United Ireland

kumate_champ07

Pighead wrote: »

It's a pointless question. It's like asking "Would you support the idea of Marty Morrissey and Britney Spears getting married?"

We could all vote yes just to see how they'd get on and find out what their babies would look like but at the end of the day Pighead very much doubts that either Marty or Britney would be happy to partake in such a union just to please the masses.

Marty would be pissed off having to go to movie premieres in LA knowing that Laois were playing Carlow in a minor football semi final back home while Britney would be pissed off that she'd have to walk up the red carpet with a small fat oompaloompa whose hair dye is rubbing against the hip area of her fancy dress.

south is marty morrisey and 6 counties is britney spears?

dude

what?

PaulieD

NBB Bohs wrote: »

You are a xenephobic fool you know that? Its unnatural the ammount of times you refer to me being foreign (I'm still very confused where you're getting this from since I hold an Irish passport and my two parents are Irish) but its the internet it hardly matters, but your fixation with what is Irish and what is 'foreign' is extremely odd.

As I know you are a liar. You got banned from here whilst posting as "MarkoPantelic". Under that guise you admitted you where not Irish and neither where your parents. I find it odd that you find the need to post on this subject, as quite frankly it is none of your concern. No need for personal abuse, by the way.

You where born in Latvia, wasnt it? Or was it Belgium? One or the other, if I remember correctly.

NBB Bohs wrote: »

Maby its a sign of your generation and your demographic background? Your point about 'having little in common' with other Europeans is an example of this..

I have got as much in common with the people of Zambia than I do with the people of eastern europe. I am 22 and from west Dublin. I see first hand how multiculturalism failed in Ireland. Have you ever heard the term "importing poverty", you will in the future.

NBB Bohs wrote: »

But I'm sure it hurts knowing nationalism is on its knees, so I see where you're coming from.

You have an irrational fear of Irish nationalism. Is it because, you as a foreign national in Ireland, feel it will somehow "effect" you. Irish nationalism is far from dead by the way. In fact, it is on the rise. Long may it continue.

kumate_champ07

Purple Gorilla wrote: »

And it's quite a valid argument. We cannot afford it.

we could afford it...
if we werent giving 100's of billions worth of out natural resources away to shell for peanuts.

Purple Gorilla

PaulieD wrote: »

The Brits would have to help financially for the transition. They caused the problem, in fairness.

Re-unification of the Irish nation is more important than money.

:rolleyes:
Honestly. What a stupid reason. You are willing to damage our economy for this? The UK won't pay for the whole transition. It'll be up to us to get them some Euros and we have to pay their ridiculous public sector wage bill. NI has no economy. It's kept afloat by the UK. The UK actually has the money to keep it going, whereas we do not.

An Fear Aniar

grenache wrote: »

The majority of the population of the island of Ireland do not wish to be part of the United Kingdom.


Also, Irish people are not throwbacks.

I hoped you would get what I was driving at but no...

The majority of the people in the British Isles want to be part of the United Kingdom. Would you agree?

.

An Fear Aniar

NBB Bohs wrote: »

Lol 'British Isles'. I know what you're getting at and it makes no sense.

It makes about as much sense as this fixation with the geographical island of Ireland being a single political unit.

I'm doing the British Isles thing to show how absurd the argument about the "wishes of the majority on the island" is. The same argument can be applied to make the case for a United British Isles and the numbers stack up even better.

NI is a special case, it's sad but it will not be incorporated into the Republic. Get over it.

.

Same old story, repeats every few months, never resolved.

Why?

For starters there can never be a united Ireland while the people in certain parts of Ulster feel the need to have 20ft walls separating them from their neighbours, some people do not trust the police force and rely on their own "private vigilante" force.

The local council have to duplicate their services for each tribe, these tribes having little or no contact with the other side.

Unite the people of NI first!

PaulieD

NBB Bohs wrote: »

Oh yeah so because I call you out for being the xenephobe that you are(I mean ' you have absolutely nothing' in common with every single eastern european :rolleyes: must be some bore) you conclude I'm pro mass-immigration.

Reread my post, I said I have as much in common with eastern europeans as I do with Zambians. Which is true. This whole idea of european common values is nonsense. Irish people have their own distinct culture and traditions. I for one do not feel "european". I am an Irishman. End of.

