The RIRAs legitimacy

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Wolfe Tone

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

What about pre independence?

Mr.Micro

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Don't worry that wont stop them as logic does not come into fanaticism where all reason has long gone.

Nodin

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

There was universal suffrage in the 19th century in Ireland? Or do you just mean 'the Irish who had the vote' when you say "the Irish"?

Oscarbravo wrote:

Ireland wasn't under occupation in 1916.

...through the looking glass and the wall behind it, possibly even over the rainbow....

Mayo Exile

oscarBravo wrote: »

I don't recall Scotland having a referendum on their Act of Union either.

Nice avoidance.

Ireland was part of the United Kingdom. I'm pretty sure I've made that point already.

And again.

Do you not think that the Irish Parliament that voted for an Act of Union with the UK, was unrepresentative of most of the Irish people in 1800? Isn't it a bit of a leap then to blithely state that "Ireland was part of the United Kingdom" when it clearly wasn't a democratic act that created this bond. Do you base your opinion that Ireland wasn't occupied in 1916 on the belief that the Act of Union made it so?

jackbenimble

Mayo Exile wrote: »

Nice avoidance.



And again.

Do you not think that the Irish Parliament that voted for an Act of Union with the UK, was unrepresentative of most of the Irish people in 1800? Isn't it a bit of a leap then to blithely state that "Ireland was part of the United Kingdom" when it clearly wasn't a democratic act that created this bond. Do you base your opinion that Ireland wasn't occupied in 1916 on the belief that the Act of Union made it so?

You can't apply today's Western European standards of democracy to a different epoch. To do so is absurd. Every border in Europe was fought over at one time or another. Ten million Germans were expelled from the ancient Germanic territories of Silesia, Pomerania and East Prussia as late as 1945 and the land became part of today's Poland. Germany makes no claims on this territory today. What happened in 1800 in Ireland has no baring on today's realities.

dlofnep

jackbenimble wrote: »

You can't apply today's Western European standards of democracy to a different epoch. To do so is absurd. .

You can when you are discussing that very time period and debating on whether or not the said nation was occupied. (It was occupied).

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Coillte_Bhoy

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

What a ridiculous post even by your standards. How on earth can you come out with such nonsense?? Yes, the people who actually had a vote were moderate nationalists. But there's the nub, there was no universal suffrage

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Home Rule was not independce as you well know.

Mayo Exile

jackbenimble wrote: »

You can't apply today's Western European standards of democracy to a different epoch. To do so is absurd. Every border in Europe was fought over at one time or another. Ten million Germans were expelled from the ancient Germanic territories of Silesia, Pomerania and East Prussia as late as 1945 and the land became part of today's Poland. Germany makes no claims on this territory today. What happened in 1800 in Ireland has no baring on today's realities.

I understand your point, winners of wars etc. dictate and write history and these acts mostly cannot be undone. But it's not what I'm really asking. Did the Act of Union, mean that Ireland after 1801 was no longer occupied?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Cú Giobach

OscarBravo
By your logic any country can invade another, occupy it, then re-name the area as part of own homeland and it is no longer occupied, irrespective of the thoughts of the original inhabitants.

dlofnep

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The democratic majority voted for Sinn Féín. Home Rulers in 1918 had 5% of seats, Sinn Féín had 70%. Which democratic majority are you referring to exactly? Devolution is not independance. Britain would have still controlled our international affairs, and had we been still apart of the Union - the south would have been subject to deliberate bombing from the Nazis in WW2.

Nodin

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Indeed.

So you'd accept that - without that caveat added - the mentions below of "most Irish people" and "the moderate majority" are somewhat misleading and inaccurate....?

During the nineteenth century, most Irish people placed their faith in moderate, constitutional, and conciliatory parliamentary politics, as represented by the likes of Parnell and Redmond. By electing MPs to represent their interests in Westminster, the Irish most certainly did give the British government a democratic mandate to rule, at least until an alternative parliamentary solution could be devised and achieved. While various bands of extremist radicals sought to usurp the parliamentary process in these years, their effort violently to overthrow a democratically elected government says nothing about the wishes of the moderate majority.

Coillte_Bhoy

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

This....how can you say what the political view of majority of Irish people was without universal s??uffarage

During the nineteenth century, most Irish people placed their faith in moderate, constitutional, and conciliatory parliamentary politics, as represented by the likes of Parnell and Redmond.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

R P McMurphy

The revisionism in this thread is astounding. Only short of a post stating that the black and tans were WWW1 war heroes that came to this land as benevolent peace keepers to protect the good moral majority but were set upon by the ruthless and blood thirsty natives in despicable acts of aggression

Nodin

It has to be said that one takes ones testes in ones hands throwing Parnell in with the "constitutional and conciliatory" brigade...

Cú Giobach

jackbenimble wrote: »

What happened in 1800 in Ireland has no baring on today's realities.

Strange to see yourself saying what happened in the past has no relevance to today.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Mr.Micro

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

There was very little IMO. It was rammed down our throats in school about 1916 and all that BS. Independence would have come anyway.

Nodin

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

They weren't null and void by the standards and legalities of the time.

However, lets be very clear here - your statement - without caveat - is inaccurate and misleading. Your flat claim about a "democratic mandate to rule" is laughable,considering levels of tenancy in this country, and the link of the vote to property ownership.

During the nineteenth century, most Irish people placed their faith in moderate, constitutional, and conciliatory parliamentary politics, as represented by the likes of Parnell and Redmond. By electing MPs to represent their interests in Westminster, the Irish most certainly did give the British government a democratic mandate to rule, at least until an alternative parliamentary solution could be devised and achieved. While various bands of extremist radicals sought to usurp the parliamentary process in these years, their effort violently to overthrow a democratically elected government says nothing about the wishes of the moderate majority.

