Sinn Fein/IRA members found with list of TDs

cdebru

The Corinthian wrote:

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? .

Ireland does have an absolute meaning it refers to the Island of ireland and its islands
Britain is the neighbouring Island that is where the british are
on the Island of Ireland the people are Irish


the term British Isles is not one that is used in Ireland

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Isles
try reading here it might help you understand the history of the term

british refers to the people of Britain and its Islands

The Corinthian wrote:

Perhaps it’s because it’s geographically an island? Well someone should tell both the Dominican Republic and Haiti that they should unify then..

I have no intention of telling haitians or people of the Dominican republic how to conduct their affairs that is a matter for them

The Corinthian wrote:

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

could they I think their neighbours might think different

of course the USA could rename it self the world and claim everthing(oops maybe they have)

The Corinthian wrote:

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..

is that right thanks for that has no bearing on wether Ireland is an Island and the people from that Island are Irish but thanks anyway

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..

a growing minority look at the demographics

The Corinthian wrote:

So spare us your glib claim of Ireland.

glib to refer to this island as Ireland dont talk ****e

cdebru

Sand wrote:

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..

of course skip the bit that not only women but catholics could not vote
ie 90% of the population
also the fact that the parliament that did vote was bribed and bullied and threatened

you missed the point you claimed that people in ireland were british they were not
the act of union you refered to is the united kingdom of great britain and ireland
if the people here were british it would have been the UK of great britain
british refers to the island of great britain
irish people were always irish ie from ireland not great britain

Sand wrote:

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.

georgian dublin is so called because of the period it was built in not because of who built it

it was built by irish people as the city prospered in that period

even then i dont think it overcomes the downside to british rule

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

sceptre

Mad Cyril wrote:

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.

Then I'm afraid, Cyril, that in reality-land in an international sense, your argument has all the legal foundations of a quicksand palace built on water and there's no point in my debating the issue with you till you learn more about retroactively recognised UDIs, why sometimes they are, why sometimes they're not and whose recognition of them counts. This is meant as a helpful suggestion rather than mere condescension. We could continue to go around and around in circles but what's the point in getting dizzy.

Incidentally the supreme court case you're presumably thinking of when referring to "legally recognised by the current State" (which remember from the point of view of your argument is the same State or the game doesn't work) stated quite clearly that the State derived its authority from the first Dail (as opposed to the Treaty) but stopped short of considering the de jure and de facto issues of the actual existence and extent of the declared republic at the time (partly because it didn't need to - the authority is derived in a Irish legal sense from the Dail itself as a representative body rather than the declaration of a republic by the Dail). What the current Dail considers doesn't matter a damn as they only make the laws, they have never had the role of interpreting them. And as Sleepy has pointed out, a unilateral retroactive recognition of a unilateral declaration of independence adds virtually nothing but time to the original declaration. Nul points from me then I'm afraid but thanks for playing.

bonkey

Sand wrote:

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.

A bit of consideration for the posters who are from the North wouldn't go astray Sand.

Thats two nations in two threads that you've decided to cast nations in nothing but a malignant light....whilst at the same time referring in both posts to people with chipson their shoulders / people ranting.

The ironing is delicious.

jc

cdebru

cdebru wrote:

of course skip the bit that not only women but catholics could not vote
ie 90% of the population

Catholics couldn't vote in 1918 I don't think that was the case, have you a link for that? when did catholics get the vote then?

cdebru

Earthman wrote:

Catholics couldn't vote in 1918 I don't think that was the case, have you a link for that? when did catholics get the vote then?

no we were talking about the act of union not 1918

catholics got the vote in 1793 in certain circumstances however they could not sit in parliament so effectively they could not vote for their own representatives

catholic emancipation was in 1829 ie the right to take your seat in parliament etc

The Corinthian

Mad Cyril wrote:

I never stated that.

But you did imply it. You were happy enough to claim that the Dail was enacting the will of the people when it suited you and that it when against it when it did not suit you.

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:

That’s a legally dubious argument, TBH. It rules one political mandate as lawful and the other as not and it is very arguable as to whether its reasoning is sound. How has the UN ruled on it then?

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

Semantics. If you deny the Dail’s right to make decisions you are de facto denying its right to govern.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

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.

Strictly speaking you’re right. But over 80 years have passed and changing populations mean that the political relevance and culpability are all but irrelevant at this stage. Shall we send them all back to Scotland then by your logic, given that they’re the spawn of the plantations anyway or would you prefer to wake up and smell the coffee and deal with what has occurred in this lifetime?

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.

It would be difficult to deny that the Roman Catholic church had an inordinate level of influence over government in the Free State / Republic. Then ask yourself where the protestant population in the south disappeared to after independence?

