It was a mere reporting of what I was told by someone who'd read about Liepāja's misfortune on Bert Kassies' forum rather than a "dig" aimed at anyone in particular. If I didn't know better, I'd say you were a wee bit paranoid.Originally Posted by Gather round
And Derry were very poor against Midtjylland; the result was a disaster. I acknowledged that in multiple posts throughout the match in the 'LOI clubs in Europe' thread. Crusaders' result, on the other, was an impressive one (even if Liepāja were missing half their first-team), so congrats on that.
(By the way, what's the Spit?)
Last edited by DannyInvincible; 02/07/2017 at 8:52 PM.
Ta for good wishes. Excellent performance by the Crues, although I'd have Liepaja as slight favorites now. Apparently only one or two of their exotic foreigners (Mauretania a fave source) would likely have started. But if we do hang on, the Shore Road is to be renamed Via Baltica in the team's honor
The Curonian Spit is that long sandbank/ lagoon in the eastern Baltic. The Hatchet Hardcore are sunning themselves on it as we speak...
You're talking about Lynch, right....?
Here they come! It’s the charge of the “Thanks” Brigade!
Saw this tweet from Ireland's ambassador in London today pointing out that Ireland was ranked the eighth-best country to live in by the UN in their annual Human Development Report. The UK was ranked 16th.
That'll convince them Danny.
Heh, unionists may take more convincing, certainly, but such facts might at least persuade those nationalists who presently favour a maintenance of the Union under the misguided belief that it is in their socio-economic interests to do so.
Whatever about nationalists, people really need to take the blinkers off when it comes to this notion of convincing unionists of the merits of unification.
Do you feel proponents of unity should abandon efforts to convince or reach out to unionists and, instead, rely on demographics (or nationalists becoming a majority, in other words)? Or would you suggest an alternative strategy? If so, what would it be?
Just as there is a segment of nationalists who can seemingly be swayed by the most appealing economic argument, in spite of their sentimental attachment to an all-Ireland cultural sense, there's surely also a portion of unionists - be they "soft" or progressive or whatever - who could similarly be swayed towards unity on economic (or even socio-political) grounds, especially if the Tories drive Britain further to the right, implement a hard Brexit, uphold austerity and continue dismantling the NHS. Even our resident unionist-with-a-small-'u' GR admitted he'd be swayable under such circumstances.
Obviously, there are plenty of unionists/loyalists who are prepared to suffer financially/economically in order to maintain the connection with Britain - that's essentially what they're doing now and they're effectively imposing that increased hardship (relative to the rest of the island) upon thousands of unwilling others - but, theoretically-speaking, unity advocates need not convince every unionist of the merits of unity. Obviously, it would be ideal in practice if all unionists could be convinced of the merits of re-unification (or if they could at least be reassured that they have nothing to fear from re-unification and will be accepted as equals in a new Ireland), but, in order for a unity referendum to be successful, convincing all nationalists and even just a quarter of unionists would be enough as a bare minimum for it to pass. Every little helps.
In saying that, I don't think that would justify neglecting our duty to ensure that a united Ireland will be a comfortable and welcoming place for those who may remain sceptical.
Last edited by DannyInvincible; 06/07/2017 at 12:50 AM.
Of course I'm only 'virtually' resident, having lived for years outside Ireland.especially if the Tories drive Britain further to the right, implement a hard Brexit, uphold austerity and continue dismantling the NHS. Even our resident unionist-with-a-small-'u' GR admitted he'd be swayable under such circumstances.
Most big-U Unionists I've spoken to aren't swayable- their reaction is broadly similar to the Fly's
What I'm saying is that such efforts, although well meaning, amount largely to whistling in the wind and stem from this general belief that unionists labour under a false consciousness.
