Sinn Fein/IRA members found with list of TDs

The Corinthian

cdebru wrote:

they live in Ireland therefore they can not be considered foreign in Ireland

What a bizarre circular argument. You’re bandying the word Ireland about as if it has some absolute meaning. It has two: It is a geographic description - as is the British isles; but if so does that make us all British? Perhaps it’s because it’s geographically an island? Well someone should tell both the Dominican Republic and Haiti that they should unify then.

It is also a national invention. The Swedes could rename their country as Scandinavia and have a legitimate claim to all their neighbours then.

Irredentism is not an unusual state of affairs in Europe; Spain looks to Gibraltar, Germany still quietly hankers for lost territory in Poland and many in Italy still demand a return of Istria. Of course as time passes; most nations realize that their claims are becoming weaker as people who do not look to them as a fatherland populate their former territories.

And this is what has happened up north. A minority might consider a united Ireland, but it is a minority. Most don’t. Most consider themselves British or at least not our kind of Irish. After all, catholic and protestant there have more in common then catholic north and south of the border.

So spare us your glib claim of Ireland.

A Dub in Glasgo

The Corinthian wrote:

And this is what has happened up north. A minority might consider a united Ireland, but it is a minority. Most don’t. Most consider themselves British or at least not our kind of Irish. After all, catholic and protestant there have more in common then catholic north and south of the border.

Let us not get away from the fact that Ireland was partitioned in such a way so that NI had an artifical inbuilt majority. Why did Ulster not become NI?.

The reason why there are problems is because a very significant minority regard themselves as Irish and do not/did not agree with the partition. You cannot rule a state as a democracy with a very significant minority of its people against it. This has been proved time and time again.

What is 'our' kind of Irish?

The Corinthian

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Let us not get away from the fact that Ireland was partitioned in such a way so that NI had an artifical inbuilt majority. Why did Ulster not become NI?.

Because the other counties in Ulster did not want to remain in the UK and those that were partitioned off did. It’s kind of the point of nationhood; not a geographical entity but the will of its people.

The reason why there are problems is because a very significant minority regard themselves as Irish and do not/did not agree with the partition. You cannot rule a state as a democracy with a very significant minority of its people against it. This has been proved time and time again.

Actually you can. Happens all the time. Over 49% voted against divorce in this State - I’d call that a significant minority - yet it was passed.

The problem is that democratically, where there are two conflicting positions - such as to remain in the UK or not - you must pick the majority position. That’s the nature of democracy, like it or lump it. And lumping it frankly smacks of someone who isn’t terribly interested in the will of the people.

What is 'our' kind of Irish?

Up until recently we were a backward protectionist State largely influenced by the Roman Catholic Church. With high unemployment and few grants or benefits as those enjoyed up north. Industry was negligible in comparison also.

Nowadays, our economy has thankfully improved and the church is no longer calling the shots as it once was. However, we have a different education system and curriculum. Our government is more centralised and less devolved. Our political parties are almost completely different. Most of our holidays and traditions are different. We even speak as different a form of English to the Northern Irish as we would to, say, the Scots.

There’s probably less in common between us and them as there is between a German and an Austrian.

A Dub in Glasgo

The Corinthian wrote:

Because the other counties in Ulster did not want to remain in the UK and those that were partitioned off did. It’s kind of the point of nationhood; not a geographical entity but the will of its people.

Democracy in action? It was the maximum size state they could ensure an inbuilt majority. It was not done on a county by county basis, if it were, Derry, Tyrone, Armagh and Fermanagh would probably not have agreed to be split from the rest of Ulster

Actually you can. Happens all the time. Over 49% voted against divorce in this State - I’d call that a significant minority - yet it was passed.

It has been proved that you cannot create an artifical state with an inbuilt majority for one side and a significant minority of the other side who disagree that they were included in the creation and run the state smoothly. Passing a divorce referendum and running a state smoothly as a democracy are 2 totally different things.

