Northern Irish at the Irish Embassy in London?

danbohan

KeithAFC wrote: »

We aren't talking about the 9 counties of Ulster, we are talking about the 6 which formed the state of Northern Ireland which was for a protestant people.

why was it for a protestant people keith , some sort of apartheid white homeland was it ?

KeithAFC

danbohan wrote: »

why was it for a protestant people keith , some sort of apartheid white homeland was it ?

Yes.

dlofnep

KeithAFC wrote: »

All nonsense. Ulster had a protestant majority.

Everything I posted was a fact. What part exactly of it was nonsense?

danbohan

KeithAFC wrote: »

Yes.

where did it all go wrong keith , i mean look at yous now, sharing power with them fenians and that martin mcguinness pisskng on carsons statue every morning before he starts work , how can you live with yourselves .

KeithAFC

danbohan wrote: »

where did it all go wrong keith , i mean look at yous now, sharing power with them fenians and that martin mcguinness pisskng on carsons statue every morning before he starts work , how can you live with yourselves .

Im glad there is power sharing. Even glader we are still apart of the UK.

dlofnep

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

What has that got to do with anything?

It has everything to do with everything. You claimed that the Irish people were a minority of the UK. The fact that they never had the opportunity to decide whether or not they were to be a part of it is very relevant when you're claiming that they were a minority that decided what happened the union. They were the majority in the only nation that mattered with respect to Ireland, and that is Ireland itself.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Anyway, yes Ireland was a country but it was a country divided. It wouldn't have been fair to give the nationalist minority what they wanted and damm the unionist minority.

What nationalist minority? There was no nationalist minority. The only minority that existed at the time of partition was a unionist minority.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Because both sides got what they wanted, with compromise.

No they did not. Unionists got what they wanted. An orange gerrymandered state, which they could control. Nationalists did not get what they wanted, because they were forced into a gerrymandered, unionist state - even though they made up a majority of 2 counties, and one large city in that 6 county state. Unionists did not make up a majority of even one county or city in the south.

Not ONE compromise was made by unionists. Every compromise made was by nationalists.

danbohan

KeithAFC wrote: »

Im glad there is power sharing. Even glader we are still apart of the UK.

apart of the UK

very true very true

KeithAFC

danbohan wrote: »

apart of the UK

very true very true

:rolleyes:

Roll on 2016! lol.

Iwasfrozen

dlofnep wrote: »

It has everything to do with everything. You claimed that the Irish people were a minority of the UK. The fact that they never had the opportunity to decide whether or not they were to be a part of it is very relevant when you're claiming that they were a minority that decided what happened the union. They were the majority in the only nation that mattered with respect to Ireland, and that is Ireland itself.

That logic only holds up if you believe every Irishman was a nationalist. Which isn't true. Some Irish people were staunch unionists who feared were against home rule and wished to remain in the UK.

As for whether or not Ireland had a choice to join the UK, no it wasn't but that was how things were done in those days. Territorial conquest was hardly unique to Ireland.

dlofnep wrote: »

What nationalist minority? There was no nationalist minority. The only minority that existed at the time of partition was a unionist minority.

Teh nationalist minority in the United Kingdom.

dlofnep wrote: »

No they did not. Unionists got what they wanted. An orange gerrymandered state, which they could control.

Unionists did not get what they wanted. They wanted all of Ireland in the UK. Instead most of it broke off and declared independence. So they simply had to compromise and accept this.

dlofnep wrote: »

Nationalists did not get what they wanted, because they were forced into a gerrymandered, unionist state - even though they made up a majority of 2 counties, and one large city in that 6 county state. Unionists did not make up a majority of even one county or city in the south.

You know there were unionists stuck on the wrong side of the border as well.

dlofnep wrote: »

Not ONE compromise was made by unionists. Every compromise made was by nationalists.

I can think of two.

1. Most of Ireland leaving the UK.
2. Some Unionists being stuck on the wrong side of the border and being forced into the Irish Free State.

