Easter lily

jimmmy

Sand wrote: »

Lets take one scenarios: A man throws a nailbomb into a resteraunt, packed with families. Do you A) celebrate him as a hero? or denounce him as a thug?

Provos wont be interested in the act itself. Theyll only be interested in if the man was a Provo or a Loyalist. If he was a Provo, he was at worst, misguided. If he was a Loyalist, hes scum, and probably a British agent to boot.

The shoot to kill policy is the same: The Provos willingly seek to murder as many of their targets as they can, they are morally outraged at the concept that their targets might actually shoot back with the intention of killing them.

The tortured Provo logic over being an army is the same: They claim to be an army fighting a war, but completely ignore geneva conventions - Prisoners are tortured and executed, civillians are targeted and murdered and so on. None of this seems....odd behaviour for an army to Provos. On the otherhand, British army crimes (like Bloody Sunday) are denounced and the memory reinforced.

Restaurants were not just bombed by the provos. Atrocities were carried out by the old IRA too. Old or new, remember that if you see a restaurant or pub, and you see a Lily.

Grudaire

jimmmy wrote: »

Restaurants were not just bombed by the provos. Atrocities were carried out by the old IRA too. Old or new, remember that if you see a restaurant or pub, and you see a Lily.

For feck sake the Easter Lily is to celebrate those who fought and died in the Easter Rising - Would you stop dragging us off topic... You're worse then Neil Horan for getting in the way for no good reason.

dlofnep

Fair play Cliste.

dlofnep is greatful for the brave men and women who fought for Irish freedom from who was at the time, a complete and utter disgrace of a nation in Britain. I find it hilarious when people tell us how great it was under British rule. Here's a fact for you - It wasn't.

The Easter Lily does, and has represented the people of the 1916 rising for 80 years. If it represents anything more than that to you, then that's your prerogative, not ours.

Nodin

jimmmy wrote: »

Restaurants were not just bombed by the provos. Atrocities were carried out by the old IRA too. Old or new, remember that if you see a restaurant or pub, and you see a Lily.

And we might say the seem re the British Army and the poppy. See how that works?

futurehope

Rebelheart wrote: »

Their entire rule in our country is based upon utter barbarism against us. To think that a single Irishman, woman or child should feel "guilted" into apologising to these cold-hearted racist bastards - people who stuck signs up saying 'No Dogs, No Blacks, No Irish' when both my parents ended up in Britain in the 1960s - while their state continues to claim the inheritance of Humphrey Gilbert, Oliver Cromwell, and the Penal Laws in this country, is breathtaking. Do you see the British apologising?

They hated England so much, that they moved there!

:D:D

jimmmy

This thread is not about the Poppy or saving Europe from German domination or the holocaust.

If you want to wear a lily in honour of a minority group / organisation who sometimes threw bombs in to pubs, fine. If the taliban want to wear two matchsticks to symbolise the twin towers, fine, I have no problem with that either. People can do what they want as long as they do not hurt others.

Shane-1

jimmmy wrote: »

Ah shure the whole war was a dastardly British plot. Germany never invaded too much outside its borders or did any harm anyway.


There are other sources, such as referenced at the bottom of the wiki article. Its common history knowledge if you are well read up on WW2, which you obviously are not. Shure maybe Hitler being the good Catholic he was would have, in the event of a German victory in WW2, brought good Irish lads and have them doing Riverdance in Berlin...shure Hitlers use of slave labour in occupied countries of Europe was just a British propoganda lie anyway.

I would be willing to wager near enough any amount of money that I am more read up than yourself Jimmy, Ive the pieces of paper to prove it. And as for your arguaments, they are clueless to the point of boring me now.

Ireland was not mentioned as an invasion possibliliy (apart from Operation Green), nor was there any mention of Irelands governing after the war. Ireland was not involved in the war, and the Germans have very few specific mentions of Ireland whatsoever, in any context. As your historical 'learning' develops you will begin to appreciate that you cannot make assumptions based on no evidence. Germans did not mention Ireland, did not ever make a threat on Irelands borders, thus you cannot come out with your mad theories of us being sent off to build big massive roads around the world. Back up the arguament, otherwise its remains, in the words of Sand, another case of whataboutery.

No evidence, no arguament. You please go and find me some reference which makes specific mention of Irelands intended fate after the war, or else leave this madness be.

And you are the one that keeps harping on about world wars and poppys so why try changing the subject now?