As for the loyalists in NI, I’d certainly accept that they were no saints, but that’s not the point.

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?

But what if they were? What if NI was as I suggested of one county with a 99% loyalist population, would you accept it’s exclusion from the Republic then? If not, then the demographics of Derry or Tyrone (for example) are immaterial, as it would not be the population that you’re basing your opinion on.

Quebec has a sizable minority that seeks independence from Canada. One of those sizable minorities you told us cause a situation to be unworkable time and time again earlier.

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?

I think it is a somewhat questionable principle, in that we could all vote tomorrow to cut Limerick lose from the Republic, against their will (and while the rest of us would be much better off, I would question the ethics of such as vote).

Would I accept it? As I said, that’s up to them. Were I British, then I’d probably say yes. If NI wants to leave the UK that is up to both NI and the UK, TBH. Would I want them to join the Republic? No. Probably not.

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

Pumping money into keeping a State or region economically viable (such as either NI or the Gaeltacht) or a language from going the way of the Dodo is all based on the same fiscal principle of subsidy. It’s not difficult to see the connection unless you don’t want to.

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.

Who was talking about political opponents? I was talking about foreigners, and passively at that. For many in Ireland (that’s the Republic and not some 32-county imaginary State) people in NI are essentially foreigners, as Scots or the Welch would be. Politics has nought to do with it.

cdebru wrote:

Ireland does have an absolute meaning it refers to the Island of ireland and its islands
Britain is the neighbouring Island that is where the british are
on the Island of Ireland the people are Irish

the term British Isles is not one that is used in Ireland

It’s a geographical term - I already pointed that out. Whether it’s used in Ireland or not (and TBH, it is used in Ireland whether you like it or not) hardly makes it an ironclad argument for nationhood.

british refers to the people of Britain and its Islands

Then by your logic, if all people on the island of Ireland must be in the same State, then so must all those in the island of Britain. Can you confirm this?

I have no intention of telling haitians or people of the Dominican republic how to conduct their affairs that is a matter for them

That’s a convenient way of avoiding that another one of your arguments is flawed. You are contending that nationhood is defined by geography and not population. If this is false in one case, might it not be fale in others?

could they I think their neighbours might think different

Guess what, our neighbours think different too.

is that right thanks for that has no bearing on wether Ireland is an Island and the people from that Island are Irish but thanks anyway

Does that mean tat they must belong to the same State then? And I suggest that you read up on irredentism.

a growing minority look at the demographics

Yes, as I said; a minority.

glib to refer to this island as Ireland dont talk ****e

The only ****e is this romantic notion that simply because this is an island that it must be one state, that automatically we’re all one big happy nation. It’s an infantile assumption, as it’s not true in many places in the World and it’s frankly not true here.

catholics got the vote in 1793 in certain circumstances however they could not sit in parliament so effectively they could not vote for their own representatives

Well technically they could as long as they swore an oath to the King recognising him as head of the Church, but that’s a bit of a moot point. Nonetheless, universal suffrage didn’t exist anywhere in the World at that stage.

A Dub in Glasgo

The Corinthian wrote:

Strictly speaking you’re right. But over 80 years have passed and changing populations mean that the political relevance and culpability are all but irrelevant at this stage. Shall we send them all back to Scotland then by your logic, given that they’re the spawn of the plantations anyway or would you prefer to wake up and smell the coffee and deal with what has occurred in this lifetime?

Not atall, I would like a bit more enlightment from the 'democratic' brigade that 'democratic' ideals are ignored for political expediancy purposes. The whole principle of 'consent' (which is the answer) is accepted by everybody who signed up to the GFA. That acceptance does not mean that people can not highlight the inherently undemocratic and gerrymandered nature of the NI state.

It would be difficult to deny that the Roman Catholic church had an inordinate level of influence over government in the Free State / Republic.

True but is that the same as ethnic cleansing?

Then ask yourself where the protestant population in the south disappeared to after independence?

Enlighten me

As for the loyalists in NI, I’d certainly accept that they were no saints, but that’s not the point.

It is definitely the point. You gave a reason why NI was created as they imagined there would be ethic cleansing from the Free State authorities, yet this is exactly what NI did to the minority with in NI.

But what if they were? What if NI was as I suggested of one county with a 99% loyalist population, would you accept it’s exclusion from the Republic then? If not, then the demographics of Derry or Tyrone (for example) are immaterial, as it would not be the population that you’re basing your opinion on.

It was a retort to the supposition you gave regarding the county by county basis for inclusion into NI. If it is accepted that populations in counties or regions dictate the policy on how a country should be governed and divided, you will have no problem with allowing certain areas of Dublin join the UK (only where the majority in those areas wanted it)? How small is the cut off to allow cities/counties/regions override the majority within the country?

