrong to force a clear majority in one part of the island to accept a situation which they did not accept (i.e. the UK for southern Nationalists), it would have been equally wrong to have forced an unacceptable outcome on the clear majority in the other part of the island (i.e. a UI for northern Unionists).
You may not like that, or may propose what is (for you) a better alternative; however you may not reasonably dismiss it as being worthless or untenable (imo).

As for your experience in England etc, was this gained during the first two decades of the 20th Century, by any chance? For there is clear evidence to suggest that following the Unionist sacrifice on behalf of Britain at eg the Somme in 1916, so soon after Republican "treachery" towards Britain during the Rising etc, there was considerable sympathy for the former amongst the general population in GB (as well as much greater consciousness).

So, again, though I celebrate unionism's new-found discovery of democracy, I just wish it had happened many many years ago.

Well, I'm afraid I wasn't around in the 1920's, 30's, 40's and 50's etc, so I can't really comment.

But I wouldn't have minded a conversion to democracy by eg SF/IRA, somewhat earlier than 10th April, 1998...

And though it won't happen, I'd like a mea culpa, loosely translated as a "we screwed you big time."

Could you make room for a pound of flesh, too, by any chance? 

So, yes, the man from Strabane in his straightforward summary is simply calling a spade a spade, and not an agricultural implement.

In that case, he should be advised that it's better used for digging than stirring...

[Oraisteach]

I'm of the school of opinion, EG, that believes that democracy, by definition, entails bowing to the will of the majority, not acquiescing to the tyranny of the minority. 

Talking of tyranny, I'm surprised that because you didn't live though the 20s, 30s, 40s and 50s, you feel unable to comment on the abomination that masqueraded as democracy in NI at that time, one like you so versed in history.  I thought that you might be amused to see a group (unionists) so warmly embrace democracy today, who for half a century shunned everything to do with it when it didn't suit them, Fear on Srath Ban's very point.

I am, however, more than a little irked by your following remark: "But I wouldn't have minded a conversion to democracy by eg SF/IRA, somewhat earlier than 10th April, 1998.."  You see, if Unionists had treated Nationalists even with a film of respect, according them even minimal democratic and social rights, even within the hall of distorted mirrors that was NI, then there never would have been an IRA/SF.  Unionists kicked the crap out of the dog, and what do you know, it snapped. 

Or, since you allude to The Merchant of Venice," I suggest the following quote:   
"If you p***k us, do we not bleed? if you tickle us, do we not laugh? if you poison us, do we not die? and if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?"

I abhor what the IRA did, but it was just about inevitable given unionism's long-standing love affair with democracy.
Still, I'm happy that we have the GFA, that unionism at last thinks democracy is a good thing, and that perhaps a United Ireland will occur some day, though sadly not in my lifetime, I fear.

[bennydorano]

Fine replies Oraisteach, no doubt EG will now disappear for a while until your posts are buried, that's the normal tactic.

[Fear ón Srath Bán]

And though it won't happen, I'd like a mea culpa, loosely translated as a "we screwed you big time." So, yes, the man from Strabane in his straightforward summary is simply calling a spade a spade, and not an agricultural implement.

Thanks Oraisteach 

Though for all the thanks I get trying to distil your man's posts into something easily digestible! 

[Evil Genius]

Interestingly enough your last line sums up your whole response. Yet another lengthy load of  long winded meaningless pointless nothingness !
Yer posts are all mouth and no trousers!
You don't have a response for the FACT that the island of IRELAND wanted to remain a single entity – what does the wishes of a foreign country not attached to Ireland have to do with it ?
You are being hypocritical when evoking democracy and coming up with that load of rubbish !
As for the second part – you just don't want to embrace reality !
Your problem not mine. I think this shows your rank bitterness at whats impending ! you have admitted much yourself in posts previous that it 'most likely WILL happen' !!

Name calling and stooping to that level speaks volumes for yourself and the lack of an argument in your repertoire!