PaulieD

NBB Bohs wrote: »

Not me though, but perhaps an anti-statist like markopantelic :rolleyes:

I am a Dubliner second, Irishman third and European fourth. Earthling first

Its madder you are getting.:)

Kiith

It's really not a simple question.

dlofnep

NBB Bohs wrote: »

I am a Dubliner second

You poor creature

philologos

PaulieD wrote: »

Reread my post, I said I have as much in common with eastern europeans as I do with Zambians. Which is true. This whole idea of european common values is nonsense. Irish people have their own distinct culture and traditions. I for one do not feel "european". I am an Irishman. End of.

That's fine. However, I think it's just plain stupid to argue that killing people purely for a country is justified let alone doing the deed. It's an conceptual border. But we live in this world together.

Don't get me wrong. I like Ireland, in the sense that I like what freedoms I have here. However, when it comes down to it, I could have been born in Botswana or Saudi Arabia. I would be relatively happy living in any freedom loving country in the Western world, and I see Ireland as merely one country among many, but one I am quite happy to live in.

Alfie Boon

KINGofHEARTS wrote: »

Simple question

Would you support or like to have a united Ireland ? ? ?

Why would we bother?
That place should be seperated from the 26 counties and dropped off near Iceland.
A desolate,horrible and bigoted enclave.

DoireNod

Alfie Boon wrote: »

Why would we bother?
That place should be seperated from the 26 counties and dropped off near Iceland.
A desolate,horrible and bigoted enclave.

Ah come on now. This is just narrow-minded to be fair.

Riddle101

I'd support a United Ireland, but only through Democratic ways, none of this one sided malarky. If both sides agree to unify then i'm happy, but if it turns out that people in Northern Ireland would rather be seperate then I don't think it would be a great idea because it could cause tension.

Rebelheart

Jakkass wrote: »

As for the planations malarky, it happened 400 years ago. We need to start to get over it. Many of us in Ireland also attribute at least part of our descent to British settlers. That's reality.

Specious historically illiterate nonsense. The problem is, obviously, not with people of British (or Norman, Viking or Milesian) heritage but rather with those who insist that they have a right to rule in Ireland as a result of that settlement in the past. Consequently, your raiméis about "it's in the past" is quite ingenuous when you are simultaneously using that historical origin as the justification for the political claim that the British have a right to rule in Ireland today.

Moreover, attempting to tarnish all people in Ireland who are descended from British (or French, Danish, Norwegian or Spanish) settlers is historical illiteracy of the highest order. Most people in Ireland with any of that heritage are Irish today. Attempting to foist some ethnic loyalty or obligation upon the modern descendants of these people to the modern British state is pathetic, racist and discriminatory. Not to mention ahistorical British nationalist rubbish which (conveniently) presumes the existence of a "British" race. By this absurd British nationalist logic the modern Danish, Norwegian, French and Spanish states have a right to expect the loyalty of Irish people who may have surnames such as Ó Dubhghaill (Doyle), Ó Fionnghaill (Fennell), Mac Gearailt (Fitzgerald) and Ó Múrchú (Murphy) respectively.


The lengths some people go to in order to justify British people holding on to this last remnant of their erstwhile enormous empire beats the band. Like the Viking and Norman invasions, this British invasion of Ireland will also pass into history and the "British" of today will once again be the Irish of tomorrow.

grenache

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

I hoped you would get what I was driving at but no...

The majority of the people in the British Isles want to be part of the United Kingdom. Would you agree?

.

I would think that 100% of people in the British Isles* want to be part of the UK. They are British afterall!

I reckon most Spanish people would want to be part of Spain too



*being mainland Britain and its shimmy of island terrotories

kumate_champ07

Ive witnessed the troubles, I know the general history. but as far as a Republic/United Ireland, did we ever have 1? werent the 4 provinces foes?

It was only last century we got the majority of the country back, some of it stayed with Britain so there are still wounds healing. Id like a 32county republic but peace and respect must come first. We got this far, anything is possible.

Rebelheart

grenache wrote: »

The British Isles being the island of Britain, Isle of Man, Hebridie Isles and Channel Islands, yes of course they wish to be in the UK, they're British aren't they??

