will we ever see a 32 county republic

Shane-1

It just beggars belief that in this day and age there is still occupation of the north of our country, there is no arguament on earth that can excuse it. Ok I'll accept that there is now a majority in our northern 6 counties that may want a connection to Britain, and they will tell us that their will must be respected, well what about prior to this, before this division was ever put in place? This same 'majority' was but a tiny minority, the majority of the rest of the country was opposed to union with Britain and with partition, and well they didnt respect that will very much did they?

T runner

oscarBravo wrote: »

Just how closed-minded and self-righteous do you have to be not to be able to recognise how hostile this attitude seems to Unionists?

That is completely biased and unfair. Unionists have already declared on several occasions that their countrymen are in Britain not in Ireland. Where is your concern for nationalists in these instances? Where is the condemnation as hostile and closed minded then?

oscarBravo

T runner wrote: »

That is completely biased and unfair.

Newsflash: "biased and unfair" are not synonyms for "disagrees with me".

Unionists have already declared on several occasions that their countrymen are in Britain not in Ireland. Where is your concern for nationalists in these instances? Where is the condemnation as hostile and closed minded then?

If a Unionist tells a Nationalist "you're not Irish, you're British; deal with it" then I'd consider that hostile and closed minded. When you tell someone who lives in a part of another country that happens to be on the same landmass as this country that they're Irish, and won't accept the fact that they consider themselves British, I consider that hostile and closed minded.

As far as I'm concerned, people living in Northern Ireland have the option of choosing to consider themselves Irish or British. Frankly, I. dont. care. which they choose. It's none of my business, and it's none of yours.

T runner

junder wrote: »

My great Aunt is Scottish is that clear enough for you. I find your bigotry just knows no bounds, each post you make highlights more and more of your prejudices, if it was not so obscene i would find it almost laughable that you believe that when catholics leave protestant areas its because the protestants are bigots and are forcing them out and yet when protestants leave republican areas its still the protestants fault, perish the thought that republicans have intimidated people from their homes, perish the thought that republicans are not saints either. As for denying my right to my culture, one needs look no further then yourself.

Every time you reply to a post by me it is with an insult. Can you correct this please or do you insult everyone with whom you disagree?

I said nothing about catholics leaving protestant areas (although I believe some left in the pogroms of the 70's.)

In general catholics would not leave an area because they are a minority. The last 400 years of Irish history in Ulster has demonstrated this. Protestants do. Why is this? Is it because protestants cant stand to be ruled by catholics? Again why? Is it something catholics do to give protestants this attitude? Or is this attitude passed on from generation to generation of protestants? "Remember, dont let catholics/Irish rule you, you cant trust them"?

I dont believe it! Your great Aunty is scottish? But thats not a direct line. My Aunty is Scottish!!!! Im not claiming to be Connaught Scots although I have more right to claim it by my ancestry than you have to claim that you are Ulster Scots! You will do anything to disown your Irishness wont you? Your great Aunty is Scots therefore you are Ulster Scots and Irishness is as relevant to you as outer mongolian.

Grudaire

T runner wrote: »

If there is a united Ireland then technically Unionists will have an Irish nationality and will no longer be cut off from their countrymen.

Ah to be fair now the Irish, though ruled by the crown, never would call their nationality British.


Now if we could all read the front page of the Orange Order Website here

" ... evolution of Constitutional Democracy in the British Isles. "

Constitutional Democracy is far from what I would call it. Don't forget that they first brought the gun into the Home Rule Question. The fact that Unionists find the CLG offensive and exclusionary is mad when you look at the Orange Order.

jimmmy

jimmmy wrote: »

Whats crazy or untrue about that ? Did you never hear of the Darkley church massacre for example, or the more subtle things carried out over the years ?

t-runner, you never answered post no. 530

Maybe it was not in the history you were taught , even if you do not remember those years yourself ?

oscarBravo

T runner wrote: »

Every time you reply to a post by me it is with an insult. Can you correct this please or do you insult everyone with whom you disagree?

