Irish support to remain part of UK in early 20th Century

LordSutch

danbohan wrote: »

its a huge pity he was not as proactive in helping the native irish recover the lands and houses stolen and swindled from them by the british and the anglo irish

Are you talking about the 17th century here?

CrankyCod

brianthebard wrote: »

If the British should have left in 1918 (don't know what basis you make that statement) and they didn't, then surely their legitimacy is as much in question as the rebels. So who do you actually believe was legitimate in their actions?

Legitimacy comes from the ballot box: In 1910 the Irish electorate voted for the IPP and their policy of limited independence, Home Rule. Therefore the IPP had a mandate to continue going to Westminster but to campaign for Home Rule. Nobody else had a mandate from the people for rebellion, a republic or anything else.

In 1918 the electorate voted against the IPP, and in favour of Sinn Fein and complete independence; Sinn Fein had a clear mandate to abstain from Wetminster and to set up an independent Irish parliament. Therefore the British should have immediately respected the wishes of the people, expressed in a properly run poll, and handed over power to the newly elected representatives in an orderly fashion. When they refused, the Dail was entirely justified in using violence to eject the British: because the Dail had a mandate. Up to that time the only legitimate representatives of the people were the IPP MPs; that legitimacy ceased as soon as the 1918 votes were counted. The result of the vote however, only counted once the vote was taken: it did not and could not possibly act as a mandate for 1916.

brianthebard wrote: »

Its not irrelevant that the IRB didn't recognise the government of the time. You can't just leave out historical facts that don't fit your opinion of the period in question. If the British had given home rule in 1914 there might not have been a 1916 rising either, the British were given dozens of chances to prevent the rising and failed through their own actions. Moreover if it wasn't for the rebellion conscription would more than likely have been enacted in Ireland which was one of the things the rebels were fighting against and which did have popular support from the Irish people.

The beliefs of the IRB had no relevance because they were a self-appointed secret society: for example if Opus Dei decided that our laws were not valid because they contravene Canon Law, does that justify them taking the law into their own hands, which is what Pearse did?
Why didn't Pearse stand for for election?
As for the conscription crisis: this came about in 1918, so I don't think the rising was relevant to it, other than giving Sinn Fein credibility as a strong oppositional force to the IPP.

brianthebard wrote: »

You are incorrect to say the republicans pre-empted the elections, SF ran on the policy of abstention and setting up a new govt in Ireland and that's what they did, and that is what the electorate wanted them to do. I don't know how you decided upon that opinion of the historical facts.

I meant that they pre-empted the election by staging the rising in 1916: again, why use force if there was an election due in a mere 2 years, and people were beginning to turn against the IPP anyway due to the delays in Home Rule?

The OP asked if there was support in Ireland for continued links with Britain: I believe there was, and that most people supported Home Rule. 1916 blew that away, as Pearse hoped it would, by appealing to the emotions of the people and radicalising them through the stupidity of the British reaction. Pearse played a blinder from his point of view because he feared that Home Rule would be enough for most people, and that if they did not have the "blood sacrifice" then Ireland would never break away. My point is that he should have respected the wishes of the people; if Home Rule was enough, then so be it. He had no right to initiate all that bloodshed to fulfil his own need for martyrdom.

danbohan

LordSutch wrote: »

Are you talking about the 17th century here?

17th ,18th ,19 th, 20th, 21th ,take your pick

brianthebard

CrankyCod wrote: »

Legitimacy comes from the ballot box: In 1910 the Irish electorate voted for the IPP and their policy of limited independence, Home Rule. Therefore the IPP had a mandate to continue going to Westminster but to campaign for Home Rule. Nobody else had a mandate from the people for rebellion, a republic or anything else.

This is totally backwards, why should legitimacy come from the ballot box if the ballot box is a foreign powers?

In 1918 the electorate voted against the IPP, and in favour of Sinn Fein and complete independence; Sinn Fein had a clear mandate to abstain from Wetminster and to set up an independent Irish parliament. Therefore the British should have immediately respected the wishes of the people, expressed in a properly run poll, and handed over power to the newly elected representatives in an orderly fashion. When they refused, the Dail was entirely justified in using violence to eject the British: because the Dail had a mandate. Up to that time the only legitimate representatives of the people were the IPP MPs; that legitimacy ceased as soon as the 1918 votes were counted. The result of the vote however, only counted once the vote was taken: it did not and could not possibly act as a mandate for 1916.