I reckon most Spanish people would want to be part of Spain too

I can't believe somebody is still using the term "British Isles", a term which was first recorded as used by the imperialist John Dee in 1577 (according to the Oxford English Dictionary), in 2009.

Shockingly undereducated at best, and nationalistically British at worst.

procure11

In all honesty..I dont have adequate knowledge to make an educative comment on the subject matter..but IMHO I think it is best to let the matter rest for now.

People have every right to call for unification because as the name suggests Nothern Ireland must be some part of Ireland that must have been taken away fraudulently...but the current issue is that there is relative peace at the moment and this part of the world has learnt that violence achieves nothing.

It does not in any way mean that we can sweep it under the carpet.If we look at the case of Belgium( albeit a different situation)..this kind of animosity always invariably have a way of cropping up intermittently.

My assertions are that

1.Lets forget it for now because it is not very important/urgent in terms of priority.

2.Justice must be served at some point tho.

grenache

Rebelheart wrote: »

I can't believe somebody is still using the term "British Isles", a term which was first recorded as used by the imperialist John Dee in 1577 (according to the Oxford English Dictionary), in 2009.

Shockingly undereducated at best, and nationalistically British at worst.

The term British Isles is indeed a horrible one.

Joey the lips

Stupid question! We are all republicians on a saturday night!

grenache

Joey the lips wrote: »

Stupid question! We are all republicians on a saturday night!

It depends. If I'm a pub and i hear a singsong for the Boys of Kilmichael (i.e. War of Independence) i'll gladly join in. If I hear Sean South (i.e. post 1922 IRA) i'll just walk out.

Joey the lips

grenache wrote: »

It depends. If I'm a pub and i hear a singsong for the Boys of Kilmichael (i.e. War of Independence) i'll gladly join in. If I hear Sean South (i.e. post 1922 IRA) i'll just walk out.

Your in a strange neck of the woods to knock sean south but each to there own,

CoDy1

In fairness, everyone knows Norn Iron is:

1. Full of council estates
2. People who like to march everywhere while drumming and blowing brass instruments
3. People who are very good at dismantling footpaths to throw rocks at armoured landrovers.

We are fine as we are imo.:pac:

This is AH right?

dlofnep

grenache wrote: »

It depends. If I'm a pub and i hear a singsong for the Boys of Kilmichael (i.e. War of Independence) i'll gladly join in. If I hear Sean South (i.e. post 1922 IRA) i'll just walk out.

What's the difference between what people were fighting for in the war of Independance and what Seán South & Fergal O'Hanlon was fighting for?

Selective and convenient memory of Irish history. The war for independance didn't end in 1922, and as the entire Catholic population who remained within the 6 counties were subject to civil inequality, frequent attacks, and forced to live under the same old banner of imperialism - nothing different than pre 1922 Ireland.

Amazing how everyone understands the cause for Irish independence, but for some reason past the 1922 mark - that exact same cause suddenly becomes bewildering. Why is that?

Jim236

Don't really see the point in asking people here, most of the members here are Irish and its a known fact that there is wide support for a United Ireland in the 26 counties.

The Sunday Business Post ran a poll back in 2006 which showed 80% of people wanted to see a United Ireland - http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2006/04/02/story13121.asp

The Guardian ran a poll in 2001 asking people in Britain if they were in favour of a United Ireland and 41% of British people said Yes - http://www.4ni.co.uk/northern_ireland_news.asp?id=13422

In the 2007 Stormont elections, 41.4% of people voted for Nationalist parties supporting a United Ireland, which is up from 40.5% in 2003. While the Unionist vote decreased from 50.1% in 2003 to 47.1% in 2007. So the Nationalist vote is clearly increasing, and has been for the past 30 years, while the Unionist vote has slowly been decreasing over the same period.

When it comes to economics(which is what will ultimately decide this debate on a United Ireland), most leading economists are pushing for an all-island economy because its obvious that not only can the island as a whole reach it's full potential without barriers caused by partition, but that a lot of money can be saved and spent elsewhere by not having the duplication of public services that exists atm between both jursidictions.