If you find a post offensive, report it and let me deal with it.

You will do anything to disown your Irishness wont you?

The man doesn't consider himself Irish. Would you do us all a favour and stop trying to ram your worldview down his throat?

Dub973

I'm my opinion we'd have a 32 county republic if thy Anglo-Irish treaty wasn't signed. The privis would have done it. The British offered us that because they were desperate and had to try and end it. If we rejected it the ira could have pushe on and got it

T runner

oscarBravo wrote: »

Just how closed-minded and self-righteous do you have etc....

oscarBravo wrote: »

Newsflash: "biased and unfair" are not synonyms for "disagrees with me".

" closed-minded and self-righteous" are not synonyms for "disagrees with me" either, or are they? (Self righteousness and hypocrisy tend to be two sides of the same coin)

When you tell someone who lives in a part of another country that happens to be on the same landmass as this country that they're Irish, and won't accept the fact that they consider themselves British, I consider that hostile and closed minded.

I responded to Camelot who was hypothesising on the cons of a United Ireland. In this scenario (a United Ireland) Northern Ireland would not exist. It would be one State only in this Island.

Your accusing me of telling someone from a different country but on the same landmass does not really apply does it? It would be same country, same landmass would it not? Thats what you call a strawman argument you made isnt it?

I said that all citizens of a United Ireland would technically be Irish, which you berated as closed-minded and self-righteous.

Yet when posters on this thread claim residents of NI are British (many have) you deem that OK. That is biased and unfair.

You also misrepresented me by claiming that I "won't accept the fact that they consider themselves British". Again a strawman. I do accept that they consider themselves British, but I don't consider them British myself: I consider Scots, Welsh, and English British.
This is the opinion of ATQ Stewart the most pre-eminent Unionist Historian.
You obviously dont like it, but everyone to their own opinion eh?

Grudaire

jimmmy wrote: »

t-runner, you never answered post no. 530

Maybe it was not in the history you were taught , even if you do not remember those years yourself ?

We can all drag up what has been done - I didn't do it, and neither did you. Can we agree to condemn ALL of the atrocities before we end up argueing about the first stone? (which was definitly the Unionists :pac:)

fryup

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

With more Catholics been born every year, and more Protestants dying of old age every year it is certain to pan out in this way.

SERIOUSLY - but do catholics in the north have big familys on purpose, so as to out number the protestants??

oscarBravo

T runner wrote: »

I said that all citizens of a United Ireland would technically be Irish, which you berated as closed-minded and self-righteous.

Nice backpedal. You said to junder:

T runner wrote: »

You will do anything to disown your Irishness wont you?

In other words, you're telling him he's Irish.

Newsflash: nobody died and put you in charge of what nationality people are.

Yet when posters on this thread claim residents of NI are British (many have) you deem that OK. That is biased and unfair.

If someone has an Irish passport, they're Irish. If someone has a UK passport, they're British. And don't start with the pedantry about Britain being the island to the east of us; you're perfectly content to extend the concept of Britishness when it suits your argument.

You also misrepresented me by claiming that I "won't accept the fact that they consider themselves British". Again a strawman. I do accept that they consider themselves British, but I don't consider them British myself: I consider Scots, Welsh, and English British.

So the British Empire didn't extend beyond the island to the east of us?

Dub973

there's one thing we gotta beleive in

Tiocfaidh ár lá

Deedsie

Shane-1 wrote: »

Commonwealth? I guess with todays bunch of chancers ruling us you would never know what might happen next! Im sure that Dev himself must be spinning so fast out in Glasnevin after hearing his own flesh and blood suggest that that he must have near drilled himself to the earths core by now!!

Its all strangely like the period before 1916 again now, people have forgotten nationalism and what it is about. Anyone who would claim to be a nationalist and then wish for re entry to the commonwealth? Beggars belief.