The geo-political aspect that Brexit has introduced is the most important factor here, much more so than Tory cuts. Unity is now 'inextricably linked' to the European Union.Just as there is a segment of nationalists who can seemingly be swayed by the most appealing economic argument, in spite of their sentimental attachment to an all-Ireland cultural sense, there's surely also a portion of unionists - be they "soft" or progressive or whatever - who could similarly be swayed towards unity on economic (or even socio-political) grounds, especially if the Tories drive Britain further to the right, implement a hard Brexit, uphold austerity and continue dismantling the NHS. Even our resident unionist-with-a-small-'u' GR admitted he'd be swayable under such circumstances.
As for our virtually resident unionist-with-a small-'u' GR, he's also responsible for the thread title.
Your use of the words 'prepared to suffer' hint at the false consciousness I referred to above. It's kind of akin to wondering why people in Connaught are prepared to put up with the East-West economic imbalance in the South.
Yep, all that's needed is 50% +1. I'd estimate that that the maximum number of unionists that could be convinced lies in the 10 - 15% range. Anything above that is wishful thinking imo (at least at this present time).
Convincing nationalists en masse of unity is much more important.
Agreed and that goes without saying. My desire for unity has nothing to do with rubbing it up unionists. Unity will remain a completely toxic concept for them as long as Sinn Fein are chief cheerleaders. In order to make it much more tolerable what I would like to see next is the Southern political parties (FF & FG) organising in NI and standing candidates in elections.
The SDLP cannot provide real competition anymore and it's logical that this should happen in the wake of Brexit anyway.
Perhaps Brexit will prove to have taken the 'all-island' aspirations of the aforementioned parties out of the small print in their constitutions and into the reality.
Indeed, and some will even consider re-partition if the prospect of unity appears solidly on the horizon.Of course I'm only 'virtually' resident, having lived for years outside Ireland.
Most big-U Unionists I've spoken to aren't swayable- their reaction is broadly similar to the Fly's
Last edited by The Fly; 08/07/2017 at 4:36 PM.
Hmm, I'm not sure I fully agree. Of course, there'll be plenty who will not be open to persuasion (and that's their prerogative), but look at it from our perspective as nationalists. There are plenty of people - northerners - who identify as Irish nationalists and who would culturally identify with the 32-county conception of Irishness; they hold Irish passports, watch RTÉ, play GAA, learn/speak Irish, support the FAI's team in football and so forth. Yet, seemingly for reasons of supposed economic security, they are content for the Union with Britain to remain in place. That doesn't necessarily make them culturally British though.
So, if a significant number of nationalists can be persuaded by suspect economic arguments for the maintenance of the Union without compromising their Irish national identity, why would it be any different in reverse for (at least some) unionists, especially if they're confronted with compelling economic arguments for Irish re-unification? I don't necessarily see why their British identity would be undermined if they were to come round to supporting or going along with Irish unity on the basis of economics.
Nationalist and republican politicians, writers and commentators should make this clear to fellow nationalists and republicans so as to re-assure unionists that their British identity would neither be compromised nor seen to be compromised if unionists were to see merit in the prospect of Irish unity. Coming round to supporting unity on the basis of economic reasons wouldn't amount to proof that cultural unionists "weren't British, after all" (and sincere nationalists/republicans certainly shouldn't be baiting unionists with such intolerant and identity-denying triumphalism). It's an over-simplistic view of national identity.
I fully acknowledging the British identity of unionists and loyalists. I have no problem whatsoever even with accepting the British identity of many Ulster Protestants born in Donegal. In fact, I'd support them in their quest for formal national recognition from the British government, even if that was to mean British nationality law would have some sort of extra-territorial effect over Donegal or other southern border counties.Your use of the words 'prepared to suffer' hint at the false consciousness I referred to above. It's kind of akin to wondering why people in Connaught are prepared to put up with the East-West economic imbalance in the South.
After David McWilliams published one of his recent pieces on how Brexit and economics may deliver Irish unity, unionist commentator Alex Kane tweeted the following:
"We're a long, long way from the point at which a unionist would dilute 'identity' in favour of a more favourable economic climate."
