QuoteLet's go with it.Originally Posted by ArdeeBhoy
All admirable enough in itself but hardly likely...
Or palatable to most Unionists & their electorate.
Not sure why you're flogging this future lasagne...
Let's go with it.
DID YOU NOTICE A SIGN OUTSIDE MY HOUSE...?
Yeah, but we're not, erm, unionist politicians
No mention of redrawing the border here...from former alumni of GR/NB!!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006mg2m
You wouldn't feel a stronger sense of connection with your Irish brethren then as a result? Or do you just feel estranged/alienated and seek to remain so?
Lobbying from across the southern side of the border can't and won't realise a united Ireland. As laid down in the GFA, such can only be realised via a democratic decision taken by at least 51 per cent of the north's electorate. Although maybe we can change that and let the whole island decide after all? For what is the GFA but mere words on easily-shred paper?...I can't really see how. Such a change presumably benefits Nationalists in Strabane and Newry; it doesn't leave those in Carrickfergus or Bangor any further away in practice from a united Ireland than they were previously, or lessen the ability of Irish Nationalist parties to lobby on their behalf.
Under these hypothetical circumstances, by way of repartition, the unionist majority would see a substantial bolstering of its ratio relative to the vestigial nationalist minority, thereby more-or-less ruling out any potential occurrence of an overall nationalist majority within the refined shrunken statelet. Repartition would make any new border more democratically secure, if anything. Not that a nationalist majority in the north would necessarily equate to a vote for unity at present, but the larger the nationalist majority is, surely the greater the chance is of a united Ireland being realised?
Rejecting a democratic vote would be to respect the democratic process? I don't see how...Everyone should respect both the above and the rule of law. What I'm suggesting doesn't contradict any of them.
Contracts establish expectations, but, more importantly, also obligations. You don't appear to think unionists should have to oblige, however. Why should republicans?There's no deception. Contracts are often short-term. In international politics as in every other area of law.
Last edited by DannyInvincible; 11/04/2013 at 9:37 AM.
Neither. The two have little or nothing to do with each other. A succession of British govts marginalising its own citizens doesn't tend to make me disposed to a foreign state that's treated them with a mix of cynicism, hypocrisy and incoherence for nearly a century.
And why would I want to be alienated? Although I see it may be your default position, when the response to the Irish Republic possibly getting more territory is to reject it as Unionist bigotry
Very droll.The pretend lobbying will continue as it always has. Incidentally, 51% wouldn't be enough, surely (particularly if you're equating it to the slogan of 50% + 1). The majority would have to be large enough to be secure against reversal in the next election, to avoid all the embarrassment/ instability etc. that would follow. So closer to 55%. It's asking a lot to imagine all these extra or swing voters when after 90 years the campaign to recruit them hasn't even started yet...Lobbying from across the southern side of the border can't and won't realise a united Ireland. As laid down in the GFA, such can only be realised via a democratic decision taken by at least 51 per cent of the north's electorate. Although maybe we can change that and let the whole island decide after all? For what is the GFA but mere words on easily-shred paper?...
A smaller NI would obviously reduce the likelihood of it voting for a united Ireland. It wouldn't reduce it to zero any more than the Free State/ Republic's past antics have. Repartition would be more democratically secure and legitimate, as you say. That's the whole point: I think that, based on the principle of self-determination, is better than some daydream.Under these hypothetical circumstances, by way of repartition, the unionist majority would see a substantial bolstering of its ratio relative to the vestigial nationalist minority, thereby more-or-less ruling out any potential occurrence of an overall nationalist majority within the refined shrunken statelet. Repartition would make any new border more democratically secure, if anything. Not that a nationalist majority in the north would necessarily equate to a vote for unity at present, but the larger the nationalist majority is, surely the greater the chance is of a united Ireland being realised?
Who's doing that? Not I. A few posts back I specifically mentioned the possibility of the Unionist rump in Ireland becoming too small to self-sustain, in which case I'd have to accept a united Ireland. I would adapt to a significantly changed circumstance. You seem unable to, basically because as I mentioned your first principle is not self-determination but a united Ireland. You haven't moved on since learning it by rote at Ballygobackwards Integrated PrimaryRejecting a democratic vote would be to respect the democratic process? I don't see how...
So, you put up a straw man argument including all the predictable fact and opinion, bulked out by proven baloney and sheer bat-**** craziness
Couldn't agree more. Do you not think that both sides have pretty much fulfilled those in the last 15 years?Contracts establish expectations, but, more importantly, also obligations
See what I mean? Those nasty Unionists! They just won't accept it isn't 1998/ 1925/ 1169 any more and want a more up-to-date workable agreement!You don't appear to think unionists should have to oblige, however. Why should republicans?
PS shall we take this to a PM?
Here we go...Neither. The two have little or nothing to do with each other. A succession of British govts marginalising its own citizens doesn't tend to make me disposed to a foreign state that's treated them with a mix of cynicism, hypocrisy and incoherence for nearly a century.
And why would I want to be alienated? Although I see it may be your default position, when the response to the Irish Republic possibly getting more territory is to reject it as Unionist bigotry
Very droll.The pretend lobbying will continue as it always has. Incidentally, 51% wouldn't be enough, surely (particularly if you're equating it to the slogan of 50% + 1). The majority would have to be large enough to be secure against reversal in the next election, to avoid all the embarrassment/ instability etc. that would follow. So closer to 55%. It's asking a lot to imagine all these extra or swing voters when after 90 years the campaign to recruit them hasn't even started yet...