I am used to "ploughing a lone furrow" on this Board. When I debate some point with another member, I am used to others joining in and taking up his/her case.

Have you never wondered why "the Cavalry" never seems to come to your  aid?

(My money's on simple embarrassment on their part, btw  )

P.S. "... you [EG] have admitted much yourself in posts previous that it  [Irish Unity] 'most likely WILL happen' !!"  Which posts were those? 

good one !
you go off topic when well beaten !! 

keep digging !!

Whatever you say.

In the meantime, is there any chance you might show me which of my past posts include the "admission" by me that Irish Unity "most likely WILL happen!!"

There's no hurry, btw, but like Donagh Ulick and his claim about Alliance voters etc, the more you keep dodging, the more I'll keep reminding you. 

[Evil Genius]

I'm of the school of opinion, EG, that believes that democracy, by definition, entails bowing to the will of the majority, not acquiescing to the tyranny of the minority.

Where have I ever opposed the notion that in a democracy, the view of the majority should prevail?

It seems to me that, like our Strabane friend, you either don't understand, or wilfully ignore, the real crux of this dispute, which is what should be the boundary within which the majority is counted.

You and FSB both point to the majority within Ireland as a whole, whereas I point to the majorities within the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland.

I don't imagine we'll ever agree as to the legitimacy of my preference as it applied in 1921(!), but you cannot deny its legitimacy in the present day i.e. since the GFA, which unambiguously and explicitly recognises Partition, and received the overwhelming (ahem) majority  of votes in every part of Ireland. 

Talking of tyranny, I'm surprised that because you didn't live though the 20s, 30s, 40s and 50s, you feel unable to comment on the abomination that masqueraded as democracy in NI at that time, one like you so versed in history.  I thought that you might be amused to see a group (unionists) so warmly embrace democracy today, who for half a century shunned everything to do with it when it didn't suit them, Fear on Srath Ban's very point.

If you have ever read any of my other posts on the matter, you should have noted that I have never denied/condoned/defended the discrimination etc which went on during the (old) Stormont years. However, neither can I be held in any way responsible for it, either, any more than eg the present generation of Germans may be held accountable for what their forebears did.

I am, however, more than a little irked by your following remark: "But I wouldn't have minded a conversion to democracy by eg SF/IRA, somewhat earlier than 10th April, 1998.."  You see, if Unionists had treated Nationalists even with a film of respect, according them even minimal democratic and social rights, even within the hall of distorted mirrors that was NI, then there never would have been an IRA/SF.  Unionists kicked the crap out of the dog, and what do you know, it snapped. 

I abhor what the IRA did, but it was just about inevitable given unionism's long-standing love affair with democracy.

If you say that Unionist excesses were liable, even inevitably so, to produce a reaction by Nationalists, then you'll get little argument from me.

I just hope that you do not think that insofar as that reaction was manifested in the Provos' terror campaign, it was justified and proportionate. 

Still, I'm happy that we have the GFA, that unionism at last thinks democracy is a good thing, and that perhaps a United Ireland will occur some day, though sadly not in my lifetime, I fear.

Well at least we can agree on the value of the GFA, even if I see its chief merit as being the way it casts the prospect of a UI further away than ever. 

Or, since you allude to The Merchant of Venice," I suggest the following quote:   
"If you p***k us, do we not bleed? if you tickle us, do we not laugh? if you poison us, do we not die? and if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?"

"The devil can cite scripture for his purpose".  (Act 1, Scene III)

[Evil Genius]

Fine replies Oraisteach, no doubt EG will now disappear for a while until your posts are buried, that's the normal tactic.

Jeez, I've been accused of a few things on this Board, but ducking an argument is a new one! 

Anyhow, sorry to disappoint you... 

[Oraisteach]

So, EG, you resort to" either/or" name-calling.  Nothing like a bit of the ole "ad hom," you who have been praised for playing only the ball, not the man. I am either too stupid to understand the nuances of your logic or so horribly entangled by it that I remain deliberately evasive.  How about door number three?  I may be right, and you, deep breath, may be wrong.