You have a really narrow conception of what legitimacy might entail. Within your own definitions of legitimacy the Dail did not have a mandate to do what it did, you have a really confused idea of what democracy is.

The beliefs of the IRB had no relevance because they were a self-appointed secret society: for example if Opus Dei decided that our laws were not valid because they contravene Canon Law, does that justify them taking the law into their own hands, which is what Pearse did?
Why didn't Pearse stand for for election?
As for the conscription crisis: this came about in 1918, so I don't think the rising was relevant to it, other than giving Sinn Fein credibility as a strong oppositional force to the IPP.

No conscription had been an issue for many years and if the Rising had not happened its probable that conscription would have been enacted and sooner than 1918.

I meant that they pre-empted the election by staging the rising in 1916: again, why use force if there was an election due in a mere 2 years, and people were beginning to turn against the IPP anyway due to the delays in Home Rule?

If you are bound by your own narrow conception of legitimacy and cannot see why a rebellion might ever be legitimate then why bother asking this question? Despite the fact that massive changes had happened since 1910 you seem to think that people should have kept their heads down and not thought about changing their policies until the next election. You realise that elections had been suspended right? so at what point do the 1910 elections stop being legitimate, since by 1916 the government had exceeded the term limits? Who voted for a national government? Where was the legitimacy of bringing Ireland into WWI? Where was the legitimacy in stopping home rule from happening after it was voted for and approved by Parliament?

ejmaztec

danbohan wrote: »

its a huge pity he was not as proactive in helping the native irish recover the lands and houses stolen and swindled from them by the british and the anglo irish

Mountbatten wasn't the Irish government, and it was up to them to do something about it.

If we're talking houses as against castles, I think that the Anglo-Irish probably built the vast majority of them.

CrankyCod

brianthebard wrote: »

This is totally backwards, why should legitimacy come from the ballot box if the ballot box is a foreign powers?

By your logic then no election, including 1918, was ever valid if it as held under British rule. TGherefore the idea that 1916 was jsutinf ed by the 1918 results is also undermeined. By your reasoning, when was the first valid election in Ireland?

brianthebard wrote: »

You have a really narrow conception of what legitimacy might entail. Within your own definitions of legitimacy the Dail did not have a mandate to do what it did, you have a really confused idea of what democracy is.

I explained very clearly above that the Dail, elected by the people, had a very clear mandate to establish an independent state. How much clearer could it be? The members of the Dail were elected by the people and were fully entitled to use force to remove those who had lost the election.

Most democrats have a very narrow concept of legitimacy: the people's will, expressed through the ballot box, is the only legitimate authority. Not "looking into your heart", as Dev did, or harking back to some mythical Celtic nation ruled over by Druids with golden sickles. A plain and simple ballot paper, thats all it takes. It worked for the GFA and it would have worked for the initial independence movement too, if people had been prepared for the logn hard slog of persuasion and compromise, not the excitement of dressing up as soldiers and taking pot-shots from behind the parcel counter.

Anyway, I have work to do (thank God) nice talking to ya:)

brianthebard

CrankyCod wrote: »

By your logic then no election, including 1918, was ever valid if it as held under British rule. TGherefore the idea that 1916 was jsutinf ed by the 1918 results is also undermeined. By your reasoning, when was the first valid election in Ireland?

The first independent ones.

I explained very clearly above that the Dail, elected by the people, had a very clear mandate to establish an independent state. How much clearer could it be? The members of the Dail were elected by the people and were fully entitled to use force to remove those who had lost the election.

No, the Dail did not have a mandate to establish an independent state because they were elected within the British electoral system, ie they were a minority party who could not decide policy on their own. Thus the first Dail after the 1918 election was also illegitimate under the reasons you gave for 1916 being illegitimate.

PatsytheNazi

Simarillion wrote: »

Well bully for you, you've read an ancient map! Which of course proves bugger all because as everybody else know; the Romans were naming ISLANDS not COUNTRIES !!! They named geographical locations like Gaul which included modern France, Luxembourg, Belgium, Northern Italy, Switzerland and about half of The Netherlands and Germany. So I'll make sure to let the French government know that if they'd like to carefully examine the maps of ancient Rome, they clearly have a political claim to everything west of the Rhine !!