I honestly cant believe the rubbish being thrown about on here, would certain people here prefer if we could go back to before 1916 and cancel it? Just make do with Home Rule, if that even were to be implemented? Is that what you would prefer ya? Let the English continue to rule over us and treat us like second class citizens in our own country? Is that really what you would prefer? You should be ashamed to call yourselves Irish with the way ye are talking. The men of 1916 died for you, so you might know some semblance of freedom, and this is what ye would say about them in return, you are a disgrace to your nation.

I have seen go out
To break their strength and die, they and a few,
In bloody protest for a glorious thing,
They shall be spoken of amoung their people,
The generation shall remember them,
And call them Blessed:

Ar Dhies De go raibh a n-anamnacha

Sand

No.

The British Army has no right to be in Ireland. They don't have a right to take a piss in Ireland, much less to shoot people dead.

When locals kill these soldiers it is not "murder."

That's not Provo logic, that's anti-imperialism 101.

If you start a war, then the other side will shoot back. Allied forces on D Day didnt land on the beaches shouting "OMFG - theyre ****ing shooting at us, thats so unfair!!! Why are they doing that? They should wait for us to shoot them!!!"

Thats how laughable the Provos and their claims of being an army fighting a war are: getting upset and outraged that they start a war and suddenly people are shooting back. Its so unfair

Remember the SAS killing those Provos in Gibraltar: such a big fuss about how unfair it was by the Provos. Laughable. Theyre all brave patriots ready to sacrifice everything for Ireland until they facing armed opposition.

Unlike most people who throw the term Orwellian around, I actually know what it's meant to mean....While it is true the spin of the Sinn Fein leadership does fit the description Orwellian

Uh, do you agree with my usage of Orwellian to describe Provo logic ( see above...) or dont you?

However the logic of the IRA in it's struggle was straight forward and uncomplicated. James Connolly put it best before his illegal court marshal "The British government has no right in Ireland, never had any right in Ireland, and never can have any right in Ireland".

There's nothing Orwellian about that.

What are you even talking about? Do you read my posts, or are you reading someone elses? I refer to the Provo logic doublethink where A is good if they do it, bad if someone else does it as Orwellian and you imply I dont know what Im talking about, before agreeing I'm right and then witter on about James Connolly?

Do people begin to see why its pointless trying to engage with the Provo mindset? :rolleyes:

You're just doing this to see if you can get somebody annoyed enough to get themselves banned, I'd wager.

Honestly, why would I care if you guys get banned?

I honestly cant believe the rubbish being thrown about on here, would certain people here prefer if we could go back to before 1916 and cancel it? Just make do with Home Rule, if that even were to be implemented? Is that what you would prefer ya? Let the English continue to rule over us and treat us like second class citizens in our own country? Is that really what you would prefer? You should be ashamed to call yourselves Irish with the way ye are talking. The men of 1916 died for you, so you might know some semblance of freedom, and this is what ye would say about them in return, you are a disgrace to your nation.

Youre assuming that Home Rule would have been an end point and no further progress could have been made. All that 1916 achieved was Home Rule, renamed to a Free State. There was no republic. The King was still head of state. Ireland was parititoned. The British still deployed military forces in Ireland. Ireland was still part of the British Empire.

1916 didnt achieve anything worthwhile, certainly nothing worth the bloodshed and civil war that it sparked. An Irish republic was born through constitutional means. British forces were withdrawn from Ireland through constitutional means. Ireland left the British Empire through constitutional means. The King was removed as head of state through constitutional means. And whilst partition has not been reversed, it has been resolved, through constitutional means.

But I know - some people will always hold that something achieved through bloodshed and suffering is somehow more pure than something achieved through negotiation. Mean like Pearse needed to parade about in military uniform and deep in blood, to satisfy their own dreams of glory. Everyone else pays the price for it. Theres nothing there to celebrate.

I have seen go out
To break their strength and die, they and a few,
In bloody protest for a glorious thing,
They shall be spoken of amoung their people,
The generation shall remember them,
And call them Blessed:

Ar Dhies De go raibh a n-anamnacha

:rolleyes:

jimmmy

Shane-1 wrote: »

I would be willing to wager near enough any amount of money that I am more read up than yourself Jimmy

If thats the case why not read up the sources in the article I showed you ....you would learn a lot. Be a man, read them up and educate yourself to the facts. You should learn something every day.