The main problem now is the fact that the North is so heavily reliant on the public sector for employment, while the 26 counties is more reliant on the private sector which has allowed the government to spend more money in other areas like health and education. We're paying the price now because our unemployment rate has increased by 10%, while the North's unemployment rate hasn't increased that much(public sector workers never get sacked). But when the situation turns around and the economy starts to grow again, our employment rate will grow sharply while the North's won't change much at all.

Atm the North is receiving in excess of €6 billion in subvention from the British government, and the state accounts for 63% of economic activity - http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article786274.ece

That has to stop, otherwise there will never be enough support for a United Ireland because those campaigning for a Yes vote will lose the economics debate. Sinn Féin though aren't doing anything to reduce the North's dependence on state employment and subvention from the British government. Almost every few months Martin McGuinness and Peter Robinson fly to London to blackmail Gordon Brown to give the North more money in exchange for votes in key issues in Westminster. This only makes the situation worse and the North more reliant on London to keep it afloat.

So unless Sinn Féin reduce the North's subvention over the next 5-10 years, when it comes to holding a debate and referendum on a United Ireland, they're gonna have to convince voters in the Republic and moderate Unionists that the government will continue to subsidise the North in that way, which it can't.

I think though a United Ireland is only a matter of when rather than if. Unionist politicians go out of their way to laugh off the idea of a United Ireland and use devolved government as a way of trying to prove that 'the union' is secure, but they must know that eventually they're gonna be sitting down at a table negotiating their terms in a new Irish state. Martin McGuinness thinks that will be 2012, while Gerry Adams thinks it'll be by 2016. I'm not an expert but its obviously gonna take a generation for it to come about, so maybe by 2020 it will have come about. But with the North becoming more and more secular, the debate won't involve religion, but healthcare and the economy. The economy debate can be won if subvention to the North is reduced and the state's responsible for economic activity is reduced.
Unlike German reunification, the North has a reasonably good infrastructure and we're already contributing €2 billion through the NDP to further improve infrastructure there and increase cross-border links. So it won't be as if we'll have to pay to build up everything in the North because there was nothing to start with, so anyone who argues that is talking out of their arse.
The healthcare issue though we can't win, because the republic is reliant on the private sector to fund our healthcare, while in the North its fully funded by the state through the NHS. Either that starts to change now so that they adopt the same policy as us, or we end up footing the bill for that which could be a couple of billion. Thats something Sinn Féin are gonna have to consider, because that could end up being the deciding factor in any referendum.

But whenever it does happen, the new state won't be the type of republic that exists atm which for anyone that isn't aware is a unitary republic. It'll be a federal republic like the USA or Switzerland with Connacht, Leinster, Ulster(9 counties), and Munster each having some degree of autonomy, probably Ulster more than the others.

K-9

Thought we all voted on this 11 years ago and it was settled.

Maybe we need a second vote. Would be interesting.

grenache

Joey the lips wrote: »

Your in a strange neck of the woods to knock sean south but each to there own,

Sean South is no different to the guys who blew up Omagh. Both were post 1921 IRA terrorists. Just because he was also from Limerick doesn't mean i'm going to break out in song for him. The police men he shot at that barracks had families too.

Alfie Boon

Alfie Boon wrote: »

Why would we bother?
That place should be seperated from the 26 counties and dropped off near Iceland.
A desolate,horrible and bigoted enclave.

Why all the hatred,there are loads of really nice decent people in Ulster on both sides and they dont deserve to be all tared as dickheads.

What do we do with our Irish Brothers that have done no evil in their lifetime but live in the occupied land,do we drop them off,why?

Also some places in Ulster are beautiful,so how you can call it that is beyond me.

I hate this attitude,its as if the people in the north who consider themselves Irish but have never done any wrong in their life are considered a lower class of human or something,you sound like a dickhead tbh.

Put yourself in the position of a person who considers themselves Irish and lives in the north ,now how do you feel being described like that?
It doesnt feel good does it,you sound like a horrible hatred fueled human being.

grenache

dlofnep wrote: »

What's the difference between what people were fighting for in the war of Independance and what Seán South & Fergal O'Hanlon was fighting for?

Selective and convenient memory of Irish history. The war for independance didn't end in 1922, and as the entire Catholic population who remained within the 6 counties were subject to civil inequality, frequent attacks, and forced to live under the same old banner of imperialism - nothing different than pre 1922 Ireland.