And, yes, I do question your belief in democracy since you persist in defending the creation and existence of a state whose very being gives the finger to the democratically expressed wishes of the majority of people living in Ireland, yes all of Ireland, a desire expressed before the formation of NI.  And if you accept the democratically stated wishes of the people of Ireland to endorse the GFA, you should then be outraged that the wishes of a significant majority of Ireland were blatantly ignored in the very birth of the statelet.  So, it is you who speak with forked tongue, not I.  You and your unionist antecedents are, in sum, the beneficiaries of an ill-gotten gain and if of good conscience, as I think you are, you really should be advocating the righting of a wrong, not supporting its continuance.  Still, though I do concede NI's current legitimacy as expressed in the GFA, because I am a democrat, your position does not suddenly become more tenable ex post facto.

Further, you say that I have not read your other posts.  Of course I have.  Had you read one of mine you would have noted that I commended your presence on this board as a fair-minded unionist, so of course I know that you despise discrimination.  If you didn't, I would not waste my time responding to you.  You will perhaps then understand my irritation at your writing, "I just hope that you do not think that insofar as that reaction was manifested in the Provos' terror campaign, it was justified and proportionate.   "  I wrote that "I abhor" what the IRA did.  What is equivocal about the word "abhor"? (Sorry that I don't speak Emoticon). Remember too that  your political predecessors are the ones who opened Pandora's box, after all.

And so, though you cannot be held responsible for the evil, yes evil, that was the old Stormont regime, you can be chastised for defending that very state's anti-democratic existence.

In an earlier post, you wrote about being painted into a corner, and I think that's quite a fair metaphor for the plight or condition of current unionism.  As I remarked earlier on this board, the essence of unionism is undergoing redefinition, it seems to me, a point exemplified by your choosing the NI flag as your emblem, not the Union Jack.  It is, I believe, a recognition of unionism's wilting connection to Britain and its acceptance of its own identity within Ireland, and though I agree with you that a UI is not in the near future, come it will.  You do, I notice, derive comfort from the electoral stagnation that you identify.  My own fears lie mostly south of the border.  Still, perhaps faced with NI's eventual and inevitable demise, your descendents will strive to stall its eventuality by redrawing boundaries around North Down, North Armagh, chunks of Tyrone and Derry, most of Antrim, except where they play hurling, and call it NorthEastern Ireland or Greater Rathlin, of course supported democratically by the majority of people living within those regions. 

Or perhaps, instead, they will recognize that their concerns about a UI have been lifted,  that their unionist identity has been safeguarded, in terms of an Irish subculture and not a vestigial British one, and that they really have a whole lot more in common with Ciaran from Cork than Betty from Brighton.

[lynchbhoy]

Interestingly enough your last line sums up your whole response. Yet another lengthy load of  long winded meaningless pointless nothingness !
Yer posts are all mouth and no trousers!
You don't have a response for the FACT that the island of IRELAND wanted to remain a single entity – what does the wishes of a foreign country not attached to Ireland have to do with it ?
You are being hypocritical when evoking democracy and coming up with that load of rubbish !
As for the second part – you just don't want to embrace reality !
Your problem not mine. I think this shows your rank bitterness at whats impending ! you have admitted much yourself in posts previous that it 'most likely WILL happen' !!

Name calling and stooping to that level speaks volumes for yourself and the lack of an argument in your repertoire!

I am used to "ploughing a lone furrow" on this Board. When I debate some point with another member, I am used to others joining in and taking up his/her case.

Have you never wondered why "the Cavalry" never seems to come to your  aid?

(My money's on simple embarrassment on their part, btw  )

P.S. "... you [EG] have admitted much yourself in posts previous that it  [Irish Unity] 'most likely WILL happen' !!"  Which posts were those? 

good one !
you go off topic when well beaten !! 

keep digging !!