Wolfe Tone

Well partition sure solved all the problems didn't it?

Gonzo beag

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

What Irish republicans consider themselves doesn't really matter. The bottom line is they are born in the UK and wish to apply for citizenship of a foreign country, in this case Ireland.

After all they are born on the island of Ireland, not the country.

I was born in and still live in N.I.

I hold an Irish passport and according to Article 2 of the Bunreacht na hÉireann,I am perfectly entitled too.

So whether you believe it to be right or wrong is not the issue! It is Constitutional.

Cú Giobach

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Well it doesn't matter if nationalists wish to believe Northern Ireland is included in the Irish state. At the end of the day it isn't. At least not yet.

Any NI nationalist is as Irish as I am, and is as entitled to an Irish passport as myself. Invasion and occupation by a foreign power has not changed the fact these people are Irish. (And a hell of a lot "more" Irish than someone who's ancestors came from Scotland 3/4 hundred years ago is Scottish).

KeithAFC

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Any NI nationalist is as Irish as I am, and is as entitled to an Irish passport as myself. Invasion and occupation by a foreign power has not changed the fact these people are Irish. (And a hell of a lot "more" Irish than someone who's ancestors came from Scotland 3/4 hundred years ago is Scottish).

We don't want to be Irish anyway.

junder

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Any NI nationalist is as Irish as I am, and is as entitled to an Irish passport as myself. Invasion and occupation by a foreign power has not changed the fact these people are Irish. (And a hell of a lot "more" Irish than someone who's ancestors came from Scotland 3/4 hundred years ago is Scottish).

Is there some sort of scale that defines irishness, some sort of equation that can be used to compute how Irish you are. Do you lose points in irishness if you have any non Irish ancestors or if you can't trace your ancestry back more then a few hundred years. What degree of irishness would you lose if it was found that you had a Norman ancestor in your family background, or parish the thought a Scottish planter in your family background

Cú Giobach

KeithAFC wrote: »

We don't want to be Irish anyway.

You must be really annoyed that you have an Irish accent and were born in a part of Ireland then. (if you were born here).

Cú Giobach

junder wrote: »

Is there some sort of scale that defines irishness, some sort of equation that can be used to compute how Irish you are.

No.

Do you lose points in irishness if you have any non Irish ancestors or if you can't trace your ancestry back more then a few hundred years.

No.

What degree of irishness would you lose if it was found that you had a Norman ancestor in your family background, or parish the thought a Scottish planter in your family background

None.

junder

Cú Giobach wrote: »

No.

No.

None.

So how do you work out that your more 'irish' then somebody else?

Cú Giobach

junder wrote: »

So how do you work out that your more 'irish' then somebody else?

I never claimed to be more Irish than anybody.

junder

Cú Giobach wrote: »

I never claimed to be more Irish than anybody.

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Any NI nationalist is as Irish as I am, and is as entitled to an Irish passport as myself. Invasion and occupation by a foreign power has not changed the fact these people are Irish. (And a hell of a lot "more" Irish than someone who's ancestors came from Scotland 3/4 hundred years ago is Scottish).

Seems like you are

Cú Giobach

junder wrote: »

Seems like you are

And a hell of a lot "more" Irish than someone who's ancestors came from Scotland 3/4 hundred years ago is Scottish

Understand??

junder

Cú Giobach wrote: »

And a hell of a lot "more" Irish than someone who's ancestors came from Scotland 3/4 hundred years ago is Scottish

Understand??

So again I ask you, is there somesort of scale were you can define if somebody is more 'Irish' or less 'Irish' then somebody else. If not how can you define if somebody is 'irish'. Adams and Hume are both planter names so the chances are John Hume and Gerry Adams have planter ancestry so by your own definition they are less Irish then you

dlofnep

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

That logic only holds up if you believe every Irishman was a nationalist. Which isn't true. Some Irish people were staunch unionists who feared were against home rule and wished to remain in the UK.