Shane-1

jimmmy wrote: »

If thats the case why not read up the sources in the article I showed you ....you would learn a lot. Be a man, read them up and educate yourself to the facts. You should learn something every day.

Be a man Priceless, it takes a bit more than that to get me wound up Im afraid.

Alright, I said I wouldnt but I've gone back on my word and read your wikipedia article. You arent seriously putting that tripe forward in a historical debate! Its purely a game of what if, going as far as to predict Hitlers retirement! I didnt read it too carefully, did it mention whether he would have two deckchairs on the patio for himself and Eva or would it have been just himself and Blondi?

Your references are a joke my man, and interestingly I didnt happen to notice the word 'Ireland' or indeed even 'Eire' anywhere in the entire article. So that led me to conclude that not just is the entire article a case of 'what if, what if' but that your arguaments, drawn from the article, are indeed your own 'what if, what if' extension of the 'what if, what if' of the article. You dont honestly mean to put this tripe forward as a meaningful historical arguament do you? If I tried to argue a point like this in college I think I would have been thrown out the gate on day one! You need evidence before you say anything, otherwise whatever utterances you do come out with are rendered completely meaningless.

Shane-1

Sand wrote: »

If you start a war, then the other side will shoot back. Allied forces on D Day didnt land on the beaches shouting "OMFG - theyre ****ing shooting at us, thats so unfair!!! Why are they doing that? They should wait for us to shoot them!!!"

Thats how laughable the Provos and their claims of being an army fighting a war are: getting upset and outraged that they start a war and suddenly people are shooting back. Its so unfair

Remember the SAS killing those Provos in Gibraltar: such a big fuss about how unfair it was by the Provos. Laughable. Theyre all brave patriots ready to sacrifice everything for Ireland until they facing armed opposition.



Uh, do you agree with my usage of Orwellian to describe Provo logic ( see above...) or dont you?



What are you even talking about? Do you read my posts, or are you reading someone elses? I refer to the Provo logic doublethink where A is good if they do it, bad if someone else does it as Orwellian and you imply I dont know what Im talking about, before agreeing I'm right and then witter on about James Connolly?

Do people begin to see why its pointless trying to engage with the Provo mindset? :rolleyes:



Honestly, why would I care if you guys get banned?




Youre assuming that Home Rule would have been an end point and no further progress could have been made. All that 1916 achieved was Home Rule, renamed to a Free State. There was no republic. The King was still head of state. Ireland was parititoned. The British still deployed military forces in Ireland. Ireland was still part of the British Empire.

1916 didnt achieve anything worthwhile, certainly nothing worth the bloodshed and civil war that it sparked. An Irish republic was born through constitutional means. British forces were withdrawn from Ireland through constitutional means. Ireland left the British Empire through constitutional means. The King was removed as head of state through constitutional means. And whilst partition has not been reversed, it has been resolved, through constitutional means.

But I know - some people will always hold that something achieved through bloodshed and suffering is somehow more pure than something achieved through negotiation. Mean like Pearse needed to parade about in military uniform and deep in blood, to satisfy their own dreams of glory. Everyone else pays the price for it. Theres nothing there to celebrate.



:rolleyes:

Ah lord, 1916 achieved nothing etc, what planet do you live on at all? You are trying to match people in a historical debate by peddling out this nonsense. Even the most anti IRA anti violence historian in the country would tell you about the significance of 1916, but I wouldnt imagine you would be the type to listen to proper historical discussion would you? You dont give off the impression of someone who has immersed themselves very much in the study of history? You havent contributed anything of any value to this debate, you have simple 'Daily Mail'-headline like one dimensional arguaments of no substance.

So reply whatever nonsense you want to this post, I couldnt care less, this is certainly the last post I will be bothering to respond to from you, I'll save my arguaments for the more learned historical types on here. Even if meself and Jimmmy here cant agree at least he can come up with new arguaments as the debate evolves. You seem to have simply recycled your same arguament from your first post on, no development, no substance, nothing.

Sand

Ah lord, 1916 achieved nothing etc, what planet do you live on at all? You are trying to match people in a historical debate by peddling out this nonsense. Even the most anti IRA anti violence historian in the country would tell you about the significance of 1916, but I wouldnt imagine you would be the type to listen to proper historical discussion would you? You dont give off the impression of someone who has immersed themselves very much in the study of history? You havent contributed anything of any value to this debate, you have simple 'Daily Mail'-headline like one dimensional arguaments of no substance.