The Romans called Ireland Hibernia because Ireland is an island nation !!!

Ireland did not exist as a nation, the High King was never a central authority and the island was divided between several provincial kingdoms similar to the Holy Roman Empire but without the Imperial leadership. The Brehon law was practically religious in it's spread and is more closely linked to Druids than a nationwide judicial system.

I am not denying the existence of settled, civilised and well governed societies with cultures and laws on the island.
I am saying that there was not an organised country with a central authority, that existed in England, Scotland etc. When Ireland was invaded by the Normans it was against individual kings and armies, some of whom fought alone and some of whom formed an alliance. When the English invaded Ireland it still wasn't a unified country because their power had retreated to the Pale.

We were never a unified country that was enslaved for 800 years and then finally got our chance and broke free. We were a collective of kingdoms who were overthrown one by one, by an overwhelming force who then rules the country as a whole.


This is way of topic ..... apologies Mod.

The High King was the highest authority and his writ ran as applicable as any other country of the time and Brehon Laws likewise. You really should get away from the unionist school of bigotry history. The school that 'discovered' the Ulster Scots 'language' !!!!

LordSutch

Hibernia (island of) = Wintry

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hibernia

CrankyCod

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

The High King was the highest authority and his writ ran as applicable as any other country of the time and Brehon Laws likewise.

The High King may have been the central authority at one time but that had disappeared 500 years before the Normans turned up:

King Dermot died in A.D. 563 (or 565), and after his death no Ard-Rig resided at Tara. No separate Ard-Rig was any more appointed with the kingdom of Meath for his mensal. One of the provincial kings usually assumed the office, or at least the title, retaining and residing in his own province. Tara was deserted, and no place for holding a national assembly was ever substituted. To the time from this date onward, the saying applies that there was no central legislative authority acting for the whole island.

After the abandonment of Tara as a royal residence, and the consequent discontinuance of a national assembly, it can hardly be said that one concrete state, broad and national in basis and concentrated in executive power, existed in Ireland

From this interesting little book: http://www.libraryireland.com/Brehon-Laws/Feis-Tara.php

namelessguy

Silent Runner wrote: »

Is it true that the people of Ireland wanted its Independance but at the same time wanted to remain part of the UK, as a state? I heard this somewhere before but can't find any information on it?

Has anyone got any links for this information?

Dev's external association?

PatsytheNazi

ejmaztec wrote: »

Mountbatten wasn't the Irish government, and it was up to them to do something about it.

If we're talking houses as against castles, I think that the Anglo-Irish probably built the vast majority of them.

With money extorted and land robbed from the natives.

ejmaztec

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

With money extorted and land robbed from the natives.

They only extorted money after they grabbed the land.:(

owenc

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

With money extorted and land robbed from the natives.

:rolleyes: Are you southern irish ones ever going to shut up about you and your land.:rolleyes: We have enough documents to prove that all the land wasn't taken either. The only land here stolen buy planters was taken by english royalty for example drenagh estate in limavady not the average planter. So stop listening to stupid myths made up by your g g g g granny.:rolleyes:

owenc

LordSutch wrote: »

Hibernia (island of) = Wintry

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hibernia

More like island of hell.:mad:

owenc

danbohan wrote: »

its a huge pity he was not as proactive in helping the native irish recover the lands and houses stolen and swindled from them by the british and the anglo irish

How do you think they plan on doing this?? This so called land was taken hundreds of years ago and only a small portion of the overall land was taken. Also were do you think they are going to go the documents from to find out who lived in the land at the time and who would get it now? Aswell there are people living in these stolen lands and it would be unfair to put them out because of what their ancestors did.

owenc

Manach wrote: »

Perhaps our Politicians might allow a tick-box for re-Unification in the pletoria of upcoming planned constitutional amendment votes.

No thanks, not wanted here thank you because if that occurred you lot could come in and try and take us into your republic by way of majority which wouldn't be fair.

deise go deo

owenc wrote: »

More like island of hell.:mad:

Why exactly are you living here then?

owenc

deise go deo wrote: »

Why exactly are you living here then?