The logic holds true if the majority of the people in Ireland were nationalists at the time of partition. And they were. Sinn Féin won 70% of all seats in the 1918 Irish elections.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Teh nationalist minority in the United Kingdom.

Why exactly would the population of the UK be able to dictate the future of a country that never had a choice of joining it, and had a very clear mandate to leave the said union? The only population that mattered was that of Ireland.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Unionists did not get what they wanted. They wanted all of Ireland in the UK. Instead most of it broke off and declared independence. So they simply had to compromise and accept this.

You obviously missed the Government of Ireland act of 1920. Unionists were quite content with partition.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

You know there were unionists stuck on the wrong side of the border as well.

But none of them contributed as a majority in one single county in the south. Nationalists however made up the majority in 2 counties in the north-east, along with Derry City.

Is it making sense to you yet? The minority dictating the will of the majority? Unionists had no mandate to create a 6 county state in the north-east of the country.

Actually - Don't answer that. Because it's quite clear that you are intent on defending the British position in Ireland. Something that even the most cynical British historians wouldn't agree with you on.

Cú Giobach

junder wrote: »

So again I ask you, is there somesort of scale were you can define if somebody is more 'Irish' or less 'Irish' then somebody else. If not how can you define if somebody is 'irish'. Adams and Hume are both planter names so the chances are John Hume and Gerry Adams have planter ancestry so by your own definition they are less Irish then you

FFS don't you understand your queens English :rolleyes:

Re-read the comment properly (especially the last two words) and you will see I did not say the native Irish pop was more Irish than anyone with scots ancestry.

"And a hell of a lot "more" Irish than someone who's ancestors came from Scotland 3/4 hundred years ago is Scottish"

This comment says someone whose ancestors came from Scotland in the distant past is less Scottish than someone born and living in Ireland is Irish.
I could also state in the same vein, that a 3rd or 4th generation Italian/American is more American than Italian, get it??

Personally I feel anyone born and who grew up on this Island is Irish, irrespective of their religion, ethnicity, skin colour or ancestry.

dlofnep

Cú Giobach - I understood your post well the first time you posted it. I think Junder is intentionally going out of his way to misconstrue your point.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Any NI nationalist is as Irish as I am, and is as entitled to an Irish passport as myself. Invasion and occupation by a foreign power has not changed the fact these people are Irish. (And a hell of a lot "more" Irish than someone who's ancestors came from Scotland 3/4 hundred years ago is Scottish).

Are you saying the planter descendents are less Irish or the native decendents are more Irish than the planter descendents are Scottish?

dlofnep

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Are you saying the planter descendents are less Irish or the native decendents are more Irish than the planter descendents are Scottish?

No, he's saying quite the opposite. His point was that any planters who came here 400 years ago are inherently more Irish than Scottish.

Cú Giobach

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Are you saying the planter descendents are less Irish or the native decendents are more Irish than the planter descendents are Scottish?

I'm saying they are more Irish than Scottish.

Basically anyone born and living in a country is "more from" that country than the country their distant ancestors came from.
The native Irish are more Irish than the planter descendants are Scottish, AND the planter descendants are more Irish than Scottish, all equally Irish, (just not Gaelic Irish, which to me is irrelevant).


I thought it was quite clear, maybe not.

Gonzo beag

KeithAFC wrote: »

We don't want to be Irish anyway.

Nobody is asking you too. You can be British and hold a British passport if you so wish!

Nobody is forcing Irish citizenship down your throat! N.I. is a unique situation and it gives you a choice.

I think the issue here, is not who is or not entitled to a passport and what is the right or wrongness of that.

The issue is, the sheer hypocrisy of the Unionist leaders! They preach about Dublin being evil, loyalty to the wee country and the Crown etc., etc (you know the script far better than me.) They rabble-rouse with the same stuff and every gathering.