Yes, it achieved basically nothing. Sure it was significant: it killed constitutional nationalism for a generation, it laid the ground work for the civil war and the troubles. But those arent achievements. And nothing to be celebrated.

I am obviously biased on the value of my own contributions, but lets face it 95% of your posts are "I read a book once." You must be very proud of that achievement to keep highlighting it.

So reply whatever nonsense you want to this post, I couldnt care less, this is certainly the last post I will be bothering to respond to from you, I'll save my arguaments for the more learned historical types on here. Even if meself and Jimmmy here cant agree at least he can come up with new arguaments as the debate evolves. You seem to have simply recycled your same arguament from your first post on, no development, no substance, nothing.

Nobody's raised anything that could require me to develop my posts. The standard of debate from Provos is very poor. Whataboutery. West Brit accusations. Plain ignoring points raised. Accusations of trolling. And so on. You couldnt even tackle the points I made on the value of 1916 in my last post. But at least you did remind me you read a book once.

Just in case I had forgotten.

dlofnep

jimmmy wrote: »

If you want to wear a lily in honour of a minority group / organisation who sometimes threw bombs in to pubs, fine. If the taliban want to wear two matchsticks to symbolise the twin towers, fine, I have no problem with that either. People can do what they want as long as they do not hurt others.

Never in all my life have I read such revisionist bullsh*t about the men and women who fought in 1916. I'm thankful I don't know you on a personal level.

Nodin

Sand wrote: »

. An Irish republic was born through constitutional means. British forces were withdrawn from Ireland through constitutional means. Ireland left the British Empire through constitutional means. The King was removed as head of state through constitutional means. And whilst partition has not been reversed, it has been resolved, through constitutional means.

And what brought the British to the negotiating table and allowed those things to be on the agenda....? And lets have an answer this time, rather than a big blob of generalised abuse.

Jimmy wrote:

.
Be a man, read them up and educate yourself to the facts.

A bit rich coming from a man who dodges the refutations of his own posts on a regular basis.

jimmmy

Shane-1 wrote: »

Alright, I said I wouldnt but I've gone back on my word and read your wikipedia article. You arent seriously putting that tripe forward in a historical debate! Its purely a game of what if, going as far as to predict Hitlers retirement!

If you are not interested in historical articles, with half a dozen books as references, that is your problem. Hitlers plan on what to do with the menfolk of these islands, in the event of German victory in WW2, was well known. As I said, maybe you thought he was going to invite all the good Catholics ( like himself ) to dance at the crossroads in Berlin, while he enjoyed the fruits of the labours of forced slave labour elsewhere in Europe ?

Nodin

Sand wrote: »

Accusations of trolling. And so on..

Accusation?

Sand wrote:

For the record, I have never posted on www.irishrepublican.net ( I get all the knuckle dragging Provo bollocks I can stomach here...let alone venturing into the lair of murderous stupidity itself)

Sand

And what brought the British to the negotiating table and allowed those things to be on the agenda....? And lets have an answer this time, rather than a big blob of generalised abuse

The declaration of the republic and the leaving of the empire? The removal of the king of england as the head of state? John A.Costello declared it in 1949 during a visit to Canada, and it was legislated for in the Dail. It was the culmination of a long process of removing and weakening the constitutional powers and influence of the British monarch and government in the Irish state.

The withdrawal of British forces from Ireland? Britain handed back the Treaty ports in 1938 as part of negotiations between the UK and Ireland. Something Winston Churchill disagreed with. But it was done anyway.

And the resolution of the paritition issue? The work of the SDLP and both governments culminated in the Good Friday Agreement. A vastly imperfect agreement, but so far at least it has kept the Provos from murdering *too many* people, so its a start.

You'll note in all cases the solution was brought about by negotiation and constitutional means whereas the main hinderance was the physical force tradition who rejected any compromise until it was beaten into them.

Accusation?

Yup, accusations. As I noted I dont post on that forum. I just googled some choice terms that I knew would pull up a site like that.

Grudaire

Sand wrote: »

Yup, accusations. As I noted I dont post on that forum. I just googled some choice terms that I knew would pull up a site like that.

He wasn't talking about that site.... and he doesn't need to.

Nodin

Sand wrote: »

The declaration (....)into them..

....but they all happened after gaining the free state by force of arms.

Sand wrote: »

Yup, accusations. As I noted I dont post on that forum. I just googled some choice terms that I knew would pull up a site like that.