Whatever you say.

In the meantime, is there any chance you might show me which of my past posts include the "admission" by me that Irish Unity "most likely WILL happen!!"

There's no hurry, btw, but like Donagh Ulick and his claim about Alliance voters etc, the more you keep dodging, the more I'll keep reminding you. 

....and contnue to dodge the point by waffling on with rubbish as seen by your above posts -
yes, the separation of Ireland was undemocratic, your stance on that is now contrary to what you are now epousing for unionists/loyalists and reunification.

its nt the first time you have been flip/flopping and inconsistent.

you were accepting of the enevitible reunification but stating that it wouldnt happen in 'your lifetime' but since start of April (ish- from memory) your stance changed as you decided that you were not going to 'give in' to the taigs and dispute what is undoubtedly going to happen and brought up all sorts of (some factual) ut a lot of tangents and all round guff - making sure to miss out the real points - inc that the British gov want to get rid of the money pit - cost is cost no matter how 'little' and jobs are jobs !
- England needs them !

a quick search shows one example of your statement that there will most likely be a reunification (there is no strong denial in there that is your mantra this past couple of months at least)
go search your own posts - I know we have exposed you for having a short if not blinkered memory on here befor, so not surprising that you have 'forgotten ' - go recheck your own posts...there are a good few examples of this i'd reckon !

you wrote:....
http://gaaboard.com/board/index.php?topic=18334.135
"However, I am confident that such an eventuality will not come about during my lifetime - and I hope to live a brave while longer yet!"

[Ball DeBeaver]

Interestingly enough your last line sums up your whole response. Yet another lengthy load of  long winded meaningless pointless nothingness !
Yer posts are all mouth and no trousers!
You don't have a response for the FACT that the island of IRELAND wanted to remain a single entity – what does the wishes of a foreign country not attached to Ireland have to do with it ?
You are being hypocritical when evoking democracy and coming up with that load of rubbish !
As for the second part – you just don't want to embrace reality !
Your problem not mine. I think this shows your rank bitterness at whats impending ! you have admitted much yourself in posts previous that it 'most likely WILL happen' !!

Name calling and stooping to that level speaks volumes for yourself and the lack of an argument in your repertoire!

I am used to "ploughing a lone furrow" on this Board. When I debate some point with another member, I am used to others joining in and taking up his/her case.

Have you never wondered why "the Cavalry" never seems to come to your  aid?

(My money's on simple embarrassment on their part, btw  )

P.S. "... you [EG] have admitted much yourself in posts previous that it  [Irish Unity] 'most likely WILL happen' !!"  Which posts were those? 

good one !
you go off topic when well beaten !! 

keep digging !!

Whatever you say.

In the meantime, is there any chance you might show me which of my past posts include the "admission" by me that Irish Unity "most likely WILL happen!!"

There's no hurry, btw, but like Donagh Ulick and his claim about Alliance voters etc, the more you keep dodging, the more I'll keep reminding you. 

....and contnue to dodge the point by waffling on with rubbish as seen by your above posts -
yes, the separation of Ireland was undemocratic, your stance on that is now contrary to what you are now epousing for unionists/loyalists and reunification.

its nt the first time you have been flip/flopping and inconsistent.

you were accepting of the enevitible reunification but stating that it wouldnt happen in 'your lifetime' but since start of April (ish- from memory) your stance changed as you decided that you were not going to 'give in' to the taigs and dispute what is undoubtedly going to happen and brought up all sorts of (some factual) ut a lot of tangents and all round guff - making sure to miss out the real points - inc that the British gov want to get rid of the money pit - cost is cost no matter how 'little' and jobs are jobs !
- England needs them !

a quick search shows one example of your statement that there will most likely be a reunification (there is no strong denial in there that is your mantra this past couple of months at least)
go search your own posts - I know we have exposed you for having a short if not blinkered memory on here befor, so not surprising that you have 'forgotten ' - go recheck your own posts...there are a good few examples of this i'd reckon !

you wrote:....
http://gaaboard.com/board/index.php?topic=18334.135
"However, I am confident that such an eventuality will not come about during my lifetime - and I hope to live a brave while longer yet!"