Quebec has a sizable minority that seeks independence from Canada. One of those sizable minorities you told us cause a situation to be unworkable time and time again earlier.

So that people in Quebec have been ethnically cleansed/discriminated against/villified by Canada? The circumstances are similar to the Irish - British question?

I think it is a somewhat questionable principle, in that we could all vote tomorrow to cut Limerick lose from the Republic, against their will (and while the rest of us would be much better off, I would question the ethics of such as vote).

Is certainly is questionable but what if Limerick was a huge drain on the resources of everyone else and the governing council were dragging their heels in solving their problems. Do you think the people paying for the situation would be very happy?

Would I accept it? As I said, that’s up to them. Were I British, then I’d probably say yes. If NI wants to leave the UK that is up to both NI and the UK, TBH. Would I want them to join the Republic? No. Probably not.

The consent principle only mentions the people of NI not and the rest of the UK.

Pumping money into keeping a State or region economically viable (such as either NI or the Gaeltacht) or a language from going the way of the Dodo is all based on the same fiscal principle of subsidy. It’s not difficult to see the connection unless you don’t want to.

At what stage do you say 'this is not viable and we are not going to pump any more resources into it?'

Who was talking about political opponents? I was talking about foreigners, and passively at that. For many in Ireland (that’s the Republic and not some 32-county imaginary State) people in NI are essentially foreigners, as Scots or the Welch would be. Politics has nought to do with it.

Politics has everything to do with it. The people in NI are as Irish as you and I. Some do not wish to be Irish, some do. Some prefer to be ruled by the UK, some don't.

To be frank, your statement is appalling and quite insulting to people in NI. Obviously you regard the Irish President as a foreigner? What about Derry City football club playing in the league in the Republic? What about the GAA? The all Ireland finals? You regard everyone of them as foreigners? what about the reports that FF may be setting up in NI? Foreigners?

The Corinthian

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Not atall, I would like a bit more enlightment from the 'democratic' brigade that 'democratic' ideals are ignored for political expediancy purposes. The whole principle of 'consent' (which is the answer) is accepted by everybody who signed up to the GFA. That acceptance does not mean that people can not highlight the inherently undemocratic and gerrymandered nature of the NI state.

Are you saying that you want to base your democratic solution on an electorate of 86 years ago?

True but is that the same as ethnic cleansing?

Arguably yes, although certainly not to the same level of violence as we saw in Yugoslavia.

Enlighten me

http://www.wesleyjohnston.com/users/ireland/past/protestants_1861_1991.html

It is definitely the point. You gave a reason why NI was created as they imagined there would be ethic cleansing from the Free State authorities, yet this is exactly what NI did to the minority with in NI.

Are you saying then had there been no partition and it was only the protestants that were ethnically cleansed, then it would be acceptable?

It was a retort to the supposition you gave regarding the county by county basis for inclusion into NI. If it is accepted that populations in counties or regions dictate the policy on how a country should be governed and divided, you will have no problem with allowing certain areas of Dublin join the UK (only where the majority in those areas wanted it)? How small is the cut off to allow cities/counties/regions override the majority within the country?

Actually in a democracy, I would imagine that it would be best agreed upon in negotiation between elected representatives and then voted upon by the people.

So that people in Quebec have been ethnically cleansed/discriminated against/villified by Canada? The circumstances are similar to the Irish - British question?

Don’t start adding new conditions to your original assertion - it betrays its failure:

“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.”

Is certainly is questionable but what if Limerick was a huge drain on the resources of everyone else and the governing council were dragging their heels in solving their problems. Do you think the people paying for the situation would be very happy?

Probably not, but I only commented upon the questionable ethical nature of such a decision.

The consent principle only mentions the people of NI not and the rest of the UK.

Grand. That’s how they choose to run their country, then that’s their business. They have a German as head of state and no one seems to be questioning that.

At what stage do you say 'this is not viable and we are not going to pump any more resources into it?'

Good question, but probably off-topic. If you think it’s relevant here, please say why.

Politics has everything to do with it. The people in NI are as Irish as you and I. Some do not wish to be Irish, some do. Some prefer to be ruled by the UK, some don't.

The people of NI are as (geographically) Irish as you or I, as much as they are (geographically) European as you or I, but that does not make them compatriots.

To be frank, your statement is appalling and quite insulting to people in NI. Obviously you regard the Irish President as a foreigner? What about Derry City football club playing in the league in the Republic? What about the GAA? The all Ireland finals? You regard everyone of them as foreigners? what about the reports that FF may be setting up in NI? Foreigners?

Yes. Foreigners. When the ROI plays NI I will cheer the former and they’ll cheer the latter. Plenty of people here will support English Football teams too, but that hardly makes us English ether.