*cough

I get all the knuckle dragging Provo bollocks I can stomach here

Sand

....but they all happened after gaining the free state by force of arms.

And the free state was just warmed over home rule. Anything possible under the free state was possible under home rule. As I noted the Free State was still part of the British Empire. Was still occupied by British military. Was still ruled over by the King. Irish people were still crown subjects. Partition was still introduced. Was that what the men of 1916 died for? Did they have tears in their eyes from the smoke and the fire as the British Army overran the GPO and they thought: Oh, if only we get a Free State were we can still be crown subjects, it wont all have been in vain. :rolleyes:

Maybe you could point out the great achievement that differentiated the Free State from Home Rule.

I get all the knuckle dragging Provo bollocks I can stomach here

Whats wrong with stating that? I was accused of seeking out Provo nonsense just to annoy those poor, suffering Provos when theyre trying to celebrate the killers of innocent Dubliners. I dont go round Provo sites looking for Provo garbage and bollocks. I get enough of it here. If you dont like differing view points, and can only go <"Whatabout/West Brit/Troll!!!/Hmmm, I cant answer that, lets talk about something completely different!!!"> then I dont know what to tell you.

Shane-1

jimmmy wrote: »

If you are not interested in historical articles, with half a dozen books as references, that is your problem. Hitlers plan on what to do with the menfolk of these islands, in the event of German victory in WW2, was well known. As I said, maybe you thought he was going to invite all the good Catholics ( like himself ) to dance at the crossroads in Berlin, while he enjoyed the fruits of the labours of forced slave labour elsewhere in Europe ?

There is going to be no getting through to you is there? Wikipedia is not a suitable reference for anything, and the books that the article references are for the most part not academic works, more just general interest popular appeal history reading for the general reader. Also, even aside from the credability of your references, they do not specifically mention Ireland. You are making statements that such and such was going to happen to Ireland, yet you have no basis to support this? Ireland is not mentioned anywhere, thus you cannot say anything regarding Ireland, its very simple Jimmy. You cant say something as fact, or even put it forward as a theory, unless you can back it up somehow, you cannot back up your notions about Ireland and the Nazi's - thus they must remain just that, your notions! They have no historical standing whatsoever, no proof, not even a mere suggestion of their legitimacy exists.

And why are you harping on continously about Hitler being a catholic? I dont see how that affects anything!

And that other fella, I dont recall ever saying 'I read a book once'! Though if I had said that then it probably insulted you cause it means I've got one up on you.

Sand

And that other fella, I dont recall ever saying 'I read a book once'! Though if I had said that then it probably insulted you cause it means I've got one up on you.

this is certainly the last post I will be bothering to respond to from you, I'll save my arguaments for the more learned historical types on here.

I thought we were not on talking terms? :pac:

jimmmy

Shane-1 wrote: »

There is going to be no getting through to you is there? Wikipedia is not a suitable reference for anything, and the books that the article references are for the most part not academic works, more just general interest popular appeal history reading

You are believing what you want to believe. The history reference books are there for you to read. You admit you once read a book. Well, what was it? Maybe one day you will move on to more books, maybe even history books one day. If you are even in Europe, I suggest you visit some of the museums etc that deal with WW2. It will educate you in no small way, and maybe you can wonder what Hitler would have done had he been successful in WW2. I can assure you that we would not be hopping about dancing at the crossroads in Berlin. It astonishes me that you cannot be bothered to find out for yourself what plans Hitler had for the people of these islands ( and you disregard what it says in the wiki article , and you have not read the reference books ....unless the book you once read was one of them ? lol) .

Shane-1

jimmmy wrote: »

You are believing what you want to believe. The history reference books are there for you to read. You admit you once read a book. Well, what was it? Maybe one day you will move on to more books, maybe even history books one day. If you are even in Europe, I suggest you visit some of the museums etc that deal with WW2. It will educate you in no small way, and maybe you can wonder what Hitler would have done had he been successful in WW2. I can assure you that we would not be hopping about dancing at the crossroads in Berlin. It astonishes me that you cannot be bothered to find out for yourself what plans Hitler had for the people of these islands ( and you disregard what it says in the wiki article , and you have not read the reference books ....unless the book you once read was one of them ? lol) .

Ah look its this simple, JImmy I believe not what I want to believe but what the evidence compels me to believe, your references have no mention whatsoever of Ireland. Even if they werent shaky, dodgy, non academic references and were in fact the gospel on WW2 they still dont mention Ireland! And every museum you can go into will not mention Hitlers plans for Ireland, because none exist. If he did have plans for here then they died with him because there is no record whatsoever of any plans for our fair isle. The basis of historical arguament is that you can back up anything you say. Anything is fair game as long as there is evidence for it, you have none for this claim of yours.