Then they turn up at the Irish Embassy and stand up as proud Irishmen when it suits their agenda!

getz

all we need now is,that you cannot be irish unless you have red hair and freckles,sounds like natzi-ism all over again

Cú Giobach

getz wrote: »

all we need now is,that you cannot be irish unless you have red hair and freckles,sounds like natzi-ism all over again

Who here has said or hinted at any such thing??

dlofnep

getz wrote: »

all we need now is,that you cannot be irish unless you have red hair and freckles,sounds like natzi-ism all over again

What is this in reference to exactly?

Iwasfrozen

dlofnep wrote: »

The logic holds true if the majority of the people in Ireland were nationalists at the time of partition. And they were. Sinn Féin won 70% of all seats in the 1918 Irish elections.

They were a majority in Ireland but not throughoutthe UK. How can you not see that giving both sides what they want with compromise is better then giving one group everything and damming the rest.

Nationalists got independence and Unionists got to stay in the UK. It was the best solution. Forcing all of Ireland into a new government when all of Ireland didn't want to be in a new government wouldn't have been fair. And would have been counter intuitive to Britains responsibility to protect it's citizens.

dlofnep wrote: »

Why exactly would the population of the UK be able to dictate the future of a country that never had a choice of joining it, and had a very clear mandate to leave the said union? The only population that mattered was that of Ireland.

Your taking Ireland in one whole lump and saying that because the majority of Ireland wanted independence all of Ireland should have got it. Which isn't true. A beter way of handeling the situation was to divide Ireland into two parts. Those that wanted succeeding and those that didn't. Giving them both what they wanted was the best solution available to the British government at the time.

dlofnep wrote: »

You obviously missed the Government of Ireland act of 1920. Unionists were quite content with partition.

Of course they were. They were getting most of what they wanted. That isn't to say they didn't make compromises though. Teh number of Unionists caught on the wrong side of the border shows this.

dlofnep wrote: »

But none of them contributed as a majority in one single county in the south. Nationalists however made up the majority in 2 counties in the north-east, along with Derry City.

Think about it from the mind set of those who were drawing up the boundary. They knew that a four county Northern Ireland was never going to be economically viable where as the South was economically viable without those two counties. Therefore because as far as they were concerned future peace on this Island depended on the success of both states it was in Ireland's best interest that this extra land be included in the Northern Irish state.

dlofnep wrote: »

Is it making sense to you yet? The minority dictating the will of the majority? Unionists had no mandate to create a 6 county state in the north-east of the country.

Nationalists were a minority dictating the succession of Ireland from the Union. Unionists had as much mandate as those calling for Irish independence.

dlofnep wrote: »

Actually - Don't answer that. Because it's quite clear that you are intent on defending the British position in Ireland. Something that even the most cynical British historians wouldn't agree with you on.

I'm not defending Britains position in Ireland, God knows no country is perfect and no country has a perfect history but I honestly don't support the regular Brit-bashing that I've seen on these forums of late. It seems to be almost as popular as US or Israeli-bashing. It's not quite there yet but it's getting close.

Iwasfrozen

getz wrote: »

all we need now is,that you cannot be irish unless you have red hair and freckles,sounds like natzi-ism all over again

Yeah, like the Scots don't have red hair and freckles. :rolleyes:

Bottle_of_Smoke

Cú Giobach wrote: »

I'm saying they are more Irish than Scottish.

Basically anyone born and living in a country is "more from" that country than the country their distant ancestors came from.
The native Irish are more Irish than the planter descendants are Scottish, AND the planter descendants are more Irish than Scottish, all equally Irish, (just not Gaelic Irish, which to me is irrelevant).


I thought it was quite clear, maybe not.

This was confusing the way you worded it because you went from referring to peopel of native descent in the 6 counties to referring to people of planter descent:

Invasion and occupation by a foreign power has not changed the fact these people are Irish. (And a hell of a lot "more" Irish than someone who's ancestors came from Scotland 3/4 hundred years ago is Scottish).

Saying one group of people are more Irish than another group are Scottish is an unusual way of making a statement, and the grammer is a bit questionable too so for a second it looked like you were saying people of native descent were more irish than people of planter descent, the position junder thought you meant.