The problem is that democratically, where there are two conflicting positions - such as to remain in the UK or not - you must pick the majority position. That’s the nature of democracy, like it or lump it. And lumping it frankly smacks of someone who isn’t terribly interested in the will of the people.

You speak of democracy but forget that NI was not created deomcratically. It was a state built to ensure a majority for one side! The majority position.... Is that the majority in Ireland (before partition)? Majority in Derry? Majority in Tyrone? Majority in Belfast? Majority in a state that was created to ensure there was one type of majority?

Up until recently we were a backward protectionist State largely influenced by the Roman Catholic Church. With high unemployment and few grants or benefits as those enjoyed up north. Industry was negligible in comparison also.

1st part is correct and thankfully, we have moved on. The 2nd part is skewed because NI has received a huge amount of British taxpayer money just to keep it viable.

Nowadays, our economy has thankfully improved and the church is no longer calling the shots as it once was.

We move on.. good

However, we have a different education system and curriculum. Our government is more centralised and less devolved. Our political parties are almost completely different. Most of our holidays and traditions are different. We even speak as different a form of English to the Northern Irish as we would to, say, the Scots.

Most of that is very superficial. Have you heard the huge variation in accent in Ireland? Various different accents for Dublin, Cork and Kerry are totally different, same with Glaway and Waterfor and Donegal. Donegal is very close to the way they speak in Derry as well as Tyrone. Belfast has it's own variation. The point? There are accents all over the place... this does not make us different 'Irish'.

There’s probably less in common between us and them as there is between a German and an Austrian.

Who is 'Us' and 'Them'? I certainly have a lot in common with the people from NI and I cannot believe you even think like this.

Mad Cyril

But neither does a sovereign 32-county Ireland exist. Of course there may be an aspiration for a sovereign 32-county Ireland, but then again you’ll find that a similar aspiration for a sovereign European nation exists too.

We were discussing the legitimacy of partition and at that time a sovereign republic most certainly did exist.

sceptre

Mad Cyril wrote:

We were discussing the legitimacy of partition and at that time a sovereign republic most certainly did exist.

A UDI is generally frowned upon in international law. Some states get backward recognition of their UDI from international bodies or other states, some don't. If you can point me in the general direction of any form of international backward recognition of the UDI you're referring to I'd be most grateful as it might give the statement above a hint of credence. If not, I'm afraid it's back to the "existed in the minds of those who said it existed" game.

Mad Cyril

The democratic majority of the Irish people elected representatives who subsequently asserted the nations right to independence and established an Irish parliament.

Seeing as Britain was quite a powerful force in world politics at the time it was always doubtful Dáil Éireann would receive much international support however in my view that does not automatically deny the legitimacy of said government.

The Corinthian

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Democracy in action? It was the maximum size state they could ensure an inbuilt majority. It was not done on a county by county basis, if it were, Derry, Tyrone, Armagh and Fermanagh would probably not have agreed to be split from the rest of Ulster

Probably. Maybe. And Maybe not. And what about the people there now? Don’t you think they’re a wee bit more important? Nonetheless, when partition took place many of the counties in Ulster overwhelmingly did not want to be governed by an Irish state that was fervently hostile towards them. Hell, look at what happened to the number of Protestants in the South after independence.

It has been proved that you cannot create an artifical state with an inbuilt majority for one side and a significant minority of the other side who disagree that they were included in the creation and run the state smoothly. Passing a divorce referendum and running a state smoothly as a democracy are 2 totally different things.

What is an artificial State then? Most of the nations in Europe are artificial to one degree or other. And as for an inbuilt majority, I would have thought that was the point of the State in question - hardly any point creating a State where the majority don’t want it to exist, is there?

But say you have a point and cannot create an artificial state with an inbuilt majority for one side and a significant minority of the other side who disagree; where does that leave a united Ireland? I hate to point it out but there is a pretty significant percentage of the population of the island of Ireland that would not favour it.