Amazing how everyone understands the cause for Irish independence, but for some reason past the 1922 mark - that exact same cause suddenly becomes bewildering. Why is that?

Michael Collins signature on a piece of paper. Thats why. The war of independence officially ended in 1921. Any attack after that date cannot be deemed legitimate. I whole heartedly agree with you that the Catholic population in the 6 counties were subjected to some bad discrimination. However indiscrimicte republicans taking the law into their own hands did nothing to help the plight of the north's Catholics. In fact the movements such as NICRA and the civil rights lobby did much more to gain concessions from the British goverment.

Jim236

grenache wrote: »

Sean South is no different to the guys who blew up Omagh. Both were post 1921 IRA terrorists. Just because he was also from Limerick doesn't mean i'm going to break out in song for him. The police men he shot at that barracks had families too.

So what changed between 1920 and 1923 that made it not ok to fight a foreign force to achieve freedom? Not everyone was in favour of the Anglo-Irish treaty and the Irish Free State that came about from it...

dlofnep

grenache wrote: »

Sean South is no different to the guys who blew up Omagh.

Yes he is. The border campaign, and the bombing of Omagh had absolutely nothing in common. The border campaign, in particular the one which saw the deaths of Seán South and Fergal O'Hanlon was an attack on the B-Specials, one of the most ruthless and disgustingly biased police forces in the history of the Island, which was responsible for a number of attacks and murders on Catholics.

grenache wrote: »

Both were post 1921 IRA terrorists.

Seán South was not a terrorist. Besides giving us an arbitrary date, you cannot specify the difference between what Seán South was fighting for, and what the men pre-1922 were fighting for, and fighting against. Both lived through mass inequality, and both were fighting for self-determination.

grenache wrote: »

Just because he was also from Limerick doesn't mean i'm going to break out in song for him. The police men he shot at that barracks had families too.

Policemen? You need to read more into the history of the RUC & B-Specials, to see the terrorist atrocities that they put catholics through - like what they did to Owen McMahon. Once against, selective memory.

dlofnep

grenache wrote: »

Michael Collins signature on a piece of paper.

Nonsense - Collins signed the treaty on the premise that if he had not, Ireland would have been invaded in a large scale war. Collins was put in a difficult position, and the catholics in the 6 counties paid for it. It doesn't change the fact that the Irish remaining in the 6 counties were still fighting for the exact same thing that Collins originally fought for.

grenache wrote: »

The war of independence officially ended in 1921.

Maybe so, but the fight for Irish freedom and against an oppressive nation continued and rightfully so.

grenache wrote: »

Any attack after that date cannot be deemed legitimate.

Some might argue that 1916 wasn't legitimate. It's a moot point. If a country is partition under an undemocratic position, and those who are left to face the music are living under horrid conditions - then they reserve the right to fight against the nation which infringes upon their very basic civil right and human rights.

grenache wrote: »

I whole heartedly agree with you that the Catholic population in the 6 counties were subjected to some bad discrimination.

How kind of you - Much the same as the catholics in pre 1922. But their cause seemingly doesn't count, as it's not fashionably cool to do so.

grenache wrote: »

However indiscrimicte republicans taking the law into their own hands did nothing to help the plight of the north's Catholics.

Ah, quack get out of town. Complete nonsense. It was the exact same people who fought in the war of independence, who were fighting for the exact same cause, on the exact same Island against the exact same people. You're talking about a faux-state, in which it's police assisted in the burning of catholic houses and the murder of it's civilians. If the people didn't reserve the right to resist this - then why did they prior to the free state?

grenache

Jim236 wrote: »

So what changed between 1920 and 1923 that made it not ok to fight a foreign force to achieve freedom? Not everyone was in favour of the Anglo-Irish treaty and the Irish Free State that came about from it...

As i already stated in a previous response to another post, Irish signatures on the Anglo-Irish treaty of 1921 is what happened. The Irish public voted by 2:1 in a vote for the treaty. Not everyone voted Fianna Fail in the last election, but they still have a right to be in there cos they won a majority of votes.

Jim236

grenache wrote: »

As i already stated in a previous response to another post, Irish signatures on the Anglo-Irish treaty of 1921 is what happened. The Irish public voted by 2:1 in a vote for the treaty. Not everyone voted Fianna Fail in the last election, but they still have a right to be in there cos they won a majority of votes.