(my bold)

donegalfella wrote: »

Where exactly was the widespread support in 1916 for armed insurrection?

Generally speaking, one doesn't conduct a poll before launching a rebellion that depends on suprise. Nor did I claim any, funny enough.

dlofnep

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I didn't assert that the results were prior to 1916. I find it far more pertinent that it happened after the Easter Rising. It's clear that the public supported full independence from Britain. And this is a key issue which you and your colleagues conveniently skip over, time and time again. It was one of the most important and telling elections in Irish electoral history - and yet you dismiss the fact that Sinn Féín went from absolutely nowhere, to capturing 75% of all seats in the space of a few years.

donegalfella wrote: »

So now you're trying to argue that the heroic exertions of Pearse & Co. saved Ireland from being bombed to smithereens during World War II?

Yes, they most certainly saved Ireland from being bombed to pieces during World War 2. I don't think any military historian would dispute the role Ireland's neutrality played in WW2. Not that it was their direct intent to do so, but by allowing Ireland to become a neutral state - it reduced the chance of being attacked in an event of a large-scale war. Dublin would have certainly been hit, twice as hard as the Belfast Blitz - being the larger of the two cities.

lugha

dlofnep wrote: »

I didn't assert that the results were prior to 1916. I find it far more pertinent that it happened after the Easter Rising. It's clear that the public supported full independence from Britain. And this is a key issue which you and your colleagues conveniently skip over, time and time again. It was one of the most important and telling elections in Irish electoral history - and yet you dismiss the fact that Sinn Féín went from absolutely nowhere, to capturing 75% of all seats in the space of a few years.

I think it is you who miss the point. You are applying retrospective justification. If you permit deferred justification you have no grounds to condemn or even criticize the activities of dissidents, to get back to the OP's question. Or for that matter, you have no grounds to criticize any behaviour from any quarters. The “wrong doers” can simply say, “we will be judged differently by future generations”. Surely you can see the dilemma here?

dlofnep

lugha wrote: »

I think it is you who miss the point. You are applying retrospective justification. If you permit deferred justification you have no grounds to condemn or even criticize the activities of dissidents, to get back to the OP's question. Or for that matter, you have no grounds to criticize any behaviour from any quarters. The “wrong doers” can simply say, “we will be judged differently by future generations”. Surely you can see the dilemma here?

It is not retrospective justification. The Easter Rising was just, regardless of the outcome of the 1918 elections. Britain had no mandate in Ireland and it was clear that there was an ever-growing movement for restoring local control to the Irish people. The entire 19th century was spent trying to leverage power away from the British state - which included two failed home rule bills. The third bill in 1914 never came to fruition.

What the results of the 1918 election does is prove that there was a majority support for independence. Britain had no mandate in Ireland. That's the reality of the matter. One only has to look at the history of British rule in Ireland to know that it was illegitimate and unjust. It wasn't until the start of the 19th century that the indigenous population could actually engage in politics of their own affairs.

But where will always be some who will try to legitimise and skew Britain's historical role in Ireland.

Bottle_of_Smoke

dlofnep wrote: »

I didn't assert that the results were prior to 1916. I find it far more pertinent that it happened after the Easter Rising. It's clear that the public supported full independence from Britain. And this is a key issue which you and your colleagues conveniently skip over, time and time again. It was one of the most important and telling elections in Irish electoral history - and yet you dismiss the fact that Sinn Féín went from absolutely nowhere, to capturing 75% of all seats in the space of a few years.



Yes, they most certainly saved Ireland from being bombed to pieces during World War 2. I don't think any military historian would dispute the role Ireland's neutrality played in WW2. Not that it was their direct intent to do so, but by allowing Ireland to become a neutral state - it reduced the chance of being attacked in an event of a large-scale war. Dublin would have certainly been hit, twice as hard as the Belfast Blitz - being the larger of the two cities.

Also worth mentioning the Irish Parliamentiary Party got 21% of the votes in that election and six MPs

Whilst they were pushing for home rule I'd imagine many of those wanted full independence just many of those who voted for them didnt want to vote for a violence linked party. Like say SDLP voters of the troubles/today.

Mr.Micro

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Not forgetting that the Church was allowed to take hold of the country as well and hold us back in the 19th century, then systematic clerical abuse in all parts of society, and constant interference in State policy. Yes we have a lot to thank the 1916 terrorists for.

lugha

dlofnep wrote: »

It is not retrospective justification. The Easter Rising was just, regardless of the outcome of the 1918 elections. Britain had no mandate in Ireland and it was clear that there was an ever-growing movement for restoring local control to the Irish people.

Well I could raise (again!) the issue as to why nationalists can cite the lack of a British mandate to rule Ireland but dismiss unionist’s denial of a mandate to them as “playing the orange card”, but we have been there before with no success.

To stay somewhere in the vicinity of the theme of OP, can I ask if you believe dissidents hold the view that, as has happened before, future generations will come to view their actions as just, even if their contempories do not?

Rebelheart

oscarBravo wrote: »

I don't accept that the men of 1916 had any legitimacy. They had no mandate whatsoever.

Whereas the Brits of course had a legitimate right to rule this country? :rolleyes:

Wolfe Tone

Rebelheart wrote: »

Whereas the Brits of course had a legitimate right to rule this country? :rolleyes:

Welcome back Rebelheart.