You speak of democracy but forget that NI was not created deomcratically. It was a state built to ensure a majority for one side! The majority position.... Is that the majority in Ireland (before partition)? Majority in Derry? Majority in Tyrone? Majority in Belfast? Majority in a state that was created to ensure there was one type of majority?

Most States are not exactly created democratically. What matters is what the majority want today, not almost a century ago. But still, if a majority of those counties chose to split and join the Republic,perhaps that would be a more workable and democratic solution.

1st part is correct and thankfully, we have moved on. The 2nd part is skewed because NI has received a huge amount of British taxpayer money just to keep it viable.

Second part is correct also even if you don’t like its origins. Or is a policy of propping something up to keep it viable a bad idea? Guess both the Irish language and the Gaeltacht are pretty screwed then.

Most of that is very superficial. Have you heard the huge variation in accent in Ireland? Various different accents for Dublin, Cork and Kerry are totally different, same with Glaway and Waterfor and Donegal. Donegal is very close to the way they speak in Derry as well as Tyrone. Belfast has it's own variation. The point? There are accents all over the place... this does not make us different 'Irish'.

Sure it does. They’ve grown up in a different system and had different experiences and traditions. Culturally they’re probably closer to Scotland than Southern Ireland.

Who is 'Us' and 'Them'? I certainly have a lot in common with the people from NI and I cannot believe you even think like this.

That’s really the problem. You can’t apparently conceive that someone may disagree with you.

Mad Cyril wrote:

The democratic majority of the Irish people elected representatives who subsequently asserted the nations right to independence and established an Irish parliament.

Seeing as Britain was quite a powerful force in world politics at the time it was always doubtful Dáil Éireann would receive much international support however in my view that does not automatically deny the legitimacy of said government.

Unfortunately that’s not actually a legitimate legal argument. It would appear that it’s back to the "existed in the minds of those who said it existed" game.

zepp

two things

1 how many people here are actully in the north

2 would a refruemdum in the south actully pass the inclusion of the north into the republic. and take on its 1 billion a year deficit

Mad Cyril

It is true to say that the first Dáil never received legal recognition either internationally or from the British Government.

However, to suggest the parliament existed only in the minds of those who said it existed is ridiculous. It had a full ministerial cabinet that, despite the obvious difficulties, endeavoured to function throughout the country. The Irish people had asserted their right to freedom and rejected their colonial occupiers.

The existence of the government is a historical fact and irregardless of the legalities was the legitimate government of the Irish people.

You will also note that the current state which uses the name “ Republic of Ireland” recognises the existence of the first Dáil as the government of Ireland.

The Corinthian

Mad Cyril wrote:

It is true to say that the first Dáil never received legal recognition either internationally or from the British Government.

However, to suggest the parliament existed only in the minds of those who said it existed is ridiculous. It had a full ministerial cabinet that, despite the obvious difficulties, endeavoured to function throughout the country. The Irish people had asserted their right to freedom and rejected their colonial occupiers.

The Irish electorate had elected members to the Westminster parliament, not the Dail - to which I note the did not invite the other democratically elected members from the other parties. As for full ministerial cabinets, the Socialist Workers Party has a government in waiting FFS!

The existence of the government is a historical fact and irregardless of the legalities was the legitimate government of the Irish people.

Of course, let’s ignore the legalities and call it legitimate anyway.

Of course, all of this is moot, because it was ultimately that same Dail (the second one, also democratically elected) that ratified the 1920 Government of Ireland Act that accepted partiton in the first place.

Mad Cyril

The Irish electorate had elected members to the Westminster parliament, not the Dail -[/ QUOTE]

The Sinn Féin manifesto in 1918 stated the following:

Sinn Fein aims at securing the establishment of that Republic.(1) By withdrawing the Irish Representation from the British Parliament and by denying the right and opposing the will of the British Government or any other foreign Government to legislate for Ireland.
(2) By making use of any and every means available to render impotent the power of England to hold Ireland in subjection by military force or otherwise.
(3) By the establishment of a constituent assembly comprising persons chosen by Irish constituencies as the supreme national authority to speak and act in the name of the Irish people, and to develop Ireland's social, political, and industrial life, for the welfare of the whole people of Ireland.