And spare my your indignation while you’re at it.

cdebru

The Corinthian wrote:

It’s a geographical term - I already pointed that out. Whether it’s used in Ireland or not (and TBH, it is used in Ireland whether you like it or not) hardly makes it an ironclad argument for nationhood..

it has no standing in irish law the term british isles was not used in the good friday agreement as it is acknowledged even by the british governmnet as misleading and insulting to Ireland

The Corinthian wrote:

Then by your logic, if all people on the island of Ireland must be in the same State, then so must all those in the island of Britain. Can you confirm this?.

historically britain has been made up of scotland england and wales however they constitute one state the united kingdom
I would not presume to tell the people of the uk how to govern themselves that is a matter for them

ireland was never divided in this way it was always treated as one unit untill partition

however a substantial minority of the population of the six counties do not want to be governed by the uk

this will remain a problem even if the roles are reversed and the unionists become the minority

that is where the GFA comes in I would imagine that the institutions set up by the GFA would remain even after a majority of people in the 6 counties decided to leave the UK
what is being set up is a framework that the people of the 6 counties can live with no matter who is in the majority

The Corinthian wrote:

That’s a convenient way of avoiding that another one of your arguments is flawed. You are contending that nationhood is defined by geography and not population. If this is false in one case, might it not be fale in others?.

nationhood is defined by both

The Corinthian wrote:

Guess what, our neighbours think different too..

in which country

The Corinthian wrote:

Does that mean tat they must belong to the same State then? And I suggest that you read up on irredentism..

The Corinthian wrote:

The only ****e is this romantic notion that simply because this is an island that it must be one state, that automatically we’re all one big happy nation. It’s an infantile assumption, as it’s not true in many places in the World and it’s frankly not true here..

what is infantile is too suggest that Ireland is two nations it is simply not true

what we have is the template that britain used throughout its empire to divide people and maintain their empire
set one section of the population (either settlers or native)up as the rulers for the british usually the minority
keep them at each others throats so they are so busy fighting each other they miss the fact that the british are screwing both of them

if you look at the main trouble spots around the world a lot of them have this in common
ireland
iraq
india/pakistan
sri lanka
afghanistan
zimbabwe

it worked so well here that the british used it all over the world

The Corinthian wrote:

Well technically they could as long as they swore an oath to the King recognising him as head of the Church, but that’s a bit of a moot point. Nonetheless, universal suffrage didn’t exist anywhere in the World at that stage.

yeah in certain circumstances i said they also had to pledge an oath of allegiance to the monarch

but my point was that the act of union was not legitimate
as it was passed by an unrepresentative parliament

A Dub in Glasgo

The Corinthian wrote:

Are you saying that you want to base your democratic solution on an electorate of 86 years ago?

No, I am saying that it is acceptable for someone who believes in the consent principle to also highlight the undemocratic and gerrymandered state that is NI.

Arguably yes, although certainly not to the same level of violence as we saw in Yugoslavia.

A church having a direct line into governement is ethnic cleansing akin to Yugoslavia.

What is your view on any church and state arrangment irrespective of the religion?

http://www.wesleyjohnston.com/users/ireland/past/protestants_1861_1991.html

Protestants married Catholics and their children were brought up Catholics. Hardly ethnic cleansing.

Are you saying then had there been no partition and it was only the protestants that were ethnically cleansed, then it would be acceptable?

No

Actually in a democracy, I would imagine that it would be best agreed upon in negotiation between elected representatives and then voted upon by the people.

So this happened in Ireland then

Don’t start adding new conditions to your original assertion - it betrays its failure:

“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.”

So the situations are not comparable then?

Probably not, but I only commented upon the questionable ethical nature of such a decision.

Political expediancy is rarely ethical. You think it was ethical to partition Ireland the way it was partitioned?

Grand. That’s how they choose to run their country, then that’s their business. They have a German as head of state and no one seems to be questioning that.

You are aware that we signed up to the principle of consent as well?

Good question, but probably off-topic. If you think it’s relevant here, please say why.

A lot of the people I know in the UK, who are putting their money up to support NI are asking that question. This is very relevant considering the apparant inability of the Unionists to share power.

The people of NI are as (geographically) Irish as you or I, as much as they are (geographically) European as you or I, but that does not make them compatriots.

You are aware that people born on the island of Ireland (excluding the recent preconditions) are regarded as Irish? This is in our constitution and thankfully so as it appears you would love to introduce a form of master race identity to who is and who is not Irish. They are as Irish as you and I.

Yes. Foreigners. When the ROI plays NI I will cheer the former and they’ll cheer the latter.

What do you do at the Rugby? Hurling? Football? You must get confused

Plenty of people here will support English Football teams too, but that hardly makes us English ether.