Though now having read your clarification I would agree with your position.

Cú Giobach

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Nationalists were a minority dictating the succession of Ireland from the Union. Unionists had as much mandate as those calling for Irish independence.

The Irish minority within the UK formed by invasion, military conquest and occupation against the wishes of the native inhabitants.
You seem to be trying to equate this with the splitting up of a modern democratic state :rolleyes:.

locomo

Gonzo beag wrote: »

The issue is, the sheer hypocrisy of the Unionist leaders! They preach about Dublin being evil, loyalty to the wee country and the Crown etc., etc (you know the script far better than me.) They rabble-rouse with the same stuff and every gathering.

Then they turn up at the Irish Embassy and stand up as proud Irishmen when it suits their agenda!

From their point of view, they pay their taxes to the British government, and if they are invited to a function by the embassy of a friendly neighbouring government, its manners they should attend, given how there are close economic etc ties between the 2 jurisdictions. At least they do not give allegiance to one country while claiming social welfare or enjoying the economic handouts of another jurisdiction.

Cú Giobach

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

This was confusing the way you worded it because you went from referring to peopel of native descent in the 6 counties to referring to people of planter descent:



Saying one group of people are more Irish than another group are Scottish is an unusual way of making a statement, and the grammer is a bit questionable too so for a second it looked like you were saying people of native descent were more irish than people of planter descent, the position junder thought you meant.

Though now having read your clarification I would agree with your position.

I understand that, (I wrote that after a very long day, 3am start).
Sleep is a handy thing .

dlofnep

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

They were a majority in Ireland but not throughoutthe UK.

The union was not legitimate. Britain had no mandate to control Ireland. Therefore - It's irrelevant what percentage of the population they made up in the UK. The only population that mattered is Ireland. How you could even begin to take the British population onboard is beyond me when they had no mandate in Ireland.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

How can you not see that giving both sides what they want with compromise is better then giving one group everything and damming the rest.

Once again, nationalists made up the majority of 2 counties & a large city in the north of the country. Unionists did not make up the majority of one major city or county in the south. Thefore, Unionists did not compromise on anything. They absorbed counties where they didn't even have a majority presense. It is crystal clear that the compromise made was entirely by nationalists.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Nationalists got independence and Unionists got to stay in the UK.

No, they DID NOT get independance. 5 of the 9 counties of Ulster had a nationalist majority - But yet, the northern state encompassed 6 of the 9 counties. Is it making sense for you yet?

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

It was the best solution.

How on earth was forcing counties with nationalist majorities into a gerrymandered, orange state the best solution? Are you nuts?

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Your taking Ireland in one whole lump and saying that because the majority of Ireland wanted independence all of Ireland should have got it.

So any part of any country should be able to detatch itself from it at any point, right? Based on your logic - Cork could claim itself to be an independant state and we would have to respect their wishes?

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Which isn't true. A beter way of handeling the situation was to divide Ireland into two parts. Those that wanted succeeding and those that didn't. Giving them both what they wanted was the best solution available to the British government at the time.

No it wasn't, because Unionists only made up a majority in 4 counties (and not even in all parts of those 4 counties - Derry city for example was a majority nationalist city, but derry county wasn't).

KeithAFC

dlofnep i don't see your point to be honest. The native Irish people took the land off people too years before the Ulster scots and the 'British' even arrived.

dlofnep

If you don't see my point with regards to 2 counties which had nationalist majorities being forced into a gerrymandered orange state against their will - Then I'm afraid, I don't expect you to see much at all.

KeithAFC

dlofnep wrote: »

If you don't see my point with regards to 2 counties which had nationalist majorities being forced into a gerrymandered orange state against their will - Then I'm afraid, I don't expect you to see much at all.

Yeah but its the way you put it across. As if the native Irish always had the land which is utter nonsense.

Iwasfrozen

dlofnep wrote: »

The union was not legitimate. Britain had no mandate to control Ireland. Therefore - It's irrelevant what percentage of the population they made up in the UK. The only population that mattered is Ireland. How you could even begin to take the British population onboard is beyond me when they had no mandate in Ireland.