For your information, Dev left us in the commonwealth. He considered it as leaving the door open on the partition issue. It was a Fine Gael government that removed us from the commonwealth.

LordSutch

Dub973 wrote: »

there's one thing we gotta beleive in

Tiocfaidh ár lá

Yeah, but that's so old hat, things have moved on matey ................

T runner

oscarBravo wrote: »

Nice backpedal. You said to junder: In other words, you're telling him he's Irish.

(No comment on your previous strawman arguments?) Thats your convenient interpretation. I am saying his reasoning of being Ulster Scots and feeling as Irish as "an Outer Mongolian" appears to be flawed as his only connection to Scotland is a great Aunt which seems to be outnumbered by his many connections to Ireland. Peoples nationality and their interpretation of their nationality are vital to understanding the conflict in Ireland and are more than mere pedantics

Newsflash: nobody died and put you in charge of what nationality people are.

You see someone from NI saying they are 0% Irish, have nothing in common with someone from Donegal may be more than pedantics. It may give a clue to the symptoms or even the causes of some of the disagreement.

Somebody from Antrim clearly has a lot more in common with someone from Donegal than someone from "Outer Mongolia". Why would a person they have 0% in common? Is it because they really believe its true or is it because it may suit their political ideology for this "fact" to exist? I think its a fair enough question to ask dont you?

If someone has an Irish passport, they're Irish. If someone has a UK passport, they're British.

But you seem to think you are in charge of their nationality!

But surely someone with a UK passport are either Irish/ Northern Irish or British. No sorry mate, you are NOT Irish, dont be pedantic now, youre BRITISH!!!!!!

Can you answer me this? If I feel Irish but wish NI to remain in the UK and have a UK passport, then why cant my Irishness be reflected by my passport? Is this pedantics?

And don't start with the pedantry about Britain being the island to the east of us;

If there ever is a United Ireland then I am reasonably sure an Irish government would have to concede that citizens of Ireland are allowed call themselves British or Irish (under an Eire passport). Would you also consider this pedantics?

Again (and please dont ignore this time.) The most pre-eminent Unionist historian ATQ Stewart is of the opinion that every one in the Island of Ireland are Irish. He distinguishes British as people coming from Britain.
Have you any comment on this experts (and Unionsits) view of the nationality of people in NI? Stewart cited the example where people in Algeria felt compelled to call themselves French when it was ruled by France even though they were just "as Algerian as anyone else living in Algeria" (they were there for several generations.. Is this also pedantry?

you're perfectly content to extend the concept of Britishness when it suits your argument. So the British Empire didn't extend beyond the island to the east of us?

I have never extended the concept of Britishness as a nationality beyond the borders of Britain. Again it is only your opinion that this is pedantry please allow me mine.

Are Indians British? Were they ever British? Being ruled by Britain does not make you British or am I missing something?

oscarBravo

T runner wrote: »

I am saying his reasoning of being Ulster Scots and feeling as Irish as "an Outer Mongolian" appears to be flawed as his only connection to Scotland is a great Aunt which seems to be outnumbered by his many connections to Ireland.

And I am saying that you continuing to insist that he's Irish whether or not he considers himself Irish is annoying, and I'm asking you to stop it.

Peoples nationality and their interpretation of their nationality are vital to understanding the conflict in Ireland and are more than mere pedantics

There would be less conflict on this island if people spent less time obsessing over labels and more time accepting each other for what they are.

You see someone from NI saying they are 0% Irish, have nothing in common with someone from Donegal may be more than pedantics. It may give a clue to the symptoms or even the causes of some of the disagreement.

Or it may be their opinion, to which they are entitled, and which I'm asking you to respect. Dude says he doesn't consider himself Irish - fine, he's not Irish. What's the problem with just leaving it there?

Somebody from Antrim clearly has a lot more in common with someone from Donegal than someone from "Outer Mongolia". Why would a person they have 0% in common? Is it because they really believe its true or is it because it may suit their political ideology for this "fact" to exist? I think its a fair enough question to ask dont you?