The manifesto clearly declares Sinn Féins intention to withdraw from Westminster and establish a sovereign Irish Parliament. The people accepted this and elected Sinn Féin candidates with a view to the establishment of Dáil Éireann.

to which I note the did not invite the other democratically elected members from the other parties.

Incorrect. The 26 Unionist MPs and 6 Home Rule MPs were summonsed to sit in Dáil Éireann however they denied and continued to sit in Westminster.

Of course, let’s ignore the legalities and call it legitimate anyway.

I have not expressed myself particularly well concerning the legalities. British law was the only law governing Ireland in 1919. The existence of the Dáil did contravene British law. However I refuse to accept the legitimacy of British law in Ireland as they were an occupying foreign power. Dáil Éireann was a revolutionary government elected by the people of Ireland and that is where it received its legitimacy.

As I have stated before, the current “ROI” traces its foundation back to the 1st Dáil. The state which you live in recognises the legitimacy of the 1st Dáil. Surely that is all the legal recognition necessary for you.

Of course, all of this is moot, because it was ultimately that same Dail (the second one, also democratically elected) that ratified the 1920 Government of Ireland Act that accepted partition in the first place.

That is a separate debate entirely.

The Corinthian

Mad Cyril wrote:

That is a separate debate entirely.

Not at all, because you cannot claim any legitimacy in your argument based upon the institution of the Dail and then choose not to recognize its decisions when it no longer suits you. Everything else you're saying then becomes moot.

sceptre

Mad Cyril wrote:

However, to suggest the parliament existed only in the minds of those who said it existed is ridiculous.

... which I didn't say in any case. I was replying to your post about the existence of the Republic. Don't straw man me.

Mad Cyril wrote:

The democratic majority of the Irish people elected representatives who subsequently asserted the nations right to independence and established an Irish parliament.

Seeing as Britain was quite a powerful force in world politics at the time it was always doubtful Dáil Éireann would receive much international support however in my view that does not automatically deny the legitimacy of said government.

That's what a UDI is.

Looks like we're in a recurring loop unless you've got something else.

Mad Cyril

Not at all, because you cannot claim any legitimacy in your argument based upon the institution of the Dail and then choose not to recognize its decisions when it no longer suits you. Everything else you're saying then becomes moot.

That is complete and utter rubbish. I will not be drawn into a debate as to the legitimacy of the acceptance of the treaty as it is an entirely different issue.

Now if you would address the points I have made as regards the subject at hand we can continue this discussion.

Mad Cyril

sceptre wrote:

That's what a UDI is.

Looks like we're in a recurring loop unless you've got something else.

I ahve made myself perfectly clear on teh issue. The state as declared in the decleration of independance existed. That is legally recognised by the current state.

Sleepy

So Mad Cyril, you directed me here to find out when the island of Ireland is was a single, unified, self-determining nation state?

All I see you arguing was that the island of Ireland had part of it's MP's to Westminster decide to create their own state and break away from London. The first Dail was never given international recognition. It was not a democraticly elected government of a unified island. As you say yourself:

The 26 Unionist MPs and 6 Home Rule MPs were summonsed to sit in Dáil Éireann however they denied and continued to sit in Westminster.

If not all those elected by the people of the island were included in that "parliament" it was a unitarian action and therefore invalidates it's claim to have been a government for the entire country.

A Dub in Glasgo

The Corinthian wrote:

Probably. Maybe. And Maybe not. And what about the people there now? Don't you think they're a wee bit more important? Nonetheless, when partition took place many of the counties in Ulster overwhelmingly did not want to be governed by an Irish state that was fervently hostile towards them. Hell, look at what happened to the number of Protestants in the South after independence.