It doesn't

And spare my your indignation while you’re at it.

Thankfully, I think your view of how you see your fellow Irishmen are the minority. Maybe I am wrong though. I say what I feel and I think your views of your fellow Irishmen are appalling.

The Corinthian

cdebru wrote:

it has no standing in irish law the term british isles was not used in the good friday agreement as it is acknowledged even by the british governmnet as misleading and insulting to Ireland

Don’t confuse diplomacy with legalism.

historically britain has been made up of scotland england and wales however they constitute one state the united kingdom
I would not presume to tell the people of the uk how to govern themselves that is a matter for them

Actually they are a union of three states - more if you include, NI, Isle of man, etc.

ireland was never divided in this way it was always treated as one unit untill partition

Wrong

however a substantial minority of the population of the six counties do not want to be governed by the uk

You’re still not getting the hang of this democracy thing.

this will remain a problem even if the roles are reversed and the unionists become the minority

And no doubt you’ll be there to defend the rights of the substantial minority of the population of the six counties do not want to be governed by the ROI :rolleyes:

nationhood is defined by both

That’s arguable.

in which country

About our claims to what they believe to be their territory – I highlight a situation where one nation could lay claim to territory around it based upon geography and you point out that its neighbors would object to such a claim. When I point out that the case is exactly the same in the case of NI, you get confused. Go figure.

what is infantile is too suggest that Ireland is two nations it is simply not true

what we have is the template that britain used throughout its empire to divide people and maintain their empire
set one section of the population (either settlers or native)up as the rulers for the british usually the minority
keep them at each others throats so they are so busy fighting each other they miss the fact that the british are screwing both of them

When you finish your rendition of “A Nation Once Again” you might also look at every other country in the World where borders have changed (more often without colonial help) over the centuries as populations change. Then you might catch the aroma of coffee.

Guess what - just because this is an island, there’s no rule that says it must be one State, one nation. Apparently, according to you, to think otherwise is “simply not true”. Convincing rebuttal. Not.

it worked so well here that the british used it all over the world

Really? Do you have evidence for this or are you just ranting?

but my point was that the act of union was not legitimate
as it was passed by an unrepresentative parliament

Name me one legitimate parliament in the World in 1801.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

No, I am saying that it is acceptable for someone who believes in the consent principle to also highlight the undemocratic and gerrymandered state that is NI.

Sure and an Andalusian could complain that their territory was forced into Spain by undemocratic means too – does that give them a rational cause to reject the incorporation of Andalusia into Spain today?

A church having a direct line into governement is ethnic cleansing akin to Yugoslavia.

The forcible or coerced repatriation of people based upon race or creed is ethnic cleansing. And as I said this was the case in the Irish Free State, although without the same extreme of violence that was found in Yugoslavia, but still ethnic cleansing nonetheless.

What is your view on any church and state arrangment irrespective of the religion?

Fairly irrelevant to the discussion, TBH.

Protestants married Catholics and their children were brought up Catholics. Hardly ethnic cleansing.

Try not to cherry pick what suits you:

“In the border counties (Donegal, Leitrim, Cavan, Monaghan and Louth), there were instances of Protestants being intimidated by more extreme neighbours and groups, most notably the IRA. There are records of Protestant farmers in these areas being attacked. Many of these Protestants responded by leaving their homes and moving across the border into Northern Ireland. This also contributed to the Protestant decline between 1911 and 1926”

“Until recently, there was discrimination against Protestants in the labour market of the Republic of Ireland. For example, Trinity College, although a Dublin University, was mainly attended by Protestants. (Even today it is a stronghold of Irish Unionism.) In many jobs, Trinity College was not accepted as a source of education, so applicants who had attended Trinity were automatically rejected. This had the effect of preventing most Protestants from applying for the jobs. There are other, more specific, cases of discrimination. For example county Clare library service was told by the Irish President, Eamonn de Valera, that it should employ a Catholic chief librarian. This discrimination meant that many Irish Protestants had to migrate to Northern Ireland or Britain to seek employment. This also contributed to the trend between 1926 and 1991.”

So the situations are not comparable then?

I was responding to your “significant minority” argument before you chose to change the goalposts.

Political expediancy is rarely ethical. You think it was ethical to partition Ireland the way it was partitioned?

Arguably, but does that mean that you wish to redress the matter in as unethical a manner?

You are aware that we signed up to the principle of consent as well?

My understanding is that it applies to us in the even of NI wishing to join the ROI, not their leaving the UK.

A lot of the people I know in the UK, who are putting their money up to support NI are asking that question. This is very relevant considering the apparant inability of the Unionists to share power.

Or considering the apparant inability of the IRA to disarm. I would sympathize.