Nit-picking pedantry. If you're incapable of recognising hyperbole used in the course of a discussion for what it is, maybe you're better off staying out of the argument rather than labouring the point.

But you seem to think you are in charge of their nationality!

Nope. If someone tells me he's British, fine: he's British. You want to tell me you're Irish: fine, your Irish.

But you're telling someone else his nationality, and labouring the point when he disagrees with you. That's just bloody-mindedness.

But surely someone with a UK passport are either Irish/ Northern Irish or British.

Whatever. If it makes you feel good about yourself to repeat that stupid assertion over and over and over and over again, knock yourself out. Your single-handed crusade to prevent a UK passport from ever being referred to as a "British passport" will doubtless go down in history. Right beside Don Quixote.

Can you answer me this? If I feel Irish but wish NI to remain in the UK and have a UK passport, then why cant my Irishness be reflected by my passport? Is this pedantics?

You can get a green cover for it with a gold shamrock, if it makes you feel any better.

And yes, it's pedantry. It's the sort of petty, silly, niggling pointlessness that has held back Northern Ireland for so long, and will continue to do so.

If there ever is a United Ireland then I am reasonably sure an Irish government would have to concede that citizens of Ireland are allowed call themselves British or Irish (under an Eire passport). Would you also consider this pedantics?

I'd consider it yet another example of double standards. You have held forth at considerable length about how it's not possible for the people of Northern Ireland to be considered British as long as it's in the UK, but Irish citizens could be considered British in a united Ireland? Please.

Again (and please dont ignore this time.) The most pre-eminent Unionist historian ATQ Stewart is of the opinion that every one in the Island of Ireland are Irish. He distinguishes British as people coming from Britain.
Have you any comment on this experts (and Unionsits) view of the nationality of people in NI?

Who died and made him sole authority? What makes you set such store by his opinion, other than that it happens to suit your argument?

Stewart cited the example where people in Algeria felt compelled to call themselves French when it was ruled by France even though they were just "as Algerian as anyone else living in Algeria" (they were there for several generations.. Is this also pedantry?

I'm starting to think you don't know what pedantry is.

What's the problem with being both French and Algerian?

I have never extended the concept of Britishness as a nationality beyond the borders of Britain.

Ah, we're narrowing it down. So it's perfectly feasible for something to be British outside of Britain, as long as it's not a nationality?

How does that work, exactly?

Are Indians British?

Lots of Indians are British.

Were they ever British?

Lots of Indians are, have been, and will be British.

Of course, it depends how you define "British". If you're going to start with a carefully-framed definition of the word that suits your argument, and try to discount everyone else's opinion because they don't conform to your pre-conceived ideas, what's the point in having a discussion?

LordSutch

Listen here T runner, if somebody holds a 'British Passport' and if that person is proud to be British & claims to be British, and willingly sings 'God Save the Queen', then dear chap, whether they be Irish, Scottish, Welsh or even English > they are 'British' with a capital B ...............

jimmmy

Exactly. I agree if someone tells me he's British, fine: he's British. You want to tell me you're Irish: fine, your Irish.

People in Tasmania can be Tasmanian as well as Australian - their passport is Australian but they live in Tasmania. Same with those who may live in the Canary islands. Or the isle of Wight or Jersey....even though its not on the British mainland. If someone from Jersey sings God save the Queen like they mean it, pays their taxes, has a UK passport, uses pounds sterling and would go to the British embassy if they needed to go to an embassy abroad - they have a right to call themselves British.

Grudaire

Camelot wrote: »

Listen here T runner, if somebody holds a 'British Passport' and if that person is proud to be British & claims to be British, and willingly sings 'God Save the Queen', then dear chap, whether they be Irish, Scottish, Welsh or even English > they are 'British' with a capital B ...............