Hold up, there was no referendum on the Anglo-Irish treaty. Only the Dáil voted on it, the public had absolutely no say on the issue. And before you argue the public voted for the TDs that were in favour of it, indepdence under the crown and partition were not part of their mandates in the 1919 general election. There is a reason why civil war broke out after the treaty was adopted...

dlofnep

grenache wrote: »

As i already stated in a previous response to another post, Irish signatures on the Anglo-Irish treaty of 1921 is what happened. The Irish public voted by 2:1 in a vote for the treaty. Not everyone voted Fianna Fail in the last election, but they still have a right to be in there cos they won a majority of votes.

The Irish Public did NOT vote. It was voted on by the Dáil. The vote was 64 to 57, not the ratio of 2:1 you would have us believe. The Irish public were deeply divided on the issue. The fact the thousands were willing to take up arms when in theory they could have forgetting about their northern brothers, and living a snug life in the south showed that it was an issue that was not taken lightly.

It also doesn't change the reality of the situation, that the nationalists in the 6 counties were left to live a life of terror and inequality for the decades that followed. That is why Seán South & Fergal O'Hanlon fought, much like the men who came before them.

K-9

dlofnep wrote: »

The Irish Public did NOT vote. It was voted on by the Dáil. The vote was 64 to 57, not the ratio of 2:1 you would have us believe. The Irish public were deeply divided on the issue. The fact the thousands were willing to take up arms when in theory they could have forgetting about their northern brothers, and living a snug life in the south showed that it was an issue that was not taken lightly.

It also doesn't change the reality of the situation, that the nationalists in the 6 counties were left to live a life of terror and inequality for the decades that followed. That is why Seán South & Fergal O'Hanlon fought, much like the men who came before them.

OK, And where does the Good Friday Agreement come into the above?

dlofnep

K-9 wrote: »

OK, And where does the Good Friday Agreement come into the above?

We were discussing the Anglo-Irish Treaty, and the border campaign of the 50's. The GFA doesn't come anywhere, as it did not exist.

K-9

dlofnep wrote: »

We were discussing the Anglo-Irish Treaty, and the border campaign of the 50's. The GFA doesn't come anywhere, as it did not exist.

YEP, it didn't.

Time to move on lads, I wish Martin Ferris would!

RandolphEsq

This thread is so muddled!
There are so many sub-debates ranging from the praticalities of implementing the abstract notion of a 'united Ireland' to why it should and should not happen to even more off topic debates on the finer points of rather obscure pieces of history. Close this thread before my head caves in

grenache

dlofnep wrote: »

Yes he is. The border campaign, and the bombing of Omagh had absolutely nothing in common. The border campaign, in particular the one which saw the deaths of Seán South and Fergal O'Hanlon was an attack on the B-Specials, one of the most ruthless and disgustingly biased police forces in the history of the Island, which was responsible for a number of attacks and murders on Catholics.

Whether the B Specials were ruthless or not, it was not the job of some daytrippers from Cork and Limerick to take the law into their own hands. Peaceful protesting has been much more successful in the North than bombs and bullets ever will be.

Seán South was not a terrorist. Besides giving us an arbitrary date, you cannot specify the difference between what Seán South was fighting for, and what the men pre-1922 were fighting for, and fighting against. Both lived through mass inequality, and both were fighting for self-determination.

Oh they were of course both fighting for the same thing. The only difference being that Collins, Boland, Pearce, etc were fighting before they Treaty was signed. Whether it was signed under duress or not is irrelevant, it was signed by Irishmen and thats the bottom line. The Irish Free State had no ownership of the 6 counties.

Policemen? You need to read more into the history of the RUC & B-Specials, to see the terrorist atrocities that they put catholics through - like what they did to Owen McMahon. Once against, selective memory.

I'm sure they were every bit as bad as they have been portrayed. But if what they were doing was illegal then what South and his companions did was also unlawful. Where was the voice of the Irish goverment at this time? If i remember correctly it was Fine Gael and Clann na Poblachta who were in power. I dont remember the staunchly republican Sean McBride having very much to say about it!

grenache

dlofnep wrote: »

Ah, quack get out of town. Complete nonsense. It was the exact same people who fought in the war of independence, who were fighting for the exact same cause, on the exact same Island against the exact same people. You're talking about a faux-state, in which it's police assisted in the burning of catholic houses and the murder of it's civilians. If the people didn't reserve the right to resist this - then why did they prior to the free state?