You are aware that people born on the island of Ireland (excluding the recent preconditions) are regarded as Irish? This is in our constitution and thankfully so as it appears you would love to introduce a form of master race identity to who is and who is not Irish. They are as Irish as you and I.

If you stamp your feet and repeat yourself enough, you may convince. Or not.

What do you do at the Rugby? Hurling? Football? You must get confused

Same thing that most Irishmen will do with the Premier league, but that hardly makes them English. However national teams are a different story.

Thankfully, I think your view of how you see your fellow Irishmen are the minority. Maybe I am wrong though. I say what I feel and I think your views of your fellow Irishmen are appalling.

I wouldn’t be certain of that, especially if you include your “fellow Irishmen” up north. At best there’s certainly a growing significant minority who would share my view - which according to you would mean that we “cannot rule a state as a democracy with a very significant minority of its people against it”. Or do you want to change your goalposts again?

monument

cdebru wrote:

historically britain has been made up of scotland england and wales however they constitute one state the united kingdom

No, you're wrong. Scotland, England, and Wales makes up Great Britain; the United Kingdom is Great Britain plus Northern Ireland (thus the name 'United Kingdom of Great Britain, and Northern Ireland').

cdebru wrote:

I would not presume to tell the people of the uk how to govern themselves that is a matter for them

Now that you've been told what the UK is, I would presume you're going to now retract that. Would I be right?

cdebru

The Corinthian wrote:

Don’t confuse diplomacy with legalism.

where is the legality of the term british isles

The Corinthian wrote:

Actually they are a union of three states - more if you include, NI, Isle of man, etc.

actually they are a union of three nations one state

NI is not part of britain it is in ireland get out your map

The Corinthian wrote:

Wrong

show me where ireland was treated as anything other than one nation prior to partion

The Corinthian wrote:

You’re still not getting the hang of this democracy thing.

it depends on your view of what democracy means
you obviously are of the opinion that it simply means that a particular section of society can do what they like as long as they are a majority in a particular area of the country.

The Corinthian wrote:

And no doubt you’ll be there to defend the rights of the substantial minority of the population of the six counties do not want to be governed by the ROI :rolleyes:

of course i would

The Corinthian wrote:

That’s arguable.

argue it then

The Corinthian wrote:

About our claims to what they believe to be their territory – I highlight a situation where one nation could lay claim to territory around it based upon geography and you point out that its neighbors would object to such a claim. When I point out that the case is exactly the same in the case of NI, you get confused. Go figure.

no your logic is twisted you suggested a country could change its name and claim territory

i am not claiming the six counties based on just geography or any name change


Ireland is the official english version name
of the 26 county state

it is also the name of the island

the fact is that a substantial over 40% of the population of the other six counties want to belong to Ireland
and the vast majority of the 26 counties would prefer a united country

The Corinthian wrote:

When you finish your rendition of “A Nation Once Again” you might also look at every other country in the World where borders have changed (more often without colonial help) over the centuries as populations change. Then you might catch the aroma of coffee.

so from that i take it if cricklewood or some part of liverpool or glasgow decided they wanted to leave the UK and join Ireland you would support them

or lets see
if fermanagh
and derry
down
south tyrone

where there is a majority nationalist population
want to leave the UK democratically you will support them

The Corinthian wrote:

Guess what - just because this is an island, there’s no rule that says it must be one State, one nation. Apparently, according to you, to think otherwise is “simply not true”. Convincing rebuttal. Not.

ok there is no rule
But if a majority of the population of the Island want it to be one state should they not have the democratic right
to decide it

do we need a majority in each county or city or town or street or each house or is the majority on the Island not ok

The Corinthian wrote:

Really? Do you have evidence for this or are you just ranting?

another ranting allegation seems to be popular with you and sand when you come up with a fact that does not suit you

what evidence would you like

look into the history of any of the countrys i mentioned and it is there

white settlers in zimbabwe
sunnis in iraq
pushtans in afghanistan

its called divide and conquer surely you have heard of it

The Corinthian wrote:

Name me one legitimate parliament in the World in 1801.

whats your point
because there were none the actions of a british controlled parliament in ireland is acceptable

cdebru

monument wrote:

No, you're wrong. Scotland, England, and Wales makes up Great Britain; the United Kingdom is Great Britain plus Northern Ireland (thus the name 'United Kingdom of Great Britain, and Northern Ireland').?