FFS If you're going to quote someone, then at least get the context of their post correct.... What EG actually said was

I have no desire to see NI subsumed into a single unitary Irish Republic, but would accept it if that were to be the will of the majority of people in NI.

However, I am confident that such an eventuality will not come about during my lifetime - and I hope to live a brave while longer yet!

That post in no way implies that EG accepts there will eventually be a UI. What it does show is that EG is willing to accept the will of the people of NI to democratically decide if they wish to become part of a UI.
What you, and several other posters, seem to forget is that no matter what the rest of the island of Ireland wants, if the majority of NI want to remain part of the UK, the that is the way it's going to be. End of...








Opens popcorn and awaits the tirade of abuse..... 

[lynchbhoy]

Interestingly enough your last line sums up your whole response. Yet another lengthy load of  long winded meaningless pointless nothingness !
Yer posts are all mouth and no trousers!
You don't have a response for the FACT that the island of IRELAND wanted to remain a single entity – what does the wishes of a foreign country not attached to Ireland have to do with it ?
You are being hypocritical when evoking democracy and coming up with that load of rubbish !
As for the second part – you just don't want to embrace reality !
Your problem not mine. I think this shows your rank bitterness at whats impending ! you have admitted much yourself in posts previous that it 'most likely WILL happen' !!
Name calling and stooping to that level speaks volumes for yourself and the lack of an argument in your repertoire!

I am used to "ploughing a lone furrow" on this Board. When I debate some point with another member, I am used to others joining in and taking up his/her case.
Have you never wondered why "the Cavalry" never seems to come to your  aid?
(My money's on simple embarrassment on their part, btw  )
P.S. "... you [EG] have admitted much yourself in posts previous that it  [Irish Unity] 'most likely WILL happen' !!"  Which posts were those? 

good one !
you go off topic when well beaten !! 
keep digging !!

Whatever you say.

In the meantime, is there any chance you might show me which of my past posts include the "admission" by me that Irish Unity "most likely WILL happen!!"
There's no hurry, btw, but like Donagh Ulick and his claim about Alliance voters etc, the more you keep dodging, the more I'll keep reminding you. 

....and contnue to dodge the point by waffling on with rubbish as seen by your above posts -
yes, the separation of Ireland was undemocratic, your stance on that is now contrary to what you are now epousing for unionists/loyalists and reunification.

its nt the first time you have been flip/flopping and inconsistent.

you were accepting of the enevitible reunification but stating that it wouldnt happen in 'your lifetime' but since start of April (ish- from memory) your stance changed as you decided that you were not going to 'give in' to the taigs and dispute what is undoubtedly going to happen and brought up all sorts of (some factual) ut a lot of tangents and all round guff - making sure to miss out the real points - inc that the British gov want to get rid of the money pit - cost is cost no matter how 'little' and jobs are jobs !
- England needs them !
a quick search shows one example of your statement that there will most likely be a reunification (there is no strong denial in there that is your mantra this past couple of months at least)
go search your own posts - I know we have exposed you for having a short if not blinkered memory on here befor, so not surprising that you have 'forgotten ' - go recheck your own posts...there are a good few examples of this i'd reckon !

you wrote:....
http://gaaboard.com/board/index.php?topic=18334.135
"However, I am confident that such an eventuality will not come about during my lifetime - and I hope to live a brave while longer yet!"

FFS If you're going to quote someone, then at least get the context of their post correct.... What EG actually said was

I have no desire to see NI subsumed into a single unitary Irish Republic, but would accept it if that were to be the will of the majority of people in NI.

However, I am confident that such an eventuality will not come about during my lifetime - and I hope to live a brave while longer yet!