History 101 most modern democratic states were not formed democratically. And of course it mattered what British people thought, their state was being broken up.

dlofnep wrote: »

Once again, nationalists made up the majority of 2 counties & a large city in the north of the country. Unionists did not make up the majority of one major city or county in the south. Thefore, Unionists did not compromise on anything. They absorbed counties where they didn't even have a majority presense. It is crystal clear that the compromise made was entirely by nationalists.

I've explained in my last post why I believe the absorbing of land into Northern Ireland was legitimate:

Iwasfrozen wrote:

Think about it from the mind set of those who were drawing up the boundary. They knew that a four county Northern Ireland was never going to be economically viable where as the South was economically viable without those two counties. Therefore because as far as they were concerned future peace on this Island depended on the success of both states it was in Ireland's best interest that this extra land be included in the Northern Irish state.

dlofnep wrote: »

No, they DID NOT get independance. 5 of the 9 counties of Ulster had a nationalist majority - But yet, the northern state encompassed 6 of the 9 counties. Is it making sense for you yet?

Of course they did. Nationalists got their independent state. Both sides had people left behind on the wrong side of the border but they were the compromises that had to be made for the sake of peace.

dlofnep wrote: »

How on earth was forcing counties with nationalist majorities into a gerrymandered, orange state the best solution? Are you nuts?

The gerrymandering was wrong. Let me be clear on that point but dividing Ireland was the best solution. Had it not been divided then you would have had milions of pissed of Unionists with very scary guns who had promised by oath to fight the new state tooth and nail. No British politician in their right mind would have purposely unleased that.

dlofnep wrote: »

So any part of any country should be able to detatch itself from it at any point, right? Based on your logic - Cork could claim itself to be an independant state and we would have to respect their wishes?

If it wants to, yes. It was under that logic the UK even entertained the notion of Irish independence.

Cú Giobach

KeithAFC wrote: »

dlofnep i don't see your point to be honest. The native Irish people took the land off people too years before the Ulster scots and the 'British' even arrived.

Are we going to be bringing up The Milesians, Tuatha Dé Danann and Fir Bolg now :rolleyes:

dlofnep

I've explained in my last post why I believe the absorbing of land into Northern Ireland was legitimate

It wasn't legitimate. They had no mandate.

dlofnep

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Had it not been divided then you would have had milions of pissed of Unionists with very scary guns who had promised by oath to fight the new state tooth and nail.

So it's ok to give in to terrorism then? I mean - Even though they had no mandate in Fermanagh and Tyrone - It was ok for them to absorb it because they may have threatened with terrorist attacks?

Gotcha. So I suppose we should have just sat back and let Britain control us altogether - You know, because it would have involved fighting and stuff.. And god knows - independance isn't worth fighting for in Iwasfrozen's world.

KeithAFC

I don't think people like going to war because thats what would of happened.

dlofnep

KeithAFC wrote: »

I don't think people like going to war because thats what would of happened.

So people should give into loyalist terrorists, and allow them to take control of counties that they didn't even have a majority in?

KeithAFC

dlofnep wrote: »

So people should give into loyalist terrorists, and allow them to take control of counties that they didn't even have a majority in?

So people should give into republican terrorists? It swings in roundabouts. If it wasn't republican 'armed struggle', it would of been loyalist armed struggle. Would probably still be going on today.

dlofnep

You still didn't answer my question. Not that I'm expecting you to actually answer it. But it would be nice for less soundbytes, and more actual discussion.

KeithAFC

dlofnep wrote: »

You still didn't answer my question. Not that I'm expecting you to actually answer it. But it would be nice for less soundbytes, and more actual discussion.

A United Ireland is NOT wanted in Antrim and many other counties. Your basically saying such counties should be forced into a United Ireland and should just ignore the loyalist uprising which would happen.

A bit like the PIRA. A really naive attitude to have.