No your wrong
england scotland and wales make up the united kingdom of great britain
since we were only talking about the Island of great britain why would i mention Northern Ireland it is not part of britain
maybe you should read the question i was answering before you jump in with both feet

monument wrote:

Now that you've been told what the UK is, I would presume you're going to now retract that. Would I be right?

no you would be wrong again
retract what you think i should tell the people of britain how to govern themselves
why would I

cdebru

The Corinthian wrote:

I wouldn’t be certain of that, especially if you include your “fellow Irishmen” up north. At best there’s certainly a growing significant minority who would share my view - which according to you would mean that we “cannot rule a state as a democracy with a very significant minority of its people against it”. Or do you want to change your goalposts again?

but minority not really getting to grips with this democracy thing

monument

cdebru wrote:

No your wrong
england scotland and wales make up the united kingdom of great britain
since we were only talking about the Island of great britain why would i mention Northern Ireland it is not part of britain
maybe you should read the question i was answering before you jump in with both feet

I am not wrong, maybe you should stop caling GB the UK, they are not the same thing. The full name of the UK is the United Kingdom of Great Britain, and Northern Ireland, and if you, or I, like it, or not, NI is part of the UK.

cdebru wrote:

no you would be wrong again
retract what you think i should tell the people of britain how to govern themselves
why would I

You originally said the people of the UK, changing it to “people of britain” looks like a retraction to me.

A Dub in Glasgo

The Corinthian wrote:

Sure and an Andalusian could complain that their territory was forced into Spain by undemocratic means too – does that give them a rational cause to reject the incorporation of Andalusia into Spain today?

They could if they wanted to. I will repeat what I actually said again just in case you missed it

No [to your question], I am saying that it is acceptable for someone who believes in the consent principle to also highlight the undemocratic and gerrymandered state that is NI.

Where have I rejected something?

The forcible or coerced repatriation of people based upon race or creed is ethnic cleansing. And as I said this was the case in the Irish Free State, although without the same extreme of violence that was found in Yugoslavia, but still ethnic cleansing nonetheless.

We are talking about something that did not happen, this all stems from your statement that NI was created because some in the community thought it might happen.

Fairly irrelevant to the discussion, TBH.

Only irrelevant if by answering a certain way it demolishes your line of thought. Would you say that NI was created as a 'Protestant state for a protestant people;? Is it true to say that no Catholic could ever be head of state of the UK because Catholics are banned?

Try not to cherry pick what suits you:

That is funny.... look at what you have just done. Do as I say not as I do!

"In the period 1911 to 1921, the Home Rule movement was gaining momentum, and it began to be clear to Irish people that Home Rule was indeed going to be granted and that the resulting country would have a Republican government. Many of the Protestants living far from Ulster decided to remain, but in border areas many Protestants decided that it was worth moving house so that when Home Rule took place they would be in part which did not get Home Rule (today's Northern Ireland). This is what the majority of the Protestant reduction between 1911 and 1926 can be attributed to. This movement of Protestants out of the Irish Free State (as the Republic was known in 1921) continued after the independence also."

“In the Republic of Ireland, since 1926, there has been a constant pattern of Protestants marrying Catholics. In most counties (exceptions being Cork, Dublin and the border counties) there were insufficent Protestants to enable most Protestants to realistically marry another Protestant, so most married Catholics."
[/quote]

I was responding to your “significant minority” argument before you chose to change the goalposts.

I still stand by my significant minority against the state. You seem to think that the creation of NI is similar to Quebec, I have seen nothing that makes it similar.

Arguably, but does that mean that you wish to redress the matter in as unethical a manner?

Comes back to the principle of consent, will you accept it if the majority in NI wish a United Ireland (coupled with the majority in the ROI)

My understanding is that it applies to us in the even of NI wishing to join the ROI, not their leaving the UK.

Which, in reality, is the same thing

Or considering the apparant inability of the IRA to disarm. I would sympathize.

No apparant about it, they have decommissioned some and there is a proposal on the table to decommission all. Those fluid goalposts again eh?

If you stamp your feet and repeat yourself enough, you may convince. Or not.

No footstamping from me, I just do not see the logic behind your view and you have said nothing to point to one.

Same thing that most Irishmen will do with the Premier league, but that hardly makes them English. However national teams are a different story.

You mean the English Premiership? When Ireland are playing Rugby against England, how do you reconcile your support for the foreigners in the team? Would you watch 2 'foreign' counties playing in an all Ireland football final?

I wouldn’t be certain of that, especially if you include your “fellow Irishmen” up north.

You don't think you are in a minority?

At best there’s certainly a growing significant minority who would share my view

A significant minority of x%. what is x? Your view being that the President of (RO)Ireland is not Irish and is a foreigner. I must move in different circles to you.

which according to you would mean that we “cannot rule a state as a democracy with a very significant minority of its people against it”.

You are against the state now?

Or do you want to change your goalposts again?

My goalposts have stayed firm, I cannot be fblamed for the shooting ability of others!