A boundary commission was promised to look into the anomolies of dividing the country up to create NI. This never materialised. On a majority county by county basis, NI would have consisted of 2 possibly 3 counties.

What is an artificial State then? Most of the nations in Europe are artificial to one degree or other. And as for an inbuilt majority, I would have thought that was the point of the State in question - hardly any point creating a State where the majority don't want it to exist, is there?

So you accept that the majority view in Ireland did not matter and it was only the majority view in an undemocratic state that matters. The reason I am posting this is all the guff about democracy in action in NI when it never was in action in the 1st place.

But say you have a point and cannot create an artificial state with an inbuilt majority for one side and a significant minority of the other side who disagree; where does that leave a united Ireland? I hate to point it out but there is a pretty significant percentage of the population of the island of Ireland that would not favour it.

I am stating that the will of the majority in Ireland was ignored and Ireland was partitioned in a undemocratic fashion. It boiled down to the 'Unionist Veto' wrt to democracy in Ireland.

Most States are not exactly created democratically. What matters is what the majority want today, not almost a century ago. But still, if a majority of those counties chose to split and join the Republic,perhaps that would be a more workable and democratic solution.

Nobody is stating that the majority of NI should be forced into anything but it is worth pointing out the fallacy of this majority considering it was created to have one built in. More importantly, what about the majority of the UK and deciding the future of the UK?

Second part is correct also even if you don't like its origins. Or is a policy of propping something up to keep it viable a bad idea? Guess both the Irish language and the Gaeltacht are pretty screwed then.

You were not comparing like for like, the whole viability of NI was underpinned by Billions of £ from the British taxpayer. I am not quite sure how much say they had in the matter.

Sure it does. They’ve grown up in a different system and had different experiences and traditions. Culturally they’re probably closer to Scotland than Southern Ireland.

Everyone grows with a different perspective. Culturally, the Republic of Ireland is more akin to England therefore there is verey little Irish 'culture' left anyway.

That’s really the problem. You can’t apparently conceive that someone may disagree with you.

I have no problem with people disagreeing with me, I do have a problem with the 'them' & 'us' attitude.

Mad Cyril

If not all those elected by the people of the island were included in that "parliament" it was a unitarian action and therefore invalidates it's claim to have been a government for the entire country.

They most certainly were included however refused to take their seats. I fail to see how that invalidates the existance of Dáil Éireann.

If however the opposing elected officials were excluded from the parliament, I would agree with your conclusion.

Sleepy

The state as declared in the decleration of independance existed. That is legally recognised by the current state.

But a unilateral recognition of a government of a separate entity seventy odd years after the fact does not grant legitimacy to the government at the time of that government.

Otherwise I could claim legitimate dictatorship of the country because in seventy years time my heir could grant legitimacy to my claim, n'est pas?

Sleepy

Mad Cyril wrote:

They most certainly were included however refused to take their seats. I fail to see how that invalidates the existance of Dáil Éireann.

If however the opposing elected officials were excluded from the parliament, I would agree with your conclusion.

That's as facetious an argument as claiming Ian Paisley was a member of the IRA because he was offered a membership...

Mad Cyril

Otherwise I could claim legitimate dictatorship of the country because in seventy years time my heir could grant legitimacy to my claim, n'est pas?

Don't be so rediculous.


The large majority of the people of Ireland voted for an independent sovereign government to be established and it subsequently was. The minority who abstained from participation had no right to prevent the declaration.

The Corinthian

Mad Cyril wrote:

That is complete and utter rubbish. I will not be drawn into a debate as to the legitimacy of the acceptance of the treaty as it is an entirely different issue.

I’m simply following your logic that that the Dail was the legitimate government of Ireland and that it was in a position to decide upon Irish sovereignty. If, as you claim, it was; then you must also accept the decision of the second Dail to accept the partition.