That post in no way implies that EG accepts there will eventually be a UI. What it does show is that EG is willing to accept the will of the people of NI to democratically decide if they wish to become part of a UI.
What you, and several other posters, seem to forget is that no matter what the rest of the island of Ireland wants, if the majority of NI want to remain part of the UK, the that is the way it's going to be. End of...
Opens popcorn and awaits the tirade of abuse..... 

jeez, when evil edna is getting hammered in his/her jbc - along comes another compadre to add their shovel to the 'digging' !!

if you are waiting for verbal abuse, then it will have to wait for evil edna to come on dishing it out again as per usual !

context???
sure thats exactly what was written - a stark contrast to the out and out refutal in all his posts on this thread for example - a big change in tack ! Evil inconsistency i'd say ! 

[Evil Genius]

So, EG, you resort to" either/or" name-calling.  Nothing like a bit of the ole "ad hom," you who have been praised for playing only the ball, not the man.

Care to quote where I have been ad hominem  towards you in my posts? 

I am either too stupid to understand the nuances of your logic or so horribly entangled by it that I remain deliberately evasive.

There are one or two other posters who seem to me to be, how shall I put it, "a bit thick", but you certainly aren't one of them.
Rather, it's precisely because I don't  consider you stupid that I conclude your reluctance to address, or sometimes even acknowledge what I post, denotes evasiveness. (I am referring to my contention that the will of the majority in one part of the island deserves as much respect as eg the will of the majority in the whole of Ireland, or the majority in the whole of the British Isles, for that matter)

How about door number three?  I may be right, and you, deep breath, may be wrong.

Of course you may be right. It's just you haven't managed to persuade me that you are. Maybe I'm the stupid one? Or too deeply "indoctrinated", as Lynchbhoy likes to claim? 

And, yes, I do question your belief in democracy since you persist in defending the creation and existence of a state whose very being gives the finger to the democratically expressed wishes of the majority of people living in Ireland, yes all of Ireland, a desire expressed before the formation of NI.  And if you accept the democratically stated wishes of the people of Ireland to endorse the GFA, you should then be outraged that the wishes of a significant majority of Ireland were blatantly ignored in the very birth of the statelet.  So, it is you who speak with forked tongue, not I.

You've already made this point, forcefully and more than once. I do not deny its logic, or your right to hold to it, it's just I simply do not agree with it, for the reasons stated previously.
I'm not sure what else I can add on this particular matter. 

You and your unionist antecedents are, in sum, the beneficiaries of an ill-gotten gain and if of good conscience, as I think you are, you really should be advocating the righting of a wrong, not supporting its continuance.

Hang on. Whilst I defend the setting-up of NI in 1921, I have also acknowledged that there subsequently was unacceptable Discrimination etc under the Stormont administration (Discrimination which incidentally actually harmed  the Unionist cause much more than it helped it, imo).
And I wholeheartedly commit to the present new arrangements, which avoid the old past controversies. What more do you expect of me in "righting of wrongs"? That I should power up the old De Lorean and fly Back to the Future?

Still, though I do concede NI's current legitimacy as expressed in the GFA, because I am a democrat, your position does not suddenly become more tenable ex post facto.

Nor any less  tenable.

I have made my case for Partition. The fact that the Unionist Government may subsequently have bolloxed things up does not negate my case.

Further, you say that I have not read your other posts.  Of course I have.  Had you read one of mine you would have noted that I commended your presence on this board as a fair-minded unionist, so of course I know that you despise discrimination.  If you didn't, I would not waste my time responding to you.

Noted.

You will perhaps then understand my irritation at your writing, "I just hope that you do not think that insofar as that reaction was manifested in the Provos' terror campaign, it was justified and proportionate.   "  I wrote that "I abhor" what the IRA did.  What is equivocal about the word "abhor"? (Sorry that I don't speak Emoticon).