A smaller NI would obviously reduce the likelihood of it voting for a united Ireland. It wouldn't reduce it to zero any more than the Free State/ Republic's past antics have. Repartition would be more democratically secure and legitimate, as you say. That's the whole point: I think that, based on the principle of self-determination, is better than some daydream.
Who's doing that? Not I. A few posts back I specifically mentioned the possibility of the Unionist rump in Ireland becoming too small to self-sustain, in which case I'd have to accept a united Ireland. I would adapt to a significantly changed circumstance. You seem unable to, basically because as I mentioned your first principle is not self-determination but a united Ireland. You haven't moved on since learning it by rote at Ballygobackwards Integrated Primary
So, you put up a straw man argument including all the predictable fact and opinion, bulked out by proven baloney and sheer bat-**** craziness
Couldn't agree more. Do you not think that both sides have pretty much fulfilled those in the last 15 years?
See what I mean? Those nasty Unionists! They just won't accept it isn't 1998/ 1925/ 1169 any more and want a more up-to-date workable agreement!
PS shall we take this to a PM?
http://foot.ie/threads/178393-Discus...19#post1677819
DID YOU NOTICE A SIGN OUTSIDE MY HOUSE...?
Except we can't all read that...
More relevant would be not to believe all of what GR says, as some of it is totally at odds with his usual spiel!!
Current Affairs is a cold house for Ardeee Bhoy.
I know. But I think at this stage AB needs to appeal the sanction.
DID YOU NOTICE A SIGN OUTSIDE MY HOUSE...?
There's more chance of unionists redrawing the border than that being lifted...
I think B*** W******** are probably suffering a lot of the ire at present. You should be grand.
What did you do anyway?
DID YOU NOTICE A SIGN OUTSIDE MY HOUSE...?
Well a few people were saying things he didn't like, so he got his high-powered team of lawyers to start threatening the site. Shameful!I think B*** W******** are probably suffering a lot of the ire at present. You should be grand.
What did you do anyway?
I don't think you can comment on that.
DID YOU NOTICE A SIGN OUTSIDE MY HOUSE...?
See my previous post.You should be grand.
What did you do anyway?
And who knows? You tell me.
And just checked out the other thread. Considerably duller/more pointless than this one!
Last edited by ArdeeBhoy; 12/04/2013 at 7:00 AM.
I cant remember which thread had some yap about Gibraltar and others, so I'm sticking this up here.
There's a talk in Birkbeck Sport Business Centre in central London on Thursday 18th
http://www.sportbusinesscentre.com/events/steve-menary/
“Gibraltar and the road to Wembley”
A seminar as part of the Sport Business Centre Seminar Series
Synopsis
As the Gibraltar Football Association (GFA) prepare for their long-running application to join the international game to go to a vote at the UEFA Congress in London on May 24 2013, author and journalist Steve Menary provides an update on the fortunes of the British colony and the other teams that featured in his critically well-received book Outcasts: The Lands That FIFA Forgot.
He looks at what has happened to those teams that he spent two years chronicling in the original edition of Outcasts, which was shortlisted for the 2008 football book of the year award. Why could Gibraltar finally be on the break-through? Why is Greenland the epitome of the footballing Outcast? Why are Kosovo barred from even playing international friendlies despite recognition from well over half of FIFA’s 209 members?
Outcasts, which has just come out as a new edition on Kindle, is a story of how footballing nationality, or the need to establish a national identity through sport, continues be used and distorted for political means, and how the footballing authorities keep some ‘countries’ kicking their heels on the side-lines.
B35 Lecture Theatre
Main Building
Birkbeck College, University of London
Torrington Square
London WC1E 7HX
Thursday 18th April 2013 at 6pm
This event will operate under “Chatham House Rules” – no external reporting without the permission of the speakers
Twas in here!
http://foot.ie/threads/157892-FIFA-a...=1#post1678682
DID YOU NOTICE A SIGN OUTSIDE MY HOUSE...?
Might as well chuck this tidbit in here... Mani is a Republic of Ireland fan!
Mounfield is an enthusiastic supporter of Manchester United Football Club. He regularly showcases his love for the team on the Sky One programme, Football Years, giving his views on football seasons of the past.[citation needed] He also revealed on Play UK programme Nu Music that he supports Celtic F.C. in Scotland and, although he is English, he was brought up to support the Republic of Ireland national football team. He has also appeared on the football programme Soccer AM, earning himself a "Hat-trick Ball" from the show as a result.[citation needed] He also supports Warrington Wolves, influenced by Ian Brown who comes from Warrington.
Does Mounfield have Irish roots, or maybe it was the appeal of our ball-wizardry?
As a musician from Manchester? Definitely maybe I would guess!
From 2006:
http://www.irishabroad.com/news/iris...imalRocker.asp
From 2004:
http://www.morrissey-solo.com/thread...eresting-story
From Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_m..._Great_Britain
DID YOU NOTICE A SIGN OUTSIDE MY HOUSE...?
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks