I take it you're refering to the motto on the coat of arms.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
I suppose it could raise a few eyebrows. ;)
Printable View
I take it you're refering to the motto on the coat of arms.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
I suppose it could raise a few eyebrows. ;)
Whether unionists (somewhere around 14 per cent of the population of the island of Ireland, as you say) were to be considered part of the Irish nation or not, either way, I would still argue that broad agreement exists within the Irish nation for unity. To be considered part of the Irish nation, however, wouldn't unionists be first expected to accept their birthright entitlement?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
I generally understand the term to possess negative connotations of unilateral coercion or aggression whereas the clause outlines that unity can "be brought about only by peaceful means with the consent of a majority of the people" in both jurisdictions on the island. Thus, unity would be a bilateral decision and unionists should have nothing to be irritated about so long as they support the democratic process.Quote:
I'll repeat. As long as it aspires to get rid of the border it meets the basic criterion to be irredentist, as simply defined above. Regardless of how formal the GFA, how great its popularity, or how obvious the widespread feeling that the Irish Republic's political institutions and most of its electorate haven't the remotest intention of following it up.
Besides, a significant majority of unionists did vote in favour of the GFA, after all, which is where the clause finds its roots. The territorial claim was "demoted" to an aspiration following mutual agreement with the NI electorate and the UK government. Furthermore, the GFA even describes the aspiration as the "legitimate wish of a majority of the people of the island of Ireland for a united Ireland".
If a referendum on Irish unity ever comes around in your lifetime and you happen to be on an electoral register north or south of the border, you'll also be offered a vote on the matter. You'll be perfectly entitled to vote against it.Quote:
Not really the same thing. If you want to offer me RoI citizenship, fine. I'm not interested but don't mind you offering.
Depends on what you deem the "foreseeable future", although the further away the realisation of unity appears to be would surely do anything but irritate unionists. Not that any time-frame, realistic or otherwise, ought to be placed upon something like that anyway against which its worth, legitimacy or validity as an aspiration be adjudged. Some form or other of complete Irish independence from Britain or repeal of the Act of Union has been an aspiration held by many in Ireland for centuries. I suppose it could prevail for another few if needs be, to be entirely speculative.Quote:
The constitution is a bit more irritating because it
a) keeps going on about unity by consent when there's no realistic chance of that happening in the foreseeable future
That's arguable, considering harmony, friendship and peace appear to be over-riding concerns in achieving consent. Either way, it's in line with the GFA which stated that "it would be wrong to make any change in the status of Northern Ireland save with the consent of a majority of its people".Quote:
b) ignores the likelihood that even a notional 50%+1 nationalist majority in NI is unlikely to be widely accepted as consent to a united Ireland, or perceived as fair/ achievable beyond Ireland
I must ask you though why a theoretical democratic majority of 51 per cent in favour of unity wouldn't be considered fair or acceptable, considering those were the terms to which the NI electorate signed up? Democracy's ethos seeks consensus, but not absolute agreement from each and every one of its subjects, so whilst the view that unity would be unacceptable might be widespread within NI, so long as the view was held by no more than 49 per cent of the electorate, it would be of little consequence, in theory at least. And I'm not sure what the perception of those beyond Ireland would have to do with anything so long as the Irish state/electorate, the UK and the NI electorate were in agreement. I'd imagine that international opinion would follow suit - it would be rather uncustomary and indecorous for it not to - so long as the UN or whoever you're referring to exactly were confident that the referendum was conducted in a method that was above board.
I don't profess to be a supporter of either party so more shame to them for being hypocritical, I suppose. I don't think it means that the constitution is self-contradicting, however. Would unionists rather they did contest elections in NI then in the interests of being faithful to their word?Quote:
c) is implicitly self-contradicting as above: if FG and FF and their supporters were that bothered you might have expected them to seek electoral support in NI sometime in the last 85 years. But they haven't.
It most certainly does. Have another read of the particular clause we're discussing if you wish. Their opinion will also be taken into account.Quote:
Originally Posted by paul_oshea
Hehe, steady on. Ferguson hasn't switched. Just yet...Quote:
Originally Posted by mark12345
There's a lot of assumptions being posted on this thread, about him being an ROI fan, etc etc.
All that is known as fact is that he has represented us at all levels except senior quite happily, and he has not made any noises about wanting to declare for the ROI.
Was speaking to a lad today who is from his neck of the woods and he says that the area Ferguson is from is more likely to be Northern Ireland supporting than ROI (though admittedly this means nothing).
Was actually referring to the deletion of the letters "ERN" from the vertical text as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Fly
A Northern Ireland fan engaging in speculative profiling?! ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by awec
He's from Eglinton or thereabouts, as far as I know, which wouldn't really provide any indication as to who he might have supported growing up. The area has a very slight unionist majority.
Good gaelic footballer that Ferguson lad. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by awec
http://www.sundaysun.co.uk/sport/new...10-27439091/2/
EG is "away" for a few days, but as a Northern Ireland supporter, I'll give you my thoughts.Quote:
Originally Posted by mark12345
There already is a de facto All Ireland representative side - it is that operated by the FAI.
Any player born in Northern Ireland has to choice to play for the FAI representaive side - that choice was hard won.
Players who do not wish to play for the FAI, have the choice to play for the IFA representative side.
Perhaps you should respect that choice, and appreciate that many, many, players are proud to play for Northern Ireland, and that Northern Ireland supporters intend supporting them playing for Northern Ireland long into the future.
The word around Eglinton is that he confessed to his priest after Sunday Mass the other week that he harboured ambitions of playing for us. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by TrapAPony
I think Mark's just saying he'd love to see an AI team, just like in rugby and cricket. I don't think he's ignoring cultural or identity issues, or not respecting choice. It's a valid view, just as yours is.
Mark will be delighted he can watch one then - everytime the FAI field a representaive side.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuttgart88
Our Captain tomorrow night is from good GAA stock.Quote:
Originally Posted by TrapAPony
Quis separabit?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Fly
Well, the FAI, of course.
Ferguson ‘too good to lose to Republic’
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sp...-15132049.html
I'd take everything published by the Belfast Telegraph with a pinch of salt but the rumours seem to be gathering pace.
still the same old rubbish about shane duffy who would qualify through his father even if the rules didnt allow northern born players with no family connection to the roi to declare for us.
Well I did warn that it was the Belfast Telegraph :)
If he does go then I'll be kicking Nigel Worthingtons door down and demanding that he explains why he is messing about the useless, grey haired prat
Why would you blame Worthington? Would you have had Ferguson capped to secure him? Just curious.
"You win some. You lose some.", should be the attitude at this stage. It's time to wise up and get over it.