That's pretty much another way of saying what I said, is it not? He's more or less stating that unionists generally are prepared to endure or suffer an unfavourable economic climate so as to avoid breaking the political link with Britain, which many, or perhaps most, fear would dilute their British cultural identity. Of course, they're entitled to their fears. It's up to us to convince them that their fears are unfounded.
I would still support Irish unity for political, socio-cultural and sentimental reasons even if it was to be achieved at an economic cost, so, under such a scenario, I would be just as prepared to say of myself then that I'd be willing to suffer economically in order to achieve Irish unity. I wouldn't necessarily apply such a description only to unionists who support the Union in spite of the economic arguments. However, if I was to back unity at an economic cost, I would also have to bear on my conscience the fact that my political, socio-cultural and sentimental preference for Irish unity was also having the effect of making other people poorer too. With democratic rights comes moral responsibility for the effects of the exercising or expression of those rights.
Fair enough, which I think is very much achievable, particularly in the present climate.Yep, all that's needed is 50% +1. I'd estimate that that the maximum number of unionists that could be convinced lies in the 10 - 15% range. Anything above that is wishful thinking imo (at least at this present time).
Convincing nationalists en masse of unity is much more important.
The unity campaign needs to be an all or cross-party effort, definitely.Agreed and that goes without saying. My desire for unity has nothing to do with rubbing it up unionists. Unity will remain a completely toxic concept for them as long as Sinn Fein are chief cheerleaders. In order to make it much more tolerable what I would like to see next is the Southern political parties (FF & FG) organising in NI and standing candidates in elections.
The SDLP cannot provide real competition anymore and it's logical that this should happen in the wake of Brexit anyway.
Perhaps Brexit will prove to have taken the 'all-island' aspirations of the aforementioned parties out of the small print in their constitutions and into the reality.
I understand Fianna Fáil are intending to stand candidates north of the border from 2019 onward: http://www.highlandradio.com/2014/03...-east-motions/
They're already registered with the UK Electoral Commission (and have been since 2007): http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7133848.stm
Fianna Fáil also have branches in Queen's and the University of Ulster.
Meanwhile, aren't Fine Gael to sort of "re-brand" as "the United Ireland party" in light of Leo Varadkar's recent election as party leader?: http://www.independent.ie/irish-news...-35750841.html
Suppose you could put this in here:
http://www.irishnews.com/news/2017/0...tage--1079835/
Tempted to lob it into the eligibility thread.
DID YOU NOTICE A SIGN OUTSIDE MY HOUSE...?
That manages to be terrifying and hilarious at the same time.
Surely Mrs De Souza is wrong to claim that she's never been British- it's an automatic entitlement from birth. Forcing her to renounce it is a bit crass though.
Of course it doesn't make them British. Their 'contentment' with the union, if that's even the best way to describe it, is more about the power of the status quo and loss aversion than anything. People tend to put a much higher value on losses than on gains. It's a quirk of human psychology but it has to be dealt with. Polls centred around the unity question tend to prove this, i.e nationalist responses for the short term versus their long term aspirations.
Just to correct any mistaken perception you may have - I'm not saying that nationalists as a whole should stop mentioning outreach to unionists. It's just that it's naive to think that the majority of unionists could be open to persuasion. I know you haven't claimed that - I'm just using broad brushstrokes to illustrate a wider point which I've expanded on below. Furthermore, I don't actually believe that there's anything wrong with the message. My main gripe lies with SF as the main messengers of it, which does more damage to said outreach than anything imo.
I just think that you underestimate the extent to which identity lies at the core of the debate. The British identity of most unionists is bound to their unionism and Irish unity kills unionism off. The two are incompatible. In order for unionists to meaningfully engage with unity they would have to sacrifice their unionism.
Most nationalist and and even republican politicians, writers and commentators have been saying this for a long time though. Has it moved the debate on much? No. Brexit has done it for them.