I am referring to Republican activities post 1922. You cannot claim that, for example, their bombing campaign has been in any way successful? It certainly did nothing to improve the lot of Catholics. It didnt get rid of gerrymandering or discrimination in the work place. It was the educated leaders of the civil rights movements, people like John Hume and Gerry Fitt, that secured any kind of equality for Northern Nationalists.

grenache

dlofnep wrote: »

The Irish Public did NOT vote. It was voted on by the Dáil. The vote was 64 to 57, not the ratio of 2:1 you would have us believe. The Irish public were deeply divided on the issue. The fact the thousands were willing to take up arms when in theory they could have forgetting about their northern brothers, and living a snug life in the south showed that it was an issue that was not taken lightly.

It also doesn't change the reality of the situation, that the nationalists in the 6 counties were left to live a life of terror and inequality for the decades that followed.

Apologies, my bad, it was of course the Dail and not the public who voted. I had forgotten that the voting was so close. I always had 2:1 in my mind for some reason! I am still of the opinion though that the North was sacrificed for the greater good of the majority of Ireland. 26 is better than 0. However one can debate the coldness/callousness of this thinking.

KINGofHEARTS

grenache wrote: »

Sean South is no different to the guys who blew up Omagh. Both were post 1921 IRA terrorists. Just because he was also from Limerick doesn't mean i'm going to break out in song for him. The police men he shot at that barracks had families too.

The 140,000 people in hiroshima had families...? why not just say something like this

and shooting at police men from a foreign occupation and blowing up a town full of innocent people IS different

I'd say ur not the full shilling at all...or else your locked...why else would someone come out with such SHYTE

ejmaztec

KINGofHEARTS wrote: »

The 140,000 people in hiroshima had families...? why not just say something like this

and shooting at police men from a foreign occupation and blowing up a town full of innocent people IS different

I'd say ur not the full shilling at all...or else your locked...why else would someone come out with such SHYTE

One man's "SHYTE" is another man's chocolate pudding.

philologos

KINGofHEARTS wrote: »

The 140,000 people in hiroshima had families...? why not just say something like this

and shooting at police men from a foreign occupation and blowing up a town full of innocent people IS different

I'd say ur not the full shilling at all...or else your locked...why else would someone come out with such SHYTE

Both are death. One is certainly more heinous than the other, but both are unjustified.

As for foreign occupation, I think that is highly debatable now considering that after 400 years most of the people who arrived as rather settled in Northern Ireland and are about as 'foreign' as you or I.

Even if it was a foreign occupation, is that really justification for killing?

Hagar

They don't consider themselves Irish, they consider themselves British, how foreign do you want?

And they didn't arrive or settle they were planted. The indigenous population were run off the land at sword-point and their homes and land handed over to these people. No integration for those boys, to this day there has been no integration. They are still foreign.

philologos

Hagar wrote: »

They don't consider themselves Irish, they consider themselves British, how foreign do you want?

And they didn't arrive or settle they were planted. The indigenous population were run off the land at sword-point and their homes and land handed over to these people. No integration for those boys, to this day there has been no integration. They are still foreign.

It depends how you define foreign. I think after 400 years, people are not "foreign", they settle and they live. Unless you consider NI to be a foreign territory to the Republic, then yes, one could argue that they are foreign to the Republic, but are pretty much settled in Northern Ireland.

Jim236 wrote: »

So what changed between 1920 and 1923 that made it not ok to fight a foreign force to achieve freedom? Not everyone was in favour of the Anglo-Irish treaty and the Irish Free State that came about from it...

Arguably nobody should have been okay with any fighting or bloodshed. Diplomacy is the only reasonable way to do politics.

Hagar

The land isn't foreign the people living on it are.
That soil is Irish, those people are Scots. After 400 years they still have their Scots accent for heaven's sake. The Vikings came and settled, the Normans came and settled, when was the last time you heard a Viking or a Norman accent?