We both abhor the Provo campaign and we both accept that the greater the Discrimination etc, the more likely it was to erupt. And it is clear that we both believe it to have been unjustified.
But it's over now, so why do you insist on bringing it up again? What does it actually add to the debate? 

Remember too that  your political predecessors are the ones who opened Pandora's box, after all.

And so, though you cannot be held responsible for the evil, yes evil, that was the old Stormont regime, you can be chastised for defending that very state's anti-democratic existence.

Jaysus, you really do want that pound of flesh, don't you?

Well I would remind you that in the end, the Merchant was disappointed! 

In an earlier post, you wrote about being painted into a corner, and I think that's quite a fair metaphor for the plight or condition of current unionism.  As I remarked earlier on this board, the essence of unionism is undergoing redefinition, it seems to me, a point exemplified by your choosing the NI flag as your emblem, not the Union Jack.

Actually it was an attempt  (unsuccessful, btw) to paint me into a corner, but that's by-the-by.

For as a Fermanaghman, I have always preferred the approach of the Enniskilleners in 1689, to that of the Derry folk, when they (Enniskilleners) resolved: "WE STAND UPON OUR GUARD, AND DO RESOLVE BY THE BLESSING OF GOD RATHER TO MEET OUR DANGER THAN EXPECT IT." ( www.libraryireland.com/Derry1689/VI-5.php )

On which point I welcome  the redefinition of Unionism which you correctly identify, for if you try to stand still, you inevitably end up getting overtaken.

It is, I believe, a recognition of unionism's wilting connection to Britain and its acceptance of its own identity within Ireland,

The reason why the UK has survived so successfully for over 300 years is because it has continually updated and redefined itself.

I now see signs - albeit embryonic - that Unionism is alert to the latest developments and has the wherewithal to respond. If I'm correct, then I see this as cementing  our place in the Union, not weakening it.

... and though I agree with you that a UI is not in the near future, come it will.  You do, I notice, derive comfort from the electoral stagnation that you identify.  My own fears lie mostly south of the border.  Still, perhaps faced with NI's eventual and inevitable demise,

Have I got this straight? You acknowledge that the Nationalist vote in NI is "stagnant", you fear for Nationalism (or more correctly, anti-Partitionism) in the Republic and you seem to accept that the Unionists of NI aren't any more amenable to unity than previously (i.e. by your reference to re-partition, below).

Yet still you insist that a UI is "inevitable". 

... your descendents will strive to stall its eventuality by redrawing boundaries around North Down, North Armagh, chunks of Tyrone and Derry, most of Antrim, except where they play hurling, and call it NorthEastern Ireland or Greater Rathlin, of course supported democratically by the majority of people living within those regions. 

Of the four broadly possible outcomes for NI which I can conceive - Status Quo, a UI, Independence for NI, or re-Partition -  I believe re-Partition to be the least likely. By some way.


P.S. Speaking for myself, I would say re-Partition is also the least desirable.

Or perhaps, instead, they will recognize that their concerns about a UI have been lifted,  that their unionist identity has been safeguarded, in terms of an Irish subculture and not a vestigial British one, and that they really have a whole lot more in common with Ciaran from Cork than Betty from Brighton.

Whilst some of our concerns have been lifted (essentially the political), they have now been replaced by new ones (essentially economic).

And in any case, I personally would rather Unionism ("Northern Irishness", actually) endure as a distinct culture within the UK, than as a sub-culture within a UI, ideally without causing offence for either Ciaran or Betty...

[Evil Genius]

jeez, when evil edna is getting hammered in his/her jbc - along comes another compadre to add their shovel to the 'digging' !!

if you are waiting for verbal abuse, then it will have to wait for evil edna to come on dishing it out again as per usual !

context???
sure thats exactly what was written - a stark contrast to the out and out refutal in all his posts on this thread for example - a big change in tack ! Evil inconsistency i'd say ! 

Help me out here, folks.

Does anyone, anywhere, have any idea just what the fcuk any of that might mean?

Because I'm blowed if I do...