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Sand

you missed the point you claimed that people in ireland were british they were not

Actually I think I claimed it was ludicrous to describe Ireland as "foreign" to Britain, a term you used to describe Nelson, whose Pillar was destroyed by some IRA whackos taking a leaf out of the Talibans respect for cultures they dont agree with.

Weve established that Ireland and Britain had the same Parliment, that was as representitive/unrepresentitive as many or any other countries in the early 1800s. As a comparison, look at France and its dangerous slide to dictatorship under Napoleon - also clearly a foreign leader by French standards seeing as he was born in Corsica which has its own sepratist sentitments.

And yes, though it is not part of my argument, many people in Ireland at that time considered themselves British (most likely the majority did as the British Army heavily recruited from Ireland as did the navy, and many Irishmen prospered in the exspansion of the British Empire, and the 1798 campaign by the French was remarkable for the lack of support it received ), a sentiment and reality that lives on in the form of the Unionist population of Northern Ireland.

But I dont expect you to recognise that as, like the Taliban, republicans have utter disrespect and even contempt for cultures in Ireland that arent their own as shown by the destruction of Nelsons Pillar.

A bit of consideration for the posters who are from the North wouldn't go astray Sand.

Apologies to their feelings, I simply felt I had to stress the undesirability of such a corner of the world. Much of Northern Irelands "upwardly mobile" wouldnt disagree seeing as the first thing most graduates do is move to London etc etc.

A Dub in Glasgo

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Used in a purely geographic context, the vast majority of people do not have an issue with it. Some people have an issue when it is used in a political context that implies ownership or preferred ownership.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

cdebru

monument wrote:

I am not wrong, maybe you should stop caling GB the UK, they are not the same thing. The full name of the UK is the United Kingdom of Great Britain, and Northern Ireland, and if you, or I, like it, or not, NI is part of the UK..

arggh we were not talkin about the uk of GB and NI

we were talking about great britain

england scotland and wales make up the united kingdom of great britain

with NI it is the UK of GB and NI

as we were only talking about the Island of GB there was no need to mention NI

monument wrote:

You originally said the people of the UK, changing it to “people of britain” looks like a retraction to me.

in the context of what we were talking about the UK refered to England Scotland and Wales
the UK of GB
founded in 1707 act of union with scotland

I used Britain trying not to confuse you in the last post
obviously it did not work

cdebru

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

my knickers are completely untwisted
if you go back you will see some one suggested that as these are the british isles then we must be all british
I was refuting that and iam sure you would agree

the term is not used by the Irish Government as it causes confusion not in Ireland but abroad

monument

cdebru wrote:

arggh we were not talkin about the uk of GB and NI

we were talking about great britain

england scotland and wales make up the united kingdom of great britain

with NI it is the UK of GB and NI

as we were only talking about the Island of GB there was no need to mention NI


in the context of what we were talking about the UK refered to England Scotland and Wales
the UK of GB
founded in 1707 act of union with scotland

I used Britain trying not to confuse you in the last post
obviously it did not work

That’s amazing there is a UK of GB, and a UK of GB and NI? (DON’T ANSWER)


Back to basics, (and the present time!)…

UK = GB + NI

sceptre

cdebru wrote:

No your wrong
england scotland and wales make up the united kingdom of great britain

This is a late news flash: there hasn't been a united kingdom of (merely) great britain since 31 December 1800. Details to follow, sport, hair-splitting and timewasting at nine.

I fail to see the actual point of what y'all are [strike]meanderingly[/strike]fervently arguing about at this stage. However, I've found a plot, could anyone who's lost it let me know.

bonkey

Right...here's an easy way to sort this out...

I'll lock the thread, and you guys can take your discussion over what is, and is not, Great Britain / the United Kingdom to a Geography forum somewhere that it might be relevant.

Or you could get over your petty bickering and try discussing the actual points.

I'll leave it to the next few posters to decide....

jc

Mighty_Mouse

To turn your question around, in 2004 if there had been no IRA campaign, what would you expect would be the situation ?

The IRA is a reactionary force. IMO it couldn't of NOT happened.

cdebru

sceptre wrote:

This is a late news flash: there hasn't been a united kingdom of (merely) great britain since 31 December 1800. Details to follow, sport, hair-splitting and timewasting at nine.

I fail to see the actual point of what y'all are [strike]meanderingly[/strike]fervently arguing about at this stage. However, I've found a plot, could anyone who's lost it let me know.

look some one asked a question with regard to britain
it is a fact that england scotland and wales make up the
the UK of GB
as the question was only in relation to the island of great britain NI didn't come into it
I am not disputing that the state is the UK of GB and NI
but as the question was about BRITAIN and NI is not part of britain it did not come into the equation

if thats splitting hairs fine i know it is completely off topic but that is what always happens on here

there is no point just someone jumping in to an answer to a previous thread trying to pick a hole where none existed