Alex also said he'd probably leave here in the event of unity. GR would like re-partition to be considered. Both, I'm sure you'd agree, are reasonable individuals but identity is also at the centre of this for them. Perhaps GR could add some follow up here?
I tend to agree but I'm hesitant to put a time frame on it. In regards to unionists, of particular interest are the post-troubles generation, who have lived in a much different environment to their forebears and one in which European Union membership was taken for granted. Those who perhaps don't have the overly simplistic view of national identity you referred to above. It'll be interesting to see how that plays out in the coming years.
Fingers crossed!
Last edited by The Fly; 10/07/2017 at 10:47 PM.
British nationality law does attempt to impose British nationality upon all people born in the north (if they are born to a "settled" or British national parent), although forcing someone to recognise that against their will (which Emma DeSouza would have to do even in order to initiate a formal "renunciation" process) clearly contravenes the GFA, which outlined that the British and Irish governments "recognise the birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both, as they may so choose, and accordingly confirm that their right to hold both British and Irish citizenship is accepted by both Governments and would not be affected by any future change in the status of Northern Ireland".
My (technical) point was that as a 'birthright', people obviously have it from birth. Before they (in practice adults on their behalf) can exercise it, they are effectively dual citizens.
I've made clear many times that
a) repartition is administratively doable and potentially offers widespread advantage. Nationalists in 90% majority towns (Strabane, Newry) get to live in the South; the non-Nationalist majority overall increases; the broad shape and size of NI doesn't change much
b) there's no realistic chance of it happening given the exaggerated outrage on both sides anytime it's mentioned- which is largely why I present it as a remake of Milligan's Puckoon
c) an end to NI as presently set up is also possible in the mid-term future. Either if Unionists get corraled into too small a geographic area, or are too thinly spread as a numerical minority.
That said, I agree that Brexit is the game-changer. Before it, there was no realistic likelihood of a border poll etc. Now there is, even if few Unionists so far seem to be up to change their minds.
Even the theoretical possibility of re-partition seems largely irrelevant now
PS can DI or any other legal/ technical experts explain the ads targeted here? Mine have changed from mature dating sites to corporate law training and Phil Lynott t-shirts?
Last edited by Gather round; 11/07/2017 at 8:00 AM.
Thanks but the follow up was in relation to the identity issue.My (technical) point was that as a 'birthright', people obviously have it from birth. Before they (in practice adults on their behalf) can exercise it, they are effectively dual citizens.
I've made clear many times that
a) repartition is administratively doable and potentially offers widespread advantage. Nationalists in 90% majority towns (Strabane, Newry) get to live in the South; the non-Nationalist majority overall increases; the broad shape and size of NI doesn't change much
b) there's no realistic chance of it happening given the exaggerated outrage on both sides anytime it's mentioned- which is largely why I present it as a remake of Milligan's Puckoon
c) an end to NI as presently set up is also possible in the mid-term future. Either if Unionists get corraled into too small a geographic area, or are too thinly spread as a numerical minority.
That said, I agree that Brexit is the game-changer. Before it, there was no realistic likelihood of a border poll etc. Now there is, even if few Unionists so far seem to be up to change their minds.
Even the theoretical possibility of re-partition seems largely irrelevant now
PS can DI or any other legal/ technical experts explain the ads targeted here? Mine have changed from mature dating sites to corporate law training and Phil Lynott t-shirts?
Last edited by The Fly; 11/07/2017 at 9:28 AM.
Is there a specific question? My (self-) identity hasn't changed, I still say I'm from Duncairn/ Belfast/ NI/ Britain depending on context, how interested/ informed other person is.
I'm referring to the issue of identity generally and its central importance when it comes to the constitutional question; as compared to other considerations like economics.
Identity is a social construct that we humans have invented in order to separate ourselves from one another. Why we continue to live in this caveman like fashion, I'll never know!
Posting Permissions
Quote
Bookmarks