While I believe that they are as British as the fifth generation Irish in the States this is not the centre of the discussion (Unionists are wrong on many more levels IMO:pac:) so I think we can allow them to call themselves British

Camelot wrote: »

Yeah, but that's so old hat, things have moved on matey ................

We've got Ipods now, but still Irishmen on Irish soil are being ruled by Britain

Shane-1

Deedsie wrote: »

For your information, Dev left us in the commonwealth. He considered it as leaving the door open on the partition issue. It was a Fine Gael government that removed us from the commonwealth.

I suppose I dont need too much more information on this thanks, I've a degree with specialist subjects on Irish nationalism and the troubles up north, I was burnt with this stuff for years!

Yes it was a Fine Gael (coalition) government that brought in the Republic, one of the great ironies of our country's history I think, but it was likely that the declaration may have been to please Sean MacBride and Clann na Poblachta (partners in the coalition) rather than Fine Gael, thus all the Fine Gaelers can stop ironing the blue shirts and taking credit during celebrations this year of their declarations 60th birthday. (came into force on April 18th 1949)

And Devalera wanted Ireland in the commonwealth to help the partition issue? Thats crazy, this is the same Devalera that declared a republic in all but name with the 1937 constitution, and who when asked about declaring a republic stated 'we already have a republic' The same Devalera indeed who certain numbers of his opponents would say pushed Ireland farther away from being united by republicanizing the south so much during his time! Away with your madness

LordSutch

Cliste wrote: »

While I believe that they are as British as the fifth generation Irish in the States this is not the centre of the discussion (Unionists are wrong on many more levels IMO:pac:) so I think we can allow them to call themselves British

Thats very kind of you.

Cliste wrote: »

We've got Ipods now, but still Irishmen on Irish soil are being ruled by Britain

I thought I reacted very well to Dub973 saying "Tiocfaidh ár lá" . . .

Grudaire

Camelot wrote: »

Thats very kind of you.

Anytime

Camelot wrote: »

I thought I reacted very well to Dub973 saying "Tiocfaidh ár lá" . . .

I'm not saying you didn't, just that it means 'our day will come', that day being a United Ireland free from British rule (I'm sure you know). Saying that we've moved on isn't really true. You never agreed in the first place, and I'm here arguing for it!

Dub973

Look if the Anglo-Irish treaty was rejected Ireland would be a 32 county republic today. The ira were inches away

LordSutch

I thought the term "Tiocfaidh ár lá" was mostly used by the provisional IRA?

Maybe i'm wrong?

Shane-1

Dub973 wrote: »

Look if the Anglo-Irish treaty was rejected Ireland would be a 32 county republic today. The ira were inches away

Could be true, I think the truce was misguided at the time, the Dublin units were reporting that they were running out of supplies and could only maintain their campaign for another number of weeks, the situation was different down the country, for example Tom Barry stated that his unit were fit for another three years! The truce ended things for us, I dont know if we could have picked up the momentum again after the gap from truce and treaty, public feeling had changed, some volunteers had left the movement, and many of the leading members, including men such as Collins were now well known to the British, I think the truce was the defining moment

oscarBravo

Dub973 wrote: »

Look if the Anglo-Irish treaty was rejected Ireland would be a 32 county republic today. The ira were inches away

And if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle. If you've nothing to contribute but IRA propaganda, don't bother.

Shane-1

oscarBravo wrote: »

And if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle. If you've nothing to contribute but IRA propaganda, don't bother.

Its an interesting proposition in its own right though. I dont know whether dub973 is saying it as propoganda or whether he may be making a valid point. It is a valid point worthy of debate, could even be its own thread

Dub973

Camelot wrote: »

I thought the term "Tiocfaidh ár lá" was mostly used by the provisional IRA?

Maybe i'm wrong?

Yes it was so what your point?

Dub973

oscarBravo wrote: »

And if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle. If you've nothing to contribute but IRA propaganda, don't bother.

It's a valid point sunshine,the British offered the treaty because they were afraid we'd get the lot