You arent even addressing my arguament back to you. You have given me the same stock answer I think 3 times in a row now whereby you once again tell me about this wikipedia article (as though sooner or later it will suddenly morph into an actual historical reference which somewhere makes mention of Ireland), then you slot in some pathetic attempt at an insult at me (some drivel about reading books), then you go off the wall altogether and make some humourously unhumourous statement about Hitler and being a catholic/ dancing at some crossroads etc. Its this simple right - you have made a claim regarding Ireland and the Nazis, you have failed to back it up with any proof (even your wikipedia article has no reference or even an allusion to Ireland in it), I have asked you in the spirit of meaningful debate to back it up or leave it be, and you have failed miserably, relying on said stock answer every time.

Here Jimmy heres another gem for you right, I want you to check back on your famous wikipedia page right, and scroll down to the map showing your 'new world order' Do you see that little white bit in the middle? Ya? Guess what that is - go on - its a neutral country, and what were we? Switzerland was left alone. No slave labour for them, nope, maybe even got in a spot of yodolling at the cross roads with Heir Hitler himself, after morning mass of course.

I can only laugh at yer claims about me reading some book or other? Its quite humourous that this is the best ye can come with. For a start I never said anything about this famous 'one book' ye are on about! I mean we can all make up some rubbish to try and slag the other about but at least try and do better than this!

Scofflaw

This thread has gone a long way in the direction of a slagging match. It would be nice if it improved, and it will be closed if it doesn't.

Also, I appreciate that it's almost impossible to avoid in discussions of such subjects, but not every nationalist is a 'Provo', nor is everyone not a nationalist a 'unionist'. I'm spitting in the wind asking people not to use the easy labels, but I'm asking it anyway.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Hagar

April 24th is the actual anniversary of the Rising but most of us will remember it this week.

It's very moving to watch a Captain of the Irish Army read the IRA's Proclamation in the presence of Her Excellency the President and for it to be publically received with pride. We have nothing to be ashamed of, they were great men.

I have no objection to anybody copying the link from my Easter Lily to their own sig.
For my part it will remain there for Easter Week.
I do it every year and will continue to do so as long as I am able.

Link to Easter Lily Image http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/9853/lilysmall.jpg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2vnqkC25v4

Shane-1

God Im wasting far too much of my time with this but I even was good enough to go back and check over those references once again;

Clarke, Comer England Under Hitler: Revealed at Last—The Secret Nazi Plans for the Rape of England

-Does this strike any of you here as a book to trust, the title reads like a News of the World headline!! Not of any academic interest I would imagine.

Derwent, Whittlesey German Strategy for World Conquest New York:1942

- Now this could be more like it. It mentions world conquest, in fact even German world conquest. This could be the one reference that makes me think, until of course I peruse further and happen upon where the book is published and at what date. An American book stateing how the Germans were on a mission to take over the world and enslave all peoples, published at the height of the second world war? No you're right Jimmy, this is bang-on the type of reference we should be looking for.

Waite, Robert G.L. The Psychopathic God: Adolf Hitler

-This sounds to me like the sequel to the Da Vinci Code or something, again dubious historical merits to this one.

Do I need to continue?

O'Coonassa

Sand wrote: »

Maybe you could point out the great achievement that differentiated the Free State from Home Rule.

Sand

Ah give them time, theyre probably going through that history book they have, coming up with the mother of all posts that will prove me utterly wrong on every point once and for all.

That or accuse me of being a west brit, a troll, or a bit of whataboutery.

Shane-1

O'Coonassa wrote: »

Home rule was but a gesture towards freedom, there would be no real freedom from it. Westminster would continue to rule in terms of the more important matters. Free State was allowed far more autonomy. Come on, if you profess to know so much you wouldnt need to ask these questions, its all very simple.

To give some bit of credit to your arguament the Free State model was based on the earlier home rule bill but significantly more generous. Come on, ye should know this, this is the basic stuff!

From the Anglo-Irish treaty Ireland would be a self governing dominion of the Commonwealth with the British monarch as head of state, as opposed to the 1914 home rule bill which would provide for limited self government in a devolved parliament as part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Spot any differences even from this rather superficial summary of the two bills?