Otherwise, you’re only accepting the sovereignty of the Dail where it suits you - in which case I can understand why you are so reticent to be drawn in such a debate.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

So you accept that the majority view in Ireland did not matter and it was only the majority view in an undemocratic state that matters. The reason I am posting this is all the guff about democracy in action in NI when it never was in action in the 1st place.

I am accepting that a practical political decision was made at the time, as is often done in such cases. However, what baring on the present demographics of NI this has is questionable.

I am stating that the will of the majority in Ireland was ignored and Ireland was partitioned in a undemocratic fashion. It boiled down to the 'Unionist Veto' wrt to democracy in Ireland.

I think you will find that they would have argued that they wished to avoid oppression and ethnic cleansing from the south. They would have had good reason for that fear too.

Nobody is stating that the majority of NI should be forced into anything but it is worth pointing out the fallacy of this majority considering it was created to have one built in. More importantly, what about the majority of the UK and deciding the future of the UK?

Had it been only one county with a 99% unionist population, it would still have been an artificial majority. That does not invalidate it however.

It’s like arguing that Quebec has no right to secede from Canada if it voted to - another significant minority that works, I will note.

As for the majority of the UK and deciding the future of the UK, I think that’s up to them. Personally I wouldn’t be certain that a similar referendum in the south would be passed.

You were not comparing like for like, the whole viability of NI was underpinned by Billions of £ from the British taxpayer. I am not quite sure how much say they had in the matter.

And the viability of the Irish language and the Gaeltacht was underpinned by Billions of Punt and Euro from the Irish taxpayer. I’m pretty certain I didn’t get to say a hell of a lot on the matter. At least no more than the British taxpayer.

I have no problem with people disagreeing with me, I do have a problem with the 'them' & 'us' attitude.

But that is the problem - if one disagrees with your assertion that north and south are one nation, one people, then it is inevitably a case of ‘us’ and ‘them’. Not in a bad way, but in the same way we would view a Scot or Welshman. A foreigner.

FTA69

Sand wrote:

Hidden under false panels in the boot of the car? Attached to the underside of the car? Would have made it pretty hard to riddle people without warning given theyd have to get them out from there pretty fast. Or did they just carry them whilst sitting in a car?

I dont think Green would have any complaints - he was murdering people to do away with partition and his killers (a mixture of a renegade UDR and British Intelligence agents/Loyalists rather than British Army) obliged his beliefs.


Crinimal Id reckon, It depends on whether you class a renegade UDR man and two loyalists who worked for British Intelligence as being on a misson for corrupt elements of the British intelligence services or the British Army.

Also states that mothers of young children cant be sentenced to death, regardless of their activities against a military force, even if you allow that the IRA granted her a fair trial which they didnt. Pregnant women are also covered.

Now I imagine if McConville had been out there with an Ak-47 shooting up IRA men, there wouldnt be an issue with shooting back. But that wasnt the case.

Geneva Convention trumps Oxford Collins every day of the week and twice on Sunday when it comes to defining appropriate military conduct. No wonder you prefer the dictionary to the more demanding Geneva Convention. Hell, by dictionary standards Bertie Ahern probably is a socialist.


Convenient bollocks to be honest. Just because all sides committed wrong acts does not absolve the participants of responsibility for their own actions. The IRA murdered those people at the Enniskillen commemoration. That was wrong. Does that mean it wasnt wrong for the British Intelligence service to arrange for a loyalist squad to kill your buddy Green, rather than having him picked up by the cops?

Thats the sickness within the Republican mindset. Were told to move on when we mention IRA atrocities, but then were told we have to investigate in exhausting detail any and every British/Loyalist crime real or imagined.

Too right British wrong doing should be investigated - but we shouldnt forget the crimes of the IRA and allow them to be swept under the rug.