Can we not go into this.. one answer i was born here and can't move yet but as soon as the opportunity comes i'll be out of here as fast i can!!!

deise go deo

owenc wrote: »

No thanks, not wanted here thank you because if that occurred you lot could come in and try and take us into your republic by way of majority which wouldn't be fair.

Ya, nothing fair about the will of the majority:rolleyes:

How about tick a box in favor of unification on the census forms in NI this year?

deise go deo

owenc wrote: »

Can we not go into this.. one answer i was born here and can't move yet but as soon as the opportunity comes i'll be out of here as fast i can!!!

Well then let me be the first to wish you a speedy Slán Leat.

owenc

deise go deo wrote: »

Well then let me be the first to wish you a speedy Slán Leat.

Thank you but what?

owenc

deise go deo wrote: »

Ya, nothing fair about the will of the majority:rolleyes:

How about tick a box in favor of unification on the census forms in NI this year?

Yes but only by constituencies not by the whole country that is the only fair way because we would end up being stuck with yous because we are in with derry and they are very nationalist, but really we should be staying because of how unionist it is here. Also majority?? It wouldn't be fair because you lot would come in and take us and that wouldn't be the will of the ni population it would be really yous.

brianthebard

owen, don't post in this thread again. Mod.

Simarillion

Why does somebody always come on and ruin the thread for the rest of us with a big long rant about re-unification.

It's either an ultra-republican with a chip on their shoulder the size of the Marianas Trench, who rants about 800 years of oppression of the native peoples of Ireland by the monstrous puppets of the British crown, and they make everyone who calls themselves Irish and live here cringe in embarrassment.

Or else

It's the lunatic fringe of Ulster loyalism who goes on and on and on about the apparent threat of a Catholic onslaught about to arrive any day now from the south, and always claims to speak on behalf of the unionist/Protestant (as thought the two are linked) people of Ireland and makes all of them stick their heads in the sand.

If only duelling was still allowed, this forum would be far more interesting. A bit of a disagreement and off to a field somewhere, and only one opinion would come back.

walrusgumble

Silent Runner wrote: »

I heard that had something to with Dublin/Irish born soldiers serving in Irish regiments of the British army who were fighting in WW1, they seen the rising as a betrayal to their relatives fighting in WW1? And that some Irish in the police Constabulary were killed during the rising?

No doubt it sounds whataboutery, but its funny in away of a substantial period of peace, during the times of Parnell and Constitutionalism gives back people's respect for the RIC, when in the early days, this force with Irish men, where tearing down tenants cottages and the like during the Famine, how this force was not hated or boycotted thereafter? (of course in the real world, it was a place where game much needed employment. I wonder what would the mood have been if there had been a rebellion/fight around the country more earlier , say 1880's, ok of course the IRB were still around, but were down and out, during the Parnell years which saw great improvements for the Irish cause, if you were a farmer (which many were)

Even stranger the way the Dublin Met treated those in 1913 lockout and riots

Its hard to see that there was much love for the Politics itself, but there is no denying it, many were delighted to King Edward, the Church had no problems with the Monarchy, after all, didn't they have some bonds invested in Britian and the war cause (i will get my link/ or were I got that accusation from asap)

Like 1916 itself, there were many reasons for people fighting for the Crown (and other allied groups) in WW1. Politicans enjoyed God like status then, as ye all know, who wouldn't have place their trust in Redmond?

CS Parnell never really fought for separation really? O'Connell did not, thats for sure (but hey thats one step at a time, get Parliament first) Butt definitely did not want complete separation.You look at all the wars with Ireland and Britian, the Fight of the O'Neills - that was definitely not a fight for complete separation but his own lands which he would have continued with the monarchy; the wars of King James and William III was a fight between to monarchs of Ireland & Britian. Sadly, the 1798, there were too many spies and half heartness for a fight against Britian (no fault on the leaders) Emmet's rebellion and the others, how many came out? Fighting Irish me ass, yet send them off to Austria, Russia America, South America Britian and they became war hero's and fathers of navys, armies etc.

Was there really a substanital time in say our capital that the notion of separation and "our self alone" was entertained? look at how the gaelic revival help changed "slavish" attitudes to people of all creds, class etc (before gobshi*s like DP Morgan and the RC Church stuck their noses in), hence the desparation of the men of 1916 to rekindled Tone in the only way they knew how (lord, I don't mean that to sound like a cheese voice over for a dramatic film or some TV3 tripe on gangs)


I have absolutely no doubt many ordianary folk in the 1950's thought that they'd be better off within the union. Cumann na nGaedheal prided itself as a Commonwealth/Dominion Party and felt thoroughly bound by the Treaty. There were many after the Civil War that questioned was it worth all the sleepless cold nights on the run (causing many to die young in their 40-50's), forced to emigrate because of what side you took (and of course the economy, 1929 did not help)

Isn't it amazing how it all fell into place all the same, often against the odd's, and whether we like it or not, the EEC / EU helped us, (look the EEC of the 1950-1970's could hardly be blamed for the world wide stupidity/greed, or to quote one mad man "new world order" that we find ourselves in)

walrusgumble

owenc wrote: »

No thanks, not wanted here thank you because if that occurred you lot could come in and try and take us into your republic by way of majority which wouldn't be fair.

With no reference to religion intended (and without knowlege of yours, and fact many Catholic landlords joined the new Ascendency), it never stopped the minority trying to run the show in the south prior to circa 1880's

Sure aren't we all Europeans now;)

walrusgumble

owenc wrote: »

Yes but only by constituencies not by the whole country that is the only fair way because we would end up being stuck with yous because we are in with derry and they are very nationalist, but really we should be staying because of how unionist it is here. Also majority?? It wouldn't be fair because you lot would come in and take us and that wouldn't be the will of the ni population it would be really yous.

For they live in fear as always.

How can it not be the will of NI population if a majority of the people regardless of cred or nationality wish to join? What happens if Belfast, somehow said yes, will the minority accept it? Free State of Belfast?

Will the System guarantee that there would be no last minute boundary changes in Constituencies?no para intimidation on all sides? - No wonder most parties and people have no stomach for the notion of a referendum

You would swear that the religious leaders are completely alien towards each other on all issues of day to day politics, morals etc.

Do you really think the south would stamp out all britishness? they could not by the way via the EU and human rights laws. You really think that the South would not consider changing things down here to suit others' senstivities in say GAA, laws etc?

Do you really think even the Nationalist and Republicans want Dublin completely calling the shots? Look at how neglected Donegal is, they would be more comfortable talking industry, roads, rates etc with their natural neighbours in Fermanagh and Derry

NI (though due to obvious reasons), aint the big industry economic hub , booming place it once was, where's Harleem n Woolfe now? Would Swiss Tony and Martie G done better?, may i say though, from years of very good BBC coverage on politics, I would not mind a bit of Northern no nonsense straight to the point attitude than the cute hoorism, gombeen a wink and a nod politics/policies down here (many would)

walrusgumble

Silent Runner wrote: »

I heard that had something to with Dublin/Irish born soldiers serving in Irish regiments of the British army who were fighting in WW1, they seen the rising as a betrayal to their relatives fighting in WW1? And that some Irish in the police Constabulary were killed during the rising?

No doubt men and women serving in Allied Armies/Navies/Air Forces say the south's decision to stay neutral and refuse (well publicly and offically) the ports and fields to the british in WW2 as betrayals

It seems some of the veterans of WW1 seem not to have too much problem wanting to join up the fledging Free State Army shortly before and after the Civil War, much to the disguist of those who fought from day one. Don't forget the many in the IRA who were veterans of WW1.

brianthebard

walrusgumble wrote: »

Was there really a substanital time in say our capital that the notion of separation and "our self alone" was entertained? look at how the gaelic revival help changed "slavish" attitudes to people of all creds, class etc (before gobshi*s like DP Morgan and the RC Church stuck their noses in)

Not sure I understand your attack on DP Moran here, can you expand?

I have absolutely no doubt many ordianary folk in the 1950's thought that they'd be better off within the union. Cumann na nGaedheal prided itself as a Commonwealth/Dominion Party and felt thoroughly bound by the Treaty.

There seems to be some confusion here, Ireland completely broke away from the Commonwealth in the 50s, and it was CnG that did it.