Regards Vol John Francis Green, my point about the border was simply a continuation of your logic that states the British were justified in their position in Ireland ie defending the 6 County state alone, but that position itself is fraudulent considering they broke their own rules many times by crossing into a jursidiction foriegn to them to carry out military operations.

Regards the SAS, they carried their weapons in secreted panels while driving specially modified cars nicknamed "Q vehicles", one incident involving the SAS lists a number of Convention breaches. While the IRA were planting a mine in Fermanagh Vol Antoine Mac Giolla Bhrighde (unarmed) approached a car he believed to contain civilians to warn them to evacuate the area, on his approach one SAS corporal called out to him to surrender his arms (he was unarmed) and almost immediately afterwards he shot Antoine in the side. Antoine was then restrained with handcuffs and beaten before being shot in the head. Take your pick of breaches there.

We could sit here all day and while away the hours pointing out how many breaches both the IRA and the British Army made of the Geneva Convention. Execution of prisoners without trial etc but what purpose will it serve. My overall point was that you deny the fact the IRA are guerillas or an "armed force" owing to their many breaches of said convention but to follow your logic the British Army are not an "armed force" owing to their many breaches of the said convention.

Mad Cyril

I’m simply following your logic that that the Dail was the legitimate government of Ireland and that it was in a position to decide upon Irish sovereignty. If, as you claim, it was; then you must also accept the decision of the second Dail to accept the partition.

Otherwise, you’re only accepting the sovereignty of the Dail where it suits you - in which case I can understand why you are so reticent to be drawn in such a debate.

You are wrong. My recognition of the Dáils authority as the government of Ireland does not require me to accept its decision to sign the treaty. My objection to the treaty centres on the authority of the Dáil to make such a decision and the circumstances surrounding the decision.


Now would you return to the discussion at hand?

The Corinthian

Mad Cyril wrote:

You are wrong. My recognition of the Dáils authority as the government of Ireland does not require me to accept its decision to sign the treaty. My objection to the treaty centres on the authority of the Dáil to make such a decision and the circumstances surrounding the decision.

Oh so you recognize the Dail as the government of Ireland but not it’s right to govern. That’s convenient. Any more a la carte principles you’d care to share with us?

Now would you return to the discussion at hand?

But if this debunks one of your arguments, which it does, it is very much part of the discussion at hand.

Mad Cyril

Oh so you recognize the Dail as the government of Ireland but not it’s right to govern.

I never stated that.

I will briefly outline my opposition to the treaty but this is the last I will say regarding it.

My main objection to the treaty is accurately surmised in the following extract from a submission made to the UN by The 32 County Sovereignty movement:

The Declaration of Independence 1919 was issued by Dail Eireann as the result of the Authority of the people of Ireland in the 1918 election. Therefore any fundamental change in that position could only be brought about by going back to the Irish people.
Therefore we challenge the authority of the Dail to accept a motion before it usurping the sovereign decision of the people, i.e. The Treaty of 1921. for the following reasons:

(a) Having declared the sovereign position of the people lawful, it was not within their remit to disestablish the sovereignty of the people - a fact clearly understood in their own declaration of Independence.

(b) More importantly, the members of the Dail went before the people with the specific aim of upholding the will of the people. Therefore, it defies belief that a motion to accept a treaty fostered upon the Dail at the point of a gun by a foreign parliament would be anything other than null and void.

My argument against the treaty is broader however that will suffice now.


As you can see I have not denied the Dáils right to govern, just its right to make that particular decision.

Now please, do address the rest of my post.

FTA69

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

To reiterate myself on the subject of decommisioning, you are the one trying to portray the decommisioning of the LVF as being on a par as that of the IRA's which is a complete non-argument as the LVF are not part of any political process therefore their example of putting arms beyond use are completely incomparable.

I also never made the statement; "bull, ususal newpaper propaganda", and while I was indeed mistaken on the quantity of LVF arms put beyond use I was correct in my assertion that it is insignificant both militarily and politically.

Martin McGuinness is a self-confessed FORMER member of the IRA, not the same thing at all a chara.

Countless opinion polls have also stated the wish of the majority of Irish people for a united Ireland, Sinn Féin voters alone are not the only people calling for it. Like many others I distrust opinion polls so let us put the matter to a referendum incorporating the Irish people as a unit and accept what result comes out of it!

A Dub in Glasgo

The Corinthian wrote:

I am accepting that a practical political decision was made at the time, as is often done in such cases. However, what baring on the present demographics of NI this has is questionable.

Which is an acceptable course of action but it is the height of hyprocisy to argue against something you do not agree with based on a 'democracy' basis. A bit less holier than thou from some and more of the acceptance of political expediancy will go much further.

I think you will find that they would have argued that they wished to avoid oppression and ethnic cleansing from the south. They would have had good reason for that fear too.

They may have had a point, can you point to the good reasons? Do not forget that they done exactly what you believe they would have argued to the minority in NI.

Had it been only one county with a 99% unionist population, it would still have been an artificial majority. That does not invalidate it however.

It is good to get into the open the reality of how NI was created and the inherent undemocratic nature of the state. Where is your beleif that Derry or Tyrone (for example) should have been allowed to join the Free State based on your supposition above?

It’s like arguing that Quebec has no right to secede from Canada if it voted to - another significant minority that works, I will note.

As for the majority of the UK and deciding the future of the UK, I think that’s up to them. Personally I wouldn’t be certain that a similar referendum in the south would be passed.

Opinion polls have consistantly shown that the majority of people in the UK believe that the British presence in NI should leave. No referendum has ever taken place and no real discussion has taken place explaining how Britain came to pump Billions of their taxpayers money into the state that is NI. If the majority of people in the UK want to leave NI, would you accept it?

And the viability of the Irish language and the Gaeltacht was underpinned by Billions of Punt and Euro from the Irish taxpayer. I’m pretty certain I didn’t get to say a hell of a lot on the matter. At least no more than the British taxpayer.

The viability of partitioning a country undemocratically and the viability of raising awareness of the Irish language. I can't see the connection.

But that is the problem - if one disagrees with your assertion that north and south are one nation, one people, then it is inevitably a case of ‘us’ and ‘them’. Not in a bad way, but in the same way we would view a Scot or Welshman. A foreigner.

Only if you put into that type of language. Who is the 'Us' and who is the 'Them'? Is it purely a political disagreement or does your disagreement run deeper? I know of nobody who will describe their political opponents in the language of Us and Them.

Sand

Countless opinion polls have also stated the wish of the majority of Irish people for a united Ireland, Sinn Féin voters alone are not the only people calling for it. Like many others I distrust opinion polls so let us put the matter to a referendum incorporating the Irish people as a unit and accept what result comes out of it!

Theres already been a referendum - the people of Ireland relinquished the claim to the North. By a massive margin.

Weve washed our hands of it since. No - body - wants - that - fecking - hell - hole - of - a - province. The British dont want it, the Irish (sorry, the Free State traitors) - dont want it, you might as well make friends with the loyalists because youll be spending the rest of your life sharing a fecked up diseased society and state with them.

so your basis is a parliament that was unrepresentative of the vast majority of Irish people

It was unrepresentitive of course - women were forbidden from voting let alone standing for election, for example, but it was a Parliment that ruled via elections across all of Britain and Ireland. Thus to claim that Ireland was foreign to the UK, despite being a constituent of it is ludicrous. Is Texas foreign to the United States? The congress that ruled the US was unrepresentive as well remember, only white settlers were allowed to vote for a long span of the countries early history.

I see you could not answer the rant

Rants dont invite discussion. They are after all, rants. I mean youre not seriously interested in accepting that Georgian Dublin, possibly the most charming area of the city would be a benefit of British investment and rule. Youd simply span off on a rant again. Any of the other benefits would simply